Strunk NOM For Supplement With Aff and Exhibits MOL NYS 6500-2011 and First Supplement To The Complaint

A ..
5
+t
. . .
C
C~URT%OF ~ A Y E . E F ~ O F WoE~~ ~ THE. fri COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 Index No.:
8 -
6500-2011
M. Schack J.S.C)
~~sbi;h&-Eii'l: ~tnihk, &se in
(Hon. &ur
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 C O * .PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; $3 , r$,, ,. < 2 :zr?<.. , , .c THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN 111; JOHN A. BOEHNER; . ? *.+ j h ? ;<:&=v, - -I . :. THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE ---I: , '. -L INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF td 5 THE CO'NSERVATIVE PARTYOF NEW YORK STATE; o ~2 Qy ( D PENNY S. PRITZKER, GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA, OBAlMA WCTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY , 2008;MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008;John and J a n e Does; . and XYZ Entities.
r
-c ..
I
r .
=->
Defeadants. .
>.
That lai in tiff Christopher Earl Strunk (Plainw, Strunk) submits this Verified First Supplement w t CPLR 3025@) to the Verified Complaint filed March 2 2 , 2 0 11 with ih transactions subsequent to the August 22,201 1 hearing before Justice Arthur M. S ~ h a c with various motions penditig-adecisidn, a n d as guch addihnally alleges of k 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 s with those J o h n and Jane ~ o e and XYZ Entities yet n a k e d 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: chris@strunk.ws.; 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 Sheriffs Press Release and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs 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 Naturalborn citizen and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and 3. That the Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs 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
Plaintiffs 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas birth, August 1, 1961 to August 7, 1961 that are missing. For the only week in 1961 where these immigration cards cannot be found.
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.
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.
27. That Defendant Barack Obama and his agents forged the Selective Service record misrepresenting Defendant Obamas 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 Obamas 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.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
1 8s. 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 11, 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
r my belids as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3d
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
ARNOLD I. TISHFIELD " Public State Of New Y r ok N0.41-4611662 ', Qualified In Queens County Certified In Kings County Commission Expires March 30, 20
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 1 1 COUNTY OF KINGS I.A.S. Part 27 Index No.: 6500-2011 x (Hon.Arthur M.Schack J.S.C)
Christopher-Earl: . Strunk, in esse
L,
NOTICE OF MOTION
. C
Plaintiff, -against-
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;E al.." t

<
*
I
Defendants.
X
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,
maintiff will move with CPLR 3025(b)in support of the notice of motion for
. ' II
479
presentment of evidence of forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint filed March 22,20 11 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
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 c a h be heard.
~ated: April
!, Q
2012
BrookIyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Plaintiff self-represented wlo attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28k Brooklyn, New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 chris@strunk.ws
cc: see service list that follows:
,
1
I
-
II
1
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.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse -againstPlaintiff,
6500-2011
(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
PLAINTIFFS
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 NOEM COLN, 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; RGER 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 COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )
Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
Plaintiffs 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: chris@strunk.ws.; 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 Sheriffs Press Release (see Exhibit 1) and Press Conference established that there is the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs webpage appended (see Exhibit 2) and currently before the Arizona primary now in 2012; and that the attached Preliminary Report of the Sheriffs 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:
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 Obamas 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 Obamas life history including:. President Obamas 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 Obamas 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
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 Doesnt 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 Obamas 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 FS299 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 Obamas 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 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 Sheriffs 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
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 Obamas 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 Sheriffs 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:
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:
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:
That this affidavit be admitted as a supplement to the complaint filed ~ & c 22, h 2011. That the copy of the purported Certificate of Live Birth long form dated April 25, 20 11 released by Defdndant Barack Obama at his April 27, 20 11 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 r follows: 3d parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.
Sworn to before me ThisD day of April 20 12 /

HARRY HELFENBAUM Commissioner of Deeds
Commission Expires June 30,20
Plaintiffs Affidavit i Support of Motionn
... 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
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 Obamas longform birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a computergenerated 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 Sheriffs Cold Case Posse law enforcement investigation into the authenticity of Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas life history including:.
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
1
President Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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
2
Suspecting that the long form birth certificate is a computer generated forgery, they now say they have identified persons of interest in the case. Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs Investigators were then led to investigate Presidents Obama selective service registration card allegedly filled out in Hawaii in 1980. Investigators compared Obamas 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 Obamas 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
3
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 Registrars name stamp and the Registrars 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.
4
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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ID_KfcmG9gs http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S40WKxKSlHc http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzDWmXNBvto http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yQ0Wvp91JXg http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3S6O_AjIln8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHAM3hRI8_Y
5
Exhibit 2
I
CANDIDATE NOMINATION PAPER
(A.R.S.
2001 1fE t 3
5 16-/!42)
9
Pb! 3: 0 1
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
You are hereby notified that I,
%rack
Pbrty, at the Presidential Preference Election
am seeking nomination as a candidate for the of of President of the United States from the fi d
Democratic
to be held on the 5th day of February 2008.
I am a natural born citlzen of the United ~ts/tes, at least thirty-five years of age, and am have been a resident within the United States for at least fourteen years.
5046
South
Greenwood Avenue, ~ h i o d ~ oIL 60615 .

of residence (city or town)
(zip)
CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+
Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag a n

Candidate's Post Office Address
,
I
(city or town)
(zip)
8666i9
Candidate's Arizona committee information: Chairman's Name Address

(number and street)
Don Bivens
1
(city or town)
I
2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, P h o e n i x AZ 85012

(zip)
Telephone
602-298-4200
SECRETARY OF STATE
a registered voter in the stete in which Iresi8@7DEC
RECEIVED
13
3 0I 2
Q~am
I am not
1
)
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
l u 0 \ I C ~ 1 3 ~ f ?PJ 20 -
My Co+tmissionExpires:
"3
- 31 -
2 0 10
File with: Arizona Secretary of State Election Services Division 1700 West Washington Street, Phoenix, A t b n a 85007
Floor
Dffice Revision 8/21/2007
Exhibit 3
REPORTBARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Opening Statement:
Page 1 of 10
I, Mara Zebest, am preparing this report at the request of Maricopa County Sheriff s Office in support of the Cold Case Posse investigation. The PDF birth certificate document released by the White House (shown in Figure1) is a completely manufactured and fabricated computer generated image. The same source file was used to print a copy handed to the AP (shown in Figure2), in which the AP scanned in the version handed to them. A third photograph version (Figure3) 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 Hawaiibut 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 file. This would account for the transformation of a document containing different color backgrounds, and the ability to print with or without safety paper pattern (by turning a layer on or off ).
Green safety paper background
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 Houseit was digitally created and manufactured. The bulk of this report will explain the evidence to support this, which will include the following points:
Figure1: PDF file released from White House
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 Obamas PDF document. Layers: A normal scan is a flat file 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 file, rotated, and resized. Clipping Mask Path hides image information: Proof of manipulation. Safety paper and white halo: Manufactured in final steps.
Blue background color and no safety paper
Safety paper background with a gray/blue color
Figure2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned
Figure3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document
Page 2 of 10
The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

OCRwhich stands for Optical Character Recognitionwill 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. Figure4 shows the keyword Live typed in the FIND box, and even though the word Live exists in the Certificate of Live Birth title, a dialog box responds that no matches were found.
Search word in Find box
No text found in file
Figure4: Search for text is not recognizedNo OCR applied
When viewing the font properties dialog box in Figure5, 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 Obamas PDF file 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 file 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. Figure6 shows that all the fonts recognized during the process are now listed in the Font Properties dialog box. Figure7 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 Certificate of Live Birth title.
Document Font Properties of original PDF file
Figure5: Font Properties of Obamas PDF file
Search word in Find box Document Font Properties after OCR Text Recognition
Text found in OCR file
Figure6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition
Figure7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied

Introduction to Basic Terms
Paint strokesno noise
Page 3 of 10
Lets briefly 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 Figure8). 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, Figure8 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 Figure8 are solid in color with no variationnot 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 filter found on the Photoshop Filter menu. This was not done in the Obama PDF file. If this was a legitimate color scan, noise would be consistently displayed throughout the entire document.
Image noise
Figure8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise
Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing

Figure9 offers 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 Figure8 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 scanningor not at all.
Noise
Figure9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing

No noise
Figure10 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 imageno color present. A bitmap setting would turn every pixel to on or offwhite or black. So if a bitmap setting was used in a scan, then there shouldnt be a color background, along with varying colors in the text outside the grayscale range? All text color values have green tone valuesnot black or grayscale.
Bitmap edges are jagged
Anti-aliased edges are smooth
Figure10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge

Scanner Chromatic Aberration
Cool blue color at the upper edges
Page 4 of 10
What is chromatic aberration? This occurs when different wavelengths of light are refracted differently as it goes through a lens or prism during the scanning process. Light is refracted differently 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, Figure11 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 Obamas BCbut this chromatic aberration is NOT present in Obamas 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. Its 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 difference 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 Housebut this inconsistency would only happen if the White House document is a manufactured file.
Warm red color at the lower edges
Figure11: Scanned text and Chromatic Aberration
Noise, anti-aliasing, bitmap inconsistency in textand no chromatic aberration
Figure12: Obama PDF viewed in Acrobat at 1600% zoom level

Color variation evidence of manipulation
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 (specific areas) of inconsistencies or odd artifacts. Another example of anti-aliased text containing noise for the letter R mixed with surrounding bitmap text in Figure12. The white halo effect surrounding the text with no chromatic aberration is also a strong indicator that the document was manipulated (more on the white halo later). Figure13 displays text color inconsistencies in dates, along with a misspelling in the official stamp textTXE instead of THE. While it may be argued that the misspelling is merely a function of the stamp ink applied unevenly, the odds significantly decrease that this would occur on both vertical bars that affect 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. Figure14 offers a contrast image of Alvin Onakas 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 different in both signature images (the period spacing as well). Also, the stamp version displayed in Figure13 is a solid bitmap layerno signs of texture (ink stamp on paper) can be detected. Some semblance of texture would be reflected in an image scan (even with optimization applied), but this overall quality of texturethe ink stamp on paper as seen in Figure14is absent from the Obama PDF.
Alvins signature suddenly develops a smiley face Spelling error on stamp Green text color values
Figure13: Examples of text inconsistencies

No spelling error
Alvins signature without smiley face?
Figure14: http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
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 Obamas PDF. The layers in Obamas PDF clearly display a decision-making process that would be present with image manipulation. A simple definition for optimization is a process that applies suitable compression settings to reduce file size. As statedoptimization can cause layersbut 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 programmeaning it relies on mathematical interpretations. Illustrator operates differently than Photoshop in that lines or shapes drawn in Illustrator are referred to as pathsthe mathematical equations that define the line, line segment, or shape. With this in mind, when a pixel-based image is opened in Illustrator, a path is generated to define 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 file version of Obamas PDF in Figure15 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:
Multiple links
Layer 1 includes the following sub-layers:
Outside border edge boundary path One flat image layer
One Link One flat image
Outside border Path
Figure15: Normal one-layer scan document behavior
Clipping Path layer
Multiple sub-layers
Outside border path Clipping Path
boundary edge Paththe blue border surrounding the image A And the flattened Image Figure16 shows a crucial difference in the number of layers displayed in Obamas PDF file (compared to the AP file): Obamas 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. Its presence within the file and applied in a manner to hide portions of the image also reflects image manipulation.
Scroll box
Figure16: Multiple layers and links in Obamas PDF
One bitmap sub-layer at top No logic to layer object decisions
Another crucial difference in the number of layers occurs when optimization is applied to the AP scanned image in Figure17. 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 offer 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.
Huge amount of links Scroll box Insane number of color sub-layers
Figure17: AP layers and links after optimization is applied
Finally, notice that Figure17 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 Obamas PDF in which it contains multiple bitmap layers and only one color layer.

Visibility icon
Page 6 of 10
The Clipping Mask Path

Lets return to the previously mentioned Clipping Mask Path. The term mask refers to defining 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 pathin this case the rectangle path shape seen in Figure18 defines 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 benefit derived from using a clipping mask is it allows the mask to be reposition at any time to show or hide different 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 fileit will never hide information. Figure18 displays the clipping mask as the only visible path when the Obama PDF is first openedall other path objects behave as a group attached to the clipping path. To move and see these objects separatelythe clipping mask group needs to be releasedor ungrouped. Figure19 shows an open Layers panel (to display the sub-layers). A right-click inside the clipping mask offers 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 boundaryproof of image manipulation.
Collapsed icon
Clipping Path
Figure18: Obama PDF opened in Illustrator with clipping mask

Release Clipping Mask Group
Expand icon Clipping Path
X-Ray Scanner Vision

Figure19: Clipping Mask group released and sub-layers displayed
First link actively selected Layer visibility on
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 first glance these layers appear to be emptybut 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 offers 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 ofor on topof the layer containing the football in the documentthe 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 Figure20a 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. Figure21 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).
Layer object path White pixels display
Top layer selected
Figure20: Zoom view of top layer reveals white pixels

First link deselected Layer visibility off
Layer object path turned off White pixels disappear: Pattern pixels uninterrupted
Figure21: Layer turned off reveals uninterrupted pattern below

Selected active links
Page 7 of 10
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 partsthus layers are a powerful image manipulation tool. It makes sense to have a date and a certification stamp on separate layersto move, rotate, or reposition for the purpose of manipulation and alteration. Figures 2224 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 certification stamp are the selected layers in Figure22. The Links and Layers panels verify the selection along with the active blue paths that display around the layered objects.
Date & certification stamps moved
Selected active layers Date stamp Certification stamp
Figure22: Target layers and objects for date and certify stamps
Figure23: Layers allow for moving the date and certify stamps
Figure23 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 certification 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. Figure24 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.
Background selected & moved
Automation v Manual Manipulation

Figure25 and Figure26 shows the lack of predictability when an automation process chops up an image and generates layers during optimization. As previously mentioned, the AP file opens with the appearance of a normal scanned document containing only one layer. For this reason, the AP file was used to demonstrate what happens when optimization is applied. After the optimization process, the AP file 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 Figure25. 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 Figure25. 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 layernor is there a different layer for the date textand again, no clean and complete separation. Figure26 has the top text layer visibility turned back on again, but instead, one of the bottom background layers visibility is turned off this time. The selected paths show how theres no human quality to the logic in dividing information into layersthe machine is deciding based on an automated process.
Figure24: Background layer with white halos can also move
Bottom layers selectedtext layer off
Figure25: Optimized lacks the human element in layering

Text layer onone background layer off
Figure26: Text layer turned on and one background layer off

White Halo Creation
Page 8 of 10
Top layer: Certification stamp text
The white halo effect presents two common questions; why is there a white halo, and what caused it? Before answering the former question, lets address the latter. The white halo could simply be a function of a selection created around all the textbefore filling the background layer with a green safety pattern. The green safety pattern could have easily been applied to the background layer without any selectionthus a solid pattern would have covered the entire background layerwithout a white halo. But for some reason, a white halo effect 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. Figure27 shows the demonstration file set-up. The stamp text from the Obama PDF file was copied (from Illustrator) and pasted into a new Photoshop file 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 filled 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 first 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 Figure28. 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 thumbnailin 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 Figure28). The Expand Selection dialog box displays in Figure29 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 Figure30 currently surrounds the text. However, the current selection area needs to remain white since the ultimate goal is to apply a pattern fill to the surrounding background areanot the surrounding text area. Therefore, the selection needs to be reversedalso known as inverseto ensure the pattern will fill everything on the background layer except the text area. Go to the Select menu shown in Figure30. The Inverse option is chosen. The selection is now ready to fill 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 define a safety paper pattern and fill the background layer using the current active selection.
Bottom layer: White background
Figure27: A two-layer stamp text file created to demonstrate
Ctrl+click on layer thumbnail
Text is selected
Figure28: A text selection created and selection expanded
Expand Selection dialog box
Figure29: Expand Selection optionexpanded 2 pixels

Selection Inverse option
Text selection expanded by 2 pixels
Figure30: Next the selection needs to be inversed

Safety Paper Creation
Page 9 of 10
Selection of a sample pattern area
In a program such as Photoshop, a selection can be filled with a solid color of choice, an image, or a pattern can also be defined as a fill option. It should be noted that a full sheet of safety paper could have been scanned and used without going through steps to define it as a patternbut a pattern can be easily defined from an existing image as an alternative method. Most likely, there was access to a sample of safety paper when creating the Obama PDF. Its not necessary to reinvent the wheelthe current Obama PDF file will be used as the source pattern for the purpose of this demonstration. The Obama PDF is temporarily opened in Figure31 and a square selection is made to isolate a portion of the pattern that will tile easilywhich means that when the selected area is filled repeatedly next to each other, the pattern continues seamlesslywithout any noticeable disruptions in the pattern. With the selection active, the Define Pattern option is selected from the Edit menu. The Obama PDF file is closed and no longer needed. Back to the demonstration file shown in Figure32; 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 Figure33.
Define the selection as a pattern
Figure31: Selection used to define a pattern
Fill option chosen
The safety paper pattern defined earlier in Figure31 is also chosen in the Fill dialog box in Figure34. Click OK to complete the effect. The results in Figure35 show a slight white halo outside the text.
Background layer active
Selection inversed
In Figure36the Stamp Text layers visibility is turned off, and the marching ants are deselected (Ctrl+D). The white halo effect 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 official document.
Figure32: Use the Edit menu to launch the Fill dialog box
Pattern Fill option chosen
Background contains pattern fill
Figure33: The Pattern option is used in the Fill dialog box
Figure35: The pattern fills the selection area
Custom Pattern chosen
Stamp Text visibility off
White halo effect
Figure34: The defined pattern chosen from Custom Pattern list
Figure36: Turn off the text layer: White halo effect is displayed

Some Final Thoughts
Page 10 of 10
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 definitive 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 official 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 file exists as a source file. What is meant by a master file? A master file is a file 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 file version, the text still remains on a separate layerNOT merged with the background layer. It is highly probable that this master file also contains the short form certificate layers (which would explain the problems seen in the AP version of the file). Figure37 and Figure38 demonstrate that the AP version of the long form certificate contains a different set of problems as follows: sudden shift to a different background A Safety paper pattern in the shadow at the left edgebut not in the document background Short form embedded into the printoutFigure38 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 filein which layers from a master file were turned off or mistakenly left on.
Forgot to turn off a short form layer
Forgot to turn off safety-paper layer in manufactured shadow
Background color magically shifts to blue
Figure37: Some extra remnants visible in the AP version
Enhancement applied to display short form elements
Figure38: Enhancement applied to easily see short form
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
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...
Get Email Updates
Contact Us
Home Briefing Room Press Briefings
Search WhiteHouse.gov
The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release April 27, 2011
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 Presidents Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the Presidents 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 Presidents 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 Presidents 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 Presidents 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 Presidents campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of
B L O G PO ST S ON T H I S I SS UE
March 11, 2012 8:04 PM EDT
Call with President Karzai Following the Report 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
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 Presidents 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 drivers 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 didnt 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?
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 Clean Energy Future

Speaking 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.
MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. Q Because it is not here and that's been an issue.
VIEW ALL RELATED BLOG POSTS
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 were going to take, how were doing to deal with very important issues like education, Medicare, how were going to deal with taxes in this country. And that should -- thats the debate we should be having yet.
Facebook Twitter Flickr Google+
YouTube Vimeo iTunes LinkedIn
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 Ill have Bob explain that, and then well 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 Presidents 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.
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 counsels letter. MR. PFEIFFER: We'll be happy to take some questions. Q I guess I just want to make sure that were 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 weve 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.
4 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
MR. BAUER: Theres a difference between a certificate and a certification. The certification is simply a verification of certain information thats 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 thats required for legal purposes and that is put into the actual certification thats 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 thats legally sufficient for all the relevant purposes. Q This first one has never been released publicly, correct?
MR. BAUER: Thats 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: Ill 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 dont 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,
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 thats 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 Presidents 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 wasnt the birth certificate from any credible individual or media outlet. And it hasnt 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 drivers license, they want to get a passport, they do exactly what the President did in 2008. And thats what that is. And we released that. And thats 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. Hell 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. Theyre 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, its in a book in Hawaii. MR. BAUER: And youll 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?
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. Its happening here in this room; its happening on all of the networks. And its something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties whos 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 theres still -- there will be some who still have a different -- have a conspiracy about this. Q Youve 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 youll understand the point hes 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 lets 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: Lets 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 wasnt an issue. So it wasnt like -- lets be very clear. We were asked for the Presidents birth certificate in 2008; we released the Presidents birth certificate; and it was done. That was it.
7 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
And so there hasnt been a discussion about this other document for years. Its 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. Its not just a sideshow for him; its 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 hes 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: Its not for me to say why mainstream media organizations began to cover this debate. Theyll 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 youll 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 wasnt 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 theres 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 hes not letting his
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. Its 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 its 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 its your own proposal that you guys endorsed you don't want to see it as part of the final
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 its 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 theyre important; theyre all about Americas future. And theyre 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 its 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 whats 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?
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, its 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 theres 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 Presidents 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.
11 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
When did you decide to do this gaggle?
MR. PFEIFFER: Whats 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, isnt 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
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: Its 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 Presidents 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 were 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 Holders views on this? MR. CARNEY: We do share Eric Holders 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 Generals comments. Q Following Mondays Af-Pak Situation Room meeting, what is the Presidents assessment of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And does he think that July drawdown is still on? MR. CARNEY: The Presidents policy, which included the beginning of a transition -- beginning of a drawdown of American troops, is absolutely still on track. I dont have anything additionally from the meeting yesterday beyond what weve said. But the policy remains as it was.
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
14 of 15
3/11/2012 11:00 PM
Exhibit 6
FactCheck.org : Born in the U.S.A.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Home Articles Born in the U.S.A.
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 documents 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 Hawaiis 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 Obamas 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. Obamas 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 Obamas birth certificate, confirming (yet again) that he was born in the United States. The Hawaii Department of Health made an exception in Obamas case and issued copies of the "Certificate of Live Birth." Since we first wrote about Obamas 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.
1 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
Doocy: Well, couldnt it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate? Corsi: No, its a theres been good analysis of it on the Internet, and its been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. Its a fake document thats on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce. Corsi isnt 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 doesnt have a raised seal. It isnt signed. No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version. In the zoomed-in view, theres 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 wasnt 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 its 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. Onakas signature stamp
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 havent 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 Healths 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 thats 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 didnt release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obamas citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldnt 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 weve found out its pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 010641.
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 Obamas information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didnt 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 doesnt meet the Constitutions 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 worlds biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anythings possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of whats 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:
Obamas 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, its distantly possible that Obamas 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 couldnt tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obamas fathers race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that fathers race and mothers race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it
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." Its 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. "Obamas Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008. The Associated Press. "State declares Obama birth certificate genuine" 31 Oct 2008. Nakaso, Dan. "Obamas 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 A 2:44 PM FILED UNDER ARTICLES. TAGGED WITH BARACK OBAMA, BIRTH CERTIFICA T TE.
5 of 5
3/13/2012 12:23 PM
The Right Side of Life Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH So... Page 2 of 58
Qualifications Whos checking up on officeholder eligibility? Find out here Home Activism, Eligibility, New Hampshire, POTUS
Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility
Submitted by Phil on Tue, Nov 24, 2009472 Comments
TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blogs credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obamas Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth they dont have the right background (update: see bios here): FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, thats 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.orgs office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesnt say. Wonder why?
Well, I found out. The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obamas bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy so hes a political operative while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature Im not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement. They are a couple of partisan Obots just what youd 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.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010
The Right Side of Life Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesnt Do Forensics; NH So... Page 3 of 58
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 Ive 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 documents 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.orgs 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. Obamas 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. Obamas 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, heres 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:
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-f... 4/23/2010
Exhibit 7
United $tala, DsplubMnt d State
-w
D.C.
h reply f&rto: CA/FPTIL&E - Case ConW Number: 21Q0807238

-her E Stmk . 593 Vmddilt Avenue, #28 1 Brooklyn, NY 11238
The follawing i in reapme to your q u e s t to the Departmat of s 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 r w d s responsive to yaurrequ@ The semh m t h d in the retried of six doEwmnts that are responsive:to lWkW of dla~ d % w ha\~e~de&JBlkd e yQWwUWL A f h ht.d do amen^ may be d e a d 4 full. six
W did not locate a 1965 passp~rt e application referenced in an appliclttion f f o r d m a t of passpat mat is ia~Iuded the d e a d a in documats. Many passport rrpplicatiom and other non-vital m r d s fmm that period were dmtmyed during t 1980s in acconhor=with guidange b
fmn the General Services Achhhmion.
Pwspoxt m a d s typidly consid of applicstj0118fix United States ofUdted S C C L * w f l WS i l b mp -8 and do IIQ~ G I U &W&XlmOf&&Vd aS ~ such -S, * , residence @, t s e k , since this infomdm is af Iinto the pawport tml book aRg issuance,
PAGE 2
A M E N D T O INCLUDE I E X C L M D E l l W l F E l I H U S B A W D )
NAME
BIRTHPLACE
BlRTHahTE
I
I
SPOUSE WAS P A E V I O Y J L Y M A R R I E D T O
P R E V 1 6 U I M A R R I A G E TERMINATED B Y
DIVORCE
DEATH
AMEHD TO I N C L U D E IEXCLUDE) C A t L D R E N
RHENO TO A E k O I N HARRIED H A M E
H A U L
I
MARRIET) TO
-ATE
MARRrEU
P L A C E MARRIED
1
U. I C l T l Z E H .
C I T I Z E N S H I P O P HUSBAND
I
rue
I
!
ALIEM-CtTNZEM O F
O T H E R AMENDMEALTtSj ~ D E S C R ~ BIN D E T A l L A C T I O N REQUESTED1 E
tlOCUMEt4TARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED T O DEPAATMEHT B Y COHSU L A F I OFFICER
S f A? EMEHT O F ACTIOM BY POST UPOU O E P A R T M E H T ' S AUTHOR1 Z A T l O H (70 br erccuted only In eanrrccrlon with cure. r e f e d frr h p 1 . l
P~SSPORT
CARD
[7 RENEWCO
WAS
TO
OPTE
UP l O t N T l T Y
AMENOEI) h S A C O U E S T E D
0 CERTIFICATE
AUTHORITY
X
-
0 E X T E N P E B TO
lConsul el ?he U n i t e d Stmes o f Arnerlcd
O P l H l O N O F CONSULAR OFFlCER
( P h b nrqrrirtd/or irrrlununm J
STAPLE: OW? PHOTO HERE 00 NOT MAR FACE Thc pisspon photos required must be appmximately 2% by 2s inches in size: bc an thin un~larcc! papcr, show l u l l Ironr view of applicant with a plain, lipht buckground: and have b t r n taken a i t h i n 2 years o l &tc s u b m i r t d , When drpcndcnts are includrd they should bc showninnpmup photograph. Thc c.onsul will not accept photos char are not a g m d likeness. Colnr phoiofirsphs are acrcptablt.
h mr sfqple s e m d pbora A~tach

x
7
IcofcIy by
mn clip.
(Consul o f fh. Unhsd Stmer o f AmerIcol
64
FS-299
In ccrrsin c a s e s spccilic auihorizarion by the ~ c p a r t m c n twill be rcquitctl. In rhesc c a s t s an extra copy e l the form should bc prcpnrcrl. I'pm reccipr 8 l rhr Pepsnmcnt's rcpl y the f x t r n copy should be rr~nsmiitcdwith s notarlnn 01 the s c r i m inken,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REQUE5T BY U-HJTD 5TA.ES WAfllQsafAt F a AND REPORT'W ERCPTt.Obl TQ SECTIGR 53-1, TITLE 22 O ME <WE O FEDERAL REGULATIQNS F F
REQUEST 1hr ,T bra r t n d that m y @ ~ r r - i hoe galid and rhaf a d i d p a - 0 ~ is t m p t i d by law *D + n m the rh n s I r set! Sn ces. 1 rn+~c% la cxrrprimT & u that be m crd m me, as pcoildrd i a !kcdon 13*21k)>Tide 22 afthe Cad. rr C I.r$emI Ie~gu?a%~um 1 wkr&tand d P -PEE g $ 2 5 is zeFBd upder &rtipn 33. m a d L iwriji rrpmh such h e r t ~ It* Pavsprt PRipc pep$-at o Em=, WA-~, f D.
ah)
,7437 %Q@i ,am%@ID aml* &

#
WSSFOW
-
A - ~ P E
i =T. B
D 3 & b m 3 WWW
'
ND,, BATE A@
PUCE
QF ESU'iC!
BlWrtlPWICE
F
E
mww.I S
mt6fsreF f*#
h
E~noluxta, I k W H
DjakzPka, mm0W
NME O f GAMIER
'#CIWT NUMBER OR VESSEL
WRY V
>\leb
BUO%ET BUREAU
~ g 4?-RWg .
,Passper+ O.ffrc* Us. O n l y )
c -
IHSTIIUCTlOarS: All r r q w r t s b tnelw-a uFpcrwns mon k . t~ rar uIFrrM) boh a a Asrnt mi Xha Dlpmrtm*n* d % a h or a& o f C & o. P h o t w a r, -t t h . -xi+. 4 s R h * r ~ l l pmus+ &tt.d rqui-* ~ a . -11 pr-s b bm in~1ud.d this O W ~ ~ W I T . If t#w had, w ~ V M tI w k i l k, o mviaur t v ~ p w t tt should bm *hlt++d i , ~ t m z d athr dmwm#rta, , of ~ * e t ~G e o m p f h . oi
t i
IN C A W OF
IPLe*nr PRrHT N*HC (Ffd -1
11
PULL)
{Mlddib 4
tL-
-l
i d t d
Ww.
IHCLUDZ M MiLD(REH), & FOLLOWS: (Also cumpl.t* %&on Y ahweskip by ~ o h z a H t 3 a n a d h0.w nu! h d a pn*vtMs pr. . a+)
HAME
Z &Ild{wfi) a e q G d T
#All!
JH FWL
P L A M UF #tT(*n fclth
DF B t R f ! 4
STAPLE ONE PYOm HERE MOT MAC( FACE
oo
MTE op
ermn
DATE ar YAIIRI-E
DO NOT STAPLE SEaLIND PHOTO ATTACH BY PAPER CLIP
'P,5E WPtETED BY. A 4PFi.lCAHT W H F W P , % # P P ~ &&d jlf t h e --TI sit Forth
MFE W
~ S ' P ~ E V I MMlEI)BEFORE ~ J In o rn#-Wat 1 -
3, I! #,
W p W B 70 BE l b m 1 3 ~ E ~
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
PENCIL NOT ACCEPTABLE)
I
A
DEPARTMENT O F Sf ATE
- . I / For DepahleM O e c i t i . ~ I ,; ,,,, J a k a r t a . Indonesia ,: ,,,,

' '
I I
POST A C f l O H REGISTZATIPH A P P R W t
,a,,
June 2 , 1 9 7 6 ,,,, ,;,

C A j i D O F I D f h T I T Y AND RE<.
~ * p l t * 1 1 1~8 1 ~ g 9 ~
T 8E COMPLETED 8Y AN APPLICANT WHO BECAME P, C l T l E H THROUGH HAlURALIZAnON O

1 IMMtGRATEI) T O THE (MonVh, fern)
U.S. I
REStDED CDNTINUDUSLY I N THE U.S.

Frcm ( Y e a r \
T a IYaar)
N A T U R A L I Z A T I O N C E S T I F I C A T E NO. S~brn~ritrd haravirh S c r n and rafurned P w v i a u r ly submorrmd
PLACE NA T U A A L ZED ( C i t y , rlormJ
MATURAtlZATIOH CWRT
DATE H A f U R A L t Z f D
COMPLETE OHLY
/WIFE'S) IhUSBAND'S)
= U L L LEGAL MAME
atete)
IF OTHERS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN PASSPORT OR REGISTRATION AND S P M r t GROUP PHOTCGRAPH HATURALIZASION ~ E R T P I C A ? NO. I ENATIVE BQRN seam a d ~ ~ ~ . n o g NATURALIZED
PLACE NATURAL12 ED (CTly,
N A T U R A L I T A T I O N COURT
I
OATE NATURALIZFD
1
3ATF Of B I R T H (Mo., DUY, Y - l r )
I -
LWIFFS) (MUSI3AH3'5)
PLACE OF BIRTH
(clly, stow or ~ w v i n c m ,~ o u n t t l l
- .
HAME Ifd FULL OF C H I L ~ R E WINCLUDED
--,
(Frqm-To)
PLACE O F B I R T H (Clty, s * o ~ / p r w r m m ,~ s d n r w l
SI 2 ~ ~ , 2 ~R E~O ED I~U.S. ~ ' N 2
4
C CNCE LE r O3
OTHER
DISP351TIOtd
"
--
. -
HMES
PASSPOST NO.
D A T E OF ISSUE
3 A T E O r ZEG15TRAT l O N OR alRfH PEPORT
LOCATION CF OFFICE
QTHER EvloENCE OF: U.S. OTlZENSHlP PRESENTED 15tatr d i s w s l t i o n )
FORM FS-lX
944
P-2
! ~ ~ ~ M R HXWP: ' S
I PATHEWS P U C E O F BIRW @bI st@*, P+wlnc=
C-I
1 MU.& C ~
Z W
YOfHER'S DATE F 61RTH

A
a M a F H F ! DECW E D
M A1~ I
wwIt r m j
'M MEYEU MARRIED aI WAS *
' ~ B X W E .suD~H~*T R
sl
WAS
wsr v r ~ l w ww m
1
HPBBAHW~ WIPE*$ PUCE 09 W M H 08
W 04V&U I # I ( w F ~ 7~ R PIIESEa P U LEGlll19b)lE ~ M w0 1 1 rn IS, o ~acr,

F r n
W H E R REStPEO IH US.
~r
$~R~E*I 7
Cil7Z.W
JHCILO~
QP
WlfL
fiFtYS%*E18OR WIFE
1s U.S.
MpE)&sr&
mND WIFE IS NOT us OR ClIlZEN
ron QF ON)$# HAME DP w e OR Atrtwe
Wm4
A.(ul
hue
PATE DP meed
a:l976
I
?&A,
1~br brcaedrd (mhw t)wn prrport -3. Whmn m o n C n wr p*r#n k#b.Inoludrd,.ptWPpm
gnphMIhrwndm8B,
HERE
o OF I#cuslQ&
fe W I W r n L E
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 T 3 THE
U.S.
(Month, ycar)
I R E S l W E D cONT INUOUSLY I N T Y E U.S. F r l m lY To ( Ylar)
0 Sub, 0
YATuFE A L t Z A T l O N C E R T l F l C A T E NO.
ined herwlm Seen and returned Previouuly submitted
PLACE NATURALIZED (tify. state)
N A ~ > S A C I Z A T ~ ~ NRT COU
DATE NATURALIZED
I/
1
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICAMTS
IO~CUPATION
1 V I S I BLE DISTINGUISHING
1
MARKS
- -
PROGRAM OFFICER. FORD FOUNDATION

W E N llrlffT O W P L E T E W L L m N G IF CHILDREN OF
-. -
k P R M O l R hMRRMGf ARE MLUDED OR 1F PV R -
S WAS PREVIOLiSl-Y MARRIED ON ] T O (Flrlt legal
nama)
IIN~OBORN AT IClry. State, Countw) *AS
W R I E D BEWRE W W 3 1331
(
:
FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT US. C ~ Z E N ~ O N ID-)

I F F A T H E R NATURALIZED:
~IFAFPUCANTORANYRRSMU~FICUA~EI~~N~W~NBWSNOFBDRNINTHEUNWSTA~MQCW~IP'RROW;
EnlTERElO T H E U S ..
(nnanth) ( Y e a r )
Applicant WFe
Date
1
Certrflcgta No.
IF *%OWN, FATHEFI'S RESiDENCE PHYS~CAL PRESENCE I N U.S. From (Year) To (Yaar)
a HMSM~
u ChJld
Before (Name of Court)
Place K i W , Statel
IF mMOTHER'S A E S I M M E . PHYSICALPRESENCE IN U S , Fmrn IYear) To IYear)
RESIDENCE/MNTSNUC3US PHVSlCAL PRESENCE I N U.S. FmmlYmar) To ( Y a a r )
I F MOTHER N A T U R A L I Z E D : Dam
ae70re (Name
I
C] A p p l i a n t
Carrifieam No.
(
7
0.f
coum,
I
Plws (Ciry, Stat%)
I
B J
r\
PROPOSED TRAVEL PWNS m t Mandatary) o
1 I l N T END TO CONTINUE T O RESIDE ABROAD FOR T H E FOLLOWING PE RlOD AND PURPOSE
Two years contract w i t h Ford Foundation from January

T
December 1982.
I I
ff
INTEND TO RETURN TO THE U N I T E D STATES PERMANENTLY RESIDE W I T HIM 6 YEARS MONTHS
DATE OF DEPARTURE
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
f h*a l n f m a t i o n s ~ l i c i l S d n this f&m 1s autherrizftl by, Wr not limited to. mose statures codif iad I TRI- 8, 18, m d 22, U n i m d S m CodO, md all O n n prtdecc-ersorstatures whether o n o t l+rrdifled, and ell regulations issued pursuant r E X ~ C ~ T N B r o 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 O a p n m a n t Of Srsa and ethw gwwnrnmnt qnneim hwlna statutory or other lsnrfur BU t h o r ~ t y o rnainmin S U C ~Inlormarion in the pedormance of their afficlsl dutfw: purarmt to a l u b p w n l ar mum order: and, t 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
I
Failure t o provide t h o l r r f ~ m t rim q u ~ t s d ~ ~ m this form may rarult 3n rho dsnlal erf a Unimd State* P s s p o q d s m d doeurnant or m w h to t h m individual seeking such passpon, document or S a r v l ~ a .
NOTE: The di~clasuruof your S a i a l Security Number o af tha -&ntity find lwttan of 8 p e w w be n0~ifi.dtn the Wmt nf dnth or r 1 t entirely voluntary. Woweutlr, feilwru m provide t h i s inforrnatlm may pnrvcnt the Depwonent of Stfrom p r m l d q you with tlmaly mslst-nc. prowctlon in the event you should enmunrer an m e r g e m y rimer: -I whlle o u ~ i d eh e U ~ i O e d S t s r e a t
3* or
4 l f m y of the Muwmandomd aets or conditions have bemn pmrfnmed by or applv r n the apptieant, or m any 0d-m p w n to k lneluded I n t h m passport, the parrim which appfies should be snuck out, and a supplementary ex planstory aaternent under oath Lor &firmmion) by t h o parson to wham t h e portion is @glicable should be stteched snd made a w r r of this application.) 1 hsva n o 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 allegiance to a fnreign stew: enrered or m r v d in the -mad forcsl of a formign stetm; of a c m t e d or performed t h e 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 c o u n 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, l h e United Stares, or conrpir~ng wenhrow, put down or to to dmtroy by force, me Govarnmenr of the U n i t s d S r a t ~ . W A R N r N G : False staremtnn made tnowinglv and willfwlly F p-orr n epplice*lons er in ~ d a v i or omer wpportinpl dmumma wbrnfmd themWith n are puni~hableby fine and/or irn~risonrnent under the provisions ot 18 USC t 0 0 1 nnWw 18 VSC 1542. A l m r a t i m or mutilalon Of r pgsron iaumd punuunt to t h i s application is pu ni*ahle by fine sndlor imprisonmeni u ndcr The p r ~ v i s i o n a 18 USC t543. Tho ura of a pasport In violetion Of the Of 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
APFLlCANT'S I O E N T ~ F ~ ~ N G DBCUMENT(SI
OF OFFlCf
APPLICATION)
IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT(S) OF WIFElHUSBAND I N PASSPORT Certif icam of Naturaliaarion a r CitMenshlp No.: Parwon I u u e Darn:
f0 BE INCLUDED
Certificme mf NarurJlzation or Clrizenshig lJ Pasgporr ,
No.:
l m e Dm?:
place a+ lssue:
0 Drivsfs Liceme
Vrher ( S ~ ~ . a c i:f y k
I t w e d In Name of:
O US. Q o w n m n t RlnlIm C
C] ?her [Spsclfv):
r e in ~ wd
m m of: a
Exhibit 8
ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Di... Page 1 of 2
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: Full Licensed Name: Full Former name(s): Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: Registered Business Address: Registered Business Phone: Illinois Registration Status: Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) Barack Hussein Obama None
December 17, 1991 Not available online Not available online Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings:
None
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 registration@iardc.org. 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
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=640861630
3/5/2010
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 Obamas 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, ~
& U A W APFRlRS
CoMumeP~-b N m u G MwmeR-6uBOdMwmE
IP COmBRCe, I l
JUmce,*eMcE.&
RELXtI3I1AmiPlAQs S l r H w m r n A W ~ ~
United Statp S n t e ae
WASHINGTON, ~d 20510-0103
710 k h T S N A E
&UOlNG WASHIMWH, W 2 t l C NWC I (2021224-6744
January 2 9 ; Z O O 9
Ms. Texri Storm
~ r e ident/c~o s
Storm Consulting G r o u p
4524
Park Avenue
Bessemer, Alabama 35023-4184
Dear Ma. Storm:

ThaIF-yau -far takiw the time to[ Tantact -me a w t -PreBdant - elect Barack Qbama1s citizenship s t a t u s . 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 C i t i z e n of the United States, at t h e time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be e l i g i b l e to that Office w o shall not have attained to h the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident w i t h i n the United States. l1 Many have contacted me regarding t h e numerous claims and lawsuits circulating an the i n t e r n e 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 b i r t h certificate, showing that he was b ~ m Hawaii, and it has been verified and in confirmed by Bawaiim o f f i c i a l s . Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to a c t on any of the cases contesting Obamars citizenship. Un January 8 , 2009, Me&rs of Cangress were given the opportunity to contest t h e iasue -in a j o i n t 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 t h e situation should further
iesues arise.
Thank you again f o r 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 S n t e ae
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?derregarding 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 i not a natural s 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 ofHealth, 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 O a a s election as the next president of the United bm'
States.
---
The office of the presidency should be held in high regard and the president treated with respect, no m t e who occupies the position As we move forward, Americans should expect atr 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.
-
JS: cd
sions United States Senator
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.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------x Christopher-Earl: Strunk, in esse -againstPlaintiff,
6500-2011
(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
PLAINTIFFS
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 NOEM COLN, in their Official and FOR PRESENTMENT individual capacity; Fr. JOSEPH A. O'HARE, S.J.; OF EVIDENCE Fr. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; 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; RGER 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
Plaintiffs 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 320 Article 2, Section 1 2,4,6,13,20 13th Amendment..13 14th Amendment4,5,13-18 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 39314,21 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 21218-21 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 288316-18 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 13,14,18
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 Evidence8 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. Constitution14 In Conclusion for Leave to Supplement the Complaint...21
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 Sheriffs 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.
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. Plaintiffs 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 hasnt 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.
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 Sheriffs Press Release shown as Exhibit 1 and Press Conference established in the Preliminary Report by the Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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 Obamas 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 Obamas life history including: President Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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
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 Doesnt 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 Blacks 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 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 plaintiffs underlying case; 4) disruption of spoliation plaintiffs underlying case; and 5) damages proximately caused by spoliation defendants acts.
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
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 Obamas mother in August 13, 1968 as shown on Exhibit 7 as well as Respondent Obama personally committing perjury as shown on Exhibit 2 and
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
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 Plaintiffs 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
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 Obamas 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 Amendments 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
to the United States Constitution, and was co-author of the 14th Amendments 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
House of Representatives where it passed, along with Howard and Trumbulls 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 Presidents 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
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
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
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 MKean, 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
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 usurpers 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 fathers naturalization papers he didnt 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. Plaintiffs 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! Vattels 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 Sheriffs 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"; 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 11 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 20 12 Brooklyn New York Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse Self-representedwithout an attorney 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 28 1 ' Brooklyn, New York 11238 Phone - 845-90 1A6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
m,
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 N . 6500-2011 o:
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse';
*
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants.

x
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
) ) ss.
1
duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:
~&ordingly, Mwp wm(d@d<being I,
a. Am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. b. M place of business is located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn N 11238.. y Y 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 10017-3954
RITA C. TOBIN, Esq. of CAPLIN 86 DRYSDALE, CHARTERED 375 Park Avenue 35th Floor New York. New York 10152-3500 HARRIS BEACH, PLLC By THOMAS J. GARRY, Esq. The OMNI 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901 Uniondale, New York 11553 GALLAGHER LLP JAMES C. .DUGAN Esq. of WILLKIE.F'ARR&i 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 10105
WILEY REIN LLP - TODD A. BROMBERG ESQ., JAN WITHOLD BARAN ESQ. and THOMAS W. WRBY ESQ. 1776K Street, N W Washington D.C. 20006 RABINOWTTZ,BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, PC - Christopher J. Latell Esq. and Daniel S. Reich Esq. 45 Broadway, Suite 1700 N w York, New York 100063791 e ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN,AttorneyGeneral of N S ' by: JOEL GRABER, Esq. A G Assistant Attorney General Y A 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 @
MAITHEWS HUGGINS Notary Public, State of New York No. 01HU6103403 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires Dec. 29,20
-Ww&/~87&
SUPREME' COURT OF THE S'PATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS IAS Part 27 ... Index N . o: 6500-2011 x @on. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)
christkher- ark ~tknk, esse in
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
,
+ ,
.-
Plaintiff Amdavit in support of Notice of motion for presentment of evidence of

L .
forgery and spoliation as supplement to the complaint
Exhibit 1 Maricopa ~ o u n AZ Sheriffs Ofice Press Release March 1,2012 k 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 t the Illinois bar o 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
~ f f i d a d t - oSenrice f
~ated: 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
.+
-
NOTICE OF MOTION

Strunk NOM For Supplement With Aff and Exhibits MOL NYS 6500-2011 and First Supplement To The Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strunk NOM For Supplement With Aff and Exhibits MOL NYS 6500-2011 and First Supplement To The Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A ..

~~sbi;h&-Eii'l: ~tnihk, &se in

mainW8 FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 1 of 7'

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 2 of 7

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 3 of 7

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 4 of 7

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 5 of 7

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 6 of 7

STATE OF NEW YORK

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Plaintiffs FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPLAINT Page 7 of 7

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;E al.." t

motion return date on

BrookIyn New York

(Hon. Arthur M. Schack J.S.C)

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ) ) ss. )

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 1 of 9

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 2 of 9

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 4 of 9

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 5 of 9

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 6 of 9

Senator Jon Kyl defers to the internet on December 1, 2008 wrote:

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 7 of 9

Senator Feinstein deferring to the 14th Amendment on February 2, 2009 wrote:

Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Motion to Supplement Page 8 of 9

Sworn to before me ThisD day of April 20 12 /

Commission Expires June 30,20

Plaintiffs Affidavit i Support of Motionn

SHERIFF ARPAIO RELEASES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Additional findings by investigators

You are hereby notified that I,

Greenwood Avenue, ~ h i o d ~ oIL 60615 .

CandMate's actual residence address or description of p+

Obama for America, 233 North ~ i c h j ~ Avenue. 11th Floor, Chicag a n

Candidate's Arizona committee information: Chairman's Name Address

2910 N o r t h central1 Avenue, P h o e n i x AZ 85012

a member of the politiql party from which I am running as a

candidate for Re oRce (oi President of the United States.

Subscnied AND SWORN to (or affirmed) before me this

Dffice Revision 8/21/2007

REPORTBARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Figure1: PDF file released from White House

Blue background color and no safety paper

Safety paper background with a gray/blue color

Figure2: A printout was given to AP which they scanned

Figure3: Savannah Guthrie photo claim to verify document

REPORTBARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

The OCR Argument Not a Factor!

Search word in Find box

No text found in file

Figure4: Search for text is not recognizedNo OCR applied

Document Font Properties of original PDF file

Figure5: Font Properties of Obamas PDF file

Text found in OCR file

Figure6: Font Properties dialog after OCR Text Recognition

Figure7: Search for text is recognized after OCR is applied

REPORTBARACK OBAMA: LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Figure8: Painted brush strokes in digital scan lack noise

Bitmap (or Aliasing) v Anti-aliasing

Figure9: Aliasing (or bitmap) and anti-aliasing

Bitmap edges are jagged

Anti-aliased edges are smooth

Figure10: Bitmap edges are jagged v smooth anti-aliased edge