STATUTE IN NEW YORK STATE LAW - DEFINES NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEFINES

NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN

***By Pixel Patriot***

September 20th, 2011

THE COURT

Supreme Court of the State of New York

County of Kings

Supreme Court Complex

360 Adams Street

Brooklyn, New York 11201

THE PLAINTIFF

Christopher-Earl Strunk, Pro Se

THE CASE

Mr. Strunk appeared with nine other attorneys representing Defendants on August 22^nd before the Honorable Arthur M. Schack, J.S.C. seeking to consolidate the previous action Strunk v Paterson et al. NYSSC Kings Index #29642-08 with  Strunk v NYS BOE et al. NYSSC Kings Index 6500-2011 as related to the mandamus #29641-08 and opposing numerous motions to dismiss filed by defendants.

Mr. Strunk contends:

“Because of the prior decision in #29641-08 by Justice Schmidt back in 2008 on the State Constitutional issue involving a state officer holding more than one office for pay; it has now become the “law of the case.”

Evidence was entered into the hearing record that the definition of Natural-Born Citizen was already a statute within Real Property Law Section 18 for the State of New York existing from the founding of the Federal Union in 1788.

Consequently, the following parties had a fiduciary duty to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates’ “natural-born Citizen” (NBC) status including challenging ineligibility before January 20, 2009, and by refusing to do so allowed Barack Hussein Obama II without two citizen parents at birth to usurp the Office of the President of the United States:

1. The State Electors. In New York, the State Electors are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate.

2.  The New York State Officers in their official capacity and also as electors for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama as well as those certifying public records.

3.  The Candidates.  Like State officers, those various agents of John S. McCain III, Barack Hussein Obama II and the Socialist Worker’s Party Candidate Róger Calero as all candidates on the ballot; had a quasi fiduciary duty too.

All breached their duty injuring Mr. Strunk’s privilege of one-person, one-vote as a contract with Mr. McCain for whom he voted; and therefore, he suffered a direct personal injury.  Additionally, a substantive, tangible and irrefutable conflict was actualized with the State Electors in New York during the 2008 general election, and whereas Mr. Strunk along with those voters similarly situated were denied honest services.

The 2011 complaint seeks to enjoin the ongoing 2012 election cycle process.  Justice Schack and the New York State Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all elections and ultimate authority to adjudicate the NBC issue as a matter of existing New York State law before him, and as to the fact that the Constitutional requirements for the candidates are enumerated on the Board of Elections website for the State of New York yet unenforced to date.

According to Mr. Strunk:

‘The prior motions that were disposed of in the related 2008 Mandamus and Complaint by Justice Schmidt in 2008 thru 2011 were not dispositive as to the ongoing injury caused by the scheme to defraud myself along with those similarly situated as voters and taxpayers.  This scheme to defraud exists in fact by virtue of the candidates’ non-compliance with the Natural-Born Citizen requirement as mandated in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  In the related cases, Justice Schmidt merely commented on Natural-Born Citizen off-the-record, and therefore the conspiracy surrounding the NBC issue including the tort injury and scheme to defraud is now before Justice Schack with more than forty defendants including the 2008 elector slates.”

COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED-Stenographic Transcript record of the  8-22-11

In the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS:

CHRISTOPHER-EARL STRUNK,  (Plaintiff)

v.

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JAMES a. WALSH, Co-Chair; DOUGLAS A KELLNER, Co-Chair; EVELYN J AQUILA, Commissioner; GREGORY P. PETERSON, Commission; DEPUTY DIRECTOR TODD D. VALENTINE; DEPUTY DIRECTOR STANLEY ZALEN; ANDREW CUOMO; ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI; RUTH NOEMI COLON; in their official and individual capacities; FR. JOSEPH A. O’HARE, S.J.; FR. JOSEPH P. PARKES, S.J.; FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.; PETER G. PETERSEN; ZBIGNIEW KAIMIERZ BRZEZINSKI; MARK BRZEZINSKI, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.; SOEBARKAH (A/K/A Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Steve Dunham); NANCY PELOSI; DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE WORKING FAMILIES PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; ROGER CALERO; THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY; IAN J. BRZEZINSKI; JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III; JOHN A. BOEHNER; THE NEW YORK STATE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE; THE NEW YORK STATE COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENCE PARTY; STATE COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE; PENNY S. PRITZKER; GEORGE SOROS; OBAMA FOR AMERICA: OBAMA VICTORY FUND; MCCAIN VICTORY 2008; MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008; JOHN AND JANE DOES; AND XYZ ENTITIES,  (Defendants)

THE COURT:

“In 2008 you had an Order to Show Cause that you filed with the Court to estop the Electoral College in New York State from meeting, among other things…

In November of 2009 where you wanted a temporary restraining order, protective order et cetera about various federal, state and city agencies do certain things with various individuals...

On January 11^th, 2011 you had a motion for leave being heard by Judge Schmidt, and the Attorney General opposed and he ordered that the motion was denied in its entirety.

On March 17th, 2011: Judge Schmidt’s ruling is “All motions, also notices of entry by the Office of the Attorney General, all motions denied…

MR. STRUNK:

“the right to vote is a privilege and the Electoral College is determined by the State Legislature.  But there is nothing in law which defined who an elector could be.  And of course it’s become [apparent] in its position by habit and I consider it bad habit.”

“The rub of the complaint is that it was my obligation to inform the electors of whom both the republicans and democrats that they were entering into an area which was I believe and I still believe uncovered, not covered by New York State Law.  They were essentially having to determine as is required under the 20^th amendment the eligibility of the candidates, and I had given them notice in my complaint.  And once I found whether they’re sitting properly, which was the article 78, I could then, I had a right to amend the complaint, and I did not amend the complaint because I went to Washington under a Freedom of Information request to get further discovery because I was denied any discovery whatsoever on the Department of State records to determine in no uncertain terms where the mother was at the time of birth.  Now I’m still in court on that three years.”

The discussion turns to Obama’s eligibility and Mr. Strunk chose not to challenge the birth certificate…

“I accept that as prima facia proof that his father is a British subject.”

THE COURT:

“But I don’t think anybody denies his father was a British or Kenyan subject.  I believe for sure when Kenya achieved its independence from Britain –“

MR. STRUNK:

“Even when he was born his father was a British subject.”

THE COURT:

“We agree he’s (Barack Obama Sr.) not an American citizen at the time of his (Barack Hussein Obama II) birth.”

Justice Schack, a former history professor; and Mr. Strunk discuss New York’s influence on the definition of Natural-Born Citizen with regard to Presidential eligibility in the Constitution starting at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787.

MR. STRUNK:

“It’s clear that New York State was the preventer.  They generated what Natural-Born Citizen means.  When Chief Justice Yates left the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, he came back and told George Clinton, “We don’t want any part of what’s going on down there because we’ve got too much at stake,”  New York spread from the upper Peninsula of Michigan all the way to the Connecticut River.”

THE COURT:

“New York ratified the Constitution.”

MR. STRUNK:

“Only when Jay and Hamilton were able to yank it out of Philadelphia, it posed a rigor which met the requirements of New York State, and that was a Natural-Born Citizen.  When we ratified the Constitution, it was on our terms and it was a compromise only to the fact that we allowed for it only because it was a Pyrrhic victory.   There were already nine ratifications that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists said we’ll list with only the President being Natural-Born, but we want all congressmen being Natural-Born.  That’s what the ratification documents were and it was put in as a pure recollection of afterthought.  But if they had acted unified under Yates and Clinton, they could have made that requirement and it would be a…”

THE COURT:

“We’re not in 1787.  We’re now in 2011.  That’s law.  Let’s come to the report.”

For those of you who were under the impression that no one in a position of authority wanted to address the usurpation of the Presidency of the United States because of the threat of race riots, well there’s more to it than just that:

THE COURT:

“With what occurred in 2008, it’s sort of like humpty-dumpty.  It’s done.  The egg is broken.  You can’t put it back together again.”

MR STRUNK:

“I’m certainly not trying to overturn an election.  I would be a fool even to suggest it.  We don’t have a law in the State of New York, nor is there a law anywhere else in the country.  Everybody is on their best honor that they’re going to submit a certified candidate to be on the ballot to meet the requirement of Natural-Born Citizen.  It’s filing on your honor.  You’re a citizen.  There’s nobody there to verify, there’s nobody taking responsibility unless I come in three days after the submission of that certification and challenge it in court.  After three days, Mickey Mouse is on the ballot.  So somebody has to take responsibility.  There is no law under the 20^th amendment.  It’s the Supreme Court of the state running the specific election for a federal officer representing that state.  The Supreme Court of the State of New York has original jurisdiction over all elections.  There are no federal elections per se.  There is no law coming out of the legislature. There is no law coming out of the executive.  Therefore, the buck stops with you, your Honor.”

THE COURT:

“Thank you for making me Harry Truman.”

The irony of Justice Schack metaphorically invoking the storied fable of Humpty Dumpty will not be lost on the once sleeping masses.   For this nursery rhyme as lore would have it, was based on King Richard III who would give his kingdom for a horse; and certainly after 1776 where according to others King George III no less.   After a bloody revolution to sever ties with the tyranny of King George III, the Natural-Born Citizen requirement was explicitly written into Article 2 as a “strong check” for the Presidency and Commander-in-Chief so the Republic would never again be oppressed by a British subject.

According to Mr. Strunk:

“Barack Hussein Obama II and his conspirators are in allegiance with the European Union and the Queen of England in a Mussolini styled Ultramontane Syndicalism to drag the United States and every sovereign State into subjugation of Europe again.”

In the inimitable wisdom of this Justice from Kings County, all the kings horses and all the kings men can’t put our Republic back together again after the 2008 elections; the most corrupt in our nation’s history.  However, with the scheme to defraud unchecked; the same ineligible candidates that disenfranchised the plaintiff in 2008 have already launched their 2012 campaigns.

MR. STRUNK:

“I don’t want it to repeat again in 2012, and that’s already been announced by the Socialist Worker Party the candidates and it’s been announced by Mr. Obama that he’s running for 2012.”

Defendant Róger Calero of the Socialist Workers party publicly responds to the lawsuit in the July 4^th issue of “The Militant”:

“When I’ve run for president as the Socialist Workers Party candidate, our campaign literature has made clear I was born in Nicaragua,” Calero told the Militant. “The SWP never asks anyone we’re fighting alongside to produce a birth certificate, an ID card, or a diploma. The only ‘qualification’ any class-conscious worker needs to know is how well and how selflessly you fight.”

Not only do the Socialist candidates openly acknowledge they are ineligible, but they have no moral trepidation in diluting the vote which goes to the heart of Mr. Strunk’s complaint that the New York voter is being denied a “one person, one vote” election:

“In states such as New York, where Calero was on the ballot in 2004 and 2008, there is currently no requirement that a candidate be eligible to serve in elected office in order to have ballot status. This makes it easier for working-class candidates to run for office and gain a hearing for a course to fight the bosses’ attacks and advance a road to workers political power.”

As evidenced here, in 2008 Calero was considered ineligible according to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution which required an alternate candidate to run in his place:

“James Harris is running as the alternate candidate for president for the Socialist Workers Party in states where Roger Calero is barred from the ballot due to being Constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.”

The motion filed on behalf of the SWP and Calero contends that they are free to run an ineligible candidate regardless of whether a state is adequately enforcing the Article 2 requirement:

“Regardless of whether he “would have been eligible to be President, SWP and its members are entitled to their choice of a nominee under the First and Fourteenth Amendments…As the U.S. Constitution prevents courts from disregarding and undermining a political party’s decision to nominate a candidate, the Court cannot impose damages on Calero or SWP” for exercising these rights. Strunk is demanding $36 million in damages.”

THE LAW

The plaintiff, Mr. Strunk, is seeking to enjoin Obama among others having now announced their candidacies, from being on the ballot or slate of electors in 2012 since they are not a Natural-Born Citizen.  In light of this, the discussion continues with regard to the Natural-Born Citizen requirement….

THE COURT:

“So essentially your argument is for someone to run for president of the United States under Article 2 of the constitution, it says you have to be a Natural-Born Citizen.  That means that not only you have to be born within the United States of America, but both your parents have to be Natural-Born Citizens, is what you are saying?”

MR. STRUNK:

“Yes, your Honor.”

THE COURT:

“What if for argument’s sake Mr. Obama’s father would have been naturalized?”

MR. STRUNK:

“He would be naturalized.”

THE COURT:

“So in other words your parents have to be citizens?”

MR. STRUNK:

“Yes, and as spelled out in New York State law and specifically in regards to our history of law that's found in the real property law Section 18, that’s the only location that the Natural-Born Citizen is mentioned and there’s a basis of legislative action to that basis where you cannot convey a piece of mining rights to anybody who is not natural born.   Natural born is also defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1824 as it relates to the transition of property rights after the revolution where family would inherit.  So in other domestic law in our surrogate, in our law which passes property on to a family member, there’s a definition in New York State law which clearly defines that it’s blood and soil law of nations definition and I say law of nations because it’s big letters in the U.S. Constitution.”

New York law prevents foreigners or foreign entities from owning mineral property rights.

PLAINTIFF INJURY

MR. STRUNK:

“My injury, I voted for McCain.”

THE COURT:

“Is that an injury?”

MR STRUNK:

“My injury is he did not challenge Mr. Obama after he went through the whole exercise.”

THE COURT:

“You’re saying he should have challenged Mr. Obama’s presidency?”

MR. STRUNK:

“Absolutely, and the ballot.”

The discussion continues with Obama’s Muslim name of Soebarkah, the Muslim tradition of “al takia” or as taken verbatim from the Complaint  “Al takia or the Islamic art of fooling the enemy” that according to Mr. Strunk is from [http://www.islamla.com/takia-the-islamist-art-fooling-the-enemy-t1767.html] and various other arguments including the domestic interference in election law by the Jesuits who run the New York City Campaign Finance Board having served with U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, advise  previous New York Governor David Paterson and preside over the New York Council on Foreign Relations.

MR: STRUNK:

“It comes back to New York State and whether I have standing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on the question of who’s going to take the responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done.”

THE COURT:

“In essence, you want me to enjoin Mr. Obama from being on the ballot and you want expedited discovery, as I notice, about various damages.  And I see you also want me to enjoin your claim that the Jesuits have interfered with our election law.”

Justice Schack was very accommodating and wanted Mr. Strunk to know that he was given the opportunity to be heard.

New York Attorney General Special Counsel followed and was there representing the interests of New York State.  Although no pleadings were entered on their behalf at this time.  Subsequently, the time for State defendants to respond has been set for October 12th, 2011.

Mr. Strunk’s next appearance will be on October 24^th for a pre-discovery hearing and his previous court filings can be seen at his website for the Brooklyn Home Rule Coalition.

THE JUDGE

The Honorable Arthur M. Schack, J.S.C.

“Our agenda is justice.”

Justice Schack has gained international acclaim as a stalwart for justice and jurisprudence by taking a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. He has repeatedly denied foreclosure to mortgage companies for failure to establish legal standing and challenged the legitimacy of the documents filed in his Court. Unmoved by the “too big to fail” label given to some of the nation’s largest and most powerful banks, he says:

“If you are going to take away someone’s house, everything should be legal and correct,”

(The usurpation of the White House, “The People’s House” with fraudulent documents is part of the scheme to defraud now before the court.)

In 2008 he admonished Wells Fargo for filing error-filled papers:

“The court,” the judge wrote, “reminds Wells Fargo of Cassius’s advice to Brutus in Act 1, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ ”

Obviously the Justice fully understands one’s “duty to the Republic.”

Video:  “Lenders Forced to Suspend Thousands of Foreclosures after Admitting to Faulty Review Process” – didn’t vet 

(Time  1:48)  “I see myself on a personal mission to do justice.”

Video:  Justice Arthur Schack on DemocracyNow:

(Time 4:55)  “We want to do it right…whether we get to a successful conclusion and end the case or ultimately where we have a judgment and the people are forced out”

(Time 6:05)  “Aren’t we a government of laws, not of men?”

SUMMARY

The plaintiff in this case, Christopher-Earl Strunk, Pro Se has an individual vote that is a special contract between himself and his respective candidate.  In the 2008 election it was John Sydney McCain; and even though McCain was himself vetted by U.S. Senate Resolution 511 on April 10^th, 2011; by failing his fiduciary duty to not only vet but also challenge the ineligible candidates on the ballot or before the swearing in ceremony on January 20, 2009, it constituted a breach of contract.  Even though the slate of electors that would have voted for McCain were not given sufficient popular votes to do so, the one-person, one-vote guarantee does not nullify Mr. Strunk’s contract with Mr. McCain whose malicious breach resulted in personal injury and shifted the reciprocal duty to Mr. Strunk to challenge Mr. Obama.

Mr. Strunk is asking the Court to have the personal damages to he and the taxpayers repaid for the costs of the 2008 elections and thereafter, clarify and define Natural-Born Citizen for the New York State Board of Electors and take original jurisdiction over the 2012 primary and general elections for compliance.  Because New York State has already statutorily defined a Natural-Born Citizen as a delineated class of citizen with respect to the assignment and ownership of property rights, Justice Schack is uniquely qualified having a master’s degree in History, expertise in Real Property Law and during the proceedings he even indicated he may take judicial notice in matters of diplomatic history especially.  If Justice Schack was to allow narrow discovery and is true to his tenet of “everything must be legal and correct”; then the ongoing scheme to defraud in conjunction with non-compliance of the Constitutional requirement of Natural-Born Citizenship would likely not pass the scrutiny of this court.

Since Congress allowed the Office of the Presidency to be usurped by an ineligible candidate in 2008, it appears that the “buck” really does stop with Justice Schack if the sanctity of the vote in the Great State of New York is to prevail in 2012.

Your Honor, you have our rapt attention.

http://www.pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/

Read more »

OBAMA SERVED - PLAINTIFF FILES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OBAMA SERVED

PLAINTIFF FILES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

By Pixel Patriot

The Plaintiff, William Spencer Connerat III filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 29th, 2011 against Barack Hussein Obama II in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, FL.

Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse - 801 North Florida Ave. Tampa, FL

The case Civil Action No. 8:11-CV-1359-T-23TGW is now on the docket:

Previously, the Plaintiff representing himself Pro Se filed a Writ of Mandamus on June 20th, 2011 submitting to the court proof of “ineligibility of Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, to serve as President of the United States of America; based upon such Official Record, also known as TACIT ADMISSION OF INELIGIBILITY, CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT” as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 44(a):

Further, in the Writ of Mandamus; the Petitioner in its “Prayer for Relief of the Court” requested the Court require the Respondent to disprove the Official Record and to pay $215 for the procurement of the documentary evidence. Mr. Connerat says he doesn’t believe the Official Record can be disproved, however:

“hypothetically, any attempt to disprove would represent perjury.”

As the Petitioner, he brings forth this civil action as a Natural Born Citizen and Florida Elector who has sworn an Oath under the Florida Constitution to ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as the Constitution of Florida. The initial cause of action dates back to November 11th, 2008 when Mr. Connerat sent a certified letter with return receipt to Obama demanding proof of his status as a Natural Born Citizen. Obama never responded to the letter although Mr. Connerat did receive the receipt stamped in red on February 9th, 2009 indicating it was received by “the White House”. Having sent the letter to Sen. Obama on Armistice Day, Connerat calls it his “Armistice letter.”


Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States by virtue of his recognized allegiance to a sovereign foreign nation inherited from his father who was a British subject. Therefore, according to Article II, Section I, Clause V of the United States Constitution as defined in the United States Supreme Court case of Minor vs. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) which set binding precedent, Barack Obama II has usurped the Office of the President of the United States as an ineligible candidate. Subsequently all Laws and Executive Orders he signs are null and void.


Mr. Connerat having received no response prior to the counting of the Electoral votes in the Electoral College personally served the Secretary of State of Florida. On the morning of December 15th, 2008, the Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning was served in Tallahassee with a petition for extraordinary emergency writ of mandamus and stay of the 2008 Presidential Election to be conducted in Florida Senate Chambers at 2 p.m. that same day. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed his petition on Friday December 19th having so ruled:

“Petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby dismissed without prejudice because the petition does not set forth a clear legal right. Petitioner’s motion for immediate hearing is denied as moot.”

In the course of due diligence Mr. Connerat sent a second letter to Obama on February 26th once again seeking proof of Natural Born Citizenship status, yet this time as a Letter of Redress.

"My grievance was that I had still not received a response to my first request for proof of natural born status. On this occasion, since Mr. Obama had, for all intents and purposes, already assumed the Office of President, I employed my right to redress under the First Amendment of the Constitution," which prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This letter was received by Obama on March 25^th, 2009.  The deadline for Obama to address this second letter was April 12^th, 2009 and again; no response.

“I was here, in Pinellas county, when the bell tolled twelve, as time marched through midnight, and as April 11, 2009 (the fair and just Deadline set for a proper response to such Letter of Redress) vanished into April 12, 2009 (Easter Sunday).”

According to Black's Law Dictionary, “a tacit (or implied) admission is "an admission reasonably inferable from a party's action or statement, or a party's failure to act or speak." It means that a jury can reasonably take a defendant's failure to deny a direct accusation to be an admission in itself.”

The phrase “qui tacet consentire videtur” or "the silence of a party implies his consent” is an ancient Latin maxim from which flows a widely applied legal principle: the rule of tacit admission. This ubiquitous rationale recognizes that an innocent man would loudly deny a serious charge and likewise a suspect silent in the face of an accusation has tacitly admitted the crime.

With two letters now having gone unanswered by Obama, Mr. Connerat filed a Statement of Claim on July 1st, 2009 at the Pinellas County Courthouse in the Small Claims Division with the cause of action being “Tortious Negligence."

“This case concerns only reparations for the Principal Sum of $4.90, which I spent as a result of fulfilling a Patriotic duty to mail a Second Request. The fact that Defendant is not Commander in Chief is pertinent to this Small Claim, because in order to properly file it, I must sign, under penalty of perjury, attesting to the fact that Defendant is not in the military service of the United States. As a result of his tacit Admission of ineligibility, Mr. Obama, who certainly portrays himself to be President, has verily Declared, to one and to all, that he is not only ineligible to such esteemed Office, but also that he is a charlatan, and a usurper of the kind most vile, injuring not with the Sword, but with the slogan and smile. He has instilled false hope in the hearts and minds of men. Being not President, he has no immunity from this civil lawsuit, and he must respond to any subpoena, summons, or writ issued by this Court.”

Pinellas County Civil_Small Claims Connerat 1 Mr. Connerat refiled on March 18th, 2010 and claims that Obama’s failure to respond and confirm his Natural Born Citizenship status is not only an “admission of ineligibility” but can also constitute “the basis for an act of treason.”

The Official Record for The Tacit Admission of Ineligibility was also filed Amicus Curiae as a legal instrument by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II in the case of Cuccinelli v. Sebelius. This was the first lawsuit filed against the Department of Health and Human Services regarding The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC), better known as Obamacare. As an appellee, the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where its petition was denied on April 25th, 2011.

After filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus on June 20th, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida; summonses were served against Barack Hussein Obama II.

According to Connerat:

"The summonses were officially served to the White House mail room and uniformed Secret Service on June 27th, 2011. The Servicer was Legal Support Services Inc. of Washington D.C. and has previously served past presidents."

On July 5th, 2011 when Mr. Connerat received the affidavit of service in the mail, he immediately went down to the court to file it; and it has subsequently been added to the case.
Pinellas County Civil_Small Claims Connerat 2

Connerat continues:

“The Court says respondent has been summoned and the summonses have returned executed. Therefore, the Respondent accepted the Official Record by not responding to the Federal lawsuit filed June 20th, 2011.”

On August 29th, 2011 after waiting the required 60 day time period for a response from the defendant, William Spencer Connerat III filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Barack Hussein Obama II in Civil Action No. 8:11-CV-1359-T-23TGW.

Connerat Obama Service Rendered

The Motion carries:

“Comes now Petitioner William Spencer Connerat III with his Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More than sixty days have passed since Respondent was properly served the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which was filed June 20th, 2011, in this honorable District Court. There is no dispute regarding the facts in this case, including the acceptance by both Petitioner and respondent of the potency, validity, and veracity of the Official record filed in this case, and proffered as documentary evidence of the Tacit Admission of Ineligibility by Putative President of the united States of America, Barack Hussein Obama II, filed in Pinellas County Courthouse on march 18th, 2010. Therefore, Petitioner moves for Summary Judgment awarding $215 in damages to be paid by Respondent to Petitioner. Furthermore, Petitioner moves for Summary Judgment to cause the Writ of Mandamus to issue, effectively enjoining the Respondent from posing as President of the United States of America. The undisputed Official Record is proof under Law, that Respondent is, by his own admission, ineligible to hold such Office. Petitioner, a natural born Citizen, and Florida elector, is entitled to such bifurcated relief in equity and in Law. He defends the Constitution for the United States of America, and in accordance with his duty to do so, under Florida law, as stated in the petition. 

Two (2) copies of this Motion for Summary Judgment were mailed this date, August 29th, 2011, to Respondent via United States Postal Service, first-class postage-paid mail.  

I hereby Certify that all statements made in connection with the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and with this Motion for Summary Judgment are true. If there is any deception or falsehood herein contained, I am subject to punishment.  

Respectfully submitted,
William Spencer Connerat III, pro se”

Upon further review of the court’s local rules, an exception is cited for the filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment:

(g) Before filing any motion in a civil case, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or to involuntarily dismiss an action, the moving party shall confer with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion, and shall file with the motion a statement 

(1) Certifying that the moving counsel has conferred with opposing counsel and 

(2) Stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion. A certification to the effect that opposing counsel was unavailable for a conference before filing a motion is insufficient to satisfy the parties’ obligation to confer.

Connerat explains:

“Regarding the rules, Summary Judgment is EXCEPTED, as you quoted. I have no requirement to talk to Respondent's lawyer. Plus, courts are inclined go easier on litigants who are pro se.”

Is this an open and shut case? Defined as a case open to no doubts as to the legal principles to be applied and the necessary result. They say silence speaks louder than words and Obama has failed to respond with a defense in law or fact and therefore has waived any and all rights to present a defense on the merits at a later time. The plaintiff is seeking to persuade the court that Obama’s Tacit Admission of Ineligibility which now stands as an Official Record constitutes an undisputed material fact. Therefore, if the Judge will simply follow the law, the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; which is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should be granted. If that happens, this would be the tipping point where Obama’s house of cards will start to fall exponentially.

www.pixelpatriot.blogspot.com

Read more »