Coup d’etat – Phelps and Strunk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/212515572/CES-NOM-and-Aff-in-Support-of-2nd-NOM-to-Renew-and-Reargue-Service-w-Exhibits-and-Supplement-to-the-Complaint-29642-2008
The link above provides access to the complete court filing on ScribD. Below, is a 10 page excerpt from a case being heard on the 28th of March 2014.
The Coup d’etat provides the explicit details exposing the conspiracy by which control was taken over America by fraud and deception.
Coup d’etat
The link above provides access to the complete court filing on ScribD. Below, is a 10 page excerpt from a case being heard on the 28th of March 2014.
The Coup d’etat provides the explicit details exposing the conspiracy by which control was taken over America by fraud and deception.
Coup d’etat
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
One Response to Coup d’etat – Phelps and Strunk
Chris Strunk says:
BRIEFLY: The appearance before the Honorable David I. Schmidt was attended
by Mr. Van Allen, Mr. Pepper of the NYS AG, and the attorney from the NYC
Department of Law and me.
The Court was presented by the NYS AG with the prior December 4, 2008
decision and order dismissing the Article 78 Petition 29641-08, that set
“the Law of the Case” for the companion case with separate Summons and
Complaint Index No.: 29642-08.
The NYS AG argued that that order had dismissed the companion case too.
However, could not explain why the complaint was never dismissed by an
order of entry by the NYS AG and why for the next two years additional
interlocutory motions and an application for order to show cause also did
not result in the entry by the NYS AG to dismiss either.
The Court questioning of parties went to the Article 78 29641-08 Petition
to refresh his memory, being that I challenged whether or not by the State
constitution an elector that had been appoint to serve before the election
could be a state officer and also serve as a public officers too when both
positions receive pay, and that is expressly in violation of the State
Constitution and Public Officer law (POL).
The December 4, 2008 decision in effect stated that like a notary who may
be a state officer and public officer position for pay as an exception in
POL, that the Elector is a private citizen serving a federal purpose.
In effect of the decision did not need to be appealed as the decision
became the “law of the case” to proceed ahead using that determination to
seek remedy in 29642-08 complaint, and when I tried to amend the complaint
was held in March 14, 2011 that I had not properly served the Candidate
McCain and Obama; and
Therefore, according to Judge Schmidt on March 14, 2011, under the circumstance as it would be a fruitless effort since the statute of limitations for the 2008 election had passed, the Judge suggested I file a separate new case on the matter of breach of duty by State officers with fraud in fact regarding BHO and McCain not being NBC that became the
6500-11 case that was assigned by a perjured RJI by McCain’s attorney (request for judicial intervention) to assign a Judge to the new case, therein was affirmed not to have a related case, and thereby ended up assigned to Judge Schack a member of the “HIGH CULTURE” who with the DVD’s congressional military industrial complex’s defendants McCain, Brzezinski (whose son BHO appointed ambassador to Sweden), Peter G. Peterson, George Soros and others sought to make the case go away and have me sanctioned in the amount in excess of $177k — now with multiple orders taken on appeal
with briefs due May 5, 2014, and having now received the Order of 4 March 2014 by the four Judge Panel denial of provision “for civilian due process of law”.
The Order denying me provision “for civilian due process of law” sets the basis of law for a renewed argument for completion of service nunc pro tunc in 29642-08, and as a transaction sets the law of the case that administratively requires the Office of Court Administration to prove the eligibility of BHO to serve as the Commander-in-chief over the state court system during the ongoing National emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) that suspended all constitutions; and
Thereby Mr. Van Allen’s intervention denied on 11-22-11 is alive (requests the NYS BOE use “NBC” instead of “Born a Citizen” for POTUS candidates as well as challenge to the 2012 reapportionment controlled by martial process) with new transactions as constitutional questions of first impression as a supplement to the complaint rather than amendment in that completion of service has yet to happen.
The Court took the motions on submission seemingly on procedural questions without argument of any of the merits of the new transactions. The Appellate court has held that as long as new transactions are related and change the outcome of a past case in which the parties remain the same and even were it closed may be the basis to restore to calendar.
In summary
That as an administrative matter effecting Plaintiff, it has been confirmed by the Appellate Court with their 4 March 2014 order denying me “civilian due process of law” that Barack Hussein Obama II as Commander-in-chief, based upon the continuing national emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b), has direct executive authority over the provision for martial due process of law provided by the NYS Unified Court System and thereby is of a direct interest of this court to prove to Plaintiff that Mr. Obama is eligible accordingly; and among other relief may be easily done by ordering that any State records under State Court jurisdiction be produced to prove Mr. Obama’s eligibility or else be obligated to provide Plaintiff “civilian due process of law”, for
> without being NBC, all of Mr. Obama’s acts are void ab initio as the national emergency that by statute is required to be renewed bi-annually have expired.
That when Mr. Obama went to Columbia University, according to David Paterson’s associate, Percy Sutton Esq. now deceased, Mr. Obama received foreign student funding and that record now is in the repository with the New York State Department of Education; and as such the pressing matter of whether or not the Unified State Court system is to provide civilian or martial due process of law may be decided by this Court by its order to release the record of foreign student funding and make a declaratory judgment thereafter.
Plaintiff in REPLY based upon all the motions’ affidavits and exhibits in support of relief, denies for the foregoing reason that somehow that Van Allen offers _NO REASON TO REVISIT_ this Court’s denial; and were Mr. Pepper’s allegation true then he would not have included in this record Mr. David Lewis, Esq. and Daniel Chill Esq.,
as they were parties to Mr. Van Allen’s cases in Albany without STRUNK and as Mr. Van Allen has shown in Acting Justice Platkin’s decision and order that in fact his intervention herein is the only place he may seek relief and serve the interest of all the voters of the State of New York in the matter of instructions for any candidate running for president and in the matter of the use of the NYS Constitution Article III in redistricting from the 2010 Census that the New York State Court of Appeals use of the Article III provisions says is merely “academic”; and makes sense under the present provision of marital due process of law under the authority of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-chief, means that use of any municipal law or Constitutional provision whether at the state or federal level is advisory only as to the martial process accordingly – and thereby goes to Mr. Van Allen’s need for the OCA to provide proof of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, inter alia as easily suggested above.
That as Judicial Notice herein because of the gravity of the constitutional question of first impression before this Court, that were Mr. OBAMA declared unable to fulfill the duties of the Commander-in-chief with direct authority over the State Court system that
this has far ranging consequences to the presiding Justice of the State Supreme Court in this matter, as there is a duty to investigate and issue a declaratory judgment on the finding(s) as is associated with the following Judicial responsibility under the following Federal statutes accordingly, quote:
18 U.S. CODE § 2381 – TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. CODE § 2382 – MISPRISION OF TREASON
(Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].)
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or _TO THE GOVERNOR _or _TO SOME JUDGE_ or _JUSTICE OF A PARTICULAR STATE_, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (emphasis by Plaintiff)
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807[3]; Pub. L. 103–322[4], title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147[5].) Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 3,35
Stat. 1088[6]).Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the Alternative.Amendments 1994—Pub. L. 103–322[4]substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.
18 U.S. CODE § 2383 – REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Current through Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>
>
18 U.S. CODE § 2384 – SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
> contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
>
18 U.S. CODE § 2385 – ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
Current through Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
>
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
>
The decision should be within 10 days in my experience.
> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent
>
> “SURETY NO MORE” WEBSITE:
>
> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/
by Mr. Van Allen, Mr. Pepper of the NYS AG, and the attorney from the NYC
Department of Law and me.
The Court was presented by the NYS AG with the prior December 4, 2008
decision and order dismissing the Article 78 Petition 29641-08, that set
“the Law of the Case” for the companion case with separate Summons and
Complaint Index No.: 29642-08.
The NYS AG argued that that order had dismissed the companion case too.
However, could not explain why the complaint was never dismissed by an
order of entry by the NYS AG and why for the next two years additional
interlocutory motions and an application for order to show cause also did
not result in the entry by the NYS AG to dismiss either.
The Court questioning of parties went to the Article 78 29641-08 Petition
to refresh his memory, being that I challenged whether or not by the State
constitution an elector that had been appoint to serve before the election
could be a state officer and also serve as a public officers too when both
positions receive pay, and that is expressly in violation of the State
Constitution and Public Officer law (POL).
The December 4, 2008 decision in effect stated that like a notary who may
be a state officer and public officer position for pay as an exception in
POL, that the Elector is a private citizen serving a federal purpose.
In effect of the decision did not need to be appealed as the decision
became the “law of the case” to proceed ahead using that determination to
seek remedy in 29642-08 complaint, and when I tried to amend the complaint
was held in March 14, 2011 that I had not properly served the Candidate
McCain and Obama; and
Therefore, according to Judge Schmidt on March 14, 2011, under the circumstance as it would be a fruitless effort since the statute of limitations for the 2008 election had passed, the Judge suggested I file a separate new case on the matter of breach of duty by State officers with fraud in fact regarding BHO and McCain not being NBC that became the
6500-11 case that was assigned by a perjured RJI by McCain’s attorney (request for judicial intervention) to assign a Judge to the new case, therein was affirmed not to have a related case, and thereby ended up assigned to Judge Schack a member of the “HIGH CULTURE” who with the DVD’s congressional military industrial complex’s defendants McCain, Brzezinski (whose son BHO appointed ambassador to Sweden), Peter G. Peterson, George Soros and others sought to make the case go away and have me sanctioned in the amount in excess of $177k — now with multiple orders taken on appeal
with briefs due May 5, 2014, and having now received the Order of 4 March 2014 by the four Judge Panel denial of provision “for civilian due process of law”.
The Order denying me provision “for civilian due process of law” sets the basis of law for a renewed argument for completion of service nunc pro tunc in 29642-08, and as a transaction sets the law of the case that administratively requires the Office of Court Administration to prove the eligibility of BHO to serve as the Commander-in-chief over the state court system during the ongoing National emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b) that suspended all constitutions; and
Thereby Mr. Van Allen’s intervention denied on 11-22-11 is alive (requests the NYS BOE use “NBC” instead of “Born a Citizen” for POTUS candidates as well as challenge to the 2012 reapportionment controlled by martial process) with new transactions as constitutional questions of first impression as a supplement to the complaint rather than amendment in that completion of service has yet to happen.
The Court took the motions on submission seemingly on procedural questions without argument of any of the merits of the new transactions. The Appellate court has held that as long as new transactions are related and change the outcome of a past case in which the parties remain the same and even were it closed may be the basis to restore to calendar.
In summary
That as an administrative matter effecting Plaintiff, it has been confirmed by the Appellate Court with their 4 March 2014 order denying me “civilian due process of law” that Barack Hussein Obama II as Commander-in-chief, based upon the continuing national emergency under 12 USC 95 and 50 USC App. 5(b), has direct executive authority over the provision for martial due process of law provided by the NYS Unified Court System and thereby is of a direct interest of this court to prove to Plaintiff that Mr. Obama is eligible accordingly; and among other relief may be easily done by ordering that any State records under State Court jurisdiction be produced to prove Mr. Obama’s eligibility or else be obligated to provide Plaintiff “civilian due process of law”, for
> without being NBC, all of Mr. Obama’s acts are void ab initio as the national emergency that by statute is required to be renewed bi-annually have expired.
That when Mr. Obama went to Columbia University, according to David Paterson’s associate, Percy Sutton Esq. now deceased, Mr. Obama received foreign student funding and that record now is in the repository with the New York State Department of Education; and as such the pressing matter of whether or not the Unified State Court system is to provide civilian or martial due process of law may be decided by this Court by its order to release the record of foreign student funding and make a declaratory judgment thereafter.
Plaintiff in REPLY based upon all the motions’ affidavits and exhibits in support of relief, denies for the foregoing reason that somehow that Van Allen offers _NO REASON TO REVISIT_ this Court’s denial; and were Mr. Pepper’s allegation true then he would not have included in this record Mr. David Lewis, Esq. and Daniel Chill Esq.,
as they were parties to Mr. Van Allen’s cases in Albany without STRUNK and as Mr. Van Allen has shown in Acting Justice Platkin’s decision and order that in fact his intervention herein is the only place he may seek relief and serve the interest of all the voters of the State of New York in the matter of instructions for any candidate running for president and in the matter of the use of the NYS Constitution Article III in redistricting from the 2010 Census that the New York State Court of Appeals use of the Article III provisions says is merely “academic”; and makes sense under the present provision of marital due process of law under the authority of Mr. Obama as Commander-in-chief, means that use of any municipal law or Constitutional provision whether at the state or federal level is advisory only as to the martial process accordingly – and thereby goes to Mr. Van Allen’s need for the OCA to provide proof of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, inter alia as easily suggested above.
That as Judicial Notice herein because of the gravity of the constitutional question of first impression before this Court, that were Mr. OBAMA declared unable to fulfill the duties of the Commander-in-chief with direct authority over the State Court system that
this has far ranging consequences to the presiding Justice of the State Supreme Court in this matter, as there is a duty to investigate and issue a declaratory judgment on the finding(s) as is associated with the following Judicial responsibility under the following Federal statutes accordingly, quote:
18 U.S. CODE § 2381 – TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. CODE § 2382 – MISPRISION OF TREASON
(Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].)
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or _TO THE GOVERNOR _or _TO SOME JUDGE_ or _JUSTICE OF A PARTICULAR STATE_, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both. (emphasis by Plaintiff)
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807[3]; Pub. L. 103–322[4], title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147[5].) Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 3 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 3,35
Stat. 1088[6]).Mandatory punishment provision was rephrased in the Alternative.Amendments 1994—Pub. L. 103–322[4]substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.
18 U.S. CODE § 2383 – REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
Current through Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>
>
18 U.S. CODE § 2384 – SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
> contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
>
18 U.S. CODE § 2385 – ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT
Current through Pub. L. 113-86[1], except 113-79[2].
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
>
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
>
The decision should be within 10 days in my experience.
> Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris agent
>
> “SURETY NO MORE” WEBSITE:
>
> http://associationforsovereignhomerulewithin.org/
