Christopher Strunk - Writ of Prohibition With Q.W. -SCOTUS

"Christopher Strunk Files Writ of Prohibition With Quo Warranto in the Supreme Court of the United States; Goes After Sotomayor, Kagan Et Al.

IN RE CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK IN ESSE PETITIONER WITH SCOTUS RULE 20 FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION WITH QUO WARRANTO INQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS Jr., DE FACTO JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, DE FACTO JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, DE FACTO SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NEAL KATYAL AND DE FACTO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ERIC HOLDER, IN THE ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY RECUSAL FROM HEARING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN SCOTUS NO. 10-1170, AND OR THAT EACH IS CHALLENGED IN QUO WARRANTO TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO SERVE BY THE VOID AB INITIO ACTS OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II RATHER THAN JOSEPH R. BIDEN WHO MUST SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE.

A Writ of Prohibition with Quo warranto inquest of Chief Justice John Roberts, de facto Justice Elena Kagan, de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor, de facto Solicitor General of the United States Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder, and de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the absence of voluntary recusal from hearing the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in SCOTUS No. 10-1170.

1. Does Chief Justice John G. Roberts have a conflict of interest and not hear SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why he is not a material witness to the scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?

2. Does de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor have a conflict of interest must not hear SCOTUS 10-1170, must show cause why he is not a material witness to the scheme to defraud by BHO et al. filed in New York State Supreme Court in Strunk v. NYS BOE et al. in the County of Kings Index No. 6500-2011?

3. Were Barack Hussein Obama II (BHO) acts Void ab initio because BHO is ineligible for POTUS in conflict with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 as BHO’s birth where ever that may have been on August 4, 1961 is to natural father who is a British subject on a student visa married to Stanley Ann Obama?

4. Are de facto officers appointed by BHO to show cause why they may serve without a conflict of interest with Affirmant and SCOTUS No. 10-1170?

5. Must BHO in a Quo Warranto proceeding show cause why he has authority as POTUS rather than Joseph R. Biden Jr. under the 25th Amendment Section 4?

6. Should de facto Justice Sotomayor show cause why having heard seven cases while in the Second Circuit she should not recuse for hearing SCOTUS 10-1170?

7. Would legal malpractice issue as to Chief Justice Roberts, de facto Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Defacto Solicitor, Attorney General and U.S. Attorney would issue if any were to proceed as to the Writ of Certiorari SCOTUS No. 10-1170?

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

1. Affirmant is a petitioner for Writ of Certiorari signed March 9, 2011 by H. William Van Allen, John-Joseph Forjone, Christopher-Earl Strunk and presents this affidavit as a certificate of good faith within the intent and meaning of 28 USC 144 and 28 USC 455(a) 28 USC §1651 for the recusal of Chief Justice John Roberts, and de facto Justice Elena Kagan and de facto Justice Sonia Sotomayor as well as the de facto U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, de facto Attorney General Eric Holder de facto U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. from participation except as respondent parties-in-interest in an inquest hearing and or in the SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Certiorari No. 10-1170 as a matter of personal bias in an extra judicial forum of impropriety in a matter that may appear before each in the matter of the questionable eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to serve as POTUS and of Chief Justice Roberts aiding and abetting the usurpation of the POTUS office along with those similarly situated since January 20, 2009 as a material witness.

2. Respondent John Glover Roberts, Jr. is the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States (Chief Justice Roberts). He has served since 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

3. Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II (Respondent Obama) was the 2008 Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States (POTUS) without being eligible under U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as his natural father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British Subject with a student Visa at the birth August 4, 1961 by his minor aged U.S. Citizen mother Stanley Ann Obama, and as such according to the SCOTUS opinion in McCreery's Lessee v Somerville 22 US 354 (1824) that explains the difference between a Natural-born and Native-born U.S. Citizen as is to be applied with U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, Barack Hussein Obama and all the names he uses is not a Natural-born citizen and by his own allegation only a native born-citizen therefore is not eligible to POTUS.

4. That Respondent Chief Justice Roberts before administering the oath of office for POTUS on January 20, 2009, met with the Associate Justices of the SCOTUS, presumably to discuss the pending oath taken by a person ineligible for POTUS.

5. That Respondent Obama being ineligible illegally took the oath of office after Noon on January 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm, and failed to timely take the Oath of office as administered by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts.

6. The Oath mandated by the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8 (1) was botched in its delivery by Respondent Chief Justice Roberts who said the oath incorrectly, while Respondent Obama paused and gave Chief Justice Roberts an opportunity to correct it. The Chief Justice Roberts said it wrong a second time, in another way. Then Respondent Obama repeated the incorrect first version of the oath; and because the oath was incorrect, the next day, at 7:35 pm in every report Affirmant could find, Respondent Obama and Respondent Chief Judge Roberts repeated the oath in private on January 21, in the White House Map room.

You wrote: “no obie was a II its on his supposed COLB.”

Thanks, I am aware that the forged COLB has “II” but I think forger erred in that. I’ve googled “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr” and numerous got hits with that description. My understanding of lineage is that if you are named after your father, you are “Junior.” And if you are a “II or III,” etc, you are named after a grandfather or uncle?

Would any lawyers have any input?

On another note: I found the White House Web Site when I googled “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.” There’s NO “Junior” or “II” after his name but it does mention that his father was from Kenya! They fully admit that his father was a foreigner!

The following is from the web site:

“With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. He was raised with help from his grandfather, who served in Patton’s army, and his grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management at a bank.”

“They used the Koran from the Library of Congress...

Belonged to Benjamin Franklin

Last used by muzzie Elliot”

Keith Ellison was sworn in with Thomas Jeffersons Koran.

“no obie was a II its on his supposed COLB”

RS and rxsid: I think I found the answer to my question as to the “Junior” vs “II” thingy.

From Wikipedia: “The suffix II is used when the child has an identical name to a relative, but who is not the child’s father. The relative may be an uncle, cousin or grandfather. The suffix III is used after either Jr or II and like subsequent numeric suffixes, does not need to happen in one family line.”

I still think it curious that “II” is on the Forged COLB AND Strunk is using it for his filing.

Suspicious with regard to the COLB.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.