Pl] Decided on July 9, 2012 Supreme Court, Albany County H. William Van Allen, Petitioner, against New York State Board of Elections, Respondent. 1787-12 H. William Van Allen Self-Represented Petitioner Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Attomey for Respondent (Douglas J. Goglia, of counsel) The CapitolAlbany, New York 12224 Richard M. Platkin, J. This is a special proceeding brought by petitioner H. William Van Allen pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking a writ of mandamus, emergency injunetive relief and declaratory relief. Respondent New York State Board of Elections ("SBOE") moves to dismiss the petition and also secks the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions upon petitioner. ‘The United States Constitution provides that "[nJo person except a natural born Citizen - shall be eligible to the Office of President" (US Const, art II, § 1, clause $ ["Natural Born Citizen Clause")). Petitioner alleges that eligibility instructions on the SBOE internet web site erroneously advise that a candidate for the Office of President need only be "born a citizen" of the United States, rather than a "natural born Citizen’, as required by the text of the Constitution. In particular, petitioner objects to the "ballot access of [President] Obama as itis wrongfully facilitated by the [SBOE's] arbitrary use of the instruction Born a Citizen". Among other things, petitioner seeks an order: (a) enjoining the SBOE from using the term "Born a Citizen" with respect to the eligibility of presidential candidates; and (b) requiring each presidential [*"2Jeandidate on the 2012 general election ballot to establish that he or she is a "Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States in order to remain on the ballot. ‘The standing of a party to institute or maintain a judicial proceeding is a threshold issue that must be determined by the Court at the outset of litigation (see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6 [1975}). To establish standing to challenge an administrative action in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner must show that he would suffer an injury in fact "that is in some way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d 761, 773-774 [1991]). In other words, petitioner must show that he actually will suffer a concrete and particularized harm as a result of the challenged action (id.: New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]; Matt Hassig v New York State Dept, of Health, 5 AD3d 846 [3d Dept 2004]). In opposing respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner maintains that he brings this proceeding "to protectf] his personal intangible vote property in this 2012 election cycle" (Petitioner's Response in Opposition, § 23). However, the allegedly faulty instruction given by the SBOE regarding the Natural Bom Citizen Clause in no way denies petitioner his right to vote in the 2012 general election. Petitioner, who is not an enrolled member of the Democratic party, remains free to support and vote for a candidate of his choosing (see Berg v Obama, 586 F3d 234, 239-240 [3d Cir 2009; Hollander v MeCain, 566 F Supp2d 63, 69-70 [D NH 2008]; see also Crist v Comm'n on Presidential Debates, 262 F3d 193, 195 [2d Cir 2001). And it is clear that petitioner's interest in compelling the SBOE to adopt his interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen Clause and to use his preferred terminology in its publications is in no "way different from that of the public at large" (Society of Plastics, 77 NY2d at 773-774). As such, petitioner'sinterest is far too generalized and unparticularized to support standing under the facts and circumstances of this case (see Berg at 240 [collecting authorities). In view of petitioner's lack of standing to maintain the instant proceeding, there is no reason to consider respondent's additional contentions that this proceeding is barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon prior litigation undertaken by Christopher-Earl Strunk, an alleged privy of petitioner, and that the petition is non-justiciable insofar as the Electoral College is the sole and exclusive forum in which objections to the selection of a President may be determined. Finally, the branch of respondent's motion secking the imposition of monetary and non-monetary sanctions is denied. While respondent's counsel refers to "repetitive" and "numerous vexatious and harassing lawsuits" commenced by petitioner, nothing in the record confirms this assertion. And the mere fact that atrial court of coordinate jurisdiction rejected similar claims advanced by an alleged privy of petitioner does not render the instant petition frivolous within the meaning of Part 130 of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking dismissal of the petition is granted; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed in all respects; and finally it is ORDERED that the branch of respondent's motion seeking the imposition of monetary and non- monetary sanctions is denied. [*3] This Decision, Order & Judgment is being transmitted to the counsel for respondent and alll other papers are being transmitted to the Albany County Clerk for filing. The signing of this Decision, Order & Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing underCPLR § 2220. Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. Dated: Albany, New York July 9, 2012 RICHARD M. PLATKIN AJSC.Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department M196204 Usl 2014-10459 Christopher Earl Strunk, appellant, v David A. Paterson, et al., respondents, ORDER ON APPLICATION et al., defendants; H. William Van Allen, intervenor-appellant. (Index No. 29642/08) Application by the respondents Andrew Cuomo and David A. Paterson pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(4)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 27, 2014. Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the time of the respondents Andrew Cuomo and David A. Paterson to serve and file a brief is enlarged until August 31, 2015, and the brief of the respondents Andrew Cuomo and David A. Paterson must be served and filed on or before that date, ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the CourtFrom: Pixel Patri nove s/eatipraxy go0a\e eam Subjects Date: Today at 10:11 AM “To: "Bll Van Alle vanalien@hve ccm DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION FROM USURPATION Posted: 02 Mar 2016 01:35 PM PST DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION FROM USURPATION EXPOSE: LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR. “It would be rather embarrassing to go through this whole process, be elected President of the United State and then find you're ineligible, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF TECHNICAL AND LEGAL HURDLES FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Exclusive Report by Piel Patriot srano16 ‘Arecent investigation into the ofcial Congressional records fr Sen. Lowell P, Weicker, Jr [1] who was born May 16, 1931 in Paiis, France to American cttzen parents; reveals that bith to American parents alone were not sufficient for Weicker to comply ‘with the eligiity requirements in Article 2 ofthe Constitution; consequently, impeding his Presidential aspirations. Wh current ‘hallonges to both Sen. Ted Cruz bor in Calgary, Alberta, Canada [2 [3] and Sen. Marco Rubio whose parente were not ‘American citizens atthe time of his bith [] [6], the historical relevance to San, Weicker’s aspirations forthe Otfce ofthe US. Presidency are profound ‘A chronological timeline compiled from the leters between Sen, Weicker and his constituents detaing his intrest n running for the Presidency brings to light starting sequence of events. Wicker had declared his readiness to “legally” run fo the Presidency as early as May of 1978, yet repeatedly concaded that his run forthe Presidency was condiional. And the conditions Weren't ust limited to whether he coud raise enough money or support, Weicker's communications reves there were technical and legal hurdles that must be overcome for him tobe eligible, Itis May 2nd, 1878 and Sen. Weicker dectares in Congressional correspondence " have cleared the decks legally in the event I do decide to go for.” His assertion writen inthe past tense would indicate Weicker believed at that time he was legally @fgble to run forthe Office of the Presidency. Then on June 13th he refers ois efforts inthe present tense “Right nom, Im simply concentrating on taking the technical and legal steps to be ready to go.” Sen. Lowall P. Weicker. Jr Ens Congressional Correspondence, June 12, 1978 ‘So id something oocur between May 2nd and June 13th causing Sen, Weicker to assess whether he had as of yet met the equirements? The tone of his correspondence markedly changed, and a8 we shal see; his uncertainty is professed publicly ataisis point in American historyof7 [Also among the archives comprising the ‘Papers of Lowell Weicker, Jc in the Special Collections atthe University of Virginia include press clippings from the Presidential campaign of 1980. These news reports inthe context of the times they were writen shed light onthe challenges Weicker faced, When cumulatively compared withthe subversive tactics of today's media and complete absence of vetting for prospective Presidental candidates; tis clear the Republic of the United States of America 2s it stands is ln a Constitutional crisis of epic proportionconnrenicur mes NEWS CLIPPING SERVICE ow ever, "Paone MA C308 Hartford Courant In this news repor, Weicker makes an extremely astounding observation: voi be raley embarrapeing fo go Prous his whole process, be elected President of the United States and then find you're ineligible ‘On the ether hand, itis ineredulous to believe Weicker having graduated from the University of Viginia Law Schoo, founded by ‘Thomas Jeflerson; would need his staff to researc his efigbilly. The folowing letter written by Thomas Jeferson on August 30, 1814 from Monticelio lays out his recommended course fr legal stay. [6] The manuscript in Jeffersons own hand wring, Includes Vattts treatise “The Law of Nations" inthe original French translation). Jefferson doesnt just gloss over Natural Law either, That would be studied every morning before Sam! Therefore, i would be impossibe for Weicker io graduate with a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law and not know what a "Natural Bom Citizen is. Thomas Jefferson Manuscript — Recommended Course of Law, p. 835 August 30, 1871 ‘Next from the Weicker archives isa news repot by Knight Kiplinger which is egregiously inaccurate and an epic fain ragards to the ideals of professional jouralism which avow to seek truth and repor it so as to accurately inform the public (7)“Weicker adily admits he doesn't know for sure whether he is technically qulifed, according tothe Conetituton, to be Preeident” Kiplinger claims Congress and the courts have never eally defined the phrase ‘Natural Born Ciizen® which someone must be to become President, In the defense of uth, here are four historical references he filed to mention: 1. Emer de Vattel, the Swiss philosopher, diplomat and jurist rom his preeminent masterpiece The Law of Nations o the Principles cof Netual Law Applic to the Conduct anc tothe Aare of Nations and of Sovereigns (1758) Book 1, ChaptorXiX § 212. Citizens and natives. "The ctzens are the members of he civ society; und to this society by certain duties, and subject ois authority, they equally partsipate i its advantages, The natives, oF stv'a-born crizens, ave those bor Whe souny of parents who ate azene, AB the society cannot exit and perpetuate tel otherwise than by the children ofthe etzens, those chiiren natura follow the ‘condition of their fathers, and succeed to al their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what i owes to ts own preservation; and tis presumed, as mattor of course, that each altzen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members oft. The county ofthe fathers is therefore that ofthe children: and these become tue eizene ‘merely by thet tacit consant. We shall soon see whether, on thelr caming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their "ight and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in rar tobe ofthe county itis necessary that a Berson be bom of. father who isa ctzen; for, i he is born there ofa foreigner, willbe only the place of his bith, and not his county” [6] 2. In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, the principal ramer of the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe U.S. Consliution stated on the House floor: Every human being born within he jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing ategiance to any foreign sovereignty 1 the language of your Constuton ist a naire! bon ctzen” (Cong. Globe, 3th, tst Sees, 1291 (1866) [9] [10] 3. The U.S. Supreme Courtin Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) defined "Natural Born Citizen” as chliren born of two parents who are United States citzens “The Consitition dows not, in words, say who shall be natura-bornclizens, Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At ‘common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familar, twas never doubled that all o> bith ctzene a bom in a county of parents who were as cfizens became themselves, upon These wore nates, or ‘uluyebor oteens, as distinguished trom alles or foreigners.” [11] 4. In 1917 the World Wer | Selective Service Draft Registration Card [12] doen beiwesr « “neural xn Ciizen’ 9 naturales ‘ten enter ellen, This was aller both the adoption ofthe Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Wong Kim Ark case was.decided by the U.S. Supreme Cour in 1898, The Selective Service Act of 1917 was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Selective Dra Law Cases in which the Soictor General's argument, and the high courts unanimous opinion witen by hie! tie White cing Vatte's “The Law of Nations" (1758). ‘As the report continues, Kilinger says there are conflicting laws and court decisions; however, the only conflicting law that really matters is ticle 2 ofthe Constitution which trumps any statute and implicily requis a “Natural Born Citizen” forthe Office ofthe Presidency. Guidance for interpreting the Constitution is provided by Thomas Jefferson ina letter to William Johnson, Associate Justice tothe US. Supreme Court on June 12, 1823: “On every question of construction [ofthe Constitution], lt us carry ourselves back othe tne when the Constitution was. ‘adopted, recollect the spirit manifested inthe debates, and instead of tying what meaning may be squeezed out ofthe text, or ievented agains i, conform tothe probable one in which it was passed." [13] Kiplinger also pus forth another legal falsehood for a provision inthe Naturalization Act of 1790: the children ofctizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out ofthe limits ofthe United Stats, shall be considered as naturel born Ciizens “The claim here being, hat because the statute was unchallongod; therefore clears the deck for someone with dual-allegiance to bbe President. He ots the historian Edwin S, Corwin, yet als to include the exact source for Corwin Gaim wih historical facts to ‘support “The tuts, the Third Congress as assembed in Pennsylvania in 1795 included George Washington and other Founding Fathers ‘who knew precisely what a “Natural Bom Citizen’ was as defined in the Law of Nations. And when they convened on January 23th they passed the Naturazation Act of 1795 explicitly removing with surgical precision the language of the Naturalization ACT of 11790 containing the provision “shal be considered as natural born citizens" and replacing iin the 1795 statue with “shall be coneidared as ctizens of the United States." [14] _ ACT 204) lib an ieniforen ral of Warevaliaation and to be aft heretofore paffed on that fubjeél. Naturalization Act of 1795 TES Third U.S. Congress, Session II January 29th, 1795 ‘The ene tet of 1790 a8 repealed fom US. Cove Rony took Congress 5 years, or 1 election cycle to realize the need to clay the delineation between a “tizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen” in order to retain the exclusive clas of ctizen required by ‘Avice 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constituton tobe Prasident. Congress is empowered to enact leisation forthe purpose of ‘establiching uniform rule of naturalization pursuant to Aticle |, Section 8, Cause 4 ofthe Constitution enumerating Congressional authority. However, Avice 2 of the Constitution is shielded by Article § preventing Congress from altering the requirements ofthe Office ofthe President by a statute alone. Only an Amendment to the Constitution raed by three fourths of the states can do so, ‘The following year in 1786, George Washington delivered his farewell address io Congress [16] in Philadelphia inthe very same place the Naturalizaton Act of 1785 was adopted with @ warning “itn the opinion ofthe People the distribution or medication of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, lett be corrected by an amencinent in the way which the Constitution designates, But lt there be no change by usurpation; fr though this, in one instance, may be te instrument of good, itis the customary weapon by which ree governments are destroyed. The precedent must avays greatly overbalance in permanent evi any paral or transient benefit which the use can at anytime yk!” itis ebundenty clear rom the historical evidence that the Founders and Framers never intended for the Consittion to evolve‘apart from the Amendment process. Ifthe errors in Kiplinger's report weren't bad enough, he then advocates subverting the rule of law and the Constitutional ‘Amendment process in favor of a loosely interpreted evolving Constitution. Such contemptible intent by a reporter and any news ‘organization that publishes or broadcasts It must be repudiated. ‘When Ted Giz in the same breath says that he is @ Constitutional atomey and also reles onthe Naturalization Act of 1790 to rive ctzenship rights which would make him a "Natural Bom Citizen’, he is being decoitfl so as to mislead the American public from the truth about his Consttutionalinelgibity, History is replete with accounts of corrupt usurpation and our Republic has not been spared such violations. Chester Arthur wes & {dual ctizen and Bich eubject at bith becauee his father was nota cilzen atthe Ume of his bith, circumstances similar to those of ‘Sen, Marco Rubia, Athurwae 14 year old when his dad was naturalized and reportedly led to conceal his Constitutional inelgbilty. [16] [17] The Barack Obama saga is stil unfolding. [18] Arile 2 of the Conetittion has 3 elgblty requirements for the Offce of President and Vice-President of he United Staes including age, residency and that one must be a "Natural Born CCtizen". This was the Founders way of ensuring sole alleglance to tho Republic and providing a strong check against foreign entanglements and infuence. Having ust fought a bloody war for their independence from the tyrannies of the King of England, they codified this single class of citizen forthe President who would not only be eworn to uphold, support and defend the Constitution as its Chief Executive, but simultaneously lead the nation's Armed Forces as Commander-in-Cief “The Constitution isthe law ofthe land, and though there have been soveral attempts in recent years to change the requirements for the Presidency, no sting Congress has succeeded in geting the requisite votes to pass cuch an Amendment Because tho Founders recognized they could not foresee every controversy subsequent generations would encounter, they wisely estabished the Amendment process so the Republic could legally modiy a law through is representatives and thereby evolve or adapt as society soe ft Defending truth, faithfully upholding the original intent ofthe Constitution and demanding enforcement ofthe Rule of Law without prejudice are all honorable goals, however these Keals are impossible to transcend beyond hope today without a egaly binding vetting apparatus.1-https//bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index-wo00253 2. https//pittsburgh.chslocal.com/2016/02/24/pa-attorney-challenging-ted-eruzs-right-to-run-in-states- republican-primary/3. htps//www.birtherreport.com/2016/02/hearing set-canadian-born-eruz-flooded. tml 4 hutpi//pixelpatriot blogspot.com/2011/08/Its-offiial-mareo-rubio-is-not-naturalchtm! ‘5: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/336288/ ‘6. hitpst//www.seribd.com/word/document_edit/301153797 7-htps/ www spiong/ethieseode-asp 8. httpst//www.loc.gov/r/fra/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/paf/DeVattel_LawotNations.paf {9 httpst//memory-loc.gow cgi-bin ampage?collld=leg&fileName=071/llego7tdbgerecNum=332 10, httpsi// www. scribd.com /doe/300957512/Congressional-Globe-1866 11. https://wow-lave-comnelledu/supremecourt/text/88/16= 12, https//www.scribd.com doe/82780639/World-War-T-Selective-Service-System-Draft-Registration-Cards- 1918 19, ttps//www-loe.gov/resource/mt}i.053_0998_1005/2sp=7 14, httpi//hdlloc.gov/loc.rbe/rbpe.22200200 pp. 166-167 15. hitps://www:loc.gov/er/fed/Military_Law/Lieber_Collecton/pdf/Inquiry-into-Formation.paf 16. https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breskthrough-proof-chester~ axthur-comcealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/ 17. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-gq-presidents.htinl 18. htp://www-birtherreport.com/2014/14/full-video-hd-video-presentation-of. html Defender of the Truth © Piel Patriot 2016 (Allrights reserved.)‘ou ae subecrbodo oma update rm Pel Pati. mat every power by Google To stp ecsvng hee eras you may insiders now, Goon ne. 1600 Amohtheste Paray, Moanin Vow, CASA043, Unto States