This petition was filed at the Supreme Court by Patriot Christopher Strunk. Your job is to push this document all over the world and make this the most-watched court proceeding in American history. Its’ bascially We the People vs the Supreme Court!
All eyes on Kavanaugh. Will he protect the SES or not?
And what about Justice Roberts who had clear conflicts of interest when he ruled in the Leader v Facebook case? Will he rule in the favor of America or his personal financial interests, his adopted children, and globalist handlers?
Get the popcorn. Things are going to get very interesting now and the American Intelligence Media audience knows the players, the motives, and the connections.
….and think about the members of the Supreme Court. How many of them will have HUGE conflicts of interest in ruling on this case?
In case any of you folks want to keep an eye on things. Here is who accepted delivery
Special note to AIM readers:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
In re: Christopher Earl Strunk, Petitioner. __________________________________________________________________
PETITION WITH 28 USC §1651 FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTIVE EQUITY RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE(S) ISSUED BY THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR AN ORDER:
A. TO PRESERVE, UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE BY THIS COURT, ALL PAPER BALLOTS CAST ON 6 NOVEMBER 2018 BY U.S. CITIZEN VOTERS AT THE NATIONAL MID-TERM GENERAL ELECTION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES; AND
B. TO CONVENE A TITLE 10 §935. ART. 135. COURT OF INQUIRY INTO FOREIGN MEDDLING DURING THE 6 NOVEMBER 2018 ELECTION CYCLE; AND
C. TO ISSUE A REPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN; AND FOR
D. SUCH OTHER AND DIFFERENT RELIEF DEEMED NECESSARY. __________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RELIEF SOUGHT …………………………………………………………………………………..10
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………………….12
ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………………………………………28
STRUNK PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT ……………………………….31
VAN ALLEN PETITION VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT………………………….32
PETITION COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ………………………………………………33
APPENDIX FOR THE PETITION WITH 28 USC §1651 FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTIVE EQUITY RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANDATE(S) ISSUED BY THE COMMANDERIN-CHIEF, DONALD JOHN TRUMP
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE That the honorable judges of this Court: Scott W. Stucky (Chief Judge.); Margaret A. Ryan; Kevin A. Ohlson; John E. Sparks; Gregory E. Maggs; are petitioned by Accusers defined by 10 USC 801-9 (1) for offenses against nationals of the United States outside the jurisdiction of any nation defined by 18 USC §7 -7 as if for special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States using Court Rule 67(c) as to Civil Affairs (2) under the 12 USC §95(a) amended 50 USC App. §5(b) ongoing emergency (3) with the Military Government (4) U.S. Army duties in the Community under the Honorable Donald J. Trump POTUS / Commander-in-Chief (CINC), as was defined by the clarity of the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 41-10-1962 now amended into Civil Affairs Operations
1 10 USC §801 Definitions (9) The term “accuser” means a person who signs and swears to charges, any person who directs that charges nominally be signed and sworn to by another, and any other person who has an interest other than an official interest in the prosecution of the accused.
2 FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions a. Civil Affairs. Those phases of the activities of a commander which embrace the relationship between the military forces and the civil authorities and people in a friendly (including US home territory) or occupied area where military forces are present. In an occupied country or area this may include the exercise of executive, legislative, and judicial authority by the occupying power.
3 FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions d. Civil Emergency. Emergencies affecting public welfare as a result of enemy attack, insurrection, civil disturbance, earthquake, fire, flood, or other public disasters or equivalent emergencies which endanger life and property or disrupt the usual process of government. (Emphasis by Petitioners)
4 FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 2 Definitions- g. Military Government. Form of administration by which an occupying power exercises executive, legislative, and judicial authority over occupied territory.
FM 3-57 dated 31 October 2011 applies with Chapter 4 Section 52 as to the civilian event of the early voting ongoing mid-term “elections” with the deadline of November 6. 2018 that affect military operations (5) CINC warned of with the 12 September 2018 Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (see APX 001 thru APX 008);and
Further accordingly, as now applies with Civil Affairs Operations FM 3-57 is changed in keeping with the Hague and Geneva Conventions with related law, as FM 41-10-1962 was used prior to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, with entry into force on 23 March 1976 in accordance withnArticle 49 that does not apply within the United States per se; and Further, ICCPR was adopted, with reservations by Canada in 1982 concurrent with its Constitution, without recourse in the United States in 1992, and in the Russian Federation with its Constitution in 1992 without reservations; and
5 US Army FM 3-51 Chapter 4-52. Just as there are different categories of civilians, there are different categories of civilian events that may affect military operations. Some examples are planting and harvest seasons, elections, riots, and evacuations (both voluntary and involuntary). Likewise, there are military events that affect the lives of civilians in an AO. Some examples are combat operations, including indirect fires, deployments, and redeployments. CAO/CMO planners determine what events are occurring, and analyze the events for their political, economic, psychological, environmental, and legal implications.
Further, without even ICCPR protection posed on paper for U.S. Citizen voters in this ongoing Mid-term 2018 election cycle – ICCPR does not apply herein; and furthermore, in the absence of any expectation of due process of law relief in any State and or Federal court to afford all voters national equal protection of the law plus being subject to the complete and utter absence of a so-called Justice Department (DOJ) with Attorney General Jeff Sessions (the Mr. Magoo of our time) who is absent without leave; and DOJ operates a vast criminal enterprise run by the 500 Senior Executive Service (SES) (6) member DOJ central committee (see APX 009 thru APX 036) under the FISA warrant ‘Robo-Signer’
6 The Senior Executive Service (SES) is a position classification in the civil service of the United States federal government, equivalent to general officer or flag officer ranks in the U.S. Armed Forces; created in 1979 when the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 went into effect under President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stansfield Turner. According to the Office of Personnel Management, the SES was designed to be a corps of executives, who may not be U.S. Citizens or even qualify under a rigorous security background check, selected for their leadership qualifications, serving in key positions just below the top Presidential appointees as a link between them and the rest of the Federal (civil service) workforce. SES positions are considered to be above the GS-15 level of the General Schedule, and below Level III of the Executive Schedule. Career members of the SES ranks are eligible for the Presidential Rank Awards program. Up to 10% of SES positions can be filled as political appointments rather than by career employees. About half of the SES is designated “Career Reserved”, which can only be filled by career employees. The other half is designated “General”, which can be filled by either career employees or political appointments as desired by the administration. Due to the 10% limitation, most General positions are still filled by career appointees. Senior level employees of several agencies are exempt from the SES but have their own senior executive positions; these include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Government Accountability Office, Members of the Foreign Service, and government corporations. Unlike the General Schedule (GS) grades, SES pay is determined at agency discretion within certain parameters, and there is no locality pay adjustment. The minimum pay level for the SES is set at 120 percent of the basic pay for GS-15 Step 1 employees ($126,148 for 2018).
Rod Jay Rosenstein who affords silence for Christopher Wray, Gina Haspel, and General Paul M. Nakasone, USA (who assumed NSA command from Admiral Mike Rogers, USN) for the fifth Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Daniel Coats who was sworn in on March 16, 2017 (who seems pre-occupied to hide under the National Security rubric the $21 trillion of off balance sheet debt for a total $52 Trillion of indebtedness under the 85 year bankruptcy), all ignore AAG Rosenstein with his henchmen of the Chinese / Globalist intelligence community that includes Senator Diane Feinstein and other Congress persons whose staffers such as the Pakistani Awan Brothers are of the 10000 plus members of the constitutionally questionable fourth branch of government listed in the Plum Book, the Senior Executive Service and post employment SES Association who serve quid pro quo for SERCO INC. (see APX 037 thru APX 079), and in effect warned of in Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration’s Policy Toward China issued on October 4, 2018 at the The Hudson Institute of Washington, D.C. (see APX 080 thru APX 092), stated quote:
VP Pence: The Chinese Communist Party is rewarding or coercing American businesses, movie studios, universities, think tanks, scholars, journalists, and local, state, and federal officials.
And worst of all, China has initiated an unprecedented effort to influence American public opinion, the 2018 elections, and the environment leading into the 2020 presidential elections. To put it bluntly, President Trump’s leadership is working; and China wants a different American President.
There can be no doubt: China is meddling in America’s democracy. As President Trump said just last week, we have, in his words, “found that China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming [midterm] election[s].” Our intelligence community says that “China is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy. It’s using wedge issues, like trade tariffs, to advance Beijing’s political influence.”
And as such with this said, Petitioners seek available remedy, afford fair notice only in this remaining true Article 1 court to obtain a Writ of Mandamus, and based upon our nearly forty years experience in the State and Federal judicial system along with SCOTUS, all appear to remain politically and ideological compromised.
Petitioners seek relief with 28 USC §1651 for a writ of mandamus with injunctive equity relief pursuant to the national emergency mandate(s) issued by the Commander-In-Chief, Donald John Trump for an order:
- To preserve, until further notice by this court, all paper ballots cast on 6 November 2018 by U.S. Citizen voters at the national mid-term general election in the State of New York and the several states and territories; and To convene a Title 10 §935. Art. 135. court of inquiry (7) into foreign meddling during the 6 November 2018 election cycle; and
7 Title 10 §935. Art. 135. Courts of inquiry
To issue a report for the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen; and for Such other and different relief deemed necessary.
- Petitioner Christopher Earl Strunk in esse Sui juris (Strunk), in propria
(a) Courts of inquiry to investigate any matter may be convened by any person authorized to convene a general court-martial or by any other person designated by the Secretary concerned for that purpose, whether or not the persons involved have requested such an inquiry. (b) A court of inquiry consists of three or more commissioned officers. For each court of inquiry the convening authority shall also appoint counsel for the court. (c) Any person subject to this chapter whose conduct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as a party. Any person subject to this chapter or employed by the Department of Defense who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry has the right to be designated as a party upon request to the court. Any person designated as a party shall be given due notice and has the right to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence. (d) Members of a court of inquiry may be challenged by a party, but only for cause stated to the court. (e) The members, counsel, the reporter, and interpreters of courts of inquiry shall take an oath to faithfully perform their duties. (f) Witnesses may be summoned to appear and testify and be examined before courts of inquiry, as provided for courts-martial. (g) Courts of inquiry shall make findings of fact but may not express opinions or make recommendations unless required to do so by the convening authority. (h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings, which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority. If the record cannot be authenticated by the president, it shall be signed by a member in lieu of the president. If the record cannot be authenticated by the counsel for the court, it shall be signed by a member in lieu of the counsel. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 76.) In subsection (a), the words “Secretary concerned” are substituted for the words “Secretary of a Department”. In subsection (b), the word “commissioned” is inserted for clarity. The word “consists” is substituted for the words “shall consist”. In subsection (c), the word “has” is substituted for the words “shall have”. In subsection (e), the words “or affirmation” are omitted as covered by the definition of the word “oath” in section 1 of title 1. In subsection (g), the word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”. In subsection (h), the word “If” is substituted for the words “In case”.
persona, with place for service at 141 Harris Avenue Lake Luzerne, New York Zip Code 12846 Ph: 518-416-8743; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (hereinafter “Petitioner” among the “Petitioners”);
- Strunk is a Vietnam Era Veteran having served honorably in the United States Air Force with rank of E-5 from December 7, 1966 thru December 6, 1972.
- Strunk has a Public U.S. Citizen registration to vote in Warren County at New York’s Federal Mid-term General Election scheduled for 6 November 2018, and Strunk cast a vote by mail on 22 October 2018 (see APX 093 thru APX 097);
STATEMENT OF FACTS
- That Petitioner is aware of what General and then CINC Dwight D. Eisenhower meant as he left Office on Jan. 17, 1961, warned the world about danger for tyranny arising from the Congressional Military-Industrial Complex.(8)
8 Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961. Quote: “My fellow Americans: Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together. II. We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. III. Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad. Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology — global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle — with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only. IV. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. V. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. VI. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII. So — in this my last good night to you as your President — I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
- Petitioners have been involved in dozens of State (see APX 100) and Federal election / suffrage rights related cases ourselves and by our associates for the sake of brevity some of which are listed without a description:
- In Re: Schulz etal v. The State of New York etal. NDNY 95cv133 (CGC) with Dr. Walker F. Todd Ph.D. Esq. as counsel for Plaintiffs;
- In Re: STRUNK v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS et al (1:09-cv-01295) (NG)
- In Re: Strunk v. US Dept of Housing Urban Development etal. EDNY 99cv6480 (NG)
- In Re: Loeber etal v. Spargo etal. NDNY 04cv1193 (LEK)
- In Re: Forjone etal v California etal. WDNY 06cv0080 / NDNY 06cv01002
- In Re: USA v NYS Board of Elections etal. NDNY 04cv0263 (GLS)
- In Re: Schulz etal. v State of New York etal. NDNY 07cv00943 (LEK) file a very large set of multidistrict cases one in each State of the several states with a separate Plaintiff in each State, therein challenging the
You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals. To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: Source: Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040 See https://youtu.be/orEurY6HdXU and text at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_centuryeisenhower001.
unconstitutional use of electronic voting rather than paper ballots with a chain of custody for counting and tally and for which the corrupt civil courts buried the cases and terrorized Robert Schulz for the past 6 years;
- In Re: STRUNK V. C.I.A. EDNY Civil Action No. 08cv01196 (ARR)
- In Re: Jah Thomas, Basil Guilavigui and Christopher Earl Strunk v the Federal Reserve Bank of New York etal. DNY2007cv01171 (ARR)
- In Re: Strunk v NYS Board of Elections etal. NYS Kings Cty Sup. 6500-11
- In Re: Strunk v. DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL)
- In Re: STRUNK v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS et al (1:09-cv-01295) (RJL)
- In Re: Strunk v New York State Board of Elections, et al., Index No. 08CV4289 (US Dist Ct, EDNY, Oct. 28, 2008, Ross, J.)
- In Re: Apr 24, 2016 – Strunk v DTCC etal USCA 2nd Circuit 15-3199. Strunk v DTCC, Robert Druskin etal SDNY 15cv6817.
- In Re: STRUNK v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA etal. NYND 16-cv1496 (BKS/ DJS) was a challenge to the vote fraud involving illegal voters in California and New York to no avail in anticipation of results obtained by the Presidential 2016 Election Integrity Commission ordered 11 May 2017 that Judge Sannes dismissed the case without prejudice on 15 May 2017.
- Our compatriot engineer, Michael T. McKibben founder of Americans For Innovation (AFI) and Leader Technologies Inc., is the actual inventor of social network scaling software that was stolen from the SERCO INC. controlled U.S. Patent Office and its agents for Google, Facebook and other social network platforms; and
- Further, AFI investigation has proven the theft has affected every election cycle -since 2008, and that since Sep. 29, 1999 started when the C.I.A. began investing in hardware and software companies, thus essentially nationalizing largely in secret, America’s emerging digital infrastructure; and
- Further, having exhausted available remedy Mr. McKibben filed a Miller Act claim with CINC Trump (see APX 101 thru APX 126); and
- Further, based upon information and belief, in that the theft gave the C.I.A. an unprecedented and unaccountable ability to spy on everyone without a warrant, and given the C.I.A. theft has created government liability under the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134) evidenced by voluminous spreadsheet summaries compiled by Leader Technologies, Inc. within the last week, available to this court upon request, are the contracts acquired by SERCO INC. between 20 September 2005 and 11 May 2018 (9) with the Department of Commerce (DOC), the U.S.
9 Serco-All-Federal-Agency-Prime-Contracts-between-Sep-30-2005-to-May-01-2018-USAspending-May-11-2018. Serco-DOD-Prime-Contracts-between-Aug-14-2006-to-Apr-01-2018-USAspending-May-11-2018.csv Serco-OPM-Contracts-between-Nov-28-2007-to-Nov-20-2015-USAspending-May-11-2018.csv Serco-DUNS-014387489-Department-of-Homeland-Security-DHS-between-Jan-25-2008-to-Jan-25-2018-accessed-May-12-2018.csv
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOC Bureau of Census (BOC) DOC Patent Trademark Office (PTO), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) and other too numerous prime contracts too numerous to list herein but germane as to espionage;
- That based upon information and belief as a matter of foreign meddling and interference during the 6 November 2018 election cycle, there are no bid SERCO INC. contracts with Federal entities, since 2005 with reference to Footnote #9, that among other egregious exceptions to law are in violation of the Sherman and Robinson Patman Antitrust Acts that with impunity have afforded access and opportunity by Foreign enemies of the United States of America and its member States and Territories to conduct the crime of espionage by foreign enemies, and
- Further that proof of these allegations as to spying have in part been established judicially in several cases heard before SES member Richard J. Leon, a District Court Judge in the District of Columbia, who at least regards proven egregious 4th amendment spying violations as unconstitutional, and
- Further the said contracts summarized at Footnote #9 also involves the huge
Serco-Federal-Acquisitions-Service-FAS-between-Apr-20-2008-to-May-01-2018-USAspending-May-11-2018.csv Serco-DOS-Prime-Contracts-between-Dec-29-2011-to-Dec-28-2015-USAspending-May-11-2018.csv Serco-DOD-Subcontracts-between-Feb-04-2011-to-Mar-20-2018-USAspending-May-11-2018.csv
DOD and OPM personnel file theft disclosed in 2015 (10) affording jurisdiction of this Court over the Petitioners’ Petition as a probable cause legal standard of proof above mere reasonable suspicion that the SES components of Government serving SERCO Inc., run by the Queen’s Privy Council coordinated with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Communist Central Committee, and of course ALL the entities through their SES managers working with the SERCO INC. contracts referenced in Footnote #9 thereby actually facilitate election tampering in the United States and elsewhere that creates a civil responsibility properly based upon a major degree of military intrusion into the field of government; and
- Further correspondingly, the scope of military authority under Civil Affairs Operations FM 3-57, is circumscribed here by the necessities of the ongoing national emergency or time of war with martial law provisions of the 12 USC 95(a) amended 50 USC App. §5(b) for extraordinary circumstances since March 6, 1933 beyond the control capability of normal government officials in application of International Law(11); and whose duty falls upon the U.S. Army Chief of Staff’s
10 https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents/ e.g. Earlier in 2015, OPM discovered that the personnel data of 4.2 million current and former Federal government employees had been stolen. … may also have been impacted by the separate but related incident involving personnel records.
11 FM 41-10-1962 Chapter 1 Paragraph 8. Application of International Law. (a.) International law is usually regarded as having two branches, one dealing with the peaceful relations between states and the other concerned with armed hostilities between states. This division is not, however, absolute, and there are many facets of international relations that are difficult to regard as belonging to the law of peace or the law of war. Both branches as well as the undefined grey
authority over Civil Affairs Functions with civil agency(s) and the cabinet of the Commander-in-chief, with alleged dereliction of duty inter alia, for effective civil government, public finance, legal due process (12). area in between apply to civil affairs relations. The law of peace deals with such matters as recognition of states and governments, jurisdiction, nationality, diplomatic protocol, the prerequisites for and construction of international agreements, and, generally, the practices and standards observed by friendly states in their mutual relations. Evidence of the law of peace is to be found in law making treaties, the decisions of international and national judicial bodies, the writings of jurists, diplomatic correspondence, and other documentary material concerning the practice of states. The law of peace is particularly relevant to define the rights and obligations of a military force that is deployed in the territory of an allied state not only where there is a civil affairs agreement, but also where there is no applicable agreement or with respect to matters on which such agreement is silent. (Emphasis by Petitioners) (b.) The law of war governs such matters as the conduct of hostilities on land, in the sea, and in the air; the status and treatment of persons affected by hostilities, such as POW’S, the sick and wounded, and civilian persons; the occupation of enemy territory, flags of truce, armistices and surrender agreements, neutrality, and war crimes. The law of war is derived from two principal sources, law making treaties, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and custom, a body of unwritten law that is firmly established by the practice of nations and well defined by recognized authorities on international law. Ordinarily, a provision of an international agreement is binding on a state only to the extent that it has consented to be bound. However, a humanitarian principle enunciated in a law making treaty is binding. (Emphasis by Petitioners) (e.) Of these’ agreements, the NATO Status of Forces Agreement is particularly significant because of the precedent it has established concerning the law applicable to visiting military forces when they are in the territory of a friendly state. The Hague Regulations are important because they are regarded as declaratory of law applicable between belligerents. The 1949 Conventions supplement the Hague Regulations, which by their literal terns applied only to a “war” between parties signatory thereto, by broadening the scope of the Treaty law to cover not only “war” but also “any other armed conflict” and “any partial or total occupation,” involving their signatories (see FM 27-10). An international agreement of particular significance to CA personnel is the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The United States became a signatory to this agreement at the Hague in 1954. This Convention outlines the measures which armed forces shall take in the preservation of historical, cultural, and scientific properties in any enemy territory. As CA personnel will have principal responsibility for measures to be taken concerning cultural property, they should be thoroughly familiar with the legal obligations of the United States respecting artistic objects, archives, monuments, shrines, and other types of cultural property. (Emphasis by Petitioners) 12 FM 41-10-62 CHAPTER 2 CIVIL AFFAIRS FUNCTIONS Paragraph 11 Governmental Functions. Included in this grouping of functions are those dealing with matters customarily involving governmental activity or control. The general areas of concern include the organization and conduct of local government, political activities; review, advice, or correction of civil officials in accordance with competent directives, and implementation of policy decisions with respect to control or other relationships with government in the area of operations. (a.) Civil Government. This function is concerned with the structure and conduct of local government. It encompasses methods of establishing legislative and executive agencies from national to local levels and the processes of these agencies in the administration of civil government. Included are such considerations as political. parties, eligibility for franchise, elections, tenure, and all other aspects of the development and operation of the apparatus of government. Commanders having area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as appropriate, with (1) Surveying governmental organization at all levels. (2) Surveying lines of authority and influence having impact on political matters. (3) Analyzing effectiveness of existing agencies of government or social control. (4) Studying effectiveness of governmental officials and employees and of other community leaders; removing persons who are inimical to the United States or who are not in sympathy with its policies and objectives, and securing the appointment of leaders who will further desired programs. (5) Negotiating to gain support or cooperation for United States forces. (6) Recommending organization, functioning, staffing, and authority of agencies of government or social control. (7) Advising, conducting liaison with, supervising, controlling, or replacing organs of government. (8) Participating on joint commissions, committees, or councils concerned with governmental affairs. (b.) Legal. This function is concerned with the legal system of the area and the application of international law in CA operations. Commanders having CA area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units are charged, as appropriate with- (1) Translation of the legal aspect of CA operations into plans and directives. (2) Analysis and interpretation of the civil and criminal laws of the territory, particularly restraints imposed upon the civil populace. (3) Study of the organization of the judicial system including determination of legal status and jurisdiction of civil courts and law. (4) Review of the local organization of the bar and determination of reliability of its members. (5) Examination of locally accepted forms of judicial procedure including rules of evidence and rights of the accused. (6) Assistance to commanders and staffs in the preparation of proclamations, ordinances, orders and directives, and as otherwise may be required.
(7) The establishment of necessary civil affairs tribunals and other judicial and administrative agencies, including their number, types, jurisdiction, procedures, and delegation of appointing authority. (8) The closure or reopening of local tribunals, including courts, boards, and commissions; their jurisdiction, organization and procedure, and the class of cases triable therein. (9) Recommendations concerning the suspension or abrogation of laws and procedural rules applicable to local courts. (10) Recommendations concerning the alteration, suspension, or promulgation of laws to include civil legislation for the government of the area in which military forces are deployed. It may be necessary to deny enforcement effect to local legislation or to adopt new laws essential to the control of the area in question and the protection of U.S. forces. Such legislation must conform to applicable provisions of U.S. law and international law as, for example, the 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention. (11) Supervision of the administration of civil and criminal laws by local officials. (12) Provision of members for civil affairs tribunals. (13) Review or administrative examination of cases tried in CA courts before referral to higher headquarters for final review. (14) Arrangements for transmittal of civilian claims against the United States to the proper agency.
(f.) Public Finance. This function is of vast importance in the conduct of economic welfare and economic stabilization measures and assists in reducing support contributions by the United States. It includes control, supervision, and audit of fiscal resources; budget practices, taxation, expenditures of public funds, currency issues, and the banking agencies and affiliates. It is essential that the function be performed in an integrated and uniform manner within each national area. Commanders having area responsibility, their staffs, and CA units may be charged with tasks such as: (1) Analysis of taxation systems and other sources of revenue, governmental expenditures, and estimates of adequacy of public funds for performance of governmental functions. (2) Review of public laws and agencies regulating banking and financing. (3) Analysis of financial structures including types and conditions of financial institutions. (4) Analysis of types and amounts of circulating currencies, acceptance by population of such currencies, and current foreign exchange rates. (5) Recommendations as to designation of type of circulating local currency. (6) Recommendations as to provisions for military currency. (7) Recommendations as to establishment of currency exchange rates. (8) Establishment and enforcement of restrictions on exportation of currencies. (9) Recommendations for control of foreign exchange.for relief to:
(1) eliminate electronic voting systems in Washington and require hand tabulation of ballots, (2) implement in-person voting with fingerprint verification, and (3) require “bipartisan groups” (rather than election officials) to process and tabulate ballots, all for the 2018 general election and future elections.
- Further therein Petition 96235-9 Exhibit D (see APX 186), on July 16 2018 New York Governor Andrew Cuomo joined with Washington State Governor Jay Inslee (that arguendo defer their ineffectual individual State authority / power over the election process to Federal Jurisdiction) demand that CINC Trump protect the (10) Establishment of controls over budget, taxation, expenditures, and public funds and determination of appropriate fiscal accounting procedures. (11) Reestablishment or revision of taxation systems in accordance with policy directives. (12) Liquidation, reorganization, opening, or closing of banks. (13) Supervision over credit and provisions for credit needs. (14) Regulation or supervision of governmental fiscal agencies, banks, credit cooperatives, and other financial institutions. (15) Recommendations for advances of funds to governmental or private financial institutions. (16) Recommendations as to emergency declaration of debt suspensions for specific types of debts. (17) Recommendations for protection of public and private financial institutions and safeguarding funds, securities, and financial records. electoral process from Foreign interference with the Federal Mid-term General Election cycle scheduled for 6 November 2018; and
- Further, on 26 July 2018 House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called for a ban on electronic voting systems in an interview that aired Thursday in Washington Examiner (see APX 265); quote
“The one thing we’ve been warning about for many, many years on the Intelligence committee is about the electronic voting systems,” Nunes told Hill.TV’s Buck Sexton, who sat with the lawmaker on Wednesday.
“Those are really dangerous in my opinion, and should not be used. In California — at least in the counties that I represent — they do not use an electronic system,” he continued. “I think anybody that does that, and that’s communicating over the web, it’s going to be a challenge. So you have to make sure that you limit that as much as possible, and we need a paper trail so that you can go back in case you have to do a manual recount,” he said.
In February, a DHS cybersecurity officials said that Russia had “in a small number of states in 2016″ and warned California and 21 other states that Russia attempted to breach their systems.
- Further yet to wit, on 31 July 2018 the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen issued at the National Cyber-security Summit by her Keynote Speech pledging to safeguard the Federal Mid-term General Election scheduled for 6 November 2018 from foreign interference (see APX 266); and
- That in response to Petition No. 96235-9, on October 12, 2018, REBECCA
- GLASGOW, WSBA 32886 Deputy Solicitor General maneuvered to postponed hearing until after 6 November 2018, in CONCLUSION (see APX 262) alleged that quote:”The Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus does not state a claim for relief because it does not identify any lawful basis for mandamus. The Secretary of State respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the petition with prejudice.”
- That following the 15 December 2016 filing of Strunk’s election law case STRUNK v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA etal. NYND 16-cv-1496 (BKS/ DJS) dismissal without prejudice on 15 May 2017, that coincided with the President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order on 11 May 2017, establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Vice President Mike Pence chairs the Commission, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serves as the vice chair, see the time line at APX 276, and in which members of the Commission sabotaged the inquiry with court cases that resulted in cancellation of the inquiry on 3 January 2018 (see APX 281).
- That on 1 October 2018, Michael T. McKibben and his researchers at American for Innovation, Leader Technologies, Inc and American Intelligence Media update the 15 September 2018 report inter alia on electronic espionage and foreign interference in the current 2016 Election cycle titled HILLARY CLINTON CONTROLS 50,000 FBI ENCRYPTION KEYS—PROVES MUELLER’S WITCH HUNT IS TREASONOUS and involving the foreign controlled entity ENTRUST (see APX 282).
- Importantly, the Report shown starting at APX 282 explains the TIMELINE: for how BILL & HILLARY CLINTON BEGAN ORCHESTRATING UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE FBI’S ENCRYPTION KEYS IN 1993 for the PRC etal. in regards to ENTRUST and foreign espionage starts at APX 290.
- That Michael T. McKibben of Leader Technologies, Inc. provided Strunk on 13 September 2018 his research done into the ENTRUST entity at the Securities Exchange Commission Edgar web facility to determine all the overlapping potential espionage / interference connections using an (ENTU 1998-2009) 10-K, Customer, Partner, Director, Officer, Dependent, Subsidiary (see APX 308).
- That germane to this 2018 Election Cycle meddling / interference danger that is associated with ENTRUST etal., especially the psychological warfare intent of foreign interference in the ongoing election cycle, is the 24 October 2018 THE HILL article: Officials prepare for potential of claims of election interference by Jacqueline Thomsen (see APX 331).
- That Petitioners based upon our New York experience (especially since the Clinton’s PRC / Maoist crime machine moved here in the 1990s), allege that PRC national Jack Ma, the richest person on the PRC Central Committee, who had asset stripped ROC / Taiwan Industry to the PRC Mainland, and as the CEO of the PRC’s Alibaba propaganda organization (13) just purchased 28,000 acres of NewYork Adirondack forest from the International Paper Company with the blessing of
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and that a Court Inquiry would be fruitful.
- Based upon Petitioners experience, information and belief, the Indonesian poseur defacto President Barry Soetoro, Soebarkah, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama is a member of the Senior Executive Service from his time working for the Central Intelligence Agency at Business International Corporation as a non US Citizen, and as a SES member Indonesian Citizen who questionably issued Executive Order 13714 of December 15, 2015 Strengthening the Senior Executive Service.
Petitioners raise a series of troubling issues that are to be properly resolved in this Court related to 10 U.S. Code § 253 – Interference with State and Federal law (14) and or 10 U.S.C. 333 – Interference with State and Federal law, and as
14 §253.1 Interference with State and Federal law. The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it- (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15 , §333; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, §1076(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2404 ; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title X, §1068(a)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 325 ; renumbered §253, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497 .) would apply to the application and administration of 50 USC 212: Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection (15).
That these troubling issues require a court inquiry that derive from the purpose and use of The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918) that was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses that Petitioners contend is related to the subject 2018 Election cycle foreign interference in the broader context of the Constitutionality of the Senior Executive Service per se that was created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, (October 13, 1978, Pub.L. 95–454, 92 Stat. 1111) (CSRA), that reformed the civil service of the United States federal government, partly in response to the Watergate scandal, and in which CSRA questionably varied from the requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) from the due process standpoint and, in which CSRA abolished the U.S. Civil Service Commission and distributed its functions primarily among three
15 §212. Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.
new agencies: the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and that has taken over as a foreign controlled fourth branch of government unconstitutionally.
Petitioners have been here previously on a related election issue during the 2016 cycle, and to the extent that Christopher Blaise Garvey is now on the 2018 Ballot in New York for its Attorney General otherwise he would be here too. However in this 2018 cycle, we have exhausted our available remedies below in both the State and Federal civil system to no avail under the continuing emergency government, and because time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm that will permanently impact the entirety of our fellow citizens of each of the States of the several States and the ability of the limited republic of the United States of America to continue, we beseech this Court for the good of the entire country to grant the relief sought; and to the extent that there are Five states in the U.S. — Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Delaware that run their elections using direct recording electronic machines (DREs) only each must be ordered under the Help America to Vote Act to provide Paper Ballots accordingly to serve our Commander-in Chief during this time of upheaval with the special notice to the danger posed by the warning given by The Hill shown at APX 331 that Officials prepare for potential for claims of election interference.
Read the full Supreme Court filing here: