JOIN THE DISCUSSION JOIN OUR FORUMS

ABOUT US FORUMS NEW YORK NEWS

 

Mission Statement

SAVE OUR NEW YORK WEBSITE MISSION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
If this State has a future WE must protect the unborn and newborn, the
family structure and to safeguard Our State by educating our young to
be able to replace us in old age:

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Case No: 19-CV-202  DNH / CFH

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the matter of:

Christopher Earl Strunk, Individually of New York;

Plaintiff, Petitioner


versus


THE STATE OF NEW YORK by ANDREW M. CUOMO, Individually and as
Governor;  New York Senate Majority Leader ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS; New
York Assembly Speaker CARL E. HEASTIE; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC);
Warren "BILL DE BLASIO" Wilhelm  Jr., Individually and as Mayor of
NYC; DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (DNC) by its Chairman TOM PEREZ;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS); U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS); PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA,
INC.; VOICE FOR CHOICE: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NEW YORK CITY ACTION
FUND, INC.


       Defendants/Respondents.


x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x


STRUNK MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN


This is Plaintiff /Petitioner's Memorandum of Law for the Petition with Exhibits A thru F filed on 14 February 2019, supplemented by the Declaration endorsed on 18 February 2019 by Christopher Earl Strunk ( ) in support of an Order To Show Cause for the Honorable David N. Hurd U.S.D.J. to issue a preliminary restraint of Respondents as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm with no other adequate remedy at law and with a likelihood of success since the 22 January 2019 enactment of the Reproductive Health Act (RHA shown at Exhibit A) that commits infanticide for unjust enrichment in New York; and subject to a hearing, a permanent injunction of Respondents with different and other relief as the Court may deem necessary.  To simplify a fifty plus year tug of war since the SCOTUS  Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade : 410 U.S. 113 of 1973 requires unique original issues herein for relief as follows:


A.    Prohibitory restraining order of Defendants to cease and desist from acting under color of the RHA or similar directive and or to receive the emergency government reimbursement, until further order of
the Court; and


B.    That the Court order a hearing for a permanent injunction; and


C.    That the Court declare the fetus a newborn per se when separated from the mother, even when sustained in an incubator; and


D.    That the Court declare the newborn when separated from the mother, even when sustained in an incubator, is a person per se and even when not duly registered with the state; and


E.    Such other and different relief as the court judges necessary for justice herein


UNIQUE ORIGINAL ISSUES


As preface to this memorandum, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  (ICCPR) ( ) arguendo as a result of the 85 year continuous Emergency Government (FDR's declared war against the emergency under the Emergency Banking Relief Act and Proclamation 2040 - Exhibits G thru Exhibit L) does not apply because the United States has specified Reservations, understandings, and declarations when The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.( ) Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect.( ) Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing" ( ), and in a Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts." ( ) The U.S. Senate's five Reservations to the ICCPR, quote:

(1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the
United States.


(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future
laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. (Emphasis by Strunk)


(3) That the United States considers itself bound by Article 7 to the extent that "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.


(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offense was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of Article 15.


(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant's provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless,
the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2(b) and 3 of Article 10 and paragraph 4 of Article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED HEREIN


A.    DOES THE U.S. SENATE AFFORD EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE FETUS AS AN
INNOCENT PERSON?


B.    DOES THE EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT PER SE DENY EQUAL PROTECTION
TREATMENT REQUIRED OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN A
HUMAN BEING PERSON EQUATES WITH A  CORPORATE ENTITY PERSON?


C.    DOES RHA PER SE DENY EQUAL PROTECTION TREATMENT REQUIRED OF SECTION
1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN THE FETUS SEPARATED FROM THE MOTHER
BECOME A NEWBORN PERSON EVEN WHEN SUSTAINED IN AN INCUBATOR?


D.    DO ALL ENTITIES WHETHER HUMAN OR FICTIONAL QUALIFY AS THE CHATTEL
PROPERTY OF THE EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT?


E.    DO DEFENDANTS UNDER RHA USE OF NEWBORN TISSUE EQUATE TO FETAL
TISSUE RESEARCH: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS DEFINED BY CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE  IN THE REPORT R44129 SHOWN AT EXHIBIT B?


F.    DOES DEFENDANTS USE UNDER RHA REIMBURSEMENT AND OR SALE OF NEWBORN
TISSUE EQUATE TO UNJUST ENRICHMENT?


G.    DOES DEFENDANTS USE UNDER RHA REIMBURSEMENT AND OR SALE OF NEWBORN
TISSUE EQUATE TO VIOLATION DEFINED BY THE NOTICE OF DECEMBER 18, 2018
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO SERIOUS HUMAN
RIGHTS ABUSE AND CORRUPTION SHOWN AT EXHIBIT C?


H.    DOES DEFENDANTS USE UNDER RHA REIMBURSEMENT AND OR SALE OF NEWBORN
TISSUE EQUATE TO VIOLATION DEFINED BY ANY CONTINUING THIRTY-ONE (31)
EMERGENCY ORDERS OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF SHOWN AT EXHIBIT D?


I.    DOES STRUNK HAVE A DIRECT UNIQUE INJURY FOR STANDING AS A PRE-1933
“PRIVATE AMERICAN CITIZEN” TO CHALLENGE RHA AS SHOWN AT EXHIBIT E AND
EXHIBIT G THRU EXHIBIT L?


J.    DOES STRUNK HAVE A DIRECT UNIQUE INJURY FOR STANDING AS A PRE-1933
“PRIVATE AMERICAN CITIZEN” TO CHALLENGE  DEFENDANTS USE OF ILLEGAL
ALIENS AS IF CITIZENS EXPLAINED AT COMPLAINT PARAGRAPHS 16 THRU 20?


K.    DO DEFENDANTS USE OF RHA OR EQUIVALENT EXISTING LAW SINGLE OUT
ILLEGAL ALIENS TO HARVEST FETUS AND OR NEWBORN BODY PARTS AND OR
FLUIDS WITHOUT EQUAL PROTECTION OF A CITIZEN?


L.    DOES A GOVERNOR'S USE OF RHA OR THE EQUIVALENT QUALIFY AS A BREACH
OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AS A TRUSTEE UNDER THE EMERGENCY GOVERNMENT?


M.    DO DEFENDANTS USE UNDER RHA OF NEWBORN TISSUE EQUATE TO GENOCIDE
DEFINED UNDER 18 USC §1091 SHOWN AT EXHIBIT F?


THEREFORE, Pending answers to the foregoing preface and unique questions, Strunk reserves the right to extend his complaint and present the findings to a jury that will afford the Court insulation from any perception of impropriety; and accordingly, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, state, declare and verify that the above Memorandum IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN with Exhibits G thru Exhibit L as supplement to the Petition with Complaint with Exhibits A thru F filed with the clerk of the Court 14 February 2019 is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and know the contents thereof apply to me by misapplication and administration of laws and that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true, am available for testimony. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746.


Dated: February 19,  2019                                      /s/
            Brooklyn,  New York        __________________________________
            Christopher Earl Strunk, in esse Sui juris in propria persona
             Post Office Box 70 Corinth, New York 12822

 

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

 

TO VIEW THE CASE CLICK HERE

 

 

 

PLEASE DONATE TO OUR EFFORT TO SAVE NEW YORK

OUR FOUNDERS HAD A REVOLUTION, DEFEND IT, SAVING NEW YORK IS EVEN HARDER

 

WE ARE RAISING FUNDS FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAMING. ANY CONTRIBUTION WILL BE WELCOMED.

PLEASE GIVE WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD