Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits 102309

8/14/2019 Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits 102309

1/45

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

:Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER :

(aka CHRIS) STRUNK jus tertii People, :593 Vanderbilt Avenue 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 :

845-901-6767 Plaintiffs : Civil No.: 09-cv-1295: Hon. Richard J. Leon

v. ::

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE :

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (BOC) et al. :

:

Defendants. :

:

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

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND DEPARTMENT

SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:

COUNTY OF KINGS )

Accordingly, I, Christopher Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say:

1. Affiant / Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, (Affiant, Strunk) hereby responds inopposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law by Defendants United States

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States

Department of Commerce, United States Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano,

Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States House of

Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and Barry

Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama (the Usurper),(Federal Defendant(s), Defendant(s))

represented by CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney for Washington D. C.

and Assistant U.S. Attorneys RUDOLPH CONTRERAS and WYNNE P. KELLY.


2/45


2

2. That outrageously CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney by hisagents alleges Affirmant has somehow filed a vexatious and frivolous case as if a grand

conspiracy in which the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church,

controls the nation; and to wit Affirmant strenuously denies the wrongful devious

characterization meant to deconstruct the underlying facts to Plaintiff's injury and associated

history that supports the need for a declaratory judgment and writ of Federal Defendants to act in

their fiduciary capacity and or absent such thereby must facilitate Plaintiff with 18 USC 1964(c)

to recover damages incurred after the Quo Warranto Inquest is done by this Court.

3. That upon hearing the facts on the injury to Plaintiff(s) in esse (living being) here in NewYork, along with those similarly situated, and as recognized by the New York State Legislature

as Plaintiff jus tertii represents any standing as an aggrieved State Citizens (1), and also as a

United States Citizen(s) resident in Washington District of Columbia as a (fictional) corporate

entity(ies) that as Government contractor(s) by way of each entity registration and bonding with

Plaintiffs actual birth certificate whose bond is on file at the Department of Commerce and used

as an article trade by Defendants against Plaintiffs in esse rights protected by New York law.

4. That Affirmant in esse makes a special appearance herein without waiver of anysovereignty as the Trustee and a benefactor of his corporate bond as CHRISTOPHER EARL

STRUNK questionably held in Washington District of Columbia otherwise against his wishes as

an article of trade in commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code, against New York Law

and having damaged Plaintiff in esse in excess of One Million Dollars.

1 Citizens: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain

duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or

indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to

subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow

the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief JusticeJohn Marshall in The Venus (1812) case.


3/45


3

5. That Affirmant has a related case Strunk v. NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THESOCIETY OF JESUS et al. DCD 09-cv-1249 (RJL) in regards to Federal Defendants breech of

fiduciary duty to enforce the Logan Act as to the New York Province along with those similarly

situated the twelve provinces and its members who have taken a vow and extreme oath to a

foreign sovereign the Black Pope who is the confessor priest to the Prince of the Vatican Pope

Benedict XVI; and that Affiant filed an affidavit response in opposition to the Federal

Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to them with annexed Exhibit A through O

which coincide with a common argument and request for relief (e.g. the pending inquest for the

Usurper with a Quo warranto verified petition before this Court) and for economy and to further

avoid burden upon the readers Affiant uses the Exhibits chronological order for reference herein.

6. As a matter germane herein Plaintiff(s) has an Original Proceeding filed on September11, 2009 in the District of Columbia Circuit for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an

Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Recuse the district Judge

in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, and 09-cv-1295 with investigation of District Clerks Office with 28

U.S.C. 455 and related law in its entirety a copy of the Docketing Statement; and as the

respective Certificate(s) of Service shows for each matter that the entire package was served

along with Plaintiffs other responses in the Cases 09-cv-1249 and 09-cv-1295 to Defendants

Counsel on September 10, 2009, and arguments used in Affiants response to the Defendant

Maryland Province filed with this Court.

7. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the FiduciaryDuty of Federal Defendants that all Jesuits (Provincial Defendants) live under their constitution

and have taken vows similar to marriage vows as part of the multi-level oath of their secret

extreme vows having been exposed in the Congressional record, shown at referenced Exhibit B,

that for good reason is secret being against public policy as a blood oath binding each Declarant


4/45


4

till death to carry forward the Inquisition against schismatics, obstinate heretics and heretics, the

oaths are not on file with the State of Maryland.

8. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the FiduciaryDuty of Federal Defendants breach of fiduciary duty the Provincial Defendants are infringing

upon his actual suffrage and first amendment and guarantee of a republican form of government

rights, and are involved in an enterprise defined under 18 USC 1961 that by my expert Witness

testimony of Eric-Jon: Phelps in esse will show and includes in the copy of the Affidavit (shown

in referenced Exhibit C) that will testify inter alia that:

That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive Order, recognized

the Vatican as a sovereign political state exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legalgroundwork for the signing of a treatya Concordatwith Rome, as did Roman

Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators Adolf Hitler, BenitoMussolini and Francisco Franco;

That as a result of said Executive Order issued by President Reagan (having chosen at

least six Knights of Malta to conduct his administration), the Society of Jesus is acting inconcert serving a foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state, (Vatican

City)exclusive of all other considerationsintending to submit the American peoplesto a socialist-communist or socialist-fascist military dictator secretly loyal to the Vicar

of Christ;

That Jesuit priest James Shea, Provincial the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus,

is the overseer of Jesuit Georgetown University president, Knight of Malta/CFR member

John DiGioia; he in turn directing the domestic and foreign policy of Prince Hall Rite,32nd Freemason, Mulatto U.S. President Barry (Davis) Soetoro (alias Barrack Hussein

Obama) through Georgetown University directing Roman Catholic papal knight Vice

President Joe Biden, both Sunni Moslem Obama and Roman Catholic Biden beinggroomed for these positions by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors for over twenty years,

including Roman Catholic U.S. Senator and CFR member Edward M. Kennedy and

Roman Catholic ex-National Security Advisor and CFR/TC member Zibignew

Bzrezinski;

That Georgetown University is within the jurisdiction of the Maryland Province of the

Society of Jesus, its Provincial having authority over Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,southern New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C.,

enveloping government service in the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security

and other agencies manned by papal knights politically loyal to the Pope of Rome;

The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over Pope Benedict XVIs thirteen American


5/45


5

Roman Cardinal Archbishops includes the former president of Fordham University, CFRmember and Professed Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow Joseph A.

OHare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals include Knights of the

Sovereign Military Order of Malta (CFR member and President Regans Secretary ofState, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., whose brother, Francis Haig, is a powerful Jesuit priest

under extreme oath of the fourth vow; CFR member and President Reagans National

Security Advisor, Richard V. Allen; etc.); the Knights of St. Gregory (CFR member andFox News mogul Rupert Murdoch, etc.); the Knights of Columbus (CFR-affiliated House

Majority Leader John Boehner, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, etc.) and Opus Dei

(CFR-affiliated Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former Director of the FBI Louis

Freeh, convicted American spy for the Russian KGB/SVR, FBI counterintelligenceofficer Robert Philip Hanssen, etc.);

That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to include every Statelegislature, judiciary and governor in command of his paramilitary state police;

9. That Affiant with above paragraphs 3 has standing to sue for suffrage in Washington DCas a resident denied suffrage for the record the Maryland State Defendants by Governor Martin

OMalley has defaulted, and that Governor OMalley publicly agrees that Washington D.C. is

within the administrative purview of the State of Maryland for overlapping services; and must

therefore also have authority for availability of suffrage for qualified residents of Washington

District of Columbia in the Federal Election of Congress and the electoral college from Maryland

in the Executive Election requiring Maryland to receive an allotment commensurate with the

enumeration of Citizens and permanent residents resident their in Washington D.C. for the

purposes of Federal Suffrage through the Secretary of State of Maryland, and that Affiant

reserves his memorandum to be filed with the Notice of motion for Default accordingly soon.

10.The thrust of this case is that there is a conspiracy by acts of treason by Nancy Pelosi (theTraitor) who was responsible at the hub to place the Usurper in a coup tat in the oval office and

thereby to have the Usurper deliver USA and New York of the several States sovereignty to an

enterprise in furtherance of the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in

Copenhagen in December 2009, and with the agenda then to totally integrate all tourists at will

into the total enumeration n preparing for Immigration reform legislation scheduled for early


6/45


6

2010 to the detriment of the actual People of the United States of America, People of New York

and Plaintiff in esse along with those similarly situated, and that U.S. Census is no longer done

by the Department of Interior nor by the Commerce Department but done by the Usurper and

Traitor out of the Oval Office, with 13 USC 195.

11.That Janet Napolitano as a member of the SMOM and or individually are collaboratingwith the New York Province and other eleven Provinces and American Conference of Bishops

and agents under the Jesuit General / Black Pope Control to facilitate open boarders and the

interstate and foreign travel in aid of the racketeering Enterprise to harbor and exploit aliens.

12.That Janet Napolitano as a member of the SMOM, Nancy Pelosi, Barry Soetoro, a.k.a.Barack Hussein Obama and Gary Locke individually may not be represented by the United

States Attorney General and or CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney for

Washington District of Columbia and Assistant U.S. Attorneys RUDOLPH CONTRERAS and

WYNNE P. KELLY.

13.Jesuit trained Gary Locke, was nominated for Secretary of the United States Departmentof Commerce by the Usurper and as such is apart of the enterprise complained of in regards to

the intent of the enumeration of the 2010 Census without differentiating the diplomatic corps or

tourists from Citizens and permanent residents which may only be the basis to allot U.S. House

of Representative seats.

14.That since this case was filed Affiant received as a matter of courtesy a copy of documentfiled in the caseBarnett et al. v Obama et al CDCA 09: 09-cv-000082 before the District Judge

Honorable David O. Carter there for verification both of the Divorce action between Stanley

Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1964 (see Exhibit E) and the copy of

the actual birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. born at Coastal General Hospital in

Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 (see Exhibit F).


7/45


7

15.That as of October 20, 2009 Affiant received a pdf photocopy of the actual delayed filingrecorddone with HRS 338-17.8 on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii for the Kenya

birth notice filed by Madeline Dunham (see Exhibit G) that needs verification by this Court.

16.That as a matter supplemental to above paragraphs 7 through 10, the cause of actionrelated to enforcement of the Logan Act involves the issue of facts that: (i) I duly fired Barack

Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, (the Usurper) on January 22, 2009, (ii) demand a Quo

Warranto inquest on his authority to serve with proper eligibility, with my verified complaint

before this Court in the Case Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234: (iii) Usurpers acts are

void ab initio until that inquest is heard, and moreover in that Usurper not only has dual

allegiance at birth with a British Parent, (iv) it appears Usurper was actually born in Kenya,

thereby is not even an indigenous born citizen, and further (v) then triggers need to investigate

the allegation that when Usurper was adopted as an Indonesian citizen under the name Barry

Soetoro, He did not even properly file for naturalization when he returned to Hawaii to live with

his Grandmother.

17.Such prima facie evidence marks a drastic increase of harm severity and injury toPlaintiff(s) and means when the Usurper is not even properly naturalized his actions are those of

a tourist at best over staying a visa, and an agent of a foreign power not registered under the

Logan Act, also covered with the Vienna Convention treaties in their entirety, as foreign national

also means Usurper may not be charged with treason per se or even impeached for that matter.

18.With the use of 18 USC 1964(c) comes the duty for providing detail normally missingin complaints demanding writs for non-enforcement of specific laws, as by design Civil RICO

crosses a tremendous domain of civil and criminal activity requiring the connecting of dots with

patterns of interlocking activity and facilitation normally unseen but necessary for any private

litigant, and as I will do in part provide herein until given permission to amend the complaint in


8/45


8

consolidation with the Census and Quo warranto inquest demand regarding the enterprises

fraudster Usurper that otherwise clueless judiciary appears as the deer in the headlights.

19. On October 7, 2009, Affiant in order to ascertain and verify the facts in the matter ofactual naturalized citizenship that requires a lift of stay for further discovery before this court,

being complex litigation (100 cases nationally) for both comity and economy of schedule with

permission to intervene as a complex litigation matter with 28 USC 1407 before the Honorable

David O. Carter (see Exhibit I), that court response and verification remains pending, but

Affiant is granted permission to file by Judge Leon on October 21, 2009 for obtaining CACD

discovery for the Quo Warranto herein the Washington District of Columbia where it belongs.

20.As to the Governments contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction alleging Plaintiff hasnot provided a preponderance of the evidence for standing per se, Affiant strenuously disagrees,

notwithstanding the use of 18 USC 1964(c), in that the matter of the Usurpers Quo Warranto

takes precedence over such claims based upon the facts so-far presented and in that Usurper acts

to date in conspiracy with Defendants herein along with those yet named forming an enterprise

defined with the RICO Act as evidence sufficient to meet what U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

John Marshall held on Court jurisdiction when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally

true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature

may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot

pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case

may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to

decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.

The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we

would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our bestjudgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present

occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising

under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant,

and we cannot insert one."

21.That verification of evidence requested of that Court shows that the Usurper, Defendant


9/45


9

Individuals under Civil RICO includes Nancy Pelosi(2)

both Clintons and many others as the

essential facilitators of the Usurper coup tat conducted with the New York and Maryland

Provinces to the detriment of Plaintiff proprietary property rights along with those similarly

situated, who are singled out as heretics and injured by the pattern of abuse by the enterprise

whose benefactors upon investigation use false billing of the treasury and falsification of

documents as defined under law but not limited to the follows Federal statutes:

18 USC 1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in

connection with identification documents)18 USC 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens)

18 USC 1341 (mail fraud)

18 USC 1343 (wire fraud)

18 USC 1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully)18 USC 1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim )

18 USC 1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents)18 USC 1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) (interstate and foreign travel in aid of

racketeering Enterprise)

18 USC 1957 (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from

specific unlawful activity)

22.That on 28 August 2008 Defendant Nancy Pelosi maliciously affirmed and filed heraffidavit placing the Usurper by fiat onto all the State ballots in 2008 at the Federal Elections,

and in which matter Affiant has an on-going suit against Andrew Cuomo the New York Attorney

General and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez the New York Secretary of State among others for

breach of fiduciary duty and State Little RICO before the Honorable Justice David I Schmidt

2 Nancy Pelosi is from the Jesuit stronghold of San Francisco in the Republic of California

whose Bank of America since 1850 directed the Republic of California incorporation into the

Union as the 31st

State on September 9, 1850 as part of the 1850 Compromise complex packageof five bills, passed in September 1850, defusing a four-year confrontation between the slave

states of the South and the free states of the North that arose from expectation of territorial

expansion of the United States with the Texas Annexation (December 29, 1845) and thefollowing Mexican-American War (18461848). It avoided secession or civil war at the time and

quieted sectional conflict for four years until the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.) today use the

strawman Jesuit temporal coadjutor Frank Pelosi executive of Delmonte Foods with overlapping

directorship and significant stock ownership of Starkist Tuna exploitation of labor facilitated bySpeaker Nancy by maintaining open boarders.


10/45


10

of the State of New York Supreme Court in the County of Kings and who by the way of

economy of his Court calendar urged Affiant to file the FOIA case 08-cv-2234; and that Justice

Schmidt maintains original jurisdiction over those defendants there.

23.That on 28 August 2008, Defendant Nancy Pelosi as a private individual committed anact of treason witnessed by two persons, the Secretary for the Democratic National Convention

and the Public Notary Shalila A. Williamson, done to aid and abet the predicate goals of the

enterprise for the consolidation of temporal power by Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:

The Vaticans Quest for a World Political Authority over Plaintiff(s) along with those heretics

similarly situated in New York.

24.That Defendant Nancy Pelosi maliciously filed a false statement with intent to facilitate acoup tat on 28 August 2008 to misrepresent and lull those State officials with a fiduciary duty

over elections intentionally committed perjury affirmed that the Usurper is legally qualified to

serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution. (see Exhibit L) , and then

knowing it a lie for the purposes of misdirection then produced another affidavit without the

legally qualified affirmation for public filing (see Exhibit M).

25.That Defendant Pelosi website for press statement of 2007 (see Exhibit P) lists statementin support of the enterprise activities in regards to global climate government, open borders and

eliminating the sovereignty of the People of the United States of America, People of New York

and several states and Plaintiff in esse.

26.That Defendant Pelosi on the website shows on Exhibit P accepting the Instituto Laboralde la Raza (the Race) 2007 Congressional Leadership Award; February 9, 2007 and has made

outrageous statements in support of the enterprise as part of treasonous acts at rallies of that

organization, told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that


11/45


11

enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."; free speech

is different than predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise.

27.Affiant since 1992 has studied the use of the census in shifting power to the southwest bychanging the questions asked during the Census enumeration as part of predicate acts that aid

and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise.

28.In 1999 Affiant filed a challenge to the 2000 Census enumeration in the Eastern Districtof New York 99-cv-2168 that languished for two years by judicial inaction and by way of this

entry all the history from the 1910 Census through 1930 Census are incorporated herein as a

matter of fact including the role of the San Francisco Bohemian Grove member Herbert Hoover

and his 1928 Presidential election opponent SMOM member Al Smith who threatened to

challenge the election of 1928 due to the non-allotment of House seats since 1911 that lead to the

fraudulent voice vote adoption of 13 USC 141 for capping seats using the 1911 allotment

without a role call in June of 1929, and thereby preventing the increase of House members ever

since until hell freezes over; and that this case is different it is about a Traitor, Nancy Pelosi and

the Usurper hijacking the 2010 Census enumerations as part of predicate acts that aid and abet

the objectives of a racketeering enterprise.

29.That Affiant has a time restraint, regarding the questionable ongoing Census count andongoing treason of the Usurper Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama et al., which is

causing irreparable harm if not acted on in a timely manner by this Court.

30.On August 26, 2009, the White House responded to my service, wrote due to separationof powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve

this issue through the judicial system. (see Exhibit Q). So here we/they all are in Court.

31.This court has a Quo Warranto demand for an inquest that mandates it act accordingly asnecessary for relief, and as an injured party-in-interest do not have other means for relief.


12/45


12

32.That clearly these matters are part of the Usurper on-going fraud upon the AmericanPeople in which all acts are void ab initio and require expedited discovery of underlying facts

involved in many other districts including California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York etc.

complexity with irreparable harm requiring both restraining orders and Multi-district Judicial

Panel with 28 U.S.C. 1407 to promote judicial comity and economy of calendar within the

Lincoln Eisenhower doctrine in that there are both State and Federal original jurisdiction.

33.Counsels to Federal Defendants would have us all believe that the so-called FoundingFathers in the U.S. Constitution that U.S. House Representation doesnt matter now, and the ratio

1 member per 30,000 persons that left un-amended would yield say 10,000 House members now

is dead letter law like the Constitution itself; 13 USC 141 is not constitutional, to the core is a

continuation of the 1920 to 1929 crisis to this day, and the proposed amendment in 1791 not

adopted as pre-mature would now yield say 1,500 for a reason the matter is ripe for review.

34.The Ratification of the Constitution by the People of New York July 26, 1788, declared:That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and

that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.

That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights

which every Government ought to respect and preserve.

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall

become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is

not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or thedepartments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to

their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same;

That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably

to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that noReligious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference

of others.

Wherefore, Affiant prayer of relief of the Court is for an order:

I. Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss.


13/45


13

II. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, and Gary Locke seek separate counsel;III. a temporary restraint order stay of any action regarding the Usurper or his agents regarding

the United Nations Climate Change Treaty until further notice;

IV.

a preliminary injunction with special master to over see the Census Monitoring Board with

13 USC 195 wrongly formed by Pelosi and Usurper to conduct the 2010 Census

enumeration with questions: are you a citizen, and or are you a permanent resident alien.

V. That the Verified Petition for a Quo Warranto inquest be expedited as matter of ongoingirreparable harm;

VI. That were Barack Hussein Obama held a Usurper in fact that Plaintiff be granted anopportunity to amend the complaint with a Civil Rico Statement with 18 USC 1964(c);

VII. That a declaratory judgment on the application of the Immigration and Naturalization Actin regards to 13 USC 141 for Tourists and Diplomatic Corps with the Logan Act be

issued, including whether or not the New York Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and

New York Constitution Article 3 that differentiates Aliens from Tourists must apply with

the Vienna Convention treaties in its entirety in Census 2010 Enumeration and allotment;

VIII. That Federal Defendants by writ of this court enforce the Logan act and Vienna Convent asto each John and Jane Doe member and XYZ entity doing business in the United States of

America and or its territories and New York so that the New York Province for the Society

of Jesus and by notice to all twelve Province must show cause why each should not

conform and be subject to:

a. to the contract provisions of New York law or as applies in another state of theseveral states as its members in New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc.;

b. the provisions of the Logan Act and related law;c. to the provisions the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;d. restraint of suffrage in New York and at united States Elections as voluntary

honorary members of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interferingwith receiving state internal affairs;

e. As to whether or not the Diplomatic service of a foreign sovereign state is subjectfor enumeration for the purposes of allotment of members to the US House of

representatives on a state-by-state basis applies.

f. restraint of suffrage at United States Elections as voluntary honorary members ofthe Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state

internal affairs;


14/45


14

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. Housemembers with the 2010 Census.

IX. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs ofthe receiving States and commerce;

X. Those Federal Defendants restrained from any interference with the New York FederalReserve Bank and commerce.

XI. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People;XII. That the allotment with 2 USC 2a to Maryland include the enumeration for the

Washington District of Columbia Citizen resident and permanent resident for the purpose

of calculation with 13 USC 141, and that residents qualified according to Maryland

Election Law grant Federal election suffrage

XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v New York Province of the Society of Jesuset al. 09-cv-1249 and Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234;

XIV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actual RICO Statement;XV. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary.

I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law, in lieu of the secession of the

People of the New York from the Union with the united States of America as of right by and for

the CHRIS STRUNK jus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii

effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with

irreparable harm, affirms 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. The

grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3 rd

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. /S/

____________________________

Christopher Earl : Strunk in esseSworn to before me this

the 23RD

day of October 2009

/S/

____________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC


15/45

Strunk v. US Department ofCommerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09cv-1295

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. Housemembers with the 20 10 Census.IX. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs of

the receiving States and commerce;X. Those Federal Defendants restrained from any interference with the New York Federal

Reserve Bank and commerce.XI. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People;XI. That the allotment with 2 USC $2a to Maryland include the enumeration for the

Washington District of Columbia Citizen resident and permanent resident for the purposeof calculation with 13 USC $141, and that residents qualified according to MarylandElection Law grant Federal election suffrage P Y P ~ F ~ ~ J fQXIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v""P t at. 09-CY-1249and Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234;

XIV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actualRICO Statement;XV. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary.

I have read the foregoingin regards to enforcement of law, in lieu of the secession of thePeople of the New York from the Union with the united States of Americaasof right by and forthe CHRIS STRUNK jus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertiieffects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries withirreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters thereinstated to be alleged on information and belief, andas to those matters I believe it to be true. Thegrounds of my beliefsas to all matters not stated upon information and belief areas follows: 3rdparties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to beforeme thisthe& day ofOctober2009

aEOROEANDERSONNatary Public,State of NewWNO.OlAN5070990 14Qualified in Kings County~ommlssion xpires Jan. 6,20 1


16/45

a

D. nw. ~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ mD r e c n n n ~ c % E r r a r r ~ c a a r n - - 4M .

SmnPROUurnmar-- l n u a s r + l l l b u b m L a o a d l W m s du- R D ~ R E L w l r u ~ w o l n i d ~ .uit: -mnms n m m & m D . aoa. OUR. XI. mm bmn 4, -1.-I-:*/ nm t u- bu kr BUh.-r w w l y . writmla~, 1. a w . of tnnlcrip a*hlrul ..h b . 1 ~ . rr imd ..ac m m . o f . o r h ~ r s i x q ( b Q ) 6 q . r t o ~ L b .I P S L P C l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . .b q ~ . - L . x . ~ . I d b m b y w m d m c . a o r l a ill-. ibl- Ram:b r r r a m ~ a r & . r t b . , o k . e , r l m . 1. Y h t -8 d Lldl-1- CO3- -.lr bu h a L I . h d d * t U . . i . I r r o t ~ t L r r a ~ . . I I - o L . @ Y W I r ~ . C U U b . l l ~ b~ t . a . 0 . l l r ~ l , b r d L I . . u . . Y U L . l l r - - nm uw:m r t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b .W m f i l e b m L d d t b t b m c i a 2 Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d tranu-In*- : n i a - t o r m r e . . m - . . w ~ ~ n d 3. % tb. 01. - OM* oi Oi fL.dd.orm eulp nawsoa; sdd W r a a c e dm h l l d bmb. a Dom;u-- 17; 4. b d t r . r b . c b a r d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t a t o ~

~ . o ~ a u h . l . . ~ t rm - r * ~ l l r ~ . n i p c ~ s r t s - y o t . I d p ~ b L h . ~ d m .Ir IpB Ib. kLb.1 P U S O . ~N1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh -1m. Wi. tbh& ., olamem mmch ~ . tfrle-- L rtn Lia.11- L. 170 -. Iw -Wrp.W 1-t. ClkW.7.

r -I"&. -. thi.& ., OI S1%

-. - WMUmOf CaDH1

c..r rp 9rAEnU D. -. LLL. lb . c &....r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -epnthllr sham a a l l a r t

In m t ~ I I a r a a t ~ m S . = b n a a a ~

r r e b a b r . r n L l a c a i ~ , U t Y m d ~ ~apahlll, Sum 6 - 8 t&t Uballr L.NU* .s 17DIWasQa srr rs . - k.-.Ct..

II~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W

i.-. IW, S u m d IlnaU. on~~ . l%L , bymaMI- CD pal- u c d adm r d n c . t h . td . C . L m b u n ~ m n a l . u L I D O . I l1 1 " u . .

mf b t U L . w m d U t dU lrt a d -

EXHIBIT E


17/45


18/45


19/45

Dr. orly Tail&A r n r a e y d - L m29839S a g y l t a P kw yRanelm Son61MPT&Prlt.CA 92688pb. 949-683-541 1fax 949-766-7603California State BmrNo.: 223433E-Mall: dr ta1k'?t%8vahoo.comUNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR TFOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIASANTA ANA (S OUTIIER N) DIVISION

Wrn Pamela Bmett, ct al.,Plaintiffi,v. Civil Adion:

NOTICE O F FILING 28 USC. 1746Ded.ntbnofDaniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S18711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESSwj / Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

u141516

Baracl;HusseinObama,Michdle L.R Obamqtlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State.RobenM. Gat-, Swm ary ofDe ens,Joseph R. Bid m Vim-Presidan andPmtdent of lhc Scnsre~el'&~s.

I '

to all o f & hcfdlowmg mmpmy sllomeys arhosc rtmxs w m f i e d to the" S T A T E M E N T 0 F I N T E R E S T " w h o k a p p e a r c d m t h i s e m ~ w i h

2345678

10I1

Disain of calihnin,towit:

P RO OR O F S e R n C EIthe~mdasignedCharfea dwa~dLhrolo. eing ove r theageof l 8andnota

partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.Seplembcr4,2009. I pmvided faca i i l e or clcc&mic copies of thc PlahntifB' above-1 and-foregoingNoticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 8 1746 Dcclantionof Lucas Daniel1 Srnitb with attachedExhibit,as a aupplcmmt o PlaintiffsFIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F Le lTERSROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TOCO N DU CT P RERU L E 26(0 DISCOVERYTODEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO P ERPETU ATETESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT1 M ~ R SOGATORY PURSUANT to 28U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2)

1711 LEON w. WELDMAN. ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov b i g n a t e jI ead muusel for Pmir!enJ

destructionin the nw r future. Plaintiffs fear that evidence relating to the'cause may be destroyed as soon as it is identified as relevant to theI

19

2122

5 1) questions relating to their lawsuit, and or this reason have asked the.Court1

1 Bmck Hussein Obanra00 Augus17.2009)D A V l D k L k J U T EFACSIMILE (213)894-7819

DONEAND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday lhc 4'day of SqHanba, 2009.

to consider allowing the Plaintiffs to take depositions pursuant to the"spirit" of Rule 27, even though a case has already beea filcd, but prior to

Iall

I211 she her ofic e and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl

89I0I1

I311 order s in this cou rt should from thisday orward be sent to hera t I

the Rule 2 q f ) Conference which normally marks the nitiation of formaldiscovery under the Fed& Rules of CivilProcedure.

PLAINTIFFS' A TTO RN EY ' S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESSCounsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that

&Dr.O d yT.itrEka6 B N 223433)

1819a32 1 ,

RanchoS a n l a - ~ a r g a r i t a - ~ ~2928ph. 949-683-54 11fax 949-5862082CaliforniaBarW No. 223433

California Bar IDNa 23433Respectfully submiaed

F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) IVISION

EXHIBIT F

I2 28 1746 DsLntlea 01LoarDamidSmithwlth E d M 1'Il. M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m'5l6l7

l9ao

22

ar25a5

"~ U S C g l 7 4 6 D o r r . r * . ~ ~ s l b * ~ A l N 94- mm-rn~rnmL( TA"ZN&aJ i rm sL4dmwb4 A-n - # / A h m u ~ u % m l ! !Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I M U u t f-m.~-r*mmcat

solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieal i~toC' any kind or condition.2. 1am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1am 29 years old andl was born andraisedin the state of Iowa.3. I have m n a l mowledge of all the facts and circNmstancesdescribed herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to

ofthe same.4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital inMombasa, Kenya5. 1visited the hospital accompanied by one more penon, a nahualborn citizen of theDemocratic Republic of Congo formerly known as"Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo").6. 1 raveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particula r with the intent toobtainthe original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama, s I wastold previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the


20/45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

28 U.S.C. 1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 -5

DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211

MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691(949) 683-5411

E-MAIL: [email protected]

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein

Obama's cousin.

7. cer on

duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth

certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.

8. The copy was signed by the hospital administrator.

9. The copy contain the embossed seal.

10. The true and correct photocopy of the Birth certificate obtained, is

attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A.

11. I declare, certify, verify, state, and affirm under penalty of perjury

under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true

and correct.

12. I have not received any compensation for making this affidavit.

Further, Declarant saith naught.

Signed and executed in ____________, ___________ on this _____

day of September, 2009.

By:_____________________________Lucas Daniel Smith

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFF


MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 9269(949) 683-541


Exhibit A:

Birth Certificate from theCoastal Hospital; District of Mombasa

Kenya, obtained inFebruary 2009


21/45

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28


Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorneys Change of Address

DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS


MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691

(949) 683-5411


Exhibit A:Lucas Daniel Smiths Photocopy of

Birth Certificate from theCoastal Hospital; District of MombasaKenya, obtained in

February 2009


22/45


23/45

----__EXHIBIT G


24/45

Case 1 08-cv-02234-RJL Document 27 Filed 10/21/20 9 Page 1 of 1%-h*fi. p 7 7 g-? 0k t , :.. 5.; "% .& 3,. QP593 VanderbiltAvenue -#281. .!%, . i a i .::. 3 B d p , ew YO&11238:a - Telep-. (845) 901-6767..:* . JK ;:I:! :AXE i ~ g h Email: [email protected]: Stnmk0 in esseHonorableDavid 0.CarterJudge, United States District CorntCentralDistrict of California,Southern Division41 1 West Fad Strcct,Courtroom 9DSantaAna, CA92701-4516 Re:Bmet t . eta1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082Subject: Request forpermission to transferwith the 28 USC $1407Multidistrictmatter$#run&USDOS et al. DCD O&v-2234

(RJJ.,) with demand forQuo Warranto inquestofBarackHussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro).The Honorable JudgeCarter,I am theP Chistopher-Ed: Strunk0 n esse, in ther e W Case and makethis

smment underpenaltyofpejlPypursuant to 28USC 1746.Declmt is self-represented inthe above ivil actionon-going n WashingtonDistrict ofColumbiabefore U.S.DistrictJudge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leonordered a stay ofdimvery pending a decisionon myQuoWarmto demand for an inquest ofmulti-allegiance h t sassociatedwith theAugust4,1%1 birthofBamk Hussein Obama Jr., ak.aBarry Soetoro (theUsurper).That I duly firedtheUsurpermJaanrary22,2089~tbeUs\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypawerafsttomey as he Usurperhasmore than oneallegiance atbhrth by bis own admission; and&enSm,with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the officeof Presidentaccordiingto U.S.Constitution Article IISection2 Clause 5, becausetheUsurperisnot an W - W e nwithouttwoU.S. CitizenparentsonAugust 4,196 1.Of iwtherprima facie importanceto theinquest are fects iledbeforethisCourt forvcrificatiwthatprovetheUsusperisnotevenanative-bomcitizeneither,and therebytriggers eview of factsastoUsurps'smtumhdcitizen status also if proper allegiancefiling is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen ofIndonesia.I a m ~ ~ w i t h t h t f a c t s a s s o c i ~ w i t h t h e r C f d c a s e s a s ~ h a r e r C ~ a n dsubject to comlidationhere as anurgent matterofNational Security beforethis Court and thattheU.S. Govemmmthas argued that any Quo Wananto bedone inWashingtonDistrict ofCohrmbiaand I urgehereinmeswith aMultidistrid Judithisque s thssbeen senttoCounsels andCourt inboth cases.

,hk....sg2mBmklyn NewYorkcc: JudgeRichard J. LeonBrigham John Bowen, AUSA - o dRoger E.WestAUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.govCharlesEdward L i i ~ n , - l l I , sq. ~ h a r l c s , l i n c o l n ~ k ~ . c o mDr.Orly Taitz, Esq. dr tai-.corn

EXHIBIT I


25/45

----EXHIBIT L


26/45


27/45

News :: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District Page 1 of 1

February 2007 Press ReleasesPelosi Denounces Hateful Views in AsianWeek Column; Wednesday,February 28,2007Pelosi Statement on British Troop Withdrawal; Wednesday, February21,2007Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi hosts a Climate Change and EnerayIndependence Roundtable; February 21,2007Pelosi Statement on the Lunar New Year; Friday, February 16, 2007Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Will Signal a Change in Direction and Bring OurTroops Home Safely and Soon; Friday, February 16, 2007Pelosi: Vote Against Escalation in Iraq is a Messaqe to President Bush- No More Blank Checks on Iraq; Tuesday, February 13,2007Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi accepts the lnstituto Laboral de la Raza2007 Congressional Leadership Award; February 9,2007Pelosi Remarks at Service Last Night for Leo McCarthy; Friday,February 9, 2007Pelosi: we Will Work Toaether to Tackle Global Waning. One ofHumanity's Greatest Challenges; Thursday, February 8, 2007Pelosi: President's Budget Is More of the Same ~isca lrresponsibilityand Misplaced Priorities; Monday, February 5, 2007Pelosi Statement on Black History Month; Thursday, February I, 007

More 8th District Press Releases and Statements:2007: Januarv Februarv March April Mav June Julv Aunust September October NovemberDecember

get email ~ ~ d a t e sbiosra~hyconstituent services Iwork in connress ( about SanFrancisco I news Iphotos Icontact Ivouth op~ortunities homeDistrict Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-4862Washington, D.C. Office - 2371 Raybum HOB - Washington, DC20515 - (202) 225-4965

EXHIBIT P


28/45

THE WHITE HOUSEWASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr.ChristopherStnmkUnit 281593 Vanderbilt AvenueBrooklyn,New York 11238

DearMr. tnmk:Thankyou far antactingthe officeofP r e s i i t Barack Obama ThePresident appreciatesyourtaking the time to voice your coacernsand opinions.W ewould like tobe ofmktaace to however, due to thesepamtbofpowers, it isnotwithin ourauthority tobecome involved in legal matters. You

mustresolvethis issue hmugh the judicial systemPleasebe aware thatyou am isit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINPO

for infannationaboutFederal Govrmmentassistance.We hupe your concerns are resolved to your satisfactian.Again,thankyou far your correspondence.

F.Michael Kelleher. . Special Assistant to theResident andDirectorof Presidential Com qxmdence

EXHIBIT Q


29/45


30/45

United StatesDistrict Court for the District of ColumbiaIn Case - Strunk v.US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEOn October 24,2009, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certifqr under penalty of perjurypursuant to 28 USC 1746,That I caused the service of six (6) copies of Christopher-Earl: StrunkQ in esse, PLAINTIFF'SRESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTAS TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTSAND SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITYANDINDIVIDUALLY in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavit and exhibits annexed affirmed October23,2009, and each complete set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with properpostage for United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon:

Wynne P. KellyAssistant United States Attorney555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C.20530John Marcus McNichols, Esq.WILLIAMS& CONNOLLY, U P725 12th Street,NWWashington, DC 20005John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.KAUFMAN& CANOLES, P.C.150 West Main Street-P.O. Box 3037Norfolk, VA 23 5 14

Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.TEXAS OFFICE OF THEATTORNEY GENERALP.O. Box 12548Austin, TX 7871 1Seth E. Goldstein,Deputy Attorney GeneralCalifornia Department of JusticeOffice of the Attorney General1300 "I" Street- Suite 125Sacramento, California 94244-2550Stephen Kitzinger,Assistant Corporation CounselNew York City Law DepartmentOffice of Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 10007

I do declareand cDated:October8 2 0 0 9Brooklyn,NewYork


31/45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHTUSTOPHER EARL STRUNK, ))

Plaintiff, ))v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )CENSUS, et al., )

Defendants. )1

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' M OTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CO MPLAINTDefendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary ~o c k e , '

Secretary o f the United States Department of Comm erce, United S tates Departmen t of HomelandSecurity, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United S tates Department of Hom eland S ecurity, theUnited States House of Representatives, N ancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House ofRepresentatives , and Barack ~ b a m a , ~resident of the United States ("Federal Defendantsyy),respectfully m ove this Court to dismiss the comp laint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk("Plaintiff') pursuant to Rule 1 2(b )(l) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.In support of this motion and opposition, Federal Defendan ts respectfully refer the Cou rt to theaccompan ying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Pro se Plaintiff is advised that if he failsto respond to this motion, the Court may grant this motion and dismiss his case because of the

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Gary Lock e, Secretary of theUnited States Department of Com merce is hereby substituted as the party of record for CarlosGutierrez, former S ecretary of the United S tates Department of Co mm erce.In the caption and the body of his complaint, Plaintiff lists the President of the United States as"Barry Soetoro" a.k.a. "Barack O bama." The Clerk of Court has listed "Barry S oetoro" as anamed defendant. Undersigned counsel represents Barack H. Obama, President of the UnitedStates.


32/45

failure to respond. See Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988). A proposed orderconsistent with this motion is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS,D.C. ar # 41 5793Acting U nited States Attorney

RUDOLPH C ONTRE RAS, D.C. Bar # 434122Assistant Uni S tes AttorneyE555 4th St., N.* uWashington, D.C. 20530(202) 305-7107wynne.kelly@ usdoj gov


33/45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,Plaintiff, )

)v. 1 Civil Action No. 09-1 295 (RJL)UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT )OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )CENSUS, et al., )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHOR ITIESIN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk ("Plaintiff' or "Strunk") has filed two (2) relatedcom plaints in this Court, both of which are frivolous and without merit. Each case, to the extentthat the complaints can be digested, takes issue with the federal government's conducting of thenational census and alleges a grand conspiracy in which the Society of Jesus, a religious order ofthe Roman Catholic Church, controls the nation (if not the world). Both of Pla intiffs complaintswarrant dismissal as a matter of law.

I. BACKGROUNDIn this case, Plaintiff seems to assert that D efendants United States Department of

Comm erce, Bureau of the Census, Gary L ocke, Secretary of the United States Department ofCommerce, United S tates Department of Hom eland Security, Janet Napo litano, Secretary of theUnited S tates Department of Homeland Security, the United States House o f Representatives,Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and Barack Obarna,President of the United States ("Federal Defendants") are part of some sort of conspiracy to


34/45

(Compl. at 1-2, 11-19, T[n 43-82.) Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgm ent related to "residentsuffrage in Wash ington D.C . within Maryland as of right." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that hemakes a "Special Appearance7'before the Court as a "Living-Soul Son-of-the Most-High-God-Yahweh in existence nun cp ro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son MadeDebt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of H is Blood, in which S trunk Stands inthe Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh . . .under reserve, without dishonor, withoutprejudice, without recourse in good faith, no do lus; and that this [Clourt and or defendants areunable to offer a higher consideration." (Id. at 4-5, T[ 11 ) The remainder of Plain tiffsallegations that seem to relate to the Federal D efendants center around P lain tiff s belief that theFederal Defendants conspired with various non-government actors throughout history toperpetuate, inter alia, the Oklahoma City bombing (id. at 1 8, 78 0) and President BarackObam a's education at Occidental College (id. at 24-27, IT[110-29). As P laintif fs claims areutterly devoid of factual bases and fail to state a claim upon w hich relief could be granted, thecomplaint should be d i~ m is se d. ~

11. LEGAL STANDARDUnder Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "(1) a

short and plain statem ent of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, un less the court already has

' Like much of Pl ain tiff s complaint, it is unclear what exactly Plaintiff means by the term"tourists" as he alternately alludes to pleasure travelers to places like Hawaii and New York, seeCompl. at 27, TI 130, but then equates the term "tourists" with "illegal immigrants." See id. at 28,7 134.As Pl ain tiff s complaint and the allegations therein are frivolous and Plaintiff lacks standing,Pla inti ffs m otion for a three judge panel should not be referred to the Chief Judge of the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Co lumbia for review. CJ 28 U.S.C. 8 2284.


35/45

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." It is well established thatev en pr o se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. Gonzales,496 F. Supp. 2d 146, 149 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Ja rr el l v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C.1987)).

1. Dism issal Pursuant to Rule 12fi)(!)-for Lack of JurisdictionFederal Defendan ts request dismissal of the com plaint pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(l) o r

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss forlack of jurisdiction may be presented as a facial or factual challenge. "A facial challenge attacksthe factua l allegations of the com plaint that are contained on the face of the complaint, while afactual challenge is addressed to the underlying facts contained in the complaint." Al-Owhali v.Ashcroft, 279 F. Sup p. 2d 13 ,2 0 (D.D.C . 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted.)When a defendant makes a fac ial challenge, the district court must accept the allegationscontained in the com plaint as true and consider the factual allegations in the light most favorableto the non-moving party. Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 182 (D.D.C. 2006). Withrespect to a factual challenge, the district court may consider m aterials outside of the pleadings todetermine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Jerome Stevens Pharmacy,Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The plaintiff bears the responsibility ofestablishing the factual predicates of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. Erby , 424 F.Supp. 2d at 182.

Additionally, and most relevant to this case, ""'[F]ederal courts are without power toentertain claims otherw ise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial asto be abso lutely devo id of merit, . . .wholly insubstant ial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]""' Riles v.


36/45

Geithner, -- F. Supp. 2d --, ivil Action No. 09-0214 (PLF), 2009 WL 1886214, at *2 (D.D.C.July 2,20 09 ) (quoting Watson v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-0268 ,2009 WL 377136, at*1 (D.D.C. Feb. 1 3,2 009 ) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,536 -37,94 S.Ct. 1 37 2,3 9L.Ed.2d 577 (1974))) (internal quotation marks and c itations omitted). See also S teel Co. v.Citizensfor a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 32 8,33 0 (D.C.Cir. 1994). "Thus, such claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)( l) of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure." Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 009 WL 1886214, at *2. "To be dismissed on thisground, the claims in question must 'be flimsier than "doubtful or questionable" - they must be"essentially fictitious.""' Id. (quoting Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Haga ns, 41 5 U.S. at 536-37))). "Claims that are essentially fictitious include those that allege 'bizarre consp iracytheories, . . . fantastic government manipulations of [the] will or mind, [or] any sort ofsupernatural intervention."' Id. (quoting Best, 39 F.3d at 330) (emphasis added).

2. Dismissal Pursu ant to Rule 12/b)f6) or Failu re to State a ClaimIn order to su rvive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must presen t factual allegations

that are sufficiently detailed "to raise a right to relief above the specu lative level." Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 54 4,5 55 (2007). In satisfying this requirement that it "state a claimto relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, a complaint cannot survive a motion to dism issthrough only "a formulaic recitation of the elem ents of a cause of action." Id. at 555.

As w ith facial challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l) , a districtcourt is required to deem the factual allegations in the complaint as true and consider thoseallegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when eva luating a motion todismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trudeau v. FTC, 56 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006). But where acomplaint pleads facts that are "merely co nsistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops sho rt of


37/45

Accordingly, a "court considering a motion to dism iss can choose to begin by identifyingpleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assum ption oftruth. While legal conclusions can provide the framew ork of a complaint, they must besupported by factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

111. ARGUMENTA. This Court L acks Jurisdiction Over Plain tiffs Conspiratorial ClaimsPlain tiff s complaint is exactly the type of pleading contemp lated by the D.C. C ircuit's

holding in Best v. Kelly. Pl ain tiff s bizarre and impossible allegations of intricate conspiracytheories involving the Federal Defendants are not only "essentially fictitious," they are com pletefabrications of Plai ntiff s mind. Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 009 WL 1886214, at *2. An evencursory review of Pla inti ffs complaint demonstrates that this Court lacks jurisdiction overPla intif fs com plaint pursuant to the doctrine of Best v. Kelly and its progeny. As this Courtlacks subject matter jurisdiction due to P lai nt iffs bizarre, fanciful, and fictitious claims,Pla intif fs complaint should be dismissed. See id. (citing Curra n v. Holder, -- F.Supp.2d --(D.D.C. 2009); Richards v. Duke University, 480 F. Supp. 2d 222 ,232 -34 (D.D.C. 2007); Roumv. Bush, 461 F. Supp . 2d 4 0 ,4 6 (D.D.C.2006); Bestor v. Lieberm an, Civil Action No. 03-1470,2005 WL 681460 , at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 11,2005); Carone-Ferdinand v. Cen tral IntelligenceAgency, 131 F. Supp. 2d 232,234-35 (D.D.C. 2001)).

B. Plaintiff Lacks Stand ingShould this C ourt determine that it has jurisdiction over Pla intif fs complaint, the C ourt

should dismiss Pl ain tiffs complaint as Plaintiff has failed to establish constitutional standing."'Article I11 standing is a prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction, and . . petitioners carry the


38/45

, 'burden of establishing their standing."' Pross er v. Fed. Agri. Mortg. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 150,154 (D.D.C. 2009) (q uoting Am. Library Ass n v. F.C.C., 40 1 F.3d 4 89 ,49 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).For P laintiff to sa tisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, he must demonstrate that he:

First, must have suffe red an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interestwhich is (a) concrete and particularized , and'(b) actual or imm inent, not conjectural orhypothe tical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and theconduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged actionof the defendant, and not . . h[e] result [o fl the independent action of some third partynot before the court. Third, it mus t be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that theinjury will be redressed by a favorable decision.Id. In addition, to estab lish standing when seek ing injunctive relief, Plaintiff must also "allegethat [he is] 'likely to su ffer future injury."' Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to contest the 2010 census and its possible inclusionof illegal immigrants, or any of the Federal Defendants' actions related to the 201 0 census, thisCourt has already held that plaintiffs who bring such claims lack standing. See Fed. for Am.Immigration Reform v. Kutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 ,56 8 (D.D.C. 1980). In Kutznick, theplaintiffs filed suit, prior to the commencement of the actual national census, that their votingrights would be affected by the 1980 census due to its inability to capture the number of illegalaliens in the United States. This Court, sitting as a three-judge panel, held that the plaintiffs'injuries were far too speculative and they had fa iled to allege an injury -in-fact sufficient toconfer constitutional standing. Id. at 570-71 ("They [plaintiffs] have failed to demonstrateconcrete harm w hich will occur and be suffered by any one of them, and they have also failed todemonstrate that the relief they request will benefit them personally. Indeed, it is impossible forthem to do so, because of the way our method of apportionment operates. . . .The point is thatplaintiffs' allegations are far too speculative to permit us to conclude that any particular plaintiff


39/45

has an interest at stake in this proceeding and would benefit from the relief requested."). Here,the Court is presented with an almost identical factual scenario: Plaintiff has brought his claimmaking nebulous allegations that the national census of 201 0 w ill inappropriately count illegalaliens (particularly agents of the Vatican) and that this occurrence will, in the future, affectPlain tiff s voting rights. Pl ain tiff s allegations are far too speculative and Plaintiff has failed tosufficiently allege an injury in fact to establish constitutional standing.3 P lainti ffs complaint,particularly Counts One through si xY 4hould be dismissed.

C. Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Rule 8 Pleading. RequirementsP la in ti ps pr o s e complaint fails to state a claim even under the liberal pleading standards

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As noted above, it is well established that ev en pr o se litigants mustcomply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146, 149(D.D.C. 2007) (citing Jar rel l v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 23 7,23 9 (D.D.C. 1987)). "Even underliberal notice pleading standards, a complaint may be dismissed if it does not articulate a factualor legal basis for relief." Id. (citations omitted). Rule 8(a) requires that a com plaint "shallcontain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdictiondepends . . . [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim show ing that the pleader is entitledto relief." Id. This rule "accords the plaintiff wide latitude in framing his claims for relief."Brown v. Calfano, 75 F.R.D. 49 7,49 9 (D.D.C. 1977). The purpose of the rule is to give "fair

Plaintiff, as a New York citizen, has even less of an argument for standing regarding the votingrights of citizens of the District of Columbia and/or Maryland.

Plain tiff s com plaint seems to attempt to articulate different counts or claims for relief.Pl ain tiff s first six counts, however, are identical in that they contain allegations of a conspiracybetween various Federal Defendants and the Roman Catholic Church or the S ociety of Jesus tocount illegal immigrants or tourists as part of the population to, purportedly, dilute citizens' votesand consolidate power.


40/45

notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opp ortunity to file aresponsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of resjudicata is applicable." Id. at 498. "A pr o se complaint like any other, must present a claim uponwhich relief can be granted by the court." CrisaJi v. Holland , 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C . Cir.1981).

Pla inti ffs pleading fails to meet the m inimum requirements of even a p ro se pleading.The complaint fails to allege sufficien t facts that would give Defendan t notice as to any possiblecause of action or law allegedly at issue. See Sparrow v. UnitedAir Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111(D.C . Cir. 2000) (Plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case but under Rule 8, he is required togive the defendants fair notice of each claim and its basis) (citations omitted). Therefore,Pla inti ffs com plaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 12(b)(6).

D. Federal Defendants Have Not Waived Sovereign ImmunityPlaintiff is apparen tly seeking damages for alleged torts against federal agenc ies and

federal employees in their official capac ities. Such claims are barred by the doctrine ofsovereign immunity as Plaintiff is seeking to impose liability on the United States. "The FederalGovernment can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued." Epps v. US. Atty. Gen., 575F. Supp. 2d 232 ,238 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing F.D.I.. v. Meyer, 5 10 U.S. 47 1,47 5 (1994))."'Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Governm ent and its agencies fromsuit."' Id. (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475); see also U nited states v. Nord ic Village, 503 U.S.30 (1992)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit for money dam ages against federalofficials in their official capacities absent a specific waiver by the Federa l Government. Clark v.Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-03 (D.C. Cir. 1984).


41/45

Where a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a federal agency for certain tortscomm itted by federal employees, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction for thisCourt would be the Federal Tort Claim s Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 5 1346(b). Epps, 575 F.Supp. 2d at 238. The FTCA is unavailable to Plaintiff, however. Like the Plaintiff in Epps,Plaintiff fails to "assert that he h as exhausted necessary adm inistrative remedies under theFTCA, which is a m andatory prerequisite . . . ." Id. (citing GA F Corp. v. United States, 8 18 F.2d901,904-05 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Further, the FTCA does not provide a waiver of sovereignimmunity for alleged constitutional torts, which Plaintiff may be alleging here, even if there wereexhaustion of the requisite administrative process. Id. (citing F.D .I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 477-78; Clark, 750 F.2d at 102-104); see als o Roum v. Bush, 461 F. Supp. 2d 4 0, 45 (D.D.C. 2006).

In Roum, the plaintiff alleged that there was "an intricate plot by various agencies andofficials of the federal government to kidnap, torture, and kill" the plaintiff. 461 F. Supp. 2d at42. The government, among other things, allegedly kept plaintiff under "constant surveillance,"broke into his apa rtment and poisoned his belongings, made false accusations of being a terroristagainst him, and spied on him and other U.S. citizens. Id. The plaintiff sought injunctive reliefand $875 million in damages. Id. Judge Collyer, upon consideration of a motion to dismiss thepla inti ffs complaint, held that the plaintiff could not estab lish a valid waiver of sovereignimmunity as he could not make out a claim as a matter of law, even under the FTC A. Id. at 46.Further, Judge Collyer stated that even if the plaintiff could make out a claim under the FTCA,the Court would still dism iss the claim as "fundamentally incredible" as "[ulnder Rule 12(b)(l),federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims that are 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to beabsolutely devoid of merit,"' id. (qu oting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536), and "[c]omplaints that arecomprised of 'fanciful claims' and 'bizarre conspiracy theories' are generally subject to


42/45

dismissal on that basis." Id (quoting Bestor v. Lieberman, No. 03-1470,2005 WL 681460, at * 1(D.D.C. Mar. 1,2005) (additional citation omitted).

Here, this Court cannot exercise urisdiction over P lai ntif fs claims as Plaintiff has notdemonstrated a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. Pl ain tiff s only possible avenue of relief,the FTCA, is closed due to his failure to follow the correct administrative procedures and the factthat the FTCA does not waive immunity for the type of con stitutional torts that Plaintiff seems toallege. Finally, as noted above , Plaintiff's claims are comprised of "fancihl" and "bizarreconspiracy theories" that "are generally subject to d ismissal." Id. Thus, Plaintiffs complaintshould be dismissed.

E. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Anv Iniunctive ReliefPlaintiff seems to allege that he is entitled to som e sort of injunctive relief. Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign imm unity and therefore any claims forinjunctive relief should be dismissed. Pla intiffs only potential argumen t for waiver of sovereignimm unity for injunctive reIief is the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 702 etseq. Plaintiff, however, has failed to allege a final action by a federal agency that would providePlaintiff a right of action. See, e.g., Coalitionfor UndergroundExpansion v.Mineta, 333 F.3d193, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming district court's dismissal of com plaint for lack ofstanding where plaintiff could not demonstrate final agency action for purposes of A PA waiverof sovereign immunity). Pl ain tiff s nebulous allegations related to supposed interactionsbetween the Federal Defendants and the Rom an Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the2010 census, do not dem onstrate a final agency action that could possibly be reviewable underthe APA. Thus, any claims for injunctive relief against the Federal Defendants should bedismissed.


43/45

CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the Federal Defendants respectfully request that the com plaint

be dismissed. A proposed order is attached.Respectfully submitted,

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar # 415793Acting United States Attorney

RUDOLPH CONTR ERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122Ass is tant U n M States Attornev

~ s s i s t a n t nited ~ t d t g , d ~ t t o r n e ~u555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530(202) 305-7107wynne.kelly@usdoj gov


44/45

CERTIFICAE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that on this 25th day of September 2009, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Federal Defendants' Motion toDismissarid Opposition to P lain tiffs Motion forPreliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and a proposed order wereserved uponpro se plain tiff by first classUnited States mail, postage prepaid marked for deliveryto:Christopher Strunk593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281Brooklyn, New York 1 238

Assistant U.S. kttdrney U


45/45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CER EIDPH ER EARL STRUNK, )Plaintiff, ))1

v. )1UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )CENSUS, et al., ))Defendants. 1

Civil Action No . 09-1 295 (R JL)

ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COM PLAINT

THIS CAUS E comes before the Court upon the Federal Defendan ts' motion to dismissPlain tiffs complaint.

UPON CONSIDERA TION of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and beingotherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ORD ERED AND ADJUDG ED that the motion is GRAN TED. The Federal Defendantsare hereby D ISMISSED from this case.

DONE AND ORD ERED in Chambers, in W ashington, District of Columbia, thisday of ,20-.

RICHARD J. LEONUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits 102309

Documents

Transcript of Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits 102309