Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru Q 102309 w Defendant MTD...

8/14/2019 Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru Q 102309 w Defendant MTD attached

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/strunk-affidavit-in-opposition-to-us-mtd-dcd-09-cv-1295-w-exhibits-a-thru-q 1/126

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

PLAINTIFF’S 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 in

opposition 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

2. That outrageously CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney by his

agents 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 New

York, 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

Plaintiff’s actual birth certificate whose bond is on file at the Department of Commerce and used

as an article trade by Defendants against Plaintiff’s in esse rights protected by New York law.

4. That Affirmant in esse makes a special appearance herein without waiver of any

sovereignty 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

5. That Affirmant has a related case Strunk v. NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE

SOCIETY 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 September

11, 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 Clerk’s 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 Affiant’s response to the Defendant

Maryland Province filed with this Court.

7. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the Fiduciary

Duty 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

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 Fiduciary

Duty 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 treaty―a Concordat―with 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 considerations―intending 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 XVI’s thirteen American




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.

O’Hare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals include Knights of the

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

under extreme oath of the fourth vow; CFR member and President Reagan’s 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 DC

as a resident denied suffrage for the record the Maryland State Defendants by Governor Martin

O’Malley has defaulted, and that Governor O’Malley 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 (the

Traitor) 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

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 collaborating

with 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 Department

of 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 document

filed in the case Barnett 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

15. That as of October 20, 2009 Affiant received a pdf photocopy of the actual delayed filing

record done 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 action

related 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) Usurper’s 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 to

Plaintiff(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 missing

in 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

consolidation with the Census and Quo warranto inquest demand regarding the enterprise’s

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 of

actual 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 Government’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction alleging Plaintiff has

not 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 Usurper’s 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 best judgment, 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

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 her

affidavit 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 (1846–1848). 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

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 an

act 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 Vatican’s 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 a

coup 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 statement

in 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 Laboral

de 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

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 by

changing 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 District

of 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 and

ongoing 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 separation

of 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 as

necessary for relief, and as an injured party-in-interest do not have other means for relief.




12

32. That clearly these matters are part of the Usurper on-going fraud upon the American

People 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 Founding

Fathers in the U.S. Constitution that U.S. House Representation doesn’t 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

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 ongoing

irreparable harm;

VI. That were Barack Hussein Obama held a Usurper in fact that Plaintiff be granted an

opportunity 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 Act

in 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 as

to 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 the

several 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 of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state

internal affairs;




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 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;

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 Jesus

et 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



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 purpose

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

Election Law grant Federal election suffrageP Y P ~ F ~ ~ J

fQ

XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v""P t at. 09-CY-1249

and 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 the

People of the New York from the Union with the united States of Americaasof 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, andas to those matters I believe it to be true. The

grounds of my beliefsas to all matters not stated upon information and belief areas follows: 3rd

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to beforeme thisthe& day ofOctober2009

aEOROEANDERSONNatary Public,State of NewW

NO.OlAN5070990 14Qualified in Kings County

~ommlssion xpires Jan. 6,20 1



NewYork Province Society of Jesus -Welcome to NewYork ProvinceoftheSociety of ... Page 1 of 3

NenrYurkPrdncellc Sociery ofJars

<

F , . - M ~ s I .~FdhtmtUninmtfy.hburssconmunionat 1a) iem'sManfor

fnaomiqfmhman rm d their

fmnl185.

Make cdonation

NEWSNew York Provincq

M L ~ J o d R C m a t ~ ~

Un4 pw-ts its&@ember *eats sckiuk.

p m m t s L M * o f ~ m m b a

swidsaaIitndm-andarpboialaAan00a -Ewrvone B e l a -fathe amiliesand

fii& ofgays aIId fesbis.

~ m d r q r ~ ~ w b o t O I l a b ( 1 # ~ W s wY a k m c a a m v h d b a ~ ~ o n ~ o u r h i tIdentity Rootadm IgualiauSpmmatity"at ST. Ignatimh i t

~ e b e a t H o u&M a b r s E e t . N Y . ~ , S . p t a n b e t 1 2 .

L o y d a m &mM o r r i r r s D a m , N J , i +

m i a s t o a & k v o f ~ - ~ I r p l d o i n garmsthiog newnewnewconductal by Fr.WU R,akowicqSJ, n September 17.

SociityofJesus.

A . ~ l w o s l l : . n h A ~ ~"Silenaand fwmt D ~ Y Qavocationsarerm loweradequateresponses t iak piedshortage n theunit&Stabs."

ForinsightmlDwhdpumigMdotocnoo~rqgavocldioar,mda hlrrk"bv Fr. Richard Mallw. SJ.~n m r i a

magazine.

&'$&& Ph"QCJdkrrofmarMKIjoined theJamits intheUnited Stldesin 2008.- . - -. -

EXHIBIT A ' A



The text of the JesuitErh.eme Oath of Indmtion is meticulously recorded in the Joumais of the

62nd Congress.3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (HouseCalendar No.

397. Report No. 1523,15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216).

(Textof the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction:)

I , ow in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed VirginMary, he blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul,-and A1 the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, thesuperior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by s t . gnatius Loyola, in thepontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb ofthe V i he matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear thatHis Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of theCatholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of thekeys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, hehath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, andGovernments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of mypower I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all

( usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the LutheranChurch of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the nowpretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, &d the branches ofsame now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhereand all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing thesacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance asdue to any heretical king, prince o r State, named Protestant or Liberal, orobedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do fiirther declare the

doctrine o f the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots,and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they

themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do W e r eclare that I

will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where Ishould be, in Switzerland,Germany,Holland, Ireland or America, or in any otherkingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the hereticalProtestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal orotherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensedwith to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church'sinterest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels &om time to time, as

they en trust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing orcircumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given incharge , or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacredorder. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of myown or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac

Exhibit B. - .



UNITEDSTATES COURTOF APPEALSMIR THEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIACIRCUIT

In re ChristopherEarl Stnmk,

Petitioner for aWrit ofMandamus.

AFFIDAVIT of

Eric-Jon: Phelps6 n esse

In supportofChristopher-Eark StnmW in esse, Petitioner in the

Original Proceedingfor awrit ofmandamusunderFRAPRule 21 for an

Order of the United States District Court for the Districtof Columbia toReease the districtJudge in QSlcv-2234,09-~-1249 09 e- 12 95 atid

investigationo f DistrictClerk's Officewith 28 U.S-C. 5455 and related

law in its entirety.

CMstopher-Earl:Strunk Q in esse593Vanderbilt Avenue #281Brooklyn,New York 11238Em&: cesmck@m*cQ*

-----.-- -.. --.-...- .....-..Cell- (845) 901-6767

EXHIBIT C +



2

AFFIDAVIT of

Eric-Jon: Phelps © in esse

In support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse, Petitioner in the Original

Proceeding 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 09-cv-1295 and investigation of

District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )

) ss

COUNTY OF BERKS )

I, Eric-Jon: Phelps© in esse, Affirmant, being duly sworn, depose and state

under penalty of perjury:

1. Am a natural born citizen of the Republic of California residing in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, am over 18 years of age and not a party

to this instant action.

2. Affirmant’s residence for service of process is 203 South Fort Zellers

Road, Apt. D, Newmanstown, PA, 17073; Email: [email protected];

home phone : 610-295-5082.

3. Affirmant makes this affidavit in support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in

esse (“Petitioner”), Petitioner in the Original Proceeding 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, 09-



3

cv-1295 and investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and

related law in its entirety.

4. That Petitioner has requested that Affirmant testify herein and or related

proceedings as an expert witness on the Society of Jesus, also called the

Company of Jesus, and related organizations in the following matters:

a. The history of the Bible-based, Protestant Reformation;

b. The history of the Society of Jesus, a.k.a. the Jesuit Order,

established by Pope Paul III in 1540;

c. The Jesuit Order’s extreme oath of induction swearing complete

obedience to the Pope of Rome, which allegiance includes the

“extirpation” of all “heretics and liberals” by any means necessary

including political assassination;

d. The history of the Jesuit Order’s involvement in the western

hemisphere, especially as it relates to its de jure conversion of

“these United States of America” founded in 1787 into a

centralized, consolidated Empire in 1868 (via the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution) until the present;

e. The history of the Bull promulgated by Pope Clement XIV in 1773,

suppressing and extinguishing the Jesuit Order “forever;” the

Society’s resultant war on the papacy through its Illuminati-



4

controlled Grand Orient and Scottish-Rite Freemasonry leading and

directing the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars;

the Order’s restoration in 1814 and subsequent history as to how it

presently exercises exclusive control over the Pope of Rome;

f. The grave danger to the very existence of the papacy, the Order

having murdered popes, altered Canon Law for its advancement,

including directing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); the

military “Company of Jesus” now serving as the primary impetus

behind the international social, religious, political and financial

movement for a highly-centralized “New World Order” which, at

its consummation, necessitates the destruction of the Vatican and

thus the historic Roman Catholic faith;

g. The paramount influence of the Jesuit Order over Washington,

D.C., through Georgetown University via its political surrogate, the

New York City/Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foreign

Relations (CFR) and its offspring, the Trilateral Commission (TC);

h. The secret and yet complete power of the Jesuit Order over a

myriad of papal “Court Jews” serving the Company via their

membership in the CFR and/or in high-level Freemasonry (Senator

Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer, Henry Kissinger,



5

billionaire George Soros, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod, past and

present chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Alan

Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, etc.);

i. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the unified Intelligence

Community of the American Empire centralized at National

Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland, it

defending the pope’s purported power of “binding and loosing;”

j. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the Central Intelligence

Agency since its creation with the National Security Act in 1947,

the CIA serving as the Order’s enforcement arm over its CFR;

k. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over Pope Benedict XVI’s

thirteen American Roman Cardinal Archbishops includes the

former president of Fordham University, CFR member and

Professed Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow Joseph

A. O’Hare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals

include Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (CFR

member and President Regan’s Secretary of State, Alexander M.

Haig, Jr., whose brother, Francis Haig, is a powerful Jesuit priest

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



6

Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Richard V. Allen; etc.); the

Knights of St. Gregory (CFR member and Fox 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 counterintelligence

officer Robert Philip Hanssen, etc.);

5. That Affirmant hereby agrees to testify in this or any related other

proceeding schedule with reasonable due notice.

6. That Affirmant’s area of expertise on the Jesuit Order with references is

as follows:

a. History of the Order including its present Crusade against Islam;

b. Counter Reformation Doctrines of the Order;

c. Power of the Order over the late British Empire, American Empire,

Russian Empire and Chinese Empire;

d. Power over the Moslem World and Israel (Rome’s revived “Latin

Kingdom of Jerusalem”) via Freemasonry;

e. Power over all political leaders worldwide via Illuminized

Freemasonry ruling all Supreme Councils of the 33rd

Degree;



7

f. Power over the Pope’s International Intelligence Community and

International Crime Syndicate both conducting the Order’s

International Drug Trade; International Islamic Masonic Terrorist

Network; International Banking Community including all central

banks of Europe, the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, etc. through the

ubiquitous reach of the NSA, its most secret enclave being “The

Jew Room” from which all American Jews are denied access as a

matter of National Security;

7. That Affirmant was an expert witness for the Plaintiff(s) regarding the

Jesuit Order in the California case Kronzer Foundation v. Caritas of

Birmingham in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, Case No. CLJ

425608. See attached affidavit submitted in that case.

8. That Affirmant believes as a factual matter based upon Canon and related

law as well as press releases and private periodicals:

a. That the Society of Jesus has re-gained its death grip over the

papacy since no later than October, 1836, in which year it secured a

papal Brief by which Pope Gregory XVI gave himself and his

church over to the diabolical rule of the Order;

b. That the Jesuit Superior General of the Company of Jesus obtained

absolute control over every Roman Catholic cardinal, archbishop,



8

bishop and priest through the decree of papal infallibility issued by

the Jesuit-directed and controlled First Vatican Council, 1870, the

“Father General” now unfettered in his rule over the Pope’s Vatican

Empire by commanding the movements of one man;

c. That the Society of Jesus, in order to secure all past privileges

granted to the Order prior to its suppression , extorted the Bull

Dolemus inter alia from Pope Leo XIII in 1880 by first poisoning

and then providing the antidote after the Pope signed that Bull

further entrenching Jesuit tyranny over the Vatican;

d. That according to the Code of Canon Law, the Pope must have a

Jesuit for his immediate confessor, the Jesuit General being fully

apprised of all secret designs and counsels of the “Vicar of Christ”

and his Roman Curia lest a covert movement to suppress the

Society be crowned with success as in the case of Pope Clement

XIV’s Bull of suppression and extinction of the Society in 1773;

e. That the Society of Jesus “tempers the Chair of St. Peter with

assassination,” should any Pope disobey clear commands of his

Jesuit confessor and advisors as in the case of Pope John Paul I;

f. That in upholding the Pope’s universal temporal power in his

fanatical quest to rule all nations, the Company of Jesus, exercising



9

unrivaled control of Pope Pius IX, assassinated President Abraham

Lincoln (1865) and with its subsequent assassination of President

William McKinley (1901) assumed absolute control of its “Holy

Roman” Fourteenth Amendment, cartel-corporate fascist, socialist-

communist, American Empire with which to rule the world for the

benefit of the Jesuit papacy as Chicago Archbishop James Quigley

stated in The Chicago Tribune in 1903: “Within twenty years this

country will rule the world. Kings and emperors will soon pass

away, and the democracy of the United States will take their

place. . . . When the United States rules the world, the Catholic

Church will rule the world.”

g. That the Jesuit Order rules the world from America is attested to by

Fordham University graduate, G. Gordon Liddy, so stated in his

book, Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy, pp. 23, 36:

“As much as I had admired the German Benedictines, I

admired the Jesuits more . . . These men [ Jesuits at the Fordham

University Club] ran the world, and they enjoyed it.”

h. 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;



10

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 being

groomed 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;

i. That the Jesuit Provincial of the New York Province for the Society

of Jesus, David Ciancimino, manages and oversees the centralized

wealth and economic power of the American Empire through his

control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City (which

houses over 600,000 gold bricks), JPMorgan Chase, Bank of

America, etc., as well as Wall Street, the Stock Market and the

Securities and Exchange Commission first headed by Knight of

Malta Joseph P. Kennedy, the foremost short-seller of stock in 1929

precipitating the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression;

j. That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive

Order, recognized the Vatican as a sovereign political state



11

exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legal groundwork for the

signing of a treaty―a Concordat―with Rome, as did Roman

Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco;

k. 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 in concert serving a

foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state,

(Vatican City)―exclusive of all other considerations―intending to

submit the American peoples to a socialist-communist or socialist-

fascist military dictator secretly loyal to the “Vicar of Christ;”

9. 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;

10. That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to

include every State legislature, judiciary and governor in command of his

paramilitary state police;



financial power of the Jesuit Order, he will be removed from office aswas

Illinois G overnor ~ o dlagojevich (an Orthodox "heretic" of Serb ian

descent) who prom ised that his Illinois State government would refuse to

do business with the Jesuit Order's Bank of America headed by then

Chairman and now CEO, papal knight Kenneth D. Lewis;

12. That I, the Affirmant, have read th e above and know its contents as an

expert witness; the facts stated in the Petition are true pursuant to my own

personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged

on information and belief ?h e grounds of Affirmant's beliefs as to all

matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: third parties

including a former CIA assassin, classical histories, encyclopedias, rare

books, official records, and personal knowledge except asto

those stated

being logical conclusions premised upon undeniable facts.

Sworn an dso

Stated before me this3''

day of September 2009.

. ,

pz fi;b,3.;.;&j,:1... -Notary Public

ANN M HASSLER

Notary Public

WOMELSOORFOROUGH. BERKSCOUNTYMy Commlsslof~ xpiresJan 24.2013......



~ i enna onvention on Consular Relations1963

Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entatd intofbraon 19March 1967.

Un ied Nations, Tr- &f?es, vol. 596,p 61

CopyrightOUnited Nuions

2005

F EXHIBIT D



2

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963

The States Parties to the present Convention,

Recalling that consular relations have been established between peoples since ancient times,

Having in mind the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the

sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of

friendly relations among nations,

Considering that the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities

adopted the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was opened for signature on 18 April

1961,

Believing that an international convention on consular relations, privileges and immunities would

also contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differingconstitutional and social systems,

Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to

ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States,

Affirming that the rules of customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly

regulated by the provisions of the present Convention,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1 Definitions

1.For the purposes of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings

hereunder assigned to them:

(a) “consular post” means any consulate-general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency;

(b) “consular district” means the area assigned to a consular post for the exercise of consular

functions;

(c) “head of consular post” means the person charged with the duty of acting in that capacity;

(d ) “consular officer” means any person, including the head of a consular post, entrusted in that

capacity with the exercise of consular functions;

(e) “consular employee” means any person employed in the administrative or technical service of a

consular post;



3

( f ) “member of the service staff” means any person employed in the domestic service of a consular

post;

( g ) “members of the consular post” means consular officers, consular employees and members of the

service staff;

(h) “members of the consular staff” means consular officers, other than the head of a consular post,

consular employees and members of the service staff;

(i) “member of the private staff” means a person who is employed exclusively in the private service

of a member of the consular post;

( j) “consular premises” means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto,

irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post;

(k ) “consular archives” includes all the papers, documents, correspondence, books, films, tapes and

registers of the consular post, together with the ciphers and codes, the card-indexes and any article of furniture intended for their protection or safe keeping.

2.Consular officers are of two categories, namely career consular officers and honorary consular

officers. The provisions of Chapter II of the present Convention apply to consular posts headed by career

consular officers, the provisions of Chapter III govern consular posts headed by honorary consular

officers.

3.The particular status of members of the consular posts who are nationals or permanent residents

of the receiving State is governed by article 71 of the present Convention.

CHAPTER I.CONSULAR R ELATIONS IN GENERAL

SECTION I. ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF CONSUL AR RELATIONS

Article 2

Establishment of consular relations

1.The establishment of consular relations between States takes place by mutual consent.

2. The consent given to the establishment of diplomatic relations between two States implies, unless

otherwise stated, consent to the establishment of consular relations.

3.The severance of diplomatic relations shall not ipso facto involve the severance of consular

relations.



4

Article 3

Exercise of consular functions

Consular functions are exercised by consular posts. They are also exercised by diplomatic

missions in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention.

Article 4

Establishment of a consular post

1.A consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving State only with that State’s

consent.

2.The seat of the consular post, its classification and the consular district shall be established by

the sending State and shall be subject to the approval of the receiving State.

3.Subsequent changes in the seat of the consular post, its classification or the consular district

may be made by the sending State only with the consent of the receiving State.

4.The consent of the receiving State shall also be required if a consulate-general or a consulate

desires to open a vice-consulate or a consular agency in a locality other than that in which it is itself

established.

5.The prior express consent of the receiving State shall also be required for the opening of an

office forming part of an existing consular post elsewhere than at the seat thereof.

Article 5

Consular functions

Consular functions consist in:

(a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both

individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law;

(b) furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific relations between the

sending State and the receiving State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them in

accordance with the provisions of the present Convention;

(c) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the commercial, economic,

cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sendingState and giving information to persons interested;

(d ) issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and visas or appropriate

documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State;

(e) helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending State;



5

( f ) acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of a similar kind, and performing certain

functions of an administrative nature, provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and

regulations of the receiving State;

( g ) safeguarding the interests of nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending

States in cases of succession mortis causa in the territory of the receiving State, in accordance with thelaws and regulations of the receiving State;

(h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the

interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State,

particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons;

(i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging

appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of

the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the

receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals,

where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assumethe defence of their rights and interests;

( j) transmitting judicial and extrajudicial documents or executing letters rogatory or commissions to

take evidence for the courts of the sending State in accordance with international agreements in force or,

in the absence of such international agreements, in any other manner compatible with the laws and

regulations of the receiving State;

(k ) exercising rights of supervision and inspection provided for in the laws and regulations of the

sending State in respect of vessels having the nationality of the sending State, and of aircraft registered

in that State, and in respect of their crews;

(l ) extending assistance to vessels and aircraft mentioned in subparagraph (k ) of this article, and to

their crews, taking statements regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping the ship’s

papers, and, without prejudice to the powers of the authorities of the receiving State, conducting

investigations into any incidents which occurred during the voyage, and settling disputes of any kind

between the master, the officers and the seamen insofar as this may be authorized by the laws and

regulations of the sending State;

(m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not

prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the

receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending

State and the receiving State.

Article 6

Exercise of consular functions outside the consular district

A consular officer may, in special circumstances, with the consent of the receiving State, exercise

his functions outside his consular district.



6

Article 7

Exercise of consular functions in a third State

The sending State may, after notifying the States concerned, entrust a consular post established in

a particular State with the exercise of consular functions in another State, unless there is express

objection by one of the States concerned.

Article 8

Exercise of consular functions on behalf of a third State

Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of the sending State may,

unless the receiving State objects, exercise consular functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third

State.

Article 9

Classes of heads of consular posts

1.Heads of consular posts are divided into four classes, namely

(a) consuls-general;

(b) consuls;

(c) vice-consuls;

(d ) consular agents.

2.Paragraph 1 of this article in no way restricts the right of any of the Contracting Parties to fixthe designation of consular officers other than the heads of consular posts.

Article 10

Appointment and admission of heads of consular posts

1.Heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending State and are admitted to the exercise of

their functions by the receiving State.

2.Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, the formalities for the appointment and for

the admission of the head of a consular post are determined by the laws, regulations and usages of the

sending State and of the receiving State respectively.

Article 11

The consular commission or notification of appointment

1.The head of a consular post shall be provided by the sending State with a document, in the form

of a commission or similar instrument, made out for each appointment, certifying his capacity and



7

showing, as a general rule, his full name, his category and class, the consular district and the seat of the

consular post.

2.The sending State shall transmit the commission or similar instrument through the diplomatic or

other appropriate channel to the Government of the State in whose territory the head of a consular post

is to exercise his functions.

3.If the receiving State agrees, the sending State may, instead of a commission or similar

instrument, send to the receiving State a notification containing the particulars required by paragraph 1

of this article.

Article 12

The exequatur

1.The head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions by an authorization from

the receiving State termed an exequatur , whatever the form of this authorization.

2.A State which refused to grant an exequatur is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons

for such refusal.

3.Subject to the provisions of articles 13 and 15, the head of a consular post shall not enter upon

his duties until he has received an exequatur .

Article 13

Provisional admission of heads of consular posts

Pending delivery of the exequatur , the head of a consular post may be admitted on a provisional

basis to the exercise of his functions. In that case, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply.

Article 14

Notification to the authorities of the consular district

As soon as the head of a consular post is admitted even provisionally to the exercise of his

functions, the receiving State shall immediately notify the competent authorities of the consular district.

It shall also ensure that the necessary measures are taken to enable the head of a consular post to carry

out the duties of his office and to have the benefit of the provisions of the present Convention.

Article 15

Temporary exercise of the functions of the

head of a consular post

1.If the head of a consular post is unable to carry out his functions or the position of head of

consular post is vacant, an acting head of post may act provisionally as head of the consular post.

2.The full name of the acting head of post shall be notified either by the diplomatic mission of the

sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular



8

post, or, if he is unable to do so, by any competent authority of the sending State, to the Ministry for

Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. As a general rule,

this notification shall be given in advance. The receiving State may make the admission as acting head

of post of a person who is neither a diplomatic agent nor a consular officer of the sending State in the

receiving State conditional on its consent.

3.The competent authorities of the receiving State shall afford assistance and protection to the

acting head of post. While he is in charge of the post, the provisions of the present Convention shall

apply to him on the same basis as to the head of the consular post concerned. The receiving State shall

not, however, be obliged to grant to an acting head of post any facility, privilege or immunity which the

head of the consular post enjoys only subject to conditions not fulfilled by the acting head of post.

4.When, in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, a member of the

diplomatic staff of the diplomatic mission of the sending State in the receiving State is designated by the

sending State as an acting head of post, he shall, if the receiving State does not object thereto, continue

to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

Article 16

Precedence as between heads of consular posts

1.Heads of consular posts shall rank in each class according to the date of the grant of the

exequatur .

2.If, however, the head of a consular post before obtaining the exequatur is admitted to the

exercise of his functions provisionally, his precedence shall be determined according to the date of the

provisional admission; this precedence shall be maintained after the granting of the exequatur .

3.The order of precedence as between two or more heads of consular posts who obtained theexequatur or provisional admission on the same date shall be determined according to the dates on

which their commissions or similar instruments or the notifications referred to in paragraph 3 of article

11 were presented to the receiving State.

4.Acting heads of posts shall rank after all heads of consular posts and, as between themselves,

they shall rank according to the dates on which they assumed their functions as acting heads of posts as

indicated in the notifications given under paragraph 2 of article 15.

5.Honorary consular officers who are heads of consular posts shall rank in each class after career

heads of consular posts, in the order and according to the rules laid down in the foregoing paragraphs.

6.Heads of consular posts shall have precedence over consular officers not having that status.

Article 17

Performance of diplomatic acts by consular officers

1.In a State where the sending State has no diplomatic mission and is not represented by a

diplomatic mission of a third State, a consular officer may, with the consent of the receiving State, and



9

without affecting his consular status, be authorized to perform diplomatic acts. The performance of such

acts by a consular officer shall not confer upon him any right to claim diplomatic privileges and

immunities.

2.A consular officer may, after notification addressed to the receiving State, act as representative

of the sending State to any intergovernmental organization. When so acting, he shall be entitled to enjoyany privileges and immunities accorded to such a representative by customary international law or by

international agreements; however, in respect of the performance by him of any consular function, he

shall not be entitled to any greater immunity from jurisdiction than that to which a consular officer is

entitled under the present Convention.

Article 18

Appointment of the same person by two or more States

as a consular officer

Two or more States may, with the consent of the receiving State, appoint the same person as a

consular officer in that State.

Article 19

Appointment of members of consular staff

1.Subject to the provisions of articles 20, 22 and 23, the sending State may freely appoint the

members of the consular staff.

2.The full name, category and class of all consular officers, other than the head of a consular post,

shall be notified by the sending State to the receiving State in sufficient time for the receiving State, if it

so wishes, to exercise its rights under paragraph 3 of article 23.

3.The sending State may, if required by its laws and regulations, request the receiving State to

grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post.

4.The receiving State may, if required by its laws and regulations, grant an exequatur to a

consular officer other than the head of a consular post.

Article 20

Size of the consular staff

In the absence of an express agreement as to the size of the consular staff, the receiving State may

require that the size of the staff be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal,

having regard to circumstances and conditions in the consular district and to the needs of the particular

consular post.



10

Article 21

Precedence as between consular officers of a consular post

The order of precedence as between the consular officers of a consular post and any change

thereof shall be notified by the diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such

mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular post, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of thereceiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry.

Article 22

Nationality of consular officers

1. Consular officers should, in principle, have the nationality of the sending State.

2.Consular officers may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the

receiving State except with the express consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time.

3.The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who arenot also nationals of the sending State.

Article 23

Persons declared “non grata”

1.The receiving State may at any time notify the sending State that a consular officer is persona

non grata or that any other member of the consular staff is not acceptable. In that event, the sending

State shall, as the case may be, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the

consular post.

2.If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may, as the case may be, either withdraw the exequatur

from the person concerned or cease to consider him as a member of the consular staff.

3.A person appointed as a member of a consular post may be declared unacceptable before

arriving in the territory of the receiving State or, if already in the receiving State, before entering on his

duties with the consular post. In any such case, the sending State shall withdraw his appointment.

4.In the cases mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this article, the receiving State is not obliged to

give to the sending State reasons for its decision.

Article 24

Notification to the receiving State of appointments,

arrivals and departures

1.The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or the authority designated by that

Ministry shall be notified of:



11

(a) the appointment of members of a consular post, their arrival after appointment to the consular

post, their final departure or the termination of their functions and any other changes affecting their

status that may occur in the course of their service with the consular post;

(b) the arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family of a member of a consular post

forming part of his household and, where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to besuch a member of the family;

(c) the arrival and final departure of members of the private staff and, where appropriate, the

termination of their service as such;

(d ) the engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving State as members of a consular

post or as members of the private staff entitled to privileges and immunities.

2.When possible, prior notification of arrival and final departure shall also be given.

SECTION II.END OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Article 25

Termination of the functions of a member of a consular post

The functions of a member of a consular post shall come to an end, inter alia:

(a) on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his functions have come to an end;

(b) on w ithdrawal of the exequatur ;

(c) on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the receiving State has ceased to

consider him as a member of the consular staff.

Article 26

Departure from the territory of the receiving State

The receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, grant to members of the consular post

and members of the private staff, other than nationals of the receiving State, and to members of their

families forming part of their households irrespective of nationality, the necessary time and facilities to

enable them to prepare their departure and to leave at the earliest possible moment after the termination

of the functions of the members concerned. In particular, it shall, in case of need, place at their disposalthe necessary means of transport for themselves and their property other than property acquired in the

receiving State the export of which is prohibited at the time of departure.



12

Article 27

Protection of consular premises and archives and of theinterests of the sending State in exceptional circumstances

1.In the event of the severance of consular relations between two States:

(a) the receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the consular premises,

together with the property of the consular post and the consular archives;

(b) the sending State may entrust the custody of the consular premises, together with the property

contained therein and the consular archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;

(c) the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third

State acceptable to the receiving State.

2.In the event of the temporary or permanent closure of a consular post, the provisions of

subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. In addition,

(a) if the sending State, although not represented in the receiving State by a diplomatic mission, has

another consular post in the territory of that State, that consular post may be entrusted with the custody

of the premises of the consular post which has been closed, together with the property contained therein

and the consular archives, and, with the consent of the receiving State, with the exercise of consular

functions in the district of that consular post; or

(b) if the sending State has no diplomatic mission and no other consular post in the receiving State,

the provisions of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply.

CHAPTER II.

FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

R ELATING TO CONSULAR POSTS, CAREER CONSULAR

OFFICERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

SECTION I. FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES RELATING

TO A CONSULAR POST

Article 28

Facilities for the work of the consular post

The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the consular

post.

Article 29

Use of national flag and coat-of-arms

1.The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag and coat-of-arms in the

receiving State in accordance with the provisions of this article.



13

2.The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms displayed on the

building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance door thereof, on the residence of the head of

the consular post and on his means of transport when used on official business.

3.In the exercise of the right accorded by this article regard shall be had to the laws, regulationsand usages of the receiving State.

Article 30

Accommodation

1.The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its

laws and regulations, by the sending State of premises necessary for its consular post or assist the latter in

obtaining accommodation in some other way.

2.It shall also, where necessary, assist the consular post in obtaining suitable accommodation for

its members.

Article 31

Inviolability of the consular premises

1.Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article.

2.The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is

used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of

the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The

consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster

requiring prompt protective action.

3.Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special

duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to

prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.

4.The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of

transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility.

If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the

performance of consular functions, and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the

sending State.

Article 32

Exemption from taxation of consular premises

1.Consular premises and the residence of the career head of consular post of which the sending

State or any person acting on its behalf is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional

or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services

rendered.



14

2.The exemption from taxation referred to paragraph 1 of this article shall not apply to such dues

and taxes if, under the law of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the

sending State or with the person acting on its behalf.

Article 33

Inviolability of the consular archives and documents

The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be.

Articl e 34

Freedom of movement

Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibited or regulated

for reasons of national security, the receiving State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its

territory to all members of the consular post.

Article 35

Freedom of communication

1.The receiving State shall permit and protect freedom of communication on the part of the

consular post for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government, the diplomatic missions

and other consular posts, wherever situated, of the sending State, the consular post may employ all

appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomatic or consular bags and messages

in code or cipher. However, the consular post may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the

consent of the receiving State.

2.The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable. Official correspondence

means all correspondence relating to the consular post and its functions.

3.The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. Nevertheless, if the competent

authorities of the receiving State have serious reason to believe that the bag contains something other

than the correspondence, documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4 of this article, they may

request that the bag be opened in their presence by an authorized representative of the sending State. If

this request is refused by the authorities of the sending State, the bag shall be returned to its place of

origin.

4.The packages constituting the consular bag shall bear visible external marks of their character

and may contain only official correspondence and documents or articles intended exclusively for official

use.

5.The consular courier shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the

number of packages constituting the consular bag. Except with the consent of the receiving State he

shall be neither a national of the receiving State, nor, unless he is a national of the sending State, a

permanent resident of the receiving State. In the performance of his functions he shall be protected by

the receiving State. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or

detention.



15

6.The sending State, its diplomatic missions and its consular posts may designate consular

couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply except that

the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the

consignee the consular bag in his charge.

7.A consular bag may be entrusted to the captain of a ship or of a commercial aircraft scheduled

to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the

number of packages constituting the bag, but he shall not be considered to be a consular courier. By

arrangement with the appropriate local authorities, the consular post may send one of its members to

take possession of the bag directly and freely from the captain of the ship or of the aircraft.

Article 36

Communication and contact with nationals

of the sending State

1.With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending

State:

(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have

access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to

communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;

(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the

consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or

committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication

addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded

by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned withoutdelay of his rights under this subparagraph;

(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison,

custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation.

They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or

detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from

taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such

action.

2.The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the

laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws andregulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this

article are intended.



16

Article 37

Information in cases of deaths, guardianship or trusteeship,wrecks and air accidents

If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such

authorities shall have the duty:

(a) in the case of the death of a national of the sending State, to inform without delay the consular

post in whose district the death occurred;

(b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a

guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a

national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the

operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments;

(c) if a vessel, having the nationality of the sending State, is wrecked or runs aground in the

territorial sea or internal waters of the receiving State, or if an aircraft registered in the sending State

suffers an accident on the territory of the receiving State, to inform without delay the consular post

nearest to the scene of the occurrence.

Article 38

Communication with the authorities of the receiving State

In the exercise of their functions, consular officers may address:

(a) the competent local authorities of their consular district;

(b) the competent central authorities of the receiving State if and to the extent that this is allowed by

the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by the relevant international agreements.

Article 39

Consular fees and charges

1.The consular post may levy in the territory of the receiving State the fees and charges provided

by the laws and regulations of the sending State for consular acts.

2.The sums collected in the form of the fees and charges referred to in paragraph 1 of this article,

and the receipts for such fees and charges, shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in the receiving State.



17

SECTION II.

FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

RELATING TO CAREER CONSULAR OFFICERS AND

OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

Article 40

Protection of consular officers

The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate

steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity.

Article 41

Personal inviolability of consular officers

1.Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a

grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.

2.Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be

committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in

execution of a judicial decision of final effect.

3.If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the

competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by

reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner

which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances

mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the

proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay.

Article 42

Notification of arrest, detention or prosecution

In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the consular staff, or of

criminal proceedings being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of

the consular post. Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall

notify the sending State through the diplomatic channel.

Article 43

Immunity from jurisdiction

1.Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the

judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of

consular functions.

2.The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil

action either:



18

(a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did

not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or

(b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle,

vessel or aircraft.

Article 44

Liability to give evidence

1.Members of a consular post may be called upon to attend as witnesses in the course of judicial

or administrative proceedings. A consular employee or a member of the service staff shall not, except in

the cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of this article, decline to give evidence. If a consular officer should

decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied to him.

2.The authority requiring the evidence of a consular officer shall avoid interference with the

performance of his functions. It may, when possible, take such evidence at his residence or at theconsular post or accept a statement from him in writing.

3.Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence concerning matters

connected with the exercise of their functions or to produce official correspondence and documents

relating thereto. They are also entitled to decline to give evidence as expert witnesses with regard to the

law of the sending State.

Article 45

Waiver of privileges and immunities

1.The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular post, any of the privileges and immunities provided for in articles 41, 43 and 44.

2.The waiver shall in all cases be express, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article, and

shall be communicated to the receiving State in writing.

3.The initiation of proceedings by a consular officer or a consular employee in a matter where he

might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction under article 43 shall preclude him from invoking immunity

from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim.

4.The waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or administrative

proceedings shall not be deemed to imply the waiver of immunity from the measures of executionresulting from the judicial decision; in respect of such measures, a separate waiver shall be necessary.



19

Article 46

Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits

1.Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their

households shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in

regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits.

2.The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply to any consular employee

who is not a permanent employee of the sending State or who carries on any private gainful occupation

in the receiving State or to any member of the family of any such employee.

Article 47

Exemption from work permits

1.Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be

exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the

receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labour.

2.Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not

carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to

in paragraph 1 of this article.

Article 48

Social security exemption

1.Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article, members of the consular post with

respect to services rendered by them for the sending State, and members of their families forming part of

their households, shall be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receivingState.

2.The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this article shall apply also to members of the

private staff who are in the sole employ of members of the consular post, on condition:

(a) that they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) that they are covered by the social security provisions which are in force in the sending State or a

third State.

3.Members of the consular post who employ persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security

provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers.

4.The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not preclude voluntary

participation in the social security system of the receiving State, provided that such participation is

permitted by that State.



20

Article 49

Exemption from taxation

1.Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their

households shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal,

except:

(a) indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) dues or taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State,

subject to the provisions of article 32;

(c) estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, levied by the receiving State,

subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of article 51;

(d ) dues and taxes on private income, including capital gains, having its source in the receiving State

and capital taxes relating to investments made in commercial or financial undertakings in the receivingState;

(e) charges levied for specific services rendered;

( f ) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duties, subject to the provisions of

article 32.

2.Members of the service staff shall be exempt from dues and taxes on the wages which they

receive for their services.

3.Members of the consular post who employ persons whose wages or salaries are not exemptfrom income tax in the receiving State shall observe the obligations which the laws and regulations of

that State impose upon employers concerning the levying of income tax.

Article 50

Exemption from customs duties and inspection

1.The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit

entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for

storage, cartage and similar services, on:

(a) articles for the official use of the consular post;

(b) articles for the personal use of a consular officer or members of his family forming part of his

household, including articles intended for his establishment. The articles intended for consumption shall

not exceed the quantities necessary for direct utilization by the persons concerned.

2.Consular employees shall enjoy the privileges and exemptions specified in paragraph 1 of this

article in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.



21

3.Personal baggage accompanying consular officers and members of their families forming part

of their households shall be exempt from inspection. It may be inspected only if there is serious reason

to believe that it contains articles other than those referred to in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this

article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the laws and regulations of the

receiving State or which are subject to its quarantine laws and regulations. Such inspection shall be

carried out in the presence of the consular officer or member of his family concerned.

Article 51

Estate of a member of the consular post

or of a member of his family

In the event of the death of a member of the consular post or of a member of his family forming

part of his household, the receiving State:

(a) shall permit the export of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any such

property acquired in the receiving State the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death;

(b) shall not levy national, regional or municipal estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties

on transfers, on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the

presence in that State of the deceased as a member of the consular post or as a member of the family of a

member of the consular post.

Article 52

Exemption from personal services and contributions

The receiving State shall exempt members of the consular post and members of their families

forming part of their households from all personal services, from all public service of any kind

whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military

contributions and billeting.

Article 53

Beginning and end of consular privileges and immunities

1.Every member of the consular post shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the

present Convention from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take

up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties with the consular

post.

2.Members of the family of a member of the consular post forming part of his household and

members of his private staff shall receive the privileges and immunities provided in the present

Convention from the date from which he enjoys privileges and immunities in accordance with paragraph

1 of this article or from the date of their entry into the territory of the receiving State or from the date of

their becoming a member of such family or private staff, whichever is the latest.

3.When the functions of a member of the consular post have come to an end, his privileges and

immunities and those of a member of his family forming part of his household or a member of his



22

private staff shall normally cease at the moment when the person concerned leaves the receiving State or

on the expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, whichever is the sooner, but shall subsist until

that time, even in case of armed conflict. In the case of the persons referred to in paragraph 2 of this

article, their privileges and immunities shall come to an end when they cease to belong to the household

or to be in the service of a member of the consular post provided, however, that if such persons intend

leaving the receiving State within a reasonable period thereafter, their privileges and immunities shallsubsist until the time of their departure.

4.However, with respect to acts performed by a consular officer or a consular employee in the

exercise of his functions, immunity from jurisdiction shall continue to subsist without limitation of time.

5.In the event of the death of a member of the consular post, the members of his family forming

part of his household shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to them until they

leave the receiving State or until the expiry of a reasonable period enabling them to do so, whichever is

the sooner.

Article 54Obligations of third States

1.If a consular officer passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him

a visa if a visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or return to his post or when returning to the

sending State, the third State shall accord to him all immunities provided for by the other articles of the

present Convention as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of

any member of his family forming part of his household enjoying such privileges and immunities who

are accompanying the consular officer or travelling separately to join him or to return to the sending

State.

2.In circumstances similar to those specified in paragraph 1 of this article, third States shall nothinder the transit through their territory of other members of the consular post or of members of their

families forming part of their households.

3.Third States shall accord to official correspondence and to other official communications in

transit, including messages in code or cipher, the same freedom and protection as the receiving State is

bound to accord under the present Convention. They shall accord to consular couriers who have been

granted a visa, if a visa was necessary, and to consular bags in transit, the same inviolability and

protection as the receiving State is bound to accord under the present Convention.

4.The obligations of third States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this article shall also apply to the

persons mentioned respectively in those paragraphs, and to official communications and to consular bags, whose presence in the territory of the third State is due to force majeure.



23

Article 55

Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State

1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such

privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a

duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.

2.The consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of

consular functions.

3.The provisions of paragraph 2 of this article shall not exclude the possibility of offices of other

institutions or agencies being installed in part of the building in which the consular premises are

situated, provided that the premises assigned to them are separate from those used by the consular post.

In that event, the said offices shall not, for the purposes of the present Convention, be considered to

form part of the consular premises.

Article 56 Insurance against third party risks

Members of the consular post shall comply with any requirements imposed by the laws and

regulations of the receiving State, in respect of insurance against third party risks arising from the use of

any vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

Article 57

Special provisions concerning private gainful occupation

1.Career consular officers shall not carry on for personal profit any professional or commercial

activity in the receiving State.

2.Privileges and immunities provided in this chapter shall not be accorded:

(a) to consular employees or to members of the service staff who carry on any private gainful

occupation in the receiving State;

(b) to members of the family of a person referred to in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph or to

members of his private staff;

(c) to members of the family of a member of a consular post who themselves carry on any private

gainful occupation in the receiving State.



24

CHAPTER III.

R EGIME R ELATING TO HONORARY CONSULAR

OFFICERS AND CONSULAR POSTS HEADED BY SUCH OFFICERS

Article 58

General provisions relating to facilities, privileges

and immunities

1.Articles 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, paragraph 3 of article 54 and paragraphs 2 and 3

of article 55 shall apply to consular posts headed by an honorary consular officer. In addition, the

facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular posts shall be governed by articles 59, 60, 61 and

62.

2.Articles 42 and 43, paragraph 3 of article 44, articles 45 and 53 and paragraph 1 of article 55

shall apply to honorary consular officers. In addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such

consular officers shall be governed by articles 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67.

3.Privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention shall not be accorded to members

of the family of an honorary consular officer or of a consular employee employed at a consular post

headed by an honorary consular officer.

4.The exchange of consular bags between two consular posts headed by honorary consular

officers in different States shall not be allowed without the consent of the two receiving States

concerned.

Article 59

Protection of the consular premises

The receiving State shall take such steps as may be necessary to protect the consular premises of a

consular post headed by an honorary consular officer against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any

disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity.

Article 60

Exemption from taxation of consular premises

1.Consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer of which the

sending State is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and

taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

2.The exemption from taxation referred to in paragraph l of this article shall not apply to such

dues and taxes if, under the laws and regulations of the receiving State, they are payable by the person

who contracted with the sending State.



25

Article 61

Inviolability of consular archives and documents

The consular archives and documents of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer

shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be, provided that they are kept separate from

other papers and documents and, in particular, from the private correspondence of the head of a consular post and of any person working with him, and from the materials, books or documents relating to their

profession or trade.

Article 62

Exemption from customs duties

The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit

entry of, and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for

storage, cartage and similar services on the following articles, provided that they are for the official use

of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer: coats-of-arms, flags, signboards, seals and

stamps, books, official printed matter, office furniture, office equipment and similar articles supplied byor at the instance of the sending State to the consular post.

Article 63

Criminal proceedings

If criminal proceedings are instituted against an honorary consular officer, he must appear before

the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him

by reason of his official position and, except when he is under arrest or detention, in a manner which

will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When it has become necessary to

detain an honorary consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of

delay.

Article 64

Protection of honorary consular officers

The receiving State is under a duty to accord to an honorary consular officer such protection as

may be required by reason of his official position.

Article 65

Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits

Honorary consular officers, with the exception of those who carry on for personal profit any

professional or commercial activity in the receiving State, shall be exempt from all obligations under the

laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits.



26

Article 66

Exemption from taxation

An honorary consular officer shall be exempt from all dues and taxes on the remuneration and

emoluments which he receives from the sending State in respect of the exercise of consular functions.

Article 67

Exemption from personal services and contributions

The receiving State shall exempt honorary consular officers from all personal services and from

all public services of any kind whatsoever and from military obligations such as those connected with

requisitioning, military contributions and billeting.

Article 68

Optional character of the institution of honorary consular officers

Each State is free to decide whether it will appoint or receive honorary consular officers.

CHAPTER IV.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 69

Consular agents who are not heads of consular posts

1.Each State is free to decide whether it will establish or admit consular agencies conducted by

consular agents not designated as heads of consular post by the sending State.

2.The conditions under which the consular agencies referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may

carry on their activities and the privileges and immunities which may be enjoyed by the consular agents

in charge of them shall be determined by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State.

Article 70

Exercise of consular functions by diplomatic missions

1.The provisions of the present Convention apply also, so far as the context permits, to the

exercise of consular functions by a diplomatic mission.

2.The names of members of a diplomatic mission assigned to the consular section or otherwise

charged with the exercise of the consular functions of the mission shall be notified to the Ministry for

Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry.

3.In the exercise of consular functions a diplomatic mission may address:

(a) the local authorities of the consular district;



27

(b) the central authorities of the receiving State if this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages

of the receiving State or by relevant international agreements.

4.The privileges and immunities of the members of a diplomatic mission referred to in paragraph

2 of this article shall continue to be governed by the rules of international law concerning diplomatic

relations.

Article 71

Nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State

1.Except insofar as additional facilities, privileges and immunities may be granted by the

receiving State, consular officers who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State

shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction and personal inviolability in respect of official acts

performed in the exercise of their functions, and the privileges provided in paragraph 3 of article 44. So

far as these consular officers are concerned, the receiving State shall likewise be bound by the obligation

laid down in article 42. If criminal proceedings are instituted against such a consular officer, the

proceedings shall, except when he is under arrest or detention, be conducted in a manner which willhamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible.

2.Other members of the consular post who are nationals of or permanently resident in the

receiving State and members of their families, as well as members of the families of consular officers

referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, shall enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as

these are granted to them by the receiving State. Those members of the families of members of the

consular post and those members of the private staff who are themselves nationals of or permanently

resident in the receiving State shall likewise enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as

these are granted to them by the receiving State. The receiving State shall, however, exercise its

jurisdiction over those persons in such a way as not to hinder unduly the performance of the functions of

the consular post.

Article 72

Non-discrimination

1.In the application of the provisions of the present Convention the receiving State shall not

discriminate as between States.

2.However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place:

(a) where the receiving State applies any of the provisions of the present Convention restrictively

because of a restrictive application of that provision to its consular posts in the sending State;

(b) where by custom or agreement States extend to each other more favourable treatment than is

required by the provisions of the present Convention.



28

Article 73

Relationship between the present Convention

and other international agreements

1.The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect other international agreements in

force as between States Parties to them.

2.Nothing in the present Convention shall preclude States from concluding international

agreements confirming or supplementing or extending or amplifying the provisions thereof.

CHAPTER V.

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 74

Signature

The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations

or of any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by

any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the

Convention, as follows: until 31 October 1963 at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the

Republic of Austria and subsequently, until 31 March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in New

York.

Article 75

Ratification

The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be

deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 76

Accession

The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belonging to any of the four

categories mentioned in article 74. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-

General of the United Nations.

Article 77

Entry into force

1.The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit

of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United

Nations.

2.For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second

instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after

deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.



29

Article 78

Notifications by the Secretary-General

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States belonging to any of the four

categories mentioned in article 74:

(a) of signatures to the present Convention and of the deposit of instruments of ratification or

accession, in accordance with articles 74, 75 and 76;

(b) of the date on which the present Convention will enter into force, in accordance with article 77.

Article 79

Authentic texts

The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and

Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations,

who shall send certified copies thereof to all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned inarticle 74.

I N WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their

respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.

DONE at Vienna this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three.

_____________



a

D. nw. ~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

D r e c n n n ~ c % E r r a r r ~ c a a r n - - 4M .

SmnPROU

urnmar-- l n u a s r + l l l b u b m L a o a d l W m s d

u- R D ~ R E L w l r u ~ w o l n i d ~ .uit: -mnm

s 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*h

lrul

..h b . 1 ~ . rr imd ..a

c 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 Cl u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~

.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.kb 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 aill-. 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 b

u 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 a2 Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-

h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l dtranu-In*

- : n i a - t o r m r e . . m - . . w ~ ~ n d3. % tb. 01. - OM* oi Oi fL.d

d.orm eulp nawsoa; sdd W r a a c edm 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& ., ol

amem mmch ~ . tfrle-- L rtn Lia.11- L. 170-. Iw -

Wrp.W 1-t. ClkW.7.r -I"&. -. thi.& ., OI S

1%

-. - 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

I

n 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 17D

IWasQa 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 , by

maMI- CD pal- u c d ad

m 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 . .

m

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

EXHIBIT E



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.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR TFOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA

SANTA 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'S

18711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS

wj / Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

u

14

15

16

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

I1

Disain of calihnin,towit:

P RO OR O F S e R n C E

Ithe~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 Plaintiffs

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F Le lTERSROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

CO N DU CT P RERU L E 26(0 DISCOVERYTODEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO P ERPETU ATE

TESTIMONY, 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

21

22

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

8

9

I0

I1

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 formal

discovery under the Fed& Rules of CivilProcedure.

PLAINTIFFS' A TTO RN EY ' S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that

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

18

19

a3

2 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 23433

Respectfully submiaed

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

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) IVISION

EXHIBIT F

I228 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

'5

l6

l7

l9

ao

22

ar

25

a5

"~ 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 and

l was born andraisedin the state of Iowa.

3. I have m n a l mowledge of all the facts and circNmstances

described 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 in

Mombasa, Kenya

5. 1visited the hospital accompanied by one more penon, a nahual

born 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 to

obtainthe original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama, s I was

told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the



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




Exhibit A:

Birth Certificate from theCoastal Hospital; District of Mombasa

Kenya, obtained inFebruary 2009



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

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6 –

Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS


MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691

(949) 683-5411


Exhibit A:Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of

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

February 2009



----__EXHIBIT G



S b nIRsgLsMrNow

TODAY'S NEWSPAPERSubs&x IPObtPoinls

SEARCH: Tly OurNew Search . . @ ~wrshingLon~.cMn Web : evr1IU lry (&qif I SeardlArchives

[email protected] PolMcr > moFix

About Chn. WUW I on h i t ~ ~ r :hoFix and TM Hyperf l x I onFacebook I OnYouTutm Ia SS Fsod

THELIVEFLX

; JohtheFlxFrldsysal4I a m ETWdlSMSmO

i latestm csmpagns and

P o l d b l im s

. L w e P & A

, .Tranncnpts

. r nRSSFe s d

Paterson, White House Adviser Huddled About Re-Election

White House polical director Patrick Gaspard met lastMonday with New

York Gw. DavidPatemon(D)to express concsm about the

incumbent's chances at winning re-election in 2010, according to several

sources briefedon the matter.Lessthan 24 hours after that meeting, Paterson announced thatRichard

HALLOFFAMEFife, a longtimeNewYork operativeand volunteer for President Barack

Cheaout~lat sPl 1 % # l l & Soo8 pr&d&h! Calll@gll, h d- 8 CarnMgIl

' Induwln* m's managerfor his 2010bid., ~ 0 t M l n m h e o n

Sources on bd h sidessaidthat the President did n d eachout to

FIX PICKS Patersondirectly to ask him to leave the race.Gaspard,a former pdti i l

diredor at the pwelful ServiceEmployees nternationel Union11991 1 ~~f~~ based in New York City, hasa long rdationshipwith Patemon.

ch&.1 , - ! Cornems havebeenmounting about Paterson since he stepped into heI governorship followingGov. Elliot Spitzer's resignationafter it as

RonPaul is going to

i *VasMoinesFeglrter

revealed he frequented a high-end hooker.

Paterson'srt+electionnumbershave tumbledover the past few months

anda rscantMaristColleoe survey shaved ust one n ive votersapproving of the job he s doing. Patersonwas also lm.ng badly to

foriner NewYork City Rudy Giuliani, whowill announce his political

m t M W r . i n m p d

O e S g e e t h o s e ~ ~ P a k n r o n h a sm a d em b o r v C p d i t i d

rearty- nsisting hat he s running for andwin win a secondtam. State

Attomev GenerslAndrew Cwmo (Dl swidelv seen asthe referred1Democ;atr . ,

, 5 MICIWI~O. arLe m ' .c nominee but seems to be d i n g or Paterson to make a

: F r M . v W i move beforeannovnanghis intentiom.' .USATodsy 1 If Pate'rsonrunsand loses, it cwld hawwidespread emda s he

Empire Statewill redraw its legislativeand congressional distdd lines

SEARCH THIS BLOC following he 2010 census- a process he governor will haveI 1 considerable influence over.

8 ByCh- C i l l i p . I eptember20.2009; 0:W AM ET

RECENT POSTS

I 'RomnsytOnisaSPPh

for DeMhd

i . e MM lmpomsmI Number InPolitics

Today

MorningF)x.A

~ t w o c e l e b n m o n

for theOM,

CJtegodes: Governors, Whlte H o w

shsmm13: ~ ~ ~ e c r m o r a t l ~ ~ e l . l s l o . u s ~ ~ ( p p ~ ~Previous: Ltuckabeewns values Vow StrawPol!

Wxt: Mornlna f l x : meW h b Homemvr (PolitleanHadbell

R k h D a d m w Y ~

LaunchY W Bu8lr10~8.eyourOm Boss.FREEworkshopsNOV.2-6w w il~nChyOUrbUSiMB5*1orkshop.~m

RepublicanRecruiting and theNatonalEnvlmmenl'

' (CU9.2009) ~emng~tkea m s U I ~atest Inawries of recRw(memsucoeusesor Senate

The Molt bnportam

Number In P W u

7-y- Romneyonm:"UnaloyedEvil'

Read More ojThe Line a

EXHIBIT H



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,. QP

593 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 esse

HonorableDavid 0.CarterJudge, United States District CorntCentralDistrict of California,Southern Division41 1 West Fad Strcct,Courtroom 9D

SantaAna, CA92701-4516Re:Bmet t . eta1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082

Subject: 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\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf

sttomey 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 forvcrificatiwthatprovetheUsusperisnotevena

native-bomcitizeneither,and therebytriggers eview of factsastoUsurps'smtumhd

citizen 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 that

theU.S. Govemmmthas argued that any Quo Wananto bedone inWashingtonDistrict of

Cohrmbiaand I urgehereinmeswith aMultidistrid Judithisque s thssbeen senttoCounsels andCourt inboth cases.

,hk....sg2mBmklyn NewYork

cc: JudgeRichard J. LeonBrigham John Bowen, AUSA - o dRoger E.WestAUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov

CharlesEdward 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



Carbon Communism

P Source: P URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/l07272-20'03'2009 Pravda.Ru carbon-communism-0

I hink that the C02caused Global Warming theory is blse and unproven unk science.

But let's suppose for a moment that the C02 equals Global Warming equation is real. The wealthy elitistsJames Hansen, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and the other high-profile cheerleaders for C02reduction are asking the poor and middle classes to suffer the consequences of a radical shutdown ofglobal commerce and energy production in order to 'save the planet' from Global Warming. They want tomake serfs of the masses of working people, while a privileged elite will be permitted to continue living inhigh style with a much larger 'carbon footprint' than the un-entitled lower classes.

We should never let that happen. The only way that 'carbon rationing' should be allowed is by assigningthe exact same carbon limit to all people everywhere. Al Gore, Barack Obama, a London cabbie, and aKalahari Bushman should all be assigned exactly the same number of 'carbon credits', period. Let them

trade their credits with each other, but everyone should be restricted to the same limited 'carbon credit'allowance. The long-term ultimate effect of this would be an economic leveling of society; essentiallyglobal Communism. Under such a system, no one would be able to accumulate an excess of personalproperty or wealth because they could never accumulate enough 'carbon credits' to do so.

When Hansen, Gore, Blair, and Obama give up their patrician incomes and lifestyles and restrict theirown 'carbon footprint' to the levelof the common labourer or office worker, Iwill begin to believe that theyare sincere about preventing Global Warming. Their obvious unwillingness to do what they are askingthe rest of us to do proves that they are not sincere. They want the common people to sacrifice their livesto prevent Global Warming, while the wealthy retain their high-carbon consuming and producingprivileges.

We cannot permit a privileged elite to enjoy a 'highcarbon' lifestyle while the poor are restricted by law toa 'low-carbon' lifestyle. Any effort by any government to impose carbon rationing with preferential

treatment to any class of people should be seen as sufficient reason for an all-out French-style revolutionin which the majority population dispossess the elitists of their wealth, their positions of power, and theirprivilege. In a world that is constantly threatened by Global Warming, we cannot allow a greedy few toconsume or produce in excess of the average 'carbon footprint' of the world's population as a whole.

Barack Obama keeps the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the Oval Office while telling the restof us to turn our thermostats down. James Hansen has received grants amounting to hundreds ofthousands of dollars to promote the Global Warming theory. A1 Gore has invested heavily in the 'carbontrading' brokerage business. All of these men jet around the world, live in oversized houses, and ride inlimousines. If the common people are to be required by law to reduce our 'carbon footprint', we need todemand that our leaders and the wealthy elite be restricted to exactly the same carbon allowance aseveryone else.

We are not all together in the fight against Global Warming unless everyone is required to make the

same sacrifices by sharing an equal 'carbon footprint' and an equal 'carbon ration', which should beassigned equally to every living person in the entire world. We need to hold the elitists' feet to the fire andrequire them to make exactly the same sacrifices as the rest of humanity.

Individual carbon limits and carbon rationing? Bring them on. Viva la Revolucion!

Gregory fegel

EXHIBIT



Sowing the Seeds of

Global Government:

The Vatican's Quest for

a World Political

Authority

By Carl Teichrib

--I Published by America's Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org 443-964-82081

. ---. - .- - -EXHIBIT K



This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:

The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explainshow the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent rolein the unfolding plan to establish a world government.

Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why:

The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vatican-insider and author Malachi Martin described in his bookThe Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over anemerging world government.

Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics,

endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of worldgovernment, in his recent encyclical “Caritas inVeritate.”

This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to“manage the economy,” bring about “timelydisarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.”

In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding thepower and authority of such global institutions as theBank for International Settlements, the InternationalMonetary Fund, the United Nations, and the WorldTrade Organization.

Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control canbe incorporated into this emerging world system, apossible or even likely result is global tyranny.



Introduction

By Carl Teichrib*

“Most of us are not competitors… We are the stakes. For the competition

is about who will establish the first one-world system of government... Noone can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remainuntouched.”i – Malachi Martin.

In 1990, a former Vatican-insider claimed that a titanic struggle wasbeing waged to bring about a world political system. This contest, the nowdeceased Jesuit explained, was primarily between three players: internationalLeninism, transnational business elites, and the hand of the Vatican.

Almost twenty years have passed since Malachi Martin drew attention tothis three-way quest. At the time his assertions seemed over-the-top. Granted,

the idea of a world government via communism wasn’t new as decades of ColdWar posturing still played in our minds. And the writing was on the wall in respectto the growing power of international corporate and financial elites, exemplifiedby the likes of David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission.

But the Vatican?

For many, the belief that the Holy See was pursing a vision of worldgovernment was simply too much. After all, this ancient hub of RomanCatholicism had a reputation – especially among Europe’s agnostic youth – asan institution of old men, steeped in tradition, procession and ceremony. Nevermind that the history of the Continent, more often than not, revolved around theVatican’s political prowess.

In the summer of 2009, the Holy See’s political cards were revealedin a major papal document. Harkening back to Malachi Martin’s talk ofworld government, the most powerful religious office on the planet hadpromoted a world political authority to manage the global economy. Foodsecurity, disarmament, and peace would follow suit.

A sound global economy and world peace are noble sounding goals, to besure. But the danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soilof good intentions.

________________ * Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher and the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly digest on global affairs from aChristian perspective.



On July 7th, Pope Benedict released his new encyclical titled Caritas in Veritate , or “Charity in Truth.” Two years in the making, this document wasdisclosed on the eve of the G8 Summit in Italy and the Pope’s meeting with USPresident Barack Obama. Some 30,000 words long, this encyclical outlined thePope’s concerns regarding globalization and economics, corporate ethics, and

the role of the Catholic Church in promoting social doctrine.

Commenting on the encyclical, The New York Times noted that,“sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist…”ii And The San Francisco Chronicle explained that,

“Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such asglobalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternativeenergy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciencesguide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideasput forward would likely rankle conservatives…”iii

E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post , gushed that Benedictis “well to Obama’s left on economics.”iv

While Pope Benedict’s perspective on the global economy was aperplexing blend of free-market and social welfare ideals, what raisedeyebrows were his thoughts on international politics. In section 67 ofCaritas in Veritate , the Pope dropped an ideological bombshell – a worldauthority to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,”and ensure “food security and peace.”

Here is a major part of section 67. The reference to a “world politicalauthority” is very clear, and Pope Benedict explains that this international agencyshould be given the power of enforcement... “real teeth.”

“In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence,there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for areform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economicinstitutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family ofnations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to findinnovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility toprotect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical andeconomic order which can increase and give direction to internationalcooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To managethe global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid anydeterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that wouldresult; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security andpeace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulatemigration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political



authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some yearsago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observeconsistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek toestablish the common good, and to make a commitment to securingauthentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in

truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universallyrecognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security forall, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have tohave the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties,and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various internationalforums.”

Immediate controversy surrounded this paragraph, with some Catholicsquickly attempting to distance the idea that the Holy See would support worldgovernment

Hierarchy Of Power

John-Henry Westen, writing for LifeSiteNews , stated unequivocally thatthe Pope was speaking “directly against a one-world government.”v Westen’s

justification for this position was the Pope’s call for a “dispersed politicalauthority” in paragraph 41 – a reference to the role of States in the internationalsystem. Westen also brought up the use of the word “subsidiarity” in section 57as a strike against world government.

This is an important point: Subsidiarity is the Catholic social teaching thatissues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible. In many respects it buildson the theme of self-determination, and in this sense it would seem antithetical toa world authority.

Section 57 of Caritas in Veritate says,

“In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of atyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked bysubsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levelsthat can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofaras it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to bepursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary andstratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yieldeffective results in practice.”

Mr. Westen, who claims that Benedict’s use of subsidiarity opposesworld government, has misdiagnosed this section. The Pope is notspeaking against one-world government by evoking subsidiarity; insteadhe’s offering a hierarchical model upon which to build an international



authority. Essentially, where issues can be dealt with at the local ornational level, let them be handled in this domain. And where issues areglobal and cannot be adequately addressed at a lower level, then a worldauthority is necessary.

Pope Benedict also suggested that subsidiarity could be a safety valuethat checks the power of a universal government against taking on tyrannicaltraits. But to propose that subsidiarity is a counter to tyranny is unconvincing – itcan’t even check the expansion of over-government today.

John Laughland, author of The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea , noted that, “…the German constitution has becomeincreasingly centralised as a result of its subsidiarity clause.” The EuropeanUnion also incorporates this concept, yet that hasn’t stopped the EU fromcentralizing political power and amassing a super-bloated bureaucracy.Subsidiarity, according to Laughland, is a model that assumes a “unitarian,

pyramidal hierarchy of executive functions” with a decidedly corporatist doctrine.

vi

Subsidiarity can even be found in the UN system. Professor Robert Araujoexplains that, “the principle of subsidiarity is recognized as a fundamentalprinciple of the United Nations Organization.”vii Here, the concept is centered onself-determination under article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter . Yet thisdoesn’t stop the UN from seeking empowered international jurisdiction under thebanner of “reform.”

It’s important to note that subsidiarity does allow for grassroots decision-making and self-direction, but it’s within the context of a broader perspective.Professor Araujo explains that it’s a “a concept synthesizing the interests of theindividual with those of the community.” Hence, it’s not difficult to see how thisprinciple can align itself with a world authority – you can pursue local politicaldirection, but where local involvement ends then other levels of government stepup for the “common good.”

To say that Pope Benedict opposes world government because he evokedsubsidiarity misses the point: subsidiarity plays a functioning role in a hierarchy ofincreasing political powers. What paragraph 57 demonstrates is not an aversionto world government, but the order of decision-making Benedict believes itshould be based upon.

Reform And World Authority

Paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate is overtly political in nature. Here’s abreakdown of some key points.

“Reform the United Nations” – UN reform centers on more than just“voting changes” or “transparency.” Rather, reform is connected to world



taxation, a global enforcement component, and the creation of an internationalparliament. A small mountain of reports and documents that support this versionof reform already exist, supported by the United Nations, national governments,and pro-UN groups such as the World Federalist Movement and the Club ofRome.viii In fact, this platform of international taxation, enforcement, and a world

parliament were major discussion points at the UN Millennium Forum – particularly during the sessions hosted by the working group on “Strengtheningand Democratizing the United Nations.”ix

Cliff Kincaid, the President of America’s Survival, Inc. and editor ofAccuracy in Media , noted the linkages between reform and global governance insection 67 of the papal text.

“…the ‘reform’ of the U.N. is designed to strengthen it. Hence, theU.N. is clearly destined, from the Vatican point of view, to become theWorld Political Authority.”x

“Responsibility to protect” – Known as R2P, this is a world federalistideal that would give the UN a mandate to intervene domestically when a nationcommits human rights violations. It sounds good on the surface, but critics – andeven some advocates – realize that such a mandate may open Pandora’s Box.

José E. Alvarez, President of the American Society of International Law,recognized this situation while addressing a conference on international law atThe Hague in 2007. R2P, he suggested, could be used as a pretext to engage inall sorts of questionable, interventionist actions.xi

Nobody in their right mind wishes for any people group to experiencegenocide or gross injustices. R2P, however, is a seriously flawed concept thathas the potential for grave abuses. From a world management perspective, theRight to Protect becomes the legal justification for a world political authority to actmilitarily. The danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soilof good intentions.xii

“To manage the global economy…” – This is already being discussed

within the international community, and it’s looking like the new world financialorder will be a top-down power structure that will greatly empower existing globalinstitutions:

Bank for International Settlements – to become the global bankingregulator. The BIS is fast setting itself up as the international banking manager, abody that will oversee the world’s banks and financial system, including theregulation of international capital. An entity of this kind would be equivalent to abanker’s “king of the hill.” The Los Angeles Times wrote last year that,

“…such a system would force countries to give up a measure of



national sovereignty over banks operating within their borders. It also couldlead to international bureaucrats trying to shape financial policy andpossibly taking punitive action.”xiii

International Monetary Fund – to become the world reserve currency

bank. Under this scheme, the IMF would be charged with regulating a new globalcurrency to be used in world trade, including the energy sector. Collaboratingwith the World Bank, the IMF would likewise use this new currency unit forinternational loans and debt obligations. National and regional currencies wouldstill exist, at least for the interim, but values would react and adjust according tonew global benchmarks.

World Trade Organization – becoming the global trade regulator. TheWTO would establish the rules for the trading of goods and services via aglobally organized set of standard, a process it’s currently working through.National trade policies would hereafter line up with accepted world practices. All

of this is already happening, but there’s a further link between global free tradeand a new international financial system. Richard Cooper, while advocating asingle global reserve currency, noted the following in a 1984 conferencesponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,

“It would be logical if free [world] trade accompanied this singlecurrency regime. That would also be consistent with the collaborativepolitical spirit that would be required to establish the single currency regime.Free trade would insure one market in goods as well as in financialinstruments.”xiv

United Nations – fast becoming the global ethics and governanceagency. The UN would give moral input and political guidance to the newlymanaged world economy. In essence, this body would become the “planetaryconsciousness,” shaping consumer and political attitudes, values, and behaviors.This too is already happening. At the end of June, the UN hosted a conferencethat outlined an accepted social norm for the global economy: an Earth-centricworldview, international socialism, and a New Age vision of planetary evolution.

Remember, Benedict’s world political authority is supposed to manage theglobal economy. How will the execution of this mandate happen? Will the worldauthority operate as an umbrella to the above-mentioned groups? Can the UnitedNations reform to the point of being this global economic manager?

Caritas in Veritate gave us a glimpse into the world authority’s directives,but it didn’t give operational specifics. Has the Holy See actually fleshed out thedetails: maybe outlining the process through an internal working document? If so,it would be a very interesting read! Or, in only offering generalities, does theVatican expect other major players – such as the United Nations or WorldFederalist Movement – to hammer out the particulars? If so, where does that



place the Vatican in this world government framework? Observer? Advisor?Overseer?

A lot of perplexing questions arise, and so they should.“An authority…regulated by law” – Governments the world over areregulated by internal laws and accountability measures, yet this doesn’t stop

abuses, corruption, or even tyranny from entering the picture. The idea that aworld authority could be kept in check by a system of world law doesn’t holdwater.

“True world political authority” – This isn’t a moral or spiritual idealpropagated by the Holy See, but the vision of an actual world government. This isevident in the overall context of section 67 and in the wording itself: a “worldpolitical authority.”

No doubt the papal office desires to see a spiritual standardincorporated into this political entity, based in large part on the socialteachings of the Catholic Church. However, this in no way guarantees thata world authority will act in good will. As history bears out, the Vaticanitself is far from immune in this regard, and “holders of power” tend toamass power.

Remember the words of Lord Acton, a Catholic historian who penned thefollowing in response to the Vatican’s unquestioning authority: “Power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”xv

Following A Tradition

Pope Benedict’s promotion of world government didn’t happen in avacuum. Since the 1950s the Holy See has consistently moved to support anempowered United Nations and world political authority.

Pope Pius XII: On April 6, 1951, Pope Pius XII had a meeting in theVatican with the World Movement for World Federal Government – a precursor tothe World Federalist Movement. During that meeting, Pope Pius encouraged his“world government” audience to continue in this quest.

“Your movement, Gentlemen, has the task of creating an effective

political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping withthe traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachingson the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. Anorganization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…”

The Pope then explained, rightly so, that the “deadly germs ofmechanical totalitarianism” might infect this “world political organization.”



However, in noting this possibility, he reminded the attendees to pursue a morallyfirm world federalist approach. Ending his meeting, the Pope encouraged hisaudience to pursue this grand idea.

“…you have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We

congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entiresuccess and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you Hiswisdom and help in the performance of your task.”xvi

Pope John XXIII: In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris , Pope John XXIIIcalled for an international public authority with a “world-wide sphere of activity” todeal with global problems. This authority would be “equipped with world-widepower and adequate means for achieving the universal common good,” althoughit could not establish itself through force: “it must be set up with the consent of allnations.”

In contemplating how this system would work, John XXIII called upon theprinciple of subsidiarity, saying that this should be applied “to the relationsbetween the public authority of the world community and the public authorities ofeach political community.”

Subsidiarity here, like Benedict’s use of the term, doesn’t negate a worldauthority – it simply imposes a hierarchical structure that recognizes each level,from the bottom-to-the-top, as a key to the process.xvii

Pope Paul VI: While speaking at the United Nations in 1965, the adulationcoming from the pope was palatable. During his talk he praised the UN systemas “the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.”

“The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must beperfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present.You mark a stage in the development of mankind, from which retreat mustnever be admitted… Advance always! ...Let unanimous trust in thisInstitution grow, let its authority increase.”

Alas, Pope Paul VI called for a world government.

“Is there anyone who does not see the necessity of coming thusprogressively to the establishment of a world authority, able to actefficaciously on the juridical and political levels?xviii

Pope John Paul II: In his 1995 speech to the UN, John Paul reflected onthe historical connections between the Vatican and the world body.

“The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, whichmakes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has



supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization fromthe very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operativeapproaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nationsconstantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their commonconcern for the human family.”xix

Although Pope John Paul II butted heads with the United Nations overfamily issues, he did place enormous importance on pursuing political systems ofworld law. In 1985 he spoke to judges at the International Court of Justice, tellingthem that,

The Holy See attaches great importance to its collaboration with the United Nations Organization and the various organisms which are a vitalpart of its work. The Church's interest in the International Court of Justicegoes back to the very beginnings of this Tribunal and to the events thatwere linked to its establishment….

The Church has consistently supported the development of aninternational administration of justice and arbitration as a way of peace fully resolving conflicts and as part of the evolution of a world legal system …

Strictly speaking, the present Court is no more – but it is also noless – than an initial step towards what we hope will one day be a totally effective judicial authority in a peaceful world.xx [italics in original]

In other speeches and writings, such as his encyclical Sollicitudo rei Socialis , John Paul called for a strengthening of world law and a “greater degreeof international ordering.”xxi None of this has the same blatancy as PopeBenedict’s recommendation for a “world political authority,” but it does follow acommon political theme – enlarged and enhanced global governance.

Pope Benedict’s idea of a “world political authority” didn’t spring out of thinair. Rather, through successive papal offices stretching back to at least PiusXII,xxii the Holy See has nurtured visions of an international politic.

Influencing Princes and Paupers

The fact that a religious leader has called for a world authority isinteresting in itself, but because this emanates from the papal office, an extrameasure of attention is warranted.

We cannot overlook the influence wielded by the Holy See. The Popeis vastly different in relation to other religious figures when it comes toglobal significance. It’s true that some Protestant and evangelical leadersare consulted by political elites; and government officials often court the



heads of other religions, such as the Dalai Lama. But all of this pales to thehistorical and contemporary powers of the papal office.

For centuries the Holy See has been the centerpiece of European politicalaffairs. Its history is replete with geo-political intrigues, papal wars, and the rise

and fall of national powers. Royalty from every corner of the Continent havetraveled to Rome seeking an audience with the Pope, hoping for papal favor.Moreover, the Vatican has been a hub for banking interests, espionage, andtransnational business dealings.xxiii And today, just as in the past, Presidents andPrime Ministers bow before the Pope, seeking his counsel, and privatelydiscussing matters of great political, economic, and social importance.

Eric Frattini, the author of The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage , gives us a window into this geo-political world.

“The papacy, the supreme authority at the head of the Catholic

Church, is the oldest established institution in the world. It was the onlyinstitution to flourish during the Middle Ages, a leading actor in theRenaissance, and a protagonist in the battles of the Reformation, theCounter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the industrial era, and therise and fall of communism. For centuries, making full use of their famous‘infallibility,’ popes brought their centralized power to bear on the socialoutcomes of unfolding historical events…

…throughout history, the papacy has always displayed two faces:that of the worldwide leadership of the Catholic Church and that of one ofhe planet’s best political organizations. While the popes were blessingtheir faithful on the one hand, on the other, they were receiving foreignambassadors and heads of states and dispatching legates and nuncios onspecial missions.”xxiv

And standing behind the Pope is a worldwide following of devoutCatholics, who may not agree with world government, but who arenevertheless committed to the Roman Catholic Church – thus supportive ofthe Pontiff.

Avro Manhattan, a critic of the Holy See, correctly made the correlationbetween the Vatican’s power and it’s faithful.

“What gives the Vatican its tremendous power is not its diplomacyas such, but the fact that behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with allits manifold world-embracing activities…

…Vatican diplomacy is so influential and can exert such greatpower in the diplomatic-political field because it has at its disposal thetremendous machinery of a spiritual organization with ramifications in



every country of the planet. In other words, the Vatican, as a politicalpower, employs the Catholic Church as a religious institution to assist theattainment of its goals. These goals, in turn, are sought mainly to furtherthe spiritual interests of the Catholic Church.

…the Catholic Hierarchy automatically reacts upon thoseinnumerable religious, cultural, social, and finally political, organizationsconnected with the Catholic Church, which although tied to the Churchprimarily on religious grounds, can at given moments be made eitherdirectly or indirectly to serve political ends.”xxv

The point is this: No other religious leader on the planet holds suchpolitical and economic influence within a religious framework. Consider just thenumber of adherents that make up the backbone of the Church of Roman: In theUS, Catholics make up approximately 22% of the populace, and of the world’stotal, 17% – or about 1.14 billion people.xxvi That’s why Pope Benedict’s call for a

“world political authority” is so significant; what he says influences leaders andlaymen alike by the hundreds of millions.

If the local Baptist pastor or Mennonite preacher, with a flock of a fewdozen or a few hundred, appealed for a UN-styled “world political authority” itwouldn’t mean much beyond the pews of that particular church. The congregantswould either cheer the minister or, hopefully, challenge his assumptions. Butgenerally speaking it wouldn’t cause a ripple beyond the local community.However, when the “Holy Father” – a Catholic title that denotes more than just a“leader” – makes such a recommendation, and has the backing of earlier papalappeals, the waves of influence travel worldwide.

Conclusion

- That the Holy See has, for at least six decades, supported the quest for aglobal political structure.

- That Pope Benedict has, through his recent encyclical, explicitlysupported the idea of a world political authority; and that this world governmentshould be designed to incorporate the principle of subsidiarity. Further point: Thatsubsidiarity in a universal political structure would be akin to the slogan, “thinkglobal, act local.”

- That the influence of the Holy See upon the international community issubstantial, and that the Papacy has the backing and general support ofhundreds of millions around the world, adding “local-to-global” support for theVatican’s geo-political visions.



- That advocates for world government – such as the World FederalistMovement – will pick up on Pope Benedict’s recommendations and use it toparade the idea of world management.

- That many Roman Catholics and Catholic organizations will

subsequently endorse the proposal for a world political authority, and hencesupport various movements for global governance.

- That individuals and organizations within and outside the CatholicChurch will defend the Pope’s encyclical by seeking to spiritualize or moralize thetext, thereby attempting to soften the controversy. Yet, the Pope’s intent for aworld political authority remains.

- That a minority of Catholics will vocally oppose the Vatican’s call for UNempowerment and international government (many more will be indifferent).Ridicule may occur for those who publically speak against Benedict’s political

ideals. Expect rifts between those who oppose and those who advocate globalgovernance.

- That non-Catholic faith groups will support Pope Benedict’s encyclical.Already an evangelical response document has been issued by a group ofprofessors and national evangelical leaders. Titled, Doing the Truth in Love , thistext agrees that new forms of global authority are necessary, but that it “mustsecure increased participation, transparency and accountability, and helpstrengthen the nation state relative to the power of global finance.”xxvii Such aview is more utopian than practical, as few real incentives would compel a worldgovernment to operate this openly.

- That new alliances and networks will be formed to increase political andsocial pressure in support of world management, and that these networks willincorporate Catholic/Vatican groups, non-governmental organizations, andelements from the United Nations.

When the Holy See raises the specter of world government itshould jolt Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even if a world politicalauthority doesn’t come to fruition, such advocacy is stunning. Here wehave the planet’s most influential religious office – itself politicallystructured as a top-down authority – promoting a top-down system ofinternational management. The perception alone is deeply troubling.

And if a world political authority does come into play, what will keep itfrom morphing into an autocratic regime? Even in this we are assuming that theglobal authority will be introduced as a limited government. The ultimatecontradiction, of course, is a toothless world authority. Without enforcement capabilities it would be little more than an advisory board. To be effective,



therefore, it must be a centralist power with clout: Anything less would bemeaningless.

But is this what the world needs to ensure global order?

Consider for a moment the last one hundred years, a century rife withexamples of “well-meaning” centralist governments – they were always wellmeaning to somebody. In the name of “peace and security” these regimescrushed domestic opponents, often liquidating their own supporters in theprocess. From Chile to China the unofficial motto, “peace is the destruction of allopposition,” was translated into action. And in the case of Nazi Germany, thegovernment rose to power through the democratic process. Sadly, in some casesthe Vatican itself held the hands of those who perpetrated such crimes, as inCroatia during the 1940s.xxviii

Does all of this mean that the Holy See supports a dictatorial world

regime? Not according to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, as he openlyrecognized the dangerous possibility of a “universal power of a tyrannicalnature.” His hope, as outlined in Caritas in Veritate , is a world politicalauthority checked by legal boundaries so as not to “infringe uponfreedom.” Government overstep would be offset by accountabilitymeasures.

A fine concept in theory, but it rests on a shaky assumption: That theworld political authority will remain content to live within prescribed limitations;satisfied to operate within tight social, economic, and political constraints. Here’sthe snag: our advanced, democratic nations – and even the Vatican – haven’tand can’t live up to this basic standard.

While Pope Benedict tries to soft-sell Catholics and national leaders onthe idea of world government, the sobering words of Lord Acton drift-in from anearly forgotten past: “Power corrupts…”



Endnotes:

iMalachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (Touchstone, 1990), p.15.

iiThe New York Times , “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the

‘Common Good’,” July 8, 2009. Online edition.iii

David Ian Miller, “The Pope pays the economy some attention,” The San Francisco Chronicle ,

July 13, 2009. Online edition.ivE.J. Dionne Jr. “To the Right of the Pope,” The Washington Post , July 8, 2009, online edition.

vJohn-Henry Westen, “Pope’s New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for On-World Government

and New World Order,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 8, 2009.vi

John Laughland, The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea (Little,Brown & Company, 1997), pp.154-155.vii

Robert John Arujo, “International Law Clients: The Wisdom of Natural Law,” Fordham Urban Law Journal , August, 2001.viii

For a few examples among many, see the following reports: Our Global Neighborhood (TheCommission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, 1995 – directly supported andendorsed by the UN Secretary General); Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations (Government of Canada, 1995); Rethinking Basic Assumptions About the United Nations (World Federalist Association, 1992); Reshaping the International Order (Club of Rome, 1976).ix

UN Millennium Forum, May 22-26, 2000. See the final document,Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action .

xCliff Kincaid, “Who Will Probe the UN-Vatican Connection?” Accuracy in Media , August 4, 2009.

(www.aim.org).xi

José E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, Panel Presentation at the 2007 Hague JointConference on Contemporary Issues of International Law: Criminal Jurisdiction 100 Years Afterthe 1907 Hague Peace Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, June 30, 2007.xii

For more on the R2P concept see Volume 2, Issue 7 of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org) – “Kosovo and the International Community: Just Another Pawn in theGame.”xiii

Jim Puzzanghera, “Calls grow for global banking regulator,” Los Angeles Times , October 17,2008 (online archived edition).xiv

Richard N. Cooper, “Is There a Need to Reform?” The International Monetary System: Forty Years After Bretton Woods (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1984), p.33.xv Reprinted in Eric Frattini’s book, The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St.Martin’s Press, 2008), p.2.xvi

Address by His Holiness Pope Pius XII During an Audience with Delegates of the Fourth Congress of the World Movement for World Federal Government, 6 April 1951. A copy of thisspeech is in the author’s library. It is reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (2004, can be obtained at the Forcing Change website, www.forcingchange.org).xvii

Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris , paragraphs 137 to 141.xviii

Holy Father’s Talk at United Nations, October 4, 1965. Reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (www.forcingchange.org).xix

Address of His Holiness John Paul II , United Nations Headquarters, Thursday, 5 October 1995.xx

Address of John Paul II to the International Court of Justice during the Meeting at the Peace

Palace, The Hague, 13 May 1985.xxiSollicitudo rei socialis , paragraph 43.

xxiiPope John Paul I was in office for only 33 days before being murdered in 1978. During that

time he made a number of speeches, but I have found none that directly support globalgovernance.xxiii

Volumes have been published on the role of the Holy See in global dealings, includingbanking, espionage, and international diplomacy. One of the most recent books on this subject isThe Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage , by Eric Frattini (St. Martin’s Press, 2008).



xxiv

Eric Frattini The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St. Martin’s Press, 2008),p.1.xxv

Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics (Gaer Associates, 1949), pp.28-29.xxvi

“Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics,” Center for Applied Research in theApostolate, Georgetown University, statistics are for 2009;

http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm.xxviiDoing the Truth in Love . A copy of the document, along with signers, can be found at

www.cpjustice.org/doingthetruthxxviii

The Croat liquidation of Orthodox Serbs was one of the most horrific examples of genocide inmodern history. So gruesome were the attacks that “even hardened German troops registeredtheir horror.” See John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (Viking, 1999),pp.248-260. See also Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks by MarkAarons and John Loftus (St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998); and Avro Manhattan, The Vatican’s Holocaust (Ozark Books, 1986). Mark Aarons and John Loftus attest to Manhattan’s credibility, explaining;“he was very well informed, having worked for British intelligence during the war” (Unholy Trinity ,p.86).



This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:

The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explainshow the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role

in the unfolding plan to establish a world government.Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why:

The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vatican-insider and author Malachi Martin described in his bookThe Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over anemerging world government.

Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics,endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of worldgovernment, in his recent encyclical “Caritas inVeritate.”

This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to“manage the economy,” bring about “timelydisarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.”

In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding thepower and authority of such global institutions as theBank for International Settlements, the InternationalMonetary Fund, the United Nations, and the WorldTrade Organization.

Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control canbe incorporated into this emerging world system, a

possible or even likely result is global tyranny.



EXHIBIT L



Printed fro m America's Survival, Inc. - http://www.usasurivai.org/

Vatican Backs Obama's

Global AgendaBy Cliff Kincaid I October 12,2009

Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding ofthe Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem tounderstand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is theuntold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called aNew World Order.

Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement overabortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the ObamaAdministration agree on major aspects of so-called health carereform.

These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservativemedia. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not

to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functionslike a liberal/left-wing political lobby.

But the fads should not be much of a surprise.

A majority of Catholics voted for Obarna, despite the fad that his pro-abortion record was wellknown, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S.,only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.

The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as asurprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as Presidentcreated a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a centralposition, with emphasis on the rote that the United Nations and other international institutionscan play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the

expense of the United States.

While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it

too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will

ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity,so that it might bring the expected results."

The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedid, the leader of 1.2billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of wortd government, in

his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, issupposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food,security and peace."

However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writersare reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government.--.

EXHIBIT N



On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S.

oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basichuman right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have

the federal government take over the health care sector.

The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such ashealth care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by

Congressional Democrats.

The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administrationand Congressional Democrats on what is

euphemistically called "immigration reform." OnOctober 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told

the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegalaliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent

residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be oneof the next major Obama initiatives.

On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to

combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigationand adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term

impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on theemissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to

the atmosphere."

Again, this is the Obama Administration position.

The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes

"legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance thatmay be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global

climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration.

On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure is being applied

on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S.military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It

says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the useof air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid.

On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive

director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent toengage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions andcertainly not military action against the fanatical regime.

What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic andforeign policy issues.

For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christinational council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes,

a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishopswho also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for

Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that haspoured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations

over the years. Funding of ACORN was recently suspended



because of corruption allegations.

In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD hadalso been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic

moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimedthat the funding had been cut off.

However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin'sresponse is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas."

In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a

conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in themedia are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an anti-

Catholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed becausewhile funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups

remain.

My column also noted evidence that Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began inan organization funded by the Catholic Church.

This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes,

supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago,"

noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, saysthat "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs

how we live our faith in the world."

The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for

Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts.

In the newsletter (PDF) of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in

May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists whohired a young Barack Obama in 1985." Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from

My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life communityorganizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009."

Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear

that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, theenvironment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their

differences."

Read our special report: Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: the Vatican’s Quest forWorld Political Authority



Progressives Back Obama in Push for Tril lion Dollar Global Tax Page 1 of 3

Printed from America's Survival , Inc. - http://www.usasurival.org/

Progressives Back Obama

in Push for Trillion DollarGlobal Tax

BY CLIFF KINCAID I OCTOBER 6,2009

While policymakers debate a few million dollars for ACORN and a few hundred billion dotlarsmore for health care reform, those committed to one-world government are moving aheadwith plans for a global tax that could extract trillions of dollars out of Americans' alreadydepleted IRAs and stock holdings.

One can't exclude the possibility of such a tax being slipped into a health care or cap-and-trade bill that the Congress or the public could not have time to read before passage.

Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal deserves a journalism prize for taking the time to readthe recent communique issued by the G-20 countries meeting in Pittsburgh. He found theyhad assigned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) he job of studying how to implement aglobal tax on America and the rest of the world.

"The IMF assignment from the G-20 has been widely overlooked," Davis noted. His article ranunder the headline, "IMF Mulls Global Bank Tax."

For a history of global taxation efforts, please go to our web site

www.stovaloba~taxes.orq

The "Leader's Statement" endorsed by President Obama and released at the event declareson page 10 that "We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to therange of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sectorcould make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated withgovernment interventions to repair the banking system."

The term "fair and substantial contribution" is code for a global tax. Other misleading termsfor global taxes include "innovative sources of financen and "Solidarity Levies."

While the global tax would affect the savings of ordinary Americans and be passed on to

consumers,it

is being packaged by the international left and its progressive allies in the U.S.as an assault on Wall Street and the big banks.

One proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro,is the Tobin Tax, named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Such a tax, which couldaffect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars ayear. Indeed, Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, TheConfidence Gam e, that such a proposal "might net some $13 trillion a year .." because it is

hr>:llwww.usasurviva1.or~ck 00609.htmIEXHIBIT 0

1012 112009



based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in globalfinancial markets.

Such transactions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual fundsor companies that invest or operate overseas.

Meanwhile, President Obama used his recent speech to the United Nations to declare, "We

have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals." He left unsaid what this means. Ithas been calculated that this will cost the U.S. $845 billion to meet U.N. demands for acertain percentage of Gross National Product to go for official foreign aid to the rest of theworld. Compliance with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was incorporated into theGlobal Poverty Act that Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator but which never passed.

A global tax of the kind envisioned in the G-20 document could help provide the revenue tofulfill Obama's promise to comply with the MDGs.

One of the leading cheerleaders for the global tax is economist Joseph Stiglitz, an Obamasupporter and former Clinton official who has been working with the Socialist InternationalCommission on Global Financial Issues. We analyzed his key behind-the-scenes role in the

June United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis. He was selectedas a U.N. adviser by the then-president of the U.N. General Assembly, Communist CatholicPriest Miguel D'Escoto.

Over at the Huffington Post, a voice of the Obama-supporting left, Kyle G. Brown advises thatsuch a tax is doable and that "a modest fee on every stock, every bond-in short, everyfinancial transaction" could generate $100 billion a year at a rate of just 0.5 percent. Heexplains, "That would defray health care costs, and help struggling states restore socialservices that have been axed over the past two years."

Brown is not a policy maker but rather a self-described writer and broadcast journalist at theBBC and CBC.

The progressives know that such a rate could be ratcheted up quickly, bringing in hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars.

The AFL-CIO, the giant labor federation backing Obama, has already endorsed the Tobin Tax,as has Robert Kuttner, a leading liberal thinker who serves as co-editor of The AmericanProspect and a senior fellow at Demos. This is a pro-Democratic Party think tank that stillincludes ousted Obama green jobs czar Van Jones on its board.

As reported by The Hill newspaper, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the Highwaysand Transit Transportation Subcommittee, has "seized on the idea as a way to help pay for anew massive surface transportation reauthorization bill, estimated to cost $450 billion over six

years," but wants to tax oil-based derivatives rather than stock transactions. DeFazio hadpreviously introduced a House resolution to pass a Tobin Tax.

What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the U.S. is exploiting thepeople and natural resources of the world. According to this perspective, internationalinstitutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the U.N. mustbe restructured and provided with new financial resources to supervise and manage theredistribution of the world's wealth. The United States, being the leading capitalist state, hasto pay the largest price.

Page 2 of 3Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

10/21/2009http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html



Their attitude was expressed at a non-governmental organization forum in Monterrey, Mexico,associated with the U.N.'s International Conference on Financing for Development, thatChristopher Columbus "invaded, destroyed and pillaged" the hemisphere and that a global taxwas necessary to pay for the damage.

In his 2001 speech to the U.N. World Conference on Racism, Castro advocated the Tobin Taxspecifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world. He

declared, "May the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin be imposed in areasonable and effective way on the current speculative operations accounting for trillions of US dollars every 24 hours, then the United Nations, which cannot go on depending onmeager, inadequate, and belated donations and charities, will have one trillion US dollarsannually to save and develop the world."

The only thing that has changed is that the U.S. now has a president who agrees with Castro,and he and his progressive backers believe that they can obtain a slice of the revenue fortheir socialist projects here as well.

Please go to www.stopglobaltaxes.org

Read Cliff Kincaid’s book for free “Global Taxes for W orld Government”

Page 3 of 3Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

10/21/2009http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html



a

D. nw. ~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

D r e c n n n ~ c % E r r a r r ~ c a a r n - - 4M .

SmnPROU

urnmar-- l n u a s r + l l l b u b m L a o a d l W m s d

u- R D ~ R E L w l r u ~ w o l n i d ~ .uit: -mnm

s 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*h

lrul

..h b . 1 ~ . rr imd ..a

c 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 Cl u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~

.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.kb 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 aill-. 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 b

u 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 a2 Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-

h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l dtranu-In*

- : n i a - t o r m r e . . m - . . w ~ ~ n d3. % tb. 01. - OM* oi Oi fL.d

d.orm eulp nawsoa; sdd W r a a c edm 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& ., ol

amem mmch ~ . tfrle-- L rtn Lia.11- L. 170-. Iw -

Wrp.W 1-t. ClkW.7.r -I"&. -. thi.& ., OI S

1%

-. - 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

I

n 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 17D

IWasQa 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 , by

maMI- CD pal- u c d ad

m 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 . .

m

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

EXHIBIT E



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.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR TFOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA

SANTA 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'S

18711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS

wj / Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

u

14

15

16

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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

I1

Disain of calihnin,towit:

P RO OR O F S e R n C E

Ithe~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 Plaintiffs

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F Le lTERSROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

CO N DU CT P RERU L E 26(0 DISCOVERYTODEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO P ERPETU ATE

TESTIMONY, 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

21

22

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

8

9

I0

I1

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 formal

discovery under the Fed& Rules of CivilProcedure.

PLAINTIFFS' A TTO RN EY ' S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that

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

18

19

a3

2 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 23433

Respectfully submiaed

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

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) IVISION

EXHIBIT F

I228 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

'5

l6

l7

l9

ao

22

ar

25

a5

"~ 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 and

l was born andraisedin the state of Iowa.

3. I have m n a l mowledge of all the facts and circNmstances

described 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 in

Mombasa, Kenya

5. 1visited the hospital accompanied by one more penon, a nahual

born 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 to

obtainthe original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama, s I was

told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the



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 PLAINTIFFS




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




Exhibit A:

Birth Certificate from theCoastal Hospital; District of Mombasa

Kenya, obtained inFebruary 2009



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

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6 –

Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS


MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691

(949) 683-5411


Exhibit A:Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of

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

February 2009



----__EXHIBIT G



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,. QP

593 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 esse

HonorableDavid 0.CarterJudge, United States District CorntCentralDistrict of California,Southern Division41 1 West Fad Strcct,Courtroom 9D

SantaAna, CA92701-4516Re:Bmet t . eta1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082

Subject: 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\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf

sttomey 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 forvcrificatiwthatprovetheUsusperisnotevena

native-bomcitizeneither,and therebytriggers eview of factsastoUsurps'smtumhd

citizen 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 that

theU.S. Govemmmthas argued that any Quo Wananto bedone inWashingtonDistrict of

Cohrmbiaand I urgehereinmeswith aMultidistrid Judithisque s thssbeen senttoCounsels andCourt inboth cases.

,hk....sg2mBmklyn NewYork

cc: JudgeRichard J. LeonBrigham John Bowen, AUSA - o dRoger E.WestAUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov

CharlesEdward 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



----EXHIBIT L



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

February 2007 Press Releases

Pelosi Denounces Hateful Views in AsianWeek Column; Wednesday,

February 28,2007Pelosi Statement on British Troop Withdrawal; Wednesday, February

21,2007Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi hosts a Climate Change and Eneray

Independence Roundtable; February 21,2007Pelosi Statement on the Lunar New Year; Friday, February 16, 2007

Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Will Signal a Change in Direction and Bring OurTroops Home Safely and Soon; Friday, February 16, 2007

Pelosi: Vote Against Escalation in Iraq is a Messaqe to President Bush- No More Blank Checks on Iraq; Tuesday, February 13,2007

Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi accepts the lnstituto Laboral de la Raza

2007 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 of

Humanity's Greatest Challenges; Thursday, February 8, 2007

Pelosi: President's Budget Is More of the Same ~isca lrresponsibilityand Misplaced Priorities; Monday, February 5, 2007

Pelosi 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 November

December

get email ~ ~ d a t e sbiosra~hyconstituent services Iwork in connress ( about SanFrancisco I news Iphotos Icontact Ivouth op~ortunities home

District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 - (415) 556-

4862

Washington, D.C. Office - 2371 Raybum HOB - Washington, DC20515 - (202) 225-4965

EXHIBIT P



THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr.ChristopherStnmkUnit 281593 Vanderbilt Avenue

Brooklyn,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 thesepamtb

ofpowers, it isnotwithin ourauthority tobecome involved in legal matters. Youmustresolvethis issue hmugh the judicial system

Pleasebe aware thatyou am isit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINPOfor 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



United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Columbia

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 24,2009, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certifqr under penalty of perjury

pursuant to 28 USC 1746,

That I caused the service of six (6) copies of Christopher-Earl: StrunkQ in esse, PLAINTIFF'S

RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

AS TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTSAND SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITYAND

INDIVIDUALLY in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavit and exhibits annexed affirmed October

23,2009, and each complete set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper

postage for United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon:

Wynne P. Kelly

Assistant United States Attorney

555 4th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C.20530

John Marcus McNichols, Esq.

WILLIAMS& CONNOLLY, U P

725 12th Street,NW

Washington, DC 20005

John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.

KAUFMAN& CANOLES, P.C.

150 West Main Street-P.O. Box 3037

Norfolk, VA 23 5 14

Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.

TEXAS OFFICE OF THEATTORNEY GENERALP.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 7871 1

Seth E. Goldstein,

Deputy Attorney General

California Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General1300 "I" Street- Suite 125

Sacramento, California 94244-2550

Stephen Kitzinger,

Assistant Corporation Counsel

New York City Law Department

Office of Corporation Counsel

100 Church Street

New York, New York 10007

I do declareand c

Dated:October8 2 0 0 9

Brooklyn,NewYork



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 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 MPLAINT

Defendants 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 Homeland

Security, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United S tates Department of Hom eland S ecurity, the

United States House of Representatives, N ancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of

Representatives , 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 the

accompan ying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Pro se Plaintiff is advised that if he fails

to 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 United

States.



failure to respond. See Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988). A proposed order

consistent 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.* u

Washington, D.C. 20530(202) 305-7107wynne.kelly@ usdoj gov



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


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 ITIES

IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk ("Plaintiff' or "Strunk") has filed two (2) related

com plaints in this Court, both of which are frivolous and without merit. Each case, to the extent

that the complaints can be digested, takes issue with the federal government's conducting of the

national census and alleges a grand conspiracy in which the Society of Jesus, a religious order of

the Roman Catholic Church, controls the nation (if not the world). Both of Pla intiffs complaints

warrant dismissal as a matter of law.

I. BACKGROUND

In 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 of

Commerce, United S tates Department of Hom eland Security, Janet Napo litano, Secretary of the

United 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



(Compl. at 1-2, 11-19, T[n 43-82.) Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgm ent related to "resident

suffrage in Wash ington D.C . within Maryland as of right." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he

makes 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 Made

Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of H is Blood, in which S trunk Stands in

the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh . . .under reserve, without dishonor, without

prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no do lus; and that this [Clourt and or defendants are

unable to offer a higher consideration." (Id. at 4-5, T[ 11 ) The remainder of Plain tiffs

allegations that seem to relate to the Federal D efendants center around P lain tiff s belief that the

Federal Defendants conspired with various non-government actors throughout history to

perpetuate, inter alia, the Oklahoma City bombing (id. at 1 8, 78 0) and President Barack

Obam a's education at Occidental College (id. at 24-27, IT[110-29). As P laintif fs claims are

utterly devoid of factual bases and fail to state a claim upon w hich relief could be granted, the

complaint should be d i~ m is se d. ~

11. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 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.



statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." It is well established that

ev 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 Jurisdiction

Federal 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 for

lack of jurisdiction may be presented as a facial or factual challenge. "A facial challenge attacks

the factua l allegations of the com plaint that are contained on the face of the complaint, while a

factual 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 allegations

contained in the com plaint as true and consider the factual allegations in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party. Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 182 (D.D.C. 2006). With

respect to a factual challenge, the district court may consider m aterials outside of the pleadings to

determine 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 of

establishing 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 to

entertain claims otherw ise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as

to be abso lutely devo id of merit, . . .wholly insubstant ial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]""' Riles v.



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 9

L.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 Rules

of Civil Procedure." Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 009 WL 1886214, at *2. "To be dismissed on this

ground, 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 iracy

theories, . . . fantastic government manipulations of [the] will or mind, [or] any sort of

supernatural 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 Claim

In 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 claim

to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, a complaint cannot survive a motion to dism iss

through 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 district

court is required to deem the factual allegations in the complaint as true and consider those

allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when eva luating a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trudeau v. FTC, 56 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006). But where a

complaint pleads facts that are "merely co nsistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops sho rt of



Accordingly, a "court considering a motion to dism iss can choose to begin by identifying

pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assum ption of

truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framew ork of a complaint, they must be

supported by factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

111. ARGUMENT

A. This Court L acks Jurisdiction Over Plain tiffs Conspiratorial Claims

Plain 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 conspiracy

theories involving the Federal Defendants are not only "essentially fictitious," they are com plete

fabrications of Plai ntiff s mind. Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --, 009 WL 1886214, at *2. An even

cursory review of Pla inti ffs complaint demonstrates that this Court lacks jurisdiction over

Pla intif fs com plaint pursuant to the doctrine of Best v. Kelly and its progeny. As this Court

lacks 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); Roum

v. 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 Intelligence

Agency, 131 F. Supp. 2d 232,234-35 (D.D.C. 2001)).

B. Plaintiff Lacks Stand ing

Should 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



, '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 "allege

that [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 inclusion

of illegal immigrants, or any of the Federal Defendants' actions related to the 201 0 census, this

Court 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, the

plaintiffs filed suit, prior to the commencement of the actual national census, that their voting

rights would be affected by the 1980 census due to its inability to capture the number of illegal

aliens 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 to

confer constitutional standing. Id. at 570-71 ("They [plaintiffs] have failed to demonstrate

concrete harm w hich will occur and be suffered by any one of them, and they have also failed to

demonstrate that the relief they request will benefit them personally. Indeed, it is impossible for

them to do so, because of the way our method of apportionment operates. . . .The point is that

plaintiffs' allegations are far too speculative to permit us to conclude that any particular plaintiff



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 claim

making nebulous allegations that the national census of 201 0 w ill inappropriately count illegal

aliens (particularly agents of the Vatican) and that this occurrence will, in the future, affect

Plain tiff s voting rights. Pl ain tiff s allegations are far too speculative and Plaintiff has failed to

sufficiently 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. Requirements

P 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 must

comply 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 under

liberal notice pleading standards, a complaint may be dismissed if it does not articulate a factual

or legal basis for relief." Id. (citations omitted). Rule 8(a) requires that a com plaint "shall

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction

depends . . . [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim show ing that the pleader is entitled

to 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 voting

rights 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.



notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opp ortunity to file a

responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res

judicata is applicable." Id. at 498. "A pr o se complaint like any other, must present a claim upon

which 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 possible

cause 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 to

give 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 Immunity

Plaintiff 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 of

sovereign immunity as Plaintiff is seeking to impose liability on the United States. "The Federal

Government can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued." Epps v. US. Atty. Gen., 575

F. 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 from

suit."' 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 federal

officials 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).



Where a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a federal agency for certain torts

comm itted by federal employees, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction for this

Court 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 the

FTCA, which is a m andatory prerequisite . . . ." Id. (citing GA F Corp. v. United States, 8 18 F.2d

901,904-05 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Further, the FTCA does not provide a waiver of sovereign

immunity for alleged constitutional torts, which Plaintiff may be alleging here, even if there were

exhaustion 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 and

officials of the federal government to kidnap, torture, and kill" the plaintiff. 461 F. Supp. 2d at

42. 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 terrorist

against him, and spied on him and other U.S. citizens. Id. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief

and $875 million in damages. Id. Judge Collyer, upon consideration of a motion to dismiss the

pla inti ffs complaint, held that the plaintiff could not estab lish a valid waiver of sovereign

immunity 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 be

absolutely devoid of merit,"' id. (qu oting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536), and "[c]omplaints that are

comprised of 'fanciful claims' and 'bizarre conspiracy theories' are generally subject to



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 not

demonstrated 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 fact

that the FTCA does not waive immunity for the type of con stitutional torts that Plaintiff seems to

allege. Finally, as noted above , Plaintiff's claims are comprised of "fancihl" and "bizarre

conspiracy theories" that "are generally subject to d ismissal." Id. Thus, Plaintiffs complaint

should be dismissed.

E. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Anv Iniunctive Relief

Plaintiff 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 for

injunctive relief should be dismissed. Pla intiffs only potential argumen t for waiver of sovereign

imm unity for injunctive reIief is the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 702 et

seq. Plaintiff, however, has failed to allege a final action by a federal agency that would provide

Plaintiff a right of action. See, e.g., Coalitionfor UndergroundExpansion v.Mineta, 333 F.3d

193, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming district court's dismissal of com plaint for lack of

standing where plaintiff could not demonstrate final agency action for purposes of A PA waiver

of sovereign immunity). Pl ain tiff s nebulous allegations related to supposed interactions

between the Federal Defendants and the Rom an Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the

2010 census, do not dem onstrate a final agency action that could possibly be reviewable under

the APA. Thus, any claims for injunctive relief against the Federal Defendants should be

dismissed.



CONCLUSION

For 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



CERTIFICAE OF SERVICE

I 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 for

Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and a proposed order were

served uponpro se plain tiff by first classUnited States mail, postage prepaid marked for delivery

to:

Christopher Strunk593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281Brooklyn, New York 1 238

Assistant U.S. kttdrney U



UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT


CER EIDPH ER EARL STRUNK, )

Plaintiff,)

)1v. )

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 dismiss

Plain tiffs complaint.

UPON CONSIDERA TION of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ORD ERED AND ADJUDG ED that the motion is GRAN TED. The Federal Defendants

are hereby D ISMISSED from this case.

Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru Q 102309 w Defendant MTD...

Documents

Transcript of Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to US MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru Q 102309 w Defendant MTD...