• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Strunk v US Department of State et al. DCD 08-cv-2234Strunk Declaration Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
------------------------------------x)
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse,))Plaintiff, ))v. )
Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
 )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ))Defendant. ))
------------------------------------x
SUR-REPLY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTIONFOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S FIRSTMOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TOTHE COMPLAINT
 
I,Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1746 as follows:
1.
 
That I make this Special-Appearance as Declarant in anticipation of the Court’s order toallow my sur-reply to the Defendant’s Counsel’s response to my Notice of Motion to reconsiderthe defendant’s time to answer filed 2/19/09 and entered into the Docket at Item 11, and that Ihereby extend the fourteen Exhibits appended to my Affidavit in support affirmed February 3,2009 to include herewith six additional exhibits hereafter described.
 
2.
 
That Declarant in sur-reply to each allegation in the order presented by the Defendant’sCounsel’s Memorandum response to my Notice of Motion to reconsider as follows:3.
 
That Declarant acknowledges that the Court as of February 11, 2009 filed a supplementas defined under FRCvP Rule 15(d) notwithstanding Defendants Counsel’s characterization as if 
 
Strunk v US Department of State et al. DCD 08-cv-2234Strunk Declaration Page 2 of 7being a “Amended Complaint” [Dkt. #9]; and that such supplement having been received by theCourt as of January 6, 2009 as shown by affiant’s Exhibit 4, and by the parties involved.4.
 
That Declarant as a matter of the
respondent superior 
1
Defendant Department of State(“DOS”) having primary liability to provide the requested FOIA material and to answer for itsagents and or employee(s), also has an interest when Declarant seeks to add the United StatesDepartment of Homeland Security (“DHS”) as a defendant in this action, as a border controlmatter exclusively under it jurisdiction may be related to the DOS FOIA and involve the recentdiscovery that there is questionable use of Social Security numbers by the subjects of the DOSand DHS FOIA requests and or others.5.
 
That Declarant believes that although as a formal matter as substance over form, issuanceof a supplement summons, which is exclusively under the courts control in that Plaintiff isprohibited for its use as an equal protection under pro se informa pauperism relief prohibitedfrom use otherwise provided to attorneys and those paying regular fees and providingindependent service, I contend is a matter of ministerial actions of the government under Title 5section 552, that statutorily presuppose a formal summons and nevertheless by the service of theoriginal complaint and the supplement by the USPS has already sufficed and arguably goes tothe ample ministerial discretion of the Court to resolve as a matter for conservation of time,calendar and expenses in this matter; and Declarant will abide by such discretion.6.
 
That Declarant contends that DHS has been formally served and in response provided anuntimely answer / response , and
7.
 
That my December 25, 2008 FOIA request of DHS, shown as Exhibit 3 sub-exhibit I inthe Supplement to the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under FOIA, and
1
 
respondeat superior
. The common law doctrine holding an employer or principal liable for the employee’s oragents actions (including torts) committed during the scope of employment ,---Also termed maser-servant rule.
 
Strunk v US Department of State et al. DCD 08-cv-2234Strunk Declaration Page 3 of 7as now entered as of February 11, 2009 as Docket item 9, was responded to by the Department of Homeland Security on February 3, 2009 (see
Exhibit 15
)
8.
 
That on January 9, 2009 the DHS and or its agent at “FOIA Appeals” acknowledgedreceipt of both my FOIA request of December 25, 2008 and the proposed supplement containinga copy at Exhibit I, were duly served by the USPS certified with a request for return receiptthereafter received by declarant after January 9, 2009 (see
Exhibit 16
).
9.
 
That the February 3, 2009 DHS response shown as Exhibit 15, is an untimely answer / response, and does not address the matter of abusive use of social security numbers.
 
10.
that Declarant opposes the suggestion that as the government submits that it will advancethe interests of judicial efficiency for DHS and the Department of State to respond to theAmended Complaint jointly, to the contrary their jurisdictional and authority matters for whicheach must respond separately, and especially the DOS in regards to spoliation of records forwhich it has alleged to have had its Office of Inspector General public report in the matter of passport record access in 2008, culminating July 3, 2008 in a press conference (see
Exhibit 17
)and by withholding of vital information from the public in regards to matters germane to theFOIA request herein have redacted the matters therein deemed “Sensitive” and “unclassified”11.
 
That from page 4 of Exhibit 17 the redaction is referenced as follows:
QUESTION: …I understand that some of this should be answered
-
asked of the OIG people, but
I
wanted to ask, did anyone try to get them down here with you? Did you
-
who's
-
you know, you'retalking about a report by the 0
 – 
the IG, and they're not here. They've blacked out sections of thisreport and we don't know why they've blacked out, because it's not classified. So what's going on?Why are they
-
MR. KIRBY: Well, in terms of why they redacted the report, the redaction is consistent with 5 USC,Section 552 to prevent further unauthorized breeches. And I'm
-
you know, you're asking a question;I'm giving you what
--
the answer that they provided, that
-
if certain parts hadn't been redacted
-
inorder to make a good report, we have to know all of the vulnerabilities, alright? And they provided uswith a clear idea of all the vulnerabilities.But at the same time, if you describe to everyone all of the vulnerabilities, then people cantake advantage of those vulnerabilities. So they redacted it in such a way that people couldn't takeadvantages of the vulnerabilities. That,
I
think. is a logical redaction. It put the
-
a primer on how to
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...