Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al.

DCD 09-cv-1295

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.

1
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 Justice
John Marshall in The Venus (1812) case.

2
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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

3
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 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;

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;”

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 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;

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

4
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 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.);

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; “

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

5
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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).

6
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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

7
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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

8
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 package
of 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 the
following 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 by
Speaker Nancy by maintaining open boarders.

9
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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

10
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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.

11
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 the
departments 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 no
Religious 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.

12
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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 interfering
with receiving state internal affairs;
e. As to whether or not the Diplomatic service of a foreign sovereign state is subject
for 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;

13
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House
members 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: 3rd
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. /S/
____________________________
Christopher –Earl : Strunk ©in esse
Sworn to before me this
the 23RD day of October 2009

/S/

____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

14
 Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09cv-1295

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House
members 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;
X I . 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 fQ
P Y P ~ F ~ ~ J
XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v ""Pet 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 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 STRUNKjus 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: 3rd
parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me this

the & day of October 2009

aEOROE ANDERSON
Natary Public, State of New W
NO.OlAN5070990 14
Qualified in Kings County
~ommlssionExpires Jan. 6,20 1 1
 a

D. nw.
Drecnnn~c%Errarr~caarn

urnmar--
SmnPROU
-
~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

u-4 M .

lnuasr+lllbubmLaoadlWmsd

-
u- R D~REL ~ . -mnm
w l r u ~ w o l n i dmuit:
OUR. XI. • mm. bmn 4, -1.
s n m m & m D . aoa.

-
I-:
* / r w w l y .
lrul
nmt u-
writmla~,-1.
..
bu kr BUh. *
-I
.
a w . of tnnlcrip a*h
c h t b . 1 ~ crrimd
. ..a
c m m . o f . o r h ~ r s i x q ( b Q ) 6 q . r t o ~ L b .
l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~
IPSLPC b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . .
.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k

--
ill-.Libl- Ram:
bq~.-L.x.~.Idbmbywmdmc.aorla
1. Y h t -8 d Lldl-1- CO3- -.lr b
brrram~ar&.rtb.,ok.e,rlm.
. . I I - o L . @ Y W I r ~ . C U U b . l l ~ b
uhaLI.hdd*tU..i.Irrot~tLrra~
~t.a.0.llr~l,brdLI..u..YUL.llr
4 unm uw:

-
2
. Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-
m r t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b .W m f i l e b m L d d t b t b m c i a
tra nu-In*

--
h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d
3. % tb. '01. 4 OM* oi Oi fL. d
-:nia-tormre..m-..w~~nd
d. norm eulp nawsoa; s d d W r ta a a c e b,
dm . h l l d bm b.ta D o m ;
4. b d t r . r b . c b a r d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t a t o ~

-
u -17;
~.o~auh.l..~trm-r*~llr~.nip 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 . n
amem mmc hp ~ .ofrle-
t
~ N1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh
L. 170 oL rtn Lia.11- -. Iw-
-1m. Wi. tbh d., ol

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

-
1%

-. 6W
Of CaDH1
MUm

c..r rp 9rAEn U
r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -
D. -. LLL.lb.c &.-...
epnthllr sham a f 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 srrrs. -, k.-.Ct..
II

i. -.
ma MI-
~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W
IW, S u m d IlnaU. on
CD pal-
~~ Z . l % L ,
u c
by
d .ad

-
mrdnc.th.td.C.Lmbun~mnal.uLIDO.Il11"u..
m
f b t U L . w m d U t d U lrt lad

EXHIBIT E
 Dr. orly Tail& A r n r a e y d - L m
29839 S M a g y l t a Pkwy
Ranelm Son61 MPT&Prlt.CA 92688
pb. 949-683-541 1
fax 949-766-7603
California State Bmr No.: 223433
E-Mall: dr ta1k'?t%8vahoo.com
1)
destruction in the nwr future. Plaintiffs fear that evidence relating to the'
cause may be destroyed as soon as it is identified as relevant to the
5 questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the.Court1
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
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 the Rule 2 q f ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal
SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN)DIVISION
9 discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wr
n Pamela Bmett, ct al.,
Plaintiffi, I0 PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
v. Civil Adion: I1 Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that
Baracl;HusseinObama, I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl
u Michdle L.R Obamq
tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State.
I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t I
14 Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens,
Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and
15 Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre
~el'&~s.
16
NOTICE O F FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbnof
Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S
18
1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS 18 California Bar ID Na 223433
wj/ Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C. 19 Respectfully submiaed
a3
F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9
21,
&
Dr. O d y T.itrEka 6 B N 223433)

Rancho S a n l a - ~ a r g a r i t a 92928
-~~
ph. 949-683-54 11
fax 949-5862082
California Bar W No. 223433

I'
2
3 PROOR O F S e R n C E UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4 Ithe~mdasignedCharfeaEdwa~dLhrolo.being overtheageof l8andnota SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN)DIVISION
5 partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.
6 Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic copies of thc PlahntifB' above-
7 1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantionof Lucas Daniel
8 1 Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F LelTERS

10 ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

'Il.
CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY
I1 TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., T O PERPETUATE
TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT
1 M ~ R ROGATORY
S PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2) I2
28 1746 DsLntlea 01Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M 1
to all of & hcfdlowmg m m p m y sllomeys arhosc rtmxs w m f i e d to the
"STATEMENT0FINTEREST"whokappearcdmthisem~wih
Disain of calihnin,to wit:
I '5
'
M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d
solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC
any kind or condition.
l6 2. 1am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and
1711 LEON w. WELDMAN l7
.Il ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov( b i g n a t e j I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ
19 1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009) l9
l was born and raised in the state of Iowa.
3. I have m n a l lmowledge of all the facts and circNmstances
described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to
DAVlDkLkJUTE ao ofthe same.
21 FACSIMILE (213)894-7819
4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in
22 DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday lhc 4'day of SqHanba, 2009. 22
Mombasa, Kenya
I
all 5. 1 visited the hospital accompaniedby one more penon, a nahual
ar born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as
25
"Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo").
a5
6. 1traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particularwith the intent to

" obtain the original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama,as I was
told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the
~ U S C g l 7 4 6 D o r r . r * . ~ ~ s l b * ~ A l-4-
N 9 mm-rn~rnm
DL(.- TA"Z
N&aJirmsL4dmwb4 A-'n - # / A h mu~u%ml!!
Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I
M U u t f
-m.~-r*mmcat

EXHIBIT F
1 1
2 2
3 fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein 3
4 Obama's cousin. 4
5 7. ,KDGWRSD\DFDVK³FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´WRD.HQ\DQPLOLWDU\RIILcer on 5
6 duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth 6
7 certificate of Barack Hussein Obama. 7
8 8. The copy was signed by the hospital administrator. 8
9 9. The copy contain the embossed seal. 9 Exhibit A:
10 10. The true and correct photocopy of the Birth certificate obtained, is 10 /XFDV'DQLHO6PLWK¶V3KRWRFRS\RI
11 attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A. 11
Birth Certificate from the
12 11. I declare, certify, verify, state, and affirm under penalty of perjury 12
13 under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing 13
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
14 statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true 14 Kenya, obtained in
15 and correct. 15 February 2009
16 12. I have not received any compensation for making this affidavit. 16
17 Further, Declarant saith naught. 17
18 Signed and executed in ____________, ___________ on this _____ 18
19 day of September, 2009. 19
20 20
21 21
22 By:_____________________________ 22
Lucas Daniel Smith
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
DR. ORLEY TAITZ DR. ORLEY TAITZ
28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 5± FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6± FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411 (949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Exhibit A:
10 Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of
11
Birth Certificate from the
12
13
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
14 Kenya, obtained in
15 February 2009
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6– DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM
 ---- __

EXHIBIT G
 Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 27 Filed 10/21/20 9 Page 1 of 1
%-h*
..
fi p7 7
k t , :.. 5.;
!g-3,.?; 0 QP-
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1
.& %
'"

!%, . i ai
.
.:. 3
. B d p , New YO& 11238
Telep-. (845) 901-6767
..:*. JK- ;:I,:! :AXE
:,-a:-
i ~ g h Email: umsvotes2@yahoo.com
Christopher-Earl: Stnmk 0 in esse
Honorable David 0. Carter
Judge, United States District Cornt
Central District of California, Southern Division
41 1 West FadStrcct,Courtroom 9D
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516
Re:Bmett. et a1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082
Subject: Request for permission to transfer with the 28 USC $1407
Multidistrict matter $#run&v US DOS et al. DCD O&v-2234
(RJJ.,) with demand for Quo Warranto inquest of Barack
Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro).
The Honorable Judge Carter,

I am the P - Chistopher-Ed: Strunk 0 in esse, in the r e W Case and make this

smment under penalty of pejlPypursuant to 28 USC 1746. Declmt is self-represented in
the above civil action on-going in Washington District of Columbia before U.S. District
Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leon ordered a stay of dimvery pending a decision on my
Quo Warmto demand for an inquest of multi-allegiance h t s associated with the August 4,
1%1 birth ofBamk Hussein Obama Jr., ak.a Barry Soetoro (the Usurper).That I duly fired
theUsurpermJaanrary22,2089~tbeUs\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf
sttomey as the Usurper has more than one allegiance at bhrth by bis own admission; and
&enSm, with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the office of President accordiingto U.S.
Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 5, because the Usurper is not a n W - W e n
without two U.S. Citizen parents on August 4,196 1. Offiwther prima facie importance to the
inquest are fectsfiled before this Court for vcrificatiw that prove the Ususper is not even a
native-bomcitizen either, and thereby triggers review of facts as to Usurps's mtumhd
citizen status also if proper allegiance filing is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen of
Indonesia.
Iam~~withthtfactsassoci~withtherCfdcasesas~harerC~and
subject to comlidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that
the U.S. Govemmmt has argued that any Quo Wananto be done in Washington District of
Cohrmbia and I urge herein m iswith a Multidistrid Judi
e
this q u e s t hss been sent to Counsels and Court in both cases.

,hk....sg2m
Bmklyn New York

cc: Judge Richard J. Leon

Brigham John Bowen, AUSA - o d
Roger E. West AUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov
Charles Edward L i i ~ n , - l l IEsq.
, ~harlcs,lincoln~k~.com
Dr.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 28,2007
Pelosi Statement on British Troop Withdrawal; Wednesday, February
21,2007
Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi hosts a Climate Change and Eneray
Independence Roundtable; February 21,2007
Pelosi Statement on the Lunar New Year; Friday, February 16, 2007
Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Will Signal a Change in Direction and Bring Our
Troops 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 9,2007
Pelosi Remarks at Service Last Night for Leo McCarthy; Friday,
February 9, 2007
Pelosi: w e 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 ~ i s c aIrresponsibility
l
and Misplaced Priorities; Monday, February 5, 2007
Pelosi Statement on Black History Month; Thursday, February I,2007
More 8th District Press Releases and Statements:

2007: Januarv Februarv March April Mav June Julv Aunust September October November
December

I constituent services I work in connress ( about San

get email ~ ~ d a t (ebiosra~hy
s
Francisco I news I photos I contact I vouth op~ortunitiesI home

- - -
District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave. 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 556-
4862
- - -
Washington, D.C. Office 2371 Raybum HOB Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4965

EXHIBIT P
 THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr.Christopher Stnmk
Unit 281
593 Vanderbilt Avenue
Brooklyn,New York 11238

Dear Mr.Stnmk:

Thank you far antactingthe office ofP r e s i i t Barack Obama The

President appreciates your taking the time to voice your coacernsand opinions.

W e would like to be of mktaace to however, due to the sepamtb

of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You
must resolve this issue thmugh the judicial system

Please be aware that you am visit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINPO

for infannation about Federal Govrmment assistance.
We hupe your concerns are resolved to your satisfactian.
Again, thank you far your correspondence.

F. Michael Kelleher
... Special Assistant to the Resident and
Director of Presidential Comqxmdence

EXHIBIT Q
 United States District 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 DEFENDANTS AND SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND
INDIVIDUALLY in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavitand 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 Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
555 4th St., N.W. P.O. Box 12548
Washington, D.C. 20530 Austin, TX 7871 1

John Marcus McNichols, Esq. Seth E. Goldstein,

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, U P Deputy Attorney General
725 12th Street, NW California Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20005 Office of the Attorney General
1300 "I" Street - Suite 125
John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. Sacramento, California 94244-2550
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037 Stephen Kitzinger,
Norfolk, VA 235 14 Assistant Corporation Counsel
New York City Law Department
Office of Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007

I do declare and c

Dated: October 8 2 0 0 9
Brooklyn, New York
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHTUSTOPHER EARL STRUNK, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )
CENSUS, et al., )
)
Defendants. 1

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary ~ o c k e , '

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 Barack ~ b a m aPresident

,~ of the United States ("Federal Defendantsyy),

respectfully move this Court to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk

("Plaintiff') pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In support of this motion and opposition, Federal Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the

accompanying 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 Locke, Secretary of the
United States Department of Commerce is hereby substituted as the party of record for Carlos
Gutierrez, former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce.

In the caption and the body of his complaint, Plaintiff lists the President of the United States as
"Barry Soetoro" a.k.a. "Barack Obama." The Clerk of Court has listed "Barry Soetoro" as a
named 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.Bar # 41 5793

Acting United States Attorney

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122

E
Assistant Uni S tes Attorney

555 4th St., N.* u

Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 305-7107
wynne.kelly@usdoj.gov
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

Plaintiff, )
)
v. 1 Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )
CENSUS, et al., )
)
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk ("Plaintiff' or "Strunk") has filed two (2) related

complaints 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 Plaintiffs complaints

warrant dismissal as a matter of law.

I. BACKGROUND

In this case, Plaintiff seems to assert that 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 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 judgment related to "resident

suffrage in Washington 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 nuncpro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son Made

Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk Stands in

the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh . . . under reserve, without dishonor, without

prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this [Clourt and or defendants are

unable to offer a higher consideration." (Id. at 4-5, T[ 11.) The remainder of Plaintiffs

allegations that seem to relate to the Federal Defendants center around Plaintiffs belief that the

I Federal Defendants conspired with various non-government actors throughout history to

II perpetuate, inter alia, the Oklahoma City bombing (id. at 18,780) and President Barack

Obama's education at Occidental College (id. at 24-27, IT[110-29). As Plaintiffs claims are

utterly devoid of factual bases and fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the

complaint should be di~missed.~

11. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "(1) a

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has

' Like much of Plaintiffs 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, see
Compl. at 27, TI 130, but then equates the term "tourists" with "illegal immigrants." See id. at 28,
7 134.
As Plaintiffs complaint and the allegations therein are frivolous and Plaintiff lacks standing,
Plaintiffs motion for a three judge panel should not be referred to the Chief Judge of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia 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
I

evenpro 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 Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C.

1987)).

1. Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12fi)(!)-for Lack of Jurisdiction

Federal Defendants request dismissal of the complaint pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(l) or

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 factual allegations of the complaint 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. Supp. 2d 13,20 (D.D.C. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted.)

When a defendant makes a facial challenge, the district court must accept the allegations

contained in the complaint as true and consider the factual allegations in the light most favorable

1 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 materials outside of the pleadings to

I determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Jerome Stevens Pharmacy,

i
I
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.

1 Supp. 2d at 182.
1 Additionally, and most relevant to this case, ""'[F]ederal courts are without power to

entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as

to be absolutely devoid of merit, . . . wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]""' Riles v.

p Geithner, -- F. Supp. 2d --,Civil Action No. 09-0214 (PLF), 2009 WL 1886214, at *2 (D.D.C.

July 2,2009) (quoting Watson v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-0268,2009 WL 377136, at

*1 (D.D.C. Feb. 13,2009) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,536-37,94 S.Ct. 1372,39

L.Ed.2d 577 (1974))) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Steel Co. v.

Citizensfor a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328,330 (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 --,2009 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 Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536-

37))). "Claims that are essentially fictitious include those that allege 'bizarre conspiracy

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 Pursuant to Rule 12/b)f6)for Failure to State a Claim

In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must present factual allegations

that are sufficiently detailed "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (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 dismiss

through only "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. at 555.

As with 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 evaluating a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trudeau v. FTC,456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006). But where a

complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of
 Accordingly, a "court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying

pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of

truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be

supported by factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

111. ARGUMENT

A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs Conspiratorial Claims

Plaintiffs complaint is exactly the type of pleading contemplated by the D.C. Circuit's

holding in Best v. Kelly. Plaintiffs bizarre and impossible allegations of intricate conspiracy

theories involving the Federal Defendants are not only "essentially fictitious," they are complete

fabrications of Plaintiffs mind. Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --,2009 WL 1886214, at *2. An even

cursory review of Plaintiffs complaint demonstrates that this Court lacks jurisdiction over

i Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to the doctrine of Best v. Kelly and its progeny. As this Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs bizarre, fanciful, and fictitious claims,

Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed. See id. (citing Curran v. Holder, -- F.Supp.2d --
1
I
(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 40,46 (D.D.C.2006); Bestor v. Lieberman, Civil Action No. 03-1470,

2005 WL 681460, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 11,2005); Carone-Ferdinand v. Central Intelligence

Agency, 131 F. Supp. 2d 232,234-35 (D.D.C. 2001)).

B. Plaintiff Lacks Standing

Should this Court determine that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint, the Court

should dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as Plaintiff has failed to establish constitutional standing.

"'Article I11 standing is a prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction, and . . . petitioners carry the
 p,
"'

burden of establishing their standing."' Prosser v. Fed. Agri. Mortg. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 150,

154 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Am. Library Ass 'n v. F.C. C., 40 1 F.3d 489,493 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).

For Plaintiff to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, he must demonstrate that he:

First, must have suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest
which is (a) concrete and particularized, and'(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action
of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [ofl the independent action of some third party
not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Id. In addition, to establish standing when seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff must also "allege

that [he is] 'likely to suffer future injury."' Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

i 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 2010 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. 564,568 (D.D.C. 1980). In Kutznick, the

plaintiffs filed suit, prior to the commencement of the actual national census, that their voting

I 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 failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to

confer constitutional standing. Id. at 570-71 ("They [plaintiffs] have failed to demonstrate

concrete harm which 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
p 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 2010 will inappropriately count illegal

aliens (particularly agents of the Vatican) and that this occurrence will, in the future, affect

Plaintiffs voting rights. Plaintiffs allegations are far too speculative and Plaintiff has failed to

sufficiently allege an injury in fact to establish constitutional standing.3 Plaintiffs complaint,

particularly Counts One through sixY4should be dismissed.

C. Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Rule 8 Pleading. Requirements

Plaintips pro se 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 evenpro se litigants must
I
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146, 149

(D.D.C. 2007) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987)). "Even under

liberal notice pleading standards, a complaint may be dismissed if it does not articulate a factual
I
or legal basis for relief." Id. (citations omitted). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint "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 showing 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. 497,499 (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.

Plaintiffs complaint seems to attempt to articulate different counts or claims for relief.
Plaintiffs first six counts, however, are identical in that they contain allegations of a conspiracy
between various Federal Defendants and the Roman Catholic Church or the Society of Jesus to
count illegal immigrants or tourists as part of the population to, purportedly, dilute citizens' votes
and consolidate power.
I
,'

notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a

responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res

judicata is applicable." Id. at 498. "Apro 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).

Plaintiffs pleading fails to meet the minimum requirements of even a pro se pleading.

The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts that would give Defendant 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,

Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 12(b)(6).

D. Federal Defendants Have Not Waived Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiff is apparently seeking damages for alleged torts against federal agencies and

federal employees in their official capacities. 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.

C. v. Meyer, 5 10 U.S. 47 1,475 (1994)).

"'Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from

suit."' Id. (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475); see also Unitedstates v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S.

30 (1992)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit for money damages against federal

officials in their official capacities absent a specific waiver by the Federal 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

committed by federal employees, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction for this

Court would be the Federal Tort Claims 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 has exhausted necessary administrative remedies under the

FTCA, which is a mandatory prerequisite . . . ." Id. (citing GAF 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

I 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 also Roum v. Bush, 461 F. Supp. 2d 40,45 (D.D.C. 2006).

I 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 apartment 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
I
and $875 million in damages. Id. Judge Collyer, upon consideration of a motion to dismiss the

plaintiffs complaint, held that the plaintiff could not establish a valid waiver of sovereign

immunity as he could not make out a claim as a matter of law, even under the FTCA. Id. at 46.

Further, Judge Collyer stated that even if the plaintiff could make out a claim under the FTCA,

the Court would still dismiss 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. (quoting 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. 11,2005) (additional citation omitted).

Here, this Court cannot exercisejurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims as Plaintiff has not

demonstrated a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs 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 constitutional 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 dismissal." 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 some sort of injunctive relief. Plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore any claims for

injunctive relief should be dismissed. Plaintiffs only potential argument for waiver of sovereign

immunity 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., Coalition for UndergroundExpansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d

193, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming district court's dismissal of complaint for lack of

standing where plaintiff could not demonstrate final agency action for purposes of APA waiver

of sovereign immunity). Plaintiffs nebulous allegations related to supposed interactions

between the Federal Defendants and the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the

2010 census, do not demonstrate 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 complaint

be dismissed. A proposed order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar # 415793

Acting United States Attorney

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122

Assistant U n M States Attornev

u
~ssistantUnited ~ t d t g , d ~ t t o r n e ~
555 4th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 305-7107
wynne.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 to Dismiss arid Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for

Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and a proposed order were

served upon pro se plaintiff by first class United States mail, postage prepaid marked for delivery

I to:

Christopher Strunk
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1
Brooklyn, New York 11238

Assistant U.S. kttdrney

U
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CEREIDPHER EARL STRUNK, )

)
Plaintiff, )
1
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1
OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )
CENSUS, et al., )
)
Defendants. 1

ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss

Plaintiffs complaint.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. The Federal Defendants

are hereby DISMISSED from this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Washington, District of Columbia, this

day of ,20-.

RICHARD J. LEON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE