Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to CA MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru U 102909

Strunk Affidavit in Opposition to CA MTD DCD 09-Cv-1295 w Exhibits A Thru U 102909

Ratings: (0)|Views: 256|Likes:
Published by Chris Strunk
Filed 10/30/09 in DCD 09-cv-1295 (RJL) Strunk Opposition to Defendants the States of California and Texas MTD the 2010 Census Enumeration Case
Filed 10/30/09 in DCD 09-cv-1295 (RJL) Strunk Opposition to Defendants the States of California and Texas MTD the 2010 Census Enumeration Case

More info:

Published by: Chris Strunk on Oct 31, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/30/2009

pdf

text

original

 
Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295
1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR 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. Leonv.
:
:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE :BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (BOC) et al. ::Defendants. :
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------xPLAINTIFF’S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THEMOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAAND STATE OF TEXAS DEFENDANTSSTATE OF NEW YORK )) ss.:COUNTY OF KINGS )Accordingly
, I,
Christopher –Earl: Strunk
, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1.
 
Affiant / Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, (Affiant, Strunk) hereby responds inopposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint as to Defendant State of California representedby Attorney General Edmund G. (“Jerry”) Brown Jr.’s Deputy Seth E. Goldstein alleges onseveral grounds: (1) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1) because theEleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars claims against the State of California, because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claim, and because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the bizarre conspiracy theories alleged in the Complaint; (2) pursuant to FederalRule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the State of California; and (3) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
 
Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295
2a claim, ordered by the Court to be filed no later than October 30, 2009; and
2.
 
Further Affiant herewith responds belatedly in consolidation with the Notice of Motionto dismiss the complaint as to Defendant State of Texas shown as Docket No. 16 having failed tosort out the mail for the Order of the Court shown as Docket 17 ordering a response filed bySeptember 18, 2009, and in that Affiant relied at the time upon an assumption that the DocketNo. 17 entry that is without specific mention of any Defendants, and since Affiant had norecollection of receiving the mailing of the State of Texas Motion only applied to the MarylandProvince Defendants, and that Affiant error was discovered when the electronic copy of theDocket 16 and 17 from the ECF / Pacer today, October 26, 2009:
 
09/02/200917ORDER that, on or before September 18, 2009, the plaintiff shall file hisopposition or response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff fails to respond timely, the Court may grant the defendants' motions asconceded. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/2/09.(see order.)(kc) (Entered: 09/02/2009)3.
 
Further that Affiant neglect in filing by September 18, 2009 in opposition to the motionto dismiss as to the Defendant State of Texas that in the Memorandum stated with Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 12(b) allows a party to file a motion asserting a number of defenses, includinglack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim uponwhich relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), (2), and 6. The Court should dismiss acase when the plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1).Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderanceof the evidence that the Court possesses jurisdiction.”
4.
 
That Affiant has an ongoing related case with the States of Texas and California (StateDefendants) demands a 28 USC §2284 three Judge Panel in the Civil RICO case filed by Affiant / Plaintiff and four other self-represented there with 18 USC §1964(c) with a RICO Statement for
 
Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295
3suffrage infringement also involving the False Claims Act false billing with improper use of theHelp America to Vote Act and intent of Congress and State Law of the several States in Case
Forjone et al. v the State of California et al.
NDNY 06-cv-1002 having been transferred fromWestern District Case number 06-cv-0080 by the Honorable Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara, andthree judge panel demand decision before District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.
 
5.
 
Plaintiff's injury and associated history that supports the need for a declaratory judgmentand writ of Federal Defendants to act in their fiduciary capacity and or absent such thereby mustfacilitate Plaintiff with 18 USC §1964(c) to recover damages incurred after the Quo WarrantoInquest is done by this Court in DCD 08-cv-2234.6.
 
That upon hearing the facts on the injury to Plaintiff(s) in esse (living being) here in NewYork, along with those similarly situated, and as recognized by the New York State Legislatureas Plaintiff jus tertii represents any standing as aggrieved State Citizens
(1)
, and also as a UnitedStates 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’sactual birth certificate whose bond is on file at the Department of Commerce and used as anarticle of trade by Defendants against Plaintiff’s in esse rights protected by New York law.7.
 
That Affirmant in esse makes a special appearance herein without waiver of anysovereignty as the Trustee and a benefactor of his corporate bond as CHRISTOPHER EARLSTRUNK questionably held in Washington District of Columbia otherwise against his wishes asan article of trade in commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code, against New York Law
1
 
Citizens
:
"T
he citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certainduties, 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 tosubsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally followthe condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
"
-
US Supreme Court Chief JusticeJohn Marshall in The Venus (1812) case
.
 

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->