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

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 Justice
John Marshall in The Venus (1812) case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 31
st
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.
Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

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

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

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

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

14
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: 3
rd

parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. /S/
____________________________
Christopher –Earl : Strunk ©in esse
Sworn to before me this
the 23
RD
day of October 2009

/S/

____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
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;
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 suffrage
P Y P ~ F ~ ~ J
fQ
XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v ""P et 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 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.
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
~ommlssion Expires Jan. 6,20 1 1
New York Province Society of Jesus -Welcome to New York Province of the Society of ... Page 1 of 3
Nenr Yurk Prdnce
llc Sociery of Jars
<
F , . - M ~ s I .
~FdhtmtUninmtfy.hburss
conmunion at 1a)i em' s Man for
fnaomiqfmhman rmd their
fmnl185.
Make c donation
NEWS
New 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-andarpboial
aAan00a - Ewrvone B e l a - fa the families and
fii& of gays aIId fesbis.
~ m d r q r ~ ~ w b o t O I l a b ( 1 # ~ W s w
Y a k m c a a m v h d b a ~ ~ o n ~ o u r h i t
Identity Rootad m Igualiau Spmmatity" at ST. Ignatim h i t
~e be at Hou&Mabr s Ee t . NY. ~, S. pt anbe t 12.
Lo y d a m&mMo r r i r r s Da m, NJ , i +
m i a s t o a & k v o f ~ - ~ I r p l d o i n g
armsthiog newnewnew - conductal by Fr. WU R,akowicq
SJ, on September 17.
Sociity of Jesus.
A . ~ l w o s l l : . n h A ~ ~
"Silena and fwmt D ~ Y Q fa vocations are rm lower
adequate responses t i ak pied shortage in the unit& Stabs."
ForinsightmlDwhdpumigMdotocnoo~rqgavocldioar,md
a hlrrk" bv Fr. Richard Mallw. SJ. ~n A mr i a
magazine.
&'$&& Ph"Q CJdkrrofmar MKI joined the Jamits in
the United Stldes in 2008.
- -. - - -. -
EXHIBIT A ' A
The text of the Jesuit Erh.eme Oath of Indmtion is meticulously recorded in the Joumais of the
62nd Congress. 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No.
397. Report No. 1523,15 February, 191 3, pp. 321 5-3216).
(Text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction:)
I , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin
Mary, the 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, the
superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by s t . Ignatius Loyola, in the
pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of
the V i the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that
His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the
Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the
keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he
hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and
Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my
power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all
(
usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran
Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now
pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, &d the branches of
same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere
and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the
sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as
due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or
obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do fiirther declare the
doctrine of 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 declare that I
will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I
should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other
kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical
Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or
otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed
with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's
interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels &om time to time, as
they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or
circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in
charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred
order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my
own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac
Exhibit B
. - .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MIR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
In re Christopher Earl Stnmk,
Petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus.
AFFIDAVIT of
Eric-Jon: Phelps 6 in esse
In support of Christopher-Eark StnmW 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
Reease the district Judge in QSlcv-2234,09-~-1249 09e-1295 atid
investigation of District Clerk's Office with 28 U.S-C. 5455 and related
law in its entirety.
CMstopher-Earl: Strunk Q in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
Em&: 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: eric@vaticanassassins.org;
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 33
rd
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, 32
nd
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 as was
Illinois Governor ~ o d Blagojevich (an Orthodox "heretic" of Serbian
descent) who promised 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 the 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 ?he 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 as to those stated
being logical conclusions premised upon undeniable facts.
Sworn and so Stated before me this 3'' day of September 2009.
. ,
pz fi;b,3.;.;&j,:1
... -
Notary Public
ANN M HASSLER
Notary Public
WOMELSOORF BOROUGH. BERKS COUNTY
My Commlsslof~ Expires Jan 24.2013 -
.......
~i e nna Convention on Consular Relations
1963
Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entatd into fbra on 19 March 1967.
Unied Nations, Tr- &f?es, vol. 596, p 261
Copyright O United 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 differing
constitutional 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 RELATIONS IN GENERAL
SECTION I. ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF CONSULAR 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 sending
State 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 the
laws 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 assume
the 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 fix
the 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 the
exequatur 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 enjoy
any 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 the
receiving 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 are
not 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 be
such 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 withdrawal 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 disposal
the 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 the
interests 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
RELATING 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, regulations
and 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.
Article 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 without
delay 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 and
regulations 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 the
consular 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 execution
resulting 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 receiving
State.
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 receiving
State;
(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 exempt
from 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 shall
subsist 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 54
Obligations 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 not
hinder 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.
REGIME RELATING 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 by
or 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 will
hamper 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 in
article 74.
IN 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
- u-4 M.
SmnPROU
urnmar--
l nua s r +l l l bubmLa o a dl Wms d
u- R D~REL w l r u ~ w o l n i d ~ . muit: -mnm
s n m m & m D . aoa.
OUR. XI. • mm. bmn 4, -1.
-I-:*/
nmt u- bu kr BUh. - *--I.
r w w l y . writmla~, -1. a w. of tnnlcrip a*h
lrul .. 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 .
IPSLPC
l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~
.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k
b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . .
b q ~ . - L . x . ~ . I d b m b y w m d m c . a o r l a
ill-. Libl- 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 . . YUL . l l r
- 4 - unmuw:
mr t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b . WmfilebmLddtbtbmcia
2. Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-
h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d
tra nu -In*
- : ni a- t or mr e. . m- . . w~~nd
3. % tb. '01. - 4 OM* oi Oi fL. d
d. normeulp nawsoa; sdd W r ta a a c e b,
dm . hl l d bm b. ta 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 r m- 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 . ~ nN1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh
-1m. Wi. tbh & d., ol
amem mmc h p ~ . t ofrle- - oL rtn Lia.11- L. 170
-. Iw-
Wrp.W 1-t. ClkW. 7.
-r -I"&. -. thi. & d., .IOI S- .
1%
-. - 6 WMUm
Of CaDH1
c..r rp 9rAEn U D. -. LLL.lb.c &... -.
r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -
epnthllr sham a fal l art
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
~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W
i. -. IW, S u m d IlnaU. on ~~ Z. l %L, by
ma MI- CD pal- u c d .ad
mrdnc. th. td. C. Lmbun~mnal . uLI DO. I l 11"u. .
m
f b t UL . w md UtdU lrt l a d -
EXHIBIT E
Dr. orly Tail& Ar nr aeyd- Lm
29839 S Ma gyl 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN) DIVISION
WrnPamela Bmett, ct al.,
Plaintiffi,
v. Civil Adion:
NOTICE OF FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbn of
Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S
18
1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE OF 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 Obamq
tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State.
Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens,
Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and
Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre
~el'&~s.
I '
to all of & hcfdlowmg mmpmy sllomeys arhosc rtmxs wm f i e d to the
" S T AT E ME NT 0 F I NT E RE S T " wh o k a p p e a r c d mt h i s e m~ wi h I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
I1
Disain of calihnin, to wit:
PROOR OF Se Rn CE
Ithe~mdasignedCharfea Edwa~dLhrolo. being overtheageof l 8andnot a
partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.
Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic copies of thc PlahntifB' above-
1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantion of Lucas Daniel
1 Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs
FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LelTERS
ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO
CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY
TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO PERPETUATE
TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT
1
M ~ R S ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2)
1711 LEON w. WELDMAN
.Il ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov ( bi gnat ej I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ
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
I
19
21
22
5 1) questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the. Court1
1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009)
DAVlDkLkJUTE
FACSIMILE (213)894-7819
DONE AND 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
I
all
I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl
8
9
I0
I1
I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t
I
the Rule 2qf ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal
discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure.
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that
&
Dr. Ody T.itr Eka 6BN 223433)
18
19
a3
21,
Rancho Sanl a- ~ar gar i t a- ~~ 92928
ph. 949-683-54 1 1
fax 949-5862082
California Bar W No. 223433
California Bar ID Na 223433
Respectfully submiaed
F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9
UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR M E CMRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
EXHIBIT F
I2
28 1746 DsLntlea 01 Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M1
'Il. M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d
'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 9 -4- mm-rn~rnm DL(.- TA"Z
N&aJi r ms L4dmwb4 A-'n - # / A h mu ~ u %ml ! !
Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I
M U u t f
-m.~-r*mmcat
solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC
'
any kind or condition.
2. 1 am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and
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
ofthe same.
4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in
Mombasa, Kenya
5. 1 visited the hospital accompanied by one more penon, a nahual
born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as
"Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo").
6. 1 traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particular with 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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 - 5±
1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ$WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein
Obama's cousin.
7. I had to pay a cash 'consideration¨ to a Kenyan military oIIicer 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
24
25
26
27
28


28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6±
1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ$WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM









Exhibit A:
Lucas Daniel Smith`s Photocopy oI
Birth Certificate from the
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
Kenya, obtained in
February 2009


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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–
Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM









Exhibit A:
Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of
Birth Certificate from the
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
Kenya, obtained in
February 2009

---- __
EXHIBIT G
S b In I RsgLsMr Now
TODAY'S NEWSPAPER
Subs&x I PObtPoinls
SEARCH: Tly Our New Search
. .
@ l~wrshingLon~.cMn Web : Revr1IU lry (&qif I Seardl Archives
washln@onpost.com r PolMcr > mo Fix
About Chn. WUW I on h i t ~ ~ r : Tho Fix and TIM Hyperf l x I on Facebook I OnYouTutm I a RSS Fsod
THE LIVE FLX
; JohtheFlxFrldsysal4
I a m ETWdlSMSmO
i latest m csmpagns and
Pol dbl rims
. LweP&A
, .Tranncnpts
. r nRSSFe s d
Paterson, White House Adviser Huddled About Re-
Election
White House polical director Patrick Gaspard met last Monday with New
York Gw. David Patemon (D) to express concsm about the
incumbent's chances at winning re-election in 2010, according to several
sources briefed on the matter.
Less than 24 hours after that meeting, Paterson announced that Richard
HALLOF FAME
Fife, a longtime New York operative and volunteer for President Barack
Cheaout ~l at sPl 1 % # l l & S Zoo8 pr&d&h! Calll@gll, h d - 88 CarnMgIl
' Induwln* m's managerfor his 2010 bid.
, ~ 0 t Ml n mh e o n
Sources on bdh sides said that the President did n d reach out to
FIX PICKS
Paterson directly to ask him to leave the race. Gaspard, a former pdtiil
diredor at the pwelful Service Employees Internationel Union 1199
1 1 ~~f~~
based in New York City, has a long rdationship with Patemon.
ch&.
1 , - ! Cornems have been mounting about Paterson since he stepped into the
I governorship following Gov. Elliot Spitzer's resignation after it as
RonPaul is going to
i *VasMoinesFeglrter
revealed he frequented a high-end hooker.
Paterson's rt+election numbers have tumbled over the past few months
and a rscant Marist Colleoe survey shaved just one in five voters
approving of the job he is doing. Paterson was also lm.ng badly to
foriner New York City Rudy Giuliani, who will announce his political
mt MWr . i nmpd
Oe S g e e t h o s e ~ ~ P a k n r o n h a s ma d e mb o r v Cp d i t i d
rearty - insisting that he is running for and win win a second tam. State
Attomev Genersl Andrew Cwmo (Dl is widelv seen as the referred
1Democ;atr . ,
, 5 MICIWI~O. ar Lem
' .c nominee but seems to be d i n g for Paterson to make a
: F r M. v W i move before annovnang his intentiom.
' .USATodsy
1 If Pate'rson runs and loses, i t cwld haw widespread emda as the
Empire State will redraw its legislative and congressional distdd lines
SEARCH THIS BLOC following the 2010 census - a process the governor will have
I 1 considerable influence over.
8 By Ch- Ci l l i p. I September 20.2009; 0:W AM ET
RECENT POSTS
I 'RomnsytOnisaSPPh
for DeMhd
i . me MM lmpomsm
I NumberIn Politics
Today
Morning F)x. A
~t woc el ebnmon
for the OM,
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: Ltuckabee wns values Vow StrawPol!
Wxt: Mornlna f l x: me Wh b Homemvr (Politlean Hadbell
R k h D a d mw Y ~
Launch Y W Bu8lr10~8. Be your Om Boss. FREE workshops
NOV.2-6
w w lil~nChyOUrbUSiMB5*1orkshop.~m
Republican Recruiting and the National Envlmmenl
'
' (CU 9.2009) ~emng~tke C a m Is U I ~ latest In a
wries of recRw(mem sucoeuses for Senate
The Mol t bnportam
NumberIn P W u
7-y
- Romney onm:
"Unalloyed Evil'
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- ?; 0
k t , :.. 5.; " ' % .& 3,. QP-
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1
. .
!%, . i a i .::. 3 B d p , New YO& 1 1238
:,-a:- -
Telep-. (845) 901-6767
.. :*. JK ;:I,:! :AXE 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 Fad Strcct,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 pejlPy pursuant 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 of Bamk 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 accordiing to 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. Of fiwther prima facie importance to the
inquest are fects filed 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 mi eswith a Multidistrid Judi
this que 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 Li i ~n, - l l I, Esq. ~ h a r l c s , l i n c o l n ~ k ~ . c o m
Dr. 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 think that the C02caused Global Warming theory is blse and unproven junk science.
But let's suppose for a moment that the C02 equals Global Warming equation is real. The wealthy elitists
James Hansen, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and the other high-profile cheerleaders for C02
reduction are asking the poor and middle classes to suffer the consequences of a radical shutdown of
global commerce and energy production in order to 'save the planet' from Global Warming. They want to
make serfs of the masses of working people, while a privileged elite will be permitted to continue living in
high 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 assigning
the exact same carbon limit to all people everywhere. Al Gore, Barack Obama, a London cabbie, and a
Kalahari 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; essentially
global Communism. Under such a system, no one would be able to accumulate an excess of personal
property 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 their
own 'carbon footprint' to the level of the common labourer or office worker, I will begin to believe that they
are sincere about preventing Global Warming. Their obvious unwillingness to do what they are asking
the rest of us to do proves that they are not sincere. They want the common people to sacrifice their lives
to prevent Global Warming, while the wealthy retain their high-carbon consuming and producing
privileges.
We cannot permit a privileged elite to enjoy a 'highcarbon' lifestyle while the poor are restricted by law to
a '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 revolution
in which the majority population dispossess the elitists of their wealth, their positions of power, and their
privilege. In a world that is constantly threatened by Global Warming, we cannot allow a greedy few to
consume 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 rest
of us to turn our thermostats down. James Hansen has received grants amounting to hundreds of
thousands of dollars to promote the Global Warming theory. A1 Gore has invested heavily in the 'carbon
trading' brokerage business. All of these men jet around the world, live in oversized houses, and ride in
limousines. If the common people are to be required by law to reduce our 'carbon footprint', we need to
demand that our leaders and the wealthy elite be restricted to exactly the same carbon allowance as
everyone 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 be
assigned equally to every living person in the entire world. We need to hold the elitists' feet to the fire and
require 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 f egel
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
ʹ
This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:
The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains
how 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:
x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vatican-
insider and author Malachi Martin described in his book
The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an
emerging world government.
x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics,
endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world
government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in
Veritate.”
x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to
“manage the economy,” bring about “timely
disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.”
x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the
power and authority of such global institutions as the
Bank for International Settlements, the International
Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World
Trade Organization.
x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can
be incorporated into this emerging world system, a
possible 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... No
one can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remain
untouched.”
i
– Malachi Martin.
In 1990, a former Vatican-insider claimed that a titanic struggle was
being waged to bring about a world political system. This contest, the now
deceased Jesuit explained, was primarily between three players: international
Leninism, transnational business elites, and the hand of the Vatican.
Almost twenty years have passed since Malachi Martin drew attention to
this 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 Cold
War posturing still played in our minds. And the writing was on the wall in respect
to the growing power of international corporate and financial elites, exemplified
by 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 world
government was simply too much. After all, this ancient hub of Roman
Catholicism had a reputation – especially among Europe’s agnostic youth – as
an institution of old men, steeped in tradition, procession and ceremony. Never
mind that the history of the Continent, more often than not, revolved around the
Vatican’s political prowess.
In the summer of 2009, the Holy See’s political cards were revealed
in a major papal document. Harkening back to Malachi Martin’s talk of
world government, the most powerful religious office on the planet had
promoted a world political authority to manage the global economy. Food
security, disarmament, and peace would follow suit.
A sound global economy and world peace are noble sounding goals, to be
sure. But the danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil
of good intentions.
________________Q
* Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher and the editor of Forcing
Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly digest on global affairs from a
Christian perspective.
Ͷ
On July 7th, Pope Benedict released his new encyclical titled Caritas in
Veritate, or “Charity in Truth.” Two years in the making, this document was
disclosed on the eve of the G8 Summit in Italy and the Pope’s meeting with US
President Barack Obama. Some 30,000 words long, this encyclical outlined the
Pope’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 as
globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative
energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences
guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas
put forward would likely rankle conservatives…”
iii
E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post, gushed that Benedict
is “well to Obama’s left on economics.”
iv
While Pope Benedict’s perspective on the global economy was a
perplexing blend of free-market and social welfare ideals, what raised
eyebrows were his thoughts on international politics. In section 67 of
Caritas in Veritate, the Pope dropped an ideological bombshell – a world
authority 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 political
authority” is very clear, and Pope Benedict explains that this international agency
should 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 a
reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic
institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of
nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find
innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to
protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-
making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and
economic order which can increase and give direction to international
cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage
the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any
deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would
result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and
peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate
migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political
ͷ
authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years
ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe
consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to
establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing
authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in
truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally
recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for
all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to
have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties,
and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international
forums.”
Immediate controversy surrounded this paragraph, with some Catholics
quickly attempting to distance the idea that the Holy See would support world
government
Hierarchy Of Power
John-Henry Westen, writing for LifeSiteNews, stated unequivocally that
the Pope was speaking “directly against a one-world government.”
v
Westen’s
justification for this position was the Pope’s call for a “dispersed political
authority” in paragraph 41 – a reference to the role of States in the international
system. Westen also brought up the use of the word “subsidiarity” in section 57
as a strike against world government.
This is an important point: Subsidiarity is the Catholic social teaching that
issues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible. In many respects it builds
on the theme of self-determination, and in this sense it would seem antithetical to
a world authority.
Section 57 of Caritas in Veritate says,
“In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a
tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by
subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels
that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar
as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be
pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and
stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield
effective results in practice.”
Mr. Westen, who claims that Benedict’s use of subsidiarity opposes
world government, has misdiagnosed this section. The Pope is not
speaking against one-world government by evoking subsidiarity; instead
he’s offering a hierarchical model upon which to build an international
͸
authority. Essentially, where issues can be dealt with at the local or
national level, let them be handled in this domain. And where issues are
global and cannot be adequately addressed at a lower level, then a world
authority is necessary.
Pope Benedict also suggested that subsidiarity could be a safety value
that checks the power of a universal government against taking on tyrannical
traits. But to propose that subsidiarity is a counter to tyranny is unconvincing – it
can’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 become
increasingly centralised as a result of its subsidiarity clause.” The European
Union also incorporates this concept, yet that hasn’t stopped the EU from
centralizing 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 Araujo
explains that, “the principle of subsidiarity is recognized as a fundamental
principle of the United Nations Organization.”
vii
Here, the concept is centered on
self-determination under article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. Yet this
doesn’t stop the UN from seeking empowered international jurisdiction under the
banner 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 the
individual with those of the community.” Hence, it’s not difficult to see how this
principle can align itself with a world authority – you can pursue local political
direction, but where local involvement ends then other levels of government step
up for the “common good.”
To say that Pope Benedict opposes world government because he evoked
subsidiarity misses the point: subsidiarity plays a functioning role in a hierarchy of
increasing political powers. What paragraph 57 demonstrates is not an aversion
to world government, but the order of decision-making Benedict believes it
should be based upon.
Reform And World Authority
Paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate is overtly political in nature. Here’s a
breakdown of some key points.
Y “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 international
parliament. A small mountain of reports and documents that support this version
of reform already exist, supported by the United Nations, national governments,
and pro-UN groups such as the World Federalist Movement and the Club of
Rome.
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 “Strengthening
and Democratizing the United Nations.”
ix
Cliff Kincaid, the President of America’s Survival, Inc. and editor of
Accuracy in Media, noted the linkages between reform and global governance in
section 67 of the papal text.
“…the ‘reform’ of the U.N. is designed to strengthen it. Hence, the
U.N. is clearly destined, from the Vatican point of view, to become the
World Political Authority.”
x
Y “Responsibility to protect” – Known as R2P, this is a world federalist
ideal that would give the UN a mandate to intervene domestically when a nation
commits human rights violations. It sounds good on the surface, but critics – and
even 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 at
The Hague in 2007. R2P, he suggested, could be used as a pretext to engage in
all sorts of questionable, interventionist actions.
xi
Nobody in their right mind wishes for any people group to experience
genocide or gross injustices. R2P, however, is a seriously flawed concept that
has the potential for grave abuses. From a world management perspective, the
Right to Protect becomes the legal justification for a world political authority to act
militarily. The danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil
of good intentions.
xii
Y
“To manage the global economy…” – This is already being discussed
within the international community, and it’s looking like the new world financial
order will be a top-down power structure that will greatly empower existing global
institutions:
Bank for International Settlements – to become the global banking
regulator. The BIS is fast setting itself up as the international banking manager, a
body that will oversee the world’s banks and financial system, including the
regulation of international capital. An entity of this kind would be equivalent to a
banker’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
ͺ
national sovereignty over banks operating within their borders. It also could
lead to international bureaucrats trying to shape financial policy and
possibly 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 global
currency to be used in world trade, including the energy sector. Collaborating
with the World Bank, the IMF would likewise use this new currency unit for
international loans and debt obligations. National and regional currencies would
still exist, at least for the interim, but values would react and adjust according to
new global benchmarks.
World Trade Organization – becoming the global trade regulator. The
WTO would establish the rules for the trading of goods and services via a
globally 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 trade
and a new international financial system. Richard Cooper, while advocating a
single global reserve currency, noted the following in a 1984 conference
sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,
“It would be logical if free [world] trade accompanied this single
currency regime. That would also be consistent with the collaborative
political spirit that would be required to establish the single currency regime.
Free trade would insure one market in goods as well as in financial
instruments.”
xiv
United Nations – fast becoming the global ethics and governance
agency. The UN would give moral input and political guidance to the newly
managed world economy. In essence, this body would become the “planetary
consciousness,” shaping consumer and political attitudes, values, and behaviors.
This too is already happening. At the end of June, the UN hosted a conference
that outlined an accepted social norm for the global economy: an Earth-centric
worldview, international socialism, and a New Age vision of planetary evolution.
Remember, Benedict’s world political authority is supposed to manage the
global economy. How will the execution of this mandate happen? Will the world
authority operate as an umbrella to the above-mentioned groups? Can the United
Nations 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 the
details: maybe outlining the process through an internal working document? If so,
it would be a very interesting read! Or, in only offering generalities, does the
Vatican expect other major players – such as the United Nations or World
Federalist Movement – to hammer out the particulars? If so, where does that
ͻ
place the Vatican in this world government framework? Observer? Advisor?
Overseer?
A lot of perplexing questions arise, and so they should.
Y
“An authority…regulated by law” – Governments the world over are
regulated by internal laws and accountability measures, yet this doesn’t stop
abuses, corruption, or even tyranny from entering the picture. The idea that a
world authority could be kept in check by a system of world law doesn’t hold
water.
Y
“True world political authority” – This isn’t a moral or spiritual ideal
propagated by the Holy See, but the vision of an actual world government. This is
evident in the overall context of section 67 and in the wording itself: a “world
political authority.”
No doubt the papal office desires to see a spiritual standard
incorporated into this political entity, based in large part on the social
teachings of the Catholic Church. However, this in no way guarantees that
a world authority will act in good will. As history bears out, the Vatican
itself is far from immune in this regard, and “holders of power” tend to
amass power.
Remember the words of Lord Acton, a Catholic historian who penned the
following 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 a
vacuum. Since the 1950s the Holy See has consistently moved to support an
empowered United Nations and world political authority.
Pope Pius XII: On April 6, 1951, Pope Pius XII had a meeting in the
Vatican with the World Movement for World Federal Government – a precursor to
the 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 with
the traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachings
on the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. An
organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…”
The Pope then explained, rightly so, that the “deadly germs of
mechanical totalitarianism” might infect this “world political organization.”
ͳͲ
However, in noting this possibility, he reminded the attendees to pursue a morally
firm world federalist approach. Ending his meeting, the Pope encouraged his
audience 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 entire
success and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you His
wisdom and help in the performance of your task.”
xvi
Pope John XXIII: In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII
called for an international public authority with a “world-wide sphere of activity” to
deal with global problems. This authority would be “equipped with world-wide
power and adequate means for achieving the universal common good,” although
it could not establish itself through force: “it must be set up with the consent of all
nations.”
In contemplating how this system would work, John XXIII called upon the
principle of subsidiarity, saying that this should be applied “to the relations
between the public authority of the world community and the public authorities of
each political community.”
Subsidiarity here, like Benedict’s use of the term, doesn’t negate a world
authority – 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 adulation
coming from the pope was palatable. During his talk he praised the UN system
as “the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.”
“The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be
perfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present.
You mark a stage in the development of mankind, from which retreat must
never be admitted… Advance always! ...Let unanimous trust in this
Institution 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 thus
progressively to the establishment of a world authority, able to act
efficaciously on the juridical and political levels?
xviii
Pope John Paul II: In his 1995 speech to the UN, John Paul reflected on
the historical connections between the Vatican and the world body.
“The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which
makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has
ͳͳ
supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from
the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative
approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations
constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common
concern for the human family.”
xix
Although Pope John Paul II butted heads with the United Nations over
family issues, he did place enormous importance on pursuing political systems of
world law. In 1985 he spoke to judges at the International Court of Justice, telling
them that,
The Holy See attaches great importance to its collaboration with the
United Nations Organization and the various organisms which are a vital
part of its work. The Church's interest in the International Court of Justice
goes back to the very beginnings of this Tribunal and to the events that
were linked to its establishment….
The Church has consistently supported the development of an
international 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 no
less – 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 degree
of international ordering.”
xxi
None of this has the same blatancy as Pope
Benedict’s recommendation for a “world political authority,” but it does follow a
common political theme – enlarged and enhanced global governance.
Pope Benedict’s idea of a “world political authority” didn’t spring out of thin
air. Rather, through successive papal offices stretching back to at least Pius
XII,
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 is
interesting in itself, but because this emanates from the papal office, an extra
measure of attention is warranted.
We cannot overlook the influence wielded by the Holy See. The Pope
is vastly different in relation to other religious figures when it comes to
global significance. It’s true that some Protestant and evangelical leaders
are consulted by political elites; and government officials often court the
ͳʹ
heads of other religions, such as the Dalai Lama. But all of this pales to the
historical and contemporary powers of the papal office.
For centuries the Holy See has been the centerpiece of European political
affairs. 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 have
traveled to Rome seeking an audience with the Pope, hoping for papal favor.
Moreover, the Vatican has been a hub for banking interests, espionage, and
transnational business dealings.
xxiii
And today, just as in the past, Presidents and
Prime Ministers bow before the Pope, seeking his counsel, and privately
discussing 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 only
institution to flourish during the Middle Ages, a leading actor in the
Renaissance, and a protagonist in the battles of the Reformation, the
Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the industrial era, and the
rise and fall of communism. For centuries, making full use of their famous
‘infallibility,’ popes brought their centralized power to bear on the social
outcomes 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 of
he planet’s best political organizations. While the popes were blessing
their faithful on the one hand, on the other, they were receiving foreign
ambassadors and heads of states and dispatching legates and nuncios on
special missions.”
xxiv
And standing behind the Pope is a worldwide following of devout
Catholics, who may not agree with world government, but who are
nevertheless committed to the Roman Catholic Church – thus supportive of
the Pontiff.
Avro Manhattan, a critic of the Holy See, correctly made the correlation
between the Vatican’s power and it’s faithful.
“What gives the Vatican its tremendous power is not its diplomacy
as such, but the fact that behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with all
its manifold world-embracing activities…
…Vatican diplomacy is so influential and can exert such great
power in the diplomatic-political field because it has at its disposal the
tremendous machinery of a spiritual organization with ramifications in
ͳ͵
every country of the planet. In other words, the Vatican, as a political
power, employs the Catholic Church as a religious institution to assist the
attainment of its goals. These goals, in turn, are sought mainly to further
the spiritual interests of the Catholic Church.
…the Catholic Hierarchy automatically reacts upon those
innumerable religious, cultural, social, and finally political, organizations
connected with the Catholic Church, which although tied to the Church
primarily on religious grounds, can at given moments be made either
directly or indirectly to serve political ends.”
xxv
The point is this: No other religious leader on the planet holds such
political and economic influence within a religious framework. Consider just the
number of adherents that make up the backbone of the Church of Roman: In the
US, Catholics make up approximately 22% of the populace, and of the world’s
total, 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 and
laymen alike by the hundreds of millions.
If the local Baptist pastor or Mennonite preacher, with a flock of a few
dozen or a few hundred, appealed for a UN-styled “world political authority” it
wouldn’t mean much beyond the pews of that particular church. The congregants
would either cheer the minister or, hopefully, challenge his assumptions. But
generally 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 papal
appeals, the waves of influence travel worldwide.
Conclusion
- That the Holy See has, for at least six decades, supported the quest for a
global political structure.
- That Pope Benedict has, through his recent encyclical, explicitly
supported the idea of a world political authority; and that this world government
should be designed to incorporate the principle of subsidiarity. Further point: That
subsidiarity in a universal political structure would be akin to the slogan, “think
global, act local.”
- That the influence of the Holy See upon the international community is
substantial, and that the Papacy has the backing and general support of
hundreds of millions around the world, adding “local-to-global” support for the
Vatican’s geo-political visions.
ͳͶ
- That advocates for world government – such as the World Federalist
Movement – will pick up on Pope Benedict’s recommendations and use it to
parade the idea of world management.
- That many Roman Catholics and Catholic organizations will
subsequently endorse the proposal for a world political authority, and hence
support various movements for global governance.
- That individuals and organizations within and outside the Catholic
Church will defend the Pope’s encyclical by seeking to spiritualize or moralize the
text, thereby attempting to soften the controversy. Yet, the Pope’s intent for a
world political authority remains.
- That a minority of Catholics will vocally oppose the Vatican’s call for UN
empowerment 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 global
governance.
- That non-Catholic faith groups will support Pope Benedict’s encyclical.
Already an evangelical response document has been issued by a group of
professors and national evangelical leaders. Titled, Doing the Truth in Love, this
text agrees that new forms of global authority are necessary, but that it “must
secure increased participation, transparency and accountability, and help
strengthen the nation state relative to the power of global finance.”
xxvii
Such a
view is more utopian than practical, as few real incentives would compel a world
government to operate this openly.
- That new alliances and networks will be formed to increase political and
social pressure in support of world management, and that these networks will
incorporate Catholic/Vatican groups, non-governmental organizations, and
elements from the United Nations.
When the Holy See raises the specter of world government it
should jolt Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even if a world political
authority doesn’t come to fruition, such advocacy is stunning. Here we
have the planet’s most influential religious office – itself politically
structured as a top-down authority – promoting a top-down system of
international management. The perception alone is deeply troubling.
And if a world political authority does come into play, what will keep it
from morphing into an autocratic regime? Even in this we are assuming that the
global authority will be introduced as a limited government. The ultimate
contradiction, of course, is a toothless world authority. Without enforcement
capabilities it would be little more than an advisory board. To be effective,
ͳͷ
therefore, it must be a centralist power with clout: Anything less would be
meaningless.
But is this what the world needs to ensure global order?
Consider for a moment the last one hundred years, a century rife with
examples of “well-meaning” centralist governments – they were always well
meaning to somebody. In the name of “peace and security” these regimes
crushed domestic opponents, often liquidating their own supporters in the
process. From Chile to China the unofficial motto, “peace is the destruction of all
opposition,” was translated into action. And in the case of Nazi Germany, the
government rose to power through the democratic process. Sadly, in some cases
the Vatican itself held the hands of those who perpetrated such crimes, as in
Croatia 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 openly
recognized the dangerous possibility of a “universal power of a tyrannical
nature.” His hope, as outlined in Caritas in Veritate, is a world political
authority checked by legal boundaries so as not to “infringe upon
freedom.” Government overstep would be offset by accountability
measures.
A fine concept in theory, but it rests on a shaky assumption: That the
world political authority will remain content to live within prescribed limitations;
satisfied to operate within tight social, economic, and political constraints. Here’s
the snag: our advanced, democratic nations – and even the Vatican – haven’t
and can’t live up to this basic standard.
While Pope Benedict tries to soft-sell Catholics and national leaders on
the idea of world government, the sobering words of Lord Acton drift-in from a
nearly forgotten past: “Power corrupts…”
ͳ͸
Endnotes:

i
Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (Touchstone, 1990), p.15.
ii
The 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.
iv
E.J. Dionne Jr. “To the Right of the Pope,” The Washington Post, July 8, 2009, online edition.
v
John-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 (The
Commission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, 1995 – directly supported and
endorsed 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.
x
Cliff 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 Joint
Conference on Contemporary Issues of International Law: Criminal Jurisdiction 100 Years After
the 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 the
Game.”
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 this
speech 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.
xxi
Sollicitudo rei socialis, paragraph 43.
xxii
Pope 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 global
governance.
xxiii
Volumes have been published on the role of the Holy See in global dealings, including
banking, espionage, and international diplomacy. One of the most recent books on this subject is
The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage, by Eric Frattini (St. Martin’s Press, 2008).
ͳ͹

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 the
Apostolate, Georgetown University, statistics are for 2009;
http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm.
xxvii
Doing the Truth in Love. A copy of the document, along with signers, can be found at
www.cpjustice.org/doingthetruth
xxviii
The Croat liquidation of Orthodox Serbs was one of the most horrific examples of genocide in
modern history. So gruesome were the attacks that “even hardened German troops registered
their 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 Mark
Aarons 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).
ͳͺ

This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government:
The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains
how 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:
x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vatican-
insider and author Malachi Martin described in his book
The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an
emerging world government.
x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics,
endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world
government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in
Veritate.”
x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to
“manage the economy,” bring about “timely
disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.”
x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the
power and authority of such global institutions as the
Bank for International Settlements, the International
Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World
Trade Organization.
x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can
be incorporated into this emerging world system, a
possible or even likely result is global tyranny.
EXHIBIT L
Printed f rom America's Survival, Inc. - http://www.usasurivai.org/
Vatican Backs Obama's
Global Agenda
By Cliff Kincaid I October 12, 2009
Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of
the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to
understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the
untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a
New World Order.
Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over
abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama
Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care
reform.
These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative
media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not
to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions
like 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 f ad that his pro-abortion record was well
known, 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 a
surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President
created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central
position, with emphasis on the rote that the United Nations and other international institutions
can 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 1.2
billion 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, is
supposed 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 writers
are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government.
-- -.
EXHIBIT N
On domest ic mat t ers, it is frequent ly report ed t hat t he Roman Cat holic Bishops in t he U. S.
oppose t he Obama healt h care plan. I n fact , t he bishops believe t hat "healt h care is a basic
human right , " which is t he premise of t he Obama plan and it is driving t he campaign t o have
t he federal government t ake over t he healt h care sect or.

The Bishops disagree wit h Obama on t ax- funding of abort ion, but on ot her mat t ers- such as
healt h care for immigrant s and t he poor- t he Bishops are t o t he left of t he plans int roduced by
Congressional Democrat s.

The Bishops also agree wit h t he Obama Administ rat ion
and Congressional Democrat s on what is
euphemist ically called "immigrat ion reform. " On
Oct ober 8, Cat holic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick t old
t he Senat e t hat a new bill should help bring illegal
aliens "out of t he shadows" and give t hem permanent
residency and cit izenship. Such a bill figures t o be one
of t he next maj or Obama init iat ives.
On t he mat t er of a cap- and- t rade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly t o
combat global warming, t he Cat holic Bishops believe t hat t he U. S. should adopt "mit igat ion
and adapt at ion" approaches t hat mean "shift ing behavior now t o adj ust t o t he near- t erm
impact s of climat e change. " The Bishops explain t hat "Mit igat ion means cut t ing back on t he
emissions of harmful global warming pollut ant s and t aking act ion t o prevent furt her harm t o
t he at mosphere. "

Again, t his is t he Obama Administ rat ion posit ion.

The Bishops have launched a "Climat e Change Just ice and Healt h I nit iat ive" t hat promot es
"legislat ive act ion, " including "t he t ransfer of such t echnologies and t echnical assist ance t hat
may be appropriat e and helpful t o developing count ries in meet ing t he challenges of global
climat e change. " This, t oo, is accept ed and being promot ed by t he Obama Administ rat ion.

On t he cont roversial mat t er of what t o do in Afghanist an, left - wing pressure is being applied
on t he Obama Administ rat ion by Pax Christ i, a Cat holic group which insist s t hat t he U. S.
milit ary presence has "fueled t he spiral of violence and furt her dest abilized t he region. " I t
says t hat t he solut ion lies in "reducing t he U. S. milit ary foot print " and favors ending t he use
of air st rikes and drones on t errorist t arget s. I t s "solut ion" is more diplomacy and foreign aid.

On an equally serious mat t er, I ran' s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, execut ive
direct or of PaxChrist i USA, recent ly signed a let t er endorsing "t he administ rat ion' s int ent t o
engage I ran diplomat ically. . . " Robinson favors more t alking wit h I ran, not more sanct ions and
cert ainly not milit ary act ion against t he fanat ical regime.

What ' s int erest ing is t hat you find t he same Cat holic personnel working on domest ic and
foreign policy issues.

For example, t he execut ive commit t ee on t he Pax Christ i
nat ional council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes,
a "Povert y Educat ion and Out reach Manager" for t he bishops
who also serves on t he st aff of t he Cat holic Campaign for
Human Development ( CCHD) . This is t he ent it y t hat has
poured millions of dollars int o ACORN and relat ed organizat ions
over t he years. Funding of ACORN was recent ly suspended

because of corrupt ion allegat ions.
I n an Oct ober 2 memorandum ( PDF) , Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged t hat t he CCHD had
also been funding several groups promot ing public policy posit ions in violat ion of Cat holic
moral t eaching. These were groups promot ing homosexual right s and abort ion. Morin claimed
t hat t he funding had been cut off.

However, Bellarmine Verit as Minist ry, which uncovered t he scandal, says t hat Morin' s
response is unsat isfact ory and "fact ually deficient in several areas. "

I n response t o one of my previous columns on t he Cat holic connect ion t o ACORN, a
conservat ive Cat holic blog called Cat holicCult ure. org agreed wit h my point t hat some in t he
media are reluct ant t o raise t he issue because t hey fear being accused of having an ant i-
Cat holic bias. The blog said, however, t hat t he mat t er must be t horoughly probed because
while funding for ACORN has been suspended, t he t ies t hat CCHD has t o ot her radical groups
remain.

My column also not ed evidence t hat Obama' s communit y organizing days in Chicago began in
an organizat ion funded by t he Cat holic Church.

This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Cat holic parishes,
support ed by t he Cat holic Campaign for Human Development , helping t o address severe
j oblessness and housing needs in economically disadvant aged neighborhoods of Chicago, "
not ed t he group calling it self Cat holic Democrat s. Anot her group, Cat holics for Obama, says
t hat "President Barack Obama reflect s core values of Cat holic Social Teaching, which informs
how we live our fait h in t he world. "

The president of Cat holic Democrat s, Pat rick Whelan, serves on t he board of Cat holics for
Obama and as co- direct or of Pax Christ i in Massachuset t s.

I n t he newslet t er ( PDF) of Pax Christ i Massachuset t s, Whelan writ es about flying t o Chicago in
May of t his year, "where I at t ended a reunion of Cat holic Priest s and communit y act ivist s who
hired a young Barack Obama in 1985. " Whelan says t hat Obama, in his book, Dreams from
My Fat her, "creat ed a charact er named Mart y Kaufmann, based on t wo real- life communit y
organizers who at t ended t his gat hering on May 16, 2009. "

Whelan also writ es about Obama' s meet ing wit h t he Pope. "Overall, " he says, "it was clear
t hat t he common ground bet ween t he US Government and t he Holy See- on povert y, t he
environment , int ernat ional armed conflict and peace in t he Middle East - far out weighed t heir
differences. "
z Read our special report : Sowing t he Seeds of Global Government : t he Vat ican’s Quest for
World Polit ical Aut horit y

Progressives Back Obama i n Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax Page 1 of 3
Printed from America's Survival, Inc. - http://www.usasurival.org/
Progressives Back Obama
in Push for Trillion Dollar
Global Tax
BY CLIFF KINCAID I OCTOBER 6,2009
While policymakers debate a few million dollars for ACORN and a few hundred billion dotlars
more for health care reform, those committed to one-world government are moving ahead
with plans for a global tax that could extract trillions of dollars out of Americans' already
depleted 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 read
the recent communique issued by the G-20 countries meeting in Pittsburgh. He found they
had assigned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the job of studying how to implement a
global tax on America and the rest of the world.
"The IMF assignment from the G-20 has been widely overlooked," Davis noted. His article ran
under 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 declares
on page 10 that "We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to the
range of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sector
could make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated with
government interventions to repair the banking system."
The term "fair and substantial contribution" is code for a global tax. Other misleading terms
for 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 could
affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a
year. Indeed, Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The
Confidence Game, that such a proposal "might net some $13 trillion a year ..." because it is
hr>:llwww.usasurviva1.or~ck 1 00609.htmI
EXHIBIT 0
1 012 112009
based on t aking a percent age of money from t he t rillions of dollars exchanged daily in global
financial market s.

Such t ransact ions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have st ock in mut ual funds
or companies t hat invest or operat e overseas.

Meanwhile, President Obama used his recent speech t o t he Unit ed Nat ions t o declare, "We
have fully embraced t he Millennium Development Goals. " He left unsaid what t his means. I t
has been calculat ed t hat t his will cost t he U. S. $845 billion t o meet U. N. demands for a
cert ain percent age of Gross Nat ional Product t o go for official foreign aid t o t he rest of t he
world. Compliance wit h t he Millennium Development Goals ( MDGs) was incorporat ed int o t he
Global Povert y Act t hat Obama had int roduced as a U. S. senat or but which never passed.

A global t ax of t he kind envisioned in t he G- 20 document could help provide t he revenue t o
fulfill Obama' s promise t o comply wit h t he MDGs.

One of t he leading cheerleaders for t he global t ax is economist Joseph St iglit z, an Obama
support er and former Clint on official who has been working wit h t he Socialist I nt ernat ional
Commission on Global Financial I ssues. We analyzed his key behind- t he- scenes role in t he
June Unit ed Nat ions Conference on t he World Financial and Economic Crisis. He was select ed
as a U. N. adviser by t he t hen- president of t he U. N. General Assembly, Communist Cat holic
Priest Miguel D' Escot o.

Over at t he Huffingt on Post , a voice of t he Obama- support ing left , Kyle G. Brown advises t hat
such a t ax is doable and t hat "a modest fee on every st ock, every bond- in short , every
financial t ransact ion" could generat e $100 billion a year at a rat e of j ust 0. 5 percent . He
explains, "That would defray healt h care cost s, and help st ruggling st at es rest ore social
services t hat have been axed over t he past t wo years. "

Brown is not a policy maker but rat her a self- described writ er and broadcast j ournalist at t he
BBC and CBC.

The progressives know t hat such a rat e could be rat chet ed up quickly, bringing in hundreds of
billions or t rillions of dollars.

The AFL- CI O, t he giant labor federat ion backing Obama, has already endorsed t he Tobin Tax,
as has Robert Kut t ner, a leading liberal t hinker who serves as co- edit or of The American
Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. This is a pro- Democrat ic Part y t hink t ank t hat st ill
includes oust ed Obama green j obs czar Van Jones on it s board.

As report ed by The Hill newspaper, Rep. Pet er DeFazio ( D- Ore. ) , chairman of t he Highways
and Transit Transport at ion Subcommit t ee, has "seized on t he idea as a way t o help pay for a
new massive surface t ransport at ion reaut horizat ion bill, est imat ed t o cost $450 billion over six
years, " but want s t o t ax oil- based derivat ives rat her t han st ock t ransact ions. DeFazio had
previously int roduced a House resolut ion t o pass a Tobin Tax.

What is driving t he global t axat ion agenda is a Marxist view t hat t he U. S. is exploit ing t he
people and nat ural resources of t he world. According t o t his perspect ive, int ernat ional
inst it ut ions such as t he I nt ernat ional Monet ary Fund, t he World Bank and even t he U. N. must
be rest ruct ured and provided wit h new financial resources t o supervise and manage t he
redist ribut ion of t he world' s wealt h. The Unit ed St at es, being t he leading capit alist st at e, has
t o pay t he largest price.

Page 2 of 3 Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax
10/21/2009 http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html

Their at t it ude was expressed at a non- government al organizat ion forum in Mont errey, Mexico,
associat ed wit h t he U. N. ' s I nt ernat ional Conference on Financing for Development , t hat
Christ opher Columbus "invaded, dest royed and pillaged" t he hemisphere and t hat a global t ax
was necessary t o pay for t he damage.

I n his 2001 speech t o t he U. N. World Conference on Racism, Cast ro advocat ed t he Tobin Tax
specifically in order t o generat e U. S. financial reparat ions t o t he rest of t he world. He
declared, "May t he t ax suggest ed by Nobel Prize Laureat e James Tobin be imposed in a
reasonable and effect ive way on t he current speculat ive operat ions account ing for t rillions of
US dollars every 24 hours, t hen t he Unit ed Nat ions, which cannot go on depending on
meager, inadequat e, and belat ed donat ions and charit ies, will have one t rillion US dollars
annually t o save and develop t he world. "

The only t hing t hat has changed is t hat t he U.S. now has a president who agrees wit h Cast ro,
and he and his progressive backers believe t hat t hey can obt ain a slice of t he revenue for
t heir socialist proj ect s here as well.

Pl ease go t o w w w .st opgl obal t ax es. or g

Read Cl i f f Ki ncai d’ s book f or f r ee “ Gl obal Tax es f or Wor l d Gover nment ”


Page 3 of 3 Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax
10/21/2009 http://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
- u-4 M.
SmnPROU
urnmar--
l nua s r +l l l bubmLa o a dl Wms d
u- R D~REL w l r u ~ w o l n i d ~ . muit: -mnm
s n m m & m D . aoa.
OUR. XI. • mm. bmn 4, -1.
-I-:*/
nmt u- bu kr BUh. - *--I.
r w w l y . writmla~, -1. a w. of tnnlcrip a*h
lrul .. 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 .
IPSLPC
l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~
.ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k
b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . .
b q ~ . - L . x . ~ . I d b m b y w m d m c . a o r l a
ill-. Libl- 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 . . YUL . l l r
- 4 - unmuw:
mr t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b . WmfilebmLddtbtbmcia
2. Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-
h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d
tra nu -In*
- : ni a- t or mr e. . m- . . w~~nd
3. % tb. '01. - 4 OM* oi Oi fL. d
d. normeulp nawsoa; sdd W r ta a a c e b,
dm . hl l d bm b. ta 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 r m- 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 . ~ nN1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh
-1m. Wi. tbh & d., ol
amem mmc h p ~ . t ofrle- - oL rtn Lia.11- L. 170
-. Iw-
Wrp.W 1-t. ClkW. 7.
-r -I"&. -. thi. & d., .IOI S- .
1%
-. - 6 WMUm
Of CaDH1
c..r rp 9rAEn U D. -. LLL.lb.c &... -.
r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -
epnthllr sham a fal l art
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
~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W
i. -. IW, S u m d IlnaU. on ~~ Z. l %L, by
ma MI- CD pal- u c d .ad
mrdnc. th. td. C. Lmbun~mnal . uLI DO. I l 11"u. .
m
f b t UL . w md UtdU lrt l a d -
EXHIBIT E
Dr. orly Tail& Ar nr aeyd- Lm
29839 S Ma gyl 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN) DIVISION
WrnPamela Bmett, ct al.,
Plaintiffi,
v. Civil Adion:
NOTICE OF FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbn of
Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S
18
1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE OF 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 Obamq
tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State.
Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens,
Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and
Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre
~el'&~s.
I '
to all of & hcfdlowmg mmpmy sllomeys arhosc rtmxs wm f i e d to the
" S T AT E ME NT 0 F I NT E RE S T " wh o k a p p e a r c d mt h i s e m~ wi h I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
I1
Disain of calihnin, to wit:
PROOR OF Se Rn CE
Ithe~mdasignedCharfea Edwa~dLhrolo. being overtheageof l 8andnot a
partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.
Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic copies of thc PlahntifB' above-
1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantion of Lucas Daniel
1 Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs
FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LelTERS
ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO
CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY
TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO PERPETUATE
TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT
1
M ~ R S ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2)
1711 LEON w. WELDMAN
.Il ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov ( bi gnat ej I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ
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
I
19
21
22
5 1) questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the. Court1
1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009)
DAVlDkLkJUTE
FACSIMILE (213)894-7819
DONE AND 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
I
all
I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl
8
9
I0
I1
I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t
I
the Rule 2qf ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal
discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure.
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that
&
Dr. Ody T.itr Eka 6BN 223433)
18
19
a3
21,
Rancho Sanl a- ~ar gar i t a- ~~ 92928
ph. 949-683-54 1 1
fax 949-5862082
California Bar W No. 223433
California Bar ID Na 223433
Respectfully submiaed
F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9
UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR M E CMRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION
EXHIBIT F
I2
28 1746 DsLntlea 01 Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M1
'Il. M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d
'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 9 -4- mm-rn~rnm DL(.- TA"Z
N&aJi r ms L4dmwb4 A-'n - # / A h mu ~ u %ml ! !
Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I
M U u t f
-m.~-r*mmcat
solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC
'
any kind or condition.
2. 1 am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and
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
ofthe same.
4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in
Mombasa, Kenya
5. 1 visited the hospital accompanied by one more penon, a nahual
born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as
"Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo").
6. 1 traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particular with 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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 - 5±
1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ$WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein
Obama's cousin.
7. I had to pay a cash 'consideration¨ to a Kenyan military oIIicer 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
24
25
26
27
28


28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 6±
1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ$WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM









Exhibit A:
Lucas Daniel Smith`s Photocopy oI
Birth Certificate from the
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
Kenya, obtained in
February 2009


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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–
Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address
DR. ORLEY TAITZ
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211
MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691
(949) 683-5411
E-MAIL: DR_TAITZ@YAHOO.COM









Exhibit A:
Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of
Birth Certificate from the
Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa
Kenya, 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- ?; 0
k t , :.. 5.; " ' % .& 3,. QP-
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1
. .
!%, . i a i .::. 3 B d p , New YO& 1 1238
:,-a:- -
Telep-. (845) 901-6767
.. :*. JK ;:I,:! :AXE 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 Fad Strcct,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 pejlPy pursuant 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 of Bamk 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 accordiing to 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. Of fiwther prima facie importance to the
inquest are fects filed 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 mi eswith a Multidistrid Judi
this que 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 Li i ~n, - l l I, Esq. ~ h a r l c s , l i n c o l n ~ k ~ . c o m
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: 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 ~i scal Irresponsibility
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
get email ~ ~ d a t e s ( biosra~hy I constituent services I work in connress ( about San
Francisco I news I photos I contact I vouth op~ortunities I 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 2051 5 - (202) 225-4965
EXHIBIT P
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 26,2009
Mr. Christopher Stnmk
Unit 281
593 Vanderbilt Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 1 1238
Dear Mr. Stnmk:
Thank you far antacting the office of Pres i i t Barack Obama The
President appreciates your taking the time to voice your coacerns and 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 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.
1 50 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037
Norfolk, VA 23 5 14
Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 7871 1
Seth E. Goldstein,
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
1300 "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 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.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE
)
CENSUS, et al., )
Defendants.
)
1
Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)
FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary ~ocke, '
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 a , ~ President 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
Assistant Uni S tes Attorney
E
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. 09-1 295 (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, 1 1-1 9, 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
I
perpetuate, inter alia, the Oklahoma City bombing (id. at 18,780) and President Barack
I 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 (1 998); 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, 41 5 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
ii
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. 1 1,2005); 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 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. 564,568 (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 201 0 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 sixY4 should 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.
198 1).
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 1 1 11
(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 (1 994)).
"'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. 1 1,2005) (additional citation omitted).
Here, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction 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 Underground Expansion 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
201 0 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
~ssi st ant United ~t dt g, d~t t or ne~ u
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 1 1238
Assistant U.S. kttdrney
U
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CEREIDPHER EARL STRUNK, )
Plaintiff,
)
)
1
v. )
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1
OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )
CENSUS, et al., )
)
Defendants. 1
Civil Action No. 09-1 295 (RJL)
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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful