You are on page 1of 30

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

DCD 09-cv-1295

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x : Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER : (aka “CHRIS”) STRUNK jus tertii People, :
593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 845-901-6767 :

Plaintiffs : : v.

Civil No.: 09-cv-1295 Hon. Richard J. Leon

:
:
: : : Defendants. :

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (BOC) et al.

: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IN ESSE DEFENDANTS 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 to The City Of New York (NYC), and Michael Bloomberg officially (Mayor) individually as NYC Defendants represented by Stephen Kitzinger Assistant Corporation Counsel to Michael Cardozo the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York; that NYC Defendants adopt by reference the legal arguments offered by Defendants Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, Timothy B. Brown, S.J., the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, and Fr. Gerald Chojnacki, S.J., in support of their motions to dismiss the complaint. 2. As to allegations of Tourist-Counting (sic) and Vote-Dilution as to NYC Defendants and

1

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

Michael Bloomberg individually actions as to the predicate pattern of illegal sanctuary policy and citizenship equity questions as to tourists at will, whether documented or not, and diplomats and family whether documented or not; Mr. Kitzinger alleges Plaintiff(s) jus tertii lacks standing to challenge the census procedures and or may state a claim on which relief may be granted. 3. That Affirmant filed an affidavit response in opposition to the Federal, States and Provinces Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Complaint as to them with annexed Exhibit A through U, 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 avoid burden upon the readers Affiant uses the Exhibits chronological order for reference herein. 4. To wit as to Mr. Kitzinger’s allegations regarding affiants contention regarding TouristCounting and Vote-Dilution as with the other State Defendants with reference to the common Exhibits A thru U herein, Affiant complains with Civil RICO use of 18 USC §1964(c) with 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, with no less than two predicate acts that have a pattern of crime dating back to before the Federal Election of 1996 as with the facts there in California injuring the Honorable Robert K. Dornan (Bob) and voter suffrage in his Congressional District as a matter involving malicious violation of 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens) in a coup tat against Bob personally and voters generally; 5. That NYC and State Defendants use of the questionable census enumeration under color of 13 USC §141 and 14th amendment as if Dipliomats and Tourists at will are under state jurisdiction is a spurious fraud, which inter alia is for the purpose of making false claims against

2

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

the U.S. Treasury generally, but as shown in Exhibit not least of which is the misuse of Congressional intent of reimbursement with the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) from 2002 to the present; and that Defendants’ agents include but are not limited to State Action includes others complicit in conjunction with La Raza, ACORN, PICO, private finance and as yet named parties-in-interest as defined under 42 USC §1983, §1985(3) and §1986 involved with the enterprise defined by the RICO Act in a conspiracy to commit vote fraud and infringement of speech, with violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), related State election law and 42 USC §1973 to suborn the U.S. House of Representatives as with the Speaker of the House, Defendant Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Nancy Pelosi to forward objectives of the enterprise, all act along with the complicity of Michael Bloomberg individually as is well documented with the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” policy starting from then Edward I. Koch Administration forward to the present Mayor with the urging and blessing of the Defendant Provinces, their agents and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops for financial gain. 6. NYC Defendants conspire with Provincial Agents in violation of the Vienna Convention and Logan related Acts (1) and other Defendants as an enterprise that infringe Plaintiff proprietary property rights along with those similarly situated, and singled out Plaintiffs using gerrymandering techniques prohibited by the New York State Constitution and civil rights
1

18 USC Chapter 45 for Foreign relations relate to;. a) § 951. Agents of foreign governments b) § 952. Diplomatic codes and correspondence c) § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments d) § 954. False statements influencing foreign government e) § 955. Financial transactions with foreign governments f) § 956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage \ property in a foreign country g) § 957. Possession of property in aid of foreign government h) § 958. Commission to serve against friendly nation i) § 959. Enlistment in foreign service j) § 960. Expedition against friendly nation

3

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

protection, and whose class Plaintiff jus tertii are injured by the pattern of financial abuse perpetrated under color of the questionable Census enumeration statstistics by the enterprise, whose benefactors upon investigation (shown in Exhibit T) use false billing of the U.S. Treasury and falsification of documents as defined by law but not limited to the following 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) 7. In regards to Mr. Kitzinger’s argument referenced to the 14th amendment as to counting all persons as if within the jurisdiction of the State of the several States, a don’t ask don’t tell policy intentionally circumvents whether or not the State or local authorities have jurisdiction over the actual Diplomat / Tourist at will person thereby defeats the strick intent of the 14th Amendment that when properly ascertained any Diplomat/Tourist whether documented or not is under Federal jurisdiction not State jurisdiction, and upon discovery by ascertaining who the person is other than having committed a crime per se, even then when it is discovered the State defers jurisdiction, as with the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) requires notification by treaty, to the authority of Federal and Foreign sovereignty. 8. That as example the matter of Mexico issuance of Mexican Metricular Cards to Mexican tourists at will, who are undocumented otherwise, as intended under the Vienna Convention treaties, any Diplomat/Tourist at will, documented or not, as with the Metricular Card by Treaty is under the jurisdiction of that Foreign State and the Federal Government as to enforcement of

4

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

Federal Law not State or Local authority as well defined in the U.S. Constitution any State lost its sovereignty to conduct its own foreign policy after elimination of the Articles of Confederation; and thereby, the Logan Act and related law in its entirety applies to the NYC Defendants any State or sub-division as herein any State or local may not have a separate policy of its own related to Diplomats/Tourists at will undocumented or not and that diplomats per se include the categories defined under the Vienna Convention Treaties. 9. NYC Defendants along with State Defendants herein violated the Logan Act and related laws as to persons and entities who would be defined to violate those laws just as a person would be a State or municipal corporate person or living person as defined under the False Claims Act violations also applies herein to sanctuary policy violating the Logan and related acts.. 10. That by reference Affiant first as to the predicate Vote-Dilution injury the pattern is well documented regarding NYC’s ’Don’t ask don’t tell’ sanctuary policy both in Federal Court cases in Second Circuit regarding both NYC and Mayoral contempt of the Federal Immigration Laws as to harboring along with undifferentiated enumeration of so-called Latinos, Chinese and others without regard to immigration status and by reference i.e. paragraph 173 in the Complaint for related case Forjone et.al. v. California et al. NDNY 06-cv-1002, shown as Exhibit T, quote: “notwithstanding the malfeasance by the NYS BOE an the obvious facts of active voters multiply registered in one and more municipalities outside of the NYC, much less those actively registered in more than one borough within including illegal aliens having been given sanctuary “with the don’t ask don’t tell “ policy promulgated first by the Koch administration before the 1980 Census, the NYC Board of Elections has no viable excuse for not rigorously enforcing EL §5-213 in the Boroughs marked in the above chart Line Item 58A thru 58E have inactive registrants that vary from 9.77% to 11.89% ;” 11. That Mr. Bloomberg in testimony under oath to a Congressional Committed in Philadelphia publicly flouts Federal and state law with impunity promoting his objective to promote tourism and financial gain for the enterprise in testimony before Congress back in 2006 was reported by the City Journal publication (see Exhibit V):

5

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

In those final remarks, Bloomberg blasted a House proposal to penalize cities and counties that have “sanctuary laws.” These ubiquitous laws prohibit local government employees from notifying federal immigration authorities about the presence of illegal aliens. Sanctuary mandates create vast law-free zones where illegal immigrants know that they face virtually no risk of apprehension; the zones have notoriously protected criminals as well as itinerant roofers. In 1996, Congress responded by prohibiting local governments from restricting the speech of their workers in this way. To no avail. Virtually every sanctuary city proceeded to ignore this new federal law as well as the preexisting immigration laws. New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took his defiance to federal court. He lost his suit against the 1996 law, but—on September 10, 2001—declared his intention to continue violating it anyway. Mayor Mike Bloomberg has gone even further in backing the sanctuary policy. In 2003, the city faced a massive public relations fiasco following the rape of a Queens mother by a group of illegal Mexicans. New York police had arrested several of the Mexicans previously for other crimes, but reported none of them to the immigration agency. Congress hauled in the city’s criminal justice coordinator to testify about the city’s sanctuary law, after which Mayor Bloomberg—amazingly—strengthened the policy. And last week he declared his defiance of the Congressional will yet again. If Congress goes forward with its proposal to cut homeland security funds to localities with sanctuary rules, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, it would have “one heck of a battle” on its hands. Bloomberg’s discussion of New York’s sanctuary law, like the law itself, was a clever piece of evasion. Trying to sound reasonable, the mayor told the hearing that “New York City cooperates fully with the Federal government when an illegal immigrant commits a criminal act.” But the crucial issue is whether the New York Police Department will report an illegal crime suspect to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or whether it will merely “cooperate” with ICE when the federal agency is already seeking an illegal suspect. When the NYPD stops the next potential illegal rapist on a robbery charge, in other words, will it tell ICE to come and get him? Bloomberg’s updated sanctuary policy, Executive Order No. 41, is as misleading on this question as was his testimony. The order declares that law enforcement officers shall “cooperate with federal authorities in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity” but leaves ambiguous the question of the NYPD’s affirmative duty to report. City officers may report an illegal alien suspected of non-immigration-related illegal activity but have no obligation to do so. So how does the NYPD interpret its authority? Asked what the threshold was for reporting an illegal alien suspect to ICE, the NYPD press office simply referred to Executive Order No. 41—itself silent on the matter. Nor could the department say how many suspects it has reported to ICE over the past year and whether they represented all of the undocumented suspects who have come to the force’s attention. The department simply does not keep statistics on such matters. Needless to say, this ignorance about a

6

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

crime problem and about the official response to it represents a remarkable lacuna of record-keeping for an agency that lives and dies by the numbers. Maybe ICE would know about how many illegal alien criminals the NYPD has reported to it? If so, it isn’t saying. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Mark Raimondi replied diplomatically when asked about the NYPD’s illegal alien reporting: “We have a strong working relationship with the NYPD; we work closely with the department and solve a lot of crimes together.” Yes, but there is this little matter of Executive Order 41. “The order does at times prevent the NYPD from sharing information that we’d like to have,” admitted Raimondi cautiously. It’s hard to blame the NYPD for what looks likely to be passivity regarding the reporting of illegal alien criminals. The message from the mayor’s office and from New York political elites runs in exactly the opposite direction, and without a clear affirmative mandate regarding illegal reporting, the safe policy is to do nothing. Executive Order No. 41 lays out the remarkable proposition that one’s status as an illegal alien is “confidential information” of the same order as one’s sexual orientation, status as a victim of sexual assault, or tax records. Mayor Bloomberg really does believe that illegal entry is an uncontrollable force of nature like “the tide,” as he puts it—people who come here illegally are no more responsible for their movements across the border than pieces of plankton. Given the protections that Executive Order No. 41 confers on illegal aliens, the NYPD might understandably demur from testing the reach of its authority under the order. 12. That NYC Defendants issued Executive Order 41 (See Exhibit W) which continues the challenged Sanctuary policy under color of the Census when Mr. Bloomberg ordered quote: Section 3. Section 2 of Executive Order No. 34, dated May 13, 2003, is amended by adding a new subdivision d to read as follow: d. "Illegal activity" means unlawful activity but shall not include mere status as an undocumented alien. Section 4. Sections 3 and 4 of such Executive Order are amended to read as follows: Section 3. Information respecting aliens. a. A City officer or employee, other than law enforcement officers, shall not inquire about a person's immigration status unless: (1) Such person's immigration status is necessary for the determination of program, service or benefit eligibility or the provision of City services; or (2) Such officer or employee is required by law to inquire about such person's immigration status. Section 4. Law Enforcement Officers. a. Law enforcement officers shall not inquire about a person's immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien. b Police officers and peace officers, including members of the Police Department and the Department of Correction, shall continue to cooperate

7

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

with federal authorities in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity. c. It shall be the policy of the Police Department not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance. Section 5. This Order shall take effect immediately 13. That Mr. Bloomberg as to his complicity with the enterprise financial gain, made a public statement on August 14, 2007 reported by CNN in Washington in an article entitled Bloomberg defends New York immigration (see Exhibit X) said in his immigration comments, quote: WASHINGTON (CNN) - He's not a presidential candidate, at least not yet, but New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is weighing in on comments from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that New York is a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. "I can't think of any laboratory that shows better why you need a stream of immigrants than New York City," he said Monday. "I don't know what to tell anybody. They just - if they don't believe that immigrants add a heck of a lot more than they cost, they just aren't looking at the numbers.” 14. That contrary to what Mr. Bloomberg and NYC Defendants outrageously publicly allege to the contrary, that as a result of the sanctuary policy Affiant contends Defendants illegally impose a broad set of injuries upon him personally related to the violation of the Logan Act and related law violated by NYC Defendants, and with financial damages, beyond that referenced by the recent modest policy statement of the American Legion and form a baseline set of statistics on which injury is assessed, (see Exhibit Y) no less than 20 million or so illegal aliens now in this country Plaintiff(s) jus tertii are suffering a major crime wave with say no less than 5% of that number or conservatively no less than one million illegal alien criminals on the loose or incarcerated to the financial and social detriment of US Citizens and their families, and that Affiant contend are being used as an Inquisitional battering Ram by Provincial Defendants and their American Conference of Bishops as agents of the Vatican State in violation of the Logan

8

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

Act and its related law including the Vienna Convention provisions. 15. That as a result of NYC Defendants sanctuary policy flouting of law and violation of the Logan Act with related Law since 2005, as a fallout of the enterprise ponzi-scheme under color of the undifferentiated 2000 and interim 2005 Census, New York has lost no less than 1.5 million persons (see Exhibit Z) for which Defendants should be held liable for as required under Civil RICO provisions here in the State of New York 16. That the enterprise profiteers illegally violating the Logan Act and related Law under color of the Census, under the RICO Act the enterprise includes the entity Fairfield Greenwich Group investment firm founded in 1983 in New York City by Papal Knight Walter M. Noel, Jr. (born 1930) (2), a native of Nashville, Tennessee. Presently, he has a 17% ownership interest; and

In Fraud Case, Middlemen in Spotlight [Madoff Case] New York Times ^ | 12/16/08 | Eric Konigsberg Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:31:45 AM by marshmallow As a go-between who shepherded clients and their money to Bernard L. Madoff, Walter M. Noel became so prosperous that he was only too happy to show off his good fortune to the world. In 2002, Vanity Fair dispatched the photographer Bruce Weber to shoot a lavish spread of Mr. Noel’s wife and their five grown daughters at his home in Connecticut (“Golden in Greenwich,” read the headline). That was followed, in 2005, by a Town and Country story on the Noel family’s tropical retreat in Mustique. These houses — joining Mr. Noel’s addresses in Palm Beach and Southampton and on Park Avenue — were visible evidence of his investment empire, the Fairfield Greenwich Group, which had $14.1 billion in February. Mr. Noel’s firm, including four sons-in-law as partners, now has the distinction of being the biggest known loser in the Madoff scandal, to the tune of $7.5 billion. For Fairfield Greenwich and a handful of other big feeder funds that were essentially pouring billions of dollars each into Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, a lucrative business evaporated last week when federal prosecutors said Mr. Madoff had been operating what may have been the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Mr. Madoff puts his own fraud at $50 billion and discussed details of it with federal prosecutors in New York on Tuesday, according to people briefed on the meeting.

2

9

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

at one time, the firm operated from Noel's hometown in Greenwich, Connecticut, before relocating its headquarters to New York City. Noel had previously been a private banker in Lausanne, Switzerland, then worked at Citigroup before becoming the head of Chemical Bank's international private banking practice in Nigeria, Switzerland, and Brazil. 17. That the enterprise based in New York associated with NYC Defendant and Mr. Bloomberg includes those associated with New York University Law School such as Board Member Alvin Dworman who acted in conjunction with the Resolution Trust Corporation entity, formed when the Savings and Loan Banks collapsed after 1986 with the complicity of then Bowery Savings Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan, conspired to devise the “sub-prime” mortgage ponzi-scam, that then was put into U.S. HUD rules in the later 1990’s by Jesuit Province darling HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who after the elimination of the Glass - Steagall Act of 1933 created the windfall with the ponzi-scheme rip-off under color of the Census bogus statistics targeting Plaintiff(s) jus tertii in NYC and elsewhere for the enterprise, as gloated over by defendant Bloomberg in 2007 as shown in Exhibit X. The Fairfield Greenwich Group charged clients an annual fee of 1 percent of assets invested for providing access to exclusive hedge funds and performing due diligence on them, in addition to a fee of 20 percent on investment gains each year, according to people close to the fund’s operations. In 1989, Noel merged his business with a small brokerage firm whose general partner was Jeffrey Tucker, who had worked as a lawyer in the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He also has a 17% interest in the firm. [3] Fairfield offered feeder funds of single-strategy trading managers.[4] Fairfield also started several fund of funds, each investing in a basket of hedge funds, though the offering of feeder funds has been the primary business of Fairfield. It described its investigation of investment options as “deeper and broader” than competitive firms because of Tucker’s regulatory experience. Though he is not as prominent as the Noels, Tucker benefited from Fairfield’s success. In 2007, Tucker, chairman of Empire Racing, led the group of thoroughbred investors, who sought to bid for New York State’s horseracing franchise. Both Noel and Tucker are semi-retired.

10

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

18. 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 in DCD 08-cv-2234. 19. 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 aggrieved State Citizens (3), 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 of trade by Defendants against Plaintiff’s in esse rights protected by New York law. 20. 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. 21. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the Fiduciary Duty of Federal Defendants breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Provincial Defendants apply to State and NYC Defendants infringement of Affiant suffrage and first amendment and guarantee of a republican form of government rights, and are involved in an enterprise defined
3

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.

11

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

under 18 USC §1961 that by my expert Witness testimony of Eric-Jon: Phelps in esse will show and includes the copy of the Affidavit (shown in 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; 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 Jesuit priest 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; 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 Anton Scalia, 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; “ 22. That Defendant Province agent Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J.(4), inter alia is the actual co-

Rev. Joseph A. O'Hare (1931-) is a Jesuit priest, New York City civic leader and editor. He was a longtime president of Fordham University and, for a brief period, President of Regis High School, a New York City Jesuit High School. O'Hare was born in New York City. He trained for the priesthood at the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, where he was ordained in 1961. He taught at Ateneo de Manila from 1955 to 1958 and again from 1967 to 1972. He earned a doctorate in Philosophy from Fordham in 1968. He was associate editor of the Catholic weekly America between 1972 and 1975, and was editor in chief between 1975 and 1984, when he became president of Fordham University. While serving as president of Fordham he was appointed by Mayor Edward I. Koch to the Mayor's Committee on Appointments, which interviewed candidates for city commissioners, and the Charter Revision Commission of the City of New York. O'Hare was appointed the first chairman of the city's Campaign Finance Board in 1988, and was reappointed twice in the 1990s by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, serving until 2003. The board was 12

4

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

presider with David Rockefeller over the New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who chose and endorsed CFR member and Papal Knight Michael Bloomberg to replace SMOM member Rudolf Giuliani for Mayor of New York, and who served Mr. Bloomberg as chairman of the NYC’s Campaign Finance Board from 1988 to 2003, which in itself is in violation of the Logan Act and related law including the internal non-interference provisions of the Vienna Convention treaties, and with whom NYC Defendants and their agents operate their portion of the enterprise to injure Plaintiff and those similarly situated proprietary suffrage property and liberty associated with a republican form of government. 23. That plaintiff does more than just speculate in that a pattern of evidence of the effect of conducting an enumeration without differentiating tourists and diplomats from actual citizens and permanent resident aliens since 1990 has provided a preponderance of evidence necessary for review herein as whether or not 13 USC §141 as used without differentiation of persons from an allotment of U.S. House seats versus just a statistical count as a ministerial task required by Congress being different without asking the questions “Are you a Citizen? and or “Are you a permanent resident alien?” with no way to differentiate an allotment without tourists and diplomats is prima facie proof that injury and exploitation by the enterprise has occurred when viewed in the light of the facts presented in exhibit. 24. Without asking the questions “Are you a Citizen? and or “Are you a permanent resident alien?” there is no way to actually know as is required in the enumeration which persons per se created in the wake of several political corruption scandals. It gives matching funds to qualified candidates. O'Hare was chairman of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), and served as President of Fordham University for 19 years, the longest tenure of any president in the school's 166-year history. After retiring from Fordham in 2003, he returned to America as associate editor.

13

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

are actually under Federal jurisdiction versus State jurisdiction as required under the 14th amendment that could be anywhere from 7 to 40 million persons who are actually Diplomats/tourists at will, that Federal Defendants aided by other Defendant(s) violate Plaintiff(s)’s right to know how many diplomats/tourists at will there are and by withholding an actual number violate the intent of both the Federal and State of New York Constitution as both a civil rights and under RICO a criminal matter. 25. The actual injury to Plaintiffs vote strength will only be ascertained by an accurate count that by the State of New York Constitution Article 3 shall be done to determine who is an alien which only means a permanent resident alien and who is a citizen that as a matter of state interest from suffrage to taxation must be accomplished and when not done injures Plaintiff and those similarly situated as a targeted class. 26. Mr. Kitzinger’s reference to the suffrage rights of the civilly dead is spurious

argument because prisoners have no suffrage rights per se as with minors and non-citizens.
27. As a quick summary as to 42 USC §1985(3): (1) Plaintiff shows there is an ongoing conspiracy with the enterprise use of tourists at will for financial gain; (2) Plaintiff, as a Citizen of New York entitled to register and vote is a member of a class different than any other persons who have been singled out as a result of all defendants refusal to enumerate tourists, diplomats not only for the purpose of allotment but for commercial purposes that enriches the enterprise to the detriment of the Plaintiff as a singled out class solely entitled to suffrage and the right to determine a republican form of government now taken away; (3) Affiant by exhibit shows so many over acts that they glaze the eye; (4) Plaintiff proprietary property is his vote that may not be either sold or given away has been directly effected by Defendants’ malfeasance and as to liberty and substantive rights being denied without a republican form of government in addition cited in the complaint shown as Exhibit T and the Civil Rico Statement shown as Exhibit S 14

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

personally injures Plaintiff’s in esse net worth as he is used involuntarily as an article of trade in his bond on file at the Department of Commerce with a private account with the U.S. Treasury, that is presently not under Affiant’s control, is under the Defendant Usurper’s control; and who is now outrageously conducting the 2010 enumeration unlawfully out of the oval office with the Defendant Pelosi and their agents despite the reasonable ministerial intent of 13 USC §195. 28. That NYC Defendants contention that Plaintiff has not provided a preponderance of the evidence for standing per se and somehow failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is preposterous, Affiant strenuously disagrees, notwithstanding the matter of the Usurper’s Quo Warranto that takes procedural precedence herein, the use of 18 USC §1964(c) over such claims is based upon the facts so-far presented and in that Usurper acts to date in conspiracy with NYC Defendants and its agent especially in the matter of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and related members 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." 29. 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

15

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

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. Deny both NYC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; II. That Defendants be enjoined to cease the use of tourists and diplomats in suffrage and allotment matters; III. That Plaintiff objects to Mr. Bloomberg’s in esse representation by Corporation Counsel; IV. That the predicates and patterns shown in case Forjone et al. v. California et al. NDNY 06cv-1002 be heard with 28 USC §1407 as part of a complex Multi-district litigation; V. That both Case as they are related be consolidated and or partially severed as to interstate actions for hearing by a Three Judge Panel as requested by the Motion filed and pending before this Court since July 13, 2009; VI. 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. VII. That the Verified Petition for a Quo Warranto inquest be expedited as matter of ongoing irreparable harm; VIII. 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); IX. 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;

16

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

X. That Federal Defendants by writ of this court enforce the Logan act and Vienna Convention 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; g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House members with the 2010 Census; XI. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs of the receiving States and commerce; XII. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People; XIII. 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; XIV. 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; XV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actual RICO Statement; XVI. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary.

I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law as is required with 18 USC §1964(c) as against the States Defendants and its agents as to the ongoing 2010 Census enumeration and effects upon equal representation in Congress, equal treatment of suffrage and

17

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

substantive due process associated with the 9thand loth Amendments, that in lieu of the secession of the People of the New York from the Union with the united States of America as of right by and for the CHRIS STRUNKjus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with irreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rdparties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn, o before me this the Y day of November ZOO9

Ndary Public, State of New Ybrk

OEORdE ANDERSON

No. 01AN5070990 Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires Jan. 6,20 f

1

rage I or 4

home

uAsthejournalisteorapristsm&iply.. . a k p u b l h i ~ l l ~

S E I R C ~ S ~
i. n

?heCIsyJorvloolkattttetopof~&shott~"-GeqeEWm
CJ books arch~ves llnks
subscribe

Advanced Search

about CJ

contact us

rss

advertrse
i( : , &

EMAIL I HUNT I RESPOND I SHARE

Search by Topic:

HeatherMac Donald The Open Borders Mayor

Don't MI for Mayor Bloomberg's immigration plan.
10 ;u)y 2 w 0

MombyHatber~Domkk
RootcausesUprooted The Truth About Policing and Skid Raw New Yorkers: Ghre a Hoot!

Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the world on notice that when an open borders enthusiast t a b tough on enforcement, he's probably Wing it.
Bloomtestified befire the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on immigration reform in ~hiladel~hh, convened to counter the House's simultaneous hearings on the costs and risks of illegal immigration. The mayor offered an eloquent defense of open borders. The flow of people into the United States is a force of nature, beyond mortal control, he said. We can no more stop the influx than a beachgoer can stop the tides. The decisibn about whether to en& the country and under what conditions is entirely the immigrant's, not the American people's.

More..

.

?hisstorgvrrchE!din:
The Corner on NRO FrOntPageMag

n mm w
Tflehm&dhl
Solution: ABcltffPianTha, Today's by Steven nalanga.

HeatherMacDordd,
VictoraarisHaMal
'7W:

' tt4WRSIMS
. .. -. , .... ,-,. ??,,.\ c,;*x , ... !:s>5$',
$:,.

:%:ex , , . . itut
,

,*>:-nm

.

But not to worry, Bloomberg recssured h audience. i Immigration is at all times and in all forms an unmitigated boon. Illiterate, Werate, skilled, unskilledall immigrants are necessary. Without our current levels of immigration, Bloomberg s i , the New York and national economieswould ad "collapsen (appimntly New York business deals rest precariously on free pizza delivery and low-cost restaurant dish-washing).
In fkt, w risk collapse for lack of immigrants, Bloombag e w a d High-skill mdushies like science and medicine are growing faster in other countries, he claimed. The sollmon: more immigranmanual l a b o m as well as engineers. But no country has a higher rate or absolute number of immigrants than the U.S. If other countries are producing more skilled graduates, maybe it is because their school systems aren't saddled with an ever-growing pool of foreign students from cultures that do not higbiy value academic achievement and their schools aren't dragged by ethnic politics into enforced academic medioaity.
Wctably, Bloomberg called for amnesty for the 12 million illegals already here. Like dl such advocates, he held out mass deportations as the only altemativs-~lstraw man "solution" that no serious immigration reformer has proposed.
Yet Bloomberg also tried to sound like an immigration cop. He decried the federal government's failure to penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. He mocked the 1986 immigration reform law that prohibited employers from verifying a worker's legal status. He called for a biometric social security card that would defeat counterfeiting. And he

A m Cops Rpdsr) H a tho War llgalnrt the Poeccnanns~ mndcat%
byHeatherHacDoMld

EXHIBIT

The Open Borders Mayor by Heather Mac Donald

Page 2 of 4

wanly conceded that perhaps a little bit of fencing on the border might be necessary, though he would prefer a “virtual wall.” So is a commitment to immigration enforcement compatible with the belief that the U.S. has a duty to take all non-terrorist comers, regardless of whether they enter in the trunk of a car or through customs? Nope. The ending of Bloomberg’s testimony thoroughly undermined his gestures toward the rule of law, making clear that the instincts that lead people to support amnesty and an unrestricted right of entry will defeat enforcement in the blink of an eye. In those final remarks, Bloomberg blasted a House proposal to penalize cities and counties that have “sanctuary laws.” These ubiquitous laws prohibit local government employees from notifying federal immigration authorities about the presence of illegal aliens. Sanctuary mandates create vast law-free zones where illegal immigrants know that they face virtually no risk of apprehension; the zones have notoriously protected criminals as well as itinerant roofers. In 1996, Congress responded by prohibiting local governments from restricting the speech of their workers in this way. To no avail. Virtually every sanctuary city proceeded to ignore this new federal law as well as the preexisting immigration laws. New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took his defiance to federal court. He lost his suit against the 1996 law, but—on September 10, 2001—declared his intention to continue violating it anyway. Mayor Mike Bloomberg has gone even further in backing the sanctuary policy. In 2003, the city faced a massive public relations fiasco following the rape of a Queens mother by a group of illegal Mexicans. New York police had arrested several of the Mexicans previously for other crimes, but reported none of them to the immigration agency. Congress hauled in the city’s criminal justice coordinator to testify about the city’s sanctuary law, after which Mayor Bloomberg—amazingly—strengthened the policy. And last week he declared his defiance of the Congressional will yet again. If Congress goes forward with its proposal to cut homeland security funds to localities with sanctuary rules, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee, it would have “one heck of a battle” on its hands. Bloomberg’s discussion of New York’s sanctuary law, like the law itself, was a clever piece of evasion. Trying to sound reasonable, the mayor told the hearing that “New York City cooperates fully with the Federal government when an illegal immigrant commits a criminal act.” But the crucial issue is whether the New York Police Department will report an illegal crime suspect to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or whether it will merely “cooperate” with ICE when the federal agency is already seeking an illegal suspect. When the NYPD stops the next potential illegal rapist on a robbery charge, in other words, will it tell ICE to come and get him?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-07-10hm.html

11/3/2009

The Open Borders Mayor by Heather Mac Donald

Page 3 of 4

Bloomberg’s updated sanctuary policy, Executive Order No. 41, is as misleading on this question as was his testimony. The order declares that law enforcement officers shall “cooperate with federal authorities in investigating and apprehending aliens suspected of criminal activity” but leaves ambiguous the question of the NYPD’s affirmative duty to report. City officers may report an illegal alien suspected of nonimmigration-related illegal activity but have no obligation to do so. So how does the NYPD interpret its authority? Asked what the threshold was for reporting an illegal alien suspect to ICE, the NYPD press office simply referred to Executive Order No. 41—itself silent on the matter. Nor could the department say how many suspects it has reported to ICE over the past year and whether they represented all of the undocumented suspects who have come to the force’s attention. The department simply does not keep statistics on such matters. Needless to say, this ignorance about a crime problem and about the official response to it represents a remarkable lacuna of record-keeping for an agency that lives and dies by the numbers. Maybe ICE would know about how many illegal alien criminals the NYPD has reported to it? If so, it isn’t saying. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Mark Raimondi replied diplomatically when asked about the NYPD’s illegal alien reporting: “We have a strong working relationship with the NYPD; we work closely with the department and solve a lot of crimes together.” Yes, but there is this little matter of Executive Order 41. “The order does at times prevent the NYPD from sharing information that we’d like to have,” admitted Raimondi cautiously. It’s hard to blame the NYPD for what looks likely to be passivity regarding the reporting of illegal alien criminals. The message from the mayor’s office and from New York political elites runs in exactly the opposite direction, and without a clear affirmative mandate regarding illegal reporting, the safe policy is to do nothing. Executive Order No. 41 lays out the remarkable proposition that one’s status as an illegal alien is “confidential information” of the same order as one’s sexual orientation, status as a victim of sexual assault, or tax records. Mayor Bloomberg really does believe that illegal entry is an uncontrollable force of nature like “the tide,” as he puts it—people who come here illegally are no more responsible for their movements across the border than pieces of plankton. Given the protections that Executive Order No. 41 confers on illegal aliens, the NYPD might understandably demur from testing the reach of its authority under the order. So in Philadelphia, Bloomberg thumbed his nose at Congress yet again and dared that body to penalize him for violating the 1996 federal anti-sanctuary statute. New York would continue to ban its employees from reporting illegal aliens to the federal government, he said. The irony is that whenever anyone suggests allowing local law enforcement and other officials to cooperate with immigration agents, the open

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-07-10hm.html

11/3/2009

The Open Borders Mayor by Heather Mac Donald

Page 4 of 4

borders crowd responds that immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal responsibility. But how can federal agents discharge that responsibility when the people closest to the problem withhold needed information? Mayor Bloomberg provided a valuable service with his testimony last week. He demonstrated that the belief that “no person is illegal”—watchword of the amnesty movement, popularized by Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney—will trump the willingness to enforce immigration laws every time. That’s why those who believe in the rule of law must insist on the “enforcement first” strategy for immigration reform: defer amnesty and the liberalization of immigration rules until border security and interior enforcement are demonstrably working. Mayor Bloomberg and President Bush’s “comprehensive” approach of combining amnesty and higher levels of immigration with a promise of increased enforcement will inevitably lose its second half along the way.
EMAIL | PRINT | RESPOND | SHARE

Home | About City Journal | City Journal Books | Archives | Links Contact Us | Subscribe Print | Subscribe Online | RSS | Advertise | CJ Mobile
CONTACT INFO: subscriptions: (800) 562-1973 • editorial: (212) 599-7000 • fax: (212) 599-0371 Copyright The Manhattan Institute

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-07-10hm.html

11/3/2009

THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR NEW YORK. N.Y. 10007

EXECUTNE ORDER No. 41
September 17,2003

CITY-WIDE PRIVACY POLICY AND AMENDMENT OF EXECUTlVE ORDER NO. 34 RELATING TO CITY POLICY CONCERNING IMMIGRANT ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES

WHEREAS,it is the policy of the City of New York to promote the utilization of
its services by all of its residents who are entitled to and in need of them; and

WHElGAS, individuals should know that they m y seek and obtain the a assistance of City agencies regardless of personal or private attributes, without negative consequences to their personal lives; and
WHEREAS, the obtaining of pertinent information, which is essential to the performance of a wide variety of governmental functions, may in some cases be diflicult or impossible if some expectation of confidentiality is not presewed, and preserving confidentiality in turn requires that governments regulate the use of such information by their employees; and

WHEREAS, in fintherance of this policy, confidential information in the
possession of City agencies relating to immigration status or other personal or private attributes should be disclosed only as provided herein; NOW, TI-EREFORE, by virtue of the power vested in me as Mayor of the City of
New York, it i hereby md&. s

Section 1. As used herein, "confidential information" means any information obtained and maintained by a City agency reIating to an individual's sexual orientation, status as a victim of domestic violence, status as a victim of sexual assault, status as a crime witness, receipt of public assistance, or immigration status, and shall include all information contained in any individual's income tax records.

Section 2. No City officer or employee shall disclose confidential information,
unless
.____

____

EXHIBIT W

August 14,2007 Bloomberg defends New York immigration Posted: August 14th, 2007 03:12 PM ET Watch Bloomberg's immigration comments Monday. WASHINGTON (CNN) - He's not a presidential candidate, at least not yet, but New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is weighing in on comments from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that New York is a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants.

"I can't think of any laboratory that shows better why you need a stream of immigrants than New York City," he said Monday. "I don't know what to tell anybody. They just - if they don't believe that immigrants add a heck of a lot more than they cost, they just aren't looking at the numbers." Romney has repeatedly criticized GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani saying the former mayor supported illegal immigration in New York City during his term in office. During his comments, Bloomberg did not mention either candidate by name. While New York City has never declared itself a sanctuary city, it does protect citizens' confidentiality when they seek medical care or report a crime, according to The Associated Press. Giuliani supported that policy when he was mayor. Following a tour of the border in San Ysidro, California on Monday, Romney said, 'We welcome legal immigration. Legal immigration is great for this country. It brings culture and vitality, skill and innovation, which is helpful to this country and always has been." 'We are a country largely of immigrants and it's a wonderful thing," he added. "But we want to make sure it's legal immigration. We have to end illegal immigration; we have to protect legal immigration. "
Filed under: Michael Bloomberg Mitt Romney Rudy Giuliani

-

EXHIBIT X

THE AMERICAN LEGION POLICY
ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Extracted from the full document to be found at: .w w v ~ leglon orgidocurnentsileg~on. ~df/~llegal~m~nlgratlon od+

n;tc

RESOLVED. That The American Legion seize every opportunity to request an accountability of our elected officials in implementing and enforcing federal and international laws and treaties to eliminate the large numbers of individuals from foreign countries entering the United States illegally and that all candidates for public office and the Democratic and Republican National Committees express publicly to the American people their positions and solutions to this grave danger to our country's stability. RESOLVED by the National Execut~ve Committee, The American Legion. in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis. Indiana. May 9- 10. 2007. That The American Legion. on behalf of all Americans and future generations of Amer~cans. urge the Congress and the federal government to authorize and fund the follow~ng strategy in addressing the issue of illegal aliens in the United States:
i. Secure the borders and other polnts of entry In the United States;

a) Construct physical barriers. as appropriate. b) Acquire and utilize latest technology to monitor border activity c) Employ and train a sufficient number of U.S Border Patrol Agents to effectively patrol border regions with employment preference given to former members of the U.S. Armed Forces. d) Utilize National Guard troops to assist in providing border securtty. e) Insure all vessels and their cargo arming at our seaports are thoroughly searched;
2. El~minate jobs magnet and social services benefits the
a) Mandate verification of employment eligibility. bl Enforce employer sanctions. c) Make illegal residents Ineligible for Social Security and other government-sponsored public services. dl Elim~nate governmental financial aid for illegal alien students;
3. Enforce existrng laws and pass new laws to reduce U.S. illegal population:

a ) Reject amnesty or "legalization" programs for illegal aliens. b) Enforce immtgration laws and promote cooperatton between federal. state and local law enforcement offic~alswith emphasis on interior enforcement. c j Establish parameters for non-criminal deportat~ons. d ) Proh~brt eltgib~lity servlces offered by financral institut~ons the Un~ted to ~n States.

EXHIBIT

e) Issue no drivers licenses to illegal aliens, f) Designate English as the official language of the U.S. government and print all documents, including election ballots, in the English language only, g) Work with state and local governments to discourage illegal settlement;
4. Revise legal immigration procedures; screen and track foreign visitors legally entering the

U.S.: a) Eliminate the Visa Lottery Program, b) Restrict the number of countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program, c) Create new visa categories or expand the H-2A and H-2B Visa Categories for temporary agricultural and temporary and seasonal workers as necessary to replace illegal workers eliminated from employment opportunities in the U.S., d) Create and enforce a reporting system to track the whereabouts of foreign visitors to include students at academic institutions, members of a country's diplomatic corps, aircraft and vessel crews, foreign press representatives, exchange visitors, H-1B Workers, L-1 lntracompany Transferees and those individuals categorized as humanitarian entrants

Number of Illegal Aliens in U.S.

....................................21,218,615 Money Wired to Mexico Since Jan. 2006 ................$42,363,149,000
...... $397,480,946,017

Cost of Social Services for lllegals Since 1996 Children of Illegal Aliens in Public Schools

......................... 4,184,824 Cost of lllegals in K-12 Since 1996 ....................... 14,828,106,397 $ Illegal Aliens Incarcerated ............................................... 351,087 Cost of Incarceration Since 2001...........................$1,477,239,843 Illegal Alien Fugitives ................ .... . .........................663,347 Anchor Babies Since 2002 ......................................... ..2,148,175 Skilled Jobs Taken by Illegal Immigrants ...................... 10,232,441
www.lmmigrationcounters.com sources and the formulas used in computing the figures
are shown on their website and include reports issued by both government agencies and private sector organizations.

1

-*
/

HQ\~'L*B. wo~tdng herd
fix-

sw yon carn

%be

we're hem ta help make that happen.

L

Oow Jones Re ntq T h s copy IS for your personal noncommercial use only To ordm presenlm~on-ready mples (a diswblbullon to your colleagues, d~enls customers. or use me Order r q ~ t lool at the bottom of any article or vlsn www dlrepnnts com s Order a reprint of this article now See a sample reprint in PDF fonal. ........ - ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............- ......... ...... - .. - ......... - ... - ........... - .... - . . - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

-

-

THE W A L L m J C l W W l L
W m

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OCTOBER 28,2009

Escape From New York
A new study says taxes are driving people away.

An old saying goes that the time to live in New York is when you're young and poor, or old and rich-otherwise, you're better off somewhere else. That wisdom is getting an update this week from a study by the Empire Center for New York State Policy that shows middle-class people leaving the state in droves.

Between 2000 and 2008, the Empire State had a net domestic outflow of more than 1.5 million, the biggest exodus of any state, with most hailing from New York City. The departures also have perilous budget consequences, since they tend to include residents who are better off than those arriving. Statewide, departing families have income levels 13%higher than those moving m, wfiile m NewYorkCormty(home of Manham) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in.

-

In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state kst $4.3 billion m taxpayer mcome. Add that up from 2001thmagh 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. That trend is part of a larger march for New York: In 1950 the state accounted for 19%of all Americans, but by 2000 that number had fallen to The city's main saving grace has been its welcome mat for foreign immigrants, who have helped to replace some of those who flee.

*.

As the study's authors, E.J. McMahon and Wendell Cox, suggest, no smgle reason can be fingered for a million

migrants seeking their fortunes across state lines, but one place to start is New York's notorious state and local
tax burden. According to the Tax Foundation, between 1977and 2008, New York has ranked first or second in the

country for its state-local tax burden compared to the U S average. .. In the years considered by the Empire Center study, New York's state and local tax burden ranged between 11% and 12%of income. The peak year for taxes, 2004, was followed by the peak year for departures-as New York lost nearly 250,000 people to other states in 2005. And that's before another big tax hike this year. That pattern is consistent with the annual migration patterns, showing that highly taxed and economically lackluster states were most likely to end up in residents' rear view mirrors. According to the annual study by United Van Lines, states like New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois have been big losers in recent years.

In the Empire Center study, two of the top states to send taxpayers to New York-Illinois and Michigan-were also among the worst population losers overall. Greener pastures that drew New Yorkers included states like Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, in addition to the usual suburban locales of New Jersey and Connecticut.
Liberals continue to insist that they can raise taxes ever higher without any effect on behavior, but the New York study is one more piece of evidence that this is a destructive illusion.
Pnnted in Tile Wall Street Journal, page A22

EXHIBIT Z

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
In Case - Strunk v. US Departmenl olCommerce Bureau of Census el al. DCD 09-cv-1295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On November 5,2009, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certify 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 THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND MICHAEL BLOOMBERG IN ESSE DEFENDANTS in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavit and exhibits annexed affirmed November 4,2009, 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, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 235 14 Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 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

Dated: November 5 , 2 0 0 9

Brooklyn, New York