STRUNK - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Transport Room

Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 1
I CLERK
10-
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
In re Christopher-Earl: Strunk 0 in esse
Petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner Original Proceeding with

FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234,09-cv-I 249, 09-cv-1295 and 10-cv-
00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified Complaint to respond to the
herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Injunction
Christopher-Earl: Strunk 0 in esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
Cell-845-901-6767
chris@strunk,ws
i
RESPONDENTS
Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, C.J. for John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.

the U.S. District Court for the KAUFMAN 8t CANOLES, P.C.
District of Columbia 150 West Main Street - P.O. Box
333 Constitution Avenue, NW 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514
Washington, DC 20001 For: New York Province of the
Society of Jesus / Fr. Gerald
Hon. Richard J. Leon, J. for Chojnacki, S.J.
the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.
333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Texas Office Of The Attorney
Washington, DC 20001 General P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
Eric Holder, US. Attorney General For: the State of Texas
c/o Brigham John Bowen, AUSA
Seth E. Goldstein,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Deputy Attorney General
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
California Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530 Office of the Attorney General
For: U.S. DEPT. OF STATE
1300 “I” Street - Suite 125
Ronald C. Machen, Jr. US. Sacramento, California 94244-
Attorney c/o of Counsel Alan 2550 For: State of California
Burch, AUSA Office of the U.S. Stephen Kitzinger,
Attorney for the Washington DC Assistant Corporation Counsel
555 4th St., N.W. New York City Law Department
Washington, D.C. 20530 Office of Corporation Counsel
For: Barack Hussein Obama 100 Church Street
Wynne P. Kelly AUSA New York, New York 10007
555 4th St., N.W. For: the City of New York
Washington, D.C. 20530
For: The DOC Bureau of Census, Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. , J.D.
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway,
John Marcus McNichols, Esq. STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP CA 92688
725 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005 Barack Hussein Obama
For: Maryland Province of the c/o The White House
Society of Jesus / Fr.-Timothy B. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Brown, S.J. Washington D.C. 20500
..
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Issues presented:
Preliminary injunction for the equal protection issues that arise

between the Census ‘short form’ and ‘long form’ in the matter of
enumerating citizens and or permanent resident aliens;
(ii) Preliminary injunction for additional census mailers sent to Personal
Mail Boxes and Post Office Boxes;
(iii) Preliminary I.njunctionto restore the New York Electoral College to 47
members as use of 13 USC §141 to reduce same to the present 31 is
a violation of the 14‘h Amendment Section 2.
A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U S . House
of Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of
statistics related to Federal Subsidy;
Removing executive stay in use of the PatdotActwith the Census;
Disclosure of the origin of U S . Senator Obama’s official passport;
Declaratory judgment on the matter of enforcement of the Logan Act
as we have no Chief Law Enforcement Officer with the Usurper.
(viii) Declaratory judgment on the Census Bureau overreaching in violation
of the 5‘h and gthamendment protections in regards to the Census
Bureau statement in reference to section 221 penalties referenced
above, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, arbitrarily
under color of law in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. s221 changes the
fine from not more than $100 to not more than $5,000 for anyone
over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the
questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers.
that any response by other respondents be heard expeditiously
accordingly as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm
that would result to Affiant and those similarly situated; and
that this Court provide further and different relief as it deems
necessary for justice herein.
. ..
111
Cases cited:
United States v. Cruiksahank,92 U.S. 542 (1 875).................................................. 21

Chisbolm v. Geomia, 2 U.S. (2Dall.) 419 (1793)..................................................... 25
Dept. Of the Navy v: &anL 484 U.S. 518 (1988)....................................................... 26
Statutes cited:
2 USC $2a............................................................................................................................................ 1 1
5 USC $552.................................... ....................................................................................................... 7
13 USC §I 41........................ ,............................. ............ ................................. 2-4,9, I I ,I3
1 3 USC 5221 .........................................................................................* ......................................... 2,22
1 3 UsC 95.......................................................................................................... ............. 3,l1
1 8 U.S.C. $$ 3571 and 3559.......................................................................................... 2,2,24
18 U.S.C. §953 and related Chapter 45 law................................................................... 8
28 USC 51343
28 USC 51344
28 USC SI345
28 USC 51361
28 USC 52284....................................... ........................................................................................... 3
42 USC 51 971, §I 983,51985..................................................... ,....................................... ...3
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
TerroHsmAct of ZOO I (Public Law Pub.L. 1 07-56)........................................... 8
the USA PATRIOTActwas introduced into the House on October 23
and incorporated H.R. 2975,S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R.
3004 (the FinancialAnti- TerrorismAct)
the Forerbn Intelligence SurveillanceAct of 1978(FISA),
the Electronic Communications Privacv Act of 1986( ECPA),
the Money Launderin-QControl Act of 1986
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA),
the /mmjip-ationand Nationali(y Act.
US Constitution citations:
Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3......................................................................................... 11,12

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and Clause 6....................................................... 15,28
Article 7 Amendments: Is', 4'h, Sth, 6'h, gfh, gth, loth, 1lth,12'h, 14'h,20th,25'h
Other citations:
DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3501 through 3504
Rules cited:
FRAP 21
FRCvP Rules 81
LCvR 40.3(b) of a District Judge to hear the LCvR 9.1 motion for
a three judge panel.........................................................,.....................................................6
New York State Laws cited:
NYS Const. Article 1,2,3,

NYS Election Law
NYS Benevolent Orders Law
Related Cases:
Orders of the United States District Court 13r the District of Columbia in
related cases: 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 09-cv-1295;
motion to intervene in 10-cv-00151 and
Interpleader Verified Complaint case filed Strunk v Ubama et al. DCD
DCC 08-5503-OP
DCC 09-5322-OP
Strunk v. Paterson etal. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County
Index no.: 08-29642 .
V
AFFIDAVIT of Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner in support of

the Original Proceeding with FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249,
09-cv-1295 and IO-cv-00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified
Complaint to respond to the herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of
Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction.
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF KINGS )
I, Christopher-Earl : Strunk 0 in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say:
1.Affiant is self-represented without being an attorney, with place of

service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB (Personal Mail Box) 281
Brooklyn New York 11238, with telephone (845) 901-6767 E-mail
chris@strunk.ws.
2.Affiant, the Petitioner, hereby this affidavit with a FRAP Rule 21 original
proceeding wishes an Order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 09-cv-1295 and IO-cv-
00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified Complaint to respond to the
herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Preliminary
Injunction with the Issues presented:
i. The equal protection issues that arise between the Census ‘short
form’ and ‘long form’ in the matter of enumerating citizens and or
permanent resident aliens;
a. for additional census mailers sent to Personal Mail Boxes and
Post Office Boxes;
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 1 of30 In Re Stntnk Petition for Writ

ii. To restore the New York Electoral College to 47 members as use of

13 USC §141 to reduce it to the present 31 is a violation of the 14'h
Amendment Section 2 right to fundamental substantive due process.
iii. A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U.S. House of
Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of
iv. Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the Census;
v. Disclosure of the origin of U S . Senator Obama's official passport;
vi. Declaratory judgment :
a. On the matter of enforcement of the Logan Act as we have no
Chief Law Enforcement Officer with the Usurper.
b. on the Census Bureau overreaching in violation of the 5'h and gth
amendment protections in regards to the Census Bureau
statement in reference to section 221 penalties referenced
above, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559,
arbitrarily under color of law in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C.
Section 221 changes the fine from not more than $100 to not
more than $5,000 for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or
willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer
questions posed by census takers.
vii. that any response by other respondents be heard expeditiously
accordingly as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm
that would result to Affiant and those similarly situated; and
viii. That this Court provide further and different relief as it deems
necessary for justice herein.
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 2 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

Factual background
3.Affiant is duly registered to vote at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn New York 11238 (See Exhibit A) and votes within the 7Ist Election
District of the 57'h Assembly District, 18'h Senate District, 11th New York
U.S. House District and 25'h NYC Councilman District.
4.That Affiant does not have another address from which to register and
vote nor does Petitioner wish to have one located elsewhere.
5. By regulation, the United States Post Office (USPS) has Affiant's PMB
281 address registered by the form submitted by the PMB management.
6.That the Bureau of Census has directed the USPS and Census
Monitoring Board under 13 USC § I 95 not to deliver to any PMB and or Post
Office Box, but to dwelling residents occupying real property.
-/.That on July 13, 2009, Affiant went to U.S. District Court for the
Washington District of Columbia to file a verified complaint 09-cv-1295
Strunk v. UNITED STA TES DE?ARTM€NT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF .
TH€ CENSUS et al. with a request for a three judge panel with 28 USC
S2284 in the matter of Nationwide / Statewide injury associated inter alia
with the on-going 2010 Census enumeration with 13 USC y 4 1 , 13 USC
$195 and related law and fully brief with a request for a preliminary
injunction the court delays justice and has become part of the injury
complained of the Usurper.
8.That Strunk has a 42 USC SI983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson
eta/ NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before the
Honorable New York Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt complaining
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 3 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

of a state action civil rights injury suffered in the 2008 General Election
process in New York’s appointment of its Electoral College that relies on
action and discovery herein to proceed; in that Strunk, a Republican party
member, was denied a reasonable expectation of participation in the 2008
election for a candidate for office of POTUS by the conspiracy to put John
McCain and Barack Obama on the ballot when they are not natural-born
Citizens and the Electoral College has been wrongly reduced since 1960,
9. That on February 24, 201 0, Affiant gave judicial notice to the District
Court in 09-cv-1295 in the need for a preliminary injunction there in the
matter urgent matter of imminent irreparable harm with time as the essence
with the mailing of the 2010 Census enumeration questionnaire without the
two questions including “Areyou a Citizefl” and “Areyou a permanent
resident alien?” or even the SSN last fouras with voter registration as an
urgent matter of compelling State Interest here in the State of New York
and respectively on a State by State basis in the other several States
specific law particular to each State, hereby make application accordingly
for a Preliminary Injunction with restraint and for a Writ of Mandamus of the
Bureau of the Census with 13 USC SI41 (See Exhibit B; and
10.To wit there was no response to the Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit
B on March 17,2010 Judge Leon dismissed the case - see Exhibit C,
11. That Affiant on March 18,2010 received the 2010 Census ‘Short
Form’ at PMB 281 marked Resident at Apartment 1 - see Exhibit D.
12. The population count, conducted every 10 years, is used to distribute
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 4 ’ of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

House seats and more than $400 billion in federal aid. The questions on the
form ask about people's gender, race, family, housing, as well as their
address and telephone number.
13. The Census Bureau this week began delivering letters to homes in
rural areas and is mailing the IO-question short forms to 120 million U.S.
households on March 15,2010 shown as Exhibit D and that Officials have
estimated the government survey will take just 10 minutes to complete, a as
a change from previous censuses as a challenged equal protection issue
herein in which many people received a long form detailed questionnaire on
the 24-page American Community Survey (ACS) see Exhibit E.
14. That Affiant did not received a long form ACS shown as Exhibit E as a
serious denial of equal protection that will result in an unequal allotment of
US House members on the long form different than the short form the ACS
asks questions quote:
From page 5 : what year the building was built, when "Person No. 1"
in the housing section moved into the home; the size of land the
home is on; what agricultural products were sold from the property in
the last 12 months; whether the property was used as a business;
how many separate rooms are in the house; whether the house has
hot and cold running water; whether the house has a flush toilet, a
shower or bathtub, a sink with a faucet, a stove or range, a
refrigerator and a telephone; how many cars, vans and trucks are
kept at the property; and what fuel is most used at the property - gas,
electricity, fuel oil or kerosene, coal or coke, wood, solar energy, or
"0ther."
From page 8: wants to know if Person No. 1 in the household is a

citizen, if the person was born in the U S . or when the person came to

the U.S.; whether the person had attended college in the last three
years and what is the highest level of education the person has
completed; the person’s ancestry or ethnic origin; whether the person
speaks a language other than English at home, and if yes, what
language; whether the person lived in this housing unit or an
apartment a year ago; whether the person is covered by health
insurance, and if yes, by what type of health insurance.
15.That in Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit B, Affiant contends that there

was no random selection with LCvR 40.3(b) of a District Judge to hear the
LCvR 9.1 motion for a three judge panel because Affiant is self-
represented and as an equal protection infringes my right to substantive
due process when the Clerk of the Court who is no longer working at
District assigned the 09-cv-1295 Census case to the same judge that
Affiant has been complaining of in the two (2) original proceedings 08-
5503-OP and 09-5322-OP and now herein on a different matter.
That on June 24,2009, in the original proceeding 08-5503-OP before
the Honorable Chief Judge Sentelle, and Honorables Ginsburg and
Tatel Circuit Judges in their Per Curiam Order, see Exhibit F,held
that Petitioner file a new original proceeding for relief quote:
“To the extent petitioner seeks relief not requested in his original
petition, petitioner must file a separate petition for a writ of
mandamus to bring the matter properly before the court.”
That on November 25, 2009, in the original proceeding 09-5322-OP

before the Honorables Ginsburg, Garland, and Brown, Circuit Judges
in their Per Curiam Order, see Exhibit G, in that petitioner was
complaining of the Clerk of the District Court (who is no longer there)
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 6 of30 In Re Stnrnk Petition for Writ

and to recuse a District Judge, held that the petition for a writ of
mandamus be denied in that quote:
“Petitioner has not shown any misconduct by the district court

clerk’s office. Moreover, ’judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,’ Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), and petitioner has not
identified any ruling that would warrant recusal of the district judge
in his cases. Finally, any suggestion that the district judge is
conspiring with the Society of Jesus or other entities discussed in
the petition is without support, and we will not reach any other
arguments that have not been properly presented to and ruled on
by the district judge in the first instance. “
16. That after November 22,2008, Affiant complaint Strunk v DOSO8-
cv-2234 under FOlA 5 U.S.C. Section 552 was assigned to Judge Richard
J. Leon who after a series of motions in the spring of 2009 since June 2009
has languished under a stay until March 15,2010 when the Court issued
the decision and order partially dismissing the action as to the Usurper,
whose Federal Passport as a US. Senator as to the origin is a public
matter, and in which Affiant contends he is entitled to know when it was
issued and from what type of original passport it replaced or was used to
supplement for issuance of the Official Passport without the release of any
private information, and all of which is to be known by the public which has
been outrageously denied (See Exhibit H).
17. That on July 7, 2009, Affiant went to U S . District Court for the
Washington District of Columbia with the verified complaint 09-cv-1249
entitled Strunk K The New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. in
the matter of injury associated inter alia with the non-enforcement of the

Logan Act (18 USC 6j953 and related law), and finally after many months
received an order to dismiss (See Exhibit I) with injuries compiling under
the Usurper Barry Soetoro ( a k a . Barack Hussein Obama) whose actions
are void ab initio because, by his own admission, he is not a natura/-born
Citizen required with U.S. Constitution Article I I section 1 Clause 5, who
continues in office without any court hearing the merits of any petition,
including Affiants now before the District Court in 10-cv-00151, and where
Affiant has petitioned to intervene and is an Interpleader by separate
action; Affiant contends as a matter of public policy, more than the sing
song justice delayed is justice denied rhubarb, every district Court
petitioned to date without exception in the Federal System, especially the
progressive majority at the SCOTUS, all aid and abet misprision of felony
and treason that will only end with the removal of those misprisors because
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall ONLY hold their
Offices during good Behaviour.
18. The Associated Press on March 4, 2010 reported in an article entitled
Gov't offers new assurance ceisus data is pdvate by HOPE YEN (See
Exhibit J) that Barack Hussein Obama who usurped the office of the
POTUS as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, administrator and trustee of
the United States of America (USA) has committed misprision in a letter to
Congress, that provided its legal position that the 2010 census data cannot
be disclosed under the PatriotAct (see endnotes p iv) , the nation's main
counterterrorism law, and the Executive Branch has previously given
" --I.
questionable legal assurances the information will not be used for

immigration enforcement.
19. That if the short form is not resent by mail to include the question ‘Are
you a citizen?’ and or ‘Areyou a permanent resident alien?’ or the SSN last
four to all the Post Office Boxes and or Personal Mail Boxes, Affiant and
those similarly situated will not be properly enumerated as citizens or
permanent resident aliens and thereby shift the allotment of members of the
US House that has arbitrarily happened from 1920 until 1930 when 13 USC
SI41 was used to equalize the allotment of US. House members; however,
is unconstitutionally “capped” at 435 without the protection of the 14‘h
Amendment Section 2 requiring due process for any State in reduction of
the electoral college size- 13 USC 5141 does not amend the Constitution.
20. That Strunk along with those similarly situated in New York have
been denied substantive due process in the matter of the arbitrary reduction
in size of the New York Electoral College under color of 13 USC 5141 since
1960 when the U S . House members plus two Senators with the 13 USC
SI41 allotment went from 47 members to 45 members and 31 members in
the 2008 General Election with the 2010 Census allotment to be reduced to
say 29 Electoral College members, and as the history of allotment on the
attached Chart from 1790 through 2000 depicts- see Exhibit K.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
21. That the 14‘h Amendment Section 2 prohibits any abridgment of the
right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and

Vice-president of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the

Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature
thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number
of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State; that Strunk nor anyone else have
participated in rebellion, or other crime in which the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced.
22. That Strunk suffers voting rights equal treatment infringement by
injury to speech, association, suffrage, liberty, freedoms and proprietary
suffrage property rights as an active eligible voter / Republican Party
candidate in the Brooklyn 18'h Senate District (SD) classified a Caucasian
class member, Vietnam Era Veteran, a heretic, over 60 years old, by
misapplication and administration of law has been invidiously singled out
for discrimination by the fact that the Bureau of Census its agents and the
United States Postal Service on the short form do not ask the questions are
you a citizen or are you a resident alien as is done differently on the long
formas a matter of conflicting interest in data collection for Housing and
Household statistics that like apples and oranges are unrelated for intent
and purposes however done together under color of law is an arbitrary and
capricious misapplication and mis-administration of the Constitutionally

mandated decennial Census under color of 13 USC s141, 13 USC SI95 , 2

USC §2a and related law that flouts the express intent of the US.
Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: “Representativesand direct Taxes
shall be apportioned am0n-Qthe several States which may be included
within this Union, accordin-qto their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by addina to the whole Number of free Persons, including those
bound to Service for a Term of Years, and exc1udin.alndians not taxed,
three fifihs of all other Persons. see Endnote p. i)., and that the emphasized
underlined sentence was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2
quote ‘‘Representativesshall be apportioned amona the several States
according to their respective numbers, countina the whole number of
persons in each State,),(see Endnote p. iv)
23. That with the elimination of slavery in 1863 and the method of
counting persons as property or by condition of servitude the 1868
enactment and ratification of the 14‘hAmendment including Section 2
modified the body of persons of whom the Census enumeration to count by
changing the term “determinedby adding to the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifihs of all other Persons.“ to countina
the whole number of persons in each State, excIudin.q Indians not taxed”
(see Endnotes p. iv)
and Petitioner contends does not include transients, Tourists,
diplomats and or their families who are not either actual citizens per se or a
permanent resident alien in the respective State of the several States.
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 1 1 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

24. Further, that as a matter of compelling State interest that without an

exact accurate person by person count of those who are either an actual
citizens per se or a permanent resident alien who by primary domicile
actually reside in the respective State of the several States on a political
district by political district and State -subdivision by State sub-division basis
is an equal protection issue injury that will result among those residents
legally domiciled in New York and depending upon the specific laws of the
several States, on a State by State basis as an equal protection issue;
however, the injury also differs from State to State for example unlike New
York the State of Oregon issues a State residence card to anyone who
simply chooses to reside in that State without it being the primary domicile,
contrary to New York that does not issue such license only honors a
person's decision of where he / she chooses to vote as long as the
residence is considered the domicile and no other exists in the state or
elsewhere in any other State of the several States. Affiant contends that
because of the adoption of the US Constitution the prior requirement that
transients not be considered is no longer valid under the constitution as
long as there is a place for service of process as Petitioner has done, is the
same as for a foreign corporation (a fictitious person) operating
domestically within the respective State.
25. That the outrageous matter of the Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 matter
of The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thifly
I'
Thousand' that has not been amended since the inception of the ratification

of the constitution, there is no amendment to that express requirement that

the NEW ratio is to be One House Representative per say 690,000 persons
for each member; and with the use of basic English and logic 1:690000 or
0.00000145 does not exceed 1:30000or 0.000033 thereby reduces
members; and therefore, every decennial allotment without an enlargement
of the actual number of House members is unconstitutional notwithstanding
the June 13, 1929 re-balance intended by 13 USC $141 to the contrary.
26. That Strunk’s sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individual
rights creates the Federal government and to define express limited rights
for the government to operate by.
27. That there are four political branches of government: the three who
govern with the consent of the people granted to The Congress, The
Executive, The Judiciary and the fourth most important branch The People
who are resident in a respective State of the several States.
28. There is an overriding Constitutional question of first impression
historically ignored since June 1912 that even with enactment of the interim
measure of 13 USC 5141 to re-balance the electoral college for the people
of each State of the several States in 1929 still is contrary to the required
House decennial enlargement as to the actual population in Article I section
2 that each House member represent only with the consent of the people
among the 30,000 persons in each member district, that now is somewhere
around say one House member per say 690,0000 persons, and as such
remains a festering cancer upon the national government that according to

a recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts
without consent of the people.
29. The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the
requirement of the US. Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912,
that representative government has fatally weakened the guarantee of a
republican form of government, especially as it applies to the second
political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College
election process in each State of the several States to appoint POTUS; and
30. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal
protection provision of decennial enlargement of the first Branch has
evolved into a cult of tyranny that will only worsen without a representative
sized electoral college commensurate with the increase of the people to
select the chief magistrate, i.e. in New York in 1960 with say 12.5 million
residents had 45 electoral college votes now in 2010 with say 19.5 million
residents based upon the 2000 Census now only has 31 electoral college
votes and scheduled to reduce two more with the 2010 Census; and
31. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the
electoral college more than ever before the chief law enforcement officer
must have no appearance of impropriety or even the slightest question of
allegiances as with the Usurper Obama, who is the epitome of the fears of
the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article II Section 1 in use of the
express eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen
without dual allegiance; and that Obama has more than dual allegiance,

32. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical

dictatorship disconnected from the people who are restrained by an every
increasing difficulty in running for office or participating with a reasonable
expectation of success, and as evidenced now with the Usurper who
operates under a continuous state of arbitrary and capricious declared
emergencies; that will only chronically worsen every ten years without the
required U.S. House size reasonably reflecting the consent of the people, in
that the House increasingly operates for a cabal of special interest
contributors whose surreptitious campaign funding violations of laws and
side deals operate without the consent of the people, and as such the
House increasingly lacks the ability to as a regular expectation of their
duties to impeach high crimes and misdemeanors in the executive, and
especially members of the judiciary who rather than report on the law make
the law with impunity so much so that the people now fear the judiciary for
being arbitrary and capricious in a chronic corruption as seen with Alcee
Hastings who even after soliciting bribes from the bench left by an
impeachment process only then to become a US. House member from
South Miami in Florida.
33. That Strunk’s individual authority creates the corporate office of the
President of the United States of America, POTUS, to which Defendant
Barack Hussein Obama was questionably elected without presenting
eligibility proof of his qualifications other than his opinion somehow eligible.
34. That Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States’ Constitution is

controlling and only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for

assuming the corporate office of the Presidency, Le. an applicant shall be
35 years of age, 14 years resident of United States of America and a
natural-born-citizen; this is a case of first impression
THE 2008 COUP D' TAT THAT SEIZED THE USA GOVERNMENT
35. That there is an outrageous conspiracy that placed John McCain and
Barack Hussein Obarna on the ballot at the 2008 General Election when
neither is a natural-born citizen, as an abridgment of Strunk's right to vote
at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of
the United States along with those similarly situated in New York.
36. This application is made because of the failure of our representative
government to uphold the U.S. Constitutional form of governance. The
three branches of government are co-opted by a cabal of interlocking
directorships of entities and especially the Sovereign Mi/itary Order of Malta
(see Endnote p. viii)
(SMOM) whose members are also citizens of that sovereign
state, thereby have at least dual allegiance and hold questionable titles that
are in conflict with Title 18 Chapter 45 for USA Foreign Relations and that
with dual allegiance are operating outside and above the law.
37. That SMOM member Zbigniew Kairnierz Brzezinski has played a
crucial role for the Vatican State and SMOM to create global regionalism
that subsumes national sovereignty and as the Former National Security
Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail
Gorbachev's October 1995 State of the World Forum, that quote:

“we cannot leap into worldgovernment in one quick step... The

precondition for eventual globafkation - genuine gfobafization - is
progressive regionalkation. I’
38. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski was a Obama / McCain

campaign Advisor with his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in
the Defendant Obama’s Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on the
McCain Campaign and both now are serving in government.
39. That Zibignew Bzrezinski in service of the SMOM devised both
Senator McCain’s and Senator Obama’s campaign message through the
insertion of each of his sons into strategic positions within each of the
respective campaign staffs to control the message of each candidate.
40. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski works with SMOM Member
King Juan Carlos to further global regionalism with the European Union,
North American Union, and now the Mediterranean Union (MU) dependent
upon the elimination of the Sovereign State of Israel and as such is the
principal organizer of the downfall of Israel per se as a sovereign state with
control over Jerusalem.
41. That for Juan Carlos, a deal was cut with the Arabs that he gets his
cut of Jerusalem. However, he has bigger plans than the Arabs understand.
Last November he flew to Malta to open the offices of the Mediterranean
Union. Just prior to his American voyage, the MU held a conference
entitled, On the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians. Israel did not attend
because...King Juan Carlos going to Malta in November http://www.middle-
east-online.com/english/?id=31629 with the “5+5 Forum” discusses re-
launching the Roman Empire as the Med Union and that this February

assembled Senior officials from 10 western Mediterranean countries met

there Tuesday to discuss the relaunch of the Mediterranean Union, which
has been stalled over the recent war in Gaza. The one-day meeting in the
southern city of Cordoba brought together foreign ministers or
representatives from Spain France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Algeria, Libya,
Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia. ..The five Catholic nations and the five
African Arab nations are united to re-form the early Roman Empire, the
same entity that crushed ancient Israel.
42. On February 17,2010, King Juan Carlos of Spain met the Usurper
President Obama in Washington. Told Obama that Israel will not be able to
survive the next war. Obama celebrated by sending William Burns of the
CFR to Damascus to announce the impending new American ambassador
to Syria. Moreover, no one paid any attention to the coordination of the
King's visit and this diplomatic about face. And is no secret that both Carlos
and Obama are out to get Israel and the cabal against USA sovereign
policy and national security interest is led by the Jesuit-trained King of
Spain, Juan Carlos, and as we know, Juan Carlos believes he is a
descendent of Jesus himself and the title he is proudest of is Custodian of
the Holy Sites Of Jerusalem. He wants the Jews out of Jerusalem and the
Vatican back in, as Juan Carlos believes he is the King of Jerusalem. With
a few twists, he will get his throne back. The setup for the endgame began
after Israel's disastrous war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. The
leaders of the world met in Rome and appointed a UN army, 80% from

Catholic Europe, to separate Israel from Hezbollah. Just before meeting

Obama, Juan Carlos dropped in on the UN’s newest Security Council
member, Lebanon, for dinner and a meeting with the new Spanish
commander of the UN separation troops. We were not there but we will
safely assume the discussion had nothing to do with stopping the upcoming
war, and lots to do with ignoring Hezbollah launching tens of thousands of
rockets at Israel. King Juan Carlos is the New Hadrian!
43. That SMOM member Juan Carlos was also the principal instigator of
the North American Union and principal investor in the Texas Trans-
corridor Highway system using the Law firm of SMOM member Rudolf
Giuliani that fits into the Regional Planning Association,
hfl~:/-.Amedw2050. om (see Endnotes p. xi) plans of its sponsor entities in
conjunction with efforts of David Rockefeller, Robert Pastor, Anthony Lake,
George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Zbignew Brezinski whose Trilateral
Commission based in Georgia had TheAtlanta Journal-Constitution,in
September 7,2001 publish the editorial announcement that called for North
American integration that therein stated “ The ultimate goal of any White
House policy ought to be a NoHh Amerl‘can economic and political alliance
similar in scope and ambition to the European Union.”
44. That Defendant Obama’s Indonesian Citizenship and multiple
allegiances enabled the SMOM through its member knights especially
Zbigniew Brzezinski to implement operations in Indonesia, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, China and other countries including Africa where travel by U.S.

Citizens on an American passport was prohibited or raised questionable

allegiance in those authorities as to the purpose of travel into those
countries for the Vatican controlled Central Intelligence Agency and SMOM.
So where does Barack Hussein Obama’s allegiance reside?
45. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a sworn oath of allegiance to the Roman
Catholic Pope and to the leader of the SMOM who is now His Most Eminent
Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra’ Matthew Festing (see Endnote p. x) 9
and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law.
46. As a member of the Knights of Malta, and by virtue of your blood oath
of obedience to the Pope and the Jesuit General Nicholas, a member is
required to support to the death the desires of the head of the Order of the
Knights of Malta-in this case Grand Master Festing, Pope Benedict XVI and
Jesuit General Nicholas, and is over and above any other allegiance one
may feel or pretend to feel toward any other loyalty such as a loyalty to the
Constitution for the United States of America; Barry Soetoro’s (alkla Barack
Hussein Obama), or whatever name he is using at the time, allegiance is to
chain of command of his “White Papal Masters”- see Exhibit L.
47. It does not really matter what kind of religious or political affiliation a
member professes, when they-take an oath as a Knight, they are obligated
by that blood oath of obedience to follow the political lead of the Vatican
and will do so to their dying breath as all good Knights of Malta do. Their
first loyalty is to the Vatican, anything else is secondary.
48. Those who are presently members of the Knights of Malta must on

penalty of death support those policies advocated by the Vatican. The

polices which are espoused and proclaimed by the office of the Pope are:
1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries.

2.End of absolute property rights.
3.End of all gun rights.
4. The new international economic Order (world government).
5. The redistribution of wealth and jobs.
6. Calls for nations to trust the United Nations.
7. Total disarmament.
8. Promote the United Nations as the hope for peace.
9. Promote UNESCO, the deadly educational and cultural arm of the
United Nations.
IO. Promote interdependence.
11. Support sanctions honoring Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-the
New Age Humanist Priest.
. 12.Support the belief that the economic principle of traditional
Christian or Catholic social doctrine is the economic principle of
communism (Social Justice Progressivism).
13.Promote the Pope as the acting go-between the USA and USSR.
49. That the Usurper and his cohorts, including the Federal Reserve
Chairman Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Gary Locke, SMOM member Janet
Napolitano, SMOM member Leon Panetta, SMOM member Mueller, Hillary
Clinton, Ken Salazar and others are systematically looting the living
standard and posterity of Affiant and those similarly situated, and now
compounded by the U.S. District Court of the Washington District of
Columbia failure to provide substantive due process and equal protection of
law in the Quo Warranto demand- is justice delayed therefore justice
denied causing irreparable harm and National Security disaster.

UNLAWFUL SUSPENSION OF THE PATRIOT ACT

50. Instead of simply asking how many adults live at your address, the
government will ask you a series of questions designed to justify more
government spending and intrusion in your life.
51. If for some reason you'neglect to return your survey, they will send
a government temporary worker to your home and try to harass you into
answering their questions. If that does not work, they will send spies to
your neighbors and see if they will tell them what they want to know.
52. The question before the Court for a preliminary injunction is the
Census Bureau really able to fine you $5000 for not telling them your
private information, when it is worth keeping your private information from
the government other than citizenship status and place of domicile.
53, The federal government used Census data to round up Japanese
Citizens and put them in internment camps during WWII. The IRS has used
"confidential" information in the past to launch investigations and there are
other examples of various government prosecutorial agencies using
information that was supposed to be "confidential" to launch
investigations. So is your desire for privacy going to cost you $5000?
54. Obama's actions along with his agents under color of law are murky,
and pose a real threat to Petitioner and those similarly situated, is the
maximum penalty only $100, or is it $5000 to pay for privacy?.
55. The web-site for the Census Bureau warns of the penalty for failing to
comply with either survey request is found in Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221:

A. That with this section, refusing to provide the requested

information or neglecting to complete either survey subjects you
to a fine of not more than $100.00.
B. That willfully giving information that is false has a fine of not
more than $500.00.
56. That what appears as the Census Bureau misrepresentation of
federal law is designed to harass, coerce and violate the 5'h and gth
amendment rights of the American people, presumably so they will provide
the requested information, the Census Bureau statement in reference to
section 221 penalties referenced above, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and
Section 3559, arbitrarily under color of law in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C.
Section 221 changes the fine from not more than $100 to not more than
$5,000 for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to
complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers.
57. A review of Title 18 shows it is entitled: "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE." Section 3559 is entitled: "Sentencing classification of
offenses." Section (a) states: "Classification.--An offense that is not
specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified
if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized at subsection (9) is five
days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.
58. Further, with the Section 3571 rubric "Sentence of fine." Subsection
(a) states: "A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be
sentenced to pay a fine." Sub-section (b) states in part: "...an individual who
has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the
greatest of at clause (7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000." ; and that

this is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau
that matches the provision in section 3559 above.
59. The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction
fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted
of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559; and unless an individual
is charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the
Census, the crime is classified as an infraction, and as such the $5,000.00
fine does not apply.
60. Therefore, the Census Bureau assertion that the referenced sections
changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is an outrageous fraud, very
much the same way as bogus ads being run on radio and television are
misrepresentations to be turned off or channel switched.
ARGUMENT FOR RELIEF
The Supreme Court and other courts have said that a citizen has a right
to receive protection and safety from the government in return for which he
gives allegiance to that government. As Justice Waite in United States v.
Cruiksahank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) said, the right to receive protection is not
only a right that belongs to the collective society but also to the individual. It
is the individual's right to receive protection from the government, which
was the reason that the Founders constituted the new federal Constitutional
Republic, believing that the individual would be better, protected if there
were a unified national government to provide that protection.
Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts hidher allegiance to
the government in exchange for its protection, which includes the

government providing for the person's safety, security, and tranquility.

Under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, a person is
entitled to life, liberty, and property and cannot be deprived of those rights
by the government without due process of law. Hence, under the
Constitution, a person is entitled to receive from the government its
protection of hidher life, liberty, and propetty. These components
necessarily include the right to safety, security, and tranquility.
Can one reasonably deny that persons should have a right to protect
themselves? The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendment recognize that
citizens have the right to vote for their representatives and protect that right.
Citizens exercise their right to protect themselves by voting for
representatives in whom they entrust their life, liberty, and property and
expect these representatives to best protect their safety, security, and
tranquility. Hence, if persons are expected to vote for those representatives
whom they believe will best protect them and that right is protected by the
Constitution, a person also has a constitutional right to bring an action
under the Fifth Amendment against the federal government andlor its
agents to demand that the government continue to provide him/her with the
protection he is entitled under the Constitution.
The sovereign power in our Constitutional Republic lies with the people
and the Constitution they established to limit the power of the Federal
government and thus the Congress and its members who are part of that
government. See Cbisholm v. Georuia, 2 U.S. (2Dall.) 419 (1793) (explains
that it is the people who are sovereign in our Constitutional Republic). Any

party to a contract has standing to enforce it.

The US. Constitution is a contract or social compact between the
people, the states, and the federal government that defines and limits the
role of the federal government and the rights of the states and the people. It
is the Constitution as a social compact and the citizenship contract itself
between a citizen and the government that provides the citizen individually
with that right to protection, safety, security, and tranquility. Hence, the right
to receive protection, safety, security, and tranquility from the government
is a personal contractual right that belongs to one who is a citizen of the
United States. Petitioner along with those similarly situated as citizens of
the United States and part of the people thereof, are parties to this contract.
They therefore have standing to enforce requirements of Article II "natural
born Citizen" clause as Petitioner suffers an injury in relation thereto.
For sure, Obama, if he were a legitimate President and regardless of
whether they voted for him or not, would have the constitutional duty under
the Fifth Amendment to provide for the Petitioner's protection, safety,
security, and tranquility. In return, being assured that he was a "natural
born Citizen" and otherwise eligible for his office, they would trust him and
therefore consent to submit to his legal authority over them. That legal
authority is substantial and affects every aspect of their lives. See Dept. Of
the Navy v. €uan+ 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (explains how the President has
authority over our military and national security affairs and is central to
protecting our national security and our highly sensitive national security
information so that it does not get into the hands of our enemies; and how

an agency of the Executive Branch can remove an employee from

government employment for lack of retaining a security clearance and the
risk he poses to the national security interests of the United States).
The President and Commander in Chief as the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer Administrator and Trustee wields enormous power over the
Petitioner's and others lives. He is the Chief Executive and Commander of
all the military force and law enforcement. As such, he has the
constitutional obligation to protect them from enemies both foreign and
domestic. Hence, given that the President regularly makes life and death
decisions, it cannot be denied that Petitioner is personally and directly
affected in a concrete way by everything the President does and does not
do. The Court can take judicial notice of former Vice President, Dick
Cheney's actual words regarding Obama's administration's request to move
the trial of the 9/11 conspirators to New York City. Cheney's words were: "I
tbink it's likely to give encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy."
Concerning Obama, we are not attacking the wisdom or soundness of
government action or asking the Court to assume any authority over some
other co-equal branch of government. Petitioner's action against him is not
an action against the government. Affiant is not suing Obama because
Petitioner does not like him, because of a generalized feeling of discomfort
about his occupying the Office of President, or because Petitioner has
suffered undefined psychological harm. Rather, Petitioner maintains that he
does not meet the textual "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirements of
Article 2, a requirement that he must meet prior to executive power

legitimately vesting in him under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. He must

meet this objective constitutional requirement regardless of what the
Petitioner may personally believe or how the Petitioner may feel about him.
Regarding Congress, in its ministerial duty by the Vice President
Counting the Electoral votes under the 12'h amendment President Cheney
failed to ascertain whether or not Obama were qualified by polling those
house / senate members gathered as if it were optional when it is a
mandatory ministerial duty that in fact was breached under the Twentieth
Amendment by failing to make sure that Obama meets that textual eligibility
requirement of the "natural born Citizen" clause of Article II which provides
protection to Petitioner and those similarly situated lives, liberty and
property by assuring them that the person to occupy the Office of President
will have the loyalty and allegiance needed to adequately protect their
safety, security, and tranquility.
Obama's allegiance and loyalty to the United States determines how he
exercises his duty to protect the citizen Petitioner. If Obama is not an Article
2 "natural born Citizen," Petitioner cannot trust him to protect them. In such
a case, Petitioner has a right under the Fifth Amendment to bring an action
against both Obama and Congress in which they seek to protect their own
life, liberty, and property, including their safety, security, and tranquility, and
to have Obama removed from office because he is not a "natural born
Citizen." The Petitioner has these real and concrete life and death needs.
Any injury to these rights is indeed a concrete Injury.

Wherefore , Affiant respectfully requests an original proceeding trial

before the Circuit panel and that the panel order a response of District
Judges in regards to an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for:
(i) the equal protection issues that arise between the Census ‘short
form’ and ‘long form’ in the matter of enumerating citizens and or
permanent resident aliens; (a) for additional census mailers sent to
Personal Mail Boxes and Post Office Boxes;
(ii) to restore the New York Electoral College to 47 members as use
of 13 USC 5141 to reduce same to the present 31 is a violation of the 14‘h
Amendment Section 2;
(iii) A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U.S.
House of Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of
(iv) Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the
Census;
(v) Disclosure of the origin of US. Senator Obama’s official passport;
(vi) Declaratory judgment :
(a) on the matter of enforcement of the Logan Act as we have no
Chief Law Enforcement Officer with the Usurper;
(b) on the Census Bureau overreaching in violation of the 5‘h and gth
amendment protections in regards to the Census Bureau statement in
reference to section 221 penalties referenced above, Title 18 U.S.C.
Section 3571 and Section 3559, arbitrarily under color of law in effect
amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 changes the fine from not

.more than $100 to not more than $5,000 for anyone over 18 years old who
refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer
questions posed by census takers; (vil) that any response by other
respondents be heard expeditiously accordingly as time is of the essence
with imminent irreparable harm that would result to Affiant and those
similarty situated; and (viii) that this Court provide further and different relief
0
as it deems necessary for justice herein.
That Affirmant has read the above and I know its contents as an
expert witness; the facts stated in the Petition are true to my own personal
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: 3d parties, books and records, and personal
knowledge, except as to those stated upon information and belief, which I
believe to be true.
Christopher -Earl : Strunk 0 in esse

Sworn to before me this
-.
..
-/f
--
the
---
day of March 2010
...*. ---..
I
.,.-. - . 4 =.
.-*
\
1
I
Boani of Ekctiotzs
in the City of New Yo& . J
US POSTAGE PAID
Brooklyn office
345 Adams Street, 4th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 797-8800
TEMP. RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Your Important Voting Iitformation
ED:071
WHERETO VICTE: Your,ElectiodAssembly District is: . AD:57REP
q3Fq ?E&&
YaurPollsiteis: sUCentrodeVotaci6nes= !?VJM!~~KI&%&&~:
PS 9 New
- 80-WAvenue
ENTER THRUENTRE POR Bergerr sbeet
-
WyEN TO VIITE: Primary Election: Tuesday; September 15,2009

Run-Off Primary (if necessary): Tuesday, September 29,2009
General Election: Tuesday, November 3, 2009
’
I Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02125/10 Page 1 of 13
Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09cv-I295

U
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER

(aka “CHRIS”) S T R W K jus ta-tii Peopls,
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281 Brooklyn New York t 1238
845-901-6767 PlaintilTs : Civil No.: 09-cv-1295
Hon. Richard J. Leon
V.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (BOC)et al.
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RECENT DECIS?ON AND DISPOSITION OF LOCAL

RULE 9.1 MOTION FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 9 I746 that:
Declarant 1 Plaintitf, hereby provides the Court with notice of a recent order by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York. The decision and order, issued in Forio,re
et 02. v. the State ofCaliforniaet 02. No. 06-CV-1002 (NDNYFebruary 19,2010),renders Mr.
Fojone’s request with 28 USC 6 1407 moots as it is now a matter on appeal to the Second Circuit
that shodd takes setlercli months to resolve. A copy ofthe cmirt’s decision and order is attached
to this notice. The nudge given to Judge Kahn by Mr. Forjone and myself to takes that case off
the Congressional list of yencling matters requiring continuing funding there in NDNY; however,
does not change the fact that there i s an urgent matter with a deadline of March IS, 201 0 in the
mailing of the 2010 Census Questionnaire to be done without the two required questions “Are
you a citizen?” and or “Are you a permanent resident alien’?”
RECEIVED
Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 13
S k u n k V. US Department oCComr11erceBureau oLf Census et ai. K D li%v- 1295
'!'he 1,CvK 9.?Motion fer 3 three judge panel rerngins open 2nd there is ~i
fhilute here in
this District tiom the get go to comply with focal rules speciticaily LCvR 40.3 (b) ('I Cor the
Manner of Random Assignment of a District Judge to determine a three judge court that remains
unresolved, notwithstandhg alf thc v a ~ o u sMotions to Dismiss by the Dcfhdants, and the
concern of imparable h a m with time as the essence involved in disseminating the bogus
questionnaire to hrther the amnesty bill without knowing the actual number of "l'ourists"
transients and persons of a diplomatic relation to be obfiiscated without the two questions asked.
If the Court does not act expeditiously by March 1,2010 to resolve this matter, D e c l m t must
tile an emergency Original injunction t
Dated: February ,
Brooklyn New York
Christopher -Earl: Strunk Qin esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281
HrookIyn New York 11238
Phone; (845) 901 6767
Email: chris(ii%strunk.ws
Attachment: Decision and Order NDNY 06-cv-1002 (February 19,2010)
cc: The Honorable Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth

Defendants Counsels
' LCvR 40.3 MANNER OF ASSIGNMENT (a) RANDOM ASSIGNMENT.

Except ;IS othcnvise providd hy these Rules, civil, cn'mind and miscellaneous cases
shaI1 be assigned to judges of this court selected at random in the following manner:
(b) THREE-JUDGE COURT CASES. Civil, including miscellaneous, cases requested or
required to be heard by a Three-Judge Court shail be randomly assigned to a District Court
judge, excluding the Chief Judge.
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN-JOSEPI-1 FORJONE, el id.,
Plaintiffs:
V. 1 :06-CV-1002 (LEWRFT)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et ut.,
Defenrla~nts
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in the Western District of New York asserting
various constitutional violations and other claims arising out of the National Voter Registration Act, 42
U.S.C. 5 1973gg, et seq.?and the Hclp America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. 9 15301 et seq. (“HAVA”).
Among other things, Plaintiffs appear to claim that at least some of the Defendants wronghlly counted
the voting age population (“VAP”) (including illegal aliens and deceased persons), rather than using
the citizen voting age population (“CVAP”), and thereby used imprecise numbers in redistricting and
determining oligibiiity for funds under the HAVA. Plaintiffs also appear to assert a violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. tj 1961 et seq., and the False
Claims Act, 3 1 U.S.C. 5 3729, et seq. Am.Compl. (Dkt. No. 26) at 7 1 . Plaintiffs request a three
judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
I BACKGROUN 1)
In ruling upon ccrtaiii rnoliws bcfixe it, tiiz Wcsttrn District of Ny,t ’r‘ork ~ g t e dti23t tI?c‘
Cornplaint:
can only be described as,inferczlin,disjointed, unintelligiblc, convoluted, confusing ‘and prolix.

It is presented in such a manner that the Court, and the defendants. . , simply cannot determine
what the plaintiffs are alleging. . . . ‘[he Complaint names approximately 70 defendants,
including what appears to be most of the counties in New York State and the States of New
York, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, . . . and Oregon, and, at its heart
appears to complain about the manner in which New York and other States are implementing
[HAVA] . . . . The complaint also appears to raise concerns about how New York and its
counties have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA and how the State has drawn its
congressional, legislative and judicial districts. . . . [Blecause of the manner in which the
complaint is pled the Court can make little sense, if any, of what the defendants arc alleged to
have done or what they have failed to do in relation to HAVA or how those actions or failures
to act are actionable.
Dkt. No. 24 at 1-2.
Plaintiffs were ordered to “show cause, in writing, no later than May 1,2006, why this
action should riot be dismissed or transferred . . . arid why sanctions should not be imposed against
them. . . .” -
Id. at 7. The Order also directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that “simply and
concisely informs the Court and the defendants in plain terms what they are alleging the defendants did
or did not do . . . and how those actions or inactions are a violation of HAVA or some other federal or
state statute, law or constitutional provision.” Id.at 3. Plaintiffs were warned that “failure to file an
amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and IO aiid sets forth in a comprehensibIe
manner claims upon which relief can be granted, wili lead to the dismissal of this action.” Plaintiffs
also were instructed that, because they are proceeding pro se, they must delete references to any
associations or organizations on whose behalf they claimed to be suing. The Western District’s Order
.
further noted that:
at least five of the plaintiffs in this matter had filed in 2004 xr,. similar action in the United
;f
States District Court for the Northern District of New York . . . Loeber v. Spargo, 04-cv-I 193.
. . . [A] number of the plaintiffs filed declarations or affidavits which clearly intimate that the
two actioiis are siniilar aid that a reason fix filing the instant action arid to seek a change of
venue for Loeber to this Court is because they are no? pleased ttith the manner in which the
Loeber’ case is proceeding.
Because the Loeber case was similar to, and filed prior to this case, the Western District transferred the
case to this Court. Dkt. No. 100.
On August 17,2006, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 26.
Attfacliedthereto as Exhibit E? was :j proposed Amerided Complaint. The proposed Amended
Complaint is 57 pages long (nearly twice as long as the original complaint) and continues to be
“disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, conhsing and prolix.” Plaintiftk did not file the proposed
Amended Compiaint. It similarly appears that Plaintiffs did not serve the Amended Complaint on
I
Defendants, See. e.g., Mem. by N.Y. State Att’y General and NY State Sec’y of State in Supp. of Mot.
to Dismiss (Dkt. No 29) at 3.
The First Cause of Action of the proposed Amended Complaint alleges a failure to enforce the
National Voter Registration Act. In sum, this claim alleges that various states have failed to prevent
non-citizens from voting in elections. Plaintiffs contend that, by allowing non-citizens to vote, their
votes have been efkctively diluted. The Second Cause of Action claims that the Election Assistance
Commission (“EAC”) and the Department of Justice have improperly certified false state HAVA
submissions. The Third Cause of Action contends that the EAC has intentionally promoted, facilitated,
aided and abetted illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and certain other States.
’The Fourth Cause of Action alleges that the New York State Board of Elections intentionally and
maliciously failcd to maintain a statewide central database that ~ v o d denable municiplities ic3 tserify
inactive voters. According to Plaintiffs, this causes various municipalities to receive a disproportionate
I
By Orders dated January 8, 2008 aiid July 3 I , 2068, this Court dismissed the claims in the
Loeber case. The matter is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
- 3 -
Case I:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 6 of 13
share of election-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth
cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “Defcndimt New York state Municipal subdk isions . . .
intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by
municipal bases as required under color of N V M and HAVA and New York State EIection Law.”
Plaintiffs allege that, if other states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to
the State of New York and, as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property
taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Causo of Action alleges that the States of
California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states “intentionally fail to
maintain an accurate voter registration database” as required by federal and state law.
Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, “voting is being rapidly undermined by
illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens,” the strength of their votes is being diluted, their right to
free speech and freedom of association is being infringed, their “suffrage rights” are being
“disenfranchise[d] . . . by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs [sic] proprietary
tangible suffrage property,” they are suffering “reverse discrimination,” they are being deprived of a
republican form of government, they are being denied substantive due process and are being subjected
to a taking of property for the “unfiuded maidate as done under the Medicaid t u levy without notice
and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy,” and they are being deprived of
“Homerule autonomy” and equal protection of the law against false HAVA claims.
Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Cornplaint md Amended Complaint.
Although Pkaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated brief in opposition to the
motions, they h a w f d c d to do so.
-4
Case ?:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 7 of 13
11. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fcdcral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(G), ”it complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”’ Ashcroft v. Iabal, --- U S . ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations made by the non-moving
party iis true and “draw a11 inferences in the light must favorable” to the non-moving party. In re
NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89,95 (2d Cir. 2007). “The movant’s burden is very
substantial, as ‘[tlhe issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”’ Log On America. Inc. v. Promethean
Asset Msmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435,441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of
Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (internai quotation and citations omitted)). With this standard
in mind,the Court will address the pending Motions to dismiss.
111. DISCUSSION
a. Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order
By Order dated March 28,2036, the Western District of New York directed Plainticfs io fik
an amended complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 1,
2006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that “in the event plaintiffs fail to file
an amended complaint as directed above by h4ay 1 , 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed with
prejudice without further order of the Court.” Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,
Plaintiffs havs neither filed the rcqi:isifc m e n d e d complaint 1101-served it on Defendants. Raintiffs
were warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Because Plaintiffs have
Case 1:09-cv-0?295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 8 of 13
failed to comply with the Court's prior order by tiling an amended complaint this action must be
DISMISSED.
b. Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10
Rule 8(3)(2) of the Federal Rules ofCivi1 Procedure requires 3 complaint to contain a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As noted, Plaintiffs
were directed by the Court to submit an amended pleading that complies with the requirements of
' Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructed
how to remedy the deticiencies, and given the opportuaity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also were
warned of the consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerous
motions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply with
Rule 8 and the Court's prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort to
submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adhering to the Court's warning and the dictates
of Rule 8(a)(2), P!aintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and more
convoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance of irrelevant and othenvise
immaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to
irrelevant treaties. In most instances the proposed Amended Cornplaint fails to allege how the named
Defendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity of the proposed Amended Complaint places
an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respond
to it. See Salahuddin v. Cuorno, 86 1 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all blotions to
-6 -
Case 1:09-c\i-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02125110 Page 9 of 13
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Cornplaint on the
ground that Plaintiffs lack standing2 Article HI, $ 2, d. 1 of the Constitution extends the judicial
r ,
power only to actual “cxjes” or ”coiitroversies.” I he doctriiit: of staiding preforms a critical role in
assuring the limits to judicial power imposed by this case-or-controversy requirement. See Allen v.
Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 75 1 (1 984). “’In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.”’ Id.at 750-5 1
(quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 US. 490,498 (1975)).
Three elements form the “irreducible constitutional rninirnum of standing.” LLGU v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). These are:
First, the plaintiff 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 “fairIy . . .tracerable] to the chaIIenged 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 decisi on. ”
-
Id. at 560-6 1 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the Supreme Court has noted
that where a plaintiff is challenging government action or inaction, and “the plaintiff is not himself the
object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily
‘substantiaiIy more difficult’ to establish.” Id.3t 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).
The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended CompIaint consistently fail to allege any
concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the
Defendants. Throughout their twelve causes of action, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries and
I ,
The remaining Jiscussiori assumes, cirgiienticj, that the Cornplaint andlor proposed
-
Aincndcd Complaint comply with the Court’s prior Order and Rules 8 and 10.
-7-
Case t09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 30 of 13
generalized grievances, 'and, hrthcrrnore, leave unclear how any of the alleged harms could be
redressed by a favorabie result in the courts. Where, as in the Ninth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs appear
to specify a concrete injury, the taking of their property through real property taxes collected to cover
the costs of HAVA, their claim still fails. Plaintiffs do not allege that property taxes have increased
because of the need to cover a shortfall in HAVA funding, that there is a shortfall in HAVA funding, or
that there could be any such a shortfall because, as explained in Loeber, HAVA requires states to adopt
certain voting requirements regardless of any federa1 funding. 2008 WL I I 1172, at -*4.
In short, Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to allege any concrete injury. Moreover,
for the reasons stated by this Court in Loeber, Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the
requirements of the NVRA or Titles I or II of the HAVA. 2008 WL 11 1172, at "4-5; see also Kalsson
v. U.S. Federal Election Com'n, 356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. ZOOS) (plaintiff did not have standing
despite his allegation that his vote was diluted because the NVRA results in more people registering to
vote than otherwise would be the case), aff'd, 159 Fed. Appx. 326 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Amalfitano
v. United States, 2001 WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7,2001), aff'd, 21 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2001). In
any event, the NVRA imposes obligations upon states; not counties. 42 U.S.C. tj 1973gg-2(a). For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs lack standing, thereby providing another basis for dismissal.
d, Failure to State a Claim
1. New York Attorney General and New York Secretary of State
The Ncw York Attorney Gcncral and Secretary of State move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint against them on the ground that it fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them. 'The
Arneridsd Complaint illazkes little referctxe to f k s e Defh.hnts atid does riot allege any acts
attributable to these Defendants or any other personal involvement by them. The Amended Complaint
also fails to articulate how these Defendants’ actions have harmed Plaintiffs or how any claimed injury
could be redressed by a favorable judgment. Accordingly, this provides another basis for dismissing
the Cornplaint 3s to the New Yerk Shte Attorney General and Secretary of State.
2. Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Alfegany, Cayuga, Chemung,

Clinton, Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fukon, Hurkimer, Livingston,
Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego, Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca,
St. Lawrence, Steu ben, TIoga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Y ates,
Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and the City
of New York
Defendants Counties of Lewis, Erie, Genessee, Aliegany, Cayuga, Chemung, Clinton,
Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego,
Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,
Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and Defendant City of New York also move to
dismiss on the ground that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them.
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action broadly speaks to the “Defendant New York State Municipal
subdivisions . . . intentional[] fail[ure] to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a
municipal by municipal bases as required under color of NVKA and HAVA.” Out of all the named
1
Defendant counties, Plaintiffs reside in only two - Erie and Genessee. Inasmuch as none of the
Plaintiffs reside in any of the other Counties, the Amended Complaint fails to explain how any actions
I
by these other Counties or the City of New York caused harm to them. Moreover, neither the NVRA 1
nor thc HAVA imposc ally obligations upon counties or the City of New York. & 42 U.S.C. 5
1 973gg (imposing certain requirements O R “each State”). Accordingly, this provides another basis for
dismissal of the Complaint andlor proposed Amended Complaint as to all the County Defendants and
the Cily of New York.

3. States of Texas, California, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, and New

iVex i co
'The States of Texas and New Mexico move to dismiss for failure to state a claim against
them. As with the claims against the various New York State Counties, and bearing in mind that
Plaintiffs do not have standing concerning the distribution of hnds under HAVA, Plaintiffs do not
allsge any conduct by thesc States that c ~ u s e dharm to ttrem. None of the Haintiffs reside in any of
these States. Plaintiffs similarly fail to assert a basis for personal jurisdiction over these States. The
same reasoning applies to the claims against the Scales ol' Owgui, Califimia, Nevada, and Arizona.
This provides another ground for dismissal of the Complaint as to all the Defendant States.
11. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hcreby
ORDERED that all pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the Complaint and
proposed Amended Complaint are DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 19,2010

Albany, New York
U.S. District Judge \
- '10 -
Case 1:09-cv-0?295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 13 of 13
Stniak v. IJS Department ot-Commerce Bureau ofCensus et al. I X D 09-c~-1235
Uiiitt'd States District Cowts for the

District of Columbia - Strtrrik v. Cis' De@. of'commerce Brrreazi qf Censzis ek nl. 09-cv-1295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On February 24, 2010, I, Christopher Earl Stnink, declare and certify tinder penalty of perjury
pursuant to 28 USC 1746:
That 1 caused the service of seven ( 7 ) copies of PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RECENT

DECISION AND DISPOSITION OF LOCAL RULE 9.1 MOTION FOR A THREE-
JUDGE COURT with the decision and order from FOMONE ETAL I? CALIFORNIA ET
AL. NDNY 06-CV- 1802 (LEK) with annexed in 09-cv-1295 signed February 2 4 2 0 IO, and that
each complete set was placed in a sealed folder properIy addressed with proper postage for
United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon:
The Honorable Royce C. Laniberth Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.

Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
'i'he Washington District of Columbia GENERAL
333 Constitution Avenue NW P.O. Box 12548
Washington DC 20001 A L I S ~TX
~ R ,7871 I
Wyllne P.Kelly Seth E. Goldstein,

Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Attorney General
555 4th St., N.W. California Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530 ORce of the Attorney General
I300 ''I" Street - Suite 125
John Marcus McNichols, Esq. Sacramento, California 94244-2550
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
725 12th Street, N W Stephen Kitzinger,
Washington, DC 20005 Assistant Corporatioil Counsel
New York City Law Department
John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. OfTice of Corporation Counsel
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 100 Church Street
1 SO West Main Street - P.O. Rox 3037 New York, New York 10007
Norfolk, VA 235 14
Dated: Februa
Brooklyn, New York
4C w p h e r - Earl :Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn, New York 12238
Phone (845)901-6767
Emaik chris@stmnk.ws
Case I :09-cv-01295-RJL Document 37 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1

1
Plaintiff, 1
1
V. ) Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE )
CENSUS, et al., 1
1
Defendants. )
DISMISSAL ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket “Plaintiffs Response Declaration in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Defendants The Maryland Province of the
Society of Jesus and Fr. Timothy B. Brown, S.J.” as his opposition to the motion to dismiss [#lo]
filed on behalf of Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown, and shall
docket “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” as his opposition to
Defendant City of New York and Michael Bloomberg’s Motion to Dismiss [#25]; it is fiu-ther
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a three judge panel [Dkt. #3 J is DENIED; it is
further
ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss [Dkt. ## 10, 13, 16,21, 22, and 251 are
GRANTED; it is further
-1-
C
Case 1:09-cv-OI295-RJL Document 37 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2
ORDERED that all claims against John Does, Jane Does, and XYZ Entities are
DISMISSED, and that these defendants are DISMISSED as party defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED.
This is a final appealabIe Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
SO ORDERED. t
RICHARD J . ’ W
United States District Judge
-2-
Case I :09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36 Filed 03/17/10 Page I of IO

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, )

1
Plaintiff, 1
1
V. ) Civil Action No. 09-1295 (WL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE 1
CENSUS, et al., )
1
Defendants . 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court has
considered defendants’ motions, plaintiffs oppositions and defendants’ replies, and concludes
that the complaint must be dismissed. Accordingly, defendants’ motions will be granted.
1. BACKGROUND
The Court is mindful that the complaint of apro se plaintiff is liberally construed, as it is
held to a less stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See
Hairzes v. Kerizer, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (1972). Here, plaintiff sets forth in 136 sequentially
numbered paragraphs both factual allegations and legal conclusions that can be summarized as
follows: The defendants, acting in concert, are counting in the 2010 census persons whom
plaintiff labels “tourists.” Tourists are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the United
States, and, according to plaintiff, they should not be counted for the purpose of apportioning
Congressional representation. Because defendants improperly are counting tourists in the 20 10
-1-
census, plaintiff asserts that he is disenfranchised - the strength of his vote is diluted. For
example, plaintiff aileges that the number of Congressional representatives from New York will
be reduced if tourists are counted, and the number of representatives from Texas and California,
among other states with large tourist populations, will be increased, such that states in the
Southwestern region of the United States will be able to exercise greater power in Congress to
plaintiffs detriment. Further, according to plaintiff, counting tourists unconstitutionally
naturalizes these persons notwithstanding provisions of federal immigration law, and brings
about the ongoing theft of his property, for example, through the use of taxpayer hnds to provide
tourists medical care, public education, and other social services.
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 15 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and various other
statutes, alleging violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth,
Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments to the United
States Constitution. See Compl. 17 1-2. Among other relief, plaintiff demands a declaratory
judgment that tourists are not permanent residents to be counted in the 2010 Census, injunctive
relief barring fbrther census taking until such time as a questionnaire asks whether a person is a
United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with a green card, and unspecified reparations
for the spiritual and temporal injuries he has suffered. See id. at 29-30.
-2-
II. DISCUSSION’
A. Disipiissul Uiider Rule 12(b)(I)
1. Standing
Ail defendants move to disiniss on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to bring a
claim challenging the 20 10 census. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of [Defs. Maryland Province of
the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown] [Dkt. #lo-21 at 4-6; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot.
to Dismiss the Compl. by Defs. New York Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Gerald
Chojnacki, S.J. [Dkt. #14] at 8-9; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. State of Texas’ Mot. to
Dismiss (“Texas Mem.”) [Dkt. #16-2] at 4-6; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Fed. Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss (“Fed. Defs.’ Mern.”) [Dkt. #21] at 5-7; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. State of
California’s Mot. to Dismiss (“California Mem.”) [Dkt. #22-11 at 5-6; Def. City of New York
and Michael BIoomberg’s Mern. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. #25-11 at 4-6.
The Court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies, US.CONST.art. 111, 5 2,
and a core element of Article HI’S case-or-controversy requirement is that a plaintiff have
standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,561 (1992). At the outset, to
establish standing, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s
allegedly unlawful conduct and IikeIy to be redressed by the requested reIief.” Allelz V. Wright,
468 U.S. 737, 75 1 (1984). Thus, a party has standing if his claims ‘‘spring from a1 ‘injury in
fact’ - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized,’ ‘actuat or
imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed
1
For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court presumes without deciding
that it has personal jurisdiction over all defendants, and, therefore, does not address defendants’
arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-
Case I:09-cv-O1295-RJL Document 36 Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 10
by a Favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Zrrc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of ?ViZdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560-61). If, at any time, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h).
In Fed’rifor Am. Irmigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980), a
three-judge panel considered the constitutionality of the I980 census and the plaintiffs’ assertion
that the 1980 census would ‘‘fail to establish the number of illegal aliens in the country, or the
states and districts within which they live,” resuIting in “in the inclusion of a Iarge but preseiitiy
unascertainable number of illegal aliens in the population figures which form the basis for the
apportionment of United States Representatives among the states, the apportionment by many
states of their congressional and state officials among districts, and the distribution of federal
funds for a variety of programs.” Id. at 565. According to the plaintiffs, “the votes of persons in
some states or regions [would] be diluted in comparison to those in the states and regions with a
large illegal alien population, and those same persons may [have], as residents of the
disadvantaged states or regions, also receive[d] a lesser share of federal monies.” Id. at 566. The
plaintiffs argued that “inclusion of illegal aliens in fact defeat[ ed] the purpose of apportionment;
equal representation for equal numbers of peopie of the United States,” and they demanded
“declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring the Census Bureau to use its best efforts to count
iilegal aliens separately and exclude them from the apportionment base.” Id. at 567-68 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The panel concluded that the plaintiffs could “do no more than
speculate as to which states might gain and which might Iose representation.” Id. at 570. And,
because the plaintiffs could not establish that the relief they demanded would inure to their
pcrsona1 benefit, their claims were dismissed for lack of standing. Id. at 578.
-4-
Similarly, in Sliurrow v. Browrt, 447 F.2d 94 (26 Cir. 1971), cert. clenied, 405 U.S. 968
(1972), the plaintiff argued that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendmcnt (which the Second
Circuit designated “14/2”) requires the Census Bureau to “compile statistics on the number of
male adults in each State whose right to vote is denied or abridged, so that the House of
Representatives may be properly apportioned.” Id. at 96.* He claimed standing to sue on the
basis of his residence in New York State, which had “lost six representatives in Congress as a
direct result of the Census Bureau’s failure to compile” statistics as 14/2 required. Id. He argued
that the proper enforcement of 14/2 would have “result[ed] in & increase in the representation of
New York State in the House of Representatives, and, therefore, that, derivatively, he, as a
citizen of New York, [would] receive an augmented voice in congressional matters.” Id. The
Second Circuit found that the plaintiff could not “establish that the failure to enforce 1412 has
resulted. in a detriment to his rights of representation in Congress[.]” Id. at 97.
In this case, plaintiff fares no better. He alleges that his “causes of action arise in
conjunction [with] the decennial 2010 Census,” Compl. 7 1, and that defendants’ collective act of
2
In relevant part, the Fourteenth Amendment states:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their

respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors
for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress,
the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature
thereof, is denied to any ofthe male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years
of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of rcpresentation therein shaII be
reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
U.S. CONST.amend. X N , § 2.
-5-
counting tourists causes him “spiritual and temporal injuries,” id. at 1 (introductory paragraph),
among which is the dilution of his vote. Plaintiff is but one citizen of New York and one voter in
New York’s 11th Congressional District. See Conipl. 7 8. The basis for his assertion that
“tourists” are to be counted in the 2010 Census is unclear, and the potential impact of their
inclusion is speculative at best. His challenge to the 20 10 Census raises an “abstract question[]
of wide public significance,” Warth v. SeZdin, 442 U.S. 490,500 (1975), and thus he fails to
allege an injury in fiict, that is, “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypotentical.” Lujan v.
Defenders of WiIdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560.
The Court concludes that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the counting of “tourists” in
the 2010 Census, and his unsupported disagreement with defendants’ arguments on standing, see,
e.g., PI.’s Consolidated Resp. Aff. in Opp’n to the Mot. to Dismiss the Compl. as to the State of
California and State of Texas Defs. [Dkt. # 3 117 12, is not persuasive? The complaint must be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Immunity
Even if plaintiff were able to demonstrate standing, the federal and state defendants raise
alternative grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) which operate to deprive the Court of
3
“Plaintiff‘s Response Declaration in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint by Defendants The Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Timothy B.
Brown, S.J.” and “Plaintiffs Response Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint as to the City of New York and Michael Bloomberg In Esse Defendants” do not yet
appear on the docket. The Court will direct the Clerk to place these items on the docket as,
respectively, plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss [#lo] filed on behalf of Maryland
Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown, and his opposition to Defendant City of
New York and Michael Bloomberg’s Motion to Dismiss [#25].
-6-
Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36 Filed 03117/10 Page 7 of 10
subject matter jurisdiction.
a. Sovereign Immunity
Insofar as plaintiff brings tort claims against the federal government or its employees in
their official capacities and demands monetary damages, the federal defendants argue that such
claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Defs.’ Mem. at 8- IO. It is
settled that the United States “can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued.” Epps v.
United States Attorney GeneruZ, 575 F. Supp. 2d 232,238 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Fed. Deposit
Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 5 10 U.S. 471,475 (1994)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars a suit
for money damages against the federal government unless there is a specific waiver of such
immunity. See id.;United States v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S.30,34 (1992)). The Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), see 28 U.S.C. $5 1346(b), 2671, et seq., is an example of such a waiver,
see, e.g., Schnitzer v. Harvey, 389 F.3d 200,202 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“The FTCA effects a broad
waiver of sovereign immunity from Iawsuits for money damages.”), but the FTCA does not assist
plaintiff here. The FTCA does not waive immunity for constitutional torts such as those plaintiff
alleges in his complaint. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-04 (D.C. Cir.
1984). Moreover, plaintiffs failure to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies under
the FTCA prior to filing this action deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See McNeiZ
v. United Stutes, 508 US. 106, 1 13 (1993) (affirming dismissal of an FTCA suit prematurely
filed before the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies).
b. hmunity Under the Eleventh Amendment
Texas and California move to dismiss on the ground that the states’ Eleventh Amendment
immunity bars plaintiffs claims. See Texas Mem. at 6-7; California Mem. at 4-5. Presumably
-7-
the same argument applies to the State of New York.
Under the Eleventh Amendment, ‘‘[tllie judicial power . . . shall not . . . extend to any suit
in law or equity . . . against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.” U S . CONST.amend. XI. Generally, the Eleventh Amendment
shields a state fi-om suit in federal court. See Bd. of Trustees of the Uiziv. ofAlabama v. Garrett,
531 US. 356,363 (2001). However, if a state consents to suit or if Congress abrogates a state’s
immunity, a suit may proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment’s protection. See, e.g.,
Cotlege Suv. Bunk v. Florida Prepaid Postsecosidary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 US.666,675
(1999); @ern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332,345 (1979).
Plaintiffs complaint fails to demonstrate or even suggest that either Texas, California and
New York consent to suit, or that Congress has waived immunity. His reliance on the civil rights
statutes as a basis for jurisdiction, see 42 U.S.C. $8 1983, 1985 and 1986, offers no support, as
these statutes do not override the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Will v.
Michigun Dep’t of State Police, 491 US. 58,64 (1989) (concluding that a state is not a “person”
for purposes of tj 1983); Quern v. Jordan, 448 U.S. at 345.
B. Disniissal Under Rule 12@)(6)
Even if plaintiff had demonstrated standing to challenge the 20 10 Census, his complaint
f d s to state civil rights claims against the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Gerald
Chojnacki, S.J., the iMaryIand Province of the Society of Jesus, and Timothy B. Brown, S.J.,
1983, 1985(3), and 1986.

under 42 U.S.C. @j
“To state a claim under [§] 1983, a plaintiff must allege both (1) that he was deprived of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the defendant acted
-8-
‘under color of‘ the law of a state, territory or the District of Columbia.” Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d
308,312 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citingtidickes v. S.H. Kt-ess & Co., 398 U.S. 134, 150 (1970)), cert.
detried, 503 U.S. 967 (1992); West v. Atkirrs, 487 U.S. 42,48 (1988). Assuming without deciding
that plaintiff adequately alleges the violation of constitutional rights, his civil rights claim fdils
because the complaint does not allege that these defendants are as state actors. This pleading
alone is fatal. See Edwards v. Okie Dokie, Ittc., 473 F . Supp. 2d 31,41 (D.D.C. 2007)
(dismissing 5 1983 claim against a nightclub absent an allegation in the complaint or evidence in
his opposition to the summary judgment motion that the nightclub was acting under color of
District of Columbia law). Moreover, the complaint utterly fails to allege the elements of a civil
conspiracy, see Gr2;fJinv. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 101-02 (1971), which is essential to
pleading a violation of 42 U.S.C.5 1985(3). See Atherton v. Dist. of Columbia Office ofthe
Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs failure to state a claim under 5 1985

Mayor, 567 F.3d 672,688 (D.C.
means that a claim under 9 1986 cannot survive. See Burnett v. Sharinu, 51 1 F. Supp. 2d 136,
145 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Because the complaint fails to state a claim under 6 1985, plaintiff cannot
maintain a claim under § 1986.”); Thomus v. News World Comm ‘ens,68 1 F. Supp. 55,62
(D.D.C. 1988) (citations omitted) (“The language of [42 U.S.C. 9 19861 establishes
unambiguously that a colorable claim under 4 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim
for neglect to prevent under 9 1986.”).
-9-
LII. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the 2010 Census, and his complaiiit therefore will be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Even if plaintiff were to establish standing, his
claims against the federal defendants are barred by sovereign immunity, and his claims against
the state defendants are barred by their Eleventh Amendment immunity. Moreover, the
complaint fails to allege civil rights claims against the remaining defendants. Defendants’
motions will be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
\

DATE:
-10-
lllllllllllllllllIlllllllll
- _.._
11-24OP53308-1-54-1112-41
TDD - T
- d i m y device for UW beaning IrnpaiiW. C;alll188&.763-2010
8:OO a.m. and 9:tW p.m.; 7 da)rs a wwk. 730 telephone call is free.
&NECESITAAYUDAP Si Wed n8wsita ayucla pfua cumpletar est8 cues#maM, flame al - 6
1-868-928-2010 e n h las 8:OO a.m. y 9:W pm-, 7 dl" a /a semana La ilamada tekMnka
8s gratis.
fhe U.S. Census Bureau estimates that, for the average househdd, this form will take about 10 minutes to
ampkte, induding the h e for reviewing the instrutdons and answers. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or-any other asped of this butderr to: Papemmrk Reduction Projed 06074919-C, US. Census
Bureau, AMSP3K138,4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233. You may mail comments to
<PapemorkdDcensus.gov>; use 'Paperwork Project 060749194? as the subject.
? f
Respandents are not required to respond to any infomation CdteCtiOn unfess it drsplays a valii appmal ,
number from the office of Management and Budget.
,..-
- -- ..re .-c ---..
-e- c ---I --- .--
9- vv-- e,- -- - - .- = --*
- 7 -- - - - Livl-.
i ---- z, .
EXHIBIT D
63
March 15,2010
A message from the Director, U.S. Census Bureau . ..
This is your offidal2010 Census form. We need your help

to count everyone in the United States by providing basic
information about all thegeople living in this house or
apartment. Please completa and mall back the enchmd
census form today.
Your answers are knportant, Census msults am used to
decide the number of repmsentathm each state has in
the U.S. Congress. The amount of gmemment m oney
your neighborhood receives also depends on these
anSwBm. That money is used for services for children
and the elderly, roads, and many other lml needs.
Your answers are confidential. This means the Census
Bureau cannot give out i n f o r n t h that 'rdentifies you
or your household. b u r answers will only be used for
StBtistkal purposes, and no other purpose, The back of
this letter contains mom infannation about protecting
your data.
uaibedb
Census
'USCENSUSBUREAU 2010
D m )P-m
federal law protects your prhracy arid keeps your answem'

confidential (Title 13, United Stat& Code, Sections 9 and
214). The answers you give on.thecensus form cannot be
oMa'ned by law enforcement or tax dtectian agendes.
Your answers cannot be used in court. They cannot be
obtained with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
As allowed by law, mmus data becomes puMi after
72 years (Tile 44, United States Code, Section 2108).
This infomtion can be used for family history and
other types of historical research.
Please visit our Web site at <www,census.~v~locenSus,
and click on 'Pmtecting.Your Answers' to learn more about
our privacy policy and data protection. .-
13190012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
\.’@#:
4mes d
THE American Community Survey
Please complete this form and return

it as soon as possible after receiving
it in the mail. nt today‘s data.
This form asks for information about

Please print the name and telephone number of the person who is
the people who are living or sta filling out this form. We may contact you if there is a question,
the address on the mailing label an
about the house, apartment, or
home located at the address p
I
First Name MI
I I
mailing label. /..
-
<
.
’
’ ,
,
AreaCode + Number
1 1
@ If you need help or have questions
about completing this form, please call
1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. How many people are living or staying at this address?
INCLUDE everyone who is living or staying here for more than 2 months.
Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD): INCLUDE yourself ifyou are living here for more than 2 months.
Call 1-800-582-8330. The telephone call is free. INCLUDE anyone else staying here who does not have another place to
stay, even if they are here for 2 months or less.
iNECESlTA AYUDA? Si usted habla espaiiol y
DO NOT INCLUDE anyone who is living somewhere else for more than
necesita ayuda para completar su cuestionario, 2 months, such as a college student living away or someone in the
llame sin cargo alguno al 1-877-833-5625. Armed Forces on deployment.
Usted tambien puede pedir un cuestionario en Number of people
’
espanol o completar su entrevista por telefono
con un entrevistador que habla espahol.
For more information about the American
Fill out pages 2,3,and 4 for everyone. including yourself. who is
Community Survey, visit our web site at: living or staying at this address for more than 2 months. Then
http:fl~w.census.govlac~~l complete the rest of the form.
FORM ACS-1(INF0)(201O)KFI OMB NO. 0607-0810

USCENSUSBUREAU (0514-2009)
IllIIll11II111111111II
I1
EXHiBiT E
13190020
1 what is eno on 2's name?

Last Name (Please print) First Name MI
(Person 1 is the person living or staying here in whose name this house
or apartment is owned, being bought, or rented. If there is no such
person, start with the name of any adult living or staying here.) I
1 How is this person related to Person l?
1
Mark (XI ONE box.
J
CI Husband or wife Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
0 Biological son or daughter Other relative
1 What is Person 1's name? 0 Adopted son or daughter Roomer or boarder
Last Name fP/easeprint) First Name 0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate
I
I
I
1 1
0
0
Brother or sister
Father or mother
0
0
Unmarried partner
Foster child
1 How is this person related to Person 1 7 0 Grandchild 0 Other nonrelative
IXJ Person I 0 Parent-in-law
1 What is Person 1%sex? Mark (X) ONE box. 4 1 What is Person 2.3 sex?*Mark (Xj ONE box.
0 Male Female
1 What is Person 1%age and what is Person 1%date of birth? 4 e and w h a is Person2 's date of birth?
age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Print numbers in boxes. Print numbers in boxes.
Age (in years) Month Day Year of birth
+ NO= Please answer BOTH Question5 about Hispanic origin and ase answer BOTH Question 5 about Hlspanic origin and
Ouestion 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.. about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.
1 Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? ,
4
<
0 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
0 Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano 0 Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
0 Yes, Puerto Rican ,% I
0 Yes, Puerto Rican
0 Yes,Cuban Yes,Cuban
a -
Yes. another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Print or&in, for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican. Nicaraguan, Salvahrqtr, Spaniard,
0 -
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Print origin, for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard,
and 50 on. 3 and so on, 3
I
/
+'
1 What is Person 1's race? Mark ( X ) one or mor@Ooxes. 1 What is Perron 2's race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.
White 0 White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro 0 Black, African Am., or Negro
0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.3 0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal
0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian 0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian
0 Chinese Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro 0 Chinese fl Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro
0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan
Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander - 0 Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander -
for example, Hmong, Print race, for example, for example, Hmong, Print race, for example,
Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, FQian, Tongan, and Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, FJian, Tongan, and
Cambodian,and so on. J so on. Cambodian, and so on. j . so on.
0 Some other race - Print race. 3 0 Some other race - Print race.
2 111I11111IIIl1I1111IIll
13190038
I What is Person 3’s name? ) What is Person 4%name?

First Name Last Name (Please wind First Name MI
i - 1
Last Name (Please print)
I How is this person related to Person 1 7 Mark (XI ON€ box. 4 ) How is this person related to Person 17 Mark (XI ONE box.
0 Husband or wife Son-in-law or daughter-in-law 0 Husband or wife 0 Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
0 Biological son or daughter 0 Other relative 0 Biological son or daughter 0 Other relative
0 Adopted son or daughter Roomer or boarder Adopted son or daughter a Roomer or boarder
0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate 0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate
0 Brother or sister 0 Unmarried partner 0 Brother or sister 0 Unmarried partner
0 Father or mother [I1 Foster child 0 Father or mother Foster child
0 Grandchild 0 Other nonrelative Grandchild 0 Other nonrelative
0 Parent-in-law 0 Parent-in-law
1 What is Person 3’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box. Mark (XI ONE box.
0 Male Female
1 What is Person 3’s age and what is Person3‘s date of birth?

4 what is Person 4’s date of birth?
when the child is less than 1 year old.
Print numbers in boxes. numbers in boxes.
Age (in years) Month Day Year of birth Month Day Year of birth
+ NO= Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and

C I D
lease answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and
Question6 about race. For this survey, Hispanicorigins are not races. 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.
Is Person 3 of Hispanic, Latlno, or Spanish origin? 4 of Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
”’ 0 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
0 Yes, Mexican. Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
Yes, Puerto Rican 0 ~es.~uerto~ican
0 Yes,Cuban Yes,Cuban
0 Yes, another His anic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Argentinean, CoLmbian, Dominican, Nicaraguan,
- 0 -
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or-Spanish origin Print origin, for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard,
and so on. and so on. J
/
1 What is Person 3’s race? Mark ( X ) one orzlrurepoxes. i 1 What is Person4%race? Mark (Xl one o r more boxes.
[7 White White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.J 0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.=
I
I
0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian 0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian
0 Chinese 0 Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro [7 Chinese 0 Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro
0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan Filipino Vietnamese 0 Samoan
0 Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander - 0 Other Asian - Print race, Other Pacific Islander -
for example, Hmong. Print race, for example, for example, Hmong. Print race, for example,
Laotian, nai, Pakistani, Fijian, Tongan, and Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, fijian, Tongan, and
Cambodian, and so on. so on- Cambodian, and so on. so on. 3
0 Some other race - Print race. 7 0 Some other race - Print race. J
111IIlrmI II111Ill 3
13190046
1 If there are more than five people living or staying here,

print their names in the spaces for Person 6 through Person 12.
1 What is Person 5's name? We may call you for more information about them. J
17
Last Name (Please print) First Name
I
1 1 - Last Name /Pleaseprint) First Name
I How is this person related to Person l?
Mark IX) ON€ box. I
0 Husband or wife 0 Son-in-taw or daughter-in-law
0 Biological son or daughter Other relative n
0 Adopted son or daughter 0 Roomer or boarder Sex 0 Male c] Female Age (inyears)
0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate

Brother or sister 0 Unmarried partner Last Name {Please print) First Name
0 Father or mother
[7 Grandchild
0 Foster child
Other nonrelative
I I M'l
0 Parent-in-law
1 What is Person 5's sex? Mark IX) ONE box. Sex 0 Male c] -Female
. Age (in years)
0 Male 0 Female
,
1 What Os Person 5's age and what is Perron 5's date of birth? Last Name (Pleasepthti , First Name MI
Print numbers in boxes.
Age (in years) Month Day Year of birth
Sex Male c] Female Age (in years)

+ NOTE Pleaseanswer BOTHQuestion5 about Hispanic origin and ,/
Question 6 about race. for this survey, Hispanic origins am not races.
1 Is Person S of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? ;Last Name (Please print)
0 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
I
I
First Name I
I'
0 Yes, Puerto Rican

0 Yes.Cuban Sex 0 Male [r_l Female Age (in years)
0 Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin -
Argentinean, Colombian. Dominican, Nicaraguan,
and so on.
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI
I I t
1 What is Perron 5's race? Mark ( X )one OF M5m+axes.
0 White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro Sex 0 Male 0 Female Age (in years) U
0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.=
Asian Indian [7 Japanese

:
0 I Native Hawaiian
Last Name (Please mint)
. I First Name
I I
MI
Chinese Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro

0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan Sex 0 Male Female Age (in years)
Other Asian - Prinf race, 0 Other Pacific Islander -
for example, Hmong, Print race, for example,
Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Fuian, Tongan, and
Cambodian, and so on. J so on. ;J Last Name {Pleaseprint) First Name MI
I
Some other race - Prinf race.
Sex 0 Male 0 Female Age (inyears)
4 111Imn III1111
1
I1I1111
13190053
Does this house, apartment, or mobile

Please answer tho following
questions about the house,
-
Answer questions 4 6 if this is a HOUSE
home have -
apartment, or mobile home at the
OR A MOBILE HOME; otherwise, SKIP to Yes No
question 7a.
address on the mailing label. a. hot and cold running water? 0 [7
1 Which best describer this building?
b. a flush toilet? 0 0
Include all apartments, flats, etc., even if
( How many acres is this house or
c. a bathtub or shower? o n
mobile home on?
vacant.
Less than 1 acre + SKIP to question 6 d. a sink with a faucet? o n
A mobile home
0 A one-family house detached from any
0 1 to 9.9 acres e. a stove or range? o n
other house 17 10 or more acres f. a refrigerator? 0 0
c] A one-family house attached to one or
g. telephone service from
more houses
0 A building with 2 apartments 1 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what ~ which you can both make
and receive calls? Include 0
were the actual sales of all agricultu cell phones.
0 A building with 3 or 4 apartments products from this propem?
A building with 5 to 9 apartments
None How many automobiles, vans, and trucks
0 A building with 10 to 19 apartments
0 $1t o S 9 9 of oneton capacity or less am kept at
0 A building with 20 to 49 apartments home for use by members of this
$1,000 to $2,499
0 A building with 50 or more apartments household?
0 Boat, RV. van, etc.
0 $2,500 t o $4,999
[7 None
0 1
0 2
1 About when was this building first built? 0 3
4 as a store or ‘04
0 5
6 or more
0 1990to 1999
0 1980 to 1989 1 Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this
0 1970to1979 1 a. How many separate rooms are in this house, apartment, or mobile home?
[7 1960to1969 house, apartment, or mobile home?
Rooms must be separated by built-in 0 Gas: from underground pipes serving the
c] 1950to1959
archways or walls that extend out at least neighborhood
0 1940to1949 6 inches and go from floor to ceiling. 0 Gas: bottled, tank, or LP
1939 or earlier INCLUDE bedrooms, kitchens, etc.
0 Electricity
EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches, balconies, 0 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
foyers, halls, or unfinished basements. 0 Coal or coke
1 When did PERSON 1(listed on page 2 ) Number of rooms 0 Wood
move into this house, apartment, or
mobile home?
n 0 Solar energy
Month Year
U 0 Other fuel
b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? 0 No fuel used
Count as bedrooms those rooms you would
list if this house, apartment, or mobile home
were for sale or rent. I f this is an
efficiencylstudio apartment, print “0“.
Number of bedrooms
111IIIIIIII 1111IIII 11111 5

7 31 90061
I
1 a. LAST MONTH, what was the coat 1 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in Answer questions 16 - 20 if you or
of electricity for this house. this household receive Food Stamps or
apartment, or mobile home? a Food Stamp benefit card? Include someone else in this household OWNS
or IS BUYING this house, apartment, or
Last month's cost - Dollars government benefits from the Supplemental
mobile home. Otherwise, SKIP to E on
m
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Do NOT include WIC or the National School the next page.
Lunch Program.
OR 0 Yes
0 Included in rent or condominium fee 0 No 1 About how much do you think this
0 No charge or electricity not used house and lot, apartment, or mobile
} Is this house, apartment, or mobile home home (and lot, if owned) would sell for
b. LAST MONTH. what was the cost part of a condominium? if it were for sale?
of gar for this house. apartment,
or mobile home? 0 Yes + What is the monthly Amount - Dollars
Last month's cost - Dollars condominium fee? For renters,
answer only if you pay the
E I I OR
condominium fee in addition to
your rent; otherwise, mark the
"None" box. , ,;
';
} What are the annual real estate taxea on
Included in rent or condominium fee -
Monthly amount Dollars, THIS property?
Annual amount - Dollars
< /
0 Included in electricity payment

entered above I I
No charge or gas not used
OR
c. INTHE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was
the cost of water and sewer for this 0 None
house, apartment, or mobile home? If
you have lived here less than 12 months, or mobile home -
estimate the cost. 1 What is the annual payment for fire8
Past 12 months' cost - Dollars hazard, and flood insurance on THIS
Property?
r r z l Annual amount - Dollars
0
OR
Included in rent or condominium fee

Nocharge
or someone in this
and clear (without a
EzzI OR
0 Occupied without payment of
None
d. INTHE PAST 12 MONTHS, +
rent? SKIP to C
cost o f oil, coal, kerosene,
for this house, apartment,
home? If you have lived here less then 12 Answer questions 15a and b if this house,
months, estimate the cost. apartment, or mobile home is RENTED.
Past 12 months' cost - Dollars Otherwise, SKIP to question 16.
I1
OR
a. What is the monthly rent for this
house, apartment. or mobile home?
Included in rent or condominium fee Monthly amount - Dollars
0 No charge or these fuels not used
b. Does the monthly rent include any

meals?
Yes
0 No
6 m
1111I1111II IIIIll1II
13190079
a. Do you or any member of this I ) a. Do you or any member of this I

household have a mortgage, deed of household have a second mortgage E Answer questions about PERSON 1 on the
trust, contract t o purchase, or similar or a home equity loan on THIS next page if you listed at least one person
debt on THIS property? property? on page 2. Otherwise, SKIP to page 28 for
the mailing instructions.
Yes, mortgage, deed of trust, or similar 0 Yes, home equity loan
debt
[7 Yes, second mortgage
0 Yes, contract to purchase
0 Yes, second mortgage and home
c] No + SKIP to question 2Oa equity loan
[7 N o + SKlPto
b. How much i s the regular monthly
mortgage payment on THIS property? b. How much is the regular monthly
Include payment only on FlRSTmortgage payment on alt second or junior
or contract to purchase.
Monthly amount - Dollars
I
OR
OR
[7 No regular payment require
regular monthly mortgage

payment include payments for real
Answer question 2
HOME. Otherwise,
payment
-
Alinual costs Dollars
IllI11111II1111IIllIIIll 7
13190087
1 What is the highest degree or level of school 1 What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?
this person has COMPLETED? Mark ( x ) ONE box.
If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or
I Please copy the name of Person 1from page 2, highest degree received.
then continue answering questions below.
Last Name
0 (For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am.,
i
First Name
No schooling completed
Cambodian, Cap8 Verdean, Norwe ian, Dominican,
French Canadian. Haitian, Korean, febanese, Polish,
Nigerian, Mexiwn, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)
1
10
Where was this person born?

3 Nursery school
[7 Kindergarten
gradel-117
-
Grade 1 through 11 Specif$
1 a Does this person speak a language other than
English at home?
-J
0
In -
-
In the United States Print name of state.
0 12th grade NO DIPLOMA

0
Yes
No + SKIP to guesrion 75a
b. What is this language?
0 -
Outside the United States Print name of
foreign country, or Puerto R i m , Guam, etc.
I
1 Is this person a citizen of the Unit8d States?
Regular high school diploma
For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese
How well does this person speak English?
CI
0
0 Bachelor's degree (for exa
Yes, public school, public colle

engineering,elementary reacher education,
organizationalpsychology}
Name of city, town, or post office
b. What grade or level was this pcmon attending?
Mark (XI ONE box. I I
0 Nursery school, preschool
Name of US. county or municipio in
Kindergarten P u e m Rico
1
0 Grade t through 12 - Specify
grade ? - 12
r----t7
I IJ Name d U.S. state M

Pueno Rico ZIP Code
0 College undergraduateyears (freshmanto
senior)
0 Graduate or professional school be ond a
bachelor's degree (for example: M l o r PhD
program, or medicalor law school)
3 111I11111It 11111
I1
11III
1
131 90095
H Answer question 19 if this person is c How long has this grandpa- been
responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)?
I 75 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to If the grandparent is financially responsible for
1 Is this person CURRENTLY covered by anv of the
following types of health insurance or health
coverage dans? Mark "Yes" or "No" for EACH WDI?
-
of cove6ge in items a h.
I the questions for Person 2 on page 12.
Bewure of a physical, mental, or emotional

more than one grandchild, answer the question
for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has
been responsible for the longest period of time.
0 Less than 6 months

person have difficulty
a. Insurance through a current or
former employer or union (of this
such as visiting a doctor's 0 6 to 11 months
person or another family member) 0 1 or2years
b. Insurance purchased directl from
an insurance company (by t l i s 0 3 or4years
person or another family member)
0 5 or more years
p:kP;"e$~hp~~,!&$$i~~,"i$~
' 0 0 person's marital status? ) Has this person ever served on active duty i n the
d. Medicaid Medical Assistance or 0 Nowmarried U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National
any kind bf government-assishnce Guard? Active duty does not include training for the
plan for those with low incomes 0 Widowed Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include
activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War.
or a disability Divorced
e. TFWARE or other military health care 0 0 I 0 Separated 0 Yes, now on active duty
f. VA (includin those who have ever Never married + SKIP to I 0 Yes on active duty during
the last 12 months, but not now
used or enrolled for VA health care)
g. Indian Health Service n o Inthe PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get
Yes No
- 0 Yes, on active duty in the past, but not
during the last 12 months
0 0 0 0 No, trainin for Resewes or National Guard

h. An
or xealth type of health
othercoverage plan -insurance
Specify
; ' < '
only + SKB to questron 28a
J b. Widowed? n o No, never served in the military + SKlf-to
questron 29a
I I c. Divorced? 1 When did this person serve on active duty in the
I I Is this person deaf or does hdshe have
serious diff itulty hearing?
'? How many times has thi
0 Once
US. w e d Forces? Mark IX) a box for EACH period
in which this person sewed, even if just for part of the
period.
0
0
Yes
No
b Is this person blind or does hdsho have
I 0
TWO times ,,c y
/ \
Three or OR times
8';
thii person last get married?

0
September 2001 or later
August 1990 to August 2001 (including
Persian Gulf War}
September 1980to July 1990
serious difficulty seeing even when wearing
glasses? 0 May 1975 to August 1980
0 Yes 0 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975)
0 No 0 March 1961 to July 1964
February 1955 to February 1961
A i k w e r question 24 if this person is
-
Answer question 18a c if this person is '
-
female and 15 50 years old. Otherwise, 0 Korean War (July 1950 to January 1955)
5 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to SKIP to question 25a.
the questions for Person 2 on page 72.
0 January 1947to June 1950
0 World War II (December 1941 to December 1946)
* ) @ Has this person given birth t o any children in CI November 1941 or earlier
1 a Because of a phvsiwl, mentat, or emotiond the past 12 months?
I
condition, does this person h a w serious
difficulty concentrating, remembering, or
making decisions?
0 Yes f 1 a Does this person have a VA service-connected
disability rating?
No
0 Yes
I
a. Does this person have any of hisher own

0 Yes (such as 0%. 10%. 20%, ... , 100%)
0 No grandchildren under the age of 18living in No + SKIP to question 29a
this house or apartment?
b. Does this person have serious difficulty
walking or climbing stairs? 0 Yes b. What is this person's serviceconnected
diubilihy rating?
0 Yes [7 No + SKIP to question 26
0 percent
Ne b Is this grandparent currently responsible for
most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) IO or 20 percent
c. Does this person have difficulty dressing or under the age of 18 who live(s) in this housa or 0 30 or 40 percent
bathing? apartment?
50 or 60 percent
0
0
Yes
No
111I11lIlII1111Ill I1 1111
I
I
0 No + SKIP to question 26
Yes
70 percent or higher
9
13190103
Answer question 32 if you marked "Car,

truck, or van" in question 31. Otherwise,
4 During the LAST 4 WEEKS, has this person been
ACTIVELY looking for work?
1 a. LAST WEEK, did this person work for pay SKIP to question 33. 0 Yes
a t a job (or business)?
No + SKlP to question 38
Yes + SKIP to question 30
0 -
No Did not work (or retired) t 1 How many people, including this person,
usually rode t o work in the car, truck, or van
LAST WEEK? 4 LAST WEEK, could this person have started a
job if offered one, or returned t o work if
b. LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work PersonM recalled?
for pay, even for as little as one hour?
0 Yes n
U 0
Yes, could have gone to work
No, because of own temporary illness
0 No + SKIP to question 35a
0 No, because of all other reasons (in school, e t 4
1 toWhat time did this person usually leave home
1 At what location did this person work LAST go to work LAST WEEK?
HIEEK? If this person worked at more than one When did this person last work, even for a few
location, print where he or she worked most Hour Minute
days?
last week.
a Address (Number and street name) ''a
Within the past 12 months
1 to 5 years ago + SKlP to L
How many minuter did it usually take t Over 47 ago or never worked + SKIP to
5 years
question
If the exact address is not known give a perron t o get from home to work LAST
description of the locationsuch is the building
name or the neareststreet or intersection. Minutes ) a During the PAST 12 MONTHS (52weeks), did
b. Name of city, town, or post offit. n this person work 50 or more weeks? Count
paid time off as work.
0 Yes + SKIP to question 40
c. I?the work loc.tion inside the limits of that Answer questions 35 - 38 if dtis person 17 No
ctty or town? did NOT work last we&&.Otherwise,
SKIP to question 39a: /, b. How many weeks DID this perron work, even
Cl Yes for a few hours, includin paid vacation, paid
sick leave, and m i r v i c e ?
No, outside the cityltown limits .
d. Name of county 1this parsonon fayoff from 0 50 to 52 weeks
0 48to49weeks
1
IP to question 35c 0 40to47 weeks
27 to 39 weeks
e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country
0 14 to 26 weeks
LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY 13 weeks or less
, absent from a job or business?
f. ZlPCode 0 Yes on vacation tempora illness
maiernity leave, bther fatnyy/persohal
+
reasons, bad weather, etc. SKIP to
6 During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS
WORKED, how many hours did this person
question 38 usually work each WEEK?
0 No + SKIP to question 36 Usual hours worked each WEEK

1 WEEK?
How did this person usually get t o work LAST
If this person usually used more lhan one
method of transportation during the trip, mark (XI c. Has this person been informed that he or she
the box of the one used for most of the distance. will be recalled t o work withln the next
6 months OR been given a date to return t o
Car, truck, or van 0 Motorcycle work?
0 Bus or trolley bus Bicycle 17 Yes + SK/P to question 37

Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked No
0 Subway or elevated 0 Worked at
home + SKIP
c] Railroad to question 39a
0 Ferryboat 0 Other method
0 Taxicab
10 1111I1111IIII1111II1111l
131901 1 1
1 What kind of work was this person doing? d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement.
(For example: registered nurse, personnel manager,
I supervisor of order department, secretary,
accountant)
L Answer questions 41 - 46 if this person
worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise,
SKIP to question 47. i
-
41 46 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ( 1 What were this person's most important e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief
job activity or business last week If this person
had more than onejob, describe the one at
which this person worked the most hours. I f this
activities or duties? (For example: patient care,
direting hiring policies, supervising order clerks,
typing and filing, reconciling financial records) 0 Yes+ 7 1
person had no job or business last week, give
information for hidher last job or business.
I Was this person - f. Any public assistance or welfare payments

Mark (XI ONE box. 1 INCOME INTHE PAST 12 MONTHS from the state or local welfare office.
0 an employee of a PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT Mark (XI the "Yes" box for each type of income this
companyor business, or of an individual, for person received, and give your best estimate of the
wages, salary, or commissions?
0 an employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT,
today's date one year ago up through
tax-exempt, or charitable organization?
0 a local GOVERNMENT employee Mark (XI the "No' box to show types of
g. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
(city, county, etcl? NOT received.
Do NOT include Social Security.
0
a state GOVERNMENT employee?
a Federal GOVERNMENT employee7
SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED
I f net income was a loss, mark the "Loss"box
the right of the dollar amount. j
0 yes+
No
7 1
business, professional practice, or farm? TOTAL AMOUNT for past
12 months
0 SELF-EMPLOYEDin OM INCORPORATED
business, professional practice,or farm? h. Any other sources of income received
0 workin WITHOUT PAY in family business regularly such as Veterand (VA) ayments,
or farm5 una#nployment compensation, c h d support
es, or other items. oralimony. Do NOTindude lump sum payments
such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a
1 For whom did this person work? home.
If now on active duty in
the Armed Forces, mark (XI this box +
and print the branch of the Armed Forces.
0
TOTAL AMOUNT for past
12 months
0 Yes+
No
7 1
Name of company, business, or other employer , TOTAL AMOUNT for past
'
12 months
b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm
businesses or farm businesses, including
I " .>
proprietorshipsand partnerships. Report ( What was this person's total income during the
NET income after business expenses. PAST 12 MONTHS?Add entries in questions 47a
1 Whatkind of business or industry was this? to 47h; subtract any losses. I f net income was a loss,
Describe the activity at the location where employed. enter the amount and mark {X)the "Loss" box next to
(For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail the dollar amount.
order house, auto engine manufacturing, bank)
12 months ' 0 N o n e O R l ]
Loss
TOTAL AMOUNT for past
c. Interest, dividends, net rental income, 12 months
1 Is this mainly - Mark (Xl ONE box. royalty income, or income from estates
and trusts. Report even small amounts credited
to an account.
0 manufacturing?
wholesale trade?
retail trade?
CI
0
Yes+
No
I TOTAL AMOUNT for past
I0 LOSS
other (agriculture construction, service, 12 months
government, etc.,'!
Continue with the questions for Person 2 on the

next page. If only 1 person is listed on page 2,
SKIP to page 28 for mailing instructions.
I Il1I1111II
IllIIIIII1I1 11
. .. - -. ... . ."-.
13190129
NO. 08-5503 September Term 2008
Filed On: June 24,2009

In re: Christopher Ead Strunk,
Petitioner
--- - - _-
BEFORE-- Sentelle~hiefdudge,and Ginsburg and Tatel, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to restore the petition for a writ of mandamus,
construed as a motion for reconsideration, it is
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. Petitioner’s

mandamus petition sought an order requiring the district court to expedite consideration
of his motion for leave to file a complaint in forma pauperis. The court properly
dismissed the petition as moot after the district court granted the relief petitioner
requested by granting him in forma pauperis status and docketing his complaint. See
Pharmachemie 8.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627,631 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“The
mootness doctrine limits Article III courts to deciding ‘actual, ongoing controversies.’”).
Petitioner now claims that his original mandamus petition is not moot, but he seeks
different relief, namely, an order requiring the district court to consider his request for
recusal. To the extent petitioner seeks relief not requested in his original petition,
petitioner must fife a separate petition for a writ of mandamus to bring the matter
--_---
properly
- before the court.
- --._---c----.----P -_II_ - . *- - _ )_ - -
?er Curiam
Case: 09-5322 Document: 1217672 Filed: 11/25/2OO9 Page: I
NO. 09-5322 September Term 2009

I: 0 8 - ~ - 2 2 3 4
Filed Qn: November 25, 2009
In re: Christopher Earl Strunk,
Petitioner
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Garland, and Brown, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the motion for leave to
proceed --
in forma pauperis, and the motion for a waiver of the docketing fee, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion
for a waiver of the docketing fee be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied.

Petitioner has not shown any misconduct by the district court clerk’s office. Moreover,
“judicial rulings alone altnost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,”
Liteky v. United States, 510 US. 540, 555 (1994), and petitioner has not identified any
ruling that would warrant recusal of the district judge in his cases. Finally, any suggestion
that the district judge is conspiring with the Society of Jesus or other entities discussed in
the petition is without support, and we will not reach any other arguments that have not
been properly presented to and ruled on by the district judge in the first instance.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk
By: /SI
Lynda M. Flippin
Deputy Clerk

)
CHRISTOPHER EARL S T R C . ,
)
Plain tiff, 1
\
I
V. 1 Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
OF STATE, et al., 1
)
Defendants. 1
ORDER
ORDERED that defendants’ partial motion to dismiss [Dkt. # I 61 is GRANTED, and
plaintiffs amended complaint is DISMISSED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff seeks of
information pertaining to Barack Hussein Obama; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs requests for mandarnus relief and for any other
relief not available under the Freedom of Information Act, including all forms of relief requested
in his “Notice of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on
Question of First Tmpression in Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS:Barack Hussein Obama In Esse” and
supporting documents [Dkt. ##lU], are DENIED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ request for a stay of discovery is GRANTED;
and it is
1 Ex2.3D €3 1T H
FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 3,2010, the parties shall file ajoint
proposed schedule to govern future proceedings in this action.
SO ORDERED. f
f;)
RICHARD W N
DATE:

)
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, et al., )
1
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOW), see 5 U.S.C. 9
5 5 2 , seeking information from the United States Departments of State “(State Department”) and
Homeland Security (“DHS”) about then President Elect Barack Hussein Obama and his late
mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ partial motion to
dismiss, and the Court will grant the motion for the reasons discussed below.’
The Court summarily denies plaintiffs request for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus relief
is available only if: “( 1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) that defendant has a clear duty
to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff.” Northern States Power
Co. v. U S . Dep‘t of Energy, 125 F.3d 754, 755 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In this action, plaintiff dcmands
the release of records maintained by federal government agencies, and an adequate remedy for a
request of this nature exists pursuant to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 5 552(a)(4)(B); see Pickering-
George v. Registration Unit, DEAIDOJ, 553 F. Supp. 2d 3 , 4 (D.D.C. ZOOS) (“The exclusive
nature of the FOLA precludes mandamus relief.”); see ulso Johnson v. Executive Oficefor US.
Artormy, 3 2 0 F.3d ?7l, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
1
Case 1:08-cv-O2234-RJL Document 30 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 7
I. BACKGROUND
A. FOIA Requests to the State Depurtrnent
1 . Stanley Am Dunham
Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the State Department on October 17,2008, Amd.
Compl. q[ 12, seeking the following:
[I]nformation or records related to Stanley Ann Dunham born

November 29,1942 at Fort Leavenworth KS. U.S., a.k.a. StanleyAnn
Dunham Obama a.k.a. and who died on November 7,1995 under the
name Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (a.k.a. Sutoro) for any and or all
exit and entry records for travel outside of the USA for the period
between 1 960 through 1963.
Id., Ex.A. The State Department notified plaintiff that it did not maintain this type of
infomation, and referred plaintiff to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, a component
of the DHS. Defs.’ Partial Mot. to Dismiss PL’s Amd. Compl. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), Ex.D at 1 .
2. Barack Hussein Obama
In his second FOIA request to the State Department, plaintiff sought information
pertaining not only to Stanley Ann Dunham but also to Barack Hussein Obama. With respect to
both subjects, plaintiff requested:
1. any and all U.S. Applications for a U.S. Passport;

2. entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States
and Kenya between January 1,1960 and December 3 I , 1975,
and between January 1,1979 and December 3 1,2005;
3. entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States
aid hidoiiesia between January 1, 1960 and December 3 1,
1973, and between January I, Z 979 and December 3 1,2005;
4. records for travel on a U.S., Kenyan, Indonesian orother
foreign passport or visa;
5. a foreign birth certificate registered or filed with the U.S.
Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack Obama;
6. a foreign birth registry filed by Stanley Ann Dunham with the
2
U.S. Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack Obama; and

7. adoption records or other government records acknowledgmg
Barack Obama as Lolo Soetoro’s son.
See Compl., Ex. E at I .
With respect to the request for the late Ms. Dunham’spassport applications, the State
Department notified plaintiff that it would process the request, to whch it assigned case
processing number 200507238. Defs.’ Mot., Ex. E at 2. All other aspects of the request,
assigned case control number 200807272, were denied because plaintiff did not comply with
regulations for requests for information pertaining to living third parties. Id. at 3-4. Specifically,
plaintiff did not submit Mr. Obama’s authorization for release of his passport and similar
records. Id. at 4.
B. FOIA Request to the DHS
On December 26,2008, plaintiff submitted a FOZA request to the DHS’ Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Compl. 7 22. He sought the same information from
the DHS that he requested from the State Department. See id., Ex.I at 1-2. Defendants’ counsel
represents that, on February 3, 2009, the CBP “informed [plaintiff] that it would not release
records relating to [Mr.] Obama because DHS regulations . . . require privacy waivers before
third-party records can be released,” and that the CBP “released . . . responsive entry/exit records
relating to [Mrs.] Dunham.” Defs.’ Mot. at 3.
Plaintiff believes that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, that his birth was
registered in Hawaii, and that he, at most, is a naturalized United States citizen. See Amd.
Compl. 7 36. For these reasons: plaintiff asserts that Mr. U b m a “is not a U.S. ‘natural born’
citizen and [is] ineligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States
3
Constitution, ,4rticle 11, Section 1, Clause 5.” Id. 7 27. Plaintiff claims to have “suffered an
informational injury as a voter and member of public[,] and the lack of information on [blr.
Obama’s] citizenship, caused by the State Depnrtment[’]s action, limited the infonn=ition
available to [plaiIitiffJ as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and
policymakers.” Id. 1157. Plaintiff demands that the State Department and DHS release all the
documents he requested, so that he may dctermir;e whether Mr. Obama is a natural born United
States citizen, see id. 7 62, lest “an illegal candidate . . . serve as President of the United States.”
Id. 1
163.
TI. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint to the extent it seeks records
pertaining to Barack Obama,see Defs.’ Mot. at 6, on the ground that plaintifrs FOIA requests
did not comply with agency regulations. See id. at 5-6.
“[Elach agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records
and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and
procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.” U.S.C. tj
552(a)(3)(A). “An agency’s disclosure obligations are not triggered . . . until it has received a
proper FOLA request in compliance with its published regulations.” Antoneili v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 591 F. Supp. 26 25, 26 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing 5 U.S.C. 9 552(a)(3) and 552(a)(6)(A)(i));
see Carbe v. Bureau of AZcohoZ, Tobacco crnd Firearms, No.03-1658,2004 WL 2051359, at *8
(D.D.C. Aug. 12,2004) (“A proper FOIA request, once received, requires the g o v e m e n t to
search for responsive records and to release all that are not othenvise exempt.”). A requester’s
“failure to comply with an agency’s FOIA regulations is the equivalent of a failure to exhaust”
4
. 207, 21 1 (D.D.C.
administrative remedies. West v. Jackson, 448 F. S ~ p p2d 3006) (citations
omitted).
“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generltlly rt3quired before seeking judicial
review” under FOIA. FfiZbur v. Certtral Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675,677 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
(per curiam). Exhaustion allows ”the agency [I an opportunity to exercise its discretion and
cxpcrtisc on the matter and to makc a factual record to support its decision.” Zd. (quoting
Ogresby v. United States Dep ’t ofthe Army, 920 F.2d 57,Gl (D.C. Cir. 1990)). It is not a
jurisdictional requirement, Hidalgo v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 344 F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C.
Cir. 2003), but instead is a prudential consideration. Wilhtrr, 355 F.3d at 677. Tf 3 requester has
not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the filing of a civil action, his claim is subject
to dismissal. See Hidalgo, 344 F.3d at 1258.
State Department regulations require that “requests for records pertaining to another
individual . . . be accompanied by a written authorizationfor access by the individual, notarized
or made under penalty ofperjury, or by proof that the individual is deceased (e.g., death
certificate or obituary).” 22 C.F.R. 9 I71.12(a) (emphasis addcd). Similarly, DHS regulations
require that requests for records about another individual include “either a writterz authorization
signed by that individual permitting disclosure of’those records . . . or proof that that individual
is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary)[.]” 5 C.F.R. 8 5.3(a)
(emphasis added).
P1aintiff“adrnits that Barack Hussein Obama . . . has not provided permission to release
5
documents[.]” Pl.’s Aff.8 20.* Rather, he steadfastly asserts his claims that Mr. Obama neither is
3 natural born citizen of the United States nor is eligible to hold the office of President of the
IJnitcd States. ,cEe g27ierL7!4:Pl.’s Aff. Ncithcr of these claims is relevant to this FOIA action,
the sole purpose of which is to determine whether defendants properly responded to plaintiff‘s
FOIA requests to the State Department and to the DHS.
It is clear on this record that plaintiff did not submit propcr FOTA requests to the State
Department and to DHS because the requests did not include written authorization fiom Mr.
Obama for the release of information to plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with rzspcct to his requcsts for infomation about Mr. Obarna, and these
claims will be dismissed. See Brown v. Fed.Bureau of Investigation,-F. Supp. 2d -, -,
2009 WL 5 102713, at +4 (D.D.C. Dec. 28,2009) (dismissing a FOLA claim against the FBI
because plaintiff failed to mail his request directly to the appropriate field office as is required
under agency regulations); 27iomas v. Fed. Comm ’cm Comm ’n, 534 F.Supp.2d 144, 146
(D.D.C.2008)(granting summary judgment in the agency’s favor “[iJn the absence of any
evidence that plaintiff submitted a proper FOTA request to which defendant .cvould have been
ob1igated to respond”).
2
In opposition to defendants’ motion for partial dismissal, plaintiff filed a “Notice
of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First
Impression in Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS: Earack ‘ITt~sschObama In Esse” [Dkt. $191, to
which he attached a supporting memorandum of law and affidavit (“Pl.3 Aff.”). Plaintiffs
demand for a jury trial before a three-judge panel on matters pertaining to President Obama’s
citizenship and eligbility to hold the ofiice of the President of the United States is summarily
denied, as arc all of his requests for relief not authorized undcr the FOiA.
6
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will grant defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and will &rect the parties to
submit a joint proposed schedule to gwem fiiture proceedings in this action. A n Order is issued
separately.
t
II
f
-
I
RICHARD -ON
DATE:
7
Case 1:09-cv-0?249-RJL Document 18 Filed 03/101’?0 Page 1 of 1

1
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRlJNK, )
1
Plaintiff, 1
1
V. ) Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL)
)
NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE 1
SOCIETY OF JESUS, et id., )
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed OR behalf of the New York Province of the
Society of Jesus and Gerald Chojnacki, S.J. [Dkt. #9] is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. #13] is
GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED.
‘This is a Gnal appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
SO ORDERED.
RICHARD- ON
United States District Jr:dge
DATE:
5

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, )

)
P laintiff, )
)
v. 1 Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL)
)
NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE 1
SOCIETY OF JESUS, et ul., 1
1
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss. For the
reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted and this action will be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs complaint is far &om the short and plain statement called for in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. It does not simply state the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends, a claim showing that plaintiffs entitlement to relief, and a demand for
judgment for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rather, it is a verbose, disorganized,
and confiised collection of conclusory stcltcrnents in the guise of a verified complaint with a
petition for mandamus.
Plaintiff appears to assert that elected officials in the State of New York and New York
City, as wc!I as federal government agencies ;rnd officials, are acting in :zssociation with or under
the direction of the Roman Catholic Church, the Society of Jesus,’ and the Sovereign Military
~~ ~~
1
Founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus is a religious order in thc
(continued.. .)
1
Order of Malta.’ Because the members of these organizations have sworn an oath to the Pope,
plaintiff alleges that they cannot simultaneously uphold the United States Constitution. Further,
plaintiff appears to allege that the named defendants essentially are acting as agents of 8 foreip
government, presumably the Vatican, in violation of the Logan Act, see 18 U.S.C. 5 953? These
circumstances allegedly cause plaintiff and the citizens of New York unspecified “collective
spiritual and individual temporal iiijuries,” Compl. at 1 (introductory paragraph), and denies them
a republican form of government. I . . Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief generally to enjoin the Society of Jesus and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta from
’(...continued)
Catholic Church and is organized world-wide in 85 administrative units called provinces, the
order is led by a Superior General in Rome. In the United States, there are 10 provinces. These
make up what is known as the American Assista~icy,headquartered at the Jesuit Conference in
Washington, DC. See http ://www.j esuit .org (fo1low “FAQs” hyper link); http://nysj.org (follow
“Who We Are” hyperlink, then follow “The Society of Jesus” hyperlink).
2
The Order of Malta officially is called the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of
St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, and common abbreviations are the Sovereign
Military Order of Malta, the Sovereign Order of Maita, and the Order of Maita. Its members are
commonly known as the Knights of Malta. See http://www.orderofinaIta.org (follow “English”
hyperlink, then follow “Names of the Order” hyperlink)
3
In relevant part, the Logan Act provides:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any corrcspondence or intercourse with any foreign
government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence
the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer
or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the
United States, or to defeat the nieasures of the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 0 953.
2
conducting unspecified activities until such time as an appointed special master can assess the
damages caused by their failure to comply with federal and New York State law.
TI. DrscwssroN
A. Dismissal Under Ride 12(b)(l)fov Lack of Standing
“Three inter-related judicial doctrines - standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that
federal courts assert jurisdiction only over ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Wurth I?. Jocksun, 45 1
F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006).‘ A core element of Article 111’s case-or-controversy requirement
is that a plaintiff have standing to sue. See Ligan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,561
(1 992). To satisfy this burden, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the
defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” AZZeiz
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737’75 1 (1984). Thus, a party has standing if his claims ‘‘spring fiom an
‘injury in fact’ - art invasion of a legally protected intercst that is. ‘concrete and particularized,’
‘actual or imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d
994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Ltljan I?. Defenders of WZdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
“[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual
injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorablejudicial decision.”’
h!&mcer 19. Kernna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1 998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477 ( I 990)). If, at any time, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h).
4
The judicial doctrines of mootness and ripeness are not relevant to this case.
3
Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17 Filed 0311 0110 Page 4 of 7
Insofar rn plaintiff brings a claim under the Logan Act, the Court concludes that he lacks
standing to do so. Only the Gnited States Department of State is aggrieved by a violation of the
I,ogan ,4ct, see ITT World Coinrn ‘ens,f m . 1’. Fed. Comm 'ens Comm 699 F . 2 1219, 1231
(D.C. Cir. 1983), rev ’d 012 other grotincis, 466 U.S. 463 (i984), and plaintiff cannot demonstrate
an injury suffered due to defendants’ Logan Act violation that affects him “in a personal and
individual way.” Ltqm v. Defenders of WiZdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1.
Nor does plaintiff have standing to bring a claim that defendants’ actions deprive him of a
repubiican form of government. The Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising
only a generally available griewnce about government - claiming only harm to his and every
citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no
more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article
111 case or controversy.” Ltijan v. Defenders of JViZdZijie, 504 U S . at 573-74. Where, as here,
“[p]Iaintiff s stake is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of
other voters[,] . . . his harm is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any
and all voters.” Berg 1’. Ohnnzn, 574 F. St~pp.2d 509, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2005), u f f d , 556 F.3d 234
(3d Cir. 2009); see Hooker 11. Sasser, 893 F. Supp. 764,767 (M.D. Tenn. 1995) (“The Court
finds that the plaintiffs’ allegations of diluted voting power [and] denial of undivided loyalty . . .
do not identify any ‘concrete and particularized’ injury which they have suffered or ill suffer
because of the defendants’ conduct.”).
The Court concludes that plaintiff cannot establish an injury in fact, that he is without
standing to bring his claims, and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. See Colzerz
v. Obcrrnrr, No. 08-2150,2008 WL 5 I9 1864 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 1, 2008) (dismissing for lack of
4
standing, m o n g others, claims that the Secretary of State wrongly issued then-Senator Buack
O b m a a passport, that the Department of Homeland Security failed to arrest him for illegally
entering the country, resulting in plaintiffs disenfranchisement), 12ff)ci, 332 Fed. Appx. 640 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Berg v. Ubanza, 574 F . Supp. 2d at 5 19 (dismissing Natural Born Citizen
Clause claim because plaintiff, described as a life-long member of the Democratic Party, lacked
standing); Robin~on Botven, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, ? 146 (N.D. Ca1. 2008) (denying
17.
preliminary injunction for petitioner, “a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector
pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best,”
whose alleged h a m “is not only speculativc but also merely derivative of the prospects of his
favored obscure candidate”); Hooker v. Sasser, 893 F . Supp. at 767 (dismissing for lack of
standing the plaintiffs claim that other candidates’ acceptance of campaign contributions from
non-Tennessee citizens prevented “his qualifications as a candidate for the office of United States
Senator fiom being judged solely and exclusively by Tennessee citizens”); see also Warth I).
Seldirt, 422 U S . 490,499 (1975) (“[Wlhen the asserted h a m is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared
in substantially equal measure by all or a larze class of citizens, that h a m alone normally docs
not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.”).
B. YluintijfXs Not Entitled to Mandamus Relief
“[Tlhe writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary
situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. 1). Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271,289 (1988)
(citation omitted). Mandamus relief is proper only if ‘b( 1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief;
(2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other zldcquatc rcrncdy available to
plaintiff.” Council of mid for the Blind of Delaware Colcnty Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 152 1,
5
Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17 Filed 03/?0/1Q Page 6 of 7
1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). “[T]hose those invoking the court’s mandamus jurisdiction
must have a “clear and indisputable” right to relief; and even if the plaintiff overcomes all these
hurdles, whether mandamus relief should issue is discretionary.” In re Chenev, 406 F.3d 723,
729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “In order for there to be a ‘duty owed to the plaintiff
within the meaning of [I28 U.S.C.] tj 1361, there must be a ‘mandatory or ministerial obligation
[because ifJ the alleged duty is discretionary or directory, the duty is not ‘ o ~ e d . ” ’Sfamper v.
United States, No. 1:08 CV 2593,2008 WL 4838073, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4,2008).
Plaintiff appears to request the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce the Logan Act,
a provision in the federal criminal code. In the Attorney General the United States Constitution
vests the power to conduct criminal litigation on the federal government’s behalf. 28 U.S.C. 8
5 16; see United States v. Nzxon, 418 US. 683,694 (1974). “[Tlhe question of whether and when
prosecution is to be instituted is within the discretion of the Attorney General[,]” and
[m]andamus will not lie to control the exercise of this discretion.” PuweZZ v. Katzenbach, 359
F.2d 234,234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied,384 U.S. 906 (1966); see Stamper
v. United States, 2008 WL 4535073, at *3 (‘‘Mandamus cannot be used to compel the Attorney
General or the United States Attorney to conduct investigations or prosecute alleged civil rights
violations.”). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the named defendants owe him a duty to act,
and, therefore, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
6
In. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants?motions to dismiss wili be granted, and this
civil action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
7
Gov't offers new assurance census data i s nrivate
March 4 , 2010 By HOPE YEN ( A P ) - 3 h o u r s ago
WASHINGTON - With the 2010 population count looming, the government provided
new assurances Thursday that information Americans fill out on their census
forms will be kept confidential and not be used for law enforcement.
In a letter to Congress, the Obama administration provided its legal

position that census data cannot be disclosed under the Patriot Act, the
nation's main counterterrorism law. The government has previously given legal
assurances the information will not be used f o r immigration enforcement.
"If Congress intended to override these protections it would s a y so clearly

and explicitly," wrote Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.
The legal assurance had been a sticking point for some minority groups,
particularly South Asian and Muslim Americans, who argued that an ambiguity
in federal laws could leave their census data open for use in prosecutions
involving national security. Some said they could not feel confident in
filling out the forms based on solely the verbal promises of Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke and other census officials who said the data will not be
shared with other federal agencies.
"All United States residents should be fully confident that the individual
information they provide on census forms is protected from disclosure by
law," said Commerce spokesman Nick Kimball.
The Census Bureau this week began delivering letters to homes in rural areas
and is mailing the 10-question forms to 120 million U . S . households on March
15. Officials have estimated the government survey will take just 10 minutes
to complete, a change from previous censuses in which many people received a
more detailed questionnaire.
The population count, conducted every 10 years, is used to distribute House

seats and more than $400 billion in federal aid. The questions on the form
ask about people's gender, race, family, housing, as well as their address
and telephone number.
The government move comes as several black, Latino and Asian groups as well
as some lawmakers have questioned whether the Census Bureau has been able to
motivate hard-to-count groups, who are primarily minorities and the poor. One
of the main obstacles to census participation they cited has been a distrust
of government, including concerns about whether their personal information
may be misused.
The Justice Department is not aware of an instance where the Patriot Act has
ever been used to obtain census information. "The administration is confident
that the Patriot Act still provides the tools and authorities we need to
combat terrorism and protect the American people," said Justice spokesman
Alejandro M i y a r .
On t h e Net:
Commerce Department: http://www.commerce.gov
Census Bureau: h t t p : / / w w w . c e n s u s . g o v
n
Posts I Comments I E-mail I

Friday,January 01.2010
__. ......’ & . ..>_:.i..._ ....
...
@?a@ ,e.+.: . . : ....... ....:.....w ......4
,
...
,,, ,,
V:iticlm .%isassins: Wounded Ln The House Of IMVFriends
ConCm Prcsentation Latest Edition Over 650 Slides
.Home
0 m
Jebuib
o The Black Poue
o SMOM
o Coadiutors
o Freemasonry
. .
om o t Note
.World
OEJ
o ChidJapan
3 L!SS€k’Ki;;sin .Po&A by d ~ ~onl Augu 5tL, 2009 and kihd u d z r G d w . N G N ~The
, Black Pope.
D m You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a
Page30fIR Obum‘s Wite Papal Martem I Vatican Asazuins Pngc 4 of IR

Obama‘s White Papal M y t m I Vatican Avarrins
response or trackback to this entry

The most comprehensivelist of the Chain of Commandleading and controLLng Obama
and his administration. See who really rum the show from the top to the bottom (Obama).
Read their credentials and connections.
Obama’s White Papal Masters:

Chain of Command
“‘The Wbite P o p u
The Evil Emperor
*The Black Pope”
Darth Vadm
Masters of “The Matrix”
Adolfo N icolu
30th Superior General, Society of Jesus
” 1 1 ~Rlack Pope”
Pope Bentdict XVl

\ ~ c d z01 C h r i d L ICU 01 Iloius
”The White Pope”
EXHIBIT L
‘I‘homasH. Smolich. 33.

President, US Jesuit Conference
Former California Provincial Joseph M. McShane, SJ.
Former Master of Gov. Arnold S c h w a n e n e g p President, Jesuit Fordhm IIniyersity
Conspirator: Present Chinese-Mexican Invasion Bronx, New York
Conspirator Fiimre Si,ro-Soviet-MislimInvmion “Penholda for Cardinal Egan”
Notice: Equilateral Triangle Pendant
,Masonic symbol for the Rism H o w
TYE CCXi!IXC ftlSE3 POYE/“’Thc\Seast”
David S. Chachino, SA.

New Yo& Provincial
Overseer of Archbishop of New York City
Occult Overseer of New York City
\Val1 Street. Federal Resenc. NY SE Pope Beaedict the XVL
Roman Papal Caesar
Egyptian Osiris
Vicar of ChrisWicar of Horns
Edward Cardinal Egao
“Prince of the Pope’sChurch”
Obama’s Whik Papal M Y t m I Vatican Avrauins Pagc7oClff
Roman Papal Senator
Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J.

President Emeritus, Jesuit Fordham University
Bronx, hcw York
Edward Cardin81 Egao Member: Knights of Malta
Archbishop of New york City Presider Council on Foreign Relations
“Archbishop of the Capital of the World” Advisor to Knight of Malta David Rockefeller, CFR
“The American Pope” idvisor to Knight of Maltn Hcnry Kiscingcr. CFR
Head: Anericau Brwch of the Kuights ol‘Malta Advisor to Michael Bloomberg
Head Knights of Columbus Mayor, New York City
Papal Knight of the Vatican’s Revived
Occult Master of: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“-Israel
Supreme C‘oancil of the 33rd OeTee
American Scottish-kte Freemasonry
Council On Foreip Relations
B ‘nai B’riMAnti-Defamation League
Central Intelligence Agency
P:ntic~Ilal s<ciirkj- Agc;xy
I
Federal Bureau o€ Lnvestigation
Officc of Naval lntelligcncc
The Pentagon
John J. DeGiaia
Presidcnt Jesuit Guorgetovm Univbsity
iMcrnbzr: Knights of Malta
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
AthuistraLor: %atin Kingdom UT Jeruslllrm-’-israel
itichaxd A\.Hnvs
Chairman: Council on Foreign Relations
New Yo& City
Senrant of Edward Cardinal Egm George Sorw
Ovxscm of -UPIC‘: :vkinbei: ~ o u n c ion
l Pimign lidations
hnerican lsrael Public Affairs Committee Member: Carlyle Group
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionht ,Multi-billionaire
Court Jew for the Pope ,Major Stockholder: Hdliburton
Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem”-Israel t lringarinn Jew: Socidist-Cornmimist
Finanem Backer of B u a c k Husseia Obtma
Friend of Rupert Murdoch
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist
‘‘Court Jew far the Pope”
Zbigniew Brzezhski
Member: Knights of Malta
Member: Bilderberg Group
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
Member: Trilaterial Commission
Advisor: Jesuit Georgetown University
Po!iA !kmari C‘,dw! ICZ;oci.~li.stSorr!in\!!!ir!
Proofessor: Columbia University, New York Rupert Murdoch
Member: Council on Foreign Relations
Obama’s White Papal Marta IVatican Asaasins Pagelloflfl Obunt’r White Papal MYacrs I Vatican As6aasins k g c 12 o f 18
Member: Knights of St. &gory

l:itervritix.d b!dia Mog.11
Owner: Fox News Network
Friend of George Soros
Occult Protector of B u a c k Hussein Obama
Bill O’Reilly - The O’Reilly Factor
1 Sean Hannity - Haunity & Combes
Bury Davh
“Barack Hussein Obama”
32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason
President of Rome’s “Holy Rom.m,”
14th Amendment American Empire
Joseph R Btden Sunni Moslem, Pretended Protestant Cluistian
Papal Knight; Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Mulatto: Mulatto Father, White Mother
Vice President: Rome’s “Holy Roman” Father: Frank Marshall Davis, Jr.
14th Plmendment American Empire !>,’if<: ? , . ~ ~ ~ l ; <~ ~, l~~ ~. ~ :(T!iic;!go
~\yr:
1
I
Alter Ego: Jesuit Advisor to Obama: CFR-ControUed and CFR Spokespelson
President Barry Davis Obama Obama: Promoted by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.
1 Promoter Council on Foreign Relations
Honorary Degrees:
.[,:suit Lr!ii;ersiiy ~~SCI:LI:~I)R,S c r x t o u . ?.A.
Buckley: Knight of Malta,Bonesman, Bilderberger, CFR Member
Buckley: Promoter of Reverse Discrimination against Whites
Bucklklay: P r o i u o h wl‘ B Coiuiug Black Presideut
Jesuit St. Joseph‘s University, Philadelphia, PA Obama: Trained in Romanism, Islam and Apostate Protestimtism !
Obama: “Nimrod"; Pretended Unifier of Whites aud Blacks
Obama: Promoter of the Papal Crusade against Shia Islam
O h - i i n a ~Frmnoter nf R i 1 4 i ’ ~Papnl Inq~ii<itinil
i
ll
Against Protestant American Liberties
Obama: lewit Temporal Coadjutor
I Promotor of the Black Pope’s Counter-Reformation
I I Barr) Davis: “Bo)” of Pope Benedict X V I
I
I
L - b n p h w w \ ? t i r u i n s ~ w n sorr ’11-95 ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ l~l~20lO
_ _T ~ i c a n ~ r u w norq/’p-W
s I ?U 0
1
‘
Cahollc president CVM elected, was wmirig the public about the sinister role of the
Jesuit Order under the umbrella of tlie Vaticm and Roinan Catholic Church as the
enemy of the .American Constitution md the Bill of Rights. the Jesuits have been
EpJgJDCJQW
[.. I Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran Lfthe CFR bnot nearly as much power
Categories: G d l m . News. The Black POW as I attribute t o them, then why do these 5000 people RUN EVERYTHING? The
Tags: Jesuits, Obama, The Black Pope CFR is the ruling elite of &e US.Who themselves answer to higher authority:
OL;.hia’> ‘A’luic r.tpdlXLstcrs i ’ ~ ’ ~ t x at hn: m > t r a 1 1
5 Responses for “Obmmm’s White Papal Mastm”
5 . The Paaal mastem of Obama (( seeker40I says:
I . F0-rP o p l i u Best of VaticanAssmsiits * Georpetowa ronsnirocy theories from 2009 September 18,2009 at 5:33 pm
says:
D ~ C C A l l l J3 ~1.2uu9 at 210 *lu
[...I
Georgetown President John M i o i a is 9th in the chain of command of You must be logged i ~ rto pmt a comment &
n
President Obama’s “White Papal [..I
2. ’? itisnosecreh~ka$g~ca~do
says:
October 18,2009 at 1 2 4 pm
And to think these goofy sociopaths get all the girls.
-t‘hCj. pot Illy \ V h O k fLiXIiibi.
1w ill say it is easier to live bowing t h e arc the goofy turds in C ~ C .
Personally lost many rights and priviliges over Protesting Hemy Kissinger to my
own Mother. Your own family will resist you to hold up these men.
3 . “Xotioiidiic r r i i i i ? i u i i h s Cirtrsviruw... ti i i i d Sierra GuW says:
October 4,2009 at 5:06 pm
http://ww.mI icmasussins.oreQp95 I / I 120 I0
Obama’s White Papal M&en 1 Vatican Assawins Page I5 o f I R
Recently Commented
EJP Resnonds to a “DisaopointedNe-”
Exiled Dutch Statesman Geert Wilders Warns Against Islam Part I
Biden-Advised Obama: Generatinn White Rirht-Wing Jesuit Fascism
Bin Laden. CIA Contract Agent. Dead since December 13.200 1
More ?ban 500 Sex Abuse Cases Filed Against the jemuits
United Nations to Rebuild Ancient Babvlon
0 Jesuit Tem~oxalCoaidutor Alex Jones’ “The Fall of the Republic”
0 Black Muslims of America Militarv Traininv Camps:Race War
EJP Replies to Brother Michael, ‘an Honorably Retired PortImd Police OEcer
I
0 Brief Chronolorv of Jesuit Historv Authored bv the C’omoany
Archives by Tag
\I,.,_ , . . n ‘\i-imic,m
, o , ~ , t ,_ Rcvo!lltimfi ~ w ! , , ~htn,,!, Ar;Ii,.l;ski k c r i
I
Cuudiutarr Coinmuni*m council un fumiun % h h aCmnwdl Dvnicl Enelvnd UU Fn*.nunomv Georvs WYhinvton
(irmrnwda Plrf lllN I 1lrml1I1 Inluishinn l n a I w l JesuitsKnighh nfMauha I atim Alicn IruJnn I.tfhn Milimrizx?ionnfSnne
d 7 U Wcub Radio Rcfomminn Roli$5onSUMW
N a n Ohuma Pupc Pm~~hccu Bluck Crim Sncivlbm Tcnnornl Pmvcr k
Blnch Pupc US.SU,Ru~siuVuticun Vidcu Videus world w ~ m t n i e n l
I Recent Entries
0 December 3 1,2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Cornhe. Part 4 of 5
December 30.2009: From “the A4~~earine” to the Second Cominrt, Part 3 of 5
Lkcmiber 2% 2Wv: E r m “the ~ o e a r i n v ”to 1112Second iorrrlllr. Part 2 oi 5
I 0 December 28.200: From “the Appearing” t o Second Coming,Part I of 5

December 25.2009: White Protestant American Revolution. Part 10 of 10
EJP Replies to Troy as to the Biblical Theline of “the A~~e3riau.”
0 !
Part 4 of 5
!my. !dm:.ofiC-’lrist: ~ ~ ” o m ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ . c ~ . . ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ~ i c - ~ . F l o ~ ~ ’
I
D vo ut’ n 9 of 10e
0 EJP Redies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of the “Amearinr.” Part 3 of 5
0 December 23.2009: White Protestmt American Revolution. Part 8 of 10
i ?!:::to Gdlcry
...............
............
..,.
.;:...
.:::;;.::,:::::::k
0-
a J ~h i:iL
0 w d
o m
.Tech
Radio
o m
Religion
O u 3
Resources
0 yt=
0 About V k a g
Eric Jon Phelm
0 v u
a Fric On Radio
0 V A YOUTU~C
END NOTES
Amendments
U.S. Constitution Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 2 - The House:
Clause 3: (Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned

among the several States which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Sewice for a Term of Years, and excluding /ndians not taxed, three fifihs of
all uther Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by
the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made
within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as
they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one
Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of
New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York
six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any
State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill
such Vacancies.
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
ARTICLE 1 SECTION 9 CLAUSE 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by

t h e United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5. No Person except a natural born

Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United
States.
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 6. In Case of the Removal of the

President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge
the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the
Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice
President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such
Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President
shall be elected.
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 7. The President shall, at stated Times,

receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased
nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and
he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United
States, or any of them.
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 CLAUSE 8. Before he enter on the Execution of his

Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - "I do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States."
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 2 CLAUSE 1. The President shall be Commander in

Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he
may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the
executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment.
ARTICLE 2 Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers
of the United States, shall be removed from Offce on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
..
11
[Amendment Iv] The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[Amendment VJ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
[Amendment VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[Amendment IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall

not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Amendment XI The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
[Article. XI.][Proposed 1794; Ratified 17981 The Judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
[Article. XII.][Proposed 1803; Ratified 18041The Electors shall meet in their

respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-president, one
of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as
President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-president,
...
111
and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and
of 311 persons voted for as Vice-president, and of the number of votes for
each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat
of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall
then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for
President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then
from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the
list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall
choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President,
the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state
having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or
members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall
be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not
choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them,
before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-president shall
act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability
of the President. - The person having the greatest number of votes as
Vice-president, shall be the Vice-president, if such number be a majority of
the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority,
then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the
Vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the
whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office
of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-president of the United States.
Amendment 14'h Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among

the several States according to their respective numbers, muntin0 the
whole number of persons in each State, excludina Indians not taxed But
when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President
and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the
Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature
thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number
of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State.
1v
In re Amendment 14*hSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or

Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or
hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress
may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Article. [XX.] [Proposed 1932; Ratified 19331
Section. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon
on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives
at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would
have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their
successors shall then begin.
Section. 2.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and
such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they
shall by law appoint a different day.
Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President,
the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become
President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed
for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to
qudi@,then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case
wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have
qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Article. [XXV.] [Proposed 1965; Ratified 19671
Section. 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his

death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President,

the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
V
Section. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore

of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary,
such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting
President.
Section. 4. Clause 1. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either

the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and
duties of the office as Acting President.
Section. 4. Clause 2. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the

President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall
resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a
majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of
such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall
decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not
in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days
after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of
both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his ofice, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same
as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume t h e powers and
duties of his office.
ENDNOTES
The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot Act", is a statute
enacted by the United States Government and signed into law by President
Georcle W. Bush on October 26,2001. The contrived acronym stands for
Uniting and Strengtbening America by Providing Appropdate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct TerrorismAct of ZOO I (Public Law
vi
Pub.L. 107-56).
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search
telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records;
eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States;
expands the Secretary of the Treasutv’s authority to regulate financial
transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities;
and broadens the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities
in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.
The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic
terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA
PATRIOT Act has expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Conaress
and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic
parties. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite
detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers
search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s
permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters,
which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records
without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement
agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since
its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act,
and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are
unconstitutional.
Many of the act’s provisions were to sunset beginning December 31,
2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the
sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions
permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil
liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization
bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House
reauthorization bill kept most of the act’s original language. The two bills
were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by
Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil
liberty concerns. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the
Senate version, passed Congress on March 2,2006, and was signed into
law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10,2006.
The PATRIOT Act has made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key
acts changed were the Foreian lntelllqence SuweillanceAct of 7978
(FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986(ECPA),the
Money Launderina ControlAct of 1986and Bank SecrecyAct (BSA), as
welf as the lmmi&ration andNationalityAct. The Act itself came about after
the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
vii
After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several

proposed antiterrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a
bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act ofZOOI. This was introduced to the House
as the ProvideAppropriate TooIs Requiredto Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (PATWOV Act ofZOOI, and was later passed by the House as
the Unitingand StrengtheningAmerica (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October
12. It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA ActofZUOZ(S. 1510)
where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold,
all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOTActwas
introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S.
1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Fjn~ncjaiAnf/'-~errorism
h i ) . Only one Senator, Russ Feinaold, who was the only Senator to vote
against the bill, vehemently opposed it. Senator Patrick Leahy also
expressed some concerns. However, both detractors and supporters saw
many parts as necessary. The final Act included a number of sunsets which
were to expire on December 31,2005.
Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills were proposed with
which to amend the USA PATRIOT Act. These included the Protectingthe
Rigbts of hdividuals Act, the Be@amin Frankkn True PatnotAct, and the
SecurWandFreedom EnsuredAct (SAFE), none of which passed. In late
January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Intearitv, Charles Lewis,
published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.This highly controversial
document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or "Son of PATRIOT" by the
media and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The
draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice,
proposed to make further extensive modifications to extend the USA
PATRIOT Act. It was widely condemned, although the Department of
Justice claimed that it was only a draft and contained no further proposals.
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) : The Sovereign Military and
Hospitaler Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, known
also as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, or SMOM, is juridically,
po!itically, and historically unique in the world today. Representing initially
the most powerful and reactionary segments of the European aristocracy,
fur nearly a thousand years beginning with the early crusades of the Twelfth
Century, it has organized, funded, and led military operations against states
and ideas deemed threatening to its power. It is probably safe to say that
the several thousand Knights of SMOM, principally in Europe, North,
Central, and South America, comprise the largest most consistently
...
Vlll
In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of

billions of dollars in high-speed rail and goods movement systems to
connect networks of cities in what are termed "global integration zones."
These counterparts to America's megaregions are increasingly being
viewed as the new competitive units in the global economy, where
knowledge workers can move freely among urban hubs. Economic
regeneration strategies are also being deployed at this scale, to transition
former industrial regions to the new information economy.
America 2050 is serving as a clearinghouse for research on the emergence
of Megaregion and a resource for Megaregion planning efforts nationwide.
Its aim is to advance research on the emergence of this new urban form
while promoting planning solutions to address challenges that span state
and regional boundaries, demand cooperation / coordination at the
Megaregion scale; America 2050 supporters: The Rockefeller Foundation;
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Surdna Foundation; The
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; The J.M. Kaplan Fund; AECOM; Park
Foundation; The William Penn Foundation; STV GrouD, Inc.; The Ford
Foundation.
xi i

STRUNK - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUNK - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Transport Room

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

In re Christopher-Earl: Strunk 0 in esse

Petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner Original Proceeding with

Christopher-Earl: Strunk 0 in esse

Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, C.J. for John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.

Preliminary injunction for the equal protection issues that arise

United States v. Cruiksahank,92 U.S. 542 (1 875).................................................. 21

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3......................................................................................... 11,12

DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3501 through 3504

New York State Laws cited:

NYS Const. Article 1,2,3,

AFFIDAVIT of Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner in support of

STATE OF NEW YORK )

I, Christopher-Earl : Strunk 0 in esse, being duly sworn, depose and say:

1.Affiant is self-represented without being an attorney, with place of

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 1 of30 In Re Stntnk Petition for Writ

ii. To restore the New York Electoral College to 47 members as use of

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 2 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 3 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 4 ’ of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

From page 8: wants to know if Person No. 1 in the household is a

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 5 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

15.That in Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit B, Affiant contends that there

That on November 25, 2009, in the original proceeding 09-5322-OP

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 6 of30 In Re Stnrnk Petition for Writ

“Petitioner has not shown any misconduct by the district court

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 7 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 8 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

questionable legal assurances the information will not be used for

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 9 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

Vice-president of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 10 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

mandated decennial Census under color of 13 USC s141, 13 USC SI95 , 2

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 1 1 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

24. Further, that as a matter of compelling State interest that without an

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 12 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

of the constitution, there is no amendment to that express requirement that

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 13 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 14 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

32. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 15 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

controlling and only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 16 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

“we cannot leap into worldgovernment in one quick step... The

38. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski was a Obama / McCain

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 17 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

assembled Senior officials from 10 western Mediterranean countries met

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 18 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

Catholic Europe, to separate Israel from Hezbollah. Just before meeting

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 19 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

Citizens on an American passport was prohibited or raised questionable

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 20 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

penalty of death support those policies advocated by the Vatican. The

1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries.

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 21 of30 In Re Stnink Petition for Writ

UNLAWFUL SUSPENSION OF THE PATRIOT ACT

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 22 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

A. That with this section, refusing to provide the requested

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 23 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 24 of30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

government providing for the person's safety, security, and tranquility.