UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

---------------------------------------------------------------x Dr. Orly Taitz, PRO SE § 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 § Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 § Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 § E-Mail: dr taitz@yahoo.com § § Plaintiff, § v. § § Barack Hussein Obama, § c/o The White House § 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. § Washington, District of Columbia 20500; § § Defendant. § ---------------------------------------------------------------x

Civil Action: 10-CV-00151 (RCL)

STRUNK’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT(S) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk, by Special-Appearance, affirmed April 20,, 2010 will move this Court for reconsideration of the Memorandum/Order and Judgment of April 14, 2010 before Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333 Constitution Avenue NW Washington District of Columbia, on the day and month in 2010, at a time and courtroom designated by the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.
Dated: April 20th , 2010 Brooklyn New York /s/ _____________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Email: chris@strunk.ws Cell-845-901-6767 cc: listing of service to follow Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Alan Burch, AUSA Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Washington District of Columbia 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
---------------------------------------------------------------x Dr. Orly Taitz, PRO SE § 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 § Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 § Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 § E-Mail: dr taitz@yahoo.com § § Plaintiff, § v. § § Barack Hussein Obama, § c/o The White House § 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. § Washington, District of Columbia 20500; § § Defendant. § ---------------------------------------------------------------x

Civil Action: 10-CV-00151 (RCL)

STRUNK’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT(S) I, Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC §1746: 1. This is Strunk’s declaration in support of the Motion for reconsideration of the Judgment

to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to Defendant(s) with the Memorandum / Order and Judgment entered April 14, 2010. 2. That the DOJ stipulated with Declarant for an extension of time to respond in opposition

to the motion to intervene, and that when Declarant replied the Clerk of the Court voided the document and returned it, see the cover page in which the clerk stamped void (see Exhibit). 3. That Declarant appreciates the thoughtful opinion of the Court however asserts such

analysis as applies is conformed to by Declarant who was not given a chance to reply; and for reasons Declarant is unable to discuss until say June 17, 2010, and requests an extension of time to file a reply to the motion to dismiss as to the intervention or otherwise strike the portion of the

Judgment that references Declarant. 4. As for the Court’s use of the adjective quixotic behavior that is noble in an absurd way or

the desire to perform acts of chivalry in a radically impractical manner, neither Plaintiff nor Declarant believes that fighting to save the sovereignty of the nation under our great constitution is either absurd or impractical. It should be noted that Cervantes had enlisted as a soldier in a regiment of the Spanish naval elite corps, Infantería de Marina, stationed in Naples, then a possession of the Spanish crown. He was there for about a year before he saw active service. 5. That the Don Quixote story is more than mere reference by Cervantes to himself in his

own military exploits, in fact were informed by the heroic exploits of the Jesuit Basque Ignatius Loyola whose distinguished service in both the Spanish Court and to the Jesuit company of the Pope’s militia was really the model for Don Quixote in considering the Jesuit contemporary of Cervantes as a devout Catholic. 6. Perhaps metaphorically quixotic may be a true expression of any federal court action

today that attempts to defend the chimera of the U.S. Constitution as the Court suggests, for the Jesuits like Cervantes would revile the premise of the underlying protection of the individual granted in the U.S. Constitution, which are the principles Plaintiff and Declarant fight for. 7. That the term quixotic special meaning that does not apply to Declarant as to that militia

the Jesuits and their collective whom I fight openly without dicing words. 8. That chivalry is not gone as the Court suggests; and to the contrary exists in just the same

way as when Barry Goldwater declared in the 1964 convention "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." he was merely quoting Cicero two millenniums thereafter, just like JFK had rhetorically stated “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” came

from a Warren Harding convention speech too flowed from early history. Wherefore, Declarant urges the Court to reconsider what we endeavor to do as worthy of the Court’s grant of relief as in keeping with the Court’s oath of allegiance, and that Declarant’s intervention without substantive due process be stricken from the judgment as premature until say June 17, 2010 when I am obliged to speak freely; and that Declarant requests other and different relief that the Court may deem necessary. /s/ Dated: April 20th , 2010 Brooklyn, New York _________________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
..............................................................
X

t

Dr. Orly Taitz, PRO SE 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-54 11;Fax (949) 766-7603 E-Mail: dr taitz@vahoo.com
v.

5
§ §

3
§

Civil Action: 10-CV-00151 (RCL)

Plaintiff, 9

Barack Hassein Obama, C/OThe White House
1600 kmsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, District of Columbia 20500

9 9 3 0 8 3
§
-"

r

-

-

r-e

>

Defendant.

...................................................

X

8

C

. .

r
1

,

STRUNK'S DECLARATION IN REPLY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE 90 THE MOTION TO INTERVENE
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare and say under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 5 1746:
1. ~ e c l a r kis the petitioner who has a pending Notice of Motion to Intervene as an Ext

relator Intervener-Plaintiff with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and 24 in the Quo Warranto matter with FRCvP Rule 81 (A) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff. 2. That on January 27,2010 before Declarant decided to intervene was the process server upon the Defendant Obarna by certified mail with return receipt confmed delivered by the United States Postal Service ,and in person service of Eric Holder the US Attorney General and Channing Phillips the U.S. Attorney for Washington DC in person as shown in the Docket record by affidavit submitted to the court on January 27,2010;

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23

Filed 04/14/10 Page 11 of 11

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in re Taitz v. Obama, 10-cv-00151 (RCL)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 21, 2010, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746: Declarant caused the service of two (2) complete sets of STRUNK’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION and STRUNK’S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT(S) with Exhibit annexed declared April 20, 2010, and did place each complete sets in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage to be served by USPS mail upon: Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. , J.D.

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Ronald C. Machen, Jr. United States Attorney c/o of Counsel Alan Burch, AUSA Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Washington District of Columbia 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: April ____ 2010 Brooklyn, New York

_________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Phone: (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ------------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, and Chris Strunk jus tertii - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. # 281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 Plaintiff, : 10-cv-00066 (RJL)

:
: :

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al. Defendants.

: : :
: : :

------------------------------------------------------x
STRUNK’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I, Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746: 1. Declarant is the plaintiff herein responding in opposition to the Defendants’ motion to

dismiss in part and in the alternative for summary judgment due by April 23, 2010. 2. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly in his declaration Paragraphs 1

through 5, neither admits nor denies that the statement is sufficient in information for Declarant to make a response other than to say that if it is true Mr. Reilly’s service at the Bureau of Census is so, it would prepare him for denying information as to the data and conduct of that census as well as the census of farmers too in the aid of fraud and deception. 3. That Declarant contends NASS unreasonably withholds addresses and even zip code(s),

notwithstanding the specific name or data of any farmer or other individual, beyond the privacy protection for specific data of production and name of the provider, as such provides an unreasonable immunity from prosecution contrary to law that was enacted to provide or protect against disclosure of specific data and the name of who gave it, and for which Declarant did not

request any name or data. 4. That as such Declarant believes there are unnamed participants in agricultural subsidy

that are acting above the law with impunity who have made a false claims to the U.S. Treasury in the matter of agricultural subsidy through the Department of Agriculture for modification or suspension of commodity production, and that various farmers have gamed the system using the Perishable Agriculture Commodities Act and related law under color of the mis-application and or mis-use of the intent and letter of the challenged law herein to rip off the U.S. Treasury; and thereby the Department of Agriculture officials, who supposedly act under the honors system aid and abet false claims by the overly broad use of the challenged statutes denying any address or zip coeds going back 50 years, or whereasabouts or even confirmation of the existence of an alleged farmer(s) who may or may not exist in fact, but are merely part of a fraud scheme in New York and elsewhere for commodity manipulation and unjust enrichment. 5. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraphs 5 admits as to the

request that he only asks for addresses NOT name(s) or data; and Declarant asserts even zip codes would begin to map the ongoing investigation. 6. That Declarant understands the law exists to protect any farmer offering production data

figures that if known would undermine proprietary annual yields and planning as to future production; howver does not apply to what may have happened up to fifty years ago;
7.

Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly in paragraphs 6 through 9, neither

admits nor denies that the statement is sufficient for Declarant to make a response other than to say that by withholding the name and data from specific participants such may be done to specifically protect against unfair competition and market manipulation by the big combines; however Mr. Reilly then admits at paragraph 7 there are those who have access to the data at the

Department of Agriculture and elsewhere anyway under the security agreement, which provides information to a “limited group of individuals” not available to Declarant, supposedly with a security clearance that includes Congress and the Executive. and which means big agro-business has access through graft and corruption to anyone in Congress or the Executive without any citizen oversight or involvement whatsoever is ripe for ripe-off.
8.

That Declarant claims the right to know the addresses and or zip codes with which seek

out the existence of individual(s) if any who then may confirm to Declarant if they wish to release data as they have the choice to do so according to the law – or are they also prohibited from telling Declarant too on a one on one basis which in fact is a Catch 22.
9.

Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraph 10 admits that the statute

reference is correct; however, Declarant asserts that subsection (1) does not deny the provision of the address or zip-code merely denies provision of the name of the person or data; as to (2) Declarant does not request data nor the identification of the person; as to (3) Declarant does not request any specific data or name of any person that supplied the particular information. The express law does not deny release of an address or zip code. 10. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraph 11 denies that release of an address or zip-code would “allow the identification of the person who supplied particular information” especially from 50 years earlier is phony baloney; and even if the person were released without any mention of data, such informational would remain under the control of that person which is the intent of the law to protect the data. 11. Now if the system is being gamed as I believe, the abuse of the law by not allowing release of an address to confirm that a farm exists, if at all, and I believe that many farms are phony baloney except for billing only for the purpose of ripping off the U.S. Treasury, then the

law was not intended in any of the express language to do so, and has been used by the Department of Agriculture and its agents in an overly broad cover-up of crime in connection with the Congress, the Executive and the big agro-business collective that like roaches don’t stay still when the lights go on. 12. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraphs 1 thru 4 neither admits nor denies that the statement is sufficient in information for Declarant to make a response other than to say that I am sure that Ms. Hutchinson has a stellar record as a public servant; however, she does not verify whether any of the data she obtains is correct as she operates under an honor system as part of a system that compartmentalizes checks and balances to obscure the data that protects fraud when it occurs, effects the futures market and creates derivative fiction. 13. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraph 5 and 6 admits as to the request and response, did only ask for addresses not names or data; and Declarant asserts that even zip codes would begin to map the investigation ongoing back 50 years. 14. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraph 7 as to Exemption 3 and 7 USC §2276 contends overly broad use especially as to addresses from 50 years earlier that does not cover release of zip-codes or addresses that at paragraph 8 Ms. Hutchison admits the Department takes data from “other individuals” who are not farmers without any security agreement protecting the data for the farmer; so if the other individual is a lawyer, bookkeeper or accountant or even an agro-business why wouldn’t that address or zip-code be released? I am not interested in names or data, Declarant only wants to ascertain whether there actually is a farm involved because I do not trust the government or anyone to do so. 15. Agriculture is all about the futures market and commodity trading that started with farming to help the farmers; but now because of the isolation of the agricultural sector under the

control of the international agro-businesses influenced by the Jesuits, there is proprietary trading of derivative paper for paper and endless scams that have gutted our agricultural sector for the vary reasons that the bureaucrats who operate beyond the express black letter of the law shows. The reason why such bureaucrats would protect an address from 50 years ago goes to real property, water, and utility scams that steal property and feed a big international enterprise that has its hand over fist into the U.S. Treasury that is enslaving the future of the farmers, their children thereby undermining the entire country in the process. 16. Wherefore, Declarant urges the Court to deny the Agricultural Department Defendant’s motion to dismiss and that the addresses and zip codes be released to Declarant even if it would require entry into a security agreement; and that otherwise, the Court should issue a declaratory judgment finding the USDA overly broad use of the express law is arbitrary and capricious against public policy. As for the Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar and his water exploitation shenanigans along with the U.S. Geological Survey as done here in the New York watersheds involving theft of real property with use of sham and suppression of other readily available juvenile sources of water described and proven by Michael A. Salzman in his 1960 Book New Water for a Thirsty World (that counter intuitively by drilling wells into solid rock and finding fissures with artesian pure water as with abiotic oil is generated by geologic processes) and the fraud involved is destroying our national agricultural base with derivative scams that must be exposed soon with or without their continued presence in this case, the other defendants time will come; and requests other and different relief the Court may deem necessary. Dated: April 20th , 2010 /s/ Brooklyn, New York _________________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 email: chris@strunk.ws

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in re Strunk v. US Dept. of Interior et al., 10-cv-00066 (RJL)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 21, 2010, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746: Declarant caused the service of a complete set of STRUNK’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT declared April 20, 2010, and did place the complete set in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage to be served by USPS mail upon:

Ronald C. Machen, Jr. United States Attorney c/o of Counsel Jennifer M. Olkiewicz, AUSA Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Washington District of Columbia 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: April ____ 2010 Brooklyn, New York

_________________________ Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn New York 11238 Phone: (845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws