STRUNK's DC Circuit Petition for Writ of Mandamus for Census w Exhibits and Endnotes DCC 10-5077-OP

Published on July 2016 | Categories: Types, Government & Politics, Public Notices | Downloads: 70 | Comments: 0 | Views: 375
of 120
Download PDF   Embed   Report

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitPetition for Original Proceeding CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 24, 2010, I, Edward M. Person Jr., declare and certify under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, That I received ten (10) copies from Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse, of the PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Christopher-Earl: Strunk© 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-1249, 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 with affidavit and exhibits in support annexed affirmed March 18, 2010, and put one complete set in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage for delivery Confirmation by the US Postal Service upon: John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street – P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514 Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657930 Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq. Texas Office Of The Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657961 Seth E. Goldstein, Deputy Attorney GeneralCalifornia Department of JusticeOffice of the Attorney General1300 “I” Street – Suite 125Sacramento, California 94244-2550 Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657954 Stephen Kitzinger, Assistant Corporation CounselNew York City Law DepartmentOffice of Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 10007Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657947 Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. , J.D. 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657923 Barack Hussein Obamac/o The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington D.C. 20500Delivery Confirm No 03091830000211657978 And further, I put one complete set in a sealed folder properly addressed for delivery by hand upon: Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, C.J. forthe U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001Hon. Richard J. Leon, J. forthe U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney Generalc/o Brigham John Bowen, AUSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 For: U.S. DEPT. OF STATE Ronald C. Machen, Jr. U.S. Attorney c/o of Counsel Alan Burch, AUSA Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Washington DC555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530Wynne P. Kelly AUSA 555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530For: The DOC Bureau of Census,John Marcus McNichols, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury: Dated: March 24th , 2010 /s/ Washington D.C. _________________________ Edward M. Person Jr

Comments

Content

UNITED-STATESCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DtSTRlCT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
In re Christopher-Earl: Strunk 6 in esse 3 Petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
& J

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-1249,09-cv-1295 and 1O-cv00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified Complaint to respond to the herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Injunction

Christopher-Earl: Strunk O in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Cell-845-901-6767 [email protected]

RESPONDENTS Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, C.J. for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Hon. Richard J. Leon, J. for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001 Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General c/o Brigham John Bowen, AUSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 For: U.S. DEPT. OF STATE Ronald C. Machen, Jr. U.S. Attorney c/o of Counsel Alan Burch, AUSA Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Washington DC 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 For: Barack Hussein Obama Wynne P. Kelly AUSA 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 For: The DOC Bureau of Census, John Marcus McNichols, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 For: Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus / Fr. Timothy B. Brown, S.J.
ii

John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street – P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514 For: New York Province of the Society of Jesus / Fr. Gerald Chojnacki, S.J. Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq. Texas Office Of The Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 For: the State of Texas Seth E. Goldstein, Deputy Attorney General California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1300 “I” Street – Suite 125 Sacramento, California 942442550 For: State of California Stephen Kitzinger, Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department Office of Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 For: the City of New York Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. , J.D. 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Barack Hussein Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20500

TABLE OF CONTENTS Issues presented: (i) 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 Injunction to 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 14th Amendment Section 2. (iv) 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; (v) Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the Census; (vi) Disclosure of the origin of U.S. Senator Obama’s official passport; (vii) 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 5th and 9th 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. §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. (ix) 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 (x) that this Court provide further and different relief as it deems necessary for justice herein.
iii

Cases cited:

United States v. Cruiksahank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)…………………………………………..21 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)……………………………………………..25 Dept. Of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)……………………………………………….26
Statutes cited: 2 USC §2a…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 5 USC §552…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 13 USC §141………………………………………………………………………………………………..…2-4,9,11,13 13 USC §221………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,22 13 USC §195………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,11 18 U.S.C. §§ 3571 and 3559………………………………………………………………………………2,2,24 18 U.S.C. §953 and related Chapter 45 law………………………………………………………….8 28 USC §1343 28 USC §1344 28 USC §1345 28 USC §1361 28 USC §2284……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 42 USC §1971, §1983, §1985……………………………………………………………………………………3 • Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56)…………………………………….8 • the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act) • the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), • the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), • the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 • the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), • the Immigration and Nationality Act.

iv

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: 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 20th, 25th 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 for 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 Obama et al. DCD DCC 08-5503-OP DCC 09-5322-OP Strunk v. Paterson et al. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 .
v

AFFIDAVIT of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© 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 10-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 © 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 [email protected]. 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 10-cv00151 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 of 30 In Re Strunk 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 14th 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 statistics related to Federal Subsidy;

iv. v. vi.

Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the Census; Disclosure of the origin of U.S. Senator Obama’s official passport; 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 5th and 9th 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

of 30

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 71st Election District of the 57th Assembly District, 18th Senate District, 11th New York U.S. House District and 25th 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 §195 not to deliver to any PMB and or Post Office Box, but to dwelling residents occupying real property. 7. 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 STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS et al. with a request for a three judge panel with 28 USC
§2284 in the matter of Nationwide / Statewide injury associated inter alia with the on-going 2010 Census enumeration with 13 USC §141, 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 §1983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson

et al. 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 of 30 In Re Strunk 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, 2010, 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 “Are you a Citizen?” and “Are you a permanent

resident alien?” or even the SSN last four as 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 §141 (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

of 30

In Re Strunk 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 10-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 "other." • 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 5 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 selfrepresented 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 085503-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 of 30 In Re Strunk 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 DOS 08cv-2234 under FOIA 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 U.S. 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 v. 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 7 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

Logan Act (18 USC §953 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 natural-born

Citizen required with U.S. Constitution Article II 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 census data is private 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 Patriot Act (see endnotes p iv), the nation's main counterterrorism law, and the Executive Branch has previously given

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

8

of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 ‘Are you 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 §141 was used to equalize the allotment of U.S. House members; however, is unconstitutionally “capped” at 435 without the protection of the 14th Amendment Section 2 requiring due process for any State in reduction of the electoral college size- 13 USC §141 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 §141 since 1960 when the U.S. House members plus two Senators with the 13 USC §141 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 14th Amendment Section 2 prohibits any abridgment of the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

9

of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 18th 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

form as 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

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

10 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

mandated decennial Census under color of 13 USC §141, 13 USC §195 , 2 USC §2a and related law that flouts the express intent of the U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2 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 Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” (see Endnote p. i); and that the emphasized
underlined sentence was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2 quote “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States

according to their respective numbers, counting 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 14th Amendment including Section 2 modified the body of persons of whom the Census enumeration to count by changing the term “determined by adding to the whole Number of free

Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." to “counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding 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

11 of 30

In Re Strunk 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 thirty

Thousand” that has not been amended since the inception of the ratification

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

12 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 1:30000 or 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 §141 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

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

13 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 U.S. 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,

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

14 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 U.S. 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

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

15 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

controlling and only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for assuming the corporate office of the Presidency, i.e. 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 Obama 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 Military 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 Kaimierz 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:

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

16 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

“We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...The precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization.”
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.middleeast-online.com/english/?id=31629 with the “5+5 Forum” discusses relaunching the Roman Empire as the Med Union and that this February
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 17 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

18 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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,
(see Endnotes p. xi)

http://www.America2050.org

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 The Atlanta 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 North American 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.

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

19 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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), 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 (a/k/a 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

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

20 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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. 10. 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.
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 21 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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:

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

22 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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. more than $500.00.

B. That willfully giving information that is false has a fine of not
56. That what appears as the Census Bureau misrepresentation of federal law is designed to harass, coerce and violate the 5th and 9th 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 23 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 his/her allegiance to the government in exchange for its protection, which includes the
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 24 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 his/her life, liberty, and property. 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 and/or 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 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) (explains that it is the people who are sovereign in our Constitutional Republic). Any
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 25 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

party to a contract has standing to enforce it. The U.S. 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. Egan, 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 26 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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

think 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 27 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 12th 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.

DC Circuit Original Proceeding

28 of 30

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

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 §141 to reduce same to the present 31 is a violation of the 14th 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 statistics related to Federal Subsidy; (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 5th and 9th 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
DC Circuit Original Proceeding 29 of 30 In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

.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. 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 Ibelieve it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and
i

' belief are as follows: 3 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 O in esse Sworn t before me this day of March 2010 the

-/?

I
I

.- - .-...___...'=*
\''

' DEcr ut W L a pmceed@tarY i c i g Ll

W Y D J~ VAILEY .

Quahfled In K r n ~ s CountY

P UL* 0 1 ~0.

New York *ry&&fa
f

In Re Strunk Petition for Writ

~ ~ ~ m ~ s Expires March 3. 2011 sion

-4EIccfions

1
.

I

i n t k C i f y o f N e w Y d . ..&
Brooklyn Office 345AdamsStreet,4thFloor Brooklyn, NY 112Ol (718) 797-8800
BD O ELECZIONS F OF NEW YO
IEMP.RETuRNSeKMI=E-

Your Important Voting Infomation

I

W E R E TO WE: Your, Election/Assembly District is: Y ~ P S U ~ ~ & S & I~& & ~ W S & & * : tlqq FXik3 ~ V

ED: 071 AD: 57 REP

.'

-8o-m-

PS9CJew

EISTERTHRUlEWTREPORBergrwr~
.

W W N TO VWE:

Primary Election: Tuesday; September 15,2009 Run-OffPrimary (if necessary): Tuesday, September 29,2009 General Election: Tuesday, November 3,2009
2009q 9 A lSL1 kas
h~~(.b*+!: 200949 A 29 e Z#I=

.: . Primaria: Marts 15 de Scptiembre dc12009
-~
(si-es ilumriob

~ Primaria de Dcscmpatt 6 n

WWI 2009a9315~1. *A% o;~q 43 2009u 9% 2 9 3 , *&0d @a ( +?) %*!
.

I ;/I I

luvca29&Sepdembrrdd2009 <General: Mart+ de Noviembrc del2009
/'

#-S:2009 q' a 38 g#= 11

*#EXHIBIT

A

[1
i

Case 1:09-cv-O1295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 13
Strunk v. US l h p m e n t ofCammerce Bunau ofCensus & al. DCD 09cv-1295

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

------

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I -

X

Christopher-Earl: Stnmk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER (aka "CHRIS")STRUNKjus tertii People,
593 Vanderbilt Avenue 28 1 Brooklyn New York 1 1238 845-90 1-6767

:

-

Plaintiffs :

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

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

.C .

-,

Defendants. :

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF RECENT DECISION AND Dl-ON RULE 9.1 MOTION FOR A THREEdUDGE COURT

OF LOCAL

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 5 1746 that:
Declarant / Plaintiff, b b y 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 Forione

et al. v, the State of Californiaer al. No. 06-CV-1002 (NDNY February 19,2010), renders Mr.

Forjone's request with 28 USC 51407 moots as it is now a matter on appeal to the Second Circuit that should takes several months to resolve. A copy of the court's decision and order is attached to this notice. The nudge given to fudge Kahn by Mr. Forjone and myself to takes that case off the Congressional list of pending matters requiring continuing funding there in NDNY; however, does not change the fact that there is an urgent matter with a deadline of March 15,2010 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
FEB 2 5 2010
a%rk,.U.S. District and

U(HI8iT

B

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 6 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 7 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 8 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 9 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 10 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 11 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 12 of 13

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35

Filed 02/25/10 Page 13 of 13

%

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 37

Filed 03117110 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRIm COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

1

.
v.

Plaintiff,
'

1
)

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., 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 [#251; it is fbrther ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a three judge panel [Dkt. #3] is DENIED;it is

ORDERED that the defendants' motions to dismiss [Dkt. # 10, 13,16,21,22, and 251 k e GRANTED; ft is h t h e r

Case 1:09-cv-01295-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 appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). SO ORDERED.
\

DATE:

1

1

~
United States District Judge

./1

/I~JIO

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff,
v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

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.
I. BACKGROUND

The Court is mindful that the complaint of a pro 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
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 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 plaintifflabels "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 2010

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 10

census, plaintiff asserts that he is disenfranchised - the strength of his vote is diluted. For example, plaintiff alleges 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 funds to provide tourists medical care, public education, and other social services. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 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 CompI.
~~

1-2. Among other relief, plaintiff demands a declaratory

judgment that tourists are not permanent residents to be counted in the 201 0 Census, injunctive relief barring further 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-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 10

II. DISCUSSION!

A. Dismissal Under Rule J2(b)(J)
1. Standing All defendants move to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to bring a claim challenging the 2010 census. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of [Defs. Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown] [Dkt. #10-2] at 4-6; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss the CompI. by Defs. New York Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Gerald Chojnacki, SJ. [Dkt. #14] at 8-9; Mem. ofP. & A. in Supp. ofDef. State of Texas' Mot. to Dismiss ("Texas Mem.") [Dkt. #16-2] at 4-6; Mem. ofP. & A. in Supp. of Fed. Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Fed. Defs.' Mem.") [Dkt. #21] at 5-7; Mem. ofP. & A. in Supp. ofDef. State of California's Mot. to Dismiss ("California Mem.") [Dkt. #22-1] at 5-6; Def. City of New York and Michael Bloomberg'S Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. #25-1] at 4-6. The Court's jurisdiction is limited to cases and controversies, U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, and a core element of Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement is that a plaintiff have standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defenders afWildlife, 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 likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). Thus, a party has standing ifhis claims "spring from an 'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' 'actual or imminent' and 'fairly traceable' to the challenged act ofthe defendant, and likely to be redressed

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 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 4 of 10

by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 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'nfor Am. Immigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980), a

three-judge panel considered the constitutionality of the 1980 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," resulting in "in the inclusion of a large but presently 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 receiver 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 people of the United States," and they demanded "declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring the Census Bureau to use its best efforts to count illegal aliens separately and exclude them from the apportionment base." !d. 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 lose representation." Id. at 570. And, because the plaintiffs could not establish that the relief they demanded would inure to their personal benefit, their claims were dismissed for lack of standing. Id. at 578.

-4-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 5 of 10

Similarly, in Sharrow v. Brown, 447 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 968 (1972), the plaintiff argued that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (which the Second Circuit designated "1412") 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. 2 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 1412 required. !d. He argued that the proper enforcement of 1412 would have "result[ed] in an 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," Compi.
~

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 ofthe 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 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. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 2. -5-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 6 of 10

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 11 th Congressional District. See Compi. ~ 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 2010 Census raises an "abstract question[] of wide public significance," Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 500 (1975), and thus he fails to allege an injury in fact, that is, "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypotenticaI." Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 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 Compi. as to the State of
California and State of Texas Defs. [Dkt. # 31] ~ 12, is not persuasive. 3 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

"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, plaintiff s opposition to the motion to dismiss [# 10] 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 03/17/10 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 8-10. It is settled that the United States "can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued." Epps v.

United States Attorney General, 575 F. Supp. 2d 232,238 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 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. §§ 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 lawsuits 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 o/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 McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (affirming dismissal of an FTCA suit prematurely filed before the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies). b. Immunity 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-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 8 of 10

the same argument applies to the State of New York. Under the Eleventh Amendment, "[t]he 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 from suit in federal court. See Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. ofAlabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 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.,

College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 675
(1999); Quern 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. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, offers no support, as these statutes do not override the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Will v.

Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58,64 (1989) (concluding that a state is not a "person"
for purposes of § 1983); Quern v. Jordan, 448 U.S. at 345.

B. Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)
Even if plaintiff had demonstrated standing to challenge the 2010 Census, his complaint fails to state civil rights claims against the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Gerald Chojnacki, S.l, the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, and Timothy B. Brown, S.J., under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986. "To state a claim under [§] 1983, a plaintiff must allege both (1) that he was deprived ofa right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the defendant acted

-8-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 9 of 10

'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) (citing Adickes v. S.H Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,150 (1970)), cert.

denied, 503 US. 967 (1992); West v. Atkins, 487 US. 42, 48 (1988). Assuming without deciding
that plaintiff adequately alleges the violation of constitutional rights, his civil rights claim fails because the complaint does not allege that these defendants are as state actors. This pleading alone is fatal. See Edwards v. Okie Dokie, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 2d 31, 41 (D.D.C. 2007) (dismissing § 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 Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 US. 88, 101-02 (1971), which is essential to pleading a violation of 42 US.C. § 1985(3). See Atherton v. Dist. o/Columbia Office o/the

Mayor, 567 F.3d 672,688 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs failure to state a claim under § 1985
means that a claim under § 1986 cannot survive. See Burnett v. Sharma, 511 F. Supp. 2d 136, 145 (D.D.C. 2007) ("Because the complaint fails to state a claim under § 1985, plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under § 1986."); Thomas v. News World Comm 'ens, 681 F. Supp. 55,62 (D.D.C. 1988) (citations omitted) ("The language of[ 42 US.C. § 1986] establishes unambiguously that a colorable claim under § 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim for neglect to prevent under § 1986.").

-9-

Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 36

Filed 03/17/10 Page 10 of 10

III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the 2010 Census, and his complaint 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.

RICHARD J. LE United States District Judge DATE:

-10-

T

D

C

)

-

-

T

~

~

~

R

w

f

8 . a am. and 9W p.m., 7 da)rs a wek. The tek@me caff is he. .

Wk = ~ 8 3 . 2 & I O.m 1 7 ~ M

TheU.S.CeneusWIlrraueslknaeesmat,fortheaveragehoueehold,tMelormvlril~about10~to

"

~indudingthetimeforreviewh.lgthek#itnrdionsandanswers.Send~regerdingthiskrrdenj esrdmate or,any other asped d thls burden hx Papemark Reduction Project 060749196, U.S. Census Bureau, AMSP3K138.4600 Sihrer HI Road, Washington, DC 20233. You may email commnb to < P ~ ~ D ~ s u s . ~ ~ ; use '~eperwark 0 6 w - 0 9 1 ~ the as 9 F l q x d e m are not required t respond to any infcmatlon coitedion urless it dkphys a val# approve1 o ,

m,

~bantheO(AcaofUr*gamntand~.
w -

----.-

-

L - - . I - -

r-

-

-.L

.- -.

.

.,.I

*---

... ...

-"--- .....

.

- - .-- .d - =. . -.

EXHIBIT

D

5. Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a
person living here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1's. . . . . . . . .Print name below. . name? ... .. Census must count every person living In the United on April 1,201 0. , re you answer Q m t i o n 1 count the people living in house, apartment, or mobile home using our guidelines. Count all people, including babies, who live and sleep here
Last Name
?

57 R 4 $.k I
..

*.Am..

*

4..

.--

First Name

MI C#R~,STQ.~H&R E
--

i most of the time.
.Census Bureau also conducts counts In Institutions other places, so:

I

6. What Is Person 1's sex? Mark I( ONE box. 7.
,ale Female What Is Person 1's age and what Is Person 1's date of birth? Please repofl babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1, 2010 Month Day Year of birth

Do not count anyone living away either at college or in the Armed Forces. Do not count anyone in a nursing home, jail, prison, detention,facility, etc., on April 1, 2010. * Leave these people off your form, even if they will return to '' live here after they leave college, the nursing home, the military, jail, etc. Otherwise, they may be counted twice.

+ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 8 about Hispanic orlgln and
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanlc, Latino, or Spanish origin?
%NO,

Question 9 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not races.

pce

Census must also IncIucJe people without a peimanent to stay, so:

If someone who has no permanent place to stay is staying here on April 1,2010, count that person. Otherwise, he or I-' she may- - missed in the census. g>- - . be -- A

8

How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1,2010?
Number o people = f
,

not of Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin .-: - - Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano :- Yes, Puerto Rican i- Yes, Cuban Yes, another Hiqhnic, Latino, or'spanish origin P h t ~ , f o r e m p k , Aywninean, Colom"bian;~drcan, Kmraguan, Sdwdoran, Spaniard, a&so on. 3 - '

a

-

P p
I

-

t

-- -:

! Were there any additional people staying here .
i-,- ~l( all that apply. Mark
.-

I

9. What Is Person 1's race? Mark 3 one or more boxes.
White * .. Black, African Am., or Negro ! American Indian or Ala3ka Native - Pni,t name of endled or pnnapal f&. l
i
I

April 1, 2010 that you did not include In Question I ?

Children, such as newborn babies or foster children , <- .I Relatives, such as adult children, cousins, or in-laws .A Nonrelatives, such as roommates or live-in baby sitters ' People staying here temporarily No additional people ), Is this house, apartment, or mobile home Mark I( ONE box. Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan? Include home equity loans. - Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)?
I

I

&

-

Japanese Korean +- Filipino L ., Vietnamese I I -. Other Asian - flint race, for
*.

Asian Indian

I

t.-t

LL Chinese
I

I

- .. Guamanian or Chamorro

Native Hawaiian

&-,

' I
I

example, Hmong, Laotim, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

-

Samoan Other Pacific Islander - Print
race, for example, Wian, Tongan, and so on. 3

3

t

1 What Is your telephone number? We may call if we .
I

% EzL without payment of rent?
don't understand an answer. Area Code + Number

Some other race - Print race.

3

'10. Does Person 1-s o d i m e s live or stay somewhere else?
%NO

I

JMB No. 0607-09196: Approval Expires 12/31/2011.
t
-,

+

Yes - Mark I ( ] a 1 that apply. 1 In college housing ' -: For child custody , n In the military In jail or prison L3, At a seasonal In a nursing home or second residence * for another reason If more peopls were counted in Question 1 continue with Person 2. ,

SCENSUSBUREAU

r"c\

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ec-lea

and Statistks Administration

i@j
.brad

U.S. Census Bureau
Washington, DC 20233-0001

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

March 15,2010

A message from ,the Director, U.S. Census Bureau . . .

This is your official 2010 Census form. We need your help to count everyone in the United States by providing basic information about all the people living in this house or apartment. Please complete and mall back the enclosed census form today. Your answers are important. Census results are used to decide the number of representatives each state has in the U.S. Congress. The amount of government money your neighborhood receives also depends on these answers. That money is used for services for children and the elderly, roads, and many other local needs. Your answers are confidential. This means the Census Bureau cannot give out information that identifies you or your household. Your answers will only be used for statistical purposes, and no other purpose. The back of this letter contains more information about protecting your data.

Census
'USCENSUSBUREAU
rrre(L) ( . 6 m 6 2 - )

Unibedb

2010

Your Answers Are Confident)a15'
Federal law protects your privacy and keeps your answers confidential (Title 13, United States Code, Sections 9 and 214). The answers you give on the census form cannot be obtained by law enforcement or tax collection agencies. Your answers cannot be used in court. They cannot be obtained with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

As allowed by law, census data becomes public after 72 years (Title 44, United States Code, Section 2108). This information can be used for family history and other types of historical research.
Please visit our Web site at ~www.census.g0~/201Ocensus> and click on "Protecting Your Answers" to learn more about our privacy policy and data protection.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Emmwnia and S td Administration pi a U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

THE

American Community Survey

Community Survey

Please complete this form and return it as soon as possible after receiving it in the mail.

This form asks for information about the people who are living the address on the mailin about the house, apartment, home located at the address mailing label.

ion.

-

* . a >

. A

1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free.

~d&horwD.vb

all# Dad CCDD); Call 1-800-582-8330. The telephone call 18free.

*

(NECESTCA AWDA? Si usted habla espaliol y necesita ayuda para completar su cuestionario, llame sin cargo alguno al 187783S5625. Usted tambien puede pedir un cuestionario en espatiol o wmpletar su entrevista por telefono con un entrevistador que habla espatiol.
For more information about the American Community Survey, visit our web site at: httpJ/www.census.gov/a~I

USCENSUSBUREAU

OMB No. 0 8 0 7 ~ 1 0

13190020

Person 1
1 What is Person 2’s name?
(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.)
Last Name (Please print)

Person 2
First Name MI

2 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.
Husband or wife Biological son or daughter Son-in-law or daughter-in-law Other relative Roomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Unmarried partner Foster child Other nonrelative

1

What is Person 1’s name?
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

Adopted son or daughter Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister Father or mother

2

How is this person related to Person 1? X
Person 1

Grandchild Parent-in-law

3 4

What is Person 1’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box.
Male Female

3 What is Person 2’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box.
Male

Age (in years)

Month

Day

Year of birth

Age (in years)

C

O

What is Person 1’s age and what is Person 1’s date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes.

4 What is Person 2’s age and what is Person 2’s date of birth?
Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes.
Month Day Year of birth

➜ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5
Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban

IO

N

Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

➜ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5 Is Person 2 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban

FO

R

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

M

AT

IN

6

What is Person 1’s race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.
White Black, African Am., or Negro

6 What is Person 2’s race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.
White Black, African Am., or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.

American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

AL

Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

PY

Female

Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.

Some other race – Print race.

Some other race – Print race.

2

§.4!5¤

13190038

Person 3
1
What is Person 3’s name?
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

Person 4
1 What is Person 4’s name?
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

2

How is this person related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.
Husband or wife Biological son or daughter Adopted son or daughter Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister Father or mother Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-law or daughter-in-law Other relative Roomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Unmarried partner Foster child Other nonrelative

2 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.
Husband or wife Biological son or daughter Adopted son or daughter Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister Father or mother Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-law or daughter-in-law Other relative Roomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Unmarried partner Foster child Other nonrelative

3 4

What is Person 3’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box.
Male Female

3 What is Person 4’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box.
Male

Age (in years)

Month

Day

Year of birth

Age (in years)

C

O

What is Person 3’s age and what is Person 3’s date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes.

4 What is Person 4’s age and what is Person 4’s date of birth?
Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes.
Month Day Year of birth

➜ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5
Is Person 3 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban

IO

N

Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

➜ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5 Is Person 4 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban

White Black, African Am., or Negro

IN

6

FO

R

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

M

AT

What is Person 3’s race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.

6 What is Person 4’s race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.
White Black, African Am., or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.

American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

Japanese Korean Vietnamese

AL

Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

PY

Female

Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.

Some other race – Print race.

Some other race – Print race.

§.4!G¤

3

13190046

Person 5
1
What is Person 5’s name?
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

➜

If there are more than five people living or staying here, print their names in the spaces for Person 6 through Person 12. We may call you for more information about them.

Person 6
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

2

How is this person related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.
Husband or wife Biological son or daughter Adopted son or daughter Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister Father or mother Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-law or daughter-in-law Other relative Roomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Unmarried partner Foster child Other nonrelative Sex Male Female Age (in years)

Person 7
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

3 4

What is Person 5’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box.
Male Female

Sex

Male

Female

Age (in years)

Person 8

Age (in years)

Month

Day

Year of birth

AL

➜ NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5
Is Person 5 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban

Sex

C

Male

O

What is Person 5’s age and what is Person 5’s date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes.

Last Name (Please print)

PY

First Name

MI

Female

Age (in years)

N

Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.

Person 9

AT

IO

Last Name (Please print)

First Name

MI

M

Sex

Male

Female

Age (in years)

R

Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin – Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

Person 10
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

White Black, African Am., or Negro

IN

6

What is Person 5’s race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.

FO

Sex

Male

Female

Age (in years)

American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.

Person 11
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

Japanese Korean Vietnamese

Native Hawaiian Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on. Sex Male Female Age (in years)

Person 12
Last Name (Please print) First Name MI

Some other race – Print race. Sex Male Female Age (in years)

4

§.4!O¤

13190053

Housing
➜
Please answer the following questions about the house, apartment, or mobile home at the address on the mailing label. Which best describes this building? Include all apartments, flats, etc., even if vacant. A mobile home A one-family house detached from any other house A one-family house attached to one or more houses A building with 2 apartments A building with 3 or 4 apartments A building with 5 to 9 apartments A building with 10 to 19 apartments A building with 20 to 49 apartments A building with 50 or more apartments Boat, RV, van, etc.

A

Answer questions 4 – 6 if this is a HOUSE OR A MOBILE HOME; otherwise, SKIP to question 7a.

8 Does this house, apartment, or mobile
home have – a. hot and cold running water? b. a flush toilet? Yes No

1

4 How many acres is this house or
mobile home on? Less than 1 acre âž” SKIP to question 6 1 to 9.9 acres 10 or more acres

c. a bathtub or shower? d. a sink with a faucet? e. a stove or range? f. a refrigerator?

5 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what

C AL N

None $1 to $999 $1,000 to $2,499 $2,500 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 or more

O

were the actual sales of all agricultural products from this property?

PY

g. telephone service from which you can both make and receive calls? Include cell phones.

9 How many automobiles, vans, and trucks
of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of this household? None 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more

2

About when was this building first built? 2000 or later – Specify year

6 Is there a business (such as a store or

1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1959 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier

FO

R

M
Yes No

barber shop) or a medical office on this property?

AT

IO

10 Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this
house, apartment, or mobile home? Gas: from underground pipes serving the neighborhood Gas: bottled, tank, or LP Electricity Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used house, apartment, or mobile home? Rooms must be separated by built-in archways or walls that extend out at least 6 inches and go from floor to ceiling. • INCLUDE bedrooms, kitchens, etc. • EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or unfinished basements.
Number of rooms

7 a. How many separate rooms are in this

3

When did PERSON 1 (listed on page 2) move into this house, apartment, or mobile home?
Month Year

IN

b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? Count as bedrooms those rooms you would list if this house, apartment, or mobile home were for sale or rent. If this is an efficiency/studio apartment, print "0".
Number of bedrooms

§.4!V¤

5

13190061

Housing (continued)
11 a. LAST MONTH, what was the cost
of electricity for this house, apartment, or mobile home? Last month’s cost – Dollars $ , OR Included in rent or condominium fee No charge or electricity not used b. LAST MONTH, what was the cost of gas for this house, apartment, or mobile home? Last month’s cost – Dollars $ , OR Included in rent or condominium fee Included in electricity payment entered above No charge or gas not used c. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was the cost of water and sewer for this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have lived here less than 12 months, estimate the cost. Past 12 months’ cost – Dollars $ , OR Included in rent or condominium fee No charge .00 .00 .00

12 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in
this household receive Food Stamps or a Food Stamp benefit card? Include government benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Do NOT include WIC or the National School Lunch Program. Yes No

C

Answer questions 16 – 20 if you or someone else in this household OWNS or IS BUYING this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, SKIP to E on the next page.

16 About how much do you think this
house and lot, apartment, or mobile home (and lot, if owned) would sell for if it were for sale? Amount – Dollars $ , , .00

13 Is this house, apartment, or mobile home
part of a condominium? Yes âž” What is the monthly condominium fee? For renters, answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to your rent; otherwise, mark the "None" box. Monthly amount – Dollars $ , OR None No .00

O

C

PY

17 What are the annual real estate taxes on
THIS property? Annual amount – Dollars $ , OR None .00

14 Is this house, apartment, or mobile home –
Mark (X) ONE box.

IO

N AT

AL
$

18 What is the annual payment for fire,
hazard, and flood insurance on THIS property? Annual amount – Dollars , OR None .00

FO
B
$

d. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what was the cost of oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc., for this house, apartment, or mobile home? If you have lived here less than 12 months, estimate the cost. Past 12 months’ cost – Dollars $ , OR Included in rent or condominium fee No charge or these fuels not used .00

IN

Answer questions 15a and b if this house, apartment, or mobile home is RENTED. Otherwise, SKIP to question 16.

15 a. What is the monthly rent for this
house, apartment, or mobile home? Monthly amount – Dollars , .00

b. Does the monthly rent include any meals? Yes No

6

§.4!^¤

R

M

Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan? Include home equity loans. Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)? Rented? Occupied without payment of rent? âž” SKIP to C

13190079

Housing (continued)
19 a. Do you or any member of this
household have a mortgage, deed of trust, contract to purchase, or similar debt on THIS property? Yes, mortgage, deed of trust, or similar debt Yes, contract to purchase No âž” SKIP to question 20a b. How much is the regular monthly mortgage payment on THIS property? Include payment only on FIRST mortgage or contract to purchase. Monthly amount – Dollars $ , OR No regular payment required âž” SKIP to question 20a c. Does the regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property? Yes, taxes included in mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or taxes not required d. Does the regular monthly mortgage payment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on THIS property? .00 $ , OR No regular payment required .00

20 a. Do you or any member of this
household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS property? Yes, home equity loan Yes, second mortgage Yes, second mortgage and home equity loan No âž” SKIP to D b. How much is the regular monthly payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property?

E

Answer questions about PERSON 1 on the next page if you listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise, SKIP to page 28 for the mailing instructions.

D

21 What are the total annual costs for
personal property taxes, site rent, registration fees, and license fees on THIS mobile home and its site? Exclude real estate taxes. Annual costs – Dollars $ , .00

§.4!p¤

IN

Yes, insurance included in mortgage payment No, insurance paid separately or no insurance

FO

R

M

AT

IO

Answer question 21 if this is a MOBILE HOME. Otherwise, SKIP to E .

N

AL

C

O

PY

Monthly amount – Dollars

7

13190087

Person 1
➜
Please copy the name of Person 1 from page 2, then continue answering questions below. Last Name

11 What is the highest degree or level of school
this person has COMPLETED? Mark (X) ONE box.
If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. NO SCHOOLING COMPLETED

13 What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

No schooling completed
NURSERY OR PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12

First Name

MI

Nursery school Kindergarten Grade 1 through 11 – Specify grade 1 – 11

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

14 a. Does this person speak a language other than
English at home? Yes No âž” SKIP to question 15a

7

Where was this person born? In the United States – Print name of state.

12th grade – NO DIPLOMA Outside the United States – Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

b. What is this language?

Regular high school diploma
COLLEGE OR SOME COLLEGE

8

Is this person a citizen of the United States? Yes, born in the United States âž” SKIP to 10a Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization – Print year of naturalization

PY

GED or alternative credential

For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese

c. How well does this person speak English? Very well Well Not well Not at all

Associate’s degree (for example: AA, AS) Bachelor’s degree (for example: BA, BS)
AFTER BACHELOR’S DEGREE

AL

C

1 or more years of college credit, no degree

O

Some college credit, but less than 1 year of college credit

15 a. Did this person live in this house or apartment
1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old âž” SKIP to question 16 Yes, this house âž” SKIP to question 16 No, outside the United States and Puerto Rico – Print name of foreign country, or U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, etc., below; then SKIP to question 16

No, not a U.S. citizen

9

FO

10 a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS, has this
person attended school or college? Include
only nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, home school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree.

R

F

Answer question 12 if this person has a bachelor’s degree or higher. Otherwise, SKIP to question 13.

M

When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year

Doctorate degree (for example: PhD, EdD)

AT

IO

Master’s degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA) Professional degree beyond a bachelor’s degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)

N

No, different house in the United States or Puerto Rico b. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Address (Number and street name)

No, has not attended in the last 3 months âž” SKIP to question 11 Yes, public school, public college

IN

12 This question focuses on this person’s

Yes, private school, private college, home school b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark (X) ONE box. Nursery school, preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 through 12 – Specify grade 1 – 12

BACHELOR’S DEGREE. Please print below the specific major(s) of any BACHELOR’S DEGREES this person has received. (For example: chemical engineering, elementary teacher education, organizational psychology)

Name of city, town, or post office

Name of U.S. county or municipio in Puerto Rico

Name of U.S. state or Puerto Rico College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school beyond a bachelor’s degree (for example: MA or PhD program, or medical or law school)

ZIP Code

8

§.4!x¤

13190095

Person 1 (continued)
16 Is this person CURRENTLY covered by any of the

H

Answer question 19 if this person is 15 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to the questions for Person 2 on page 12.

c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)?
If the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time.

following types of health insurance or health coverage plans? Mark "Yes" or "No" for EACH type of coverage in items a – h. 19 Because of a physical, mental, or emotional Yes No condition, does this person have difficulty a. Insurance through a current or doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s former employer or union (of this office or shopping? person or another family member) b. Insurance purchased directly from Yes an insurance company (by this No person or another family member) c. Medicare, for people 65 and older, or people with certain disabilities d. Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any kind of government-assistance plan for those with low incomes or a disability e. TRICARE or other military health care f. VA (including those who have ever used or enrolled for VA health care) g. Indian Health Service h. Any other type of health insurance or health coverage plan – Specify

Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years

20 What is this person’s marital status?
Now married Widowed Divorced Separated Never married âž” SKIP to I Yes a. Married? b. Widowed? c. Divorced? No

26 Has this person ever served on active duty in the
U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the
Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War.

Yes, now on active duty

21 In the PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get –

PY

Yes, on active duty during the last 12 months, but not now Yes, on active duty in the past, but not during the last 12 months No, training for Reserves or National Guard only âž” SKIP to question 28a No, never served in the military âž” SKIP to question 29a

AL

C IO N

O

27 When did this person serve on active duty in the
U.S. Armed Forces? Mark (X) a box for EACH period
in which this person served, even if just for part of the period.

17 a. Is this person deaf or does he/she have
serious difficulty hearing? Yes No

22 How many times has this person been married?
Once Two times

September 2001 or later August 1990 to August 2001 (including Persian Gulf War) September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975) March 1961 to July 1964 February 1955 to February 1961 Korean War (July 1950 to January 1955) January 1947 to June 1950 World War II (December 1941 to December 1946) November 1941 or earlier

G

IN

Answer question 18a – c if this person is 5 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to the questions for Person 2 on page 12.

18 a. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional
condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? Yes No b. Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? Yes No c. Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing? Yes No

FO
I

No

24 Has this person given birth to any children in
the past 12 months? Yes No

R
Answer question 24 if this person is female and 15 – 50 years old. Otherwise, SKIP to question 25a.

Yes

M

b. Is this person blind or does he/she have 23 In what year did this person last get married? serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses? Year

AT

Three or more times

28 a. Does this person have a VA service-connected
disability rating? Yes (such as 0%, 10%, 20%, ... , 100%) No âž” SKIP to question 29a b. What is this person’s service-connected disability rating? 0 percent 10 or 20 percent 30 or 40 percent 50 or 60 percent 70 percent or higher

25 a. Does this person have any of his/her own
grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? Yes No âž” SKIP to question 26 b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who live(s) in this house or apartment? Yes No âž” SKIP to question 26

§.4!¢¤

9

13190103

Person 1 (continued)
29 a. LAST WEEK, did this person work for pay
at a job (or business)? Yes âž” SKIP to question 30 No – Did not work (or retired) b. LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for pay, even for as little as one hour? Yes No âž” SKIP to question 35a

J

Answer question 32 if you marked "Car, truck, or van" in question 31. Otherwise, SKIP to question 33.

36 During the LAST 4 WEEKS, has this person been
ACTIVELY looking for work? Yes No âž” SKIP to question 38

32 How many people, including this person,
usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST WEEK? Person(s)

37 LAST WEEK, could this person have started a
job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work No, because of own temporary illness No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.)

30 At what location did this person work LAST
WEEK? If this person worked at more than one
location, print where he or she worked most last week.

33 What time did this person usually leave home
to go to work LAST WEEK? Hour Minute

38 When did this person last work, even for a few
a.m. p.m. days? Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago âž” SKIP to L Over 5 years ago or never worked âž” SKIP to question 47

a. Address (Number and street name)

:

C AL N AT IO
Yes âž” SKIP to question 35c No Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, maternity leave, other family/personal reasons, bad weather, etc. âž” SKIP to question 38 No âž” SKIP to question 36 Yes âž” SKIP to question 37 No

If the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. b. Name of city, town, or post office

34 How many minutes did it usually take this
Minutes

O

person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?

PY

39 a. During the PAST 12 MONTHS (52 weeks), did
this person work 50 or more weeks? Count paid time off as work. Yes âž” SKIP to question 40 No b. How many weeks DID this person work, even for a few hours, including paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service? 50 to 52 weeks 48 to 49 weeks 40 to 47 weeks 27 to 39 weeks 14 to 26 weeks 13 weeks or less

c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county

K

Answer questions 35 – 38 if this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise, SKIP to question 39a.

35 a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from

f. ZIP Code

IN

FO

e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country

b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business?

R

M

a job?

40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS
WORKED, how many hours did this person usually work each WEEK? Usual hours worked each WEEK

31 How did this person usually get to work LAST
WEEK? If this person usually used more than one
method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) the box of the one used for most of the distance.

Car, truck, or van Bus or trolley bus Streetcar or trolley car Subway or elevated Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab

Motorcycle Bicycle Walked Worked at home âž” SKIP to question 39a Other method

c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work?

10

§.4"$¤

13190111

Person 1 (continued)
L
Answer questions 41 – 46 if this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise, SKIP to question 47.

45 What kind of work was this person doing?

d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. Yes âž” No
$

(For example: registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, secretary, accountant)

,

.00

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

41 – 46 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person’s chief
job activity or business last week. If this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. If this person had no job or business last week, give information for his/her last job or business.

46 What were this person’s most important

e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Yes âž” No
$

activities or duties? (For example: patient care,
directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, typing and filing, reconciling financial records)

,

.00

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

41 Was this person –
Mark (X) ONE box. an employee of a PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business, or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.)? a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm? working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm?

47 INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Mark (X) the "Yes" box for each type of income this person received, and give your best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during the PAST 12 MONTHS. (NOTE: The "past 12 months" is the period from today’s date one year ago up through today.)

f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. Yes âž” No
$

,

.00

PY

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

O

Mark (X) the "No" box to show types of income NOT received.

If net income was a loss, mark the "Loss" box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly, report the appropriate share for each person – or, if that’s not possible, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the "No" box for the other person.

C

g. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. Yes âž” No
$

AL

,

.00

IO

N

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

42 For whom did this person work?
If now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark (X) this box âž” and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business, or other employer

M

Yes âž” No

AT

a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items.
$

,

.00

h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support or alimony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. Yes âž” No
$

IN

FO

R

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

,

.00

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships. Report 48 What was this person’s total income during the NET income after business expenses. PAST 12 MONTHS? Add entries in questions 47a Yes âž” No
$

43 What kind of business or industry was this?

Describe the activity at the location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto engine manufacturing, bank)

,

.00

to 47h; subtract any losses. If net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark (X) the "Loss" box next to the dollar amount.

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

Loss

None OR $

,

,

.00 Loss

44 Is this mainly – Mark (X) ONE box.
manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc.)?

c. Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes âž” No
$

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

,

.00

TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

Loss

➜

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.

§.4",¤

11

13190129

Person 2

The balance of the questionnaire has questions for Person 2, Person 3, Person 4, and Person 5. The questions are the same as the questions for Person 1.

12

§.4">¤

IN

FO

R

M

AT

IO

N

AL

C

O

PY

§.4#n¤

IN FO R M AT IO N AL C O PY

13190277

27

13190285

Mailing Instructions
➜ Please make sure you have...

• listed all names and answered the questions on pages 2, 3, and 4 • answered all Housing questions • answered all Person questions for each person.
➜ Then...

IN

FO

R

M

Thank you for participating in the American Community Survey.

AT

• make sure the barcode above your address shows in the window of the return envelope.

IO

N

• put the completed questionnaire into the postage-paid return envelope. If the envelope has been misplaced, please mail the questionnaire to: U.S. Census Bureau P.O. Box 5240 Jeffersonville, IN 47199-5240

AL
The Census Bureau estimates that, for the average household, this form will take 38 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Paperwork Project 0607-0810, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, AMSD – 3K138, Washington, D.C. 20233. You may e-mail comments to [email protected]; use "Paperwork Project 0607-0810" as the subject. Please DO NOT RETURN your questionnaire to this address. Use the enclosed preaddressed envelope to return your completed questionnaire. Respondents are not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Office of Management and Budget. This 8-digit number appears in the bottom right on the front cover of this form. Form ACS-1(INFO)(2010)KFI (05-14-2009)

For Census Bureau Use
POP EDIT PHONE JIC1 JIC2

EDIT CLERK

TELEPHONE CLERK

JIC3

JIC4

28

§.4#v¤

C

O

PY

P f r B a e ~ o ' u rof &peals xW t t e I t
FOR THE DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 08-5503

September Term 2008
Filed On: June 24,2009

In re: ~ h r i s t o ~ hEarl Strunk, er Petitioner
.L

BEFORE-

S ; e i T e , Chief&dge,

ZJ Gi&~rg and Tatel, Circuit ~ud&s k i

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 reconsiderationbe 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 foma pauperis. The court properly dismissed the petition as m w t after the district court granted the relief petitioner requested by granting him in f m a pauperis status and docketing his complaint. See Pharrnachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627,631 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (The mootness doctrtne limits Article Ill 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 file a separate petition for a writ of mandamus to bring the matter properly before the court. -&

-.-CI..rC---.-----.---

.

-_

.-

..(....... .. .

Per Curiam

EXHIBIT F

.

Case: 09-5322

Document: 1 7672 21

Filed: 11/25/2009

Page: 1

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5322

September Term 2009
1:O~-CV-2234

Filed On: November 25,2009 In re:'~hristopherEarl 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 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 distict 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.
C

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

By:

Is1 Lynda M. Flippin Deputy Clerk

EXHIBIT G

.

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 31

Filed 03116/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff, v.

9
) )

) )

1

Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
.C

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.

1
)

1
)

ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' partial motion to dismiss p k t . #16] 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
F'URTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs requests for mandamus relief and for any other

I

relief not available under the Freedom of Information Act, including all forms of relief requested
e

in his 'Wotice 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 Plaintifl's Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS:Barack Hussein Obama In Esse" and supporting documents [Dkt. #19], are DENIED; it is
I

I

1
I

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' request for a stay of discovery is GRANTED;
and it is

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 31

Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2

FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 3, 2010, the parties shall file a joint proposed schedule to govern future proceedings in this action. SO ORDERED.

United States DIstrict Judge

2

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)

--------------------------)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, 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. l

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, 128 F.3d 754, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In this action, plaintiff demands 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. § 552(a)(4)(B); see PickeringGeorge v. Registration Unit, DEAIDOJ, 553 F. Supp. 2d 3, 4 (D.D.C. 2008) ("The exclusive nature of the FOIA precludes mandamus relief."); see also Johnson v. Executive Office for u.s. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771,777 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
1

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 7

I. BACKGROUND

A. FOIA Requests to the State Department
1. Stanley Ann Dunham

Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the State Department on October 17, 2008, Amd. CompI.
~

12, seeking the following: [I]nfonnation or records related to Stanley Ann Dunham born November29, 1942 at Fort Leavenworth KS. U.S., a.k.a. Stanley Ann 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 1960 through 1963.

!d., Ex. A. The State Department notified plaintiff that it did not maintain this type of

infonnation, and referred plaintiff to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, a component of the DHS. Defs.' Partial Mot. to Dismiss PI.'s Amd. CompI. ("Defs.' Mot."), Ex. D at 1. 2. Barack Hussein Obama In his second FOIA request to the State Department, plaintiff sought infonnation pertaining not only to Stanley Ann Dunham but also to Barack Hussein Obama. With respect to both subjects, plaintiff requested: 1. 2. any and all U.S. Applications for a U.S. Passport; entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States and Kenya between January 1, 1960 and December 31, 1975, and between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 2005; entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States and Indonesia between January 1, 1960 and December 31, 1973, and between January 1, 1979 and December 31,2005; records for travel on a U.S., Kenyan, Indonesian or other foreign passport or visa; a foreign birth certificate registered or filed with the U.S. Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack Obama; a foreign birth registry filed by Stanley Ann Dunham with the

3.

4. 5. 6.

2

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 7

u.s. Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack Obama; and
7. adoption records or other government records acknowledging Barack Obama as Lolo Soetoro's son.

See CompI., Ex. E at 1. With respect to the request for the late Ms. Dunham's passport applications, the State Department notified plaintiff that it would process the request, to which it assigned case processing number 200807238. Defs.' Mot., Ex. E at 2. All other aspects ofthe 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 FOIA request to the DHS' Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Compi. ~ 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. Compi. ~ 36. For these reasons, plaintiff asserts that Mr. Obama "is not a U.S. 'natural born' citizen and [is] ineligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States

3

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 4 of 7

Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5." Id.

~

27. Plaintiff claims to have "suffered an

informational injury as a voter and member ofpublic[,] and the lack of information on [Mr. Obama's] citizenship, caused by the State Department[']s action, limited the information available to [plaintiff] as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and policymakers." Id.
~

57. Plaintiff demands that the State Department and DRS release all the

documents he requested, so that he may determine whether Mr. Obama is a natural born United States citizen, see id.
Id.
~ ~

62, lest "an illegal candidate ... serve as President of the United States."

63. II. 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 plaintiffs FOIA requests did not comply with agency regulations. See id. at 5-6. "[E]ach 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. § 552(a)(3)(A). "An agency's disclosure obligations are not triggered ... until it has received a proper FOIA request in compliance with its published regulations." Antonelli v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 591 F. Supp. 2d 15,26 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) and 552(a)(6)(A)(i)); see Carbe v. Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, No.03-1658, 2004 WL 2051359, at *8

(D.D.C. Aug. 12,2004) ("A proper FOIA request, once received, requires the government to search for responsive records and to release all that are not otherwise exempt."). A requester's "failure to comply with an agency's FOIA regulations is the equivalent of a failure to exhaust"

4

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 5 of 7

administrative remedies. West v. Jackson, 448 F. Supp. 2d 207,211 (D.D.C. 2006) (citations omitted). "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before seeking judicial review" under FOIA. Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Exhaustion allows "the agency [] an opportunity to exercise its discretion and expertise on the matter and to make a factual record to support its decision." Id. (quoting Oglesby v. United States Dep 't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 (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. Wilbur, 355 F.3d at 677. If a 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 authorization for 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. § 171.12(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, DHS regulations require that requests for records about another individual include "either a written 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. § 5.3(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiff "admits that Barack Hussein Obama ... has not provided permission to release

5

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 6 of 7

documents[.]" PI. 's Aff.~ 20. 2 Rather, he steadfastly asserts his claims that Mr. Obama neither is a natural born citizen of the United States nor is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. See generally PI.'s Aff. Neither of these claims is relevant to this FOIA action, the sole purpose of which is to determine whether defendants properly responded to plaintiffs FOIA requests to the State Department and to the DHS.
It is clear on this record that plaintiff did not submit proper FOIA requests to the State

Department and to DHS because the requests did not include written authorization from Mr. Obama for the release of information to plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his requests for information about Mr. Obama, and these claims will be dismissed. See Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, _ F. Supp. 2d _, _, 2009 WL 5102713, at *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 28,2009) (dismissing a FOIA claim against the FBI because plaintiff failed to mail his request directly to the appropriate field office as is required under agency regulations); Thomas v. Fed. Comm 'ens Comm 'n, 534 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.D.C.2008) (granting summary judgment in the agency's favor "[i]n the absence of any evidence that plaintiff submitted a proper FOIA request to which defendant would have been obligated 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: Barack Hussein Obarna In Esse" [Dkt. #19], to which he attached a supporting memorandum oflaw and affidavit ("PI.'s Aff."). Plaintiffs demand for a jury trial before a three-judge panel on matters pertaining to President Obama's citizenship and eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States is summarily denied, as are all of his requests for relief not authorized under the FOIA.

6

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 30

Filed 03/16/10 Page 7 of 7

III. CONCLUSION The Court will grant defendant's partial motion to dismiss, and will direct the parties to submit a joint proposed schedule to govern future proceedings in this action. An Order is issued separately.

United States District Judge

7

%

Case 1:09-~~41249-RJL Document 18 Filed 03110f10 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,
Plaintiff,
v.

1
)
) ' )

NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, et al.,
Defkdants.

1 1 1

1

Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL)
L

1
) ) )

= ,

ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the New York Pmvince of the

Society of Jesus and Gerald Chojnacki, S.J. Dkt. #] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the federal defendants' motion to dismiss [Dkt. #13] is
GRANTED; ahd it is

.

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED.
This is a final appealable Onler. See Fed. R App. P. 4(a).
SO ORDERED.

RICHARDUON
United States District Judge DATE:

3

r da t

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, et aI., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL)

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.
1. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's complaint is far from 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 plaintiff's 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 confused collection of conclusory statements 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 well as federal government agencies and officials, are acting in association with or under the direction of the Roman Catholic Church, the Society of Jesus, 1 and the Sovereign Military

Founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus is a religious order in the (continued ... )
1

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 7

Order of Malta. 2 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 a foreign government, presumably the Vatican, in violation of the Logan Act, see 18 U.S.c. § 953. 3 These circumstances allegedly cause plaintiff and the citizens of New York unspecified "collective spiritual and individual temporal injuries," CompI. at 1 (introductory paragraph), and denies them a republican form of government. Id. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief generally to enjoin the Society of Jesus and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta from

l( ... 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 Assistancy, headquartered at the Jesuit Conference in Washington, DC. See http://www.jesuit.org (follow "FAQs" hyperlink); 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 Malta, and the Order of Malta. Its members are commonly known as the Knights of Malta. See http://www.orderofinalta.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 correspondence 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 measures ofthe United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 953.
2

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 7

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. II. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal Under Rule J2(b)(J) for Lack of Standing

"Three inter-related judicial doctrines - standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that federal courts assert jurisdiction only over 'Cases' and 'Controversies.'" Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006).4 A core element of Article Ill'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). 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." Allen
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). Thus, a party has standing ifhis claims "spring from an

'injury in fact' - an invasion of a legally protected interest 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." Na vega r. Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994,998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 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 favorable judicial decision.'"
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,7 (1998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,

477 (1990». 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 03/10/10 Page 4 of 7

Insofar as plaintiff brings a claim under the Logan Act, the Court concludes that he lacks standing to do so. Only the United States Department of State is aggrieved by a violation of the Logan Act, see ITT World Comm 'ens, Inc. v. Fed. Comm 'ens Comm 'n, 699 F.2d 1219, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 466 U.S. 463 (1984), and plaintiff cannot demonstrate an injury suffered due to defendants' Logan Act violation that affects him "in a personal and individual way." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560 n.l. Nor does plaintiff have standing to bring a claim that defendants' actions deprive him of a republican form of government. The Supreme Court has "consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance 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 III case or controversy." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 573-74. Where, as here, "[p ]laintiff 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 v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2008), aff'd, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009); see Hooker v. 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 will 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 Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150,2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11,2008) (dismissing for lack of

4

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 7

standing, among others, claims that the Secretary of State wrongly issued then-Senator Barack Obama a passport, that the Department of Homeland Security failed to arrest him for illegally entering the country, resulting in plaintiffs disenfranchisement), ajJ'd, 332 Fed. Appx. 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 519 (dismissing Natural Born Citizen Clause claim because plaintiff, described as a life-long member of the Democratic Party, lacked standing); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (denying 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 harm "is not only speculative 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 from being judged solely and exclusively by Tennessee citizens"); see also Warth v.
Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) ("[W]hen the asserted harm is a 'generalized grievance' shared

in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.").
B. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Mandamus Relief

"[T]he writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Mandamus relief is proper only if"(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Council of and for the Blind ofDelaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521,

5

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 6 of 7

1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en bane). "[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 Cheney, 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[28 U.S.c.] § 1361, there must be a 'mandatory or ministerial obligation [because if] the alleged duty is discretionary or directory, the duty is not 'owed.'" Stamper 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. §

516; see United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 694 (1974). "[T]he 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." Powell 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 4838073, 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

Case 1:09-cv-01249-RJL Document 17

Filed 03/10/10 Page 7 of 7

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE:

United States District Judge

7

Govlt offers new assurance censua data i s private

March 4 , 2010 By HOPE YEN (AP)

-

3 hours 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 posit3,on 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 for immigration enforcement. "If Congress intended to override these protections it would say so clearly and explicitly," wrote Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.
.a

The legal assurance had been a sticking point for some minority g'p, r&s 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 Alej andro Miyar . On the Net: Commerce Department: http://www.conunerce.qov Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov

\

EXHIBIT J

US House of Representatives

Size 1790 thru 2000

Sheet 4 of 4

p o s t s I C ~ b ( ~ / Friday, Jauanuary 0 1.20 10

.=

olsael oB m
o The A n W @

.
0-

Mifi

Relirioq
0-

Vatican W i n s : Wounded i l k Honsc Of hlv FrieDdr n

.us

0

Rwanism

o lntellinence

oGeorecW89hmptm o Majority Savage Blrks o Minoritv Civil Blacks o White Fascism o Cnminal Federal Courts

.RcsomrPs
0 0 0 B+ Re!vieWs o Movte Reviews

I

.sts

A M VA.w
-Con

M t S t i o n Latest Edrhon Ova 650 Slides

..

Flirlm Phelns

.

olntrodnctlgl

.& s Jm
0-

.Jesuits
0

The B a k P m lc

0 -

o Coadiucas
0 -0

km ee
EU_
ChioalJaPau

i
I,

. . .
0-

onePurwse Eric On Radio VA Y 0d1'11132 The Plan
Li n
_hr-

.caowus

.& y!
0
0

Obama's White Papal Masters
.: ........

o USSRIRussh
0-

I

..Pasted by

You can follow my

on Aug SIh. 2 W and iiled unda @dluv, N e w s ?he Black Po~c. to this mtry through the P_SS20. You can leave a

T h e m o z r t o ~ i v e 1 L t o f ( b c C b s i n o f ~ ~ d o ~ g ~ and his administration S& who really nus (be show h the top to the h (Obama). c Read their uedentials and camcctioos.

Obama's White Papal Masters:

"The White Pope" The Evil Emperor

M C Nieolrr da

301h Superior Genaal, Society of Jsus "The Rlack Pope"

Pope Benediet XVI
Vicar of Ch~sUV~carHorn of “lie White Pope"
James E Crummer, S.J.

American Assistant to G m d Nicolss Borgo di Sanlo Spirito #S. Rome Mas- of US Jesuit h f s m e e

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 5 of 18

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 6 of 18

Master of American Jesuit University Presidents Master of 10 American Provincials Master of New York Provincial

Thomas H. Smolich. S.J. President, US Jesuit Conference Former California Provincial Former Master of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Conspirator: Present Chinese-Mexican Invasion Conspirator: Future Sino-Soviet-Muslim Invasion

Joseph M. McShane, S.J. President, Jesuit Fordham University Bronx, New York “Penholder for Cardinal Egan” Notice: Equilateral Triangle Pendant Masonic symbol for the Risen Horus THE COMING RISEN POPE/”The Beast”

David S. Ciancimino, S.J. New York Provincial Overseer of Archbishop of New York City Occult Overseer of New York City Wall Street, Federal Reserve, NYSE

Pope Benedict the XVI Roman Papal Caesar Egyptian Osiris Vicar of Christ/Vicar of Horus Edward Cardinal Egan “Prince of the Pope’s Church”

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

1/1/2010 Page 7 of 18

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

1/1/2010 Page 8 of 18

Roman Papal Senator

Edward Cardinal Egan Archbishop of New York City “Archbishop of the Capital of the World” “The American Pope” Head: American Branch of the Knights of Malta Head: Knights of Columbus Occult Master of: Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree American Scottish-Rite Freemasonry Council On Foreign Relations B’nai B’rith/Anti-Defamation League Central Intelligence Agency National Security Agency Federal Bureau of Investigation Office of Naval Intelligence The Pentagon

Joseph A. O’Hare, S.J. President Emeritus, Jesuit Fordham University Bronx, New York Member: Knights of Malta Presider: Council on Foreign Relations Advisor to Knight of Malta David Rockefeller, CFR Advisor to Knight of Malta Henry Kissinger, CFR Advisor to Michael Bloomberg Mayor, New York City Papal Knight of the Vatican’s Revived “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel

John J. DeGioia President Jesuit Georgetown University Member: Knights of Malta Member: Council On Foreign Relations Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 9 of 18

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 10 of 18

Recruiter of Barry Soetoro, 1981 Creator of “Barack Hussein Obama”

Richard N. Haass Chairman: Council on Foreign Relations New York City Servant of Edward Cardinal Egan Overseer of AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist Court Jew for the Pope Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem“—Israel

George Soros Member: Council on Foreign Relations Member: Carlyle Group Multi-billionaire Major Stockholder: Halliburton Hungarian Jew: Socialist-Communist Financial Backer of Barack Hussein Obama Friend of Rupert Murdoch Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist “Court Jew for the Pope”

Zbigniew Brzezinski Member: Knights of Malta Member: Bilderberg Group Member: Council On Foreign Relations Member: Trilaterial Commission Advisor: Jesuit Georgetown University Polish Roman Catholic Socialist-Communist Professor: Columbia University, New York
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins 1/1/2010 Page 11 of 18

Rupert Murdoch Member: Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins 1/1/2010 Page 12 of 18

Member: Knights of St. Gregory International Media Mogul Owner: Fox News Network Friend of George Soros Occult Protector of Barack Hussein Obama Bill O’Reilly – The O’Reilly Factor Sean Hannity – Hannity & Combes

Joseph R. Biden Papal Knight; Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Vice President: Rome’s “Holy Roman” 14th Amendment American Empire Alter Ego: Jesuit Advisor to President Barry Davis Obama Promoter: Council on Foreign Relations Honorary Degrees: Jesuit University of Scranton, Scranton, PA Jesuit St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA

Barry Davis “Barack Hussein Obama” 32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason President of Rome’s “Holy Roman,” 14th Amendment American Empire Sunni Moslem, Pretended Protestant Christian Mulatto: Mulatto Father, White Mother Father: Frank Marshall Davis, Jr. Wife: Michelle, Member: Chicago CFR Obama: CFR-Controlled and CFR Spokesperson Obama: Promoted by the late William F. Buckley, Jr. Buckley: Knight of Malta, Bonesman, Bilderberger, CFR Member Buckley: Promoter of Reverse Discrimination against Whites Buckley: Promoter of a Coming Black President Obama: Trained in Romanism, Islam and Apostate Protestantism Obama: “Nimrod”; Pretended Unifier of Whites and Blacks Obama: Promoter of the Papal Crusade against Shia Islam Obama: Promoter of Bush’s Papal Inquisition Against Protestant American Liberties Obama: Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Promotor of the Black Pope’s Counter-Reformation Barry Davis: “Boy” of Pope Benedict XVI

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 13 of 18

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 14 of 18

[...] In this authors opinion only one group fits the description, and that is the last option offered as number ten, the Vatican. John Kennedy, as the first Roman Catholic president ever elected, was warning the public about the sinister role of the Jesuit Order under the umbrella of the Vatican and Roman Catholic Church as the enemy of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. the Jesuits have been involved in orchestrating most wars and political assassinations and have been kicked out of 73 countries for their duplicity. The Jesuits are a military order created under Pope Paul III by the first Jesuit Supreme General, Ignatius Loyola or the Black Pope in 1534 to counter the Protestant Reformation. The Jesuits are an order that requires its leaders to take a blood secrecy oath (revealing their secret plans or actions result in taking their blood or death). The current chain of command and titles of the “latest puppet” US President Barack Obama under the Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas are pictured on Eric Phelps web site here: VaticanAssassins.org. [...] 4. Ron Paul Scores Big... TWICE - Page 8 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums says: September 19, 2009 at 11:18 am Categories: Gallery, News, The Black Pope Tags: Jesuits, Obama, The Black Pope [...] Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran If the CFR has not nearly as much power as I attribute to them, then why do these 5000 people RUN EVERYTHING? The CFR is the ruling elite of the US.Who themselves answer to higher authority: Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins [...] 5. The Papal masters of Obama « seeker401 says: September 18, 2009 at 5:33 pm [...] http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 [...] You must be logged in to post a comment Login

5 Responses for “Obama’s White Papal Masters”
1. Vox Populi » Best of Vatican Assassins’ Georgetown conspiracy theories from 2009 says: December 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm [...] Georgetown President John DeGioia is 9th in the chain of command of President Obama’s “White Papal [...] 2. itisnosecretwhatgodcando says: October 18, 2009 at 12:44 pm And to think these goofy sociopaths get all the girls. They got my whole family. I will say it is easier to live knowing these are the goofy turds in charge. Personally lost many rights and priviliges over Protesting Henry Kissinger to my own Mother. Your own family will resist you to hold up these men. 3. “Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy…” « High Sierra Gold says: October 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins 1/1/2010 Page 15 of 18

Advertisement

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

1/1/2010 Page 16 of 18

Recently Commented
EJP Responds to a "Disappointed Negro" Exiled Dutch Statesman Geert Wilders Warns Against Islam Part 1 Biden-Advised Obama: Generating White Right-Wing Jesuit Fascism Bin Laden, CIA Contract Agent, Dead since December 13, 2001 More Than 500 Sex Abuse Cases Filed Against the Jesuits United Nations to Rebuild Ancient Babylon Jesuit Temporal Coajdutor Alex Jones' "The Fall of the Republic" Black Muslims of America Military Training Camps: Race War EJP Replies to Brother Michael, an Honorably Retired Portland Police Officer Brief Chronology of Jesuit History Authored by the Company Tom Cruise’s Son to Star in Red Dawn Remake

Health Care Reform Bill – Download

Where Did That Bank Bailout Go? Watchdogs Aren’t Entirely Sure

Archives by Tag
African Union

American Revolution

White House Snitch Program
Anglican Church Antichrist Appearing of Christ Black-on-White crime Calvin cfr CIA

Coadjutors Communism council on foreign relations Cromwell Daniel England EU Freemasonry George Washington
Gunpowder Plot H1N1 Health Inquisition Iraq Israel

Jesuits Knights of Malta Latino Alien Ivasion Luther Militarization of Space

News Obama Pope Prophecy of 70 Weeks Radio Reformation Religion Savage Black Crime Socialism Temporal Power The
Black Pope USSR/Russia Vatican Video Videos world government

Diaz: Ambassador to the Vatican

Recent Entries
Obermann on Blackwater December 31, 2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Coming, Part 4 of 5 December 30, 2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Coming, Part 3 of 5 December 29, 2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Coming, Part 2 of 5 December 28, 2009: From “the Appearing” to Second Coming, Part 1 of 5 December 25, 2009: White Protestant American Revolution, Part 10 of 10 EJP Replies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of “the Appearing,” Part 4 of 5 Merry Mass-of-Christ: Woman Knocks Pope Benedict XVI to Vatican Floor! December 24, 2009: White Protestant American Revolution, Part 9 of 10 EJP Replies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of the “Appearing,” Part 3 of 5 December 23, 2009: White Protestant American Revolution, Part 8 of 10

Photo Gallery

Vatican Assassins’ Store

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95

1/1/2010

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 17 of 18

Obama’s White Papal Masters | Vatican Assassins

Page 18 of 18

The Plan Store Links Archive Contact Us RSS Log in / Advanced NewsPaper by Gabfire Themes

News Jesuits World NWO Tech Radio Mail Religion US Resources Store About VA.org Eric Jon Phelps VA III Eric On Radio VA YouTube
http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 1/1/2010 http://www.vaticanassassins.org/?p=95 1/1/2010

END NOTES
Amendments U.S. Constitution Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 2 - The House:

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.

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 Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 9 CLAUSE 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the 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 Office 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.

ii

[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 V] 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 X] 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 1798] 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 1804] The 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,
iii

and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all 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.

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.
iv

the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But

Amendment 14th Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among

In re Amendment 14th Section 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 1933] 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 qualify, 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 1967] 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 office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the 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 George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (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 Treasury’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 Congress 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 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act. 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 of 2001. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12. It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2002 (S. 1510) where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act). Only one Senator, Russ Feingold, 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 Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, and the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), none of which passed. In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, 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, politically, and historically unique in the world today. Representing initially the most powerful and reactionary segments of the European aristocracy, for 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
viii

Cooper's - Behold a Pale Horse (pp88-89) Quote:

powerful and reactionary membership of any organization in the world today. As its name suggests, SMOM is both a ''sovereign'' and, historically, a "military" organization. Its headquarters, occupying a square block in Rome at 68 Via Condotti, enjoys the extra-territorial legal status granted to an embassy of a sovereign state. The Italian police are not welcome on its territory, it issues its own stamps, and has formal diplomatic relations and exchanges ambassadors with a number of countries. On November 13, 1951 Italian President Alcide de Gasperi recognized the diplomatic sovereignty of SMOM, although he held off formal exchange of diplomatic envoys.2 On January 11, 1983 the New York Daily News announced that, "The Vatican and the order of the Knights of Malta, believed to be the smallest sovereign state in the world, have agreed to establish full diplomatic relations, a joint statement said today. " [SMOM] President Reagan's Ambassador to the Vatican, William Wilson, is, coincidentally, a Knight of Malta. On September 5, 1984 French Foreign Minister Claude Cheysson signed a formal protocol with SMOM for various cooperative projects including "aid to victims of conflicts." with Americares. In addition to the Roman Catholic SMOM, there are four Protestant orders of the Knights, all founded within the last 150 years or so, and all run by ruling houses of Europe. The Roman Catholic and Protestant orders effectively merged on Nov. 26, 1963, four days after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Sovereign Head of the British Knights is Queen Elizabeth, while the Netherlands Knights were headed until his death by the former SS official, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, consort of Queen Juliana. Each and every member is under complete and total obedience to the Vatican's political ambitions. The "Knights of Malta" are the militia of the Pope. In the book "Behold a Pale Horse" you will find research into this. It is one of the NWO SECRET SOCIETIES that are determined to overrun and destroy America. The Pope is not innocent of this either. Milton William The Knights of Malta is a world organization with its threads weaving through business, banking, politics, the CIA, other intelligence organizations, P2, religion, education, law, military, think tanks, foundations, the United States Information Agency, the United Nations, and numerous other organizations. They are not the oldest but are one of the oldest branches of the Order of the Quest in existence. The world head of the Knights of Malta is elected for a life term, with the approval of the Pope. The Knights of Malta have their own Constitution and are sworn to work
ix

toward the establishment of a New World Order with the Pope at its head. Knights of Malta members are also powerful members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. (p.86) The Knights of Malta ALL have diplomatic immunity. They can ship goods across borders without paying duty or undergoing customs check. Does that ring any bells? In any case, that is power. The Knights of Malta is held up by a backbone consisting of nobility. Nearly half of the 10,000 members belong to Europe's oldest and most powerful families. This cements the alliance between the Vatican and the "Black Nobility." The Black Nobility is mostly the rich and powerful of Europe. The head of the Black Nobility is the family that can claim direct descendancy from the last Roman emperor. Maybe now you can see that things are beginning to fall into their proper place. Membership in the Knights of Malta entails obedience to one's superior in THE ORDER and ultimately to the Pope. Therefore, a U.S. ambassador who is also a member of the Knights of Malta faces a conflict of interest. Why is this fact ignored? President Bush appointed Knight of Malta Thomas Melledy to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican. Grand Master Festing. The Council Complete of State elects the Prince and Grand Master for life from the Professed Knights. According to the Constitution, as the religious Superior and Sovereign, he must fully dedicate himself to the development of the works of the Order and to set an example of living by Christian principles, to all the members of the Order. He is vested with supreme authorities. Together with the Sovereign Council, the Grand Master issues the legislative measures not covered by the Constitutional Charter, promulgates government acts, manages Common Treasure assets, ratifies, international agreements and the summoning of the Chapter General. The States with which the Order has diplomatic relations recognize the Grand Master with the prerogatives, immunities and honors reserved for Heads of State. I. The title of Most Eminent Highness is bestowed on the Grand Master, and the Holy Roman Church confers him the rank of Cardinal. II. The Grand Master resides at the Order’s seat of government in Via Condotti in Rome. Profile of His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING Fra’ Matthew Festing, an Englishman, was elected Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta on 11th March 2008 by the Council Complete
x

of State of the Order of Malta. He succeeds Fra’ Andrew Bertie, 78th Grand Master (1988-2008), who died on 7 February. Born in Northumberland on 30 November 1949, educated at Ampleforth and St. John’s College Cambridge, where he read history, Fra’ Matthew, an art expert, has for most of his professional life worked at an international art auction house. As a child, he lived in Egypt and Singapore, where his father, Field Marshal Sir Francis Festing, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had earlier postings. He is also descended from Sir Adrian Fortescue, a knight of Malta, who was martyred in 1539. Fra’ Matthew Festing served in the Grenadier Guards and holds the rank of colonel in the Territorial Army. He was appointed OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) by the Queen and served as one of her Deputy Lieutenants in the county of Northumberland. He became a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta in 1977, and took solemn religious vows in 1991, becoming a Professed Knight of the Order. Between 1993 and 2008 he was the Grand Prior of England. In this role, he led missions of humanitarian aid to Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia after the recent disturbances in those countries, and he attended the Order’s international annual pilgrimage to Lourdes. Since September 2008, he has been an honorary citizen of the city of Rapallo in Italy. In October 2009, he was awarded an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters by Catholic University of America. America 2050 and its agents operate as a national initiative associated with elements of the Intelligence community including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency that as a private unelected entity is used to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050; and is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers develop a framework for the nation's future growth considers trends such as: A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place. Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. They comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks. At least ten megaregions have been identified in the United States.
xi

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 Group, Inc.; The Ford Foundation.

xii

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close