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

8/9/2019 STRUNK - PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Transport Room

1/115

10- I CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

In re Christopher-Earl: Strunk0 in essePetitioner for a Writ of Mandamus

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUSAND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner Original Proceeding withFRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234,09-cv-I 249, 09-cv-1295 and 10-cv-00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified Complaint to respond to the

herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Injunction

Christopher-Earl: Strunk0 in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281Brooklyn, New York 11238

Cell-845-901-6767chris@strunk,wsi

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


2/115

RESPONDENTS

Hon. Royce C. Lamberth, C.J. for

the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20001

Hon. RichardJ. Leon, J. forthe U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia333 Constitution Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20001

Eric Holder, U S . Attorney Generalc/o Brigham John Bowen, AUSAU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE20 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530For: U.S. DEPT. OF STATE

Ronald C. Machen, Jr. US.Attorney c/o of Counsel AlanBurch, AUSA Office of the U.S.Attorney for the Washington DC555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530For: Barack Hussein Obama

Wynne P. Kelly AUSA555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530For: The DOC Bureau of Census,

John Marcus McNichols, Esq.WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP725 12th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20005For: Maryland Province of theSociety of Jesus / Fr.-Timothy B.Brown, S.J.

..11

John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.

KAUFMAN 8t CANOLES, P.C.150 West Main Street - P.O. Box3037 Norfolk, VA 23514For: New York Province of theSociety of Jesus / Fr. GeraldChojnacki, S.J.

Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.Texas Office Of The AttorneyGeneral P.O. Box 12548Austin, TX 78711For: the State of Texas

Seth E. Goldstein,Deputy Attorney GeneralCalifornia Department of JusticeOffice of the Attorney General1300 IStreet - Suite 125Sacramento, California 94244-2550 For: State of California

Stephen Kitzinger,Assistant Corporation CounselNew York City Law DepartmentOffice of Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 10007For: the City of New York

Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. ,J.D.

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway,STE 100 Rancho Santa MargaritaCA 92688

Barack Hussein Obamac/o The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington D.C. 20500



3/115

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issues presented:

(ii)

(iii)

(viii)

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;

Preliminary injunction for additional census mailers sent to Personal

Mail Boxes and Post Office Boxes;

Preliminary I.njunctionto restore the New York Electoral College to 47members as use of 13 USC 141 to reduce same to the present 31 isa violation of the 14h Amendment Section 2.A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U S . Houseof Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of

statistics related to Federal Subsidy;

Removing executive stay in use of the PatdotActwith the Census;Disclosure of the origin of U S . Senator Obamas official passport;Declaratory judgment on the matter of enforcement of the Logan Act

as we have no Chief Law Enforcement Officer with the Usurper.

Declaratory judgment on the Census Bureau overreaching in violation

of the 5h and gthamendment protections in regards to the CensusBureau statement in reference to section 221 penalties referenced

above, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, arbitrarily

under color of law in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. s221 changes thefine from not more than $100 to not more than $5,000 for anyone

over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the

questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers.

that any response by other respondents be heard expeditiously

accordingly as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm

that would result to Affiant and those similarly situated; and

that this Court provide further and different relief as it deems

necessary for justice herein.

...111



4/115

Cases cited:

United Statesv. Cruiksahank,92U S. 542 (1875).................................................. 21Chisbolm v. Geomia,2U.S. (2Dall.) 419 (1793)..................................................... 25Dept. OftheNavyv: &anL 484U.S. 518 (1988)....................................................... 26Statutes cited:

2USC $2a............................................................................................................................................ 1 15USC$552.................................... ....................................................................................................... 7

13 USC I 41........................ ,............................. ........................ ................................. 2-4,9,I I,I313 USC 5221 ........................................................................................*......................................... 2,221 3 U sC 95.......................................................................................................... ........................ 3,l18U.S.C. $$ 3571 and 3559.......................................................................................... 2,2,2418U.S.C. 953 and related Chapter 45 law................................................................... 828USC 5134328USC 5134428 USC SI34528 USC 5136128USC 52284....... ................................ ........................................................................................... 342USC 51971, I 983, 1985..................................................... ,....................................... ...3

ProvidingAppropriateToolsRequired to Intercept and Obstruct

TerroHsmAct ofZOOI (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).......................................... 8the USAPATRIOTActwas introduced into the House on October 23and incorporated H.R. 2975,S. 1510and many of the provisions of H.R.3004 (the Financial Anti-TerrorismAct)the Forerbn Intelligence Surveillance Act of1978(FISA),the Electronic CommunicationsP ivacvActof1986(ECPA),the MoneyLaunderin-QControl Actof1986the Bank Secrecy Act(BSA),the /mmjip-ationandNationali(yAct.



5/115

USConstitution citations:

Article 1Section 2 Clause 3......................................................................................... 11,12Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and Clause 6....................................................... 15,28Article 7 Amendments: Is', 4'h, Sth, 6'h, gfh, gth, loth,1 th ,12'h, 14'h,20th, 5'hOther citations:

DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 3501 through 3504

Rules cited:

FRAP 21

FRCvP Rules 81LCvR 40.3(b) of a District Judge to hear the LCvR 9.1 motion fora three judge panel........................................................,.....................................................6NewYork State Laws cited:

NYSConst. Article 1,2,3,NYS Election Law

NYS Benevolent Orders Law

Related Cases:

Orders of the United States District Court 13r the Districtof Columbia in

related cases: 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 09-cv-1295;motion to intervene in 10-cv-00151 andInterpleader Verified Complaint case filed Strunkv Ubamaet al. DCDDCC 08-5503-OP

DCC 09-5322-OP

Strunkv. Patersonetal. NYS Supreme Court in Kings CountyIndex no.: 08-29642 .

V



6/115

AFFIDAVIT of Christopher-Earl: StrunkO in esse, Petitioner in support ofthe Original Proceeding with FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249,09-cv-1295 and IO-cv-00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto VerifiedComplaint to respond to the herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of

Mandamus and Preliminary Injunction.

STATE OF NEW YORK )

COUNTY OF KINGS )) ss.:

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

service located at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB (Personal Mail Box) 281Brooklyn New York 11238, with telephone (845) 901-6767 E-mail

[email protected], the Petitioner, hereby this affidavit with a FRAP Rule 21 original

proceeding wishes an Order of the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 09-cv-1295 and IO-cv-

00151 with Interpleader Quo Warranto Verified Complaint to respond to the

herein petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and Preliminary

Injunction with the Issues presented:

i. The equal protection issues that arise between the Census short

form and long form in the matter of enumerating citizens and or

permanent resident aliens;

a. for additional census mailers sent to Personal Mail Boxes and

Post Office Boxes;

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



7/115

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

13 USC 141 to reduce it to the present 31 is a violation of the 14'hAmendment Section 2 right to fundamental substantive due process.A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U.S. House of

Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of


Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the Census;

Disclosure of the origin of U S . Senator Obama's official passport;

iii.

iv.

v.

vi. Declaratory judgment :

a. On the matter of enforcement of the Logan Act as we have no

b. on the Census Bureau overreaching in violation of the 5'h and gthChief Law Enforcement Officer with the Usurper.

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 18years old who refuses or

willfully neglects to complete the questionnaireor answer

questions posed by census takers.

that any response by other respondents be heard expeditiously

accordingly as time is of the essence with imminent irreparable harm

that would result to Affiant and those similarly situated; and

That this Court provide further and different relief as it deems

necessary forjustice herein.

vii.

viii.

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



8/115

Factual background

3.Affiant is duly registered to vote at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281Brooklyn New York 11238 (See ExhibitA) and votes within the 7IstElectionDistrict of the 57'hAssembly District, 18'h Senate District, 11h New YorkU.S. House District and 25'h NYC Councilman District.

4.That Affiant does not have another address from which to register andvote 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 CensusMonitoring Board under 13 USC I95 not to deliver to any PMB and or PostOffice Box, but to dwelling residents occupying real property.

-/.That on July 13, 2009, Affiant went to U.S. District Court for theWashington District of Columbia to file a verified complaint 09-cv-1295

Strunkv. UNITEDSTATESDE?ARTMNT OFCOMMERCEBUREAUOF.TH CENSUSetal. with a request for a three judge panel with 28 USCS2284 in the matterof Nationwide / Statewide injury associated inter aliawith the on-going 2010 Census enumeration with 13 USC y 4 1 , 13 USC$195 and related law and fully brief with a request for a preliminaryinjunction the court delays justice and has become part of the injurycomplained of the Usurper.

8.That Strunk has a 42 USC SI983 cause of action in Strunkv.Patersoneta/ NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before theHonorable New York Supreme Court Justice David I.Schmidt complaining

DC Circuit Original Proceeding 3 of30 In Re StninkPetition for Writ



9/115

of a state action civil rights injury suffered in the 2008 General Election

process in New Yorks 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 DistrictCourt 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 thetwo questions including AreyouaCitizefland Areyouapermanentresident alien?or even the SSN lastfouras with voter registration as anurgent matter of compelling State Interest here in the State of New York

and respectively on a State by State basis in the other several States

specific law particular to each State, hereby make application accordingly

for a Preliminary Injunction with restraint and for a Writ of Mandamus of the

Bureau of the Census with 13 USC SI41 (See Exhibit B;and10.To wit there was no response to the Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit

B on March 17,2010Judge Leon dismissed the case - see Exhibit C,

11.That Affiant on March 18,2010 received the 2010 Census ShortForm at PMB 281 marked Resident at Apartment 1 - see Exhibit D.

12.The population count, conducted every 10 years, is used to distribute

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



10/115

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 inrural areas and is mailing the IO-question short forms to 120 million U.S.

households on March 15,2010 shown as Exhibit D and that Officials have

estimated the government survey will take just 10 minutes to complete, a asa change from previous censuses as a challenged equal protection issueherein 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 aserious 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 thehome is on; what agricultural products were sold from the property inthe last 12 months; whether the property was used as a business;how many separate rooms are in the house; whether the house hashot and cold running water; whether the house has a flush toilet, ashower or bathtub, a sink with a faucet, a stove or range, arefrigerator and a telephone; how many cars, vans and trucks arekept 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"0the r.

From page 8: wants to know if Person No. 1 in the household is acitizen, if the person was born in the US. or when the person came to




11/115

the U.S.; whether the person had attended college in the last threeyears and what is the highest level of education the person hascompleted; the persons ancestry or ethnic origin; whether the person

speaks a language other than English at home, and if yes, whatlanguage; whether the person lived in this housing unit or anapartment a year ago; whether the person is covered by healthinsurance, and if yes, by what type of health insurance.

15.That in Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit B, Affiant contends that therewas no random selection with LCvR 40.3(b) of a District Judge to hear theLCvR 9.1 motion for a three judge panel because Affiant is self-

represented and as an equal protection infringes my right to substantive

due process when the Clerk of the Court who is no longer working at

District assigned the 09-cv-1295 Census case to the same judge that

Affiant has been complaining of in the two (2) original proceedings 08-

5503-OP and 09-5322-OP and now herein on a different matter.

That on June 24,2009, in the original proceeding 08-5503-OP before

the Honorable Chief Judge Sentelle, and Honorables Ginsburg and

Tatel Circuit Judges in their Per Curiam Order, see Exhibit F,held

that Petitioner file a new original proceeding for relief quote:

To the extent petitioner seeks relief not requested in his originalpetition, petitioner must file a separate petition for a writ ofmandamus to bring the matter properly before the court.

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

before the Honorables Ginsburg, Garland, and Brown, Circuit Judges

in their Per Curiam Order, see Exhibit G, in that petitioner was

complaining of the Clerk of the District Court (who is no longer there)

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



12/115

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 courtclerks office. Moreover, judicial rulings alone almost neverconstitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion, Liteky v.United States, 51 0 U.S. 540, 555 (1994), and petitioner has notidentified any ruling that would warrant recusal of the district judgein his cases. Finally, any suggestion that the district judge isconspiring with the Society of Jesus or other entities discussed inthe petition is without support, and we will not reach any otherarguments that have not been properly presented to and ruled onby the district judge in the first instance.

16. That after November 22,2008,Affiant complaint StrunkvDOSO8-cv-2234 under FOlA 5 U.S.C. Section 552 was assigned to Judge RichardJ. Leonwho 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 publicmatter, 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 US. District Court for theWashington District of Columbia with the verified complaint 09-cv-1249

entitled StrunkK TheNewYorkProvinceofthe Society ofJesuset al. inthe matter of injury associated inter alia with the non-enforcement of the




13/115

Logan Act (18 USC 6j953and related law), and finally after many monthsreceived an order to dismiss (See Exhibit I)with injuries compiling under

the Usurper Barry Soetoro ( a k a . Barack Hussein Obama) whose actionsare void ab initio because, by his own admission, he is not a natura/-born

Citizenrequired with U.S. Constitution Article I I section 1 Clause 5, whocontinues in office without any court hearing the merits of any petition,

including Affiants now before the District Court in 10-cv-00151,and whereAffiant has petitioned to intervene and is an Interpleader by separateaction; 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 felonyand 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 March4, 2010 reported in an article entitled

Gov't offersnewassuranceceisus dataispdvate by HOPE YEN (SeeExhibitJ) 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 thePatriotActcounterterrorism law, and the Executive Branch has previously given

, the nation's mainsee endnotes p iv)




14/115

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 Areyouapermanent residentalien? or the SSN lastfour to all the Post Office Boxes and or Personal Mail Boxes, Affiant and

those similarly situated will not be properly enumeratedas citizens or

permanent resident aliens and thereby shift the allotment of members of the

US House that has arbitrarily happened from1920

until1930

when13

USC

SI41 was used to equalize the allotment of U S . House members; however,is unconstitutionally capped at 435without the protectionof the 14hAmendment Section 2 requiring due process for any State in reduction of

the electoral college size- 13USC5141 does not amend the Constitution.20. That Strunk along with those similarly situated in NewYork have

been denied substantive due process in the matter of the arbitrary reductionin size of the New York Electoral College under color of 13 USC5141 since1960when the US.House members plus two Senators with the 13USCSI41 allotment went from 47 members to 45members and 31 members inthe 2008 General Election with the 2010Census 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 ExhibitK.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

21. That the 14hAmendment Section 2 prohibits any abridgment of theright to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and




15/115

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 haveparticipated in rebellion, or other crime inwhich 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 Partycandidate in the Brooklyn 18'hSenate District (SD) classified a Caucasianclass 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 shortformdo not ask the questions are

you a citizen or are you a resident alien as is done differently on the long

formas a matter of conflicting interest in data collection for Housing andHousehold 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




16/115

mandated decennial Census under color of 13 USC s141, 13 USCSI95 , 2USC 2a and related law that flouts the express intent of the U S .Constitution Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxesshall beapportioned am0n-Qthe several States whichmaybe includedwithin this Union,accordin-qto their respective Numbers, which shall bedetermined byaddina to the whole Number of free Persons, including thosebound toService foraTermofYears, andexc1udin.alndians not taxed,threefifihs ofallotherPersons. , and that the emphasizedunderlined sentence was modifiedby the 14th Amendment, section 2

quote Representatives shall be apportionedamona the several Statesaccording to their respective numbers,countina the whole number ofpersons in each State,

see Endnotep. i).

),(seeEndnotep. iv)

23. That with the elimination of slavery in 1863and the methodof

counting persons as property orby conditionof servitude the 1868

enactment and ratification of the 14hAmendment including Section 2modified thebody of persons of whom the Census enumeration to countby

changing the term determinedby addingtothe whole Number of free

Persons, including those bound to Service foraTermofYears, and

excluding Indians not taxed, threefifihs ofall other Persons.to countinathe whole number of personsin each State, excIudin.q Indians not taxed

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.

(see Endnotes p. iv)

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



17/115

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 theresidence 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 I The NumberofRepresentativesshallnot exceedoneforeverythiflyThousand'that has not been amended since the inception of the ratification




18/115

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 or0.00000145 does not exceed 1:30000or 0.000033 thereby reducesmembers; 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 Strunks sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individualrights 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 13USC 5141 to re-balance the electoral college for the peopleof 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




19/115

a recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government actswithout consent of the people.

29.The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the

requirement of the US. Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912,that representative government has fatally weakened the guarantee of a

republican form of government, especially as it applies to the second

political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College

election process in each State of the several States to appoint POTUS; and30. 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 1960with say 12.5 millionresidents had 45 electoral college votes now in 201 0 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 theexpress eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen

without dual allegiance; and that Obama has more than dual allegiance,




20/115

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

expectationof 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 interestcontributors 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 animpeachment process only then to become a U S . House member fromSouth Miami in Florida.

33.That Strunks 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




21/115

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

assuming the corporate office of the Presidency, Le. an applicant shall be35 years of age, 14 years resident of United States of America and a

natural-born-citizen; this is a case of first impression

THE 2008 COUP D' TAT THAT SEIZED THE USA GOVERNMENT

35.That there is an outrageous conspiracy that placed John McCain and

Barack Hussein Obarna on the ballot at the 2008 General Election when

neither is a natural-born citizen, as an abridgment of Strunk's right to voteat any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President ofthe 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 branchesof government are co-opted by a cabal of interlocking

directorships of entities and especially theSovereignMi/itaryOrderofMalta(SMOM) whose members are also citizens of that sovereign(see Endnote p. viii)

state, thereby have at least dual allegiance and hold questionable titles that

are in conflict with Title 18Chapter 45 for USA Foreign Relations and that

with dual allegiance are operating outside and above the law.

37.That SMOM member Zbigniew Kairnierz Brzezinski has played a

crucial role for the Vatican State and SMOM to create global regionalism

that subsumes national sovereignty and as the Former National Security

Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at Mikhail

Gorbachev's October 1995 StateoftheWorldForum, that quote:




22/115

we cannotleapinto worldgovernment inonequick step...Theprecondition for eventualgloba kation-genuinegfoba ization- isprogressiveregionalkation.

38.That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski was a Obama / McCaincampaign Advisor with his sons, Mark who was a member of the advisors in

the Defendant Obamas Campaign and Ian who was an advisor on theMcCain Campaign and both now are serving in government.

39.That Zibignew Bzrezinski in service of the SMOM devised both

Senator McCains and Senator Obamas campaign message through theinsertion 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 theprincipal 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 attendbecause...King Juan Carlos going to Malta in November http://www.middle-

east-online.com/english/?id=31629 with the 5+5 Forum discusses re-launching the Roman Empire as the Med Union and that this February


http://www.middle/http://www.middle/http://www.middle/


23/115

assembled Senior officials from 10western Mediterranean countries metthere 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




24/115

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

Obama, Juan Carlos dropped in on the UNs newest Security Councilmember, Lebanon, for dinner and a meeting with the new Spanish

commanderof 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 ofthe North American Union and principal investor in the Texas Trans-

corridor Highwaysystem using the Law firm of SMOM member Rudolf

Giuliani that fits into the Regional Planning Association,

hfl~:/-.Amedw2050. om plans of its sponsor entities in(see Endnotesp.xi)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 goalofanyWhite

House policy ought to beaNoHhAmerlcan economic and political alliancesimilar in scope and ambition totheEuropean Union.

44. That Defendant Obamas 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.




25/115

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 Obamas 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

and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law.

(seeEndnotep. x)9

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 Soetoros (alkla BarackHussein Obama), or whatever name he is using at the time, allegiance is to

chain of commandof 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




26/115

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 theUnited Nations.

IO.Promote interdependence.11. Support sanctions honoring Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin-theNew 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 JanetNapolitano, SMOM member Leon Panetta, SMOM member Mueller, HillaryClinton, Ken Salazar and others are systematically looting the living

standard and posterity of Affiant and those similarly situated, and nowcompounded 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.




27/115

UNLAWFUL SUSPENSION OF THE PATRIOT ACT

50. Insteadof 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:




28/115

A. That with this section, refusing to provide the requestedinformation or neglecting to complete either survey subjects youto a fine of not more than $100.00.

B. That willfully giving information that is false has a fine of notmore than $500.00.

56.That what appears as the Census Bureau misrepresentation of

federal law is designed to harass, coerce and violate the 5'h and gthamendment 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 ineffect 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 18shows 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, isclassified

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




29/115

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 rightto receive protection and safety from the government in return for which he

gives allegiance to that government. As Justice Waite in UnitedStatesv.Cruiksahank,92 U.S. 542 (1875) said, the right to receive protection is notonly a right that belongs to the collective society but also to the individual. It

is the individual's right to receive protection from the government, which

was the reason that the Founders constituted the new federal Constitutional

Republic, believing that the individual would be better, protected if there

were a unified national government to provide that protection.

Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts hidher allegiance tothe government in exchange for its protection, which includes the




30/115

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

Under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, a person is

entitled to life, liberty, and property and cannot be deprived of those rights

by the government without due process of law. Hence, under the

Constitution, a person is entitled to receive from the government its

protection of hidher life, liberty, and propetty. These componentsnecessarily include the right to safety, security, and tranquility.

Can one reasonably deny that persons should have a right to protectthemselves? 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 representativeswhom they believe will best protect them and that right is protected by the

Constitution, a person also has a constitutional right to bring an action

under the Fifth Amendment against the federal government andlor its

agents to demand that the government continue to provide him/her with theprotection he is entitled under the Constitution.

The sovereign power in our Constitutional Republic lies with the people

and the Constitution they established to limit the power of the Federal

government and thus the Congress and its members who are part of that

government. See Cbisholm v. Georuia,2 U.S. (2Dall.) 419 (1793) (explainsthat it is the people who are sovereign in our Constitutional Republic). Any




31/115

party to a contract has standing to enforce it.

The U S . Constitution is a contract or social compact between thepeople, 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 "naturalborn Citizen" clause as Petitioner suffers an injury in relation thereto.

For sure, Obama, if he were a legitimate President and regardless ofwhether 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 hewas 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. OftheNavyv. uan+ 484 U.S. 518 (1988) (explains how the President hasauthority 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




32/115

an agency of the Executive Branch can remove an employee from

government employment for lack of retaining a security clearance and the

risk he poses to the national security interests of the United States).

The President and Commander in Chief as the Chief Law Enforcement

Officer Administrator and Trustee wields enormous power over the

Petitioner's and others lives. He is the Chief Executive and Commander of

all the military force and law enforcement.As such, he has the

constitutional obligation to protect them from enemies both foreign and

domestic. Hence, given that the President regularly makes life and death

decisions, it cannot be denied that Petitioner is personally and directly

affected in a concrete way by everything the President does and does not

do. The Court can take judicial notice of former Vice President, Dick

Cheney's actual words regarding Obama's administration's request to move

the trial of the 9/11 conspirators to New York City. Cheney's words were: "I

tbink it's likelytogive encouragement,aid andcomfort 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




33/115

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

meet this objective constitutional requirement regardless of what the

Petitioner may personally believe or how the Petitioner may feel about him.

Regarding Congress, in its ministerial duty by the Vice President

Counting the Electoral votes under the 12'h amendment President Cheneyfailed to ascertain whether or not Obama were qualified by polling those

house / senate members gathered as if it were optional when it is amandatory ministerial duty that in fact was breached under the Twentieth

Amendment by failing to make sure that Obama meets that textual eligibility

requirementof the "natural born Citizen" clause of Article IIwhich providesprotection 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.




34/115

Wherefore ,Affiant respectfully requests an original proceeding trial

before the Circuit panel and that the panel order a response of District

Judges in regards to an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus for:

(i) the equal protection issues that arise between the Census short

form and long form in the matter of enumerating citizens and or

permanent resident aliens; (a) for additional census mailers sent to

Personal Mail Boxes and Post Office Boxes;

(ii) to restore the New York Electoral College to 47 members as use

of 13 USC 5141 to reduce same to the present 31 is a violation of the 14hAmendment Section 2;

(iii) A recount of the census enumeration in the allotment of U.S.

House of Representative Members rather than for the mere collection of


(iv) Removing executive stay in use of the Patriot Act with the

Census;

(v) Disclosure of the origin of US. Senator Obamas 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 5hand gthamendment protections in regards to the Census Bureau statement in

reference to section 221 penalties referenced above, Title 18 U.S.C.

Section 3571 and Section 3559, arbitrarily under color of law in effect

amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 changes the fine from not




35/115

.more than $100 to not more than $5,000 for anyone over 18years oldwho

refusesor willfully neglectsto complete the questionnaire or answer

questions posed bycensus takers; (vil) that any responsebyother

respondents be heard expeditiously accordingly as time isof the essence

with imminent irreparableharmthat would resultto Affiant andthose

similarty situated; and (viii) that this Court provide further and different relief

as itdeems necessary for justice herein.0

ThatAffirmant has read the above and Iknow its contentsas anexpert witness; the facts stated inthe Petition are true to my own personal

knowledge, except as to the matters therein statedto beallegedon

information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The

grounds ofmy beliefsastoall mattersnotstated upon informationandbeliefare as follows: 3d parties, booksand records, and personalknowledge, except as to those stated upon information and belief, which I

believe to be true.

Christopher-Earl :Strunk0 inesseSworn to beforeme thisthe -/fday of March2010---..... ----...*.,.-. . .-* 4 =.. - \



36/115

USPOSTAGEPAIDBoani ofEkctiotzsinthe CityofNew Yo&Brooklynoffice345Adams Street, 4th FloorBrooklyn, NY 11201

.J

(718) 797-8800TEMP. RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

YourImportant Voting Iitformation4

bED:071

WHERETOVICTE:Your, lectiodAssembly District is: . AD:57REPYaurPollsiteis: sUCentrodeVotaci6nes= !?VJM!~~KI&%&&~:3Fq ?E&&

PS9 NewENTERTHRUENTREPOR Bergerr sbeet- 8 0 - W A v e n u e

-

WyENTOVIITE: Primary Election: Tuesday; September15,2009Run-OffPrimary (ifnecessary): Tuesday, September 29,2009

General Election: Tuesday, November 3,2009



37/115

I Case 1:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02125/10 Page 1of 13Strunk v. US DepartmentofCommerce Bureau ofCensus et al . DCD 09cv- I295

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and theCHRISTOPHER(aka CHRIS) S T R W Kjus ta-tii Peopls,593Vanderbilt Avenue-281 BrooklynNew York t 1238845-901-6767 PlaintilTs : Civil No.: 09-cv-1295

Hon. Richard J. LeonV.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEBUREAU OFTHE CENSUS(BOC) t al.

Defendants. :

U

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OFRECENTDECIS?ON AND DISPOSITION OFLOCALRULE 9.1 MOTION FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT

I, Christopher-Earl:Strunk in esse, state underpenalty ofperjury with 28 USC 9 I746 that:Declarant1Plaintitf, herebyprovides the Court with notice ofa recent order by the UnitedStatesDistrict Court for the Northern District ofNew York. Thedecision and order, issued in Forio,reet 02. v.the State ofCaliforniaet 02. No. 06-CV-1002(NDNYFebruary 19,2010),rendersMr.Fojones request with 28 USC 6 1407 moots as it is now a matter on appeal to the Second Circuitthat shodd takes setlercli months to resolve. A copy ofthe cmirtsdecision and order is attachedto this notice. The nudge given to Judge Kahn by Mr. Forjone and myself to takes that case off

the Congressional list ofyencling matters requiring continuing funding there in NDNY; however,does not change the fact that there i s an urgent matterwith a deadline ofMarch IS , 2010 in themailing ofthe 2010 Census Questionnaireto bedone without the two required questions Are

you a citizen? and or Are you a permanent resident alien?

RECEIVED



38/115

Case 1 09-cv-01295-RJL Document35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2of 13S k u n k V. USDepartmentoCComr11erceBureau oLCensus et ai. K D i%v- 1295

'!'he 1,CvK 9.?Motion fer 3 threejudge panel rerngins open 2n d there is~ihilute here inthis District tiom the get go to comply with focal rules speciticaily LCvR 40.3 (b) (' I Cor theManner of Random Assignment ofa District Judge to determine a threejudge court that remainsunresolved, notwithstandhg alf th c v a ~ o u sMotions toDismiss by the Dcfhdants , and theconcern ofimparable h a m with time as the essence involved in disseminating the bogusquestionnaire to hrther the amnesty bill without knowing the actual number of"l'ourists"transients and persons ofa diplomatic relation to be obfiiscated without the two questions asked.Ifthe Court does not act expeditiously by March 1,2010 to resolve this matter, Dec lmt musttile an emergency Original injunction t

Dated: February ,Brooklyn New York

Christopher -Earl: Strunk Qin esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue-281HrookIyn New York 11238Phone; (845) 901 6767Email: chris(ii%strunk.ws

Attachment: Decision and Order NDNY 06-cv-1002 (February 19,2010)

cc:The Honorable ChiefJudge Royce C. LamberthDefendants Counsels

' LCvR 40.3 MANNER OF ASSIGNMENT (a) RANDOM ASSIGNMENT.Except ;I S othcnvise p r o v i d d hy these Rules, civil, cn 'mind and miscellaneous casesshaI1 be assigned tojudges ofthis court selected at random in the following manner:(b) THREE-JUDGE COURT CASES. Civil, including miscellaneous, cases requested orrequired tobe heard by a Three-Judge Court shail be randomly assigned to a District Court

judge, excluding the Chief Judge.

3



39/115

Case 1 09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page3of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHN-JOSEPI-1 FORJONE, e l id.,Plaintiffs:

V.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et ut.,Defenrla~nts

1 :06-CV-1002 (LEWRFT)

LAWRENCE E. KAHNUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DECISION and ORDERPlaintiffs filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in the Western District ofNew York asserting

various constitutional violations and otherclaims arisingout ofthe National Voter RegistrationAct,

U.S.C. 5 1973gg,et seq.?and the Hclp America Vote Act , 42 U.S.C. 9 15301 etseq. (HAVA).Among other things, Plaintiffs appear to claim that at least some ofthe Defendants wronghlly countthe voting age population (VAP) (including illegal aliens and deceased persons), rather than usingthe citizen voting age population (CVAP), and thereby used imprecise numbers in redistricting anddetermining oligibiiity for funds under the HAVA. Plaintiffs also appear to assert a violation oftheRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct (RICO), 18 U.S .C . tj 1961 et seq., and the FalseClaims Act, 31 U.S.C. 5 3729, et seq.Am.Compl. (Dkt. No. 26) at 7 1 . Plaintiffs request a three

judge panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284.I B A C KGR OU N1)

In ruling upon ccrtaiii rnoliws bcfixe i t , tiiz Wcsttrn District of Ny,t rork ~ g t e di23t tI?cCornplaint:



40/115

Case 109-cv-01295-RJL Document35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4of 13

can only bedescribedas, nferczlin,disjointed, unintelligiblc, convoluted, confusing and prolix.It is presented in such a manner that the Court, and the defendants. . ,simply cannot determine

what the plaintiffs are alleging. . . . [he Complaint names approximately 70 defendants,including what appears to be most ofthe counties in New YorkState and the States ofNewYork, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, . . . and Oregon, and, at its heartappears to complain about the manner in which New Yorkand other States are implementing

[HAVA] . . . . The complaint also appears to raise concerns about how New Yorkand itscounties have failed to meet the mandates of HAVA and how the State has drawn itscongressional, legislative and judicial districts. . . . [Blecause of the manner in which thecomplaint is pled the Court can make little sense, ifany, ofwhat the defendants arc alleged tohave done or what they have failed to do in relation to HAVA or how those actions or failures

to act are actionable.

Dkt. No. 24 at 1-2.Plaintiffs were ordered to show cause, in writing, no later than May 1,2006, why this

action should riot be dismissed or transferred . . .arid why sanctions should not be imposed against

them. . . . -Id. at 7. The Order also directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that simply andconcisely informs the Court and the defendants in plain terms what they are alleging the defendants di

or did not do . . .and how those actions or inactions are a violation ofHAVA or some other federal or

state statute, law or constitutional provision. Id.at 3. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to file anamended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. and IO aiid sets forth in a comprehensibIemanner claims upon which reliefcan be granted, wili lead to the dismissal ofthis action. Plaintiffs

also were instructed that, because they are proceedingpro se, they must delete references to anyassociations or organizations on whose behalf they claimed to be suing. The Western Districts Order

further noted that:

.at least five ofthe plaintiffs in this matter had filed in2004 ;f xr,. similar action in the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District ofNew York . . .Loeber v. Spargo, 04-cv-I 193.. . . [A] number of the plaintiffs filed declarations or affidavits which clearly intimate that thetwo actioiis are siniilar a i d that a reason fix filing the instant action arid to seeka change of



41/115

Case 1 09-cv-01295-RJL Document35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5of 13

venue for Loeber to this Court is because they are no? pleased ttith the manner in which theLoeber case is proceeding.

Because the Loeber case was similar to, and filed prior to this case, the Western District transferred tcase to this Court. Dkt. No. 100.

On August 17,2006, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 26.

Attfaclied here to as Exhibi t E? was :jproposed Amerided Complaint. The proposed AmendedComplaint is 57 pages long (nearly twice as long as the original complaint) and continues to be

disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, conhsing and prolix. Plaintiftk did not file the proposedAmended Compiaint. It similarly appears that Plaintiffs did not serve the Amended Complaint on

Defendants, See. e.g.,Mem. by N.Y. State Atty General andNY State Secy ofState in Supp. ofMto Dismiss (Dkt. No 29) at 3.

The First Cause ofAction ofthe proposed Amended Complaint alleges a failure to enforce the

National Voter Registration Act. In sum, this claim alleges that various states have failed to prevent

non-citizens from voting in elections. Plaintiffs contend that, by allowing non-citizens to vote, their

votes have been efkctively diluted. The Second Cause ofAction claims that the Election AssistanceCommission (EAC) and the Department ofJustice have improperly certified false state HAVAsubmissions. The Third Cause of Action contends that the EAC has intentionally promoted, facilitateaided and abetted illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and certain other States.

TheFourth Cause ofAction alleges that the New YorkState Board ofElections intentionally and

maliciously failcd to maintain a statewide central database that ~ v o d dnable munic ip l i t ie s ic3 tserifyinactive voters. According to Plaintiffs, this causes various municipalities to receive a disproportiona

By Orders dated January 8, 2008 aiid July 3 I , 2068, this Court dismissed the claims in theLoeber case. The matter is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit Court ofAppeals.

- 3 -



42/115

Case I09-cv-01295-RJL Document35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 6of 13

share ofelection-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth

cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the Defcndimt New York state Municipal subdk isions . . .intentionally fail to maintain an accurate original voter registration database on a municipal by

municipal bases as required under color ofN V M and HAVA and New York State EIection Law.Plaintiffs allege that, ifother states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to

the State ofNew Yorkand,as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property

taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Causo of Action alleges that the States ofCalifornia, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states intentionally fail to

maintain an accurate voter registration database as requiredby federal and state law.

Plaintiffs contend that, as a result ofDefendants actions, voting is being rapidly undermined byillegal aliens and multiply registered citizens, the strength oftheir votes is being diluted, their right to

free speech and freedom ofassociation is being infringed, their suffrage rights are beingdisenfranchise[d] ...by disproportionate diminished dilution by taking plaintiffs [sic] proprietarytangible suffrage property, they are suffering reverse discrimination, they are being deprived ofa

republican form ofgovernment, they arebeing denied substantive due process and are being subjected

to a taking ofproperty for the unfiuded maidate as done under the Medicaid t u evy without noticeand segregation ofthe election costs on real property tax levy, and they are being deprived ofHomerule autonomy and equal protection ofthe law against false HAVA claims.Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Cornplaint md Amended Complaint.Although Pkaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated briefin opposition to themotions, they h a w f d c d todo so.

- 4



43/115

Case ?:09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed02/25/10 Page 7of 13

11. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fcdcral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(G), it complaintmust contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to reliefthat is plausible onface. Ashcroft v. Iabal, --- U S . ----, 129S. Ct. 1937, 1949(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismisspursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations madeby the non-movinparty iis true and draw a11 inferences in the light must favorable to the non-moving party. In reNYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89,95 (2d Cir. 2007). The movants burden is versubstantial, as [tlhe issue is not whether a plaintiffis likely to prevail ultimately, but whether theclaimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Log On America. Inc. v. Promethean

Asset Msmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435,441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. ofEduc., 69 F.3d 669, 673(2d Cir. 1995)(internai quotation and citations omitted)). With this standardinmind,the Court will address the pending Motions to dismiss.

111. DISCUSSIONa.

By Order dated March 28,2036, the WesternDistrict of New York directed Plainticfs io fian amended complaint complying with Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 12006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that in the event plaintiffs fail to fan amended complaint asdirected above by h4ay 1 , 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed withprejudice without further order ofthe Court. Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,Plaintiffs havs neither filed the rcqi:isifc m e n d e d complaint 1101-served i t on Defendants. Raintiffswere warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal ofthis action. Because Plaintiffs have

Failure to Comply with the Courts Order



44/115

Case 1:09-cv-0?295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 8of 13

Rule 8(3)(2) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivi1 Procedure requires 3 complaint tocontain a"sand plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As noted, Plaintiffs

were directed by the Court to submit anamended pleading that complies with the requirements of

failed to comply with the Court's prior order by tiling an amended complaint this action must beDISMISSED.

b. Failure to Comply with Rules 8 and 10

' Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructehow to remedy the deticiencies,and given the opportuaity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also werwarned ofthe consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerousmotions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply w

Rule 8 and the Court's prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort

submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adheringto the Court's warning and the dict

ofRule 8(a)(2), P!aintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and moreconvoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance ofirrelevant and othenviseimmaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to

irrelevant treaties. Inmost instances the proposed Amended Cornplaint fails to allege how the nameDefendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity ofthe proposed Amended Complaint pla

an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respoto it. See Salahuddin v. Cuorno, 86 1 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all blotions to

-6-



45/115

Case 1 09-c\i-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02125110 Page 9of 13

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Cornplaint on theground that Plaintiffs lackstanding2 Article HI, $ 2, d.1 ofthe Constitution extends the judicialpower only to actual cxjes or coiitroversies. I he doctriiit: ofstaiding preforms a critical role inassuring the limits tojudicial power imposed by this case-or-controversyrequirement. SeeAllen vWright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is

entitled to have the court decide the merits ofthe dispute or ofparticular issues. Id.at 750-51(quotingWarth v. Seldin, 422US.490,498 (1975)).

r ,

Three elements form the irreducible constitutional rninirnum ofstanding. LLGU v.Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). These are:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact- an invasion ofa legally protected intereswhich is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural orhypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduccomplained of- the injury has to be fairIy .. . racerable] to the chaIIenged action ofthe defendantandnot. .. h[e] result [ofl the independentactionofsome third party not before the court. Thirdit must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a

favorable dec s on.-Id. at 560-61 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the SupremeCourt has notedthat where a plaintiffischallenging government action or inaction, and the plaintiffis not himself

object of the governmentaction or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordina

substantiaiIy more difficult to establish. Id. t 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).The allegations contained in Plaintiffs Amended CompIaint consistently fail to allege an

concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to theDefendants. Throughout their twelve causes ofaction, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries a

I ,

- The remaining Jiscussiori assumes, cirgiienticj, that the Cornplaint andlor proposedAincndcd Complaint comply with the Courts prior Order and Rules 8 and 10.- 7 -



46/115

Case t09-cv-01295-RJL Document 35 Filed 02/25/10 Page 30of 13

generalized grievances, 'and, hrthcrrnore, leave unclear how any ofthe alleged harms could be

redressed by a favorabie result in the courts. Where, as in the Ninth Cause ofAction, Plaintiffs appeto specify aconcrete injury, the taking oftheir property through real property taxes collected to covethe costs ofHAVA, their claim still fails. Plaintiffs do not allege that property taxes have increasedbecause ofthe need to cover a shortfall in HAVA funding, that there is a shortfall in HAVA funding

that there could be any such a shortfallbecause,as explained in Loeber, HAVA requires states to ado

certain voting requirements regardless ofany federa1 funding. 2008 WL I I 1172, at -*4.In short, Plaintiffs lackstanding because they fail to allege any concrete injury. Moreover

for the reasons stated by this Court in Loeber, Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the

requirements ofthe NVRA or Titles I or II ofthe HAVA. 2008 WL 111172, at "4-5; see also Kalssov. U.S. Federal Election Com'n, 356F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. ZOOS) (plaintiffdid not have standin

despite his allegation that his vote was diluted because the NVRA results in more people registering

vote than otherwise would be the case), aff'd, 159Fed. Appx. 326 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Amalfitanv. United States, 2001 WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7,2001), aff'd, 21 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2001).any event, the NVRA imposes obligations upon states; not counties. 42 U.S.C. tj 1973gg-2(a). For tforegoing reasons, Plaintiffs lack standing, thereby providing another basis for dismissal.

d, Failure to State a Claim1. New York Attorney General and New York Secretary ofState

The N cw York Attorney Gcncral and SecretaryofState move to dismiss the AmendedComplaint against them on the ground that it fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them. 'The

Arneridsd Complaint illazkes little referctxe to f k s e D e f h . h n t s atid does riot allege any actsattr

Documents

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