Strunk Reply to BHO response in Support of Intervention in Taitz v Obama DCD 10-Cv-00151

8/14/2019 Strunk Reply to BHO response in Support of Intervention in Taitz v Obama DCD 10-Cv-00151

1/26

'\UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA............................................................... X

'r. Orly Taitz, PRO SE29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 3ancho Santa M argarita CA 92688Tel: (949) 683-54 11; Fax (949) 766-7603 9 Civil Action: 10-CV-00151Plaintiff,

6- r-> 7;.Barack Hussein Obama, 5 g ;"-J -.,. .z:T- 5;c9

C/OThe W hite House 8 FE', 32 r ~ ~-a -1600Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 8 Cr , -i/lTWf b-irnWashington, District of C olumbia 20500 5 .Ic 42nc 2 x-0 2-4Defendant. 1 T;rl d sp- 4........................................................ W V ,XSTRUNK'S DECLARATION IN REPLY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TOTHE MOTION TO INTERVENE

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare and say under penalty of pe jury with28 USC 9 1746:1. Declararants the petitioner who has a pending Notice of Motion to Intervene as an Ex-

relator Intervener-Plaintiff with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and24 in the Quo Warranto matter withFRCvP Rule 8 1 (A ) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff.

2. That on January 27,2010 before Declarant decided to intervene was the process serverupon the Defendant Obama by certified mail with return receipt confirmed delivered by theUnited States Postal Service , nd in person service of Eric Holder the US Attorney General andChanning Phillips the U.S. Attorney for Washington DC in person as shown in the Docket record.by affidavit submitted to the court on January 27,2010;


2/26

- 2 -

3. On December 24, 2009, that Defendant Obama nominated Ronald C. Machen Jr. to serveas United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to replace Channing Phillips. On

Thursday, February 11, 2010, the United States Senate confirmed Mr. Machen as the new United

States Attorney for the District of Columbia and he was sworn in on February 18, 2010.

4. On February 6, 2010, Declarant had one (1) copy of the Plaintiffs Summons withVerified Petition Complaint and one (1) copy of Strunks Motion to Intervene as an Ex-relator

Intervener-Plaintiff served by registered mail upon in care of the White House at Washington DC

20500 for Defendant Barack Hussein Obama delivered at 4:31 AM on February 19, 2010 by the

United State Postal Service that was notified the delivery by Email confirmation to the process

sever who then on February 22, 2010 declared and certified the registered service complete (See

Exhibit 1).

5. Declarant makes this reply with LCvR 7(d) that appears due March 9, 2010 within 7 daysfrom the response filed March 2, 2010 or as the court may direct, and by separate submission

accompanied by the Notice of Cross Motion to Intervene declared March 7, 2010 as an Ex-

Relator Interpleader-Defendant as an Ex-Relator Interpleader-Defendant with an Interpleader

Verified Cross Complaint affirmed March 4, 2010 with FRCvP Rule 22 as a Interpleader and the

Notice of Cross Motion declared March 8, 2010 for Partial Summary Judgment with FRCvP

Rule 56(d) as all are in support of the Interpleader and Plaintiff application for a preliminary

injunction in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the case filed February 26, 2010 by Assistant

United States Attorney Alan Burch with a correction filed March 1, 2010, that arguably are due

by March 12, 2010, however rightfully filed within the March 9, 2010 deadline.

6.That Mr. Burch in his response in opposition to Declarants motion to intervene alleges thatIntervener lacks standing to seek relief sought which Declarant denies is true, has no cognizable


3/26

- 3 -

interest in the outcome of plaintiffs claims, that Strunks claimed interests have same

jurisdictional problems as Plaintiff, that Strunk cannot show a specific injury fairly traceable to

Defendants actions, that the court cannot redress the injuries claimed, Strunks claimed interest

raise a non-justiciable political question committed in the first instance by the electorate and

thereafter congress, Strunk somehow relies on the FOIA which is in no way true I already have

the facts necessary for a Declaratory Judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d);

7. That on or about October 27, 2008 Strunk filed a verified complaint Strunk v. Paterson etal. including the NYS Board of Elections for a breach of fiduciary duty and 42 USC 1983 civil

rights violation as state action under color of the 2008 General Election active election law case

before the Honorable Justice David I. Schmidt who directed Strunk to obtain information in a

FOIA case from the US Department of State that would allow the State case to proceed and to

date the information there is stayed by District Judge Leon in case Strunk v DOS et al. DCD 08-

cv-2234, and stayed per se because the proposed Quo Warranto conversion there was not

possible in a FOIA matter as it is now before this court.

8. That Strunk merely requires a partial summary judgment as explained separately and anexplanation by the US Department of Homeland Security of the veracity of the birth record

obtained from Kenya in February 2009 and filed under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith, no

further discovery is required by Strunk, if the record proves to be false, but if valid then requires

further investigation of the fraudulent misrepresentation injuring Strunk with a Special Master

appointed to investigate ( as neither Taitz nor Strunk are admitted to the Washington DC bar)

foreign donations to the various Obama Campaigning committees as explained in the

Interpleader Verified Cross Motion annexed to the Cross Motion for Interpleader.


4/26

- 4 -

9. That Strunk is an interested person defined with the Quo Warranto Act in that as ofJanuary 23, 2009 Strunk was the only person in the country to duly fire Defendant Obama for

cause in that he had not shown he was eligible to serve as the Chief Law enforcement Officer,

administration and trustee of Strunks power of Attorney and private account at the Department

of treasury and as such is the only person ibn the country individual entitled to refer to Defendant

Obama as the usurper he is. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to

the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus

directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1

Clause 6 and 25

th

Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and

10. further, notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s)Strunk requires with 28 USC 1361 a writ of mandamus of:

(i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obamas alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty

of perjury by Lucas Smith;

(ii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign

committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others;

(iii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the

various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ

entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC 1971, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, the

False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. 37293733 and related law in entirety; and

(iv) with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the

Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of

any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed


5/26

- 5 -

special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial

on Plaintiff and Interpleader injuries, complains of Defendants with:

11. That on or about February 2, 2009 the Usurper violated Strunks right to due process inthe FOIA case Strunk v DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 before Judge Leon when the US Attorney

assistant was replace by Eric holders assistant without due notice injuring Strunk and being a

cause of action with direct personalized injury complained of here among the other matters

including the Usurpers wasting of Strunks asset as complained of on May 20, 2009 in the

Verified Complaint shown attached to the Motion to Intervene and that the Usurper is acting

without Strunks consent and as duly served upon the Defendant Obama , Eric Holder the US

Attorney General and Jeffrey Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington DC by certified mail with

return receipt confirmed delivered by the United States Postal Service and that on or about May

29, 2009 Jeffrey Taylor resigned from his office and neither the Usurper Holder or any of the US

Attorney replacement have responded thereby enabling Strunk to act as the USA and Ex-relator

accordingly.

12. That all though Ms. Taitz in April 2009 had filled a request for a Quo Warranto actionwith the US Taylor and US Attorney General Holder with no response, her action before District

Judge Carter in California was not the proper venue for which to proceed according to both the

US Attorney out there and the Judge in his motion to dismiss thereby leading to the present filing

here in DC.

13. Declarant has spoken with Plaintiff several times in regards to the different civil rightsinjuries individually sustained with State Action under color of law as are barred by the 14

th

Amendment that with use of 42 USC 1983 herein for relief and recovery of various damages

individually Declarant in New York as to suffrage and liberty and Plaintiff in California has also


6/26

- 6 -

been injured elsewhere as the result of Defendant Obamas actions under color of law with a 42

USC 1985 conspiracy operating with his campaign committees and other yet named in each

State of the several States in two phases: first in the conspiracy going into the 2008 General

Election; and then such Civil Rights and misprision injuries and damages inflicted under color of

Law in Washington District of Columbia after January 20, 2009 as a clear distinction since the

District of Columbia for the purposes of Court Jurisdiction herein is deemed to be a State with 28

USC 1343.

14. Further, self-represented Plaintiff and Declarant have remarkable differences in regardsto the presentment of various issues of fact to the court and jury, as well as the immediate

availability of remedies for relief of injury as time is of the essence with an on going irreparable

harm and that the claims involved against Defendant Obama from various sources of monies that

will resolves the wide range of damages on both a personal and public basis involved in the

complex matter; and in which Declarant contends must in an efficient way in assistance to the

court join supplement defendants and appoint a special master for resolution of the case.

15. As for the alleged lack of Standing Strunk denies the allegation and argues as follows:16. Standing as a doctrine to limit judicial review has gone through different phases. Its

history shows that standing really does not have any one constitutional standard and that its

standard may change over time given the existing political and social environment. See Richard

J. Pierce, Jr., Is Standing Law or Politics?, 77 N.C. L. Rev. 1741, 1788 (1999). The Warren

Court developed what it believed was a relaxed view of standing.Association of Data

Processing Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1979). The Burger Court then made it

more difficult to establish standing. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). Then the early

Rehnquist Court made it even more difficult to prove standing.Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,


7/26

- 7 -

504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plurality opinion). Under the influence of Justice Kennedy, the Rehnquist

Court in its later years opened the court's door somewhat. Defenders of Wildlife, (Kennedy, J.,

concurring); FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Today, under the Roberts Court, the law of

standing is not so clear. Compare Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007) (granting

standing), withHein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007) (denying

standing)).

17. What is really behind standing is separation of powers. As Justice Scalia stated beforejoining the Court, "the judicial doctrine of standing is a crucial and inseparable element of

[separation of powers], whose disregard will inevitably produce ... an over-judicialization of the

processes of self-governance." Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element

of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 881 (1983) [hereafter Scalia]. Relying on the

separation of powers doctrine, the courts have said that they cannot dictate the methods used by

the executive to enforce the laws for to do so would be interfering with the President's

responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,

761 (1984). On the court's proper role, Justice Scalia stated: "[T]he law of standing roughly

restricts courts to their traditional undemocratic role of protecting individuals and minorities

against impositions of the majority, and excludes them from the even more undemocratic role of

prescribing how the other two branches should function in order to serve the interests of the

majority itself." Scalia, at 881.

18. The major separation of powers concerns voiced in modern standing cases is the freedomof the executive branch (see, M., Lujan, 504 U.S. 555;Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438

(2007) and the potential creation of a nation of undifferentiated Interpleader and Plaintiff. See, ~

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984);Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 127 S.Ct.


8/26

- 8 -

2553 (2007). However, as we shall see, these problems are not present in the case filed by

Interpleader and Plaintiff.

19. "Generalizations about standing to sue are largely worthless as such." Ass'n of DateProcessing Servo Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 151 (1970). Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555 (1992), shows that the issue of standing is highly fact sensitive. ENDNOTE 3. All a

litigant must do to demonstrate standing is "allege personal injury fairly traceable to the ...

allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright,

468 U.S. 737,750 (1984) (cited and quoted in U.S. v. Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 340 (3rd

Cir. 1992). The current-day test for Article III standing was established in Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plurality opinion), where the Court stated:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' -- an invasion of a legally protectedinterest which 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 conductcomplained of - the injury has to be fairly ... trace[ able] to the challenged action of thedefendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before thecourt. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will beredressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 560-61 (internal quotations and citations omitted).Given the factual allegations of their complaint/petition and the current state of the law ofstanding, the Court should have found that Plaintiff have alleged sufficient facts in theircomplaint/petition to show they have standing to bring their causes of action. This Court'sthreshold inquiry into standing in no way depends on the merits of Plaintiff' contentions.Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975) (citations omitted).

20. Interpleader and Plaintiff' action has nothing to do with their personal satisfaction aboutwhether Obama is a "natural born Citizen" and everything to do with whether Obama meets the

requirements of Article II that a presidential contender must be a "natural born Citizen" to be

eligible for that position. It is clear from the complaint/petition and Interpleader and Plaintiff

argued that Article II of the Constitution provides in pertinent part that no person may be

President unless he/she is a "natural born Citizen" and that the objective definition of that clause


9/26

- 9 -

may be found in legal authorities of the Founding era and in the subsequent decisions of the

United States Supreme Court. Interpleader and Plaintiff also argued it is this objective

Constitution standard that must be respected and satisfied regarding presidential eligibility

requirements. Interpleader and Plaintiff never presented any case suggesting that Interpleader

and Plaintiff have some subjective need to satisfy themselves that the president is "truly" a

"natural born citizen."

21. In the words of Chief Justice Waite inMinor v. Happersett:There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as anation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each

one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. Heowes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in thisconnection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance forprotection and protection for allegiance. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

Chief Justice Waite again instructs in United States v. Cruiksahank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of eachof the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each hascitizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it mustprotect. ... Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. Theyare the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, haveestablished or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion oftheir general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. Inthe formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose.The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powersit has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but itcan exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by thepower it possesses for that purpose.

***

He owes allegiance to the two departments [state and federal government], so to speak, andwithin their respective spheres must pay the penalties, which each exacts for disobedience toits laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction. Id. at 549-51. In Corfield v. Coryell, W6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) (No. 3,230), we learn:

The privileges and immunities which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governmentsinclude protection by the government ... with the right to acquire and possess property of


10/26

- 10 -

every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to suchrestraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

22. Declarant can see that the Supreme Court and other courts have said that a citizen has aright to receive protection and safety from the government in return for which he gives

allegiance to that government. As Justice Waite in Cruiksahanksaid, 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.

23. Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts his/her allegiance to the governmentin exchange for its protection, which includes the government providing for the person's safety,

security, and tranquility. Under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, a person

is entitled to life, liberty, and property and cannot be deprived of those rights by the government

without due process of law. Hence, under the Constitution, a person is entitled to receive from

the government its protection of his/her life, liberty, and property. These components necessarily

include the right to safety, security, and tranquility.

24. Can one reasonably deny that persons should have a right to protect themselves? TheFifteenth 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


11/26

- 11 -

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.

25. The sovereign power in our Constitutional Republic lies with the people and theConstitution 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

party to a contract as standing to enforce it.

26. The U.S. Constitution is a contract or social compact between the people, the states, andthe 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. Interpleader and Plaintiff, as citizens of the United States

and part of the people thereof, are parties to this contract. They therefore have standing to

enforce the requirements of Article II "natural born Citizen" clause when they have suffered an

injury in relation thereto.

27. For sure, Obama, if he were a legitimate President and regardless of whether they votedfor him or not, would have the constitutional duty under the Fifth Amendment to provide for the

Interpleader and Plaintiff' 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. SeeDept. Of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518


12/26

- 12 -

(1988) (explains how the President has authority over our military and national security affairs

and is central to protecting our national security and our highly sensitive national security

information so that it does not get into the hands of our enemies; and how an agency of the

Executive Branch can remove an employee from government employment for lack of retaining a

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

28. The President and Commander in Chief as the Chief Law Enforcement OfficerAdministrator and Trustee wields enormous power over the Interpleader and Plaintiff' lives. He

is the Chief Executive and Commander of all the military force. 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 Interpleader

and Plaintiff are 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."

29. Concerning Obama, we are not attacking the wisdom or soundness of government actionor asking the Court to assume any authority over some other co-equal branch of government.

Interpleader and Plaintiff' action against him is not an action against the government. We are not

suing him because Interpleader and Plaintiff do not like him, because of a generalized feeling of

discomfort about his occupying the Office of President, or because Interpleader and Plaintiff

have suffered undefined psychological harm. Rather, Declarant maintains that he does not meet

the textual "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirements of Article II, a requirement that he

must meet prior to executive power legitimately vesting in him under Article II, Section 1,


13/26

- 13 -

Clause 5. He must meet this objective constitutional requirement regardless of what the

Interpleader and Plaintiff may personally believe or how the Interpleader and Plaintiff may feel

about him.

30. Regarding Congress, in its ministerial duty by the Vice President Counting the Electoralvotes 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 Interpleader and Plaintiff' 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.

31. Obama's allegiance and loyalty to the United States determines how he exercises his dutyto protect the citizen Interpleader and Plaintiff. If Obama is not an Article II "natural born

Citizen," Interpleader and Plaintiff cannot trust him to protect them. In such a case, Interpleader

and Plaintiff have 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." These are real and concrete life and death needs that the Interpleader and

Plaintiff have. Any injury to these rights is indeed a concrete Injury.

32. The Interpleader and Plaintiff' Injuries Are Particularized as to them. Because there is anoverlap between the concreteness and particularity tests, Declarant relies on our argument that

Interpleader and Plaintiff meet the concreteness test to also support our argument that they meet

the particularity test. Declarant also adds the following.


14/26


15/26

- 15 -

35. More importantly, is Declarant to accept a standing policy that provides that it isacceptable for elected officials to violate the constitution as long as those violations harm

everyone? Where is the soundness or logic of a judicial concept as expressed by the court, which

provides that if you suffer an injury alone, the court can help you, but if you suffer that same

injury with "all other American citizens," "people," or "residents," the court cannot. Is it

controlling on the question of standing and whether a specific party has a right to judicial relief

that other persons have also been injured by the defendant's conduct? If someone suffers an

injury, does that injury lose its concrete character or become not particularized because others

may also suffer the same injury? Does a cut on one's arm caused by a defendant become not

concrete and not particularized because the defendant has also caused the same cut on the arm of

a million other people? If someone is a victim in a mass fraud or mass tort situation, does that

person lose his right to bring a legal action because a million other people also share the same

harm? Does not the law allow an individual injured by an unsafe product to sue the manufacturer

in products liability and recognize that he/she has standing even though whether the product is

safe affects in a substantial way millions of other consumers and users who may benefit from the

results of the law suit? That Obama as the President represents a broad national interest does not

control the question of whether he has specifically harmed the Interpleader and Plaintiff by

refusing to conclusively prove that he is an Article II "natural born Citizen," for harm to the

whole does not mean that there is no harm to the parts making up the whole.

36. One can only wonder how a standing concept as expressed by a Court that can beconsistently and honestly applied by all the Courts to the myriad of public interest law suits that

are brought before it. Such a notion is not a correct statement of the law of standing, for how can

such a position be correct if the Interpleader and Plaintiff are themselves injured but due to no


16/26

- 16 -

fault of their own they also happen to be among the injured? On the contrary, case law shows

that Interpleader and Plaintiff have standing even if they are also among the injured.

37. A party who adequately shows his own injury is entitled to establish standing eventhough the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally or even if it is an injury shared by a

large class of other possible litigants. Applied from Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499,501

(1975). As long as Interpleader and Plaintiff adequately show their own injury, it is also perfectly

acceptable for them to "invoke the general public interest in support of their claim." rd. at 501.

38. Interpleader and Plaintiff have not filed a "citizen suit" per se that interferes with theexecutive's authority under Article II. Their action is not about political accountability by the

executive and legislative branches that belongs in the political process. There is no risk here of

judicial usurpation of executive or congressional powers. Interpleader and Plaintiff suit is not

about a policy disagreement with the executive and legislative branches but rather about their

violation of the Presidential eligibility requirement found in Article II. Because of their need to

protect their fundamental liberty, Interpleader and Plaintiff want to assure themselves that the

person occupying the Office of President is an Article II "natural born Citizen."

39. Interpleader and Plaintiff' action is a direct attack against Obama, claiming he is notqualified to be President. Interpleader and Plaintiff are not challenging any actions that he may

have so far taken as President. Hence, Interpleader and Plaintiff' cause of action in no way

implicates any executive power under Article II. Interpleader and Plaintiff are not requesting that

the executive branch fulfill its constitutional or statutory obligations by more vigorously

enforcing the law. They are not requesting that the Court to become a monitor of the soundness

of executive or congressional branch actions. Interpleader and Plaintiff are not asking the Court

to review any executive administrative rule or the failure of any such agency to enforce any such


17/26

- 17 -

rule. Interpleader and Plaintiff' action in no way implicates the executive's constitutional duty

that it "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Art. II, Sec. 3. The Court is not being

asked to assume authority over any other branch of government. Interpleader and Plaintiff are

not challenging any executive program or conduct for carrying out the will of Congress. Rather,

Interpleader and Plaintiff are challenging Obama's lack of Article II "natural born Citizen" status

and the Congress refusal to perform their ministerial duty to assure that Obama has such status.

40. Individual rights as opposed to a questionable collective set of rights requires applicationof the Ninth Amendment claims to the United States Constitution guarantees to the People rights

not granted in the Constitution to the Federal government and reserves to the People certain

rights as they were understood at the time that Constitution was adopted in 1789. The guarantee

of those rights is a matter of compact or contract between the Federal government and the People

of the United States one person at a time as of the time that the compact or contract with the

United States was agreed upon and adopted by the People in 1789.

41. Quo warranto is an ancient common law writ, which existed at the time the Constitutionwas adopted. The Ninth Amendment, which preserves for the People their ancient common law

remedies and writs, along with the common law and principles of equity therefore complements

the D.C. Code statute in giving plaintiffs a right to seek declaratory, injunctive, mandamus, and

quo warranto remedies through the judicial and legislative branches working together. The

Declarant argues that the issues of injury in fact, causation, and redressability equally apply each

of Declarants causes of action under the Ninth Amendment and as an individual Declarant relies

upon individual justice rather than a collective social justice that subsumes the individual.

42. Declarant contends that were the Court to appoint a special master of our choosing andDeclarant does have a prestigious person now in mind, in that Interpleader and Plaintiff does


18/26

- 18 -

have a basis to share in the Ex-Relator / Whistleblower status in that we each have a direct and

particularized knowledge and personal efforts with the law associated with the direct challenge

of the Defendant usurpation of the Office of the POTUS who acts as if he were the Chief Law

Enforcement Officer, Trustee Administrator of the Executive and the USA, whose actions are

void ab initio and an urgent matter of ongoing acts of misprision that are a grave National

Security threat during this war on terror, financial brinksmanship and conspiracy with a global

regionalism cabal demand to not only outrageously give amnesty to 20 to 40 million tourists at

will, who either overstayed a visa or didnt have one in the first place, but dismantle the

Constitution to deliver the People into poverty and slavery.

43. That as an example of the continued escalation of Defendant Obamas misprision, whichnow is a subject of an original proceeding to be filed at the District of Columbia Circuit by

March 15, 2010, about Defendants effort to impose an amnesty for 40 million persons without

each individual enumeration of the 2010 Census done without asking the question Are you a

Citizen? and or Are you a permanent resident alien?; moreover, that census data already

obscured without such compelling State Interest questions asked as matter for each State of the

several States, no matter how vague the statistics are, Defendant Obama and his seditious agents

act to suspend use of the Patriot Act, the nation's main counterterrorism law.

44. As to standing individualized civil rights injury, as with whistleblower status Declarantsunique firing of Obama for actual cause on January 23, 2009 as the only person in the Country to

do so combined with the misprision injury to Declarant sustained when Eric Holder replaced the

Attorney in the FOIA case without due process that was the first civil right injury after January

20, 2009 combined with Plaintiffs efforts as an attorney being personally injured by Defendants

agents use of sabotage and injury to her as will be proven by the writ of mandamus of DHS to


19/26

- 19 -

investigate Lucas Smith admission n under penalty of perjury of having obtained a copy of the

Mombasa Kenya birth certificate through bribery of public officials and the actions then taken to

subvert those findings in conjunction with others, absolutely is a civil rights injury to Taitz after

January 20, 2009 by state action under color of Law in Washington District of Columbia.

45. That on February 18, 2010 even the Rasmussen organization now reports(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2010/only_

21_say_u_s_government_has_consent_of_the_governed)that Only 21% Say U.S. Government

Has Consent of the Governed and cite that the founding document of the United States, the

Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive their just powers from the consent

of the governed. Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal

government enjoys the consent of the governed.

46. That the new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree andsay the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are

not sure. However, 63% of the Political Classthink the government has the consent of the

governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree. Seventy-one percent

(71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe

that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and

investors. That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal

government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are

defeatedthis November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person

for the job.

47. Among voters under 40, 25% believe government has the consent of the governed. Thatcompares to 19% of those ages 50 to 64 and 16% of the nations senior citizens.


20/26

- 20 -

48. Those who earn more than $100,000 a year are more narrowly divided on the question,but those with lower incomes overwhelming reject the notion that todays government has the

consent from which to derive its just authority. Those with the lowest incomes are the most

skeptical.

49. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans say the government does not have theconsent of the governed, and that view is shared by 65% of voters not affiliated with either of the

major parties. A plurality of Democrats (44%) agrees, but 32% of those in President Obamas

party believe the government has the necessary consent.

50.

From an ideological perspective, most moderate and conservative voters say the

government lacks the consent of the governed. Liberals are evenly divided; and in his new book,

In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are united in

the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major

political party has the answers. He adds that the gap between Americans who want to govern

themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap

between the colonies and England during the 18th century.

51. That Strunk has inalienable individual rights as described by the Declaration ofIndependence of 1776 that pre-existed the creation of the United States Constitution.

52. That Strunk is the creator of the United States Constitution nunc pro tunc now of hisCreation as an inheritance upon birth as a natural born-citizen.

53. That Strunks sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individual rights creates theFederal government and to define express limited rights for the government to operate by.

54. That there are four political branches of government: the three who govern with theconsent of the people granted to The Congress, The Executive, The Judiciary and the fourth most


21/26

- 21 -

important branch The People who are resident in a respective State of the several States.

55. There is an overriding Constitutional question of first impression historically ignoredsince 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 a

recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts ultra vires without consent.

56. 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

57. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal protection provision ofdecennial 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 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 schedule to loose two more with the 2010 Census); and

58. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the electoral college morethan 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


22/26

fears of the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article IISection 1 in use of the expresseligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen without dual allegiance; and

59. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical dictatorshipdisconnected from the people who are restrained by an every increasing difficulty in running foroffice or participating with a reasonable expectation of success, and as evidenced now with theUsurper 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 sizereasonably reflecting the consent of the people, in that the House increasingly operates for acabal of special interest contributors whose surreptitious campaign funding violations of lawsand side deals operate without the consent of the people, and as such the House increasinglylacks the ability to as a regular expectation of their duties to impeach high crimes andmisdemeanors in the executive, and especially members of the judiciary who rather than reporton the law make the law with impunity so much so that the people now fear the judiciary forbeing arbitrary and capricious in a chronic corruption as seen with Alcee Hastings who evenafter soliciting bribes from the bench left by an impeachment process only then to become aU.S. House member from South,Miarni n Florida.

60. In Conclusion, Declarant wishes the Court grant intervention based upon an Interpleaderstatus and that Plaintiff be granted a preliminary injunction conference to work at the details toproceed herein for further and different deemed necessary by the Court .

Dated: March 6 2010Brooklyn, New York @$k&&G&hristopher-Earl: Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1Brooklyn., New York 11238(845) 90 1-6767 Email: chris@ trunk.ws


23/26

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE&EL Wtll i8mVanAtlen ,decl~andcert i i j lundar~ofperjury~b28USC 1746:

ThatonFebruery6,2010, duly served one (1) copy of heSUMMONSAND

J m 5,2010 ith e x b t i dBt~.&d (1) oapyof heCMRISTWHER-EARL: S"IRUNRINESSENOTICEOFMOTLONTO NTERVENE AS AEX-RELATOR N ' I E R V J W E R - ~n 1~M)lS-lithAfMa+it inSupport

RegkmdMailDeliverywithRegisteredMailNumbet:RE09 6935 807US rpon:~ ~ O b p r m a i n e s s ec/o TheWhiteHouse1600PimkylvaniaAV-NWw a s ' u m 0500

declare under

t.. i;.w 0 -.-,.ia -- : .....:,-;"*.

j Z i.3

. . . . .. .' ..r .' 4; - .,. , . ~51NorthRd.H d e y , New York 12443


24/26

:USPSShipmedWfixRE09 6935 8WU S - Y h ! Mail Page 1of2m--n --'^ - - ------ - -? F W ~ 8 N p a w n t k d o t k R E O S 6 9 3 5 8 0 ~ S Mday, Fetnuary19,mO 657 AM

1 Ronr: g l B V m m E " - ~ . c a n >: to:=chmqheSbrrlr->i O t x ~

---Orighl-From:U.S.-Postal-Seavke- '[mlto: .S. Postal ~ u s ~ s . c o m JSent FrMay,Febnraoy 19,20104:45 AMTo: -Subject USPSShipment InfoIbrRE098935807US

LabelNumber:RE098935 807U SServiceType:PfMtyMail RegistendSmpment- Location Dab&fbne

.Oeavered- WASHINGTON DC20500 WlW104:31am

Reminder,Track& confirm byemail

h~~/~~.mcSI6.maiI.y&oo.~0dMC/~howMe~sage?sMid=5&fi~A254OSg/d5.~/7/2019

:,"r . J >AnhrelatUnit WSHINGTONDC26074 02/16/.10 - - c=, k:F c-1:24am 5 L2%= GSnPmemmdthroughSort NEWBURGH NY 12555 - I 4 J J r -02m6/1m


25/26

I& fiioaRE09 6935 807US:ahoo!MaiI Page 2of2

Confhwebsi(sat h & J l k m m ~ . ~ i ~ ~ ~ n n . h t r n

USPS b n o t ~ t h e v a l i d i t y o f a n y e m d lddmsessubmbdvia itsonlineTrack&Corrfirm toot.

F o r m k r i w m 9 t l o n , o r i f y o u h a v e a d d ~ I q u e s t i a r w m T ~ & ~servicesandW r e s , pleaseWi the FrequentlyAsked QuaSbn.FAQs)sect&m04ourTra&&Ccmfitmsiteat


26/26

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbiain re Taitzv. Obama, 10-cv-0015 1 (RCL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On March 8,2010, I, Christopher-Earl: in esse, under penalty of pejurypursuant to 28 USC

Declarant caused the service of five (5) complete sets of STRUNK'S DECLARATION INREPLY DEFENDA NT'S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE with Exhibitannexed declared March 8,2010,and did place each of four (4) complete sets in a sealed folderproperly addressedwith proper postage to be served by USPS mail upon:Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., J.D. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General29839 Santa Margarita .Parkway, STE C/OBrigham John Bowen, AUSA100 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF NSTICERancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530Ronald C. Machen, Jr. United States Attorney Barack Hussein Obama in esseC/O f Counsel Alan Burch, AUSAOffice of the U.S. Attorney for the C/OThe White HouseWashington District of Columbia 1600 Pennsylvania AvenueNW555 4th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20500Washington, D.C. 20530

and hand delivery of one courtesy copy to:C- 3 L7- -.

P >,c:The Honorable Richard J. Leon i-k --I. ; 3)United States District Judge for the er =o GCmU.S. District for the District of Columbia I ..-!53r-EL 03 r,4m333 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 63 15, L< -CEZWashington, DC 20001 IT a+o*tp 4 s*- -4wI do declare and certifL under penalty of perjhP$:

Dated: March-S 2010Brooklyn, New York593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1Brooklyn New York 1 1238Phone: (845) 90 1-6767Email: chris@,strunk.ws

Documents

Strunk Reply to BHO response in Support of Intervention in Taitz v Obama DCD 10-Cv-00151