Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I CLERK
10-
RESPONDENTS
..
11
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Issues presented:
. ..
111
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 4
Cases cited:
Statutes cited:
2 USC $2a............................................................................................................................................ 1 1
5 USC $552.................................... ....................................................................................................... 7
13 USC §I 41........................ ,............................. ............ ................................. 2-4,9, I I ,I3
1 3 USC 5221 .........................................................................................* ......................................... 2,22
1 3 UsC 95.......................................................................................................... ............. 3,l1
1 8 U.S.C. $$ 3571 and 3559.......................................................................................... 2,2,24
18 U.S.C. §953 and related Chapter 45 law................................................................... 8
28 USC 51343
28 USC 51344
28 USC SI345
28 USC 51361
28 USC 52284....................................... ........................................................................................... 3
42 USC 51 971, §I 983,51985..................................................... ,....................................... ...3
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
TerroHsmAct of ZOO I (Public Law Pub.L. 1 07-56)........................................... 8
the USA PATRIOTActwas introduced into the House on October 23
and incorporated H.R. 2975,S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R.
3004 (the FinancialAnti- TerrorismAct)
the Forerbn Intelligence SurveillanceAct of 1978(FISA),
the Electronic Communications Privacv Act of 1986( ECPA),
the Money Launderin-QControl Act of 1986
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA),
the /mmjip-ationand Nationali(y Act.
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 5
US Constitution citations:
Other citations:
Rules cited:
FRAP 21
FRCvP Rules 81
LCvR 40.3(b) of a District Judge to hear the LCvR 9.1 motion for
a three judge panel.........................................................,.....................................................6
Related Cases:
Orders of the United States District Court 13r the District of Columbia in
related cases: 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 09-cv-1295;
motion to intervene in 10-cv-00151 and
Interpleader Verified Complaint case filed Strunk v Ubama et al. DCD
DCC 08-5503-OP
DCC 09-5322-OP
Strunk v. Paterson etal. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County
Index no.: 08-29642 .
V
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 6
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;
Factual background
3.Affiant is duly registered to vote at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue PMB 281
Brooklyn New York 11238 (See Exhibit A) and votes within the 7Ist Election
District of the 57'h Assembly District, 18'h Senate District, 11th New York
U.S. House District and 25'h NYC Councilman District.
4.That Affiant does not have another address from which to register and
vote nor does Petitioner wish to have one located elsewhere.
5. By regulation, the United States Post Office (USPS) has Affiant's PMB
281 address registered by the form submitted by the PMB management.
6.That the Bureau of Census has directed the USPS and Census
Monitoring Board under 13 USC § I 95 not to deliver to any PMB and or Post
Office Box, but to dwelling residents occupying real property.
-/.That on July 13, 2009, Affiant went to U.S. District Court for the
Washington District of Columbia to file a verified complaint 09-cv-1295
Strunk v. UNITED STA TES DE?ARTM€NT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF .
TH€ CENSUS et al. with a request for a three judge panel with 28 USC
S2284 in the matter of Nationwide / Statewide injury associated inter alia
with the on-going 2010 Census enumeration with 13 USC y 4 1 , 13 USC
$195 and related law and fully brief with a request for a preliminary
injunction the court delays justice and has become part of the injury
complained of the Usurper.
8.That Strunk has a 42 USC SI983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson
eta/ NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before the
Honorable New York Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt complaining
of a state action civil rights injury suffered in the 2008 General Election
process in New York’s appointment of its Electoral College that relies on
action and discovery herein to proceed; in that Strunk, a Republican party
member, was denied a reasonable expectation of participation in the 2008
election for a candidate for office of POTUS by the conspiracy to put John
McCain and Barack Obama on the ballot when they are not natural-born
Citizens and the Electoral College has been wrongly reduced since 1960,
9. That on February 24, 201 0, Affiant gave judicial notice to the District
Court in 09-cv-1295 in the need for a preliminary injunction there in the
matter urgent matter of imminent irreparable harm with time as the essence
with the mailing of the 2010 Census enumeration questionnaire without the
two questions including “Areyou a Citizefl” and “Areyou a permanent
resident alien?” or even the SSN last fouras with voter registration as an
urgent matter of compelling State Interest here in the State of New York
and respectively on a State by State basis in the other several States
specific law particular to each State, hereby make application accordingly
for a Preliminary Injunction with restraint and for a Writ of Mandamus of the
Bureau of the Census with 13 USC SI41 (See Exhibit B; and
10.To wit there was no response to the Judicial Notice shown as Exhibit
B on March 17,2010 Judge Leon dismissed the case - see Exhibit C,
11. That Affiant on March 18,2010 received the 2010 Census ‘Short
Form’ at PMB 281 marked Resident at Apartment 1 - see Exhibit D.
12. The population count, conducted every 10 years, is used to distribute
House seats and more than $400 billion in federal aid. The questions on the
form ask about people's gender, race, family, housing, as well as their
address and telephone number.
13. The Census Bureau this week began delivering letters to homes in
rural areas and is mailing the IO-question short forms to 120 million U.S.
households on March 15,2010 shown as Exhibit D and that Officials have
estimated the government survey will take just 10 minutes to complete, a as
a change from previous censuses as a challenged equal protection issue
herein in which many people received a long form detailed questionnaire on
the 24-page American Community Survey (ACS) see Exhibit E.
14. That Affiant did not received a long form ACS shown as Exhibit E as a
serious denial of equal protection that will result in an unequal allotment of
US House members on the long form different than the short form the ACS
asks questions quote:
From page 5 : what year the building was built, when "Person No. 1"
in the housing section moved into the home; the size of land the
home is on; what agricultural products were sold from the property in
the last 12 months; whether the property was used as a business;
how many separate rooms are in the house; whether the house has
hot and cold running water; whether the house has a flush toilet, a
shower or bathtub, a sink with a faucet, a stove or range, a
refrigerator and a telephone; how many cars, vans and trucks are
kept at the property; and what fuel is most used at the property - gas,
electricity, fuel oil or kerosene, coal or coke, wood, solar energy, or
"0ther."
the U.S.; whether the person had attended college in the last three
years and what is the highest level of education the person has
completed; the person’s ancestry or ethnic origin; whether the person
speaks a language other than English at home, and if yes, what
language; whether the person lived in this housing unit or an
apartment a year ago; whether the person is covered by health
insurance, and if yes, by what type of health insurance.
“To the extent petitioner seeks relief not requested in his original
petition, petitioner must file a separate petition for a writ of
mandamus to bring the matter properly before the court.”
and to recuse a District Judge, held that the petition for a writ of
mandamus be denied in that quote:
Logan Act (18 USC 6j953 and related law), and finally after many months
received an order to dismiss (See Exhibit I) with injuries compiling under
the Usurper Barry Soetoro ( a k a . Barack Hussein Obama) whose actions
are void ab initio because, by his own admission, he is not a natura/-born
Citizen required with U.S. Constitution Article I I section 1 Clause 5, who
continues in office without any court hearing the merits of any petition,
including Affiants now before the District Court in 10-cv-00151, and where
Affiant has petitioned to intervene and is an Interpleader by separate
action; Affiant contends as a matter of public policy, more than the sing
song justice delayed is justice denied rhubarb, every district Court
petitioned to date without exception in the Federal System, especially the
progressive majority at the SCOTUS, all aid and abet misprision of felony
and treason that will only end with the removal of those misprisors because
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall ONLY hold their
Offices during good Behaviour.
18. The Associated Press on March 4, 2010 reported in an article entitled
Gov't offers new assurance ceisus data is pdvate by HOPE YEN (See
Exhibit J) that Barack Hussein Obama who usurped the office of the
POTUS as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, administrator and trustee of
the United States of America (USA) has committed misprision in a letter to
Congress, that provided its legal position that the 2010 census data cannot
be disclosed under the PatriotAct (see endnotes p iv) , the nation's main
counterterrorism law, and the Executive Branch has previously given
" --I.
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 14
Thousand' that has not been amended since the inception of the ratification
a recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts
without consent of the people.
29. The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the
requirement of the US. Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912,
that representative government has fatally weakened the guarantee of a
republican form of government, especially as it applies to the second
political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College
election process in each State of the several States to appoint POTUS; and
30. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal
protection provision of decennial enlargement of the first Branch has
evolved into a cult of tyranny that will only worsen without a representative
sized electoral college commensurate with the increase of the people to
select the chief magistrate, i.e. in New York in 1960 with say 12.5 million
residents had 45 electoral college votes now in 2010 with say 19.5 million
residents based upon the 2000 Census now only has 31 electoral college
votes and scheduled to reduce two more with the 2010 Census; and
31. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the
electoral college more than ever before the chief law enforcement officer
must have no appearance of impropriety or even the slightest question of
allegiances as with the Usurper Obama, who is the epitome of the fears of
the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article II Section 1 in use of the
express eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen
without dual allegiance; and that Obama has more than dual allegiance,
and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law.
46. As a member of the Knights of Malta, and by virtue of your blood oath
of obedience to the Pope and the Jesuit General Nicholas, a member is
required to support to the death the desires of the head of the Order of the
Knights of Malta-in this case Grand Master Festing, Pope Benedict XVI and
Jesuit General Nicholas, and is over and above any other allegiance one
may feel or pretend to feel toward any other loyalty such as a loyalty to the
Constitution for the United States of America; Barry Soetoro’s (alkla Barack
Hussein Obama), or whatever name he is using at the time, allegiance is to
chain of command of his “White Papal Masters”- see Exhibit L.
47. It does not really matter what kind of religious or political affiliation a
member professes, when they-take an oath as a Knight, they are obligated
by that blood oath of obedience to follow the political lead of the Vatican
and will do so to their dying breath as all good Knights of Malta do. Their
first loyalty is to the Vatican, anything else is secondary.
48. Those who are presently members of the Knights of Malta must on
this is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau
that matches the provision in section 3559 above.
59. The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction
fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted
of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559; and unless an individual
is charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the
Census, the crime is classified as an infraction, and as such the $5,000.00
fine does not apply.
60. Therefore, the Census Bureau assertion that the referenced sections
changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is an outrageous fraud, very
much the same way as bogus ads being run on radio and television are
misrepresentations to be turned off or channel switched.
ARGUMENT FOR RELIEF
The Supreme Court and other courts have said that a citizen has a right
to receive protection and safety from the government in return for which he
gives allegiance to that government. As Justice Waite in United States v.
Cruiksahank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) said, the right to receive protection is not
only a right that belongs to the collective society but also to the individual. It
is the individual's right to receive protection from the government, which
was the reason that the Founders constituted the new federal Constitutional
Republic, believing that the individual would be better, protected if there
were a unified national government to provide that protection.
Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts hidher allegiance to
the government in exchange for its protection, which includes the
.more than $100 to not more than $5,000 for anyone over 18 years old who
with imminent irreparable harm that would result to Affiant and those
similarty situated; and (viii) that this Court provide further and different relief
0
as it deems necessary for justice herein.
That Affirmant has read the above and I know its contents as an
expert witness; the facts stated in the Petition are true to my own personal
believe to be true.
ED:071
WHERETO VICTE: Your,ElectiodAssembly District is: . AD:57REP
q3Fq ?E&&
YaurPollsiteis: sUCentrodeVotaci6nes= !?VJM!~~KI&%&&~:
PS 9 New
- 80-WAvenue
ENTER THRUENTRE POR Bergerr sbeet
-
Defendants. :
I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 9 I746 that:
Declarant 1 Plaintitf, hereby provides the Court with notice of a recent order by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York. The decision and order, issued in Forio,re
et 02. v. the State ofCaliforniaet 02. No. 06-CV-1002 (NDNYFebruary 19,2010),renders Mr.
Fojone’s request with 28 USC 6 1407 moots as it is now a matter on appeal to the Second Circuit
that shodd takes setlercli months to resolve. A copy ofthe cmirt’s decision and order is attached
to this notice. The nudge given to Judge Kahn by Mr. Forjone and myself to takes that case off
the Congressional list of yencling matters requiring continuing funding there in NDNY; however,
does not change the fact that there i s an urgent matter with a deadline of March IS, 201 0 in the
mailing of the 2010 Census Questionnaire to be done without the two required questions “Are
RECEIVED
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 38
'!'he 1,CvK 9.?Motion fer 3 three judge panel rerngins open 2nd there is ~i
fhilute here in
this District tiom the get go to comply with focal rules speciticaily LCvR 40.3 (b) ('I Cor the
Manner of Random Assignment of a District Judge to determine a three judge court that remains
unresolved, notwithstandhg alf thc v a ~ o u sMotions to Dismiss by the Dcfhdants, and the
concern of imparable h a m with time as the essence involved in disseminating the bogus
questionnaire to hrther the amnesty bill without knowing the actual number of "l'ourists"
transients and persons of a diplomatic relation to be obfiiscated without the two questions asked.
If the Court does not act expeditiously by March 1,2010 to resolve this matter, D e c l m t must
Dated: February ,
Brooklyn New York
Christopher -Earl: Strunk Qin esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 281
HrookIyn New York 11238
Phone; (845) 901 6767
Email: chris(ii%strunk.ws
3
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 39
Plaintiffs:
V. 1 :06-CV-1002 (LEWRFT)
Defenrla~nts
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in the Western District of New York asserting
various constitutional violations and other claims arising out of the National Voter Registration Act, 42
U.S.C. 5 1973gg, et seq.?and the Hclp America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. 9 15301 et seq. (“HAVA”).
Among other things, Plaintiffs appear to claim that at least some of the Defendants wronghlly counted
the voting age population (“VAP”) (including illegal aliens and deceased persons), rather than using
the citizen voting age population (“CVAP”), and thereby used imprecise numbers in redistricting and
determining oligibiiity for funds under the HAVA. Plaintiffs also appear to assert a violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. tj 1961 et seq., and the False
Claims Act, 3 1 U.S.C. 5 3729, et seq. Am.Compl. (Dkt. No. 26) at 7 1 . Plaintiffs request a three
I BACKGROUN 1)
In ruling upon ccrtaiii rnoliws bcfixe it, tiiz Wcsttrn District of Ny,t ’r‘ork ~ g t e dti23t tI?c‘
Cornplaint:
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 40
Plaintiffs were ordered to “show cause, in writing, no later than May 1,2006, why this
action should riot be dismissed or transferred . . . arid why sanctions should not be imposed against
them. . . .” -
Id. at 7. The Order also directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that “simply and
concisely informs the Court and the defendants in plain terms what they are alleging the defendants did
or did not do . . . and how those actions or inactions are a violation of HAVA or some other federal or
state statute, law or constitutional provision.” Id.at 3. Plaintiffs were warned that “failure to file an
amended complaint that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and IO aiid sets forth in a comprehensibIe
manner claims upon which relief can be granted, wili lead to the dismissal of this action.” Plaintiffs
also were instructed that, because they are proceeding pro se, they must delete references to any
associations or organizations on whose behalf they claimed to be suing. The Western District’s Order
.
further noted that:
at least five of the plaintiffs in this matter had filed in 2004 xr,. similar action in the United
;f
States District Court for the Northern District of New York . . . Loeber v. Spargo, 04-cv-I 193.
. . . [A] number of the plaintiffs filed declarations or affidavits which clearly intimate that the
two actioiis are siniilar aid that a reason fix filing the instant action arid to seek a change of
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 41
venue for Loeber to this Court is because they are no? pleased ttith the manner in which the
Loeber’ case is proceeding.
Because the Loeber case was similar to, and filed prior to this case, the Western District transferred the
On August 17,2006, Plaintiffs responded to the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. No. 26.
Complaint is 57 pages long (nearly twice as long as the original complaint) and continues to be
“disjointed, unintelligible, convoluted, conhsing and prolix.” Plaintiftk did not file the proposed
Amended Compiaint. It similarly appears that Plaintiffs did not serve the Amended Complaint on
I
Defendants, See. e.g., Mem. by N.Y. State Att’y General and NY State Sec’y of State in Supp. of Mot.
The First Cause of Action of the proposed Amended Complaint alleges a failure to enforce the
National Voter Registration Act. In sum, this claim alleges that various states have failed to prevent
non-citizens from voting in elections. Plaintiffs contend that, by allowing non-citizens to vote, their
votes have been efkctively diluted. The Second Cause of Action claims that the Election Assistance
Commission (“EAC”) and the Department of Justice have improperly certified false state HAVA
submissions. The Third Cause of Action contends that the EAC has intentionally promoted, facilitated,
aided and abetted illegal aliens to register by mail and vote in Arizona and certain other States.
’The Fourth Cause of Action alleges that the New York State Board of Elections intentionally and
maliciously failcd to maintain a statewide central database that ~ v o d denable municiplities ic3 tserify
inactive voters. According to Plaintiffs, this causes various municipalities to receive a disproportionate
I
By Orders dated January 8, 2008 aiid July 3 I , 2068, this Court dismissed the claims in the
Loeber case. The matter is currently on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
- 3 -
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 42
share of election-related funding and allows people to register in more than one location. In the Fifth
cause of Action, Plaintiffs allege that the “Defcndimt New York state Municipal subdk isions . . .
municipal bases as required under color of N V M and HAVA and New York State EIection Law.”
Plaintiffs allege that, if other states properly claimed HAVA funds, more funds would be available to
the State of New York and, as a result, New York municipalities would not have to increase property
taxes to cover election-related expenses. The Sixth Causo of Action alleges that the States of
California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and other states “intentionally fail to
maintain an accurate voter registration database” as required by federal and state law.
Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of Defendants’ actions, “voting is being rapidly undermined by
illegal aliens and multiply registered citizens,” the strength of their votes is being diluted, their right to
free speech and freedom of association is being infringed, their “suffrage rights” are being
tangible suffrage property,” they are suffering “reverse discrimination,” they are being deprived of a
republican form of government, they are being denied substantive due process and are being subjected
to a taking of property for the “unfiuded maidate as done under the Medicaid t u levy without notice
and segregation of the election costs on real property tax levy,” and they are being deprived of
“Homerule autonomy” and equal protection of the law against false HAVA claims.
Presently before the Court are various Motions to dismiss the Cornplaint md Amended Complaint.
Although Pkaintiffs were granted leave to file an enlarged, consolidated brief in opposition to the
-4
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 43
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fcdcral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(G), ”it complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”’ Ashcroft v. Iabal, --- U S . ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)). When considering a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept the factual allegations made by the non-moving
party iis true and “draw a11 inferences in the light must favorable” to the non-moving party. In re
NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, 503 F.3d 89,95 (2d Cir. 2007). “The movant’s burden is very
substantial, as ‘[tlhe issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”’ Log On America. Inc. v. Promethean
Asset Msmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp. 2d 435,441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of
Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (internai quotation and citations omitted)). With this standard
111. DISCUSSION
By Order dated March 28,2036, the Western District of New York directed Plainticfs io fik
an amended complaint complying with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 on or before May 1,
2006. See Dkt. No. 24. The March 28 Order specifically warned that “in the event plaintiffs fail to file
an amended complaint as directed above by h4ay 1 , 2006, the complaint shall be dismissed with
prejudice without further order of the Court.” Id. To date, despite having ample time to do so,
Plaintiffs havs neither filed the rcqi:isifc m e n d e d complaint 1101-served it on Defendants. Raintiffs
were warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Because Plaintiffs have
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 44
failed to comply with the Court's prior order by tiling an amended complaint this action must be
DISMISSED.
Rule 8(3)(2) of the Federal Rules ofCivi1 Procedure requires 3 complaint to contain a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As noted, Plaintiffs
were directed by the Court to submit an amended pleading that complies with the requirements of
' Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiffs were specifically advised of the deficiencies in their Complaint, instructed
how to remedy the deticiencies, and given the opportuaity to remedy the defects. Plaintiffs also were
warned of the consequences of failing to file a proper complaint. Notwithstanding the numerous
motions attacking the original Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint as failing to comply with
Rule 8 and the Court's prior admonition, to date (several years later), Plaintiffs have made no effort to
submit a coherent, streamlined complaint. Rather than adhering to the Court's warning and the dictates
of Rule 8(a)(2), P!aintiffs submitted a proposed Amended Complaint that is even longer and more
convoluted than the original filing. It continues to contain an abundance of irrelevant and othenvise
immaterial matters and unnecessary detail, including lengthy excerpts from articles and references to
irrelevant treaties. In most instances the proposed Amended Cornplaint fails to allege how the named
Defendants harmed them. Further, the length and prolixity of the proposed Amended Complaint places
an unnecessary and unjustified burden on the Court and the numerous Defendants who have to respond
to it. See Salahuddin v. Cuorno, 86 1 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). For these reasons, all blotions to
-6 -
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 45
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint and proposed Amended Cornplaint on the
ground that Plaintiffs lack standing2 Article HI, $ 2, d. 1 of the Constitution extends the judicial
r ,
power only to actual “cxjes” or ”coiitroversies.” I he doctriiit: of staiding preforms a critical role in
assuring the limits to judicial power imposed by this case-or-controversy requirement. See Allen v.
Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 75 1 (1 984). “’In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.”’ Id.at 750-5 1
(quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 US. 490,498 (1975)).
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”- an invasion of a legally protected interest
which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or
‘hypothetical.”’ Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of - the injury has to be “fairIy . . .tracerable] to the chaIIenged action of the defendant,
and not. . .th[e] result [ofl the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Third,
it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a
favorable decisi on. ”
-
Id. at 560-6 1 (internal citations omitted). In applying these conditions, the Supreme Court has noted
that where a plaintiff is challenging government action or inaction, and “the plaintiff is not himself the
object of the government action or inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is ordinarily
‘substantiaiIy more difficult’ to establish.” Id.3t 562 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 758).
The allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended CompIaint consistently fail to allege any
concrete harm personally suffered by Plaintiffs or explain how such harm could be traceable to the
Defendants. Throughout their twelve causes of action, Plaintiffs allege non-particularized injuries and
I ,
The remaining Jiscussiori assumes, cirgiienticj, that the Cornplaint andlor proposed
-
Aincndcd Complaint comply with the Court’s prior Order and Rules 8 and 10.
-7-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 46
generalized grievances, 'and, hrthcrrnore, leave unclear how any of the alleged harms could be
redressed by a favorabie result in the courts. Where, as in the Ninth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs appear
to specify a concrete injury, the taking of their property through real property taxes collected to cover
the costs of HAVA, their claim still fails. Plaintiffs do not allege that property taxes have increased
because of the need to cover a shortfall in HAVA funding, that there is a shortfall in HAVA funding, or
that there could be any such a shortfall because, as explained in Loeber, HAVA requires states to adopt
certain voting requirements regardless of any federa1 funding. 2008 WL I I 1172, at -*4.
In short, Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to allege any concrete injury. Moreover,
for the reasons stated by this Court in Loeber, Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the
requirements of the NVRA or Titles I or II of the HAVA. 2008 WL 11 1172, at "4-5; see also Kalsson
v. U.S. Federal Election Com'n, 356 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. ZOOS) (plaintiff did not have standing
despite his allegation that his vote was diluted because the NVRA results in more people registering to
vote than otherwise would be the case), aff'd, 159 Fed. Appx. 326 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Amalfitano
v. United States, 2001 WL 103437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7,2001), aff'd, 21 Fed. Appx. 67 (2d Cir. 2001). In
any event, the NVRA imposes obligations upon states; not counties. 42 U.S.C. tj 1973gg-2(a). For the
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs lack standing, thereby providing another basis for dismissal.
The Ncw York Attorney Gcncral and Secretary of State move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint against them on the ground that it fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them. 'The
Arneridsd Complaint illazkes little referctxe to f k s e Defh.hnts atid does riot allege any acts
attributable to these Defendants or any other personal involvement by them. The Amended Complaint
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 47
also fails to articulate how these Defendants’ actions have harmed Plaintiffs or how any claimed injury
could be redressed by a favorable judgment. Accordingly, this provides another basis for dismissing
the Cornplaint 3s to the New Yerk Shte Attorney General and Secretary of State.
Delaware, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Herkimer, Livingston, Montgomery, Oneida, Orleans, Oswego,
Putnam, Saratoga, Seneca, St. Lawrence, Steuben, Tioga, Ulster, Warren, Washington, Yates,
Columbia, Jefferson, Madison, Sullivan, and Onondaga and Defendant City of New York also move to
dismiss on the ground that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any wrongful conduct by them.
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Cause of Action broadly speaks to the “Defendant New York State Municipal
municipal by municipal bases as required under color of NVKA and HAVA.” Out of all the named
1
Defendant counties, Plaintiffs reside in only two - Erie and Genessee. Inasmuch as none of the
Plaintiffs reside in any of the other Counties, the Amended Complaint fails to explain how any actions
I
by these other Counties or the City of New York caused harm to them. Moreover, neither the NVRA 1
nor thc HAVA imposc ally obligations upon counties or the City of New York. & 42 U.S.C. 5
1 973gg (imposing certain requirements O R “each State”). Accordingly, this provides another basis for
dismissal of the Complaint andlor proposed Amended Complaint as to all the County Defendants and
them. As with the claims against the various New York State Counties, and bearing in mind that
Plaintiffs do not have standing concerning the distribution of hnds under HAVA, Plaintiffs do not
allsge any conduct by thesc States that c ~ u s e dharm to ttrem. None of the Haintiffs reside in any of
these States. Plaintiffs similarly fail to assert a basis for personal jurisdiction over these States. The
same reasoning applies to the claims against the Scales ol' Owgui, Califimia, Nevada, and Arizona.
This provides another ground for dismissal of the Complaint as to all the Defendant States.
11. CONCLUSION
ORDERED that all pending motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the Complaint and
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
- '10 -
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On February 24, 2010, I, Christopher Earl Stnink, declare and certify tinder penalty of perjury
pursuant to 28 USC 1746:
Dated: Februa
Brooklyn, New York
4C w p h e r - Earl :Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn, New York 12238
Phone (845)901-6767
Emaik chris@stmnk.ws
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 50
DISMISSAL ORDER
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall docket “Plaintiffs Response Declaration in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint by Defendants The Maryland Province of the
Society of Jesus and Fr. Timothy B. Brown, S.J.” as his opposition to the motion to dismiss [#lo]
filed on behalf of Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown, and shall
docket “Plaintiff‘s Response Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as
to the City of New York and Michael Bloomberg In Esse Defendants” as his opposition to
Defendant City of New York and Michael Bloomberg’s Motion to Dismiss [#25]; it is fiu-ther
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a three judge panel [Dkt. #3 J is DENIED; it is
further
ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss [Dkt. ## 10, 13, 16,21, 22, and 251 are
GRANTED; it is further
-1-
C
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 51
ORDERED that all claims against John Does, Jane Does, and XYZ Entities are
DISMISSED, and that these defendants are DISMISSED as party defendants; and it is further
ORDERED that the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. t
RICHARD J . ’ W
United States District Judge
-2-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 52
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court has
considered defendants’ motions, plaintiffs oppositions and defendants’ replies, and concludes
that the complaint must be dismissed. Accordingly, defendants’ motions will be granted.
1. BACKGROUND
The Court is mindful that the complaint of apro se plaintiff is liberally construed, as it is
held to a less stringent standard than is applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See
Hairzes v. Kerizer, 404 U.S. 5 19, 520 (1972). Here, plaintiff sets forth in 136 sequentially
numbered paragraphs both factual allegations and legal conclusions that can be summarized as
follows: The defendants, acting in concert, are counting in the 2010 census persons whom
plaintiff labels “tourists.” Tourists are neither citizens nor permanent residents of the United
States, and, according to plaintiff, they should not be counted for the purpose of apportioning
-1-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 53
census, plaintiff asserts that he is disenfranchised - the strength of his vote is diluted. For
example, plaintiff aileges that the number of Congressional representatives from New York will
be reduced if tourists are counted, and the number of representatives from Texas and California,
among other states with large tourist populations, will be increased, such that states in the
Southwestern region of the United States will be able to exercise greater power in Congress to
naturalizes these persons notwithstanding provisions of federal immigration law, and brings
about the ongoing theft of his property, for example, through the use of taxpayer hnds to provide
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 15 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and various other
statutes, alleging violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth,
States Constitution. See Compl. 17 1-2. Among other relief, plaintiff demands a declaratory
judgment that tourists are not permanent residents to be counted in the 2010 Census, injunctive
relief barring fbrther census taking until such time as a questionnaire asks whether a person is a
United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with a green card, and unspecified reparations
for the spiritual and temporal injuries he has suffered. See id. at 29-30.
-2-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 54
II. DISCUSSION’
1. Standing
Ail defendants move to disiniss on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to bring a
claim challenging the 20 10 census. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of [Defs. Maryland Province of
the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown] [Dkt. #lo-21 at 4-6; Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot.
to Dismiss the Compl. by Defs. New York Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Gerald
Chojnacki, S.J. [Dkt. #14] at 8-9; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. State of Texas’ Mot. to
Dismiss (“Texas Mem.”) [Dkt. #16-2] at 4-6; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Fed. Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss (“Fed. Defs.’ Mern.”) [Dkt. #21] at 5-7; Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. State of
California’s Mot. to Dismiss (“California Mem.”) [Dkt. #22-11 at 5-6; Def. City of New York
and Michael BIoomberg’s Mern. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. #25-11 at 4-6.
and a core element of Article HI’S case-or-controversy requirement is that a plaintiff have
standing to sue. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,561 (1992). At the outset, to
establish standing, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s
allegedly unlawful conduct and IikeIy to be redressed by the requested reIief.” Allelz V. Wright,
468 U.S. 737, 75 1 (1984). Thus, a party has standing if his claims ‘‘spring from a1 ‘injury in
fact’ - an invasion of a legally protected interest that is ‘concrete and particularized,’ ‘actuat or
imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed
1
For purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the Court presumes without deciding
that it has personal jurisdiction over all defendants, and, therefore, does not address defendants’
arguments for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 55
by a Favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Zrrc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of ?ViZdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560-61). If, at any time, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the action must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h).
In Fed’rifor Am. Irmigration Reform v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564 (D.D.C. 1980), a
three-judge panel considered the constitutionality of the I980 census and the plaintiffs’ assertion
that the 1980 census would ‘‘fail to establish the number of illegal aliens in the country, or the
states and districts within which they live,” resuIting in “in the inclusion of a Iarge but preseiitiy
unascertainable number of illegal aliens in the population figures which form the basis for the
apportionment of United States Representatives among the states, the apportionment by many
states of their congressional and state officials among districts, and the distribution of federal
funds for a variety of programs.” Id. at 565. According to the plaintiffs, “the votes of persons in
some states or regions [would] be diluted in comparison to those in the states and regions with a
large illegal alien population, and those same persons may [have], as residents of the
disadvantaged states or regions, also receive[d] a lesser share of federal monies.” Id. at 566. The
plaintiffs argued that “inclusion of illegal aliens in fact defeat[ ed] the purpose of apportionment;
equal representation for equal numbers of peopie of the United States,” and they demanded
“declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring the Census Bureau to use its best efforts to count
iilegal aliens separately and exclude them from the apportionment base.” Id. at 567-68 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The panel concluded that the plaintiffs could “do no more than
speculate as to which states might gain and which might Iose representation.” Id. at 570. And,
because the plaintiffs could not establish that the relief they demanded would inure to their
pcrsona1 benefit, their claims were dismissed for lack of standing. Id. at 578.
-4-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 56
Similarly, in Sliurrow v. Browrt, 447 F.2d 94 (26 Cir. 1971), cert. clenied, 405 U.S. 968
(1972), the plaintiff argued that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendmcnt (which the Second
Circuit designated “14/2”) requires the Census Bureau to “compile statistics on the number of
male adults in each State whose right to vote is denied or abridged, so that the House of
Representatives may be properly apportioned.” Id. at 96.* He claimed standing to sue on the
basis of his residence in New York State, which had “lost six representatives in Congress as a
direct result of the Census Bureau’s failure to compile” statistics as 14/2 required. Id. He argued
that the proper enforcement of 14/2 would have “result[ed] in & increase in the representation of
New York State in the House of Representatives, and, therefore, that, derivatively, he, as a
citizen of New York, [would] receive an augmented voice in congressional matters.” Id. The
Second Circuit found that the plaintiff could not “establish that the failure to enforce 1412 has
In this case, plaintiff fares no better. He alleges that his “causes of action arise in
conjunction [with] the decennial 2010 Census,” Compl. 7 1, and that defendants’ collective act of
2
In relevant part, the Fourteenth Amendment states:
U.S. CONST.amend. X N , § 2.
-5-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 57
counting tourists causes him “spiritual and temporal injuries,” id. at 1 (introductory paragraph),
among which is the dilution of his vote. Plaintiff is but one citizen of New York and one voter in
New York’s 11th Congressional District. See Conipl. 7 8. The basis for his assertion that
“tourists” are to be counted in the 2010 Census is unclear, and the potential impact of their
inclusion is speculative at best. His challenge to the 20 10 Census raises an “abstract question[]
of wide public significance,” Warth v. SeZdin, 442 U.S. 490,500 (1975), and thus he fails to
allege an injury in fiict, that is, “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypotentical.” Lujan v.
The Court concludes that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the counting of “tourists” in
the 2010 Census, and his unsupported disagreement with defendants’ arguments on standing, see,
e.g., PI.’s Consolidated Resp. Aff. in Opp’n to the Mot. to Dismiss the Compl. as to the State of
California and State of Texas Defs. [Dkt. # 3 117 12, is not persuasive? The complaint must be
2. Immunity
Even if plaintiff were able to demonstrate standing, the federal and state defendants raise
alternative grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) which operate to deprive the Court of
3
“Plaintiff‘s Response Declaration in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint by Defendants The Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus and Fr. Timothy B.
Brown, S.J.” and “Plaintiffs Response Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint as to the City of New York and Michael Bloomberg In Esse Defendants” do not yet
appear on the docket. The Court will direct the Clerk to place these items on the docket as,
respectively, plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss [#lo] filed on behalf of Maryland
Province of the Society of Jesus and Timothy B. Brown, and his opposition to Defendant City of
New York and Michael Bloomberg’s Motion to Dismiss [#25].
-6-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 58
a. Sovereign Immunity
Insofar as plaintiff brings tort claims against the federal government or its employees in
their official capacities and demands monetary damages, the federal defendants argue that such
claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Defs.’ Mem. at 8- IO. It is
settled that the United States “can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued.” Epps v.
United States Attorney GeneruZ, 575 F. Supp. 2d 232,238 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Fed. Deposit
Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 5 10 U.S. 471,475 (1994)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars a suit
for money damages against the federal government unless there is a specific waiver of such
immunity. See id.;United States v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S.30,34 (1992)). The Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), see 28 U.S.C. $5 1346(b), 2671, et seq., is an example of such a waiver,
see, e.g., Schnitzer v. Harvey, 389 F.3d 200,202 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“The FTCA effects a broad
waiver of sovereign immunity from Iawsuits for money damages.”), but the FTCA does not assist
plaintiff here. The FTCA does not waive immunity for constitutional torts such as those plaintiff
alleges in his complaint. See Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-04 (D.C. Cir.
the FTCA prior to filing this action deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. See McNeiZ
v. United Stutes, 508 US. 106, 1 13 (1993) (affirming dismissal of an FTCA suit prematurely
Texas and California move to dismiss on the ground that the states’ Eleventh Amendment
immunity bars plaintiffs claims. See Texas Mem. at 6-7; California Mem. at 4-5. Presumably
-7-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 59
Under the Eleventh Amendment, ‘‘[tllie judicial power . . . shall not . . . extend to any suit
in law or equity . . . against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.” U S . CONST.amend. XI. Generally, the Eleventh Amendment
shields a state fi-om suit in federal court. See Bd. of Trustees of the Uiziv. ofAlabama v. Garrett,
531 US. 356,363 (2001). However, if a state consents to suit or if Congress abrogates a state’s
immunity, a suit may proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment’s protection. See, e.g.,
Cotlege Suv. Bunk v. Florida Prepaid Postsecosidary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 US.666,675
Plaintiffs complaint fails to demonstrate or even suggest that either Texas, California and
New York consent to suit, or that Congress has waived immunity. His reliance on the civil rights
statutes as a basis for jurisdiction, see 42 U.S.C. $8 1983, 1985 and 1986, offers no support, as
these statutes do not override the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Will v.
Michigun Dep’t of State Police, 491 US. 58,64 (1989) (concluding that a state is not a “person”
Even if plaintiff had demonstrated standing to challenge the 20 10 Census, his complaint
f d s to state civil rights claims against the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Gerald
Chojnacki, S.J., the iMaryIand Province of the Society of Jesus, and Timothy B. Brown, S.J.,
“To state a claim under [§] 1983, a plaintiff must allege both (1) that he was deprived of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the defendant acted
-8-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 60
‘under color of‘ the law of a state, territory or the District of Columbia.” Hoai v. Vo, 935 F.2d
308,312 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citingtidickes v. S.H. Kt-ess & Co., 398 U.S. 134, 150 (1970)), cert.
detried, 503 U.S. 967 (1992); West v. Atkirrs, 487 U.S. 42,48 (1988). Assuming without deciding
that plaintiff adequately alleges the violation of constitutional rights, his civil rights claim fdils
because the complaint does not allege that these defendants are as state actors. This pleading
alone is fatal. See Edwards v. Okie Dokie, Ittc., 473 F . Supp. 2d 31,41 (D.D.C. 2007)
(dismissing 5 1983 claim against a nightclub absent an allegation in the complaint or evidence in
his opposition to the summary judgment motion that the nightclub was acting under color of
District of Columbia law). Moreover, the complaint utterly fails to allege the elements of a civil
conspiracy, see Gr2;fJinv. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 101-02 (1971), which is essential to
pleading a violation of 42 U.S.C.5 1985(3). See Atherton v. Dist. of Columbia Office ofthe
means that a claim under 9 1986 cannot survive. See Burnett v. Sharinu, 51 1 F. Supp. 2d 136,
145 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Because the complaint fails to state a claim under 6 1985, plaintiff cannot
maintain a claim under § 1986.”); Thomus v. News World Comm ‘ens,68 1 F. Supp. 55,62
(D.D.C. 1988) (citations omitted) (“The language of [42 U.S.C. 9 19861 establishes
unambiguously that a colorable claim under 4 1985 is a prerequisite to stating an adequate claim
-9-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 61
LII. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the 2010 Census, and his complaiiit therefore will be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Even if plaintiff were to establish standing, his
claims against the federal defendants are barred by sovereign immunity, and his claims against
the state defendants are barred by their Eleventh Amendment immunity. Moreover, the
complaint fails to allege civil rights claims against the remaining defendants. Defendants’
motions will be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
\
-10-
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 62
lllllllllllllllllIlllllllll
- _.._
11-24OP53308-1-54-1112-41
TDD - T
- d i m y device for UW beaning IrnpaiiW. C;alll188&.763-2010
8:OO a.m. and 9:tW p.m.; 7 da)rs a wwk. 730 telephone call is free.
&NECESITAAYUDAP Si Wed n8wsita ayucla pfua cumpletar est8 cues#maM, flame al - 6
1-868-928-2010 e n h las 8:OO a.m. y 9:W pm-, 7 dl" a /a semana La ilamada tekMnka
8s gratis.
fhe U.S. Census Bureau estimates that, for the average househdd, this form will take about 10 minutes to
ampkte, induding the h e for reviewing the instrutdons and answers. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or-any other asped of this butderr to: Papemmrk Reduction Projed 06074919-C, US. Census
Bureau, AMSP3K138,4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233. You may mail comments to
<PapemorkdDcensus.gov>; use 'Paperwork Project 060749194? as the subject.
? f
Respandents are not required to respond to any infomation CdteCtiOn unfess it drsplays a valii appmal ,
number from the office of Management and Budget.
,..-
- -- ..re .-c ---..
-e- c ---I --- .--
9- vv-- e,- -- - - .- = --*
- 7 -- - - - Livl-.
i ---- z, .
EXHIBIT D
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 63
63
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 64
March 15,2010
uaibedb
Census
'USCENSUSBUREAU 2010
D m )P-m
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 65
13190012
\.’@#:
4mes d
THE American Community Survey
AreaCode + Number
1 1
@ If you need help or have questions
about completing this form, please call
1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. How many people are living or staying at this address?
INCLUDE everyone who is living or staying here for more than 2 months.
Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD): INCLUDE yourself ifyou are living here for more than 2 months.
Call 1-800-582-8330. The telephone call is free. INCLUDE anyone else staying here who does not have another place to
stay, even if they are here for 2 months or less.
iNECESlTA AYUDA? Si usted habla espaiiol y
DO NOT INCLUDE anyone who is living somewhere else for more than
necesita ayuda para completar su cuestionario, 2 months, such as a college student living away or someone in the
llame sin cargo alguno al 1-877-833-5625. Armed Forces on deployment.
Usted tambien puede pedir un cuestionario en Number of people
’
espanol o completar su entrevista por telefono
con un entrevistador que habla espahol.
For more information about the American
Fill out pages 2,3,and 4 for everyone. including yourself. who is
Community Survey, visit our web site at: living or staying at this address for more than 2 months. Then
http:fl~w.census.govlac~~l complete the rest of the form.
IllIIll11II111111111II
I1
EXHiBiT E
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 67
13190020
1 What is Person 1%sex? Mark (X) ONE box. 4 1 What is Person 2.3 sex?*Mark (Xj ONE box.
0 Male Female
1 What is Person 1%age and what is Person 1%date of birth? 4 e and w h a is Person2 's date of birth?
age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old.
Print numbers in boxes. Print numbers in boxes.
Age (in years) Month Day Year of birth
+ NO= Please answer BOTH Question5 about Hispanic origin and ase answer BOTH Question 5 about Hlspanic origin and
Ouestion 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.. about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.
1 Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? ,
4
<
0 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
0 Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano 0 Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
0 Yes, Puerto Rican ,% I
0 Yes, Puerto Rican
0 Yes,Cuban Yes,Cuban
a -
Yes. another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Print or&in, for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican. Nicaraguan, Salvahrqtr, Spaniard,
0 -
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Print origin, for example,
Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard,
and 50 on. 3 and so on, 3
I
/
+'
1 What is Person 1's race? Mark ( X ) one or mor@Ooxes. 1 What is Perron 2's race? Mark (X) one or more boxes.
White 0 White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro 0 Black, African Am., or Negro
0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.3 0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal
0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian 0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian
0 Chinese Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro 0 Chinese fl Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro
0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan
Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander - 0 Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander -
for example, Hmong, Print race, for example, for example, Hmong, Print race, for example,
Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, FQian, Tongan, and Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, FJian, Tongan, and
Cambodian,and so on. J so on. Cambodian, and so on. j . so on.
0 Some other race - Print race. 3 0 Some other race - Print race.
2 111I11111IIIl1I1111IIll
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 68
13190038
i - 1
Last Name (Please print)
I How is this person related to Person 1 7 Mark (XI ON€ box. 4 ) How is this person related to Person 17 Mark (XI ONE box.
0 Husband or wife Son-in-law or daughter-in-law 0 Husband or wife 0 Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
0 Biological son or daughter 0 Other relative 0 Biological son or daughter 0 Other relative
0 Adopted son or daughter Roomer or boarder Adopted son or daughter a Roomer or boarder
0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate 0 Stepson or stepdaughter 0 Housemate or roommate
0 Brother or sister 0 Unmarried partner 0 Brother or sister 0 Unmarried partner
0 Father or mother [I1 Foster child 0 Father or mother Foster child
0 Grandchild 0 Other nonrelative Grandchild 0 Other nonrelative
0 Parent-in-law 0 Parent-in-law
1 What is Person 3’s sex? Mark (X) ONE box. Mark (XI ONE box.
0 Male Female
1 What is Person 3’s race? Mark ( X ) one orzlrurepoxes. i 1 What is Person4%race? Mark (Xl one o r more boxes.
[7 White White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro Black, African Am., or Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.J 0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.=
I
I
0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian 0 Asian Indian 0 Japanese 0 Native Hawaiian
0 Chinese 0 Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro [7 Chinese 0 Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro
0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Samoan Filipino Vietnamese 0 Samoan
0 Other Asian - Print race, 0 Other Pacific Islander - 0 Other Asian - Print race, Other Pacific Islander -
for example, Hmong. Print race, for example, for example, Hmong. Print race, for example,
Laotian, nai, Pakistani, Fijian, Tongan, and Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, fijian, Tongan, and
Cambodian, and so on. so on- Cambodian, and so on. so on. 3
0 Some other race - Print race. 7 0 Some other race - Print race. J
111IIlrmI II111Ill 3
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 69
13190046
17
Last Name (Please print) First Name
I
1 1 - Last Name /Pleaseprint) First Name
I How is this person related to Person l?
Mark IX) ON€ box. I
0 Husband or wife 0 Son-in-taw or daughter-in-law
0 Biological son or daughter Other relative n
0 Adopted son or daughter 0 Roomer or boarder Sex 0 Male c] Female Age (inyears)
Question 6 about race. for this survey, Hispanic origins am not races.
1 Is Person S of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? ;Last Name (Please print)
0 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
I
I
First Name I
I'
0 White
0 Black, African Am., or Negro Sex 0 Male 0 Female Age (in years) U
0 American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.=
I I
MI
I
Some other race - Prinf race.
Sex 0 Male 0 Female Age (inyears)
4 111Imn III1111
1
I1I1111
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 70
13190053
0 1990to 1999
0 1980 to 1989 1 Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this
0 1970to1979 1 a. How many separate rooms are in this house, apartment, or mobile home?
[7 1960to1969 house, apartment, or mobile home?
Rooms must be separated by built-in 0 Gas: from underground pipes serving the
c] 1950to1959
archways or walls that extend out at least neighborhood
0 1940to1949 6 inches and go from floor to ceiling. 0 Gas: bottled, tank, or LP
1939 or earlier INCLUDE bedrooms, kitchens, etc.
0 Electricity
EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches, balconies, 0 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
foyers, halls, or unfinished basements. 0 Coal or coke
1 When did PERSON 1(listed on page 2 ) Number of rooms 0 Wood
move into this house, apartment, or
mobile home?
n 0 Solar energy
Month Year
U 0 Other fuel
b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? 0 No fuel used
Count as bedrooms those rooms you would
list if this house, apartment, or mobile home
were for sale or rent. I f this is an
efficiencylstudio apartment, print “0“.
Number of bedrooms
7 31 90061
I
1 a. LAST MONTH, what was the coat 1 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did anyone in Answer questions 16 - 20 if you or
of electricity for this house. this household receive Food Stamps or
apartment, or mobile home? a Food Stamp benefit card? Include someone else in this household OWNS
or IS BUYING this house, apartment, or
Last month's cost - Dollars government benefits from the Supplemental
mobile home. Otherwise, SKIP to E on
m
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Do NOT include WIC or the National School the next page.
Lunch Program.
OR 0 Yes
0 Included in rent or condominium fee 0 No 1 About how much do you think this
0 No charge or electricity not used house and lot, apartment, or mobile
} Is this house, apartment, or mobile home home (and lot, if owned) would sell for
b. LAST MONTH. what was the cost part of a condominium? if it were for sale?
of gar for this house. apartment,
or mobile home? 0 Yes + What is the monthly Amount - Dollars
Last month's cost - Dollars condominium fee? For renters,
answer only if you pay the
E I I OR
condominium fee in addition to
your rent; otherwise, mark the
"None" box. , ,;
';
} What are the annual real estate taxea on
Included in rent or condominium fee -
Monthly amount Dollars, THIS property?
Annual amount - Dollars
< /
0
OR
I1
OR
a. What is the monthly rent for this
house, apartment. or mobile home?
Included in rent or condominium fee Monthly amount - Dollars
0 No charge or these fuels not used
Yes
0 No
6 m
1111I1111II IIIIll1II
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 72
13190079
I
OR
OR
[7 No regular payment require
-
Alinual costs Dollars
IllI11111II1111IIllIIIll 7
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 73
13190087
1 What is the highest degree or level of school 1 What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?
this person has COMPLETED? Mark ( x ) ONE box.
If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or
I Please copy the name of Person 1from page 2, highest degree received.
then continue answering questions below.
Last Name
0 (For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am.,
i
First Name
No schooling completed
Cambodian, Cap8 Verdean, Norwe ian, Dominican,
French Canadian. Haitian, Korean, febanese, Polish,
Nigerian, Mexiwn, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)
1
10
gradel-117
-
Grade 1 through 11 Specif$
1 a Does this person speak a language other than
English at home?
-J
0
In -
-
In the United States Print name of state.
I
1 Is this person a citizen of the Unit8d States?
Regular high school diploma
For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese
How well does this person speak English?
CI
0
3 111I11111It 11111
I1
11III
1
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 74
131 90095
H Answer question 19 if this person is c How long has this grandpa- been
responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)?
I 75 years old or over. Otherwise, SKIP to If the grandparent is financially responsible for
1 Is this person CURRENTLY covered by anv of the
following types of health insurance or health
coverage dans? Mark "Yes" or "No" for EACH WDI?
-
of cove6ge in items a h.
I the questions for Person 2 on page 12.
f. VA (includin those who have ever Never married + SKIP to I 0 Yes on active duty during
the last 12 months, but not now
used or enrolled for VA health care)
g. Indian Health Service n o Inthe PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get
Yes No
- 0 Yes, on active duty in the past, but not
during the last 12 months
0
0
Yes
No
b Is this person blind or does hdsho have
I 0
TWO times ,,c y
/ \
Three or OR times
8';
I
condition, does this person h a w serious
difficulty concentrating, remembering, or
making decisions?
0 Yes f 1 a Does this person have a VA service-connected
disability rating?
No
0 Yes
I
111I11lIlII1111Ill I1 1111
I
I
0 No + SKIP to question 26
Yes
70 percent or higher
9
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 75
13190103
0 Yes n
U 0
Yes, could have gone to work
No, because of own temporary illness
0 No + SKIP to question 35a
0 No, because of all other reasons (in school, e t 4
1 toWhat time did this person usually leave home
1 At what location did this person work LAST go to work LAST WEEK?
HIEEK? If this person worked at more than one When did this person last work, even for a few
location, print where he or she worked most Hour Minute
days?
last week.
a Address (Number and street name) ''a
Within the past 12 months
1 to 5 years ago + SKlP to L
How many minuter did it usually take t Over 47 ago or never worked + SKIP to
5 years
question
If the exact address is not known give a perron t o get from home to work LAST
description of the locationsuch is the building
name or the neareststreet or intersection. Minutes ) a During the PAST 12 MONTHS (52weeks), did
b. Name of city, town, or post offit. n this person work 50 or more weeks? Count
paid time off as work.
c. I?the work loc.tion inside the limits of that Answer questions 35 - 38 if dtis person 17 No
ctty or town? did NOT work last we&&.Otherwise,
SKIP to question 39a: /, b. How many weeks DID this perron work, even
Cl Yes for a few hours, includin paid vacation, paid
sick leave, and m i r v i c e ?
No, outside the cityltown limits .
d. Name of county 1this parsonon fayoff from 0 50 to 52 weeks
0 48to49weeks
1
IP to question 35c 0 40to47 weeks
27 to 39 weeks
e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country
0 14 to 26 weeks
LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY 13 weeks or less
, absent from a job or business?
f. ZlPCode 0 Yes on vacation tempora illness
maiernity leave, bther fatnyy/persohal
+
reasons, bad weather, etc. SKIP to
6 During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS
WORKED, how many hours did this person
question 38 usually work each WEEK?
10 1111I1111IIII1111II1111l
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 76
131901 1 1
1 What kind of work was this person doing? d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement.
(For example: registered nurse, personnel manager,
I supervisor of order department, secretary,
accountant)
L Answer questions 41 - 46 if this person
worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise,
SKIP to question 47. i
-
41 46 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ( 1 What were this person's most important e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief
job activity or business last week If this person
had more than onejob, describe the one at
which this person worked the most hours. I f this
activities or duties? (For example: patient care,
direting hiring policies, supervising order clerks,
typing and filing, reconciling financial records) 0 Yes+ 7 1
person had no job or business last week, give
information for hidher last job or business.
0
a state GOVERNMENT employee?
a Federal GOVERNMENT employee7
SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED
I f net income was a loss, mark the "Loss"box
the right of the dollar amount. j
0 yes+
No
7 1
business, professional practice, or farm? TOTAL AMOUNT for past
12 months
0 SELF-EMPLOYEDin OM INCORPORATED
business, professional practice,or farm? h. Any other sources of income received
0 workin WITHOUT PAY in family business regularly such as Veterand (VA) ayments,
or farm5 una#nployment compensation, c h d support
es, or other items. oralimony. Do NOTindude lump sum payments
such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a
1 For whom did this person work? home.
If now on active duty in
the Armed Forces, mark (XI this box +
and print the branch of the Armed Forces.
0
TOTAL AMOUNT for past
12 months
0 Yes+
No
7 1
Name of company, business, or other employer , TOTAL AMOUNT for past
'
12 months
b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm
businesses or farm businesses, including
I " .>
proprietorshipsand partnerships. Report ( What was this person's total income during the
NET income after business expenses. PAST 12 MONTHS?Add entries in questions 47a
1 Whatkind of business or industry was this? to 47h; subtract any losses. I f net income was a loss,
Describe the activity at the location where employed. enter the amount and mark {X)the "Loss" box next to
(For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail the dollar amount.
order house, auto engine manufacturing, bank)
12 months ' 0 N o n e O R l ]
Loss
TOTAL AMOUNT for past
c. Interest, dividends, net rental income, 12 months
1 Is this mainly - Mark (Xl ONE box. royalty income, or income from estates
and trusts. Report even small amounts credited
to an account.
0 manufacturing?
wholesale trade?
retail trade?
CI
0
Yes+
No
I TOTAL AMOUNT for past
I0 LOSS
other (agriculture construction, service, 12 months
government, etc.,'!
I Il1I1111II
IllIIIIII1I1 11
. .. - -. ... . ."-.
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 77
13190129
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 78
Petitioner
--- - - _-
BEFORE-- Sentelle~hiefdudge,and Ginsburg and Tatel, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to restore the petition for a writ of mandamus,
construed as a motion for reconsideration, it is
?er Curiam
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 79
Petitioner
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the motion for leave to
proceed --
in forma pauperis, and the motion for a waiver of the docketing fee, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion
for a waiver of the docketing fee be granted. It is
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.
Per Curiam
By: /SI
Lynda M. Flippin
Deputy Clerk
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 80
)
CHRISTOPHER EARL S T R C . ,
)
Plain tiff, 1
\
I
V. 1 Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
OF STATE, et al., 1
)
Defendants. 1
ORDER
plaintiffs amended complaint is DISMISSED IN PART to the extent that plaintiff seeks of
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs requests for mandarnus relief and for any other
relief not available under the Freedom of Information Act, including all forms of relief requested
in his “Notice of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on
and it is
1 Ex2.3D €3 1T H
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 81
FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than May 3,2010, the parties shall file ajoint
SO ORDERED. f
f;)
RICHARD W N
United States District Judge
DATE:
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 82
)
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, et al., )
1
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOW), see 5 U.S.C. 9
5 5 2 , seeking information from the United States Departments of State “(State Department”) and
Homeland Security (“DHS”) about then President Elect Barack Hussein Obama and his late
mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ partial motion to
dismiss, and the Court will grant the motion for the reasons discussed below.’
The Court summarily denies plaintiffs request for a writ of mandamus. Mandamus relief
is available only if: “( 1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) that defendant has a clear duty
to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff.” Northern States Power
Co. v. U S . Dep‘t of Energy, 125 F.3d 754, 755 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In this action, plaintiff dcmands
the release of records maintained by federal government agencies, and an adequate remedy for a
request of this nature exists pursuant to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. 5 552(a)(4)(B); see Pickering-
George v. Registration Unit, DEAIDOJ, 553 F. Supp. 2d 3 , 4 (D.D.C. ZOOS) (“The exclusive
nature of the FOLA precludes mandamus relief.”); see ulso Johnson v. Executive Oficefor US.
Artormy, 3 2 0 F.3d ?7l, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
1
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 83
I. BACKGROUND
1 . Stanley Am Dunham
Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the State Department on October 17,2008, Amd.
Id., Ex.A. The State Department notified plaintiff that it did not maintain this type of
infomation, and referred plaintiff to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, a component
of the DHS. Defs.’ Partial Mot. to Dismiss PL’s Amd. Compl. (“Defs.’ Mot.”), Ex.D at 1 .
In his second FOIA request to the State Department, plaintiff sought information
pertaining not only to Stanley Ann Dunham but also to Barack Hussein Obama. With respect to
2
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 84
With respect to the request for the late Ms. Dunham’spassport applications, the State
Department notified plaintiff that it would process the request, to whch it assigned case
processing number 200507238. Defs.’ Mot., Ex. E at 2. All other aspects of the request,
assigned case control number 200807272, were denied because plaintiff did not comply with
regulations for requests for information pertaining to living third parties. Id. at 3-4. Specifically,
plaintiff did not submit Mr. Obama’s authorization for release of his passport and similar
records. Id. at 4.
Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Compl. 7 22. He sought the same information from
the DHS that he requested from the State Department. See id., Ex.I at 1-2. Defendants’ counsel
represents that, on February 3, 2009, the CBP “informed [plaintiff] that it would not release
records relating to [Mr.] Obama because DHS regulations . . . require privacy waivers before
third-party records can be released,” and that the CBP “released . . . responsive entry/exit records
Plaintiff believes that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, that his birth was
registered in Hawaii, and that he, at most, is a naturalized United States citizen. See Amd.
Compl. 7 36. For these reasons: plaintiff asserts that Mr. U b m a “is not a U.S. ‘natural born’
citizen and [is] ineligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States
3
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 85
Constitution, ,4rticle 11, Section 1, Clause 5.” Id. 7 27. Plaintiff claims to have “suffered an
informational injury as a voter and member of public[,] and the lack of information on [blr.
Obama’s] citizenship, caused by the State Depnrtment[’]s action, limited the infonn=ition
available to [plaiIitiffJ as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and
policymakers.” Id. 1157. Plaintiff demands that the State Department and DHS release all the
documents he requested, so that he may dctermir;e whether Mr. Obama is a natural born United
States citizen, see id. 7 62, lest “an illegal candidate . . . serve as President of the United States.”
Id. 1
163.
TI. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint to the extent it seeks records
pertaining to Barack Obama,see Defs.’ Mot. at 6, on the ground that plaintifrs FOIA requests
“[Elach agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records
and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and
procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.” U.S.C. tj
552(a)(3)(A). “An agency’s disclosure obligations are not triggered . . . until it has received a
proper FOLA request in compliance with its published regulations.” Antoneili v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 591 F. Supp. 26 25, 26 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing 5 U.S.C. 9 552(a)(3) and 552(a)(6)(A)(i));
(D.D.C. Aug. 12,2004) (“A proper FOIA request, once received, requires the g o v e m e n t to
search for responsive records and to release all that are not othenvise exempt.”). A requester’s
“failure to comply with an agency’s FOIA regulations is the equivalent of a failure to exhaust”
4
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 86
. 207, 21 1 (D.D.C.
administrative remedies. West v. Jackson, 448 F. S ~ p p2d 3006) (citations
omitted).
review” under FOIA. FfiZbur v. Certtral Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675,677 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
(per curiam). Exhaustion allows ”the agency [I an opportunity to exercise its discretion and
cxpcrtisc on the matter and to makc a factual record to support its decision.” Zd. (quoting
Ogresby v. United States Dep ’t ofthe Army, 920 F.2d 57,Gl (D.C. Cir. 1990)). It is not a
jurisdictional requirement, Hidalgo v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 344 F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C.
Cir. 2003), but instead is a prudential consideration. Wilhtrr, 355 F.3d at 677. Tf 3 requester has
not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to the filing of a civil action, his claim is subject
State Department regulations require that “requests for records pertaining to another
or made under penalty ofperjury, or by proof that the individual is deceased (e.g., death
require that requests for records about another individual include “either a writterz authorization
signed by that individual permitting disclosure of’those records . . . or proof that that individual
(emphasis added).
P1aintiff“adrnits that Barack Hussein Obama . . . has not provided permission to release
5
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 87
documents[.]” Pl.’s Aff.8 20.* Rather, he steadfastly asserts his claims that Mr. Obama neither is
3 natural born citizen of the United States nor is eligible to hold the office of President of the
IJnitcd States. ,cEe g27ierL7!4:Pl.’s Aff. Ncithcr of these claims is relevant to this FOIA action,
the sole purpose of which is to determine whether defendants properly responded to plaintiff‘s
It is clear on this record that plaintiff did not submit propcr FOTA requests to the State
Department and to DHS because the requests did not include written authorization fiom Mr.
Obama for the release of information to plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with rzspcct to his requcsts for infomation about Mr. Obarna, and these
2009 WL 5 102713, at +4 (D.D.C. Dec. 28,2009) (dismissing a FOLA claim against the FBI
because plaintiff failed to mail his request directly to the appropriate field office as is required
under agency regulations); 27iomas v. Fed. Comm ’cm Comm ’n, 534 F.Supp.2d 144, 146
(D.D.C.2008)(granting summary judgment in the agency’s favor “[iJn the absence of any
evidence that plaintiff submitted a proper FOTA request to which defendant .cvould have been
ob1igated to respond”).
2
In opposition to defendants’ motion for partial dismissal, plaintiff filed a “Notice
of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First
Impression in Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs
Amended Complaint as to Alleged POTUS: Earack ‘ITt~sschObama In Esse” [Dkt. $191, to
which he attached a supporting memorandum of law and affidavit (“Pl.3 Aff.”). Plaintiffs
demand for a jury trial before a three-judge panel on matters pertaining to President Obama’s
citizenship and eligbility to hold the ofiice of the President of the United States is summarily
denied, as arc all of his requests for relief not authorized undcr the FOiA.
6
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 88
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will grant defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and will &rect the parties to
submit a joint proposed schedule to gwem fiiture proceedings in this action. A n Order is issued
separately.
t
II
f
-
I
RICHARD -ON
United States District Judge
DATE:
7
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 89
1
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRlJNK, )
1
Plaintiff, 1
1
V. ) Civil Action No. 09-1249 (RJL)
)
NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE 1
SOCIETY OF JESUS, et id., )
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed OR behalf of the New York Province of the
FURTHER ORDERED that the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. #13] is
GRANTED; and it is
SO ORDERED.
RICHARD- ON
United States District Jr:dge
DATE:
5
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 90
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss. For the
reasons discussed below, the motions will be granted and this action will be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs complaint is far &om the short and plain statement called for in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. It does not simply state the grounds upon which the court’s
jurisdiction depends, a claim showing that plaintiffs entitlement to relief, and a demand for
judgment for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rather, it is a verbose, disorganized,
and confiised collection of conclusory stcltcrnents in the guise of a verified complaint with a
Plaintiff appears to assert that elected officials in the State of New York and New York
City, as wc!I as federal government agencies ;rnd officials, are acting in :zssociation with or under
the direction of the Roman Catholic Church, the Society of Jesus,’ and the Sovereign Military
~~ ~~
1
Founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus is a religious order in thc
(continued.. .)
1
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 91
Order of Malta.’ Because the members of these organizations have sworn an oath to the Pope,
plaintiff alleges that they cannot simultaneously uphold the United States Constitution. Further,
plaintiff appears to allege that the named defendants essentially are acting as agents of 8 foreip
government, presumably the Vatican, in violation of the Logan Act, see 18 U.S.C. 5 953? These
circumstances allegedly cause plaintiff and the citizens of New York unspecified “collective
spiritual and individual temporal iiijuries,” Compl. at 1 (introductory paragraph), and denies them
relief generally to enjoin the Society of Jesus and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta from
’(...continued)
Catholic Church and is organized world-wide in 85 administrative units called provinces, the
order is led by a Superior General in Rome. In the United States, there are 10 provinces. These
make up what is known as the American Assista~icy,headquartered at the Jesuit Conference in
Washington, DC. See http ://www.j esuit .org (fo1low “FAQs” hyper link); http://nysj.org (follow
“Who We Are” hyperlink, then follow “The Society of Jesus” hyperlink).
2
The Order of Malta officially is called the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of
St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, and common abbreviations are the Sovereign
Military Order of Malta, the Sovereign Order of Maita, and the Order of Maita. Its members are
commonly known as the Knights of Malta. See http://www.orderofinaIta.org (follow “English”
hyperlink, then follow “Names of the Order” hyperlink)
3
In relevant part, the Logan Act provides:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or
carries on any corrcspondence or intercourse with any foreign
government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence
the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer
or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the
United States, or to defeat the nieasures of the United States, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 0 953.
2
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 92
conducting unspecified activities until such time as an appointed special master can assess the
damages caused by their failure to comply with federal and New York State law.
TI. DrscwssroN
A. Dismissal Under Ride 12(b)(l)fov Lack of Standing
“Three inter-related judicial doctrines - standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that
federal courts assert jurisdiction only over ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Wurth I?. Jocksun, 45 1
F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006).‘ A core element of Article 111’s case-or-controversy requirement
is that a plaintiff have standing to sue. See Ligan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,561
(1 992). To satisfy this burden, “[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the
defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” AZZeiz
v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737’75 1 (1984). Thus, a party has standing if his claims ‘‘spring fiom an
‘injury in fact’ - art invasion of a legally protected intercst that is. ‘concrete and particularized,’
‘actual or imminent’ and ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court.” Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d
994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Ltljan I?. Defenders of WZdZfe, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
“[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual
h!&mcer 19. Kernna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1 998) (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472,
477 ( I 990)). If, at any time, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
4
The judicial doctrines of mootness and ripeness are not relevant to this case.
3
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 93
Insofar rn plaintiff brings a claim under the Logan Act, the Court concludes that he lacks
standing to do so. Only the Gnited States Department of State is aggrieved by a violation of the
I,ogan ,4ct, see ITT World Coinrn ‘ens,f m . 1’. Fed. Comm 'ens Comm 699 F . 2 1219, 1231
(D.C. Cir. 1983), rev ’d 012 other grotincis, 466 U.S. 463 (i984), and plaintiff cannot demonstrate
an injury suffered due to defendants’ Logan Act violation that affects him “in a personal and
Nor does plaintiff have standing to bring a claim that defendants’ actions deprive him of a
repubiican form of government. The Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising
only a generally available griewnce about government - claiming only harm to his and every
citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no
more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article
111 case or controversy.” Ltijan v. Defenders of JViZdZijie, 504 U S . at 573-74. Where, as here,
“[p]Iaintiff s stake is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of
other voters[,] . . . his harm is too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any
and all voters.” Berg 1’. Ohnnzn, 574 F. St~pp.2d 509, 519 (E.D. Pa. 2005), u f f d , 556 F.3d 234
(3d Cir. 2009); see Hooker 11. Sasser, 893 F. Supp. 764,767 (M.D. Tenn. 1995) (“The Court
finds that the plaintiffs’ allegations of diluted voting power [and] denial of undivided loyalty . . .
do not identify any ‘concrete and particularized’ injury which they have suffered or ill suffer
The Court concludes that plaintiff cannot establish an injury in fact, that he is without
standing to bring his claims, and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. See Colzerz
v. Obcrrnrr, No. 08-2150,2008 WL 5 I9 1864 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 1, 2008) (dismissing for lack of
4
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 94
standing, m o n g others, claims that the Secretary of State wrongly issued then-Senator Buack
O b m a a passport, that the Department of Homeland Security failed to arrest him for illegally
entering the country, resulting in plaintiffs disenfranchisement), 12ff)ci, 332 Fed. Appx. 640 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Berg v. Ubanza, 574 F . Supp. 2d at 5 19 (dismissing Natural Born Citizen
Clause claim because plaintiff, described as a life-long member of the Democratic Party, lacked
standing); Robin~on Botven, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, ? 146 (N.D. Ca1. 2008) (denying
17.
preliminary injunction for petitioner, “a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector
pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best,”
whose alleged h a m “is not only speculativc but also merely derivative of the prospects of his
favored obscure candidate”); Hooker v. Sasser, 893 F . Supp. at 767 (dismissing for lack of
standing the plaintiffs claim that other candidates’ acceptance of campaign contributions from
non-Tennessee citizens prevented “his qualifications as a candidate for the office of United States
Senator fiom being judged solely and exclusively by Tennessee citizens”); see also Warth I).
Seldirt, 422 U S . 490,499 (1975) (“[Wlhen the asserted h a m is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared
in substantially equal measure by all or a larze class of citizens, that h a m alone normally docs
situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. 1). Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271,289 (1988)
(citation omitted). Mandamus relief is proper only if ‘b( 1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief;
(2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other zldcquatc rcrncdy available to
plaintiff.” Council of mid for the Blind of Delaware Colcnty Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 152 1,
5
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 95
1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). “[T]hose those invoking the court’s mandamus jurisdiction
must have a “clear and indisputable” right to relief; and even if the plaintiff overcomes all these
hurdles, whether mandamus relief should issue is discretionary.” In re Chenev, 406 F.3d 723,
729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “In order for there to be a ‘duty owed to the plaintiff
within the meaning of [I28 U.S.C.] tj 1361, there must be a ‘mandatory or ministerial obligation
[because ifJ the alleged duty is discretionary or directory, the duty is not ‘ o ~ e d . ” ’Sfamper v.
United States, No. 1:08 CV 2593,2008 WL 4838073, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4,2008).
Plaintiff appears to request the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enforce the Logan Act,
a provision in the federal criminal code. In the Attorney General the United States Constitution
vests the power to conduct criminal litigation on the federal government’s behalf. 28 U.S.C. 8
5 16; see United States v. Nzxon, 418 US. 683,694 (1974). “[Tlhe question of whether and when
[m]andamus will not lie to control the exercise of this discretion.” PuweZZ v. Katzenbach, 359
F.2d 234,234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied,384 U.S. 906 (1966); see Stamper
v. United States, 2008 WL 4535073, at *3 (‘‘Mandamus cannot be used to compel the Attorney
General or the United States Attorney to conduct investigations or prosecute alleged civil rights
violations.”). Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the named defendants owe him a duty to act,
6
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 96
In. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants?motions to dismiss wili be granted, and this
civil action will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
7
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 97
WASHINGTON - With the 2010 population count looming, the government provided
new assurances Thursday that information Americans fill out on their census
forms will be kept confidential and not be used for law enforcement.
The legal assurance had been a sticking point for some minority groups,
particularly South Asian and Muslim Americans, who argued that an ambiguity
in federal laws could leave their census data open for use in prosecutions
involving national security. Some said they could not feel confident in
filling out the forms based on solely the verbal promises of Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke and other census officials who said the data will not be
shared with other federal agencies.
"All United States residents should be fully confident that the individual
information they provide on census forms is protected from disclosure by
law," said Commerce spokesman Nick Kimball.
The Census Bureau this week began delivering letters to homes in rural areas
and is mailing the 10-question forms to 120 million U . S . households on March
15. Officials have estimated the government survey will take just 10 minutes
to complete, a change from previous censuses in which many people received a
more detailed questionnaire.
The government move comes as several black, Latino and Asian groups as well
as some lawmakers have questioned whether the Census Bureau has been able to
motivate hard-to-count groups, who are primarily minorities and the poor. One
of the main obstacles to census participation they cited has been a distrust
of government, including concerns about whether their personal information
may be misused.
The Justice Department is not aware of an instance where the Patriot Act has
ever been used to obtain census information. "The administration is confident
that the Patriot Act still provides the tools and authorities we need to
combat terrorism and protect the American people," said Justice spokesman
Alejandro M i y a r .
On t h e Net:
Commerce Department: http://www.commerce.gov
Census Bureau: h t t p : / / w w w . c e n s u s . g o v
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 98
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 99
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 100
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 101
n
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 102
.Home
0 m
Jebuib
o The Black Poue
o SMOM
o Coadiutors
o Freemasonry
. .
om o t Note
.World
OEJ
o ChidJapan
3 L!SS€k’Ki;;sin .Po&A by d ~ ~onl Augu 5tL, 2009 and kihd u d z r G d w . N G N ~The
, Black Pope.
D m You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a
“‘The Wbite P o p u
The Evil Emperor
*The Black Pope”
Darth Vadm
Masters of “The Matrix”
Adolfo N icolu
30th Superior General, Society of Jesus
” 1 1 ~Rlack Pope”
EXHIBIT L
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 103
I
Federal Bureau o€ Lnvestigation
Officc of Naval lntelligcncc
The Pentagon
John J. DeGiaia
Presidcnt Jesuit Guorgetovm Univbsity
iMcrnbzr: Knights of Malta
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
AthuistraLor: %atin Kingdom UT Jeruslllrm-’-israel
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 104
itichaxd A\.Hnvs
Chairman: Council on Foreign Relations
New Yo& City
Senrant of Edward Cardinal Egm George Sorw
Ovxscm of -UPIC‘: :vkinbei: ~ o u n c ion
l Pimign lidations
hnerican lsrael Public Affairs Committee Member: Carlyle Group
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionht ,Multi-billionaire
Court Jew for the Pope ,Major Stockholder: Hdliburton
Adminstrator: “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem”-Israel t lringarinn Jew: Socidist-Cornmimist
Finanem Backer of B u a c k Husseia Obtma
Friend of Rupert Murdoch
Freemasonic Jewish Labor Zionist
‘‘Court Jew far the Pope”
Zbigniew Brzezhski
Member: Knights of Malta
Member: Bilderberg Group
Member: Council On Foreign Relations
Member: Trilaterial Commission
Advisor: Jesuit Georgetown University
Po!iA !kmari C‘,dw! ICZ;oci.~li.stSorr!in\!!!ir!
Proofessor: Columbia University, New York Rupert Murdoch
Member: Council on Foreign Relations
Obama’s White Papal Marta IVatican Asaasins Pagelloflfl Obunt’r White Papal MYacrs I Vatican As6aasins k g c 12 o f 18
Bury Davh
“Barack Hussein Obama”
32nd Degree Prince Hall Freemason
President of Rome’s “Holy Rom.m,”
14th Amendment American Empire
Joseph R Btden Sunni Moslem, Pretended Protestant Cluistian
Papal Knight; Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Mulatto: Mulatto Father, White Mother
Vice President: Rome’s “Holy Roman” Father: Frank Marshall Davis, Jr.
14th Plmendment American Empire !>,’if<: ? , . ~ ~ ~ l ; <~ ~, l~~ ~. ~ :(T!iic;!go
~\yr:
1
I
Alter Ego: Jesuit Advisor to Obama: CFR-ControUed and CFR Spokespelson
President Barry Davis Obama Obama: Promoted by the late William F. Buckley, Jr.
1 Promoter Council on Foreign Relations
Honorary Degrees:
.[,:suit Lr!ii;ersiiy ~~SCI:LI:~I)R,S c r x t o u . ?.A.
Buckley: Knight of Malta,Bonesman, Bilderberger, CFR Member
Buckley: Promoter of Reverse Discrimination against Whites
Bucklklay: P r o i u o h wl‘ B Coiuiug Black Presideut
Jesuit St. Joseph‘s University, Philadelphia, PA Obama: Trained in Romanism, Islam and Apostate Protestimtism !
Obama: “Nimrod"; Pretended Unifier of Whites aud Blacks
Obama: Promoter of the Papal Crusade against Shia Islam
O h - i i n a ~Frmnoter nf R i 1 4 i ’ ~Papnl Inq~ii<itinil
i
ll
Against Protestant American Liberties
Obama: lewit Temporal Coadjutor
I Promotor of the Black Pope’s Counter-Reformation
I I Barr) Davis: “Bo)” of Pope Benedict X V I
I
I
L - b n p h w w \ ? t i r u i n s ~ w n sorr ’11-95 ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ l~l~20lO
_ _T ~ i c a n ~ r u w norq/’p-W
s I ?U 0
1
‘
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 105
Cahollc president CVM elected, was wmirig the public about the sinister role of the
Jesuit Order under the umbrella of tlie Vaticm and Roinan Catholic Church as the
enemy of the .American Constitution md the Bill of Rights. the Jesuits have been
EpJgJDCJQW
[.. I Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran Lfthe CFR bnot nearly as much power
Categories: G d l m . News. The Black POW as I attribute t o them, then why do these 5000 people RUN EVERYTHING? The
Tags: Jesuits, Obama, The Black Pope CFR is the ruling elite of &e US.Who themselves answer to higher authority:
OL;.hia’> ‘A’luic r.tpdlXLstcrs i ’ ~ ’ ~ t x at hn: m > t r a 1 1
5 Responses for “Obmmm’s White Papal Mastm”
5 . The Paaal mastem of Obama (( seeker40I says:
I . F0-rP o p l i u Best of VaticanAssmsiits * Georpetowa ronsnirocy theories from 2009 September 18,2009 at 5:33 pm
says:
D ~ C C A l l l J3 ~1.2uu9 at 210 *lu
[...I
Georgetown President John M i o i a is 9th in the chain of command of You must be logged i ~ rto pmt a comment &
n
President Obama’s “White Papal [..I
2. ’? itisnosecreh~ka$g~ca~do
says:
October 18,2009 at 1 2 4 pm
And to think these goofy sociopaths get all the girls.
-t‘hCj. pot Illy \ V h O k fLiXIiibi.
1w ill say it is easier to live bowing t h e arc the goofy turds in C ~ C .
Personally lost many rights and priviliges over Protesting Hemy Kissinger to my
own Mother. Your own family will resist you to hold up these men.
3 . “Xotioiidiic r r i i i i ? i u i i h s Cirtrsviruw... ti i i i d Sierra GuW says:
October 4,2009 at 5:06 pm
Recently Commented
EJP Resnonds to a “DisaopointedNe-”
Exiled Dutch Statesman Geert Wilders Warns Against Islam Part I
Biden-Advised Obama: Generatinn White Rirht-Wing Jesuit Fascism
Bin Laden. CIA Contract Agent. Dead since December 13.200 1
More ?ban 500 Sex Abuse Cases Filed Against the jemuits
United Nations to Rebuild Ancient Babvlon
0 Jesuit Tem~oxalCoaidutor Alex Jones’ “The Fall of the Republic”
EJP Replies to Brother Michael, ‘an Honorably Retired PortImd Police OEcer
I
0 Brief Chronolorv of Jesuit Historv Authored bv the C’omoany
Archives by Tag
\I,.,_ , . . n ‘\i-imic,m
, o , ~ , t ,_ Rcvo!lltimfi ~ w ! , , ~htn,,!, Ar;Ii,.l;ski k c r i
I
Cuudiutarr Coinmuni*m council un fumiun % h h aCmnwdl Dvnicl Enelvnd UU Fn*.nunomv Georvs WYhinvton
(irmrnwda Plrf lllN I 1lrml1I1 Inluishinn l n a I w l JesuitsKnighh nfMauha I atim Alicn IruJnn I.tfhn Milimrizx?ionnfSnne
d 7 U Wcub Radio Rcfomminn Roli$5onSUMW
N a n Ohuma Pupc Pm~~hccu Bluck Crim Sncivlbm Tcnnornl Pmvcr k
Blnch Pupc US.SU,Ru~siuVuticun Vidcu Videus world w ~ m t n i e n l
I Recent Entries
0 December 3 1,2009: From “the Appearing” to the Second Cornhe. Part 4 of 5
December 30.2009: From “the A4~~earine” to the Second Cominrt, Part 3 of 5
Lkcmiber 2% 2Wv: E r m “the ~ o e a r i n v ”to 1112Second iorrrlllr. Part 2 oi 5
I
D vo ut’ n 9 of 10e
0 EJP Redies to Troy as to the Biblical Timeline of the “Amearinr.” Part 3 of 5
i ?!:::to Gdlcry
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 106
...............
............
..,.
.;:...
.:::;;.::,:::::::k
0-
a J ~h i:iL
0 w d
o m
.Tech
Radio
o m
Religion
O u 3
Resources
0 yt=
0 About V k a g
Eric Jon Phelm
0 v u
a Fric On Radio
0 V A YOUTU~C
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 107
END NOTES
Amendments
ARTICLE 2 Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers
of the United States, shall be removed from Offce on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
..
11
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 109
[Amendment VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
[Article. XI.][Proposed 1794; Ratified 17981 The Judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and
of 311 persons voted for as Vice-president, and of the number of votes for
each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat
of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate; - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall
then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for
President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then
from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the
list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall
choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President,
the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state
having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or
members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall
be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not
choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them,
before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-president shall
act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability
of the President. - The person having the greatest number of votes as
Vice-president, shall be the Vice-president, if such number be a majority of
the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority,
then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the
Vice-president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the
whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be
necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office
of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-president of the United States.
1v
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 111
Section. 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon
on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives
at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would
have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their
successors shall then begin.
Section. 2.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and
such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they
shall by law appoint a different day.
Section. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President,
the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become
President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed
for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to
qudi@,then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President
shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case
wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have
qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
ENDNOTES
The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot Act", is a statute
enacted by the United States Government and signed into law by President
Georcle W. Bush on October 26,2001. The contrived acronym stands for
Uniting and Strengtbening America by Providing Appropdate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct TerrorismAct of ZOO I (Public Law
vi
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 113
Pub.L. 107-56).
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search
telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records;
eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States;
expands the Secretary of the Treasutv’s authority to regulate financial
transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities;
and broadens the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities
in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.
The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic
terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA
PATRIOT Act has expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Conaress
and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic
parties. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite
detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers
search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s
permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters,
which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records
without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement
agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since
its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act,
and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are
unconstitutional.
Many of the act’s provisions were to sunset beginning December 31,
2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the
sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions
permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil
liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization
bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House
reauthorization bill kept most of the act’s original language. The two bills
were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by
Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil
liberty concerns. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the
Senate version, passed Congress on March 2,2006, and was signed into
law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10,2006.
The PATRIOT Act has made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key
acts changed were the Foreian lntelllqence SuweillanceAct of 7978
(FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986(ECPA),the
Money Launderina ControlAct of 1986and Bank SecrecyAct (BSA), as
welf as the lmmi&ration andNationalityAct. The Act itself came about after
the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.
vii
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 114
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) : The Sovereign Military and
Hospitaler Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, known
also as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, or SMOM, is juridically,
po!itically, and historically unique in the world today. Representing initially
the most powerful and reactionary segments of the European aristocracy,
fur nearly a thousand years beginning with the early crusades of the Twelfth
Century, it has organized, funded, and led military operations against states
and ideas deemed threatening to its power. It is probably safe to say that
the several thousand Knights of SMOM, principally in Europe, North,
Central, and South America, comprise the largest most consistently
...
Vlll
Case: 10-5077 Document: 1236498 Filed: 03/24/2010 Page: 115
xi i