Strunk Affidavit In Opposition To Us Mtd Dcd 09-cv-1295 W Exhibits A Thru Q 102309 W Defendant Mtd Attached

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x : Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse and the CHRISTOPHER : (aka “CHRIS”) STRUNK jus tertii People, : 593 Vanderbilt Avenue – 281 Brooklyn New York 11238

:

Plaintiffs :

845-901-6767

:

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

:

v.

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

: : : Defendants. :

: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF KINGS ) Accordingly, I, Christopher –Earl: Strunk, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1.

Affiant / Plaintiff Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, (Affiant, Strunk) hereby responds in

opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law by Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama (the Usurper), (Federal Defendant(s), Defendant(s)) represented by CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney for Washington D. C. and Assistant U.S. Attorneys RUDOLPH CONTRERAS and WYNNE P. KELLY.

1

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

2. That outrageously CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney by his agents alleges Affirmant has somehow filed a vexatious and frivolous case as if “a grand conspiracy in which the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, controls the nation”; and to wit Affirmant strenuously denies the wrongful devious characterization meant to deconstruct the underlying facts to Plaintiff's injury and associated history that supports the need for a declaratory judgment and writ of Federal Defendants to act in their fiduciary capacity and or absent such thereby must facilitate Plaintiff with 18 USC §1964(c) to recover damages incurred after the Quo Warranto Inquest is done by this Court. 3. That upon hearing the facts on the injury to Plaintiff(s) in esse (living being) here in New York, along with those similarly situated, and as recognized by the New York State Legislature as Plaintiff jus tertii represents any standing as an aggrieved State Citizens (1), and also as a United States Citizen(s) resident in Washington District of Columbia as a (fictional) corporate entity(ies) that as Government contractor(s) by way of each entity registration and bonding with Plaintiff’s actual birth certificate whose bond is on file at the Department of Commerce and used as an article trade by Defendants against Plaintiff’s in esse rights protected by New York law. 4. That Affirmant in esse makes a special appearance herein without waiver of any sovereignty as the Trustee and a benefactor of his corporate bond as CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK questionably held in Washington District of Columbia otherwise against his wishes as an article of trade in commerce under the Uniform Commercial Code, against New York Law and having damaged Plaintiff in esse in excess of One Million Dollars. 1

Citizens: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812) case.

2

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

5. That Affirmant has a related case Strunk v. NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS et al. DCD 09-cv-1249 (RJL) in regards to Federal Defendants’ breech of fiduciary duty to enforce the Logan Act as to the New York Province along with those similarly situated the twelve provinces and its members who have taken a vow and extreme oath to a foreign sovereign the Black Pope who is the confessor priest to the Prince of the Vatican Pope Benedict XVI; and that Affiant filed an affidavit response in opposition to the Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as to them with annexed Exhibit A through O which coincide with a common argument and request for relief (e.g. the pending inquest for the Usurper with a Quo warranto verified petition before this Court) and for economy and to further avoid burden upon the readers Affiant uses the Exhibits chronological order for reference herein. 6. As a matter germane herein Plaintiff(s) has an Original Proceeding filed on September 11, 2009 in the District of Columbia Circuit for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Recuse the district Judge in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, and 09-cv-1295 with investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety a copy of the Docketing Statement; and as the respective Certificate(s) of Service shows for each matter that the entire package was served along with Plaintiffs other responses in the Cases 09-cv-1249 and 09-cv-1295 to Defendants’ Counsel on September 10, 2009, and arguments used in Affiant’s response to the Defendant Maryland Province filed with this Court. 7. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the Fiduciary Duty of Federal Defendants that all Jesuits (Provincial Defendants) live under their constitution and have taken vows similar to marriage vows as part of the multi-level oath of their secret extreme vows having been exposed in the Congressional record, shown at referenced Exhibit B, that for good reason is secret being against public policy as a blood oath binding each Declarant

3

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

till death to carry forward the Inquisition against schismatics, obstinate heretics and heretics, the oaths are not on file with the State of Maryland. 8. Further by reference Affiant asserts as a matter germane herein as regards the Fiduciary Duty of Federal Defendants breach of fiduciary duty the Provincial Defendants are infringing upon his actual suffrage and first amendment and guarantee of a republican form of government rights, and are involved in an enterprise defined under 18 USC 1961 that by my expert Witness testimony of Eric-Jon: Phelps in esse will show and includes in the copy of the Affidavit (shown in referenced Exhibit C) that will testify inter alia that: “That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive Order, recognized the Vatican as a sovereign political state exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legal groundwork for the signing of a treaty―a Concordat―with Rome, as did Roman Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco; That as a result of said Executive Order issued by President Reagan (having chosen at least six Knights of Malta to conduct his administration), the Society of Jesus is acting in concert serving a foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state, (Vatican City) ―exclusive of all other considerations―intending to submit the American peoples to a socialist-communist or socialist-fascist military dictator secretly loyal to the “Vicar of Christ;” That Jesuit priest James Shea, Provincial the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, is the overseer of Jesuit Georgetown University president, Knight of Malta/CFR member John DiGioia; he in turn directing the domestic and foreign policy of Prince Hall Rite, 32nd Freemason, Mulatto U.S. President Barry (Davis) Soetoro (alias “Barrack Hussein Obama”) through Georgetown University directing Roman Catholic papal knight Vice President Joe Biden, both Sunni Moslem Obama and Roman Catholic Biden being groomed for these positions by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors for over twenty years, including Roman Catholic U.S. Senator and CFR member Edward M. Kennedy and Roman Catholic ex-National Security Advisor and CFR/TC member Zibignew Bzrezinski; That Georgetown University is within the jurisdiction of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, its Provincial having authority over Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C., enveloping government service in the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security and other agencies manned by papal knights politically loyal to the Pope of Rome; The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over Pope Benedict XVI’s thirteen American

4

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

Roman Cardinal Archbishops includes the former president of Fordham University, CFR member and Professed Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow Joseph A. O’Hare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals include Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (CFR member and President Regan’s Secretary of State, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., whose brother, Francis Haig, is a powerful Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow; CFR member and President Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Richard V. Allen; etc.); the Knights of St. Gregory (CFR member and Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch, etc.); the Knights of Columbus (CFR-affiliated House Majority Leader John Boehner, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, etc.) and Opus Dei (CFR-affiliated Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh, convicted American spy for the Russian KGB/SVR, FBI counterintelligence officer Robert Philip Hanssen, etc.); That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to include every State legislature, judiciary and governor in command of his paramilitary state police; “ 9. That Affiant with above paragraphs 3 has standing to sue for suffrage in Washington DC as a resident denied suffrage for the record the Maryland State Defendants by Governor Martin O’Malley has defaulted, and that Governor O’Malley publicly agrees that Washington D.C. is within the administrative purview of the State of Maryland for overlapping services; and must therefore also have authority for availability of suffrage for qualified residents of Washington District of Columbia in the Federal Election of Congress and the electoral college from Maryland in the Executive Election requiring Maryland to receive an allotment commensurate with the enumeration of Citizens and permanent residents resident their in Washington D.C. for the purposes of Federal Suffrage through the Secretary of State of Maryland, and that Affiant reserves his memorandum to be filed with the Notice of motion for Default accordingly soon. 10. The thrust of this case is that there is a conspiracy by acts of treason by Nancy Pelosi (the Traitor) who was responsible at the hub to place the Usurper in a coup tat in the oval office and thereby to have the Usurper deliver USA and New York of the several States sovereignty to an enterprise in furtherance of the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009, and with the agenda then to totally integrate all tourists at will into the total enumeration n preparing for Immigration reform legislation scheduled for early 5

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

2010 to the detriment of the actual People of the United States of America, People of New York and Plaintiff in esse along with those similarly situated, and that U.S. Census is no longer done by the Department of Interior nor by the Commerce Department but done by the Usurper and Traitor out of the Oval Office, with 13 USC §195. 11. That Janet Napolitano as a member of the SMOM and or individually are collaborating with the New York Province and other eleven Provinces and American Conference of Bishops and agents under the Jesuit General / Black Pope Control to facilitate open boarders and the interstate and foreign travel in aid of the racketeering Enterprise to harbor and exploit aliens. 12. That Janet Napolitano as a member of the SMOM, Nancy Pelosi, Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama and Gary Locke individually may not be represented by the United States Attorney General and or CHANNING D. PHILLIPS acting United States Attorney for Washington District of Columbia and Assistant U.S. Attorneys RUDOLPH CONTRERAS and WYNNE P. KELLY. 13. Jesuit trained Gary Locke, was nominated for Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce by the Usurper and as such is apart of the enterprise complained of in regards to the intent of the enumeration of the 2010 Census without differentiating the diplomatic corps or tourists from Citizens and permanent residents which may only be the basis to allot U.S. House of Representative seats. 14. That since this case was filed Affiant received as a matter of courtesy a copy of document filed in the case Barnett et al. v Obama et al CDCA 09: 09-cv-000082 before the District Judge Honorable David O. Carter there for verification both of the Divorce action between Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and Barack Hussein Obama Sr. in 1964 (see Exhibit E) and the copy of the actual birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. born at Coastal General Hospital in Mombasa Kenya on August 4, 1961 (see Exhibit F).

6

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

15. That as of October 20, 2009 Affiant received a pdf photocopy of the actual delayed filing record done with HRS 338-17.8 on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii for the Kenya birth notice filed by Madeline Dunham (see Exhibit G) that needs verification by this Court. 16. That as a matter supplemental to above paragraphs 7 through 10, the cause of action related to enforcement of the Logan Act involves the issue of facts that: (i) I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, (the Usurper) on January 22, 2009, (ii) demand a Quo Warranto inquest on his authority to serve with proper eligibility, with my verified complaint before this Court in the Case Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234: (iii) Usurper’s acts are void ab initio until that inquest is heard, and moreover in that Usurper not only has dual allegiance at birth with a British Parent, (iv) it appears Usurper was actually born in Kenya, thereby is not even an indigenous born citizen, and further (v) then triggers need to investigate the allegation that when Usurper was adopted as an Indonesian citizen under the name Barry Soetoro, He did not even properly file for naturalization when he returned to Hawaii to live with his Grandmother. 17. Such prima facie evidence marks a drastic increase of harm severity and injury to Plaintiff(s) and means when the Usurper is not even properly naturalized his actions are those of a tourist at best over staying a visa, and an agent of a foreign power not registered under the Logan Act, also covered with the Vienna Convention treaties in their entirety, as foreign national also means Usurper may not be charged with treason per se or even impeached for that matter. 18. With the use of 18 USC §1964(c) comes the duty for providing detail normally missing in complaints demanding writs for non-enforcement of specific laws, as by design Civil RICO crosses a tremendous domain of civil and criminal activity requiring the connecting of dots with patterns of interlocking activity and facilitation normally unseen but necessary for any private litigant, and as I will do in part provide herein until given permission to amend the complaint in

7

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

consolidation with the Census and Quo warranto inquest demand regarding the enterprise’s fraudster Usurper that otherwise clueless judiciary appears as the deer in the headlights. 19. On October 7, 2009, Affiant in order to ascertain and verify the facts in the matter of actual naturalized citizenship that requires a lift of stay for further discovery before this court, being complex litigation (100 cases nationally) for both comity and economy of schedule with permission to intervene as a complex litigation matter with 28 USC §1407 before the Honorable David O. Carter (see Exhibit I), that court response and verification remains pending, but Affiant is granted permission to file by Judge Leon on October 21, 2009 for obtaining CACD discovery for the Quo Warranto herein the Washington District of Columbia where it belongs. 20. As to the Government’s contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction alleging Plaintiff has not provided a preponderance of the evidence for standing per se, Affiant strenuously disagrees, notwithstanding the use of 18 USC §1964(c), in that the matter of the Usurper’s Quo Warranto takes precedence over such claims based upon the facts so-far presented and in that Usurper acts to date in conspiracy with Defendants herein along with those yet named forming an enterprise defined with the RICO Act as evidence sufficient to meet what U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall held on Court jurisdiction when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821): "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one." 21. That verification of evidence requested of that Court shows that the Usurper, Defendant

8

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

Individuals under Civil RICO includes Nancy Pelosi (2) both Clintons and many others as the essential facilitators of the Usurper coup tat conducted with the New York and Maryland Provinces to the detriment of Plaintiff proprietary property rights along with those similarly situated, who are singled out as heretics and injured by the pattern of abuse by the enterprise whose benefactors upon investigation use false billing of the treasury and falsification of documents as defined under law but not limited to the follows Federal statutes: 18 USC §1028 (a)(1)(4)(7)(c)(1)(2)(3)(d)(1)(f)- (fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents) 18 USC §1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii.) (iv.) (Harboring illegal aliens) 18 USC §1341 (mail fraud) 18 USC §1343 (wire fraud) 18 USC §1425 (a) - (procure citizenship or naturalization unlawfully) 18 USC §1512 (b)(1)(2)(c)(1)(2)(d)(1)(2)(3)- (Tamper with witness, victim ) 18 USC §1546 (a) - (fraud and misuse of documents) 18 USC §1952 (a) (1) (3) (b) (2) (3) – (interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering Enterprise) 18 USC §1957 – (engaging in monetary transaction in property derived from specific unlawful activity) 22. That on 28 August 2008 Defendant Nancy Pelosi maliciously affirmed and filed her affidavit placing the Usurper by fiat onto all the State ballots in 2008 at the Federal Elections, and in which matter Affiant has an on-going suit against Andrew Cuomo the New York Attorney General and Lorraine A. Cortez-Vazquez the New York Secretary of State among others for breach of fiduciary duty and State “Little” RICO before the Honorable Justice David I Schmidt

2

Nancy Pelosi is from the Jesuit stronghold of San Francisco in the Republic of California whose Bank of America since 1850 directed the Republic of California incorporation into the Union as the 31st State on September 9, 1850 as part of the 1850 Compromise complex package of five bills, passed in September 1850, defusing a four-year confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North that arose from expectation of territorial expansion of the United States with the Texas Annexation (December 29, 1845) and the following Mexican-American War (1846–1848). It avoided secession or civil war at the time and quieted sectional conflict for four years until the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.) today use the strawman Jesuit temporal coadjutor Frank Pelosi executive of Delmonte Foods with overlapping directorship and significant stock ownership of Starkist Tuna exploitation of labor facilitated by Speaker Nancy by maintaining open boarders. 9

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

of the State of New York Supreme Court in the County of Kings and who by the way of economy of his Court calendar urged Affiant to file the FOIA case 08-cv-2234; and that Justice Schmidt maintains original jurisdiction over those defendants there. 23. That on 28 August 2008, Defendant Nancy Pelosi as a private individual committed an act of treason witnessed by two persons, the Secretary for the Democratic National Convention and the Public Notary Shalila A. Williamson, done to aid and abet the predicate goals of the enterprise for the consolidation of temporal power by “Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority” over Plaintiff(s) along with those heretics similarly situated in New York. 24. That Defendant Nancy Pelosi maliciously filed a false statement with intent to facilitate a coup tat on 28 August 2008 to misrepresent and lull those State officials with a fiduciary duty over elections intentionally committed perjury affirmed that the Usurper is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” (see Exhibit L) , and then knowing it a lie for the purposes of misdirection then produced another affidavit without the “legally qualified” affirmation for public filing (see Exhibit M). 25. That Defendant Pelosi website for press statement of 2007 (see Exhibit P) lists statement in support of the enterprise activities in regards to global climate government, open borders and eliminating the sovereignty of the People of the United States of America, People of New York and several states and Plaintiff in esse. 26. That Defendant Pelosi on the website shows on Exhibit P accepting the Instituto Laboral de la Raza (the Race) 2007 Congressional Leadership Award; February 9, 2007 and has made outrageous statements in support of the enterprise as part of treasonous acts at rallies of that organization, told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that

10

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."; free speech is different than predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise. 27. Affiant since 1992 has studied the use of the census in shifting power to the southwest by changing the questions asked during the Census enumeration as part of predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise. 28. In 1999 Affiant filed a challenge to the 2000 Census enumeration in the Eastern District of New York 99-cv-2168 that languished for two years by judicial inaction and by way of this entry all the history from the 1910 Census through 1930 Census are incorporated herein as a matter of fact including the role of the San Francisco Bohemian Grove member Herbert Hoover and his 1928 Presidential election opponent SMOM member Al Smith who threatened to challenge the election of 1928 due to the non-allotment of House seats since 1911 that lead to the fraudulent voice vote adoption of 13 USC §141 for “capping” seats using the 1911 allotment without a role call in June of 1929, and thereby preventing the increase of House members ever since until hell freezes over; and that this case is different it is about a Traitor, Nancy Pelosi and the Usurper hijacking the 2010 Census enumerations as part of predicate acts that aid and abet the objectives of a racketeering enterprise. 29. That Affiant has a time restraint, regarding the questionable ongoing Census count and ongoing treason of the Usurper Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama et al., which is causing irreparable harm if not acted on in a timely manner by this Court. 30. On August 26, 2009, the White House responded to my service, wrote “due to separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue through the judicial system.” (see Exhibit Q). So here we/they all are in Court. 31. This court has a Quo Warranto demand for an inquest that mandates it act accordingly as necessary for relief, and as an injured party-in-interest do not have other means for relief.

11

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

32. That clearly these matters are part of the Usurper on-going fraud upon the American People in which all acts are void ab initio and require expedited discovery of underlying facts involved in many other districts including California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York etc. complexity with irreparable harm requiring both restraining orders and Multi-district Judicial Panel with 28 U.S.C. §1407 to promote judicial comity and economy of calendar within the Lincoln –Eisenhower doctrine in that there are both State and Federal original jurisdiction. 33. Counsels’ to Federal Defendants would have us all believe that the so-called Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution that U.S. House Representation doesn’t matter now, and the ratio 1 member per 30,000 persons that left un-amended would yield say 10,000 House members now is dead letter law like the Constitution itself; 13 USC §141 is not constitutional, to the core is a continuation of the 1920 to 1929 crisis to this day, and the proposed amendment in 1791 not adopted as pre-mature would now yield say 1,500 for a reason – the matter is ripe for review. 34. The Ratification of the Constitution by the People of New York July 26, 1788, declared: “That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. “That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; … That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favoured or established by Law in preference of others.” Wherefore, Affiant prayer of relief of the Court is for an order: I. Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

12

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

II. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, and Gary Locke seek separate counsel; III. a temporary restraint order stay of any action regarding the Usurper or his agents regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty until further notice; IV. a preliminary injunction with special master to over see the Census Monitoring Board with 13 USC §195 wrongly formed by Pelosi and Usurper to conduct the 2010 Census enumeration with questions: are you a citizen, and or are you a permanent resident alien. V. That the Verified Petition for a Quo Warranto inquest be expedited as matter of ongoing irreparable harm; VI. That were Barack Hussein Obama held a Usurper in fact that Plaintiff be granted an opportunity to amend the complaint with a Civil Rico Statement with 18 USC 1964(c); VII. That a declaratory judgment on the application of the Immigration and Naturalization Act in regards to 13 USC §141 for Tourists and Diplomatic Corps with the Logan Act be issued, including whether or not the New York Civil Rights Law Chapter 6 Article 5A and New York Constitution Article 3 that differentiates Aliens from Tourists must apply with the Vienna Convention treaties in its entirety in Census 2010 Enumeration and allotment; VIII. That Federal Defendants by writ of this court enforce the Logan act and Vienna Convent as to each John and Jane Doe member and XYZ entity doing business in the United States of America and or its territories and New York so that the New York Province for the Society of Jesus and by notice to all twelve Province must show cause why each should not conform and be subject to: a. to the contract provisions of New York law or as applies in another state of the several states as its members in New York Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc.; b. the provisions of the Logan Act and related law; c. to the provisions the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; d. restraint of suffrage in New York and at united States Elections as voluntary honorary members of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state internal affairs; e. As to whether or not the Diplomatic service of a foreign sovereign state is subject for enumeration for the purposes of allotment of members to the US House of representatives on a state-by-state basis applies. f. restraint of suffrage at United States Elections as voluntary honorary members of the Consular staff under the Vienna Conventions interfering with receiving state internal affairs; 13

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House members with the 2010 Census. IX. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs of the receiving States and commerce; X. Those Federal Defendants restrained from any interference with the New York Federal Reserve Bank and commerce. XI. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People; XII. That the allotment with 2 USC §2a to Maryland include the enumeration for the Washington District of Columbia Citizen resident and permanent resident for the purpose of calculation with 13 USC §141, and that residents qualified according to Maryland Election Law grant Federal election suffrage XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v New York Province of the Society of Jesus et al. 09-cv-1249 and Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234; XIV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actual RICO Statement; XV. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary. I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law, in lieu of the secession of the People of the New York from the Union with the united States of America as of right by and for the CHRIS STRUNK jus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with irreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

/S/ ____________________________ Christopher –Earl : Strunk ©in esse

Sworn to before me this the 23RD day of October 2009 /S/ ____________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

14

Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09cv-1295

g. That each member not be enumerated for the purpose of allotting U.S. House members with the 20 10 Census.

IX. That Defendants and Provincial be restrained from interference with the internal affairs of the receiving States and commerce;

X. Those Federal Defendants restrained from any interference with the New York Federal Reserve Bank and commerce.

XI. Those Federal Defendants restrain interference with the Vatican and USA to favor People; X I . That the allotment with 2 USC $2a to Maryland include the enumeration for the Washington District of Columbia Citizen resident and permanent resident for the purpose of calculation with 13 USC $141, and that residents qualified according to Maryland Election Law grant Federal election suffrage

P Y P ~ F ~ ~ J

fQ

XIII. That this matter be consolidated with Strunk v " " Pet at. 09-CY-1249 and Strunk v. US DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234;

XIV. That Plaintiff be reserved opportunity to include Defendants in an actual RICO Statement;

XV. and for further and different relief as the Court deems necessary. I have read the foregoing in regards to enforcement of law, in lieu of the secession of the People of the New York from the Union with the united States of America as of right by and for the CHRIS STRUNKjus tertii People of New York, and know the contents thereof and jus tertii effects those similarly situated with five causes of action with spiritual and temporal injuries with irreparable harm, affirms the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

Sworn to before me this the day of October 2009

&

aEOROE ANDERSON

Natary Public, State of New W NO.OlAN5070990 14 Qualified in Kings County ~ommlssionExpires Jan. 6,20 1 1

New York Province Society of Jesus -Welcome to New York Province of the Society of ... Page 1 of 3

Nenr Yurk Prdnce llc Sociery ofJars <

NEWS New York Provincq M L ~ J o d R C m a t ~ Un4 pw-ts its &@ember *eats sckiuk.

~

p m m t s L M * o f ~ m m b a

swidsaaIitndm-andarpboial aAan00a Ewrvone B e l a - f athe families and fii& of gays aIId fesbis.

-

~ m d r q r ~ ~ w b o t O I l a b ( 1 # ~ W s w

Y a k m c a a m v h d b a ~ ~ o n ~ o u r h i t Identity Rootad m Igualiau Spmmatity"at ST. Ignatim h i t

F,.-M~sI. ~FdhtmtUninmtfy.hburss conmunion at 1a)iem's Manfor fnaomiqfmhman rmd their fmnl185.

~ebeatHou&MabrsEet.NY.~,S.ptanbet12.

Loydam&mMorrirrsDam,NJ,i+ miastoa&kvof~-~Irpldoing armsthiog newnewnew conductal by Fr. WU R,akowicq SJ,on September 17.

-

Sociity ofJesus. A

.

~

l

w

o

s

l

l

:

.

n

h

A

~

"Silenaand fwmt D ~ Y Qf avocations are rm lower adequate responses t i ak pied shortage in the unit&Stabs." ForinsightmlDwhdpumigMdotocnoo~rqgavocldioar,md a hlrrk" bv Fr. Richard Mallw. SJ. ~nA m r i a magazine.

Make c donation

&'$&& Ph"Q CJdkrrofmar MKIjoined the Jamits in the United Stldes in 2008.

.

-

--

-.

-

EXHIBIT A

'A

~

The text of the Jesuit Erh.eme Oath of Indmtion is meticulously recorded in the Joumais of the 62nd Congress. 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397. Report No. 1523,15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216).

(Text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction:)

(

,now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin I Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy- Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and A1 the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by s t . Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the V i the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, &d the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do fiirther declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do W e r declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels &om time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac Exhibit B .

- .

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MIR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA CIRCUIT In re Christopher Earl Stnmk,

Petitioner for a Writ ofMandamus.

AFFIDAVIT of Eric-Jon: Phelps 6 in esse In support of Christopher-Eark StnmW in esse, Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Reease the district Judge in QSlcv-2234,09-~-1249 09e-1295 atid investigation of District Clerk's Office with 28 U.S-C. 5455 and related law in its entirety.

CMstopher-Earl:Strunk Q in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238 Em&: cesmck@m*cQ* -----.--.. --.-...- .... .-.. Cell- (845) 901-6767

EXHIBIT

C

+

AFFIDAVIT of Eric-Jon: Phelps © in esse

In support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse, Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Recuse the district Judge in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249 09-cv-1295 and investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF BERKS

) ) )

ss

I, Eric-Jon: Phelps© in esse, Affirmant, being duly sworn, depose and state under penalty of perjury: 1. Am a natural born citizen of the Republic of California residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, am over 18 years of age and not a party to this instant action. 2. Affirmant’s residence for service of process is 203 South Fort Zellers Road, Apt. D, Newmanstown, PA, 17073; Email: [email protected]; home phone : 610-295-5082. 3. Affirmant makes this affidavit in support of Christopher-Earl: Strunk© in esse (“Petitioner”), Petitioner in the Original Proceeding for a writ of mandamus under FRAP Rule 21 for an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to recuse the District Judge in 08-cv-2234, 09-cv-1249, 092

cv-1295 and investigation of District Clerk’s Office with 28 U.S.C. §455 and related law in its entirety. 4. That Petitioner has requested that Affirmant testify herein and or related proceedings as an expert witness on the Society of Jesus, also called the Company of Jesus, and related organizations in the following matters: a. The history of the Bible-based, Protestant Reformation; b. The history of the Society of Jesus, a.k.a. the Jesuit Order, established by Pope Paul III in 1540; c. The Jesuit Order’s extreme oath of induction swearing complete obedience to the Pope of Rome, which allegiance includes the “extirpation” of all “heretics and liberals” by any means necessary including political assassination; d. The history of the Jesuit Order’s involvement in the western hemisphere, especially as it relates to its de jure conversion of “these United States of America” founded in 1787 into a centralized, consolidated Empire in 1868 (via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) until the present; e. The history of the Bull promulgated by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, suppressing and extinguishing the Jesuit Order “forever;” the Society’s resultant war on the papacy through its Illuminati3

controlled Grand Orient and Scottish-Rite Freemasonry leading and directing the French Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars; the Order’s restoration in 1814 and subsequent history as to how it presently exercises exclusive control over the Pope of Rome; f. The grave danger to the very existence of the papacy, the Order having murdered popes, altered Canon Law for its advancement, including directing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); the military “Company of Jesus” now serving as the primary impetus behind the international social, religious, political and financial movement for a highly-centralized “New World Order” which, at its consummation, necessitates the destruction of the Vatican and thus the historic Roman Catholic faith; g. The paramount influence of the Jesuit Order over Washington, D.C., through Georgetown University via its political surrogate, the New York City/Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its offspring, the Trilateral Commission (TC); h. The secret and yet complete power of the Jesuit Order over a myriad of papal “Court Jews” serving the Company via their membership in the CFR and/or in high-level Freemasonry (Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Charles Schumer, Henry Kissinger, 4

billionaire George Soros, Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod, past and present chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, etc.); i. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the unified Intelligence Community of the American Empire centralized at National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland, it defending the pope’s purported power of “binding and loosing;” j. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over the Central Intelligence Agency since its creation with the National Security Act in 1947, the CIA serving as the Order’s enforcement arm over its CFR; k. The absolute power of the Jesuit Order over Pope Benedict XVI’s thirteen American Roman Cardinal Archbishops includes the former president of Fordham University, CFR member and Professed Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow Joseph A. O’Hare. The immediate foot soldiers of the American Cardinals include Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (CFR member and President Regan’s Secretary of State, Alexander M. Haig, Jr., whose brother, Francis Haig, is a powerful Jesuit priest under extreme oath of the fourth vow; CFR member and President 5

Reagan’s National Security Advisor, Richard V. Allen; etc.); the Knights of St. Gregory (CFR member and Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch, etc.); the Knights of Columbus (CFR-affiliated House Majority Leader John Boehner, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, etc.) and Opus Dei (CFR-affiliated Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, former Director of the FBI Louis Freeh, convicted American spy for the Russian KGB/SVR, FBI counterintelligence officer Robert Philip Hanssen, etc.); 5. That Affirmant hereby agrees to testify in this or any related other proceeding schedule with reasonable due notice. 6. That Affirmant’s area of expertise on the Jesuit Order with references is as follows: a. History of the Order including its present Crusade against Islam; b. Counter Reformation Doctrines of the Order; c. Power of the Order over the late British Empire, American Empire, Russian Empire and Chinese Empire; d. Power over the Moslem World and Israel (Rome’s revived “Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem”) via Freemasonry; e. Power over all political leaders worldwide via Illuminized Freemasonry ruling all Supreme Councils of the 33rd Degree; 6

f. Power over the Pope’s International Intelligence Community and International Crime Syndicate both conducting the Order’s International Drug Trade; International Islamic Masonic Terrorist Network; International Banking Community including all central banks of Europe, the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, etc. through the ubiquitous reach of the NSA, its most secret enclave being “The Jew Room” from which all American Jews are denied access as a matter of National Security; 7. That Affirmant was an expert witness for the Plaintiff(s) regarding the Jesuit Order in the California case Kronzer Foundation v. Caritas of Birmingham in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, Case No. CLJ 425608. See attached affidavit submitted in that case. 8. That Affirmant believes as a factual matter based upon Canon and related law as well as press releases and private periodicals: a. That the Society of Jesus has re-gained its death grip over the papacy since no later than October, 1836, in which year it secured a papal Brief by which Pope Gregory XVI gave himself and his church over to the diabolical rule of the Order; b. That the Jesuit Superior General of the Company of Jesus obtained absolute control over every Roman Catholic cardinal, archbishop, 7

bishop and priest through the decree of papal infallibility issued by the Jesuit-directed and controlled First Vatican Council, 1870, the “Father General” now unfettered in his rule over the Pope’s Vatican Empire by commanding the movements of one man; c. That the Society of Jesus, in order to secure all past privileges granted to the Order prior to its suppression , extorted the Bull Dolemus inter alia from Pope Leo XIII in 1880 by first poisoning and then providing the antidote after the Pope signed that Bull further entrenching Jesuit tyranny over the Vatican; d. That according to the Code of Canon Law, the Pope must have a Jesuit for his immediate confessor, the Jesuit General being fully apprised of all secret designs and counsels of the “Vicar of Christ” and his Roman Curia lest a covert movement to suppress the Society be crowned with success as in the case of Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of suppression and extinction of the Society in 1773; e. That the Society of Jesus “tempers the Chair of St. Peter with assassination,” should any Pope disobey clear commands of his Jesuit confessor and advisors as in the case of Pope John Paul I; f. That in upholding the Pope’s universal temporal power in his fanatical quest to rule all nations, the Company of Jesus, exercising 8

unrivaled control of Pope Pius IX, assassinated President Abraham Lincoln (1865) and with its subsequent assassination of President William McKinley (1901) assumed absolute control of its “Holy Roman” Fourteenth Amendment, cartel-corporate fascist, socialistcommunist, American Empire with which to rule the world for the benefit of the Jesuit papacy as Chicago Archbishop James Quigley stated in The Chicago Tribune in 1903: “Within twenty years this country will rule the world. Kings and emperors will soon pass away, and the democracy of the United States will take their place. . . . When the United States rules the world, the Catholic Church will rule the world.” g. That the Jesuit Order rules the world from America is attested to by Fordham University graduate, G. Gordon Liddy, so stated in his book, Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy, pp. 23, 36: “As much as I had admired the German Benedictines, I admired the Jesuits more . . . These men [Jesuits at the Fordham University Club] ran the world, and they enjoyed it.” h. That Jesuit priest James Shea, Provincial the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, is the overseer of Jesuit Georgetown University president, Knight of Malta/CFR member John DiGioia; 9

he in turn directing the domestic and foreign policy of Prince Hall Rite, 32nd Freemason, Mulatto U.S. President Barry (Davis) Soetoro (alias “Barrack Hussein Obama”) through Georgetown University directing Roman Catholic papal knight Vice President Joe Biden, both Sunni Moslem Obama and Roman Catholic Biden being groomed for these positions by Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors for over twenty years, including Roman Catholic U.S. Senator and CFR member Edward M. Kennedy and Roman Catholic ex-National Security Advisor and CFR/TC member Zibignew Bzrezinski; i. That the Jesuit Provincial of the New York Province for the Society of Jesus, David Ciancimino, manages and oversees the centralized wealth and economic power of the American Empire through his control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City (which houses over 600,000 gold bricks), JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, etc., as well as Wall Street, the Stock Market and the Securities and Exchange Commission first headed by Knight of Malta Joseph P. Kennedy, the foremost short-seller of stock in 1929 precipitating the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression; j. That on or about January 10, 1984 President Reagan, by Executive Order, recognized the Vatican as a sovereign political state 10

exchanging diplomats thereby laying the legal groundwork for the signing of a treaty―a Concordat―with Rome, as did Roman Catholic, Jesuit-advised, Knight of Malta-backed military dictators Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Francisco Franco; k. That as a result of said Executive Order issued by President Reagan (having chosen at least six Knights of Malta to conduct his administration), the Society of Jesus is acting in concert serving a foreign sovereign (the Pope of Rome) ruling a sovereign state, (Vatican City)―exclusive of all other considerations―intending to submit the American peoples to a socialist-communist or socialistfascist military dictator secretly loyal to the “Vicar of Christ;” 9. That Georgetown University is within the jurisdiction of the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus, its Provincial having authority over Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington, D.C., enveloping government service in the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security and other agencies manned by papal knights politically loyal to the Pope of Rome; 10. That this ubiquitous Jesuit Power extends to every State capital, to include every State legislature, judiciary and governor in command of his paramilitary state police; 11

financial power of the Jesuit Order, he will be removed from office as was Illinois Governor ~ o Blagojevich d (an Orthodox "heretic" of Serbian descent) who promised that his Illinois State government would refuse to do business with the Jesuit Order's Bank of America headed by then Chairman and now CEO, papal knight Kenneth D. Lewis; 12. That I, the Affirmant, have read the above and know its contents as an

expert witness; the facts stated in the Petition are true pursuant to my own

personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief ?he grounds of Affirmant's beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: third parties including a former CIA assassin, classical histories, encyclopedias, rare books, official records, and personal knowledge except as to those stated

being logical conclusions premised upon undeniable facts.

Sworn and so Stated before me this

...

pz

.

3'

,

fi;b,3.;.;&j,:1

-

Notary Public ANN M HASSLER Notary Public WOMELSOORF BOROUGH. BERKS COUNTY My Commlsslof~Expires Jan 24.2013 -....

day of September 2009.

~ i e n n aConvention on Consular Relations 1963

Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entatd into fbra on 19 March 1967. Unied Nations, Tr- &f?es, vol. 596, p 261

Copyright O United Nuions

2005

F

EXHIBIT

D

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963 The States Parties to the present Convention, Recalling that consular relations have been established between peoples since ancient times, Having in mind the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations, Considering that the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities adopted the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which was opened for signature on 18 April 1961, Believing that an international convention on consular relations, privileges and immunities would also contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems, Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States, Affirming that the rules of customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 Definitions 1. For the purposes of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them: (a)

“consular post” means any consulate-general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency;

(b) “consular district” means the area assigned to a consular post for the exercise of consular functions; (c)

“head of consular post” means the person charged with the duty of acting in that capacity;

(d) “consular officer” means any person, including the head of a consular post, entrusted in that capacity with the exercise of consular functions; (e) “consular employee” means any person employed in the administrative or technical service of a consular post;

2

(f) “member of the service staff” means any person employed in the domestic service of a consular post; (g) “members of the consular post” means consular officers, consular employees and members of the service staff; (h) “members of the consular staff” means consular officers, other than the head of a consular post, consular employees and members of the service staff; (i) “member of the private staff” means a person who is employed exclusively in the private service of a member of the consular post; (j) “consular premises” means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post; (k) “consular archives” includes all the papers, documents, correspondence, books, films, tapes and registers of the consular post, together with the ciphers and codes, the card-indexes and any article of furniture intended for their protection or safe keeping. 2. Consular officers are of two categories, namely career consular officers and honorary consular officers. The provisions of Chapter II of the present Convention apply to consular posts headed by career consular officers, the provisions of Chapter III govern consular posts headed by honorary consular officers. 3. The particular status of members of the consular posts who are nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State is governed by article 71 of the present Convention. C HAPTER I. C ONSULAR R ELATIONS IN G ENERAL SECTION

I.

ESTABLISHMENT AND CONDUCT OF CONSULAR RELATIONS

Article 2 Establishment of consular relations 1. The establishment of consular relations between States takes place by mutual consent. 2. The consent given to the establishment of diplomatic relations between two States implies, unless otherwise stated, consent to the establishment of consular relations. 3. The severance of diplomatic relations shall not ipso facto involve the severance of consular relations.

3

Article 3 Exercise of consular functions Consular functions are exercised by consular posts. They are also exercised by diplomatic missions in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. Article 4 Establishment of a consular post 1. A consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving State only with that State’s consent. 2. The seat of the consular post, its classification and the consular district shall be established by the sending State and shall be subject to the approval of the receiving State. 3. Subsequent changes in the seat of the consular post, its classification or the consular district may be made by the sending State only with the consent of the receiving State. 4. The consent of the receiving State shall also be required if a consulate-general or a consulate desires to open a vice-consulate or a consular agency in a locality other than that in which it is itself established. 5. The prior express consent of the receiving State shall also be required for the opening of an office forming part of an existing consular post elsewhere than at the seat thereof. Article 5 Consular functions Consular functions consist in: (a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law; (b) furthering the development of commercial, economic, cultural and scientific relations between the sending State and the receiving State and otherwise promoting friendly relations between them in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention; (c) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State and giving information to persons interested; (d)

issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and visas or appropriate

documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State; (e)

helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending State;

4

(f) acting as notary and civil registrar and in capacities of a similar kind, and performing certain functions of an administrative nature, provided that there is nothing contrary thereto in the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (g)

safeguarding the interests of nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, of the sending

States in cases of succession mortis causa in the territory of the receiving State, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons; (i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defence of their rights and interests; (j)

transmitting judicial and extrajudicial documents or executing letters rogatory or commissions to

take evidence for the courts of the sending State in accordance with international agreements in force or, in the absence of such international agreements, in any other manner compatible with the laws and regulations of the receiving State; (k) exercising rights of supervision and inspection provided for in the laws and regulations of the sending State in respect of vessels having the nationality of the sending State, and of aircraft registered in that State, and in respect of their crews; (l)

extending assistance to vessels and aircraft mentioned in subparagraph (k) of this article, and to

their crews, taking statements regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping the ship’s papers, and, without prejudice to the powers of the authorities of the receiving State, conducting investigations into any incidents which occurred during the voyage, and settling disputes of any kind between the master, the officers and the seamen insofar as this may be authorized by the laws and regulations of the sending State; (m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State. Article 6 Exercise of consular functions outside the consular district A consular officer may, in special circumstances, with the consent of the receiving State, exercise his functions outside his consular district.

5

Article 7 Exercise of consular functions in a third State The sending State may, after notifying the States concerned, entrust a consular post established in a particular State with the exercise of consular functions in another State, unless there is express objection by one of the States concerned. Article 8 Exercise of consular functions on behalf of a third State Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of the sending State may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise consular functions in the receiving State on behalf of a third State. Article 9 Classes of heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts are divided into four classes, namely (a)

consuls-general;

(b)

consuls;

(c)

vice-consuls;

(d)

consular agents.

2. Paragraph 1 of this article in no way restricts the right of any of the Contracting Parties to fix the designation of consular officers other than the heads of consular posts. Article 10 Appointment and admission of heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending State and are admitted to the exercise of their functions by the receiving State. 2. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, the formalities for the appointment and for the admission of the head of a consular post are determined by the laws, regulations and usages of the sending State and of the receiving State respectively. Article 11 The consular commission or notification of appointment 1. The head of a consular post shall be provided by the sending State with a document, in the form of a commission or similar instrument, made out for each appointment, certifying his capacity and

6

showing, as a general rule, his full name, his category and class, the consular district and the seat of the consular post. 2. The sending State shall transmit the commission or similar instrument through the diplomatic or other appropriate channel to the Government of the State in whose territory the head of a consular post is to exercise his functions. 3. If the receiving State agrees, the sending State may, instead of a commission or similar instrument, send to the receiving State a notification containing the particulars required by paragraph 1 of this article. Article 12 The exequatur 1. The head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions by an authorization from the receiving State termed an exequatur, whatever the form of this authorization. 2. A State which refused to grant an exequatur is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for such refusal. 3. Subject to the provisions of articles 13 and 15, the head of a consular post shall not enter upon his duties until he has received an exequatur. Article 13 Provisional admission of heads of consular posts Pending delivery of the exequatur, the head of a consular post may be admitted on a provisional basis to the exercise of his functions. In that case, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply. Article 14 Notification to the authorities of the consular district As soon as the head of a consular post is admitted even provisionally to the exercise of his functions, the receiving State shall immediately notify the competent authorities of the consular district. It shall also ensure that the necessary measures are taken to enable the head of a consular post to carry out the duties of his office and to have the benefit of the provisions of the present Convention. Article 15 Temporary exercise of the functions of the head of a consular post 1. If the head of a consular post is unable to carry out his functions or the position of head of consular post is vacant, an acting head of post may act provisionally as head of the consular post. 2. The full name of the acting head of post shall be notified either by the diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular

7

post, or, if he is unable to do so, by any competent authority of the sending State, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. As a general rule, this notification shall be given in advance. The receiving State may make the admission as acting head of post of a person who is neither a diplomatic agent nor a consular officer of the sending State in the receiving State conditional on its consent. 3. The competent authorities of the receiving State shall afford assistance and protection to the acting head of post. While he is in charge of the post, the provisions of the present Convention shall apply to him on the same basis as to the head of the consular post concerned. The receiving State shall not, however, be obliged to grant to an acting head of post any facility, privilege or immunity which the head of the consular post enjoys only subject to conditions not fulfilled by the acting head of post. 4. When, in the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, a member of the diplomatic staff of the diplomatic mission of the sending State in the receiving State is designated by the sending State as an acting head of post, he shall, if the receiving State does not object thereto, continue to enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. Article 16 Precedence as between heads of consular posts 1. Heads of consular posts shall rank in each class according to the date of the grant of the exequatur. 2. If, however, the head of a consular post before obtaining the exequatur is admitted to the exercise of his functions provisionally, his precedence shall be determined according to the date of the provisional admission; this precedence shall be maintained after the granting of the exequatur. 3. The order of precedence as between two or more heads of consular posts who obtained the exequatur or provisional admission on the same date shall be determined according to the dates on which their commissions or similar instruments or the notifications referred to in paragraph 3 of article 11 were presented to the receiving State. 4. Acting heads of posts shall rank after all heads of consular posts and, as between themselves, they shall rank according to the dates on which they assumed their functions as acting heads of posts as indicated in the notifications given under paragraph 2 of article 15. 5. Honorary consular officers who are heads of consular posts shall rank in each class after career heads of consular posts, in the order and according to the rules laid down in the foregoing paragraphs. 6. Heads of consular posts shall have precedence over consular officers not having that status. Article 17 Performance of diplomatic acts by consular officers 1. In a State where the sending State has no diplomatic mission and is not represented by a diplomatic mission of a third State, a consular officer may, with the consent of the receiving State, and

8

without affecting his consular status, be authorized to perform diplomatic acts. The performance of such acts by a consular officer shall not confer upon him any right to claim diplomatic privileges and immunities. 2. A consular officer may, after notification addressed to the receiving State, act as representative of the sending State to any intergovernmental organization. When so acting, he shall be entitled to enjoy any privileges and immunities accorded to such a representative by customary international law or by international agreements; however, in respect of the performance by him of any consular function, he shall not be entitled to any greater immunity from jurisdiction than that to which a consular officer is entitled under the present Convention. Article 18 Appointment of the same person by two or more States as a consular officer Two or more States may, with the consent of the receiving State, appoint the same person as a consular officer in that State. Article 19 Appointment of members of consular staff 1. Subject to the provisions of articles 20, 22 and 23, the sending State may freely appoint the members of the consular staff. 2. The full name, category and class of all consular officers, other than the head of a consular post, shall be notified by the sending State to the receiving State in sufficient time for the receiving State, if it so wishes, to exercise its rights under paragraph 3 of article 23. 3. The sending State may, if required by its laws and regulations, request the receiving State to grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post. 4. The receiving State may, if required by its laws and regulations, grant an exequatur to a consular officer other than the head of a consular post. Article 20 Size of the consular staff In the absence of an express agreement as to the size of the consular staff, the receiving State may require that the size of the staff be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard to circumstances and conditions in the consular district and to the needs of the particular consular post.

9

Article 21 Precedence as between consular officers of a consular post The order of precedence as between the consular officers of a consular post and any change thereof shall be notified by the diplomatic mission of the sending State or, if that State has no such mission in the receiving State, by the head of the consular post, to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. Article 22 Nationality of consular officers 1. Consular officers should, in principle, have the nationality of the sending State. 2. Consular officers may not be appointed from among persons having the nationality of the receiving State except with the express consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time. 3. The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State. Article 23 Persons declared “non grata” 1. The receiving State may at any time notify the sending State that a consular officer is persona non grata or that any other member of the consular staff is not acceptable. In that event, the sending State shall, as the case may be, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the consular post. 2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable time to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may, as the case may be, either withdraw the exequatur from the person concerned or cease to consider him as a member of the consular staff. 3. A person appointed as a member of a consular post may be declared unacceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State or, if already in the receiving State, before entering on his duties with the consular post. In any such case, the sending State shall withdraw his appointment. 4. In the cases mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this article, the receiving State is not obliged to give to the sending State reasons for its decision. Article 24 Notification to the receiving State of appointments, arrivals and departures 1. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or the authority designated by that Ministry shall be notified of:

10

(a) the appointment of members of a consular post, their arrival after appointment to the consular post, their final departure or the termination of their functions and any other changes affecting their status that may occur in the course of their service with the consular post; (b)

the arrival and final departure of a person belonging to the family of a member of a consular post

forming part of his household and, where appropriate, the fact that a person becomes or ceases to be such a member of the family; (c) the arrival and final departure of members of the private staff and, where appropriate, the termination of their service as such; (d) the engagement and discharge of persons resident in the receiving State as members of a consular post or as members of the private staff entitled to privileges and immunities. 2. When possible, prior notification of arrival and final departure shall also be given. SECTION

II.

END OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

Article 25 Termination of the functions of a member of a consular post The functions of a member of a consular post shall come to an end, inter alia: (a)

on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his functions have come to an end;

(b)

on withdrawal of the exequatur;

(c)

on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the receiving State has ceased to

consider him as a member of the consular staff. Article 26 Departure from the territory of the receiving State The receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, grant to members of the consular post and members of the private staff, other than nationals of the receiving State, and to members of their families forming part of their households irrespective of nationality, the necessary time and facilities to enable them to prepare their departure and to leave at the earliest possible moment after the termination of the functions of the members concerned. In particular, it shall, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property other than property acquired in the receiving State the export of which is prohibited at the time of departure.

11

Article 27 Protection of consular premises and archives and of the interests of the sending State in exceptional circumstances 1. In the event of the severance of consular relations between two States: (a)

the receiving State shall, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the consular premises,

together with the property of the consular post and the consular archives; (b)

the sending State may entrust the custody of the consular premises, together with the property

contained therein and the consular archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State; (c)

the sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third

State acceptable to the receiving State. 2. In the event of the temporary or permanent closure of a consular post, the provisions of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. In addition, (a)

if the sending State, although not represented in the receiving State by a diplomatic mission, has

another consular post in the territory of that State, that consular post may be entrusted with the custody of the premises of the consular post which has been closed, together with the property contained therein and the consular archives, and, with the consent of the receiving State, with the exercise of consular functions in the district of that consular post; or (b)

if the sending State has no diplomatic mission and no other consular post in the receiving State,

the provisions of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article shall apply. C HAPTER II. FACILITIES, P RIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES R ELATING TO C ONSULAR P OSTS , CAREER C ONSULAR O FFICERS AND O THER M EMBERS OF A C ONSULAR P OST SECTION I. FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES RELATING TO A CONSULAR POST

Article 28 Facilities for the work of the consular post The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the consular post. Article 29 Use of national flag and coat-of-arms 1. The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag and coat-of-arms in the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of this article.

12

2. The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms displayed on the building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance door thereof, on the residence of the head of the consular post and on his means of transport when used on official business. 3. In the exercise of the right accorded by this article regard shall be had to the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State. Article 30 Accommodation 1. The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws and regulations, by the sending State of premises necessary for its consular post or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way. 2. It shall also, where necessary, assist the consular post in obtaining suitable accommodation for its members. Article 31 Inviolability of the consular premises 1. Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this article. 2. The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity. 4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility. If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions, and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State. Article 32 Exemption from taxation of consular premises 1. Consular premises and the residence of the career head of consular post of which the sending State or any person acting on its behalf is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.

13

2. The exemption from taxation referred to paragraph 1 of this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the law of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the sending State or with the person acting on its behalf. Article 33 Inviolability of the consular archives and documents The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be. Article 34 Freedom of movement Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibited or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving State shall ensure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all members of the consular post. Article 35 Freedom of communication 1. The receiving State shall permit and protect freedom of communication on the part of the consular post for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government, the diplomatic missions and other consular posts, wherever situated, of the sending State, the consular post may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic or consular couriers, diplomatic or consular bags and messages in code or cipher. However, the consular post may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State. 2. The official correspondence of the consular post shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the consular post and its functions. 3. The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. Nevertheless, if the competent authorities of the receiving State have serious reason to believe that the bag contains something other than the correspondence, documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4 of this article, they may request that the bag be opened in their presence by an authorized representative of the sending State. If this request is refused by the authorities of the sending State, the bag shall be returned to its place of origin. 4. The packages constituting the consular bag shall bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only official correspondence and documents or articles intended exclusively for official use. 5. The consular courier shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the consular bag. Except with the consent of the receiving State he shall be neither a national of the receiving State, nor, unless he is a national of the sending State, a permanent resident of the receiving State. In the performance of his functions he shall be protected by the receiving State. He shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

14

6. The sending State, its diplomatic missions and its consular posts may designate consular couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the consular bag in his charge. 7. A consular bag may be entrusted to the captain of a ship or of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag, but he shall not be considered to be a consular courier. By arrangement with the appropriate local authorities, the consular post may send one of its members to take possession of the bag directly and freely from the captain of the ship or of the aircraft. Article 36 Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State 1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State: (a)

consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have

access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; (c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended.

15

Article 37 Information in cases of deaths, guardianship or trusteeship, wrecks and air accidents If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty: (a) in the case of the death of a national of the sending State, to inform without delay the consular post in whose district the death occurred; (b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments; (c)

if a vessel, having the nationality of the sending State, is wrecked or runs aground in the

territorial sea or internal waters of the receiving State, or if an aircraft registered in the sending State suffers an accident on the territory of the receiving State, to inform without delay the consular post nearest to the scene of the occurrence. Article 38 Communication with the authorities of the receiving State In the exercise of their functions, consular officers may address: (a)

the competent local authorities of their consular district;

(b) the competent central authorities of the receiving State if and to the extent that this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by the relevant international agreements. Article 39 Consular fees and charges 1. The consular post may levy in the territory of the receiving State the fees and charges provided by the laws and regulations of the sending State for consular acts. 2. The sums collected in the form of the fees and charges referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, and the receipts for such fees and charges, shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in the receiving State.

16

SECTION II . FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES RELATING TO CAREER CONSULAR OFFICERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A CONSULAR POST

Article 40 Protection of consular officers The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity. Article 41 Personal inviolability of consular officers 1. Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority. 2. Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect. 3. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay. Article 42 Notification of arrest, detention or prosecution In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the consular staff, or of criminal proceedings being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of the consular post. Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall notify the sending State through the diplomatic channel. Article 43 Immunity from jurisdiction 1. Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in respect of a civil action either:

17

(a)

arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular employee in which he did

not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sending State; or (b)

by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State caused by a vehicle,

vessel or aircraft. Article 44 Liability to give evidence 1. Members of a consular post may be called upon to attend as witnesses in the course of judicial or administrative proceedings. A consular employee or a member of the service staff shall not, except in the cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of this article, decline to give evidence. If a consular officer should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied to him. 2. The authority requiring the evidence of a consular officer shall avoid interference with the performance of his functions. It may, when possible, take such evidence at his residence or at the consular post or accept a statement from him in writing. 3. Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions or to produce official correspondence and documents relating thereto. They are also entitled to decline to give evidence as expert witnesses with regard to the law of the sending State. Article 45 Waiver of privileges and immunities 1. The sending State may waive, with regard to a member of the consular post, any of the privileges and immunities provided for in articles 41, 43 and 44. 2. The waiver shall in all cases be express, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article, and shall be communicated to the receiving State in writing. 3. The initiation of proceedings by a consular officer or a consular employee in a matter where he might enjoy immunity from jurisdiction under article 43 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counterclaim directly connected with the principal claim. 4. The waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be deemed to imply the waiver of immunity from the measures of execution resulting from the judicial decision; in respect of such measures, a separate waiver shall be necessary.

18

Article 46 Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits 1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply to any consular employee who is not a permanent employee of the sending State or who carries on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State or to any member of the family of any such employee. Article 47 Exemption from work permits 1. Members of the consular post shall, with respect to services rendered for the sending State, be exempt from any obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning the employment of foreign labour. 2. Members of the private staff of consular officers and of consular employees shall, if they do not carry on any other gainful occupation in the receiving State, be exempt from the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 of this article. Article 48 Social security exemption 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of this article, members of the consular post with respect to services rendered by them for the sending State, and members of their families forming part of their households, shall be exempt from social security provisions which may be in force in the receiving State. 2. The exemption provided for in paragraph 1 of this article shall apply also to members of the private staff who are in the sole employ of members of the consular post, on condition: (a)

that they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State; and

(b) that they are covered by the social security provisions which are in force in the sending State or a third State. 3. Members of the consular post who employ persons to whom the exemption provided for in paragraph 2 of this article does not apply shall observe the obligations which the social security provisions of the receiving State impose upon employers. 4. The exemption provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article shall not preclude voluntary participation in the social security system of the receiving State, provided that such participation is permitted by that State.

19

Article 49 Exemption from taxation 1. Consular officers and consular employees and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, except: (a)

indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or services;

(b) dues or taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, subject to the provisions of article 32; (c) estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, levied by the receiving State, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of article 51; (d) dues and taxes on private income, including capital gains, having its source in the receiving State and capital taxes relating to investments made in commercial or financial undertakings in the receiving State; (e)

charges levied for specific services rendered;

(f) registration, court or record fees, mortgage dues and stamp duties, subject to the provisions of article 32. 2. Members of the service staff shall be exempt from dues and taxes on the wages which they receive for their services. 3. Members of the consular post who employ persons whose wages or salaries are not exempt from income tax in the receiving State shall observe the obligations which the laws and regulations of that State impose upon employers concerning the levying of income tax. Article 50 Exemption from customs duties and inspection 1. The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services, on: (a)

articles for the official use of the consular post;

(b)

articles for the personal use of a consular officer or members of his family forming part of his

household, including articles intended for his establishment. The articles intended for consumption shall not exceed the quantities necessary for direct utilization by the persons concerned. 2. Consular employees shall enjoy the privileges and exemptions specified in paragraph 1 of this article in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.

20

3. Personal baggage accompanying consular officers and members of their families forming part of their households shall be exempt from inspection. It may be inspected only if there is serious reason to believe that it contains articles other than those referred to in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this article, or articles the import or export of which is prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or which are subject to its quarantine laws and regulations. Such inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the consular officer or member of his family concerned. Article 51 Estate of a member of the consular post or of a member of his family In the event of the death of a member of the consular post or of a member of his family forming part of his household, the receiving State: (a) shall permit the export of the movable property of the deceased, with the exception of any such property acquired in the receiving State the export of which was prohibited at the time of his death; (b) shall not levy national, regional or municipal estate, succession or inheritance duties, and duties on transfers, on movable property the presence of which in the receiving State was due solely to the presence in that State of the deceased as a member of the consular post or as a member of the family of a member of the consular post. Article 52 Exemption from personal services and contributions The receiving State shall exempt members of the consular post and members of their families forming part of their households from all personal services, from all public service of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. Article 53 Beginning and end of consular privileges and immunities 1. Every member of the consular post shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties with the consular post. 2. Members of the family of a member of the consular post forming part of his household and members of his private staff shall receive the privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention from the date from which he enjoys privileges and immunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article or from the date of their entry into the territory of the receiving State or from the date of their becoming a member of such family or private staff, whichever is the latest. 3. When the functions of a member of the consular post have come to an end, his privileges and immunities and those of a member of his family forming part of his household or a member of his

21

private staff shall normally cease at the moment when the person concerned leaves the receiving State or on the expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, whichever is the sooner, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. In the case of the persons referred to in paragraph 2 of this article, their privileges and immunities shall come to an end when they cease to belong to the household or to be in the service of a member of the consular post provided, however, that if such persons intend leaving the receiving State within a reasonable period thereafter, their privileges and immunities shall subsist until the time of their departure. 4. However, with respect to acts performed by a consular officer or a consular employee in the exercise of his functions, immunity from jurisdiction shall continue to subsist without limitation of time. 5. In the event of the death of a member of the consular post, the members of his family forming part of his household shall continue to enjoy the privileges and immunities accorded to them until they leave the receiving State or until the expiry of a reasonable period enabling them to do so, whichever is the sooner. Article 54 Obligations of third States 1. If a consular officer passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a visa if a visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or return to his post or when returning to the sending State, the third State shall accord to him all immunities provided for by the other articles of the present Convention as may be required to ensure his transit or return. The same shall apply in the case of any member of his family forming part of his household enjoying such privileges and immunities who are accompanying the consular officer or travelling separately to join him or to return to the sending State. 2. In circumstances similar to those specified in paragraph 1 of this article, third States shall not hinder the transit through their territory of other members of the consular post or of members of their families forming part of their households. 3. Third States shall accord to official correspondence and to other official communications in transit, including messages in code or cipher, the same freedom and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord under the present Convention. They shall accord to consular couriers who have been granted a visa, if a visa was necessary, and to consular bags in transit, the same inviolability and protection as the receiving State is bound to accord under the present Convention. 4. The obligations of third States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this article shall also apply to the persons mentioned respectively in those paragraphs, and to official communications and to consular bags, whose presence in the territory of the third State is due to force majeure.

22

Article 55 Respect for the laws and regulations of the receiving State 1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State. 2. The consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions. 3. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this article shall not exclude the possibility of offices of other institutions or agencies being installed in part of the building in which the consular premises are situated, provided that the premises assigned to them are separate from those used by the consular post. In that event, the said offices shall not, for the purposes of the present Convention, be considered to form part of the consular premises. Article 56 Insurance against third party risks Members of the consular post shall comply with any requirements imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, in respect of insurance against third party risks arising from the use of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft. Article 57 Special provisions concerning private gainful occupation 1. Career consular officers shall not carry on for personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the receiving State. 2. Privileges and immunities provided in this chapter shall not be accorded: (a) to consular employees or to members of the service staff who carry on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State; (b) to members of the family of a person referred to in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph or to members of his private staff; (c) to members of the family of a member of a consular post who themselves carry on any private gainful occupation in the receiving State.

23

C HAPTER III. R EGIME R ELATING TO H ONORARY C ONSULAR O FFICERS AND C ONSULAR P OSTS H EADED BY SUCH O FFICERS Article 58 General provisions relating to facilities, privileges and immunities 1. Articles 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, paragraph 3 of article 54 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 55 shall apply to consular posts headed by an honorary consular officer. In addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular posts shall be governed by articles 59, 60, 61 and 62. 2. Articles 42 and 43, paragraph 3 of article 44, articles 45 and 53 and paragraph 1 of article 55 shall apply to honorary consular officers. In addition, the facilities, privileges and immunities of such consular officers shall be governed by articles 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. 3. Privileges and immunities provided in the present Convention shall not be accorded to members of the family of an honorary consular officer or of a consular employee employed at a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer. 4. The exchange of consular bags between two consular posts headed by honorary consular officers in different States shall not be allowed without the consent of the two receiving States concerned. Article 59 Protection of the consular premises The receiving State shall take such steps as may be necessary to protect the consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity. Article 60 Exemption from taxation of consular premises 1. Consular premises of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer of which the sending State is the owner or lessee shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes whatsoever, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered. 2. The exemption from taxation referred to in paragraph l of this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes if, under the laws and regulations of the receiving State, they are payable by the person who contracted with the sending State.

24

Article 61 Inviolability of consular archives and documents The consular archives and documents of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be, provided that they are kept separate from other papers and documents and, in particular, from the private correspondence of the head of a consular post and of any person working with him, and from the materials, books or documents relating to their profession or trade. Article 62 Exemption from customs duties The receiving State shall, in accordance with such laws and regulations as it may adopt, permit entry of, and grant exemption from all customs duties, taxes, and related charges other than charges for storage, cartage and similar services on the following articles, provided that they are for the official use of a consular post headed by an honorary consular officer: coats-of-arms, flags, signboards, seals and stamps, books, official printed matter, office furniture, office equipment and similar articles supplied by or at the instance of the sending State to the consular post. Article 63 Criminal proceedings If criminal proceedings are instituted against an honorary consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and, except when he is under arrest or detention, in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When it has become necessary to detain an honorary consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be instituted with the minimum of delay. Article 64 Protection of honorary consular officers The receiving State is under a duty to accord to an honorary consular officer such protection as may be required by reason of his official position. Article 65 Exemption from registration of aliens and residence permits Honorary consular officers, with the exception of those who carry on for personal profit any professional or commercial activity in the receiving State, shall be exempt from all obligations under the laws and regulations of the receiving State in regard to the registration of aliens and residence permits.

25

Article 66 Exemption from taxation An honorary consular officer shall be exempt from all dues and taxes on the remuneration and emoluments which he receives from the sending State in respect of the exercise of consular functions. Article 67 Exemption from personal services and contributions The receiving State shall exempt honorary consular officers from all personal services and from all public services of any kind whatsoever and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting. Article 68 Optional character of the institution of honorary consular officers Each State is free to decide whether it will appoint or receive honorary consular officers. C HAPTER IV. G ENERAL P ROVISIONS Article 69 Consular agents who are not heads of consular posts 1. Each State is free to decide whether it will establish or admit consular agencies conducted by consular agents not designated as heads of consular post by the sending State. 2. The conditions under which the consular agencies referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may carry on their activities and the privileges and immunities which may be enjoyed by the consular agents in charge of them shall be determined by agreement between the sending State and the receiving State. Article 70 Exercise of consular functions by diplomatic missions 1. The provisions of the present Convention apply also, so far as the context permits, to the exercise of consular functions by a diplomatic mission. 2. The names of members of a diplomatic mission assigned to the consular section or otherwise charged with the exercise of the consular functions of the mission shall be notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or to the authority designated by that Ministry. 3. In the exercise of consular functions a diplomatic mission may address: (a)

the local authorities of the consular district;

26

(b) the central authorities of the receiving State if this is allowed by the laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State or by relevant international agreements. 4. The privileges and immunities of the members of a diplomatic mission referred to in paragraph 2 of this article shall continue to be governed by the rules of international law concerning diplomatic relations. Article 71 Nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State 1. Except insofar as additional facilities, privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, consular officers who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction and personal inviolability in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of their functions, and the privileges provided in paragraph 3 of article 44. So far as these consular officers are concerned, the receiving State shall likewise be bound by the obligation laid down in article 42. If criminal proceedings are instituted against such a consular officer, the proceedings shall, except when he is under arrest or detention, be conducted in a manner which will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. 2. Other members of the consular post who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State and members of their families, as well as members of the families of consular officers referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, shall enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as these are granted to them by the receiving State. Those members of the families of members of the consular post and those members of the private staff who are themselves nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall likewise enjoy facilities, privileges and immunities only insofar as these are granted to them by the receiving State. The receiving State shall, however, exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a way as not to hinder unduly the performance of the functions of the consular post. Article 72 Non-discrimination 1. In the application of the provisions of the present Convention the receiving State shall not discriminate as between States. 2. However, discrimination shall not be regarded as taking place: (a) where the receiving State applies any of the provisions of the present Convention restrictively because of a restrictive application of that provision to its consular posts in the sending State; (b) where by custom or agreement States extend to each other more favourable treatment than is required by the provisions of the present Convention.

27

Article 73 Relationship between the present Convention and other international agreements 1. The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect other international agreements in force as between States Parties to them. 2. Nothing in the present Convention shall preclude States from concluding international agreements confirming or supplementing or extending or amplifying the provisions thereof. C HAPTER V. F INAL P ROVISIONS Article 74 Signature The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention, as follows: until 31 October 1963 at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Austria and subsequently, until 31 March 1964, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Article 75 Ratification The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 76 Accession The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. Article 77 Entry into force 1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.

28

Article 78 Notifications by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74: (a) of signatures to the present Convention and of the deposit of instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with articles 74, 75 and 76; (b)

of the date on which the present Convention will enter into force, in accordance with article 77. Article 79 Authentic texts

The original of the present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States belonging to any of the four categories mentioned in article 74. IN

WITNESS WHEREOF

the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their

respective Governments, have signed the present Convention. D ONE at Vienna this twenty-fourth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-three. _____________

29

a

D.

-

nw. Drecnnn~c%Errarr~caarn

~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

SmnPROU

urnmar--

u-

u-4 M .

lnuasr+lllbubmLaoadlWmsd w l r u ~ w o l n i dmuit: ~ . -mnm

R D~REL

OUR.

s n m m & m D . aoa.

XI. • mm. bmn

u-

nmt

I : * /

4, -1.

..

bu kr BUh.

writmla~,-1.

r w w l y .

-

* -I . a w . of tnnlcrip a*h

c h t b . 1 ~ crrimd . ..a

lrul

c m m . o f . o r h ~ r s i x q ( b Q ) 6 q . r t o ~ L b .

l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~ b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . . ill-.LiblRam: d Lldl-1CO3- -.lr b 1. Y h t -8

IPSLPC .ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k bq~.-L.x.~.Idbmbywmdmc.aorla brrram~ar&.rtb.,ok.e,rlm.

--

-.

r ta

a

-.

-

-I"&.

oL rtn Lia.11-

thi.

Iw-

&

d., .IOI S .-

6W M U m Of CaDH1

c..r rp 9rAEn U

D.

-.

LLL.lb.c

&.-...

r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -

epnthllr sham a f a l l a r t I n m t ~ I I a r a a t ~ m S . = b n a a a ~ r r e b a b r . r n L l a c a i ~ , U t Y m d ~ ~

t&t Uballr L. NU*

apahlll, Sum 6 - 8

IWasQa srrrs.

-,

.s 17D

k.-.Ct.. II

-.

i.

~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W

IW, S u m d IlnaU. on

ma MI-

CD

~~ Z . l % L ,

pal-

u

c

by

d .ad

mrdnc.th.td.C.Lmbun~mnal.uLIDO.Il11"u..

m f b t U L . w m d U t d U lrt

lad

% tb. '01.

-

4 OM*

oi Oi fL. d

&

-.

L. 170 ClkW. 7 .

-r

1%

nu-In*

c ~ s r t s - y o t . I d p ~ b L h . ~ d m . -1m. Wi. tbh d., ol

Ir IpB Ib. kLb.1 P U S O . n ~ N1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh

Wrp.W 1-t.

tra

Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-

dm . h l l d bm b.ta D o m ; 4. b d t r . r b . c b a r d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t a t o ~

a c e b,

-17; ~.o~auh.l..~trm-r*~llr~.nip

amem mmc hp ~ .ofrlet

2 .

3.

-:nia-tormre..m-..w~~nd d. norm eulp nawsoa; s d d W

unm uw:

4

m r t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b .W m f i l e b m L d d t b t b m c i a h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d

u

--

. . I I - o L . @ Y W I r ~ . C U U b . l l ~ b

uhaLI.hdd*tU..i.Irrot~tLrra~ ~t.a.0.llr~l,brdLI..u..YUL.llr

EXHIBIT

E

Dr. orly Tail& A r n r a e y d - L m 29839 S M a g y l t a Pkwy Ranelm Son61 MPT&Prlt.CA 92688 pb. 949-683-541 1 fax 949-766-7603 California State Bmr No.: 223433 E-Mall: dr ta1k'?t%8vahoo.com

1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN)DIVISION

W r n Pamela Bmett, ct al., Plaintiffi, Civil Adion:

v.

Baracl;HusseinObama, Michdle L.R Obamq tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State. 14 Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens, Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and 15 Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre ~el'&~s. 16 NOTICE O F FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbnof Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S 18 1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS

I

u

wj/

I

destruction in the nwr future. Plaintiffs fear that evidence relating to the' cause may be destroyed as soon as it is identified as relevant to the 5 questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the.Court1 to consider allowing the Plaintiffs to take depositions pursuant to the "spirit" of Rule 27, even though a case has already beea filcd, but prior to 8 the Rule 2 q f ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal 9 discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure. I0 PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS I1 Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t

California Bar ID Na 223433

18

Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

19

Respectfully submiaed

a3 21,

F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9

&

Dr. O d y T.itrEka 6 B N 223433) Rancho S a n l a - ~ a r g a r i t a 92928 -~~ ph. 949-683-54 11 fax 949-5862082 California Bar W No. 223433

I'

2 3

PROOR O F S e R n C E

4

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN)DIVISION

Ithe~mdasignedCharfeaEdwa~dLhrolo.being overtheageof l8andnota

5

partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.

6

Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic

copies of thc PlahntifB' above-

1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantionof Lucas Daniel

7

1

8

Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs

10

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F LelTERS ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

I1

TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., T O PERPETUATE

CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY

1

TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT M ~ R ROGATORY S PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2) to all of & hcfdlowmg m m p m y sllomeys arhosc rtmxs w m f i e d to the

I

"STATEMENT0FINTEREST"whokappearcdmthisem~wih

Disain of calihnin,to wit:

'Il. I2

'5

l6 1711 LEON w. WELDMAN

.Il

l7

ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov( b i g n a t e j I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ

19 1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009) DAVlDkLkJUTE

l9

ao

21 FACSIMILE (213)894-7819 22

I

all

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday lhc 4'day of SqHanba, 2009.

22

ar 25

a5

"

'

28 1746 DsLntlea 01Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M 1 M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC any kind or condition. 2. 1am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and l was born and raised in the state of Iowa. 3. I have m n a l lmowledge of all the facts and circNmstances described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to ofthe same. 4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in Mombasa, Kenya 5. 1 visited the hospital accompaniedby one more penon, a nahual born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as "Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo"). 6. 1traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particularwith the intent to obtain the original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama,as I was told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the ~ U S C g l 7 4 6 D o r r . r * . ~ ~ s l b * ~ A l-4N 9

N&aJirmsL4dmwb4

A-'n

- # / A h

mm-rn~rnm DL(.TA"Z

mu~u%ml!!

Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I

M U u t f

-m.~-r*mmcat

EXHIBIT F

1

1

2

2 3

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein

3

4

Obama's cousin.

4

5

7.

6

duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth

6

7

certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.

7

8

8.

The copy was signed by the hospital administrator.

8

9

9.

The copy contain the embossed seal.

9

10

10.

The true and correct photocopy of the Birth certificate obtained, is

10

11

attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A.

11

12

11.

12

13

under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

13

14

statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true

14

15

and correct.

15

16

12.

I have not received any compensation for making this affidavit.

16

17

Further, Declarant saith naught.

17

18

Signed and executed in ____________, ___________ on this _____

18

19

,KDGWRSD\DFDVK³FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´WRD.HQ\DQPLOLWDU\RIILcer on

I declare, certify, verify, state, and affirm under penalty of perjury

day of September, 2009.

20

21

23

Exhibit A: /XFDV'DQLHO6PLWK¶V3KRWRFRS\RI Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

19

20

22

5

21

By:_____________________________ Lucas Daniel Smith

22 23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 5±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 6±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Exhibit A: Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

- 6–

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

----

EXHIBIT

__

G

S b In IRsgLsMr Now TODAY'S Subs&x

SEARCH: Tly Our New Search

.

.

NEWSPAPER IPObtPoinls

@ l~wrshingLon~.cMn

Web :Revr1IU lry

(&qif

I Seardl Archives

[email protected] PolMcr > mo Fix

About Chn. WUW

I on h i t ~ ~Tho r : Fix and TIM Hyper f l x I on Facebook I On YouTutm I

a m ETWdlSMSmO

White House polical director Patrick Gaspard met last Monday with New York Gw. David Patemon (D) to express concsm about the incumbent's chances at winning re-election in 2010, according to several sources briefed on the matter.

i latest m csmpagnsand

P o l d b l rims .LweP&A

, .Tranncnpts .rnRSSFesd

1

HALLOFFAME

Cheaout~latsPl '

,

Fsod

Paterson, White House Adviser Huddled About ReElection

THE LIVE FLX

; JohtheFlxFrldsysal4

I

aRSS

Induwln* m's

-

Lessthan 24 hours after that meeting, Paterson announced that Richard Fife, a longtime New York operative and volunteer for President Barack % # l l &Zoo8 S pr&d&h! Calll@gll, h d 88 CarnMgIl managerfor his 2010 bid.

~0tMlnmheon

Sources on bdh sides said that the President did n d reach out to Paterson directly to ask him to leave the race. Gaspard, a former pdtiil diredor at the pwelful Service EmployeesInternationelUnion 1199 based in New York City, has a long rdationshipwith Patemon.

FIX PICKS

1

1 1,

-

RkhDadmwY~ LaunchY W Bu8lr10~8. Be your Om Boss. FREEworkshops

NOV.2-6

w w lil~nChyOUrbUSiMB5*1orkshop.~m

~~f~~

ch&.

! Cornems have been mounting about Paterson since he stepped into the

I

governorship following Gov. Elliot Spitzer's resignationafter it as revealed he frequented a high-end hooker. Paterson's rt+election numbers have tumbled over the past few months

i

Ron Paul is going to

and a rscant Marist Colleoe survey shavedjust one in five voters approving of the job he is doing. Paterson was also lm.ng badly to

*VasMoinesFeglrter

foriner New York City Rudy Giuliani, who will announce his political mtMWr.inmpd

, 5 MICIWI~O. ar Lem FrM.vW .USATodsy

:

'

SEARCH THIS BLOC I

' i

1

If Pate'rson runs and loses, it cwld haw widespread emda as the Empire State will redraw its legislative and congressional distdd lines following the 2010 census - a process the governor will have 1 considerable influence over. I September 20.2009; 0:W AM ET CJtegodes: Governors, Whlte H o w shsmm13: ~ ~ ~ e c r m o r a t l ~ ~ e l . l s l o . u s ~ ~ ( p p ~ ~ Previous: Ltuckabeewns values Vow Straw Pol! Wxt: Mornlna f l x : me W h b Home mvr (PolitleanHadbell By Ch- C i l l i p .

8

RECENT POSTS

I

OeSgeethose~~PaknronhasmademborvCpditid rearty - insistingthat he is running for and win win a second tam. State Attomev Genersl Andrew Cwmo (Dl is widelv seen as the referred 1Democ;atr.c nominee but seems to be . ,d i n g for Paterson to make a move before annovnang his intentiom.

'RomnsytOnisaSPPh

for DeMhd

.me I i

MM lmpomsm

Number In Politics Today

'

Morning F)x. A ~twocelebnmon

RepublicanRecruiting and the NationalEnvlmmenl (CU 9.2009) ~emng~tke C a m Is U I ~latest In a wries of recRw(memsucoeusesfor Senate

for the OM,

-

The Molt bnportam Number In P W u 7-y Romney on

Read More ojThe Line a

m:

"Unalloyed Evil'

EXHIBIT H

'

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL

..

Document 27

p7 7 fi k t , :.. 5.; .& % '"

!%, .

i ai

!g-3,.?; 0 .

.:.

..:*. JK- ;:I,:! :AXE :,-a:-

Filed 10/21/20 9 Page 1 of 1 %-h*

. 3

i ~ g h

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1 B d p , New YO& 11238 Telep-. (845) 901-6767

QP-

Email: [email protected] Christopher-Earl: Stnmk 0 in esse

Honorable David 0. Carter Judge, United States District Cornt Central District of California, Southern Division 41 1 West FadStrcct,Courtroom 9D Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Re:Bmett. et a1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082 Subject: Request for permission to transfer with the 28 USC $1407 Multidistrict matter $#run& v US DOS et al. DCD O&v-2234 (RJJ.,) with demand for Quo Warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro). The Honorable Judge Carter,

I am the P Chistopher-Ed: Strunk 0 in esse, in the r e W Case and make this smment under penalty of pejlPypursuant to 28 USC 1746. Declmt is self-represented in the above civil action on-going in Washington District of Columbia before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leon ordered a stay of dimvery pending a decision on my Quo Warmto demand for an inquest of multi-allegiance h t s associated with the August 4, 1%1 birth ofBamk Hussein Obama Jr., ak.a Barry Soetoro (the Usurper).That I duly fired theUsurpermJaanrary22,2089~tbeUs\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf sttomey as the Usurper has more than one allegiance at bhrth by bis own admission; and &enSm, with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the office of President accordiingto U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 5, because the Usurper is not a n W - W e n without two U.S. Citizen parents on August 4,196 1. Offiwther prima facie importance to the inquest are fectsfiled before this Court for vcrificatiw that prove the Ususper is not even a native-bomcitizen either, and thereby triggers review of facts as to Usurps's mtumhd citizen status also if proper allegiance filing is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia. Iam~~withthtfactsassoci~withtherCfdcasesas~harerC~and subject to comlidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that the U.S. Govemmmt has argued that any Quo Wananto be done in Washington District of Cohrmbia and I urge herein m e iswith a Multidistrid Judi this q u e s t hss been sent to Counsels and Court in both cases.

,hk....sg2m

Bmklyn New York

cc: Judge Richard J. Leon Brigham John Bowen, AUSA - o d Roger E. West AUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov Charles Edward L i i ~ n , - l l IEsq. , ~harlcs,lincoln~k~.com Dr.Orly Taitz, Esq. dr tai-.corn

EXHIBIT I

Carbon Communism P Source: 20'03'2009 Pravda.Ru

P URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/l07272carbon-communism-0

Ithink that the C02caused Global Warming theory is blse and unproven junk science.

But let's suppose for a moment that the C02 equals Global Warming equation is real. The wealthy elitists James Hansen, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and the other high-profile cheerleaders for C02 reduction are asking the poor and middle classes to suffer the consequences of a radical shutdown of global commerce and energy production in order to 'save the planet' from Global Warming. They want to make serfs of the masses of working people, while a privileged elite will be permitted to continue living in high style with a much larger 'carbon footprint' than the un-entitled lower classes. We should never let that happen. The only way that 'carbon rationing' should be allowed is by assigning the exact same carbon limit to all people everywhere. Al Gore, Barack Obama, a London cabbie, and a Kalahari Bushman should all be assigned exactly the same number of 'carbon credits', period. Let them trade their credits with each other, but everyone should be restricted to the same limited 'carbon credit' allowance. The long-term ultimate effect of this would be an economic leveling of society; essentially global Communism. Under such a system, no one would be able to accumulate an excess of personal property or wealth because they could never accumulate enough 'carbon credits' to do so. When Hansen, Gore, Blair, and Obama give up their patrician incomes and lifestyles and restrict their own 'carbon footprint' to the level of the common labourer or office worker, Iwill begin to believe that they are sincere about preventing Global Warming. Their obvious unwillingness to do what they are asking the rest of us to do proves that they are not sincere. They want the common people to sacrifice their lives to prevent Global Warming, while the wealthy retain their high-carbon consuming and producing privileges. We cannot permit a privileged elite to enjoy a 'highcarbon' lifestyle while the poor are restricted by law to a 'low-carbon' lifestyle. Any effort by any government to impose carbon rationing with preferential treatment to any class of people should be seen as sufficient reason for an all-out French-style revolution in which the majority population dispossess the elitists of their wealth, their positions of power, and their privilege. In a world that is constantly threatened by Global Warming, we cannot allow a greedy few to consume or produce in excess of the average 'carbon footprint' of the world's population as a whole. Barack Obama keeps the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the Oval Office while telling the rest of us to turn our thermostats down. James Hansen has received grants amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the Global Warming theory. A1 Gore has invested heavily in the 'carbon trading' brokerage business. All of these men jet around the world, live in oversized houses, and ride in limousines. If the common people are to be required by law to reduce our 'carbon footprint', we need to demand that our leaders and the wealthy elite be restricted to exactly the same carbon allowance as everyone else. We are not all together in the fight against Global Warming unless everyone is required to make the same sacrifices by sharing an equal 'carbon footprint' and an equal 'carbon ration', which should be assigned equally to every living person in the entire world. We need to hold the elitists' feet to the fire and require them to make exactly the same sacrifices as the rest of humanity. Individual carbon limits and carbon rationing? Bring them on. Viva la Revolucion! Gregory f egel

EXHIBIT

Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican's Quest for a World Political Authority By Carl Teichrib

I Published by America's Survival, Inc. ..-

--

www.usasurvival.org 443-964-82081

--. - . -

-

-

EXHIBIT K

-

This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains how the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role in the unfolding plan to establish a world government. Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why: x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vaticaninsider and author Malachi Martin described in his book The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an emerging world government. x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the power and authority of such global institutions as the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can be incorporated into this emerging world system, a possible or even likely result is global tyranny.

ʹ 

Introduction By Carl Teichrib* “Most of us are not competitors… We are the stakes. For the competition is about who will establish the first one-world system of government... No one can be exempted from its effects. No sector of our lives will remain untouched.”i – Malachi Martin. In 1990, a former Vatican-insider claimed that a titanic struggle was being waged to bring about a world political system. This contest, the now deceased Jesuit explained, was primarily between three players: international Leninism, transnational business elites, and the hand of the Vatican. Almost twenty years have passed since Malachi Martin drew attention to this three-way quest. At the time his assertions seemed over-the-top. Granted, the idea of a world government via communism wasn’t new as decades of Cold War posturing still played in our minds. And the writing was on the wall in respect to the growing power of international corporate and financial elites, exemplified by the likes of David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission. But the Vatican? For many, the belief that the Holy See was pursing a vision of world government was simply too much. After all, this ancient hub of Roman Catholicism had a reputation – especially among Europe’s agnostic youth – as an institution of old men, steeped in tradition, procession and ceremony. Never mind that the history of the Continent, more often than not, revolved around the Vatican’s political prowess. In the summer of 2009, the Holy See’s political cards were revealed in a major papal document. Harkening back to Malachi Martin’s talk of world government, the most powerful religious office on the planet had promoted a world political authority to manage the global economy. Food security, disarmament, and peace would follow suit. A sound global economy and world peace are noble sounding goals, to be sure. But the danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil of good intentions. ________________Q * Carl Teichrib is a Canadian-based researcher and the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly digest on global affairs from a Christian perspective. ͵ 

On July 7th, Pope Benedict released his new encyclical titled Caritas in Veritate, or “Charity in Truth.” Two years in the making, this document was disclosed on the eve of the G8 Summit in Italy and the Pope’s meeting with US President Barack Obama. Some 30,000 words long, this encyclical outlined the Pope’s concerns regarding globalization and economics, corporate ethics, and the role of the Catholic Church in promoting social doctrine. Commenting on the encyclical, The New York Times noted that, “sometimes Benedict sounds like an old-school European socialist…”ii And The San Francisco Chronicle explained that, “Caritas in Veritate addresses very modern issues such as globalization, market economy, hedge funds, outsourcing, and alternative energy, calling for people to put aside greed and let their consciences guide them in economic and environmental decisions. Many of the ideas put forward would likely rankle conservatives…”iii E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post, gushed that Benedict is “well to Obama’s left on economics.”iv While Pope Benedict’s perspective on the global economy was a perplexing blend of free-market and social welfare ideals, what raised eyebrows were his thoughts on international politics. In section 67 of Caritas in Veritate, the Pope dropped an ideological bombshell – a world authority to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” Here is a major part of section 67. The reference to a “world political authority” is very clear, and Pope Benedict explains that this international agency should be given the power of enforcement... “real teeth.” “In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decisionmaking. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political Ͷ 

authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums.” Immediate controversy surrounded this paragraph, with some Catholics quickly attempting to distance the idea that the Holy See would support world government Hierarchy Of Power John-Henry Westen, writing for LifeSiteNews, stated unequivocally that the Pope was speaking “directly against a one-world government.”v Westen’s justification for this position was the Pope’s call for a “dispersed political authority” in paragraph 41 – a reference to the role of States in the international system. Westen also brought up the use of the word “subsidiarity” in section 57 as a strike against world government. This is an important point: Subsidiarity is the Catholic social teaching that issues should be dealt with at the lowest level possible. In many respects it builds on the theme of self-determination, and in this sense it would seem antithetical to a world authority. Section 57 of Caritas in Veritate says, “In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.”

Mr. Westen, who claims that Benedict’s use of subsidiarity opposes world government, has misdiagnosed this section. The Pope is not speaking against one-world government by evoking subsidiarity; instead he’s offering a hierarchical model upon which to build an international ͷ 

authority. Essentially, where issues can be dealt with at the local or national level, let them be handled in this domain. And where issues are global and cannot be adequately addressed at a lower level, then a world authority is necessary. Pope Benedict also suggested that subsidiarity could be a safety value that checks the power of a universal government against taking on tyrannical traits. But to propose that subsidiarity is a counter to tyranny is unconvincing – it can’t even check the expansion of over-government today. John Laughland, author of The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, noted that, “…the German constitution has become increasingly centralised as a result of its subsidiarity clause.” The European Union also incorporates this concept, yet that hasn’t stopped the EU from centralizing political power and amassing a super-bloated bureaucracy. Subsidiarity, according to Laughland, is a model that assumes a “unitarian, pyramidal hierarchy of executive functions” with a decidedly corporatist doctrine.vi Subsidiarity can even be found in the UN system. Professor Robert Araujo explains that, “the principle of subsidiarity is recognized as a fundamental principle of the United Nations Organization.”vii Here, the concept is centered on self-determination under article 1, paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. Yet this doesn’t stop the UN from seeking empowered international jurisdiction under the banner of “reform.” It’s important to note that subsidiarity does allow for grassroots decisionmaking and self-direction, but it’s within the context of a broader perspective. Professor Araujo explains that it’s a “a concept synthesizing the interests of the individual with those of the community.” Hence, it’s not difficult to see how this principle can align itself with a world authority – you can pursue local political direction, but where local involvement ends then other levels of government step up for the “common good.” To say that Pope Benedict opposes world government because he evoked subsidiarity misses the point: subsidiarity plays a functioning role in a hierarchy of increasing political powers. What paragraph 57 demonstrates is not an aversion to world government, but the order of decision-making Benedict believes it should be based upon. Reform And World Authority Paragraph 67 of Caritas in Veritate is overtly political in nature. Here’s a breakdown of some key points. Y “Reform the United Nations” – UN reform centers on more than just “voting changes” or “transparency.” Rather, reform is connected to world ͸ 

taxation, a global enforcement component, and the creation of an international parliament. A small mountain of reports and documents that support this version of reform already exist, supported by the United Nations, national governments, and pro-UN groups such as the World Federalist Movement and the Club of Rome.viii In fact, this platform of international taxation, enforcement, and a world parliament were major discussion points at the UN Millennium Forum – particularly during the sessions hosted by the working group on “Strengthening and Democratizing the United Nations.”ix Cliff Kincaid, the President of America’s Survival, Inc. and editor of Accuracy in Media, noted the linkages between reform and global governance in section 67 of the papal text. “…the ‘reform’ of the U.N. is designed to strengthen it. Hence, the U.N. is clearly destined, from the Vatican point of view, to become the World Political Authority.”x Y “Responsibility to protect” – Known as R2P, this is a world federalist ideal that would give the UN a mandate to intervene domestically when a nation commits human rights violations. It sounds good on the surface, but critics – and even some advocates – realize that such a mandate may open Pandora’s Box. José E. Alvarez, President of the American Society of International Law, recognized this situation while addressing a conference on international law at The Hague in 2007. R2P, he suggested, could be used as a pretext to engage in all sorts of questionable, interventionist actions.xi Nobody in their right mind wishes for any people group to experience genocide or gross injustices. R2P, however, is a seriously flawed concept that has the potential for grave abuses. From a world management perspective, the Right to Protect becomes the legal justification for a world political authority to act militarily. The danger lurks in that the seeds of tyranny are often buried in the soil of good intentions.xii Y “To manage the global economy…” – This is already being discussed within the international community, and it’s looking like the new world financial order will be a top-down power structure that will greatly empower existing global institutions: Bank for International Settlements – to become the global banking regulator. The BIS is fast setting itself up as the international banking manager, a body that will oversee the world’s banks and financial system, including the regulation of international capital. An entity of this kind would be equivalent to a banker’s “king of the hill.” The Los Angeles Times wrote last year that, “…such a system would force countries to give up a measure of ͹ 

national sovereignty over banks operating within their borders. It also could lead to international bureaucrats trying to shape financial policy and possibly taking punitive action.”xiii International Monetary Fund – to become the world reserve currency bank. Under this scheme, the IMF would be charged with regulating a new global currency to be used in world trade, including the energy sector. Collaborating with the World Bank, the IMF would likewise use this new currency unit for international loans and debt obligations. National and regional currencies would still exist, at least for the interim, but values would react and adjust according to new global benchmarks. World Trade Organization – becoming the global trade regulator. The WTO would establish the rules for the trading of goods and services via a globally organized set of standard, a process it’s currently working through. National trade policies would hereafter line up with accepted world practices. All of this is already happening, but there’s a further link between global free trade and a new international financial system. Richard Cooper, while advocating a single global reserve currency, noted the following in a 1984 conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, “It would be logical if free [world] trade accompanied this single currency regime. That would also be consistent with the collaborative political spirit that would be required to establish the single currency regime. Free trade would insure one market in goods as well as in financial instruments.”xiv United Nations – fast becoming the global ethics and governance agency. The UN would give moral input and political guidance to the newly managed world economy. In essence, this body would become the “planetary consciousness,” shaping consumer and political attitudes, values, and behaviors. This too is already happening. At the end of June, the UN hosted a conference that outlined an accepted social norm for the global economy: an Earth-centric worldview, international socialism, and a New Age vision of planetary evolution. Remember, Benedict’s world political authority is supposed to manage the global economy. How will the execution of this mandate happen? Will the world authority operate as an umbrella to the above-mentioned groups? Can the United Nations reform to the point of being this global economic manager? Caritas in Veritate gave us a glimpse into the world authority’s directives, but it didn’t give operational specifics. Has the Holy See actually fleshed out the details: maybe outlining the process through an internal working document? If so, it would be a very interesting read! Or, in only offering generalities, does the Vatican expect other major players – such as the United Nations or World Federalist Movement – to hammer out the particulars? If so, where does that ͺ 

place the Vatican in this world government framework? Observer? Advisor? Overseer? A lot of perplexing questions arise, and so they should. Y “An authority…regulated by law” – Governments the world over are regulated by internal laws and accountability measures, yet this doesn’t stop abuses, corruption, or even tyranny from entering the picture. The idea that a world authority could be kept in check by a system of world law doesn’t hold water. Y “True world political authority” – This isn’t a moral or spiritual ideal propagated by the Holy See, but the vision of an actual world government. This is evident in the overall context of section 67 and in the wording itself: a “world political authority.” No doubt the papal office desires to see a spiritual standard incorporated into this political entity, based in large part on the social teachings of the Catholic Church. However, this in no way guarantees that a world authority will act in good will. As history bears out, the Vatican itself is far from immune in this regard, and “holders of power” tend to amass power. Remember the words of Lord Acton, a Catholic historian who penned the following in response to the Vatican’s unquestioning authority: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”xv Following A Tradition Pope Benedict’s promotion of world government didn’t happen in a vacuum. Since the 1950s the Holy See has consistently moved to support an empowered United Nations and world political authority. Pope Pius XII: On April 6, 1951, Pope Pius XII had a meeting in the Vatican with the World Movement for World Federal Government – a precursor to the World Federalist Movement. During that meeting, Pope Pius encouraged his “world government” audience to continue in this quest. “Your movement, Gentlemen, has the task of creating an effective political organization of the world. There is nothing more in keeping with the traditional doctrines of the Church, or better adapted to her teachings on the rightful or unjust war, especially in the present world situation. An organization of this nature must, therefore, be set up…” The Pope then explained, rightly so, that the “deadly germs of mechanical totalitarianism” might infect this “world political organization.” ͻ 

However, in noting this possibility, he reminded the attendees to pursue a morally firm world federalist approach. Ending his meeting, the Pope encouraged his audience to pursue this grand idea. “…you have the courage to give yourself to this cause. We congratulate you. We would express to you Our wishes for your entire success and with all Our heart We will pray to God to grant you His wisdom and help in the performance of your task.”xvi Pope John XXIII: In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII called for an international public authority with a “world-wide sphere of activity” to deal with global problems. This authority would be “equipped with world-wide power and adequate means for achieving the universal common good,” although it could not establish itself through force: “it must be set up with the consent of all nations.” In contemplating how this system would work, John XXIII called upon the principle of subsidiarity, saying that this should be applied “to the relations between the public authority of the world community and the public authorities of each political community.” Subsidiarity here, like Benedict’s use of the term, doesn’t negate a world authority – it simply imposes a hierarchical structure that recognizes each level, from the bottom-to-the-top, as a key to the process.xvii Pope Paul VI: While speaking at the United Nations in 1965, the adulation coming from the pope was palatable. During his talk he praised the UN system as “the obligatory path of modern civilization and world peace.” “The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be perfected, and made equal to the needs which world history will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind, from which retreat must never be admitted… Advance always! ...Let unanimous trust in this Institution grow, let its authority increase.” Alas, Pope Paul VI called for a world government. “Is there anyone who does not see the necessity of coming thus progressively to the establishment of a world authority, able to act efficaciously on the juridical and political levels?xviii Pope John Paul II: In his 1995 speech to the UN, John Paul reflected on the historical connections between the Vatican and the world body. “The Holy See, in virtue of its specifically spiritual mission, which makes it concerned for the integral good of every human being, has ͳͲ 

supported the ideals and goals of the United Nations Organization from the very beginning. Although their respective purposes and operative approaches are obviously different, the Church and the United Nations constantly find wide areas of cooperation on the basis of their common concern for the human family.”xix Although Pope John Paul II butted heads with the United Nations over family issues, he did place enormous importance on pursuing political systems of world law. In 1985 he spoke to judges at the International Court of Justice, telling them that, The Holy See attaches great importance to its collaboration with the United Nations Organization and the various organisms which are a vital part of its work. The Church's interest in the International Court of Justice goes back to the very beginnings of this Tribunal and to the events that were linked to its establishment…. The Church has consistently supported the development of an international administration of justice and arbitration as a way of peace fully resolving conflicts and as part of the evolution of a world legal system… Strictly speaking, the present Court is no more – but it is also no less – than an initial step towards what we hope will one day be a totally effective judicial authority in a peaceful world.xx [italics in original] In other speeches and writings, such as his encyclical Sollicitudo rei Socialis, John Paul called for a strengthening of world law and a “greater degree of international ordering.”xxi None of this has the same blatancy as Pope Benedict’s recommendation for a “world political authority,” but it does follow a common political theme – enlarged and enhanced global governance. Pope Benedict’s idea of a “world political authority” didn’t spring out of thin air. Rather, through successive papal offices stretching back to at least Pius XII,xxii the Holy See has nurtured visions of an international politic. Influencing Princes and Paupers The fact that a religious leader has called for a world authority is interesting in itself, but because this emanates from the papal office, an extra measure of attention is warranted. We cannot overlook the influence wielded by the Holy See. The Pope is vastly different in relation to other religious figures when it comes to global significance. It’s true that some Protestant and evangelical leaders are consulted by political elites; and government officials often court the ͳͳ 

heads of other religions, such as the Dalai Lama. But all of this pales to the historical and contemporary powers of the papal office. For centuries the Holy See has been the centerpiece of European political affairs. Its history is replete with geo-political intrigues, papal wars, and the rise and fall of national powers. Royalty from every corner of the Continent have traveled to Rome seeking an audience with the Pope, hoping for papal favor. Moreover, the Vatican has been a hub for banking interests, espionage, and transnational business dealings.xxiii And today, just as in the past, Presidents and Prime Ministers bow before the Pope, seeking his counsel, and privately discussing matters of great political, economic, and social importance. Eric Frattini, the author of The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage, gives us a window into this geo-political world. “The papacy, the supreme authority at the head of the Catholic Church, is the oldest established institution in the world. It was the only institution to flourish during the Middle Ages, a leading actor in the Renaissance, and a protagonist in the battles of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the French Revolution, the industrial era, and the rise and fall of communism. For centuries, making full use of their famous ‘infallibility,’ popes brought their centralized power to bear on the social outcomes of unfolding historical events… …throughout history, the papacy has always displayed two faces: that of the worldwide leadership of the Catholic Church and that of one of he planet’s best political organizations. While the popes were blessing their faithful on the one hand, on the other, they were receiving foreign ambassadors and heads of states and dispatching legates and nuncios on special missions.”xxiv And standing behind the Pope is a worldwide following of devout Catholics, who may not agree with world government, but who are nevertheless committed to the Roman Catholic Church – thus supportive of the Pontiff. Avro Manhattan, a critic of the Holy See, correctly made the correlation between the Vatican’s power and it’s faithful. “What gives the Vatican its tremendous power is not its diplomacy as such, but the fact that behind its diplomacy stands the Church, with all its manifold world-embracing activities… …Vatican diplomacy is so influential and can exert such great power in the diplomatic-political field because it has at its disposal the tremendous machinery of a spiritual organization with ramifications in ͳʹ 

every country of the planet. In other words, the Vatican, as a political power, employs the Catholic Church as a religious institution to assist the attainment of its goals. These goals, in turn, are sought mainly to further the spiritual interests of the Catholic Church. …the Catholic Hierarchy automatically reacts upon those innumerable religious, cultural, social, and finally political, organizations connected with the Catholic Church, which although tied to the Church primarily on religious grounds, can at given moments be made either directly or indirectly to serve political ends.”xxv The point is this: No other religious leader on the planet holds such political and economic influence within a religious framework. Consider just the number of adherents that make up the backbone of the Church of Roman: In the US, Catholics make up approximately 22% of the populace, and of the world’s total, 17% – or about 1.14 billion people.xxvi That’s why Pope Benedict’s call for a “world political authority” is so significant; what he says influences leaders and laymen alike by the hundreds of millions. If the local Baptist pastor or Mennonite preacher, with a flock of a few dozen or a few hundred, appealed for a UN-styled “world political authority” it wouldn’t mean much beyond the pews of that particular church. The congregants would either cheer the minister or, hopefully, challenge his assumptions. But generally speaking it wouldn’t cause a ripple beyond the local community. However, when the “Holy Father” – a Catholic title that denotes more than just a “leader” – makes such a recommendation, and has the backing of earlier papal appeals, the waves of influence travel worldwide. Conclusion - That the Holy See has, for at least six decades, supported the quest for a global political structure. - That Pope Benedict has, through his recent encyclical, explicitly supported the idea of a world political authority; and that this world government should be designed to incorporate the principle of subsidiarity. Further point: That subsidiarity in a universal political structure would be akin to the slogan, “think global, act local.” - That the influence of the Holy See upon the international community is substantial, and that the Papacy has the backing and general support of hundreds of millions around the world, adding “local-to-global” support for the Vatican’s geo-political visions.

ͳ͵ 

- That advocates for world government – such as the World Federalist Movement – will pick up on Pope Benedict’s recommendations and use it to parade the idea of world management. - That many Roman Catholics and Catholic organizations will subsequently endorse the proposal for a world political authority, and hence support various movements for global governance. - That individuals and organizations within and outside the Catholic Church will defend the Pope’s encyclical by seeking to spiritualize or moralize the text, thereby attempting to soften the controversy. Yet, the Pope’s intent for a world political authority remains. - That a minority of Catholics will vocally oppose the Vatican’s call for UN empowerment and international government (many more will be indifferent). Ridicule may occur for those who publically speak against Benedict’s political ideals. Expect rifts between those who oppose and those who advocate global governance. - That non-Catholic faith groups will support Pope Benedict’s encyclical. Already an evangelical response document has been issued by a group of professors and national evangelical leaders. Titled, Doing the Truth in Love, this text agrees that new forms of global authority are necessary, but that it “must secure increased participation, transparency and accountability, and help strengthen the nation state relative to the power of global finance.”xxvii Such a view is more utopian than practical, as few real incentives would compel a world government to operate this openly. - That new alliances and networks will be formed to increase political and social pressure in support of world management, and that these networks will incorporate Catholic/Vatican groups, non-governmental organizations, and elements from the United Nations. When the Holy See raises the specter of world government it should jolt Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Even if a world political authority doesn’t come to fruition, such advocacy is stunning. Here we have the planet’s most influential religious office – itself politically structured as a top-down authority – promoting a top-down system of international management. The perception alone is deeply troubling. And if a world political authority does come into play, what will keep it from morphing into an autocratic regime? Even in this we are assuming that the global authority will be introduced as a limited government. The ultimate contradiction, of course, is a toothless world authority. Without enforcement capabilities it would be little more than an advisory board. To be effective, ͳͶ 

therefore, it must be a centralist power with clout: Anything less would be meaningless. But is this what the world needs to ensure global order? Consider for a moment the last one hundred years, a century rife with examples of “well-meaning” centralist governments – they were always well meaning to somebody. In the name of “peace and security” these regimes crushed domestic opponents, often liquidating their own supporters in the process. From Chile to China the unofficial motto, “peace is the destruction of all opposition,” was translated into action. And in the case of Nazi Germany, the government rose to power through the democratic process. Sadly, in some cases the Vatican itself held the hands of those who perpetrated such crimes, as in Croatia during the 1940s.xxviii Does all of this mean that the Holy See supports a dictatorial world regime? Not according to Pope Benedict’s encyclical, as he openly recognized the dangerous possibility of a “universal power of a tyrannical nature.” His hope, as outlined in Caritas in Veritate, is a world political authority checked by legal boundaries so as not to “infringe upon freedom.” Government overstep would be offset by accountability measures. A fine concept in theory, but it rests on a shaky assumption: That the world political authority will remain content to live within prescribed limitations; satisfied to operate within tight social, economic, and political constraints. Here’s the snag: our advanced, democratic nations – and even the Vatican – haven’t and can’t live up to this basic standard. While Pope Benedict tries to soft-sell Catholics and national leaders on the idea of world government, the sobering words of Lord Acton drift-in from a nearly forgotten past: “Power corrupts…”

ͳͷ 

Endnotes:

 i

Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood (Touchstone, 1990), p.15. The New York Times, “Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good’,” July 8, 2009. Online edition. iii David Ian Miller, “The Pope pays the economy some attention,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 13, 2009. Online edition. iv E.J. Dionne Jr. “To the Right of the Pope,” The Washington Post, July 8, 2009, online edition. v John-Henry Westen, “Pope’s New Encyclical Speaks Against, not for On-World Government and New World Order,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 8, 2009. vi John Laughland, The Tainted Source: The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea (Little, Brown & Company, 1997), pp.154-155. vii Robert John Arujo, “International Law Clients: The Wisdom of Natural Law,” Fordham Urban Law Journal, August, 2001. viii For a few examples among many, see the following reports: Our Global Neighborhood (The Commission on Global Governance, Oxford University Press, 1995 – directly supported and endorsed by the UN Secretary General); Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations (Government of Canada, 1995); Rethinking Basic Assumptions About the United Nations (World Federalist Association, 1992); Reshaping the International Order (Club of Rome, 1976). ix UN Millennium Forum, May 22-26, 2000. See the final document, Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action. x Cliff Kincaid, “Who Will Probe the UN-Vatican Connection?” Accuracy in Media, August 4, 2009. (www.aim.org). xi José E. Alvarez, The Schizophrenias of R2P, Panel Presentation at the 2007 Hague Joint Conference on Contemporary Issues of International Law: Criminal Jurisdiction 100 Years After the 1907 Hague Peace Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, June 30, 2007. xii For more on the R2P concept see Volume 2, Issue 7 of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org) – “Kosovo and the International Community: Just Another Pawn in the Game.” xiii Jim Puzzanghera, “Calls grow for global banking regulator,” Los Angeles Times, October 17, 2008 (online archived edition). xiv Richard N. Cooper, “Is There a Need to Reform?” The International Monetary System: Forty Years After Bretton Woods (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1984), p.33. xv Reprinted in Eric Frattini’s book, The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St. Martin’s Press, 2008), p.2. xvi Address by His Holiness Pope Pius XII During an Audience with Delegates of the Fourth Congress of the World Movement for World Federal Government, 6 April 1951. A copy of this speech is in the author’s library. It is reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (2004, can be obtained at the Forcing Change website, www.forcingchange.org). xvii Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, paragraphs 137 to 141. xviii Holy Father’s Talk at United Nations, October 4, 1965. Reprinted in its entirety in The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents and Resources on Global Governance (www.forcingchange.org). xix Address of His Holiness John Paul II, United Nations Headquarters, Thursday, 5 October 1995. xx Address of John Paul II to the International Court of Justice during the Meeting at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 13 May 1985. xxi Sollicitudo rei socialis, paragraph 43. xxii Pope John Paul I was in office for only 33 days before being murdered in 1978. During that time he made a number of speeches, but I have found none that directly support global governance. xxiii Volumes have been published on the role of the Holy See in global dealings, including banking, espionage, and international diplomacy. One of the most recent books on this subject is The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage, by Eric Frattini (St. Martin’s Press, 2008). ii

ͳ͸ 



xxiv

Eric Frattini The Entity: Five Centuries of Secret Vatican Espionage (St. Martin’s Press, 2008), p.1. xxv Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics (Gaer Associates, 1949), pp.28-29. xxvi “Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics,” Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, Georgetown University, statistics are for 2009; http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm. xxvii Doing the Truth in Love. A copy of the document, along with signers, can be found at www.cpjustice.org/doingthetruth xxviii The Croat liquidation of Orthodox Serbs was one of the most horrific examples of genocide in modern history. So gruesome were the attacks that “even hardened German troops registered their horror.” See John Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII (Viking, 1999), pp.248-260. See also Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and the Swiss Banks by Mark Aarons and John Loftus (St. Martin’s Griffin, 1998); and Avro Manhattan, The Vatican’s Holocaust (Ozark Books, 1986). Mark Aarons and John Loftus attest to Manhattan’s credibility, explaining; “he was very well informed, having worked for British intelligence during the war” (Unholy Trinity, p.86).

ͳ͹ 



This report, Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: The Vatican’s Quest for a World Political Authority, explains how the Roman Catholic Church has taken a prominent role in the unfolding plan to establish a world government. Researcher Carl Teichrib examines how and why: x The Vatican is fully engaged in what former Vaticaninsider and author Malachi Martin described in his book The Keys of This Blood as a battle for control over an emerging world government. x Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.” x This world authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to “manage the economy,” bring about “timely disarmament,” and ensure “food security and peace.” x In practice, the Vatican plan means expanding the power and authority of such global institutions as the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization. x Despite the hope that “subsidiarity” or local control can be incorporated into this emerging world system, a possible or even likely result is global tyranny.

ͳͺ 

EXHIBIT L

Printed from America's Survival, Inc.

- http://www.usasurivai.org/

Vatican Backs Obama's Global Agenda By Cliff Kincaid

I

October 12, 2009

Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order. Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform. These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby. But the fads should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obarna, despite the f a d that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.

The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the rote that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States. While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results." The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedid, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of wortd government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace." However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writers are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government. ---.

EXHIBIT N

On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector. The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats. The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives. On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigation and adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on the emissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to the atmosphere." Again, this is the Obama Administration position. The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes "legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration. On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure is being applied on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S. military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the use of air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid. On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent to engage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions and certainly not military action against the fanatical regime. What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues. For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years. Funding of ACORN was recently suspended

because of corruption allegations. In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off. However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas." In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in the media are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an antiCatholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed because while funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups remain. My column also noted evidence that Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church. This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world." The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts. In the newsletter (PDF) of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists who hired a young Barack Obama in 1985." Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life community organizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009." Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences." z

Read our special report: Sowing the Seeds of Global Government: the Vatican’s Quest for World Political Authority

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Printed from America's Survival, Inc.

Page 1 o f 3

- http://www.usasurival.org/

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax BY CLIFF KINCAID

I OCTOBER 6,2009

While policymakers debate a few million dollars for ACORN and a few hundred billion dotlars more for health care reform, those committed to one-world government are moving ahead with plans for a global tax that could extract trillions of dollars out of Americans' already depleted IRAs and stock holdings. One can't exclude the possibility of such a tax being slipped into a health care or cap-andtrade bill that the Congress or the public could not have time to read before passage. Bob Davis of the Wall Street Journal deserves a journalism prize for taking the time to read the recent communique issued by the G-20 countries meeting in Pittsburgh. He found they had assigned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the job of studying how to implement a global tax on America and the rest of the world. "The IMF assignment from the G-20 has been widely overlooked," Davis noted. His article ran under the headline, "IMF Mulls Global Bank Tax." For a history of global taxation efforts, please go to our web site www.stovaloba~taxes.orq

The "Leader's Statement" endorsed by President Obama and released at the event declares on page 10 that "We task the IMF to prepare a report for our next meeting with regard to the range of options countries have adopted or are considering as to how the financial sector could make a fair and substantial contribution toward paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system." The term "fair and substantial contribution" is code for a global tax. Other misleading terms for global taxes include "innovative sources of financen and "Solidarity Levies." While the global tax would affect the savings of ordinary Americans and be passed on to consumers, it is being packaged by the international left and its progressive allies in the U.S. as an assault on Wall Street and the big banks. One proposal, popular at the United Nations for decades and long-advocated by Fidel Castro, is the Tobin Tax, named after Yale University economist James Tobin. Such a tax, which could affect stocks, mutual funds, and pensions, could generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Indeed, Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The Confidence Game, that such a proposal "might net some $13 trillion a year..." because it is

hr>:llwww.usasurviva1.or~ck100609.htmI

EXHIBIT 0

1012 112009

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Page 2 of 3

based on taking a percentage of money from the trillions of dollars exchanged daily in global financial markets. Such transactions are commonplace on behalf of Americans who have stock in mutual funds or companies that invest or operate overseas. Meanwhile, President Obama used his recent speech to the United Nations to declare, "We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals." He left unsaid what this means. It has been calculated that this will cost the U.S. $845 billion to meet U.N. demands for a certain percentage of Gross National Product to go for official foreign aid to the rest of the world. Compliance with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was incorporated into the Global Poverty Act that Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator but which never passed. A global tax of the kind envisioned in the G-20 document could help provide the revenue to fulfill Obama's promise to comply with the MDGs. One of the leading cheerleaders for the global tax is economist Joseph Stiglitz, an Obama supporter and former Clinton official who has been working with the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues. We analyzed his key behind-the-scenes role in the June United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis. He was selected as a U.N. adviser by the then-president of the U.N. General Assembly, Communist Catholic Priest Miguel D'Escoto. Over at the Huffington Post, a voice of the Obama-supporting left, Kyle G. Brown advises that such a tax is doable and that "a modest fee on every stock, every bond-in short, every financial transaction" could generate $100 billion a year at a rate of just 0.5 percent. He explains, "That would defray health care costs, and help struggling states restore social services that have been axed over the past two years." Brown is not a policy maker but rather a self-described writer and broadcast journalist at the BBC and CBC. The progressives know that such a rate could be ratcheted up quickly, bringing in hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. The AFL-CIO, the giant labor federation backing Obama, has already endorsed the Tobin Tax, as has Robert Kuttner, a leading liberal thinker who serves as co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. This is a pro-Democratic Party think tank that still includes ousted Obama green jobs czar Van Jones on its board. As reported by The Hill newspaper, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the Highways and Transit Transportation Subcommittee, has "seized on the idea as a way to help pay for a new massive surface transportation reauthorization bill, estimated to cost $450 billion over six years," but wants to tax oil-based derivatives rather than stock transactions. DeFazio had previously introduced a House resolution to pass a Tobin Tax. What is driving the global taxation agenda is a Marxist view that the U.S. is exploiting the people and natural resources of the world. According to this perspective, international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even the U.N. must be restructured and provided with new financial resources to supervise and manage the redistribution of the world's wealth. The United States, being the leading capitalist state, has to pay the largest price.

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html

10/21/2009

Progressives Back Obama in Push for Trillion Dollar Global Tax

Page 3 of 3

Their attitude was expressed at a non-governmental organization forum in Monterrey, Mexico, associated with the U.N.'s International Conference on Financing for Development, that Christopher Columbus "invaded, destroyed and pillaged" the hemisphere and that a global tax was necessary to pay for the damage. In his 2001 speech to the U.N. World Conference on Racism, Castro advocated the Tobin Tax specifically in order to generate U.S. financial reparations to the rest of the world. He declared, "May the tax suggested by Nobel Prize Laureate James Tobin be imposed in a reasonable and effective way on the current speculative operations accounting for trillions of US dollars every 24 hours, then the United Nations, which cannot go on depending on meager, inadequate, and belated donations and charities, will have one trillion US dollars annually to save and develop the world." The only thing that has changed is that the U.S. now has a president who agrees with Castro, and he and his progressive backers believe that they can obtain a slice of the revenue for their socialist projects here as well. Please go to www.stopglobaltaxes.org Read Cliff Kincaid’s book for free “Global Taxes for World Government”

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck100609.html

10/21/2009

a

D.

-

nw. Drecnnn~c%Errarr~caarn

~ d ~ % n ~ r o ~ . . . s i i , b t d ~ ~ m

SmnPROU

urnmar--

u-

u-4 M .

lnuasr+lllbubmLaoadlWmsd w l r u ~ w o l n i dmuit: ~ . -mnm

R D~REL

OUR.

s n m m & m D . aoa.

XI. • mm. bmn

u-

nmt

I : * /

4, -1.

..

bu kr BUh.

writmla~,-1.

r w w l y .

-

* -I . a w . of tnnlcrip a*h

c h t b . 1 ~ crrimd . ..a

lrul

c m m . o f . o r h ~ r s i x q ( b Q ) 6 q . r t o ~ L b .

l u . o e t h . Z B . Z t . l b b u - d ~ t . ~ d ~ b z k l i ~ C c r p t L . . d L i b . U c % d ~ I r ~ l . . ill-.LiblRam: d Lldl-1CO3- -.lr b 1. Y h t -8

IPSLPC .ocooCI.MYD.QH1.1Lb.llscbn.i.l.k bq~.-L.x.~.Idbmbywmdmc.aorla brrram~ar&.rtb.,ok.e,rlm.

--

-.

r ta

a

-.

-

-I"&.

oL rtn Lia.11-

thi.

Iw-

&

d., .IOI S .-

6W M U m Of CaDH1

c..r rp 9rAEn U

D.

-.

LLL.lb.c

&.-...

r - p w d - s m , ~ l h l t . h u . -

epnthllr sham a f a l l a r t I n m t ~ I I a r a a t ~ m S . = b n a a a ~ r r e b a b r . r n L l a c a i ~ , U t Y m d ~ ~

t&t Uballr L. NU*

apahlll, Sum 6 - 8

IWasQa srrrs.

-,

.s 17D

k.-.Ct.. II

-.

i.

~ U b . l l m ~ d ~ r n ~ f . p r r W

IW, S u m d IlnaU. on

ma MI-

CD

~~ Z . l % L ,

pal-

u

c

by

d .ad

mrdnc.th.td.C.Lmbun~mnal.uLIDO.Il11"u..

m f b t U L . w m d U t d U lrt

lad

% tb. '01.

-

4 OM*

oi Oi fL. d

&

-.

L. 170 ClkW. 7 .

-r

1%

nu-In*

c ~ s r t s - y o t . I d p ~ b L h . ~ d m . -1m. Wi. tbh d., ol

Ir IpB Ib. kLb.1 P U S O . n ~ N1.d by Ck U b d b rhirh

Wrp.W 1-t.

tra

Tt.t-b.aur.bafno.-

dm . h l l d bm b.ta D o m ; 4. b d t r . r b . c b a r d r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t a t o ~

a c e b,

-17; ~.o~auh.l..~trm-r*~llr~.nip

amem mmc hp ~ .ofrlet

2 .

3.

-:nia-tormre..m-..w~~nd d. norm eulp nawsoa; s d d W

unm uw:

4

m r t U ! i d . o ~ y o C t b .W m f i l e b m L d d t b t b m c i a h r w a d s n ~ m w e u ~ p ~ 1 . o . d ~ . d d ~ l d

u

--

. . I I - o L . @ Y W I r ~ . C U U b . l l ~ b

uhaLI.hdd*tU..i.Irrot~tLrra~ ~t.a.0.llr~l,brdLI..u..YUL.llr

EXHIBIT

E

Dr. orly Tail& A r n r a e y d - L m 29839 S M a g y l t a Pkwy Ranelm Son61 MPT&Prlt.CA 92688 pb. 949-683-541 1 fax 949-766-7603 California State Bmr No.: 223433 E-Mall: dr ta1k'?t%8vahoo.com

1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR n l E CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTIIERN)DIVISION

W r n Pamela Bmett, ct al., Plaintiffi, Civil Adion:

v.

Baracl;HusseinObama, Michdle L.R Obamq tlillary Rodham Clinton, Of State. 14 Roben M. Gat-, Swmary of De ens, Joseph R. Bidm Vim-Presidan and 15 Pmtdent of lhc Scnsre ~el'&~s. 16 NOTICE O F FILING 2.8 USC. 11746 Ded.ntbnof Daniel Smltb wlth Exblblt and PLALNTIFFS. ATTORNEY'S 18 1711 LP NOTICE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS

I

u

wj/

I

destruction in the nwr future. Plaintiffs fear that evidence relating to the' cause may be destroyed as soon as it is identified as relevant to the 5 questions relating to their lawsuit, and for this reason have asked the.Court1 to consider allowing the Plaintiffs to take depositions pursuant to the "spirit" of Rule 27, even though a case has already beea filcd, but prior to 8 the Rule 2 q f ) Conference which normally marks the initiation of formal 9 discovery under the Fed& Rules of Civil Procedure. I0 PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS I1 Counsel for Plaintiffs asks that this Court take note of the fact that I211 she her ofice and mailing address has changed. All cormpondence andl I311 orders in this court should from this day forward be sent to her a t

California Bar ID Na 223433

18

Come now the Plainti& with this Notice of Filing the 28 U.S.C.

19

Respectfully submiaed

a3 21,

F ~ . s c P ~ 4 . 2 5 0 9

&

Dr. O d y T.itrEka 6 B N 223433) Rancho S a n l a - ~ a r g a r i t a 92928 -~~ ph. 949-683-54 11 fax 949-5862082 California Bar W No. 223433

I'

2 3

PROOR O F S e R n C E

4

UNrTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR M E C M R A L DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN)DIVISION

Ithe~mdasignedCharfeaEdwa~dLhrolo.being overtheageof l8andnota

5

partytomise.sohenbydedareunderpenaltyofpajuymatmthis,Friday.

6

Seplembcr 4,2009. I pmvided facaiile or clcc&mic

copies of thc PlahntifB' above-

1 and-foregoing Noticc of Filing of thc 28 U.S.C. 81746 Dcclantionof Lucas Daniel

7

1

8

Srnitb with attached Exhibit, as a aupplcmmt to Plaintiffs

10

FIR= AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE O F LelTERS ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO

I1

TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., T O PERPETUATE

CONDUCT PRERULE 26(0 DISCOVERY

1

TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMLT M ~ R ROGATORY S PURSUANT to 28 U.SC. @17111(a)(2)+bx2) to all of & hcfdlowmg m m p m y sllomeys arhosc rtmxs w m f i e d to the

I

"STATEMENT0FINTEREST"whokappearcdmthisem~wih

Disain of calihnin,to wit:

'Il. I2

'5

l6 1711 LEON w. WELDMAN

.Il

l7

ROGER E WEST raaWmWd*.cov( b i g n a t e j I lead muusel for Pmir!enJ

19 1 Bmck Hussein Obanra 00 Augus17.2009) DAVlDkLkJUTE

l9

ao

21 FACSIMILE (213)894-7819 22

I

all

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday lhc 4'day of SqHanba, 2009.

22

ar 25

a5

"

'

28 1746 DsLntlea 01Loar Damid Smith wlth E d M 1 M y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i e l S & I a m o v ~ 1 8 y ~ o l ~ a m d solmdmiadandfreeof~y-meotaldiseaseorpsyehologieali~toC any kind or condition. 2. 1am a c i t i m of the United States of America, 1 am 29 years old and l was born and raised in the state of Iowa. 3. I have m n a l lmowledge of all the facts and circNmstances described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to ofthe same. 4. On February 19,2009 1 visited the Coast General hospital in Mombasa, Kenya 5. 1 visited the hospital accompaniedby one more penon, a nahual born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as "Zaire" and before indepmdence as the "Belgian Congo"). 6. 1traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particularwith the intent to obtain the original bklh aertificate of Barack Hussein Obama,as I was told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the ~ U S C g l 7 4 6 D o r r . r * . ~ ~ s l b * ~ A l-4N 9

N&aJirmsL4dmwb4

A-'n

- # / A h

mm-rn~rnm DL(.TA"Z

mu~u%ml!!

Y6U*-C*Ua.,.sl*I

M U u t f

-m.~-r*mmcat

EXHIBIT F

1

1

2

2 3

fact that the prime minister of Kenya Raela Odinga is Barack Hussein

3

4

Obama's cousin.

4

5

7.

6

duty to look the other way, while I obtained the copy of the birth

6

7

certificate of Barack Hussein Obama.

7

8

8.

The copy was signed by the hospital administrator.

8

9

9.

The copy contain the embossed seal.

9

10

10.

The true and correct photocopy of the Birth certificate obtained, is

10

11

attached to this affidavit as Exhibit A.

11

12

11.

12

13

under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

13

14

statements of fact and descriptions of circumstances and events are true

14

15

and correct.

15

16

12.

I have not received any compensation for making this affidavit.

16

17

Further, Declarant saith naught.

17

18

Signed and executed in ____________, ___________ on this _____

18

19

,KDGWRSD\DFDVK³FRQVLGHUDWLRQ´WRD.HQ\DQPLOLWDU\RIILcer on

I declare, certify, verify, state, and affirm under penalty of perjury

day of September, 2009.

20

21

23

Exhibit A: /XFDV'DQLHO6PLWK¶V3KRWRFRS\RI Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

19

20

22

5

21

By:_____________________________ Lucas Daniel Smith

22 23

24

24

25

25

26

26

27

27

28

28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 5±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 1RWLFHVRI)LOLQJ'HFODUDWLRQ $WWRUQH\¶V&KDQJHRI$GGUHVV

- 6±

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Exhibit A: Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in February 2009

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

- 6–

DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211 MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691 (949) 683-5411 E-MAIL: [email protected]

----

EXHIBIT

__

G

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL

..

Document 27

p7 7 fi k t , :.. 5.; .& % '"

!%, .

i ai

!g-3,.?; 0 .

.:.

..:*. JK- ;:I,:! :AXE :,-a:-

Filed 10/21/20 9 Page 1 of 1 %-h*

. 3

i ~ g h

593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #28 1 B d p , New YO& 11238 Telep-. (845) 901-6767

QP-

Email: [email protected] Christopher-Earl: Stnmk 0 in esse

Honorable David 0. Carter Judge, United States District Cornt Central District of California, Southern Division 41 1 West FadStrcct,Courtroom 9D Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 Re:Bmett. et a1 v. Obcad et al,Case No. 8:09-cv-00082 Subject: Request for permission to transfer with the 28 USC $1407 Multidistrict matter $#run& v US DOS et al. DCD O&v-2234 (RJJ.,) with demand for Quo Warranto inquest of Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro). The Honorable Judge Carter,

I am the P Chistopher-Ed: Strunk 0 in esse, in the r e W Case and make this smment under penalty of pejlPypursuant to 28 USC 1746. Declmt is self-represented in the above civil action on-going in Washington District of Columbia before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon. Judge Leon ordered a stay of dimvery pending a decision on my Quo Warmto demand for an inquest of multi-allegiance h t s associated with the August 4, 1%1 birth ofBamk Hussein Obama Jr., ak.a Barry Soetoro (the Usurper).That I duly fired theUsurpermJaanrary22,2089~tbeUs\apaiSmqualifiedtoactwithmypaweraf sttomey as the Usurper has more than one allegiance at bhrth by bis own admission; and &enSm, with dual allegiance is ineligible to hold the office of President accordiingto U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 5, because the Usurper is not a n W - W e n without two U.S. Citizen parents on August 4,196 1. Offiwther prima facie importance to the inquest are fectsfiled before this Court for vcrificatiw that prove the Ususper is not even a native-bomcitizen either, and thereby triggers review of facts as to Usurps's mtumhd citizen status also if proper allegiance filing is absent upon entry into Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia. Iam~~withthtfactsassoci~withtherCfdcasesas~harerC~and subject to comlidation here as an urgent matter of National Security before this Court and that the U.S. Govemmmt has argued that any Quo Wananto be done in Washington District of Cohrmbia and I urge herein m e iswith a Multidistrid Judi this q u e s t hss been sent to Counsels and Court in both cases.

,hk....sg2m

Bmklyn New York

cc: Judge Richard J. Leon Brigham John Bowen, AUSA - o d Roger E. West AUSA rwzw.west~usdoi.gov Charles Edward L i i ~ n , - l l IEsq. , ~harlcs,lincoln~k~.com Dr.Orly Taitz, Esq. dr tai-.corn

EXHIBIT I

----

EXHIBIT L

News :: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District

Page 1 of 1

February 2007 Press Releases Pelosi Denounces Hateful Views in AsianWeek Column; Wednesday, February 28,2007 Pelosi Statement on British Troop Withdrawal; Wednesday, February 21,2007 Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi hosts a Climate Change and Eneray Independence Roundtable; February 21,2007 Pelosi Statement on the Lunar New Year; Friday, February 16, 2007 Pelosi: Iraq Resolution Will Signal a Change in Direction and Bring Our Troops Home Safely and Soon; Friday, February 16, 2007 Pelosi: Vote Against Escalation in Iraq is a Messaqe to President Bush - No More Blank Checks on Iraq; Tuesday, February 13,2007 Photos: Rep. Nancy Pelosi accepts the lnstituto Laboral de la Raza 2007 Congressional Leadership Award; February 9,2007 Pelosi Remarks at Service Last Night for Leo McCarthy; Friday, February 9, 2007 Pelosi: w e Will Work Toaether to Tackle Global Waning. One of Humanity's Greatest Challenges; Thursday, February 8, 2007 Pelosi: President's Budget Is More of the Same ~ i s c aIrresponsibility l and Misplaced Priorities; Monday, February 5, 2007 Pelosi Statement on Black History Month; Thursday, February I,2007 More 8th District Press Releases and Statements: 2007: Januarv Februarv March April Mav June Julv Aunust September October November December

get email ~ ~ d a t (ebiosra~hy s I constituent services I work in connress ( about San Francisco I news I photos I contact I vouth op~ortunitiesI home

-

-

-

District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave. 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 5564862 Washington, D.C. Office 2371 Raybum HOB Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-4965

-

-

EXHIBIT P

-

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr.Christopher Stnmk Unit 281 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn,New York 11238

Dear Mr.Stnmk:

Thank you far antactingthe office ofP r e s i i t Barack Obama The President appreciates your taking the time to voice your coacernsand opinions. however, due to the sepamtb W e would like to be of mktaace to of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue thmugh the judicial system Please be aware that you am visit www.usa.gov or call 1-800-FEDINPO for infannation about Federal Govrmment assistance.

We hupe your concerns are resolved to your satisfactian. Again, thank you far your correspondence.

...

F. Michael Kelleher Special Assistant to the Resident and Director of Presidential Comqxmdence

EXHIBIT Q

United States District Court for the District of Columbia In Case - Strunk v. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Census et al. DCD 09-cv-1295 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 24,2009, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, declare and certifqr under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, That I caused the service of six (6) copies of Christopher-Earl: StrunkQ in esse, PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND SECRETARIES IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY in 09-cv-1295 with supporting affidavitand exhibits annexed affirmed October 23,2009, and each complete set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage for United States Postal Service Delivery by mail upon: Wynne P. Kelly Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq. TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 7871 1

John Marcus McNichols, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, U P 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

Seth E. Goldstein, Deputy Attorney General California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General 1300 "I" Street - Suite 125 Sacramento, California 94244-2550

John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 235 14

Stephen Kitzinger, Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department Office of Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007

I do declare and c Dated: October 8 2 0 0 9 Brooklyn, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHTUSTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Plaintiff,

) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

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

) ) )

1

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary ~ o c k e , ' Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and Barack ~ b a m aPresident ,~ of the United States ("Federal Defendantsyy), respectfully move this Court to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk ("Plaintiff') pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of this motion and opposition, Federal Defendants respectfully refer the Court to the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Pro se Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond to this motion, the Court may grant this motion and dismiss his case because of the

Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce is hereby substituted as the party of record for Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce. In the caption and the body of his complaint, Plaintiff lists the President of the United States as "Barry Soetoro" a.k.a. "Barack Obama." The Clerk of Court has listed "Barry Soetoro" as a named defendant. Undersigned counsel represents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States.

failure to respond. See Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988). A proposed order consistent with this motion is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C.Bar # 41 5793 Acting United States Attorney RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122 Assistant Uni S tes Attorney

E 555 4th St., N.* Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-7107 [email protected]

u

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

Plaintiff, v.

1

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

) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT Plaintiff Christopher Earl Strunk ("Plaintiff' or "Strunk") has filed two (2) related complaints in this Court, both of which are frivolous and without merit. Each case, to the extent that the complaints can be digested, takes issue with the federal government's conducting of the national census and alleges a grand conspiracy in which the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, controls the nation (if not the world). Both of Plaintiffs complaints warrant dismissal as a matter of law.

I.

BACKGROUND

In this case, Plaintiff seems to assert that Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, United States Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and Barack Obarna, President of the United States ("Federal Defendants") are part of some sort of conspiracy to

(Compl. at 1-2, 11-19, T[n 43-82.) Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment related to "resident suffrage in Washington D.C. within Maryland as of right." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he makes a "Special Appearance7'before the Court as a "Living-Soul Son-of-the Most-High-GodYahweh in existence nuncpro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son Made Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk Stands in the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh . . . under reserve, without dishonor, without prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this [Clourt and or defendants are unable to offer a higher consideration." (Id. at 4-5, T[ 11.) The remainder of Plaintiffs allegations that seem to relate to the Federal Defendants center around Plaintiffs belief that the

I

Federal Defendants conspired with various non-government actors throughout history to

II

perpetuate, inter alia, the Oklahoma City bombing (id. at 18,780) and President Barack Obama's education at Occidental College (id. at 24-27, IT[110-29). As Plaintiffs claims are utterly devoid of factual bases and fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the complaint should be di~missed.~ 11.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has

' Like much of Plaintiffs complaint, it is unclear what exactly Plaintiff means by the term "tourists" as he alternately alludes to pleasure travelers to places like Hawaii and New York, see Compl. at 27, TI 130, but then equates the term "tourists" with "illegal immigrants." See id. at 28, 7 134. As Plaintiffs complaint and the allegations therein are frivolous and Plaintiff lacks standing, Plaintiffs motion for a three judge panel should not be referred to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for review. CJ 28 U.S.C. 8 2284.

I

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." It is well established that evenpro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146, 149 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987)). 1.

Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12fi)(!)-for Lack of Jurisdiction

Federal Defendants request dismissal of the complaint pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(l) or Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(l) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be presented as a facial or factual challenge. "A facial challenge attacks the factual allegations of the complaint that are contained on the face of the complaint, while a factual challenge is addressed to the underlying facts contained in the complaint." Al-Owhali v. Ashcroft, 279 F. Supp. 2d 13,20 (D.D.C. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted.) When a defendant makes a facial challenge, the district court must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and consider the factual allegations in the light most favorable 1

to the non-moving party. Erby v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 2d 180, 182 (D.D.C. 2006). With respect to a factual challenge, the district court may consider materials outside of the pleadings to

I

i I

determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. Jerome Stevens Pharmacy, Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The plaintiff bears the responsibility of establishing the factual predicates of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. Erby, 424 F.

1

1

Supp. 2d at 182. Additionally, and most relevant to this case, ""'[F]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, . . . wholly insubstantial, [or] obviously frivolous[.]""' Riles v.

p

Geithner, -- F. Supp. 2d --,Civil Action No. 09-0214 (PLF), 2009 WL 1886214, at *2 (D.D.C. July 2,2009) (quoting Watson v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-0268,2009 WL 377136, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 13,2009) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,536-37,94 S.Ct. 1372,39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974))) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Steel Co. v. Citizensfor a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328,330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). "Thus, such claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --,2009 WL 1886214, at *2. "To be dismissed on this ground, the claims in question must 'be flimsier than "doubtful or questionable" - they must be "essentially fictitious.""' Id. (quoting Best, 39 F.3d at 330 (quoting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 53637))). "Claims that are essentially fictitious include those that allege 'bizarre conspiracy theories, . . . fantastic government manipulations of [the] will or mind, [or] any sort of supernatural intervention."' Id. (quoting Best, 39 F.3d at 330) (emphasis added).

2.

Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12/b)f6)for Failure to State a Claim

In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must present factual allegations that are sufficiently detailed "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). In satisfying this requirement that it "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, a complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss through only "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. at 555. As with facial challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(l), a district court is required to deem the factual allegations in the complaint as true and consider those allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Trudeau v. FTC,456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006). But where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of

Accordingly, a "court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

111. A.

ARGUMENT

This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Plaintiffs Conspiratorial Claims

Plaintiffs complaint is exactly the type of pleading contemplated by the D.C. Circuit's holding in Best v. Kelly. Plaintiffs bizarre and impossible allegations of intricate conspiracy theories involving the Federal Defendants are not only "essentially fictitious," they are complete fabrications of Plaintiffs mind. Riles, -- F. Supp. 2d --,2009 WL 1886214, at *2. An even cursory review of Plaintiffs complaint demonstrates that this Court lacks jurisdiction over

i

Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to the doctrine of Best v. Kelly and its progeny. As this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiffs bizarre, fanciful, and fictitious claims, Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed. See id. (citing Curran v. Holder, -- F.Supp.2d --

1 I

(D.D.C. 2009); Richards v. Duke University, 480 F. Supp. 2d 222,232-34 (D.D.C. 2007); Roum v. Bush, 461 F. Supp. 2d 40,46 (D.D.C.2006); Bestor v. Lieberman, Civil Action No. 03-1470,

2005 WL 681460, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 11,2005); Carone-Ferdinand v. Central Intelligence Agency, 131 F. Supp. 2d 232,234-35 (D.D.C. 2001)).

B.

Plaintiff Lacks Standing

Should this Court determine that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as Plaintiff has failed to establish constitutional standing. "'Article I11 standing is a prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction, and . . . petitioners carry the

p,

"'

burden of establishing their standing."' Prosser v. Fed. Agri. Mortg. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 150, 154 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Am. Library Ass 'n v. F.C. C., 40 1 F.3d 489,493 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). For Plaintiff to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, he must demonstrate that he: First, 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 fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged 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 decision. Id. In addition, to establish standing when seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff must also "allege

that [he is] 'likely to suffer future injury."' Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S.

i

I

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to contest the 2010 census and its possible inclusion of illegal immigrants, or any of the Federal Defendants' actions related to the 2010 census, this Court has already held that plaintiffs who bring such claims lack standing. See Fed. for Am. Immigration Reform v. Kutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564,568 (D.D.C. 1980). In Kutznick, the plaintiffs filed suit, prior to the commencement of the actual national census, that their voting rights would be affected by the 1980 census due to its inability to capture the number of illegal aliens in the United States. This Court, sitting as a three-judge panel, held that the plaintiffs' injuries were far too speculative and they had failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer constitutional standing. Id. at 570-71 ("They [plaintiffs] have failed to demonstrate concrete harm which will occur and be suffered by any one of them, and they have also failed to demonstrate that the relief they request will benefit them personally. Indeed, it is impossible for them to do so, because of the way our method of apportionment operates. . . . The point is that plaintiffs' allegations are far too speculative to permit us to conclude that any particular plaintiff

p

has an interest at stake in this proceeding and would benefit from the relief requested."). Here, the Court is presented with an almost identical factual scenario: Plaintiff has brought his claim making nebulous allegations that the national census of 2010 will inappropriately count illegal aliens (particularly agents of the Vatican) and that this occurrence will, in the future, affect Plaintiffs voting rights. Plaintiffs allegations are far too speculative and Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege an injury in fact to establish constitutional standing.3 Plaintiffs complaint, particularly Counts One through sixY4should be dismissed. C.

Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Rule 8 Pleading. Requirements

Plaintips pro se complaint fails to state a claim even under the liberal pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As noted above, it is well established that evenpro se litigants must I

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Banks v. Gonzales, 496 F. Supp. 2d 146, 149 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987)). "Even under liberal notice pleading standards, a complaint may be dismissed if it does not articulate a factual I

or legal basis for relief." Id. (citations omitted). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint "shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . . [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. This rule "accords the plaintiff wide latitude in framing his claims for relief." Brown v. Calfano, 75 F.R.D. 497,499 (D.D.C. 1977). The purpose of the rule is to give "fair

Plaintiff, as a New York citizen, has even less of an argument for standing regarding the voting rights of citizens of the District of Columbia and/or Maryland. Plaintiffs complaint seems to attempt to articulate different counts or claims for relief. Plaintiffs first six counts, however, are identical in that they contain allegations of a conspiracy between various Federal Defendants and the Roman Catholic Church or the Society of Jesus to count illegal immigrants or tourists as part of the population to, purportedly, dilute citizens' votes and consolidate power.

I ,'

notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable." Id. at 498. "Apro se complaint like any other, must present a claim upon which relief can be granted by the court." CrisaJi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs pleading fails to meet the minimum requirements of even a pro se pleading. The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts that would give Defendant notice as to any possible cause of action or law allegedly at issue. See Sparrow v. UnitedAir Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case but under Rule 8, he is required to give the defendants fair notice of each claim and its basis) (citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) & 12(b)(6). D.

Federal Defendants Have Not Waived Sovereign Immunity

Plaintiff is apparently seeking damages for alleged torts against federal agencies and federal employees in their official capacities. Such claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as Plaintiff is seeking to impose liability on the United States. "The Federal Government can only be sued insofar as it has agreed to be sued." Epps v. US. Atty. Gen., 575 F. Supp. 2d 232,238 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing F. D.I. C. v. Meyer, 5 10 U.S. 47 1,475 (1994)). "'Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit."' Id. (quoting Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475); see also Unitedstates v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S.

30 (1992)). The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suit for money damages against federal officials in their official capacities absent a specific waiver by the Federal Government. Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-03 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Where a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a federal agency for certain torts committed by federal employees, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction for this Court would be the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C.

5 1346(b). Epps, 575 F.

Supp. 2d at 238. The FTCA is unavailable to Plaintiff, however. Like the Plaintiff in Epps, Plaintiff fails to "assert that he has exhausted necessary administrative remedies under the FTCA, which is a mandatory prerequisite . . . ." Id. (citing GAF Corp. v. United States, 8 18 F.2d 901,904-05 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Further, the FTCA does not provide a waiver of sovereign

I

immunity for alleged constitutional torts, which Plaintiff may be alleging here, even if there were exhaustion of the requisite administrative process. Id. (citing F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 47778; Clark, 750 F.2d at 102-104); see also Roum v. Bush, 461 F. Supp. 2d 40,45 (D.D.C. 2006).

I

In Roum, the plaintiff alleged that there was "an intricate plot by various agencies and officials of the federal government to kidnap, torture, and kill" the plaintiff. 461 F. Supp. 2d at 42. The government, among other things, allegedly kept plaintiff under "constant surveillance," broke into his apartment and poisoned his belongings, made false accusations of being a terrorist against him, and spied on him and other U.S. citizens. Id. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief

I

and $875 million in damages. Id. Judge Collyer, upon consideration of a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint, held that the plaintiff could not establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity as he could not make out a claim as a matter of law, even under the FTCA. Id. at 46. Further, Judge Collyer stated that even if the plaintiff could make out a claim under the FTCA, the Court would still dismiss the claim as "fundamentally incredible" as "[ulnder Rule 12(b)(l), federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims that are 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,"' id. (quoting Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536), and "[c]omplaints that are comprised of 'fanciful claims' and 'bizarre conspiracy theories' are generally subject to

dismissal on that basis." Id (quoting Bestor v. Lieberman, No. 03-1470,2005 WL 681460, at * 1

(D.D.C. Mar. 11,2005) (additional citation omitted). Here, this Court cannot exercisejurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims as Plaintiff has not demonstrated a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs only possible avenue of relief, the FTCA, is closed due to his failure to follow the correct administrative procedures and the fact that the FTCA does not waive immunity for the type of constitutional torts that Plaintiff seems to allege. Finally, as noted above, Plaintiff's claims are comprised of "fancihl" and "bizarre conspiracy theories" that "are generally subject to dismissal." Id. Thus, Plaintiffs complaint should be dismissed.

E.

Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Anv Iniunctive Relief

Plaintiff seems to allege that he is entitled to some sort of injunctive relief. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a valid waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore any claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed. Plaintiffs only potential argument for waiver of sovereign immunity for injunctive reIief is the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 702 et

seq. Plaintiff, however, has failed to allege a final action by a federal agency that would provide Plaintiff a right of action. See, e.g., Coalition for UndergroundExpansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming district court's dismissal of complaint for lack of standing where plaintiff could not demonstrate final agency action for purposes of APA waiver of sovereign immunity). Plaintiffs nebulous allegations related to supposed interactions between the Federal Defendants and the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as it relates to the 2010 census, do not demonstrate a final agency action that could possibly be reviewable under the APA. Thus, any claims for injunctive relief against the Federal Defendants should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Defendants respectfully request that the complaint be dismissed. A proposed order is attached. Respectfully submitted, CHANNING D. PHILLIPS, D.C. Bar # 415793 Acting United States Attorney RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122 Assistant U n M States Attornev

u

~ssistantUnited ~ t d t g , d ~ t t o r n e ~ 555 4th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-7107 wynne.kelly@usdoj .gov

CERTIFICAE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of September 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss arid Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and a proposed order were served upon pro se plaintiff by first class United States mail, postage prepaid marked for delivery

I

to: Christopher Strunk 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1 Brooklyn, New York 11238

Assistant U.S. kttdrney

U

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CEREIDPHER EARL STRUNK,

) ) )

Plaintiff,

1 )

v.

Civil Action No. 09-1295 (RJL)

1 1

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

) ) )

1

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED. The Federal Defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Washington, District of Columbia, this day of

,20-. RICHARD J. LEON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE