DC - Strunk QWFCA - ECF 08 - 2012-08-10 - Strunk Motion to Reconsider
Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
-
Upload
christopher-earl-strunk -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
1/30
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITNO: 10-5082(C.A. NO. 09-cv-1295)
Christopher-Earl:Strunkinesse,Appellant,
v.UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFCOMMERCE,BUREAUOFTHECENSUS,etal.,
Appellees. APPELLANTS OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES' MOTION(S) FORSUMMARY AFFIRMANCEIChristopher-Earl:Strunkinesse,herebystateanddeclareunderpenalty
ofperjurywith28USC1746:
ThatIamtheAppellanthereinandmakethiscombineddeclarationin
oppositiontoalltheAppelleesMotion(s)forSummaryAffirmanceofJudge
RichardJ.Leon'sMarch15,2010MemorandumOpinionandOrdergranting:
FederalAppelleesUnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce,Bureauofthe
Census,ChinaLobbyistGaryLocke,SecretaryoftheUnitedStates
DepartmentofCommerce,UnitedStatesDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,
DameofMaltaJanetNapolitano,SecretaryoftheUnitedStatesDepartment
ofHomelandSecurity,theUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentatives,Nancy
Pelosi,SpeakeroftheUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentatives,andthe
usurpertoofficeofthePresidentoftheUnitedStatesBarrySoetoroetal.;
SocietyofJesusAppellees:NEWYORKPROVINCEOFTHESOCIETYOF
JESUS(NYSJ),FR.GERALDCHOJNACKI,S.J.,NYSJProvincial;
MARYLANDPROVINCEOFTHESOCIETYOFJESUS(MDSJ),TIMOTHY
1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
2/30
B.BROWNMPSJProvincial;theStateofCaliforniaAppellee;theStateofTexasAppellee;THECITYOFNEWYORK(NYC),andNYCusurperMayor
MICHAELBLOOMBERGinhisofficialcapacityandindividually;aswellasthe
defaultingDefendantstheStatesofHawaiiandMaryland(Appellees)dismissal.
BACKGROUNDAccordingtoJohnM.McNicholsofWilliamsandConnollyLLPcounselforthe
MPSJAppelleesinsummarysaysDistilledtoitsessence,Strunk'sclaimis
thattheU.S.CensusBureau'sallegedpracticeofincluding"tourists"inthe
U.S.populationwill,afterthe2010reapportionment[sicALLOTMENT],result
inalossofCongressionalseatsforNewYorkandaconsequentdilutionofhis
votingpowerasaNewYorkresident.Ex.1(Compl.)14.Accordingto
Strunk,thecountingoftouristsispartofaJesuit-orchestratedschemeto
disenfranchise"non-Catholicslikehimbyshifting"controlofCongresstothe
Southwesternregion,"andultimatelyto"regionalizeanddismantletheUSA.";
seethe Affidavit of Eric Jon PhelpsannexedforwhichAppellantsubscribes.In1912,theCongresspassedalawincreasingthemembersoftheUS
Houseto435whenbothArizonaandNewMexicoenteredtheUnion.
In1920,whenPresidentWilsonpressuredRepublicanSenatorsBorah
andLodgetoadopttheVersaillesTreatyandLeagueofNationshehad
CommerceSecretaryRedfieldconductthe1920Censusenumerationin
January1920ratherthaninthespringaspreviouslydoneandasaresultthe
enumerationcountedalltheRepublicanFarmersandtheirfamilieslivingin
DemocratictownsratherthanonthefarminJanuarybeforetheplanting
season;andthereforehandedpowertotheDemocratswhogenerally
2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
3/30
controlledthetownsandasaresulttherewasnoallotmentorenlargementof
theHousein1920asdoneeverytenyearsfrom1790.
In1929,9yearslater,withoutacensusallotmentbeforethe1930
Census,Congresscorrectedtheunconstitutionalbehaviortoremedythe
wrongthatdisruptedthepresidentialElectionsof1924and1928byenacting
2USC2athatredistributedtheelectoralcollegeusingthe1912enacting
legislationandformulafortheallotmentin1930nowuseduntilthisday.
Appellantcontendsboththecumulativeeffectofnon-enlargementofthe
HouseistodenyeffectiverepresentationinCongressandtheintentofthe
electoralcollegethatiscompoundedduetotheoutrageousviolationofINA
andrelatedlawsincludingtheoutrageouslyillegalsanctuarypoliciesof
Texas,NewYorkCity,California,Maryland,HawaiiunequallyenforceINAas
withotherentitiesandStatesoftheseveralStatesthatinjuresPlaintiff/
Appellants14thAmendmentsection2rightsthathavebeenviolatedamong
others,andthatPlaintiffhasbeendeniedequalprotectionunderthelawand
substantivedueprocessrequiredbeforeanyrepresentationmaybetaken
awayfromPlaintiff/Appellantalongwiththosesimilarlysituated.
ThatAppellant'scontentionisthatevenwereapersonbornheretotwo
touristsatwillandoradiplomatoftwoforeigncitizenswhenneitherisaUS
Citizenorpermanentresidentaliensuchbirthdoesnotmakesuchpersona
USCitizenandthatthe14thamendmentdoesnotaffordsuchperson
citizenshipnortransformaRepublicintoaJesuitUtopianDemocracy.
Thatwhensanctuaryisprovidedtotouristsatwill,whetherdocumented
ornot,whothenproduceoff-spring,thennoneofthosepersonsincluding
thosetourists,thosediplomatsormembersofthediplomaticcorpsofa
3
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
4/30
sovereignstatearetobeconsideredintheallotmentofmembersoftheUS
HouseofRepresentativesandortheelectoralcollege.
THE CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH ISSUEAppellantcontendsthatachildbornintheUnitedStates,ofparents
whoaretouristsatwillofaforeignnation,who,atthetimeofthechildsbirth,
aresubjectsoftheforeignnation,donothaveapermanentdomicile
residenceintheUnitedStates(thataStateoftheseveralStatesmayNOT
grantatouristapermanentdomicile),arenotastouriststocarryonbusiness,
andarenotemployedinanydiplomaticorofficialcapacityunderaforeign
nation;therefore,maynotbecomeatthetimeofbirthacitizenoftheUnited
StatesbyvirtueofthefirstclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentofthe
Constitution,doesnotchangetheRepublicintoaJesuitUtopianDemocracy.
TheFourteenthAmendmentof1868establishedthatUScitizenshipis
theprimarycitizenshipinthiscountry,andthatstatecitizenshipdepends
uponcitizenshipoftheUnitedStatesandthecitizen'splaceofdomicile.
TheFourteenthAmendmentestablishedawrittennationalrule
declaringwhoarecitizensthroughbirthornaturalization.Accordingtothe
14thAmendment,
"AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubject
tothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewhereintheyreside."
Duringtheoriginaldebateoverthe14thamendmentSenatorJacobM.
HowardofMichigan--theauthorofthecitizenshipclause--describedthe
clauseasexcludingnotonlyIndiansbutalsopersonsbornintheUnited
Stateswhoareforeigners,aliens,whobelongtothefamiliesofambassadors
orforeignministers.Howardalsostatedthewordjurisdictionmeantthe
4
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
5/30
UnitedStatespossessedafullandcompletejurisdictionovertheperson
describedintheamendment.Suchmeaningprecludedcitizenshiptoany
personwhowasbeholden,ineventheslightestrespect,toanysovereignty
otherthanaU.S.stateorthefederalgovernment.
Thus,thestatusofnaturalborncitizenisconditionaluponbeingborn
subjecttothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates--aconditionnotrequired
underthecommonlaw.Thisnationalrulepreventsusfrominterpreting
natural-borncitizenundercommonlawrulesbecauseiteliminatesthe
possibilityofachildbeingbornwithmorethanoneallegiance.
Inconclusion,P.A.MadisondrawsattentiontoRep.JohnA.Binghams
(OH)commentsaboutSection1992oftheRevisedStatutes.Rep.Binghamis
theauthorbehindtheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.
EveryhumanbeingbornwithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesofparentsnotowingallegiancetoanyforeignsovereigntyis,inthelanguageofyourConstitutionitself,anaturalborncitizen.(Cong.Globe,39th,1stSess.,1291(1866)P.A.MadisonprovidescontexttoBinghamsdefinition.BinghamsubscribedtothesameviewasmosteveryoneinCongressatthetimethatinordertobebornacitizenoftheUnitedStatesonemustbebornwithintheallegianceoftheNation.TobebornwithintheallegianceoftheUnitedStatestheparents,ormoreprecisely,thefather,mustnotoweallegiancetosomeotherforeignsovereignty(remembertheU.S.abandonedEnglandsnaturalallegiancedoctrine).Thisofcourse,explainswhyemphasisofnotowing
allegiancetoanyoneelsewastheaffectofbeingsubjecttothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.
Indefininganaturalborncitizenorforthatmateranyformof
citizenshipperse,theCourtshaveconsideredotherideaswhendetermining
whoqualifiesasanaturalborncitizen.
InUnitedStatesv.WongKimArk(1898)onMarch28,1898,in
5
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
6/30
deliveringtheopinionoftheSupremeCourtforUnitedStatesv.WongKim
Ark,inwhichtheSupremeCourthadtodetermine,
whetherachildbornin theUnitedStates,ofparentsofChinesedescent,who, at the timeof hisbirth,are subjects of theEmperor of
China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the UnitedStates,andaretherecarryingonbusiness,andarenotemployedinanydiplomaticorofficialcapacityundertheEmperorofChina,becomesatthe timeofhisbirthacitizenof theUnitedStatesbyvirtueof thefirstclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentoftheConstitution,
JusticeGraystated,
Inconstruinganyactoflegislation,whetherastatuteenactedby
thelegislatureoraconstitutionestablishedbythepeopleasthesupremelawoftheland,regardistobehadnotonlytoallpartsoftheactitself,andofanyformeractofthesamelawmakingpowerofwhichtheactinquestionisanamendment,butalsototheconditionandtothehistory[p654]ofthelawaspreviouslyexisting,andinthelightofwhichthenewactmustbereadandinterpreted.
TheConstitutionnowheredefinesthemeaningofthesewords,eitherbywayofinclusionorofexclusion,exceptinsofarasthisisdonebytheaffirmativedeclarationthatallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensofthe
UnitedStates.Inthisasinotherrespects,itmustbeinterpretedinthelightofthecommonlaw,theprinciplesandhistoryofwhichwerefamiliarlyknowntotheframersoftheConstitution.
JusticeGrayreferredtoseveralcasesbroughtbeforethecourt,which
helpedestablishprecedentsforhisdecision,Thiscourtisofopinionthatthe
questionmustbeansweredintheaffirmative.
JusticeGraycametohisdecisionbasedontheideathatbirthand
allegianceequalnaturalborncitizenship.Thisideawasfirstpromulgatedin
thecommonlaw.Byexample,hecitesUnitedseveralcourtcases,thefirst
casehereisrepresentativeofthereasontohisconclusion.
InUnitedStatesv.Rhodes(1866),Mr.JusticeSwayne,sittinginthe
circuitcourt,said:
6
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
7/30
Allpersonsbornintheallegianceofthekingarenatural-born
subjects,andallpersonsbornintheallegianceoftheUnitedStatesarenatural-borncitizens.Birthandallegiancegotogether.Suchistheruleofthecommonlaw,anditisthecommonlawofthiscountry,aswellas
ofEngland.WefindnowarrantfortheopinionthatthisgreatprincipleofthecommonlawhaseverbeenchangedintheUnitedStates.Ithasalwaysobtainedherewiththesamevigor,andsubjectonlytothesameexceptions,sinceasbeforetheRevolution.
ThefundamentalprincipleofthecommonlawwithregardtoEnglishnationalitywasbirthwithintheallegiance,alsocalled"ligealty,""obedience,""faith,"or"power"oftheKing.TheprincipleembracedallpersonsbornwithintheKing'sallegianceandsubjecttohisprotection.Suchallegianceandprotectionweremutual--asexpressedinthemaximprotectiotrahitsubjectionem,etsubjectioprotectionem--andwerenotrestrictedtonatural-bornsubjectsandnaturalizedsubjects,ortothosewhohadtakenanoathofallegiance,butwerepredicableofaliensinamitysolongastheywerewithinthekingdom.Children,borninEngland,ofsuchalienswerethereforenatural-bornsubjects.Butthechildren,bornwithintherealm,offoreignambassadors,orthechildrenofalienenemies,bornduringandwithintheirhostileoccupationofpartoftheKing'sdominions,werenotnatural-bornsubjectsbecausenotbornwithintheallegiance,theobedience,orthepower,or,aswouldbesaidatthisday,withinthejurisdiction,oftheKing.
InMinorv.Happersett(1875),arguedonFebruary9,1875anddecided
March29,1875,ChiefJusticeWaitedeliveredtheopinionofthecourt,which
includedadefinitionofnatural-borncitizensbasedonthecommon-lawatthe
timeoftheUSConstitutionspassageandsubsequentlegislation.Hisopinion
divergesslightlyfromJusticeSwaynes:
TheConstitutiondoesnot,inwords,saywhoshallbenatural-borncitizens.Resortmustbehadelsewheretoascertainthat.Atcommon-law,withthenomenclatureofwhichtheframersoftheConstitutionwerefamiliar,itwasneverdoubtedthatallchildrenborninacountryofparentswhowereitscitizensbecamethemselves,upontheirbirth,citizensalso.Thesewerenatives,ornatural-borncitizens,asdistinguishedfromaliensorforeigners.Someauthoritiesgofurtherandincludeascitizenschildrenbornwithinthejurisdictionwithoutreference
7
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
8/30
tothecitizenshipoftheir[p168]parents.Astothisclass,therehavebeendoubts,butneverastothefirst.Forthepurposesofthiscase,itisnotnecessarytosolvethesedoubts.Itissufficientforeverythingwehavenowtoconsiderthatallchildrenbornofcitizenparentswithinthejurisdictionarethemselvescitizens.
UnderthepowertoadoptauniformsystemofnaturalizationCongress,asearlyas1790,provided"thatanyalien,beingafreewhiteperson,"mightbeadmittedasacitizenoftheUnitedStates,andthatthechildrenofsuchpersonssonaturalized,dwellingwithintheUnitedStates,beingundertwenty-oneyearsofageatthetimeofsuchnaturalization,shouldalsobeconsideredcitizensoftheUnitedStates,andthatthechildrenofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesthatmightbebornbeyondthesea,oroutofthelimitsoftheUnitedStates,shouldbeconsideredasnatural-borncitizens.[n8]Theseprovisionsthusenactedhave,insubstance,beenretainedinallthenaturalizationlawsadoptedsince.In1855,however,thelastprovisionwassomewhatextended,andallpersonstheretoforebornorthereaftertobebornoutofthelimitsofthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,whosefatherswere,orshouldbeatthetimeoftheirbirth,citizensoftheUnitedStates,weredeclaredtobecitizensalso.[n9]Asearlyas1804itwasenactedbyCongressthatwhenanyalienwhohaddeclaredhisintentiontobecomeacitizeninthemannerprovidedbylawdiedbeforehewasactuallynaturalized,hiswidowandchildrenshouldbeconsideredascitizensoftheUnitedStates,and
entitledtoallrightsandprivilegesassuchupontakingthenecessaryoath;[n10]andin1855itwasfurtherprovidedthatanywomanwhomightlawfullybenaturalizedundertheexistinglaws,married,or[p169]whoshouldbemarriedtoacitizenoftheUnitedStates,shouldbedeemedandtakentobeacitizen.[n11]Fromthisitisapparentthatfromthecommencementofthelegislationuponthissubjectalienwomenandalienminorscouldbemadecitizensbynaturalization,andwethinkitwillnotbecontendedthatthiswouldhavebeendoneifithadnotbeensupposedthatnativewomenandnativeminorswerealreadycitizensbybirth.
IntheDissentingOpinioninU.S.v.WongKimArk(1898).ChiefJustice
Fullerobjectedtotheideathattheonlythingnaturalbornevermeantinthe
firstplacewasthattheindividualinquestionwasbornonU.S.soil:
[I]tisunreasonabletoconcludethatnaturalborncitizenapplied
toeverybodybornwithinthegeographicaltractknownastheUnited
8
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
9/30
States,irrespectiveofcircumstances;andthatthechildrenofforeigners,happeningtobeborntothemwhilepassingthroughthecountry,whetherofroyalparentageornot,orwhetheroftheMongolian,Malay,orotherrace,wereeligibletothepresidency,whilechildrenofourcitizens,bornabroad,werenot.
AtissueiswhetherornotaparentmustbeacitizeninorderforapersonbornunderthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatestobeconsideredanaturalborncitizen.
Therewereconflictingviews,representedbytheopinionsanddissents
ofthecourtsandinwritingsreflectiveofthetimeperiod.
E.deVattelsLawofNations(1758).
"Thenatives,ornatural-borncitizens,arethoseborninthe
country,ofparentswhoarecitizens.Asthesocietycannotexistandperpetuateitselfotherwisethanbythechildrenofthecitizens,thosechildrennaturallyfollowtheconditionoftheirfathers,andsucceedtoalltheirrights.Thesocietyissupposedtodesirethis,inconsequenceofwhatitowestoitsownpreservation;anditispresumed,asamatterofcourse,thateachcitizen,onenteringintosociety,reservestohischildrentherightofbecomingmembersofit.Thecountryofthefathersisthereforethatofthechildren.
The Current definitionaboveiswherethedefinitionofnaturalborncitizencurrentlystands.ThataccordingtotheStateDepartmentForeign
AffairsManual,aU.S.citizenshipmaybeacquiredeitheratbirthorthrough
naturalizationandU.S.lawsgoverningtheacquisitionofcitizenshipatbirth
thatembodytwolegalprinciples:
1.Jussoli(thelawofthesoil),aruleofcommonlawunderwhichthe
placeofapersonsbirthdeterminescitizenship.Inadditiontocommonlaw,
thisprincipleisembodiedinthe14thAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitutionand
thevariousU.S.citizenshipandnationalitystatutes.
2.Jussanguinis(thelawofthebloodline),aconceptofRomanorcivil
lawunderwhichapersonscitizenshipisdeterminedbythecitizenshipofone
9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
10/30
orbothparents.Thisrule,frequentlycalledcitizenshipbydescentor
derivativecitizenship,isnotembodiedintheU.S.Constitution,butsuch
citizenshipisgrantedthroughstatute.Aslawshavechanged,the
requirementsforconferringandretainingderivativecitizenshiphavealso
changed.
Naturalizationistheconferringofnationalityofastateuponaperson
afterbirth,byanymeanswhatsoeverorconferringofcitizenshipupona
person.Naturalizationcanbegrantedautomaticallyorpursuanttoan
application.UnderU.S.law,foreignnaturalizationacquiredautomaticallyis
notanexpatriatingact.
In the U.S. Code definition withTitle8,Section1401,oftheU.S.Codeprovidesthecurrentdefinitionforanatural-borncitizen,(i)Anyoneborninside
theUnitedStatesandsubjecttothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,which
exemptsthechildofadiplomatfromthisprovision(ii)AnyIndianorEskimo
bornintheUnitedStates,providedbeingacitizenoftheU.S.doesnotimpair
theperson'sstatusasacitizenofthetribe(iii)Anyonebornoutsidethe
UnitedStates,bothofwhoseparentsarecitizensoftheU.S.,aslongasone
parenthaslivedintheU.S.(iv)AnyonebornoutsidetheUnitedStates,if
oneparentisacitizenandlivedintheU.S.foratleastoneyearandtheother
parentisaU.S.national;(v)AnyoneborninaU.S.possession,ifoneparent
isacitizenandlivedintheU.S.foratleastoneyear;(vi)Anyonefoundin
theU.S.undertheageoffive,whoseparentagecannotbedetermined,as
longasproofofnon-citizenshipisnotprovidedbyage21;and(vii)Anyone
bornoutsidetheUnitedStates,ifoneparentisanalienandaslongasthe
otherparentisacitizenoftheU.S.wholivedintheU.S.foratleastfiveyears
10
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
11/30
(withmilitaryanddiplomaticserviceincludedinthistime).
Regarding The Federalist Papers(Oct1787-May1788)thereare85essayswrittenbyAlexanderHamilton,JohnJay,andJamesMadison.
ProfessorYingerexplainedthatthemainfocusofessays2-5,writtenbyJay,
andtitledConcerningDangersfromForeignForceandInfluence"ison
theneedforastrongcentralgovernmenttoprotectanationfrom
foreignmilitaryaction,theyalsosuggestthatastrongcentralgovernmentcanhelpprotectanationfrom"foreigninfluence."Concernaboutforeigninfluencealsoappearsinessaynumber20,writtenbyHamiltonandMadison;essaynumber43byMadison;andessaysnumber66and75byHamilton.
Moreover,theroleofthepresidentialselectionmechanisminlimitingforeigninfluenceisexplicitlydiscussedbyHamiltoninessaynumber68.
Hamiltonsaid:
Nothingwasmoretobedesiredthanthateverypracticableobstacleshouldbeopposedtocabal,intrigue,andcorruption.Thesemostdeadlyadversariesofrepublicangovernmentmightnaturallyhavebeenexpectedtomaketheirapproachesfrommorethanonequarter,butchieflyfromthedesireinforeignpowerstogainanimproperascendantinourcouncils.How
couldtheybettergratifythis,thanbyraisingacreatureoftheirowntothechiefmagistracyoftheUnion?Buttheconventionhaveguardedagainstalldangerofthissort,withthemostprovidentandjudiciousattention.TheyhavenotmadetheappointmentofthePresidenttodependonanypreexistingbodiesofmen,whomightbetamperedwithbeforehandtoprostitutetheirvotes;buttheyhavereferreditinthefirstinstancetoanimmediateactofthepeopleofAmerica,tobeexertedinthechoiceofpersonsforthetemporaryandsolepurposeofmakingtheappointment.Andtheyhaveexcludedfromeligibilitytothistrust,allthosewhofromsituationmightbesuspectedoftoogreatdevotiontothePresidentinoffice.Nosenator,representative,orother
personholdingaplaceoftrustorprofitundertheUnitedStates,canbeofthenumbersoftheelectors.
Regarding the Laws of NatureFederalistBlogauthor,P.A.Madison,factorsinPresidentWashingtonsadmonitionaboutforeignattachmentwhen
formulatingwhattheFoundersandFramersmeantbynatural-borncitizen.
11
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
12/30
OurfirstPresidentwarnedthatapassionateattachmentofonenationfor
another,producesavarietyofevils.
Sympathyforthefavoritenation,facilitatingtheillusionofanimaginary
commoninterest,incaseswherenorealcommoninterestexists,andinfusingintoonetheenmitiesoftheother,betraystheformerintoaparticipationinthequarrelsandwarsofthelatter,withoutadequateinducementorjustification.Itleadsalsotoconcessionstothefavoritenation,ofprivilegesdeniedtoothers,whichisaptdoublytoinjurethenationmakingtheconcessions;byunnecessarilypartingwithwhatoughttohavebeenretained;andbyexcitingjealousy,ill-will,andadispositiontoretaliate,inthepartiesfromwhomequalprivilegesarewithheld.Anditgivestoambitious,corrupted,ordeludedcitizens,(whodevotethemselvestothefavoritenation,)facilitytobetrayorsacrificetheinterestsoftheirowncountry,withoutodium,sometimesevenwithpopularity;gilding,withtheappearanceofavirtuoussenseofobligation,acommendabledeferenceforpublicopinion,oralaudablezealforpublicgood,thebaseorfoolishcompliancesofambition,corruption,orinfatuation.
P.A.Madisonconcludesthatthatthereisnobetterwaytoinsure
attachmenttothecountrythentorequirethePresidenttohaveinheritedhis
AmericancitizenshipthroughhisAmericanfatherandnotthroughaforeign
father.Thisisbecause,Anychildcanbebornanywhereinthecountryand
removedbytheirfathertoberaisedinhisnativecountry.Theriskswouldbe
forthechildtoreturninlaterlifetoresideinthiscountrybringingwithhim
foreigninfluencesandintrigues.andwithconfidence,P.A.Madison
subscribestotheideathatanatural-borncitizenoftheUnitedStatescanonly
mean,
thosepersonsbornwhosefathertheUnitedStatesalreadyhasanestablishedjurisdictionover,i.e.,borntofatherswhoarethemselvescitizensoftheUnitedStates.Apersonwhohadbeenbornunderadoubleallegiancecannotbesaidtobeanatural-borncitizenoftheUnitedStatesbecausesuchstatusisnotrecognized(onlyinfictionoflaw).AchildborntoanAmericanmotherandalienfathercouldbesaidtobeacitizenoftheUnitedStatesbysomeaffirmativeactoflawbut
12
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
13/30
neverentitledtobeanatural-borncitizenbecausethroughlawsofnaturethechildinheritstheconditionoftheirfather.
FramerJamesWilsonsaid,AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesishe,whois
acitizenofatleastsomeonestateintheUnion.ThesecitizensofeachState
wereunitedtogetherthroughArticleIV,Sec.IIoftheU.S.Constitution,and
thus,noactofCongresswasrequiredtomakecitizensoftheindividual
StatescitizensoftheUnitedStates.
JurisdictionovercitizenshipviabirthwithintheseveralStateswaspartof
theordinarycourseofaffairsoftheStatesthatonlylocallawscouldaffect.
EarlyactsofNaturalizationrecognizedtheindividualStateLegislaturesasthe
onlyauthoritywhocouldmakeanyoneacitizenofaState.
Congresswasvestedwiththepowertomakeuniformrulesof
naturalizationinordertoremovealienagefromthosewhowerealreadyborn
abroad(outsideoftheStates)whohadimmigratedtoanyoneofthe
individualStates.Congresscoulddeclarechildrenbornabroadtofatherswho
werealreadyacitizenofsomeStatetobecitizensthemselves.Naturalization
onlyprovidesfortheremovalofalienageandnotforthecreationofcitizens
withinindividualStates.
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT ISSUEReadliterally,theEleventhAmendmentplacesnolimitationsonthe
powerofthejudiciarytoentertainsuitsbroughtagainstaStatebyresidentsof
thatsameState.Nonetheless,theCourtinacontroversial1890decision,
HansvLouisiana,concludedthattheEleventhAmendmentwasinfactabar
tofederalsuitsagainstastatebythatstate'sowncitizens.TheCourt
reasonedthatatthetimeoftheamendment'sratificationin1798thatsucha
limitationwastakenforgranted.
13
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
14/30
TheCourtlimitedtheeffectofHanssomewhatinthe1908caseofEx
ParteYoung.TheCourtallowedasuitforinjunctivereliefagainstastate
officialreasoningthatifastateofficialviolatedtheConstitutionhecan'tbe
actingonbehalfofastate,whichcanonlyactconstitutionally.Thus,state
officials--butnotstates--mightbesuedwhentheviolatetheConstitution,even
whentheydosointhenameofthestate.
Thequestionraisedinthisinstantactionis,doesanyStatehave
sovereignimmunityfromabidingwiththeINAandlawsregardingharboring
undocumentedaliensorasIrefertotouristsatwill.ThatinPrintzvUnited
States(1997),theCourtfoundthatCongresshadunconstitutionallyintruded
uponstatesovereigntyinthelawinquestioninPrintzwasaprovisionofthe
BradyActrequiringchieflawenforcementofficersofstatestorunbackground
checksonprospectivehandgunpurchasers.TheCourtrejectedthefederal
government'sargumentthatitcouldenliststatesinenforcingfederallaw,
eventhoughitmightbeunconstitutionaltorequirestatestomakelaw--the
problemidentifiedinNewYorkvU.S.Howeversuchmaynotbeappliedto
bothINAandrelatedlawinthatasaresultoftheenactmentoftheUS
ConstitutioneveryStateoftheseveralStatesinperpetuityrelinquishedthe
righttodeterminethegrantofUSCitizenshiptoanyalienasitoncehad
powertograntundertheArticlesofConfederation;andthereforenopublic
officialofanyStateoftheseveralstatesmayignoretheprovisionsofINAand
relatedlawincludingtheracketeeringprovisionsofharboringwithoutacting
ultraviresandthatanylawpassedtothecontraryofFederalINAandrelated
lawexcepttoadoptsaidlawasthelawoftheStatepersewithbothciviland
criminalprovisionstomatchassuchanyStateactiontothecontrarymaybe
14
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
15/30
enjoinedbyaCitizenofanotherstatewithoutbarbytheEleventh
Amendment.
InHansv.Louisiana,134U.S.1(1890),theSupremeCourtruledthat
theamendmentreflectsabroaderprincipleofsovereignimmunity.AsJustice
AnthonyKennedy,writingforafiveJusticemajority,statedinAldenv.Maine,
527U.S.706(1999):
[S]overeignimmunityderivesnotfromtheEleventhAmendment
butfromthestructureoftheoriginalConstitutionitself....NorcanweconcludethatthespecificArticleIpowersdelegatedtoCongressnecessarilyinclude,byvirtueoftheNecessaryandProperClauseor
otherwise,theincidentalauthoritytosubjecttheStatestoprivatesuitsasameansofachievingobjectivesotherwisewithinthescopeoftheenumeratedpowers.
AlthoughtheEleventhAmendmentimmunizesstatesfromsuitfor
moneydamagesorequitablereliefwithouttheirconsent,inExparteYoung,
209U.S.123(1908),theSupremeCourtruledthatfederalcourtsmayenjoin
stateofficialsfromviolatingfederallaw.InFitzpatrickv.Bitzer,427U.S.445
(1976),theSupremeCourtruledthatCongressmayabrogatestateimmunity
fromsuitundertheenforcementclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentasis
donewiththeINAandrelatedFederalLaw.
TheStatesofTexas,California,Hawaii,MarylandalongwithNewYork
cityanditsagentshavedeniedAppellantasaUSCitizenequalprotection
underthelawaswellasdeprivedAppellatelife,liberty,orproperty,without
dueprocessoflawasisguaranteedinthe14thAmendmentSection1.All
personsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothe
jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStatewherein
theyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylaw,whichshallabridgethe
privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;norshallanyState
15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisianahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/134/1/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alden_v._Mainehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/527/706/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Younghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/209/123/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunctionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/427/445/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrogation_doctrinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_power_of_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Power_of_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Power_of_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_power_of_enforcementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrogation_doctrinehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/427/445/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunctionhttp://supreme.justia.com/us/209/123/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Younghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clausehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/527/706/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alden_v._Mainehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/134/1/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisiana -
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
16/30
depriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw;nor
denytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.
TheStatesofTexas,California,Hawaii,MarylandalongwithNewYork
cityanditsagentsasaresultofsanctuarypolicieshavedeniedAppellantas
aUSCitizenandCitizenofNewYorktherighttovoteforandhaveadequate
proportionalrepresentationintheUSHouseofrepresentativesfromtheState
ofNewYorkandthedistrictinwhichAppellantresidesnotwithstandingthe
gerrymanderingissuecomplainedofelsewhereandagainin2012.
Itisexplicitinthe14thAmendmentSection2thatreducesaState's
apportionmentifitwrongfullydeniesanyadultmale'srighttovote,while
explicitlypermittingfelonydisenfranchisement.Howevermustbeaffirmatively
donewithsubstantivedueprocessandhistoricallythisprovisionwasnever
enforcedwhilethesouthernstatescontinuedtousevariouspretextsto
preventmanyblacksfromvotingrightupuntilthepassageofVotingRights
Actin1965;andthatAppellantisaminoritywithinaSection5covereddistrict
thathasbeendisproportionatelydeniedadequaterepresentationasthosetouristshavebeenillegallygivensanctuarymustnotbecountedonthe
censusasifequaltocitizensorthosepermanentresidentaliensdulyresident
withinarespectivestate.
Section5,construedbroadlybytheSupremeCourtinKatzenbachv.
Morgan(1966).However,theCourt,inCityofBoernev.Flores(1997),said:
AnysuggestionthatCongresshasasubstantive,non-remedialpowerundertheFourteenthAmendmentisnotsupportedbyourcaselaw.
AppellantcontendsCongressdoesnothavethenon-remedialpower
undertheFourteenthAmendmentnoranysectionoftheConstitutiontouse
theremediallaw2USC2atodepriveAppellantorthosesimilarlysituated
16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._Morganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._Morganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Floreshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Boerne_v._Floreshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._Morganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._Morganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement -
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
17/30
fromadequaterepresentationguaranteedbyArticleISection2relatedto13
USC141and195andespeciallywhentheFederalGovernment
maliciouslyrefusestoenforcetheINAandrelatedlawthatwouldguarantee
protectionofAppellateagainstinjuryandlosesoflibertywhichisongoing.
STANDING ISSUEAsfortheallegedlackofStandingStrunkdeniestheallegationandargues
asfollows:
Standingasadoctrinetolimitjudicialreviewhasgonethroughdifferent
phases.Itshistoryshowsthatstandingreallydoesnothaveanyone
constitutionalstandardandthatitsstandardmaychangeovertimegiventhe
existingpoliticalandsocialenvironment.SeeRichardJ.Pierce,Jr.,Is
StandingLaworPolitics?,77N.C.L.Rev.1741,1788(1999).TheWarren
Courtdevelopedwhatitbelievedwasarelaxedviewofstanding.Association
ofDataProcessingOrganizations,Inc.v.Camp,397U.S.150(1979).The
BurgerCourtthenmadeitmoredifficulttoestablishstanding.Allenv.Wright,
468U.S.737(1984).ThentheearlyRehnquistCourtmadeitevenmoredifficulttoprovestanding.Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.555(1992)
(pluralityopinion).UndertheinfluenceofJusticeKennedy,theRehnquist
Courtinitslateryearsopenedthecourt'sdoorsomewhat.Defendersof
Wildlife,(Kennedy,J.,concurring);FECv.Akins,524U.S.11(1998).Today,
undertheRobertsCourt,thelawofstandingisnotsoclear.Compare
Massachusettsv.EPA,127S.Ct.2553(2007)(grantstanding),withHeinv.FreedomFromReligionFoundation,551U.S.587(2007)(denystanding)).
Whatisreallybehindstandingisseparationofpowers.AsJusticeScalia
statedbeforejoiningtheCourt,"thejudicialdoctrineofstandingisacrucial
andinseparableelementof[separationofpowers],whosedisregardwill
17
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
18/30
inevitablyproduce...anover-judicializationoftheprocessesofself-
governance."AntoninScalia,TheDoctrineofStandingasanEssential
ElementoftheSeparationofPowers,17SuffolkU.L.Rev.881(1983)
[hereafterScalia].Relyingontheseparationofpowersdoctrine,thecourts
havesaidtheycannotdictatethemethodsusedbytheexecutivetoenforce
thelawsfortodosowouldbeinterferingwiththePresident'sresponsibilityto
"takecarethatthelawsbefaithfullyexecuted."Allenv.Wright,468U.S.737,
761(1984).Onthecourt'sproperrole,JusticeScaliastated:
"[T]helawofstandingroughlyrestrictscourtstotheirtraditional
undemocraticroleofprotectingindividualsandminoritiesagainstimpositionsofthemajority,andexcludesthemfromtheevenmoreundemocraticroleofprescribinghowtheothertwobranchesshouldfunctioninordertoservetheinterestsofthemajorityitself."Scalia,at881.
Themajorseparationofpowersconcernsvoicedinmodernstandingcases
isthefreedomoftheexecutivebranch(see,M.,Lujan,504U.S.555;
Massachusettsv.EPA,127S.Ct.1438(2007)andthepotentialcreationofa
nationofundifferentiatedAppellant/Plaintiff.See,~Allenv.Wright,468U.S.
737(1984);Heinv.FreedomFromReligionFoundation,127S.Ct.2553
(2007).However,asweshallsee,theseproblemsarenotpresentinthecase
filedbyAppellant/Plaintiff."Generalizationsaboutstandingtosuearelargely
worthlessassuch."Ass'nofDateProcessingServoOrgs.v.Camp,397U.S.
150,151(1970).Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.555(1992),shows
thattheissueofstandingishighlyfactsensitive.ENDNOTE3.Allalitigant
mustdotodemonstratestandingis"allegepersonalinjuryfairlytraceableto
the...allegedlyunlawfulconductandlikelytoberedressedbytherequested
relief."Allenv.Wright,468U.S.737,750(1984)(citedandquotedinU.S.v.
Local560(I.B.T.),974F.2d315,340(3rdCir.1992).Thecurrent-daytestfor
18
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
19/30
ArticleIIIstandingwasestablishedinLujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.
555(1992)(pluralityopinion).
RESPONSE ARGUMENTCitizenshipdeterminesallegiance.Acitizenentrustshis/herallegianceto
thegovernmentinexchangeforitsprotection,whichincludesthegovernment
providingfortheperson'ssafety,security,andtranquility.UndertheFifth
AmendmentandtheFourteenthAmendment,apersonisentitledtolife,
liberty,andpropertyandcannotbedeprivedofthoserightsbythe
governmentwithoutdueprocessoflaw.Hence,undertheConstitution,a
personisentitledtoreceivefromthegovernmentitsprotectionofhis/herlife,
liberty,andproperty.Thesecomponentsnecessarilyincludetherightto
safety,security,tranquility,libertyandarepublicanformofgovernment.
Canonereasonablydenythatpersonsshouldhavearighttoprotect
themselves?TheFifteenthandNineteenthAmendmentrecognizethat
citizenshavetherighttovotefortheirrepresentativesandprotectthatright.
Citizensexercisetheirrighttoprotectthemselvesbyvotingfor
representativesinwhomtheyentrusttheirlife,liberty,andpropertyand
expecttheserepresentativestobestprotecttheirsafety,security,and
tranquility.Hence,ifpersonsareexpectedtovoteforthoserepresentatives
whomtheybelievewillbestprotectthemandthatrightisprotectedbythe
Constitution,apersonalsohasaconstitutionalrighttobringanactionunder
theFifthAmendmentagainstthefederalgovernmentand/oritsagentsto
demandthatthegovernmentcontinuetoprovidehim/herwiththeprotection
heisentitledundertheConstitution.
TheU.S.Constitutionisacontractorsocialcompactbetweenthepeople,
thestates,andthefederalgovernmentthatdefinesandlimitstheroleofthe
19
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
20/30
federal government and the rights of the states and the people. It is theConstitution as a social compact and the citizenship contract itself between acitizen and the government that provides the citizen individually with that rightto protection, safety, security, and tranquility. Hence, the right to receiveprotection, safety, security, and tranquility from the government is a personalcontractual right that belongs to a citizen of the United States. Appellant /Plaintiff, as citizens of the United States and part of the people thereof, areparties to this contract. They therefore have standing to enforce therequirements of Article ISection2 as to the conduct of the censusenumeration so as not to enumerate tourists and diplomats for the allotmentof US House seats as that then applies to the 1 4 ~mendment Section2 as towho a citizen is as well as for Article 2 Section Ias to the "natural bornCitizen" clause when Appellant has suffered an injury in relation thereto.
Appellant respectfully desires the opportunity to fully brief this appeal asoutlined in the preliminary statement on an expedited basis because theallotment is due to be made with 2 USC2a by December31,2010 one withthe use of tourists at will and diplomats along with those similarly situated asthose under the jurisdiction of foreign State(s) and who are not permanently .domiciled here in any State of the several States; and thereby injuresAppellant's sovereign inalienable rights that interfere and injure Plaintiff /Appellant's liberty and right to contract and property having questionablypledged allegiance to the USA and Newyo&,Respecffully subnlittgd by,Dated: July152010Brooklyn New York mstopher-~ar l : trunk in esse593 ~anderbilt venue#281Brooklyn New York 11238(845) 01-6767Email: [email protected]
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
21/30
Affidavit
Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia
From Czar Alexander I to the Present
I, Eric Jon Phelps, Author ofVatican Assassins: Wounded In The House Of
My Friends, Third Edition, concerning the history of the ubiquitous,
Counter Reformation Society of Jesus in Russia, do solemnly state:
1. That in 1723 AD Czar Peter the Great expelled the Society of Jesusfrom Orthodox Russia for attempting to usurp the Romanov throne
and reduce its citizens to the absolute Temporal Power of the Pope of
Rome;
2. That by the mid-Eighteenth Century the power of the Society of Jesushad grown so great, that nearly every monarch in Europe was under
the power of a Jesuit confessor or adviser directing affairs of state;
3. That due to this vast Jesuit power employed by the Jesuit SuperiorGeneral to create commercial monopolies as well as assassinate
selected enemies of the Society, be they popes or kings, the Order was
expelled from Roman Catholic Portugal in 1759, from Roman
Catholic France in 1764, from Roman Catholic Spain in 1767, and
from Roman Catholic Malta in 1768;
4. That due to the most powerful European Roman Catholic monarchs,including the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, expelling the
Company of Jesus from their nations and empires, Franciscan Pope
Clement XIV, after a four-year investigation, promulgated the lengthy
Bull,Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, forever suppressing and
extinguishing the Society of Jesus in 1773;
5. That because of the papacys suppression of the Society of Jesus,Pope Clement XIV was poisoned with a measured dose of aquetta,
subjecting the Vicar of Christ to excruciating pain and prolonged
suffering before he died in 1774;
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
22/30
6. That because of the Orders suppression throughout the Holy RomanEmpire as well as the entire Roman Catholic world, the Society sought
and received protection from non-Roman Catholic monarchs. Three of
those monarchs (all of whom were racial Germans) were Frederick II
the Great of Prussia, Protector of the German Lutheran Church;
Catherine II the Great of Russia, Protector of the Russian Orthodox
Church; and King George III, Protector of the English Anglican Church
and Protestant Faith of Great Britain;
7. That as a result of the Orders protection from both Frederick andCatherine, Roman Catholic Poland was partitioned by those monarchs,
eliminating the rule of Polands Roman Catholic monarch, thereby
rendering the popes Bull of none effect in that nation, saving the Orders
massive property holdings and treasure from confiscation;
8. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, the Companyestablished its headquarters therein, and began to plot the neutralization
of all anti-papal priests and nuns within the Russian Orthodox Church;
9. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, the Companysought to usurp and control the power of the Romanov monarchy,
purposing to submit both Czar and Orthodox Patriarch to the Temporal
Power of a future pope of Rome within the control of the Order;
10. That as a result of the Orders admittance into Russia, EmpressCatherine created the Pale of Settlement for Russian Jews, forcing
them into a specific geographical region, later to be exterminated by
Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin whose
Gestapo and NKVD worked together during World War II;
11. That as a result of the Orders suppression by Pope Clement XIV, theCompany founded a host of other secret societies including the Bavarian
Illuminati in 1776;
12. That having founded the Bavarian Illuminati from Ingolstadt Collegenear Munich, Bavaria, the Company used its new occult secret society to
consolidate all Masonic power into its hands, thereby creating
Illuminized Freemasonry, directed at its apex by the Jesuit General;
2 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
23/30
13. That having established its invisible power in Russia, Prussia, Polandand England, the Company then launched the Masonic French
Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars, taking vengeance on all
enemies daring to curtail the power of the Order;
14. That during the Napoleonic Wars, Masonic Jesuit Temporal CoadjutorNapoleon Bonaparte I drove the Knights of Malta from Malta, the Order
finding refuge in Russia via the power of Czar Paul I, later murdered by
the Company for refusing to wage war on Lutheran Germany;
15. That during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the acting Jesuit Generalin Russia reduced the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta to his service
in anticipation of the Orders formal restoration by the pope, which
restoration would come in 1814;
16. That as a result of Napoleons Jesuit War on the Vatican, on the RomanCatholic monarchs of Europe, and on the Protestant nations of Europe,
including Germany and the Calvinist Republic of the United Netherlands,
Pope Pius VII restored the Society of Jesus to its former power in August
of 1814, one month prior to the commencement of the Congress of
Vienna that restored the Papal States to the rule of the Pope;
17. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the Company ofJesus set out to destroy all constitutional republics, especially the
Constitutional Republic of these United States of America, considered to
be the font of all anti-divine right and anti-papal movements in Europe;
18. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna and the Orders quest tocontrol the Romanov monarchy in Russia, Czar Alexander I issued his
famous ukase in 1820 expelling the Society of Jesus from all the
Russias. Knowing the Order would then seek to secretly overthrow his
imperial power via Grand Orient Freemasonry, in 1822 Bible-friendly
Alexander closed every Masonic lodge in the empire;
19. That as a result of the expulsion of the Society of Jesus from Russia andthe closing of all Masonic lodges within the empire, Czar Alexander I
was given the poison cup in 1825 in accordance with the bloody Fourth
Vow taken by the highest of the Professed Jesuits within the Order;
3 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
24/30
20. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna, the Secret Treaty of Veronawas convened by Prussia, Austria and Russia (1822), plotting the
overthrow of the Protestant-Calvinist, constitutionally limited, anti-
absolute monarchy, government of these United States of America;
21. That as a result of the Secret Treaty of Verona, James Monroe issued hisbeloved Monroe Doctrine (1823), warning all European Powers to stay
out of the Western Hemisphere to the chagrin of the Jesuit Order;
22. That as a result of the Orders past expulsion from Orthodox Russia byCzars Peter the Great and Alexander I, the Jesuits contrived another
means by which it would be able to reduce the Russian Orthodox
monarchy and peoples, to the Temporal Power of the Pope now governed
by the Jesuit General: that means would be Marxian Socialist-
Communism. For the Company had perfected the socialist tenets of SirThomas Mores Utopia while the Order had operated its 59 socialist-
communist Reductions in Paraguay (1609-1759). These tenets were
codified into The Communist Manifesto, its penholder being Masonic Jew
Karl Marx, its authors being the Jesuits resident in England;
23. That as a result of the practical effects of Napoleons war on papalpolitical tyranny coupled with the preaching of the Reformation Bible
throughout Europe and America during the 19th
Century, the Jesuit Order
was suppressed once again throughout Europe, so much so, the Company
has called it the Century of Disaster;
24. That during the Century of Disaster, the Jesuit Order remainedformally expelled from Russia since 1820. Beginning with the reign of
the great Alexander II, Russia was beginning to experience political
liberty at the hand if her greatest of Czars. But on the day he was to sign
a written Constitution limiting the power of the monarchy and abolishing
the secret police (the Okhrana), he was assassinated by the Anarchists,
hired assassins of the Jesuits, later to murder President McKinley;
25. That as a result of Alexander IIs brutal murder, the assassinationhaving succeeded on the fifth attempt, the only Jew involved in the
murder was blamed by successor Alexander III who then launched a
bloody pogrom killing tens of thousands of Jews throughout Russia;
4 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
25/30
26. That as a result of Alexander IIIs pogroms, the Order instilled a hatredfor the Romanov dynasty in the hearts of Russian Jews. This was
necessary as the Order was to use its obedient Masonic Jews to lead the
Bolshevik Revolution giving the appearance to the world that Bolshevik
Communism was in fact Jewish Bolshevik Communism;
27. That as a result of Alexander IIIs pogroms, his son and successor, CzarNicholas II, would launch the bloodiest pogroms in Russian history,
further driving the Jews of Russia into the Orders Bolshevik Communist
revolutionary camp;
28. That in preparation for the Orders overthrow of Orthodox Russiapursuant to the Council of Trent, Moscow being the Third Rome, the
Jesuits trained their prize student for the task, Josef Stalin. Educated by
Roman Catholic Capuchin priests in Gori, Georgia, Stalin was given ascholarship by those priests to attend the Orthodox Tiflis Seminary in
Tiflis, Georgia. There, under the tutorship of secret Jesuit, Orthodox
Father Demetrius, Stalin was taught the doctrines of Marxian
Communism in preparation for the Bolshevik Revolution (1917);
29. That as a result of the Orders control of Czars Alexander III andNicolas II, while exciting anti-Czarist fury among the Jews of Russia, the
Bolshevik Revolution was a success. From 1920 to 1922 the Order
conducted a Bolshevik Civil War throughout Russia, killing off all
nationalist resistance led by Orthodox patriots. The Jesuit-led Bolsheviks
totally decapitated all leaders within the Russian Orthodox Church who
were against the Papacy, over 5,000 priests and nuns losing their lives;
30. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Civil War against theWhite Russian Orthodox, Masonic President Warren G. Harding gave
over 60 million dollars to the Reds in 1922---the same year Stalin
readmitted the Jesuits into Russia---further entrenching their rule;
31. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Revolution, Edmund A.Walsh, an American Jesuit priest from Georgetown University, was
dispatched to Moscow to negotiate for the Vatican with the Bolsheviks.
From 1922 to 1924 Walsh resided in the new, Jesuit slave state of the
USSR naming Josef Stalin Secretary of the Communist Party;
5 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
26/30
32. That as a result of the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty and thesubordination of the Russian Orthodox clergy, Edmund Walsh, in his
Total Empire: The Roots and Progress of World Communism(Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951), page 28, wrote
about the Russian Revolution of 1917, that it was,
. . . the most significant single political event in the history of Western
civilization since the decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire.;
33. That the reason Jesuit Edmund Walsh put such tremendous weight uponthe success of the Bolshevik Revolution lay in the fact the Order had
used its Marxist Socialist-Communism to submit its old enemy, Orthodox
Moscow, the Third Rome, to the Roman Papal Caesar. Constantinople,
the Second Rome, had fallen to Romes apparent enemy of Islam in
1453 AD, thereby conveniently benefitting the papacy; Moscow, hadfallen to Romes apparent enemy of Communism in 1917 AD, also
conveniently benefitting the papacy, the world in fact to be deprived of
the truth that both Islam and Communism are creations of the Vatican;
34. That the Jesuits were now in total control of the Bolshevik Communistsruling the USSR with deadly cruelty, the Julian calendar was replaced
with the Gregorian calendar (1917) composed by the Jesuit Christopher
Clavius; that every Jewish leader during the Revolution was slowly and
systematically executed or murdered save one, Lazar M. Kaganovitch;
that Jesuit Coadjutor Josef Stalin launched a murderous inquisition
against the Orthodox peoples of the Ukraine, starving from 7 to 10
million people in one year; that the inquisition extended to Protestant
Mennonites, Lutherans and Baptists throughout the USSR in accordance
with the Black Popes Counter Reformation Council of Trent;
35. That the Jesuits were now in control of the USSR, Jesuit Edmund A.Walsh sat in the White House next to his servant, Masonic American
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the president formally recognized
the USSR as a sovereign nation in 1933;
36. That as a result of FDR recognizing the USSR, massive projects werebegun by American cartel-capitalists, including Masonic Henry Ford
furnishing the Gorky auto plant mechanizing the Soviet War Machine;
6 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
27/30
37. That because the Jesuit Order plotted to use the White Protestant,Baptist and Roman Catholic Middle Class of its American Empire to
build Romes Red Communist monster in Moscow, the USSR was made
a partner of the Allies during World War II, FDR giving 11.3 billion
dollars in Lend Lease funds and materials to Stalin, never to be repaid to
the American people;
38. That as a result of the Jesuit Order being in total control of its CFR-directed American government since no later than 1865 with Romes
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, FDR gave all of Eastern
Europe into the hands of the USSR at the Yalta Conference at the
command of Jesuits Harry Hopkins and Averell Harriman, in preparation
for the ensuing Cold War Hoax during which the Society of Jesus would
use its CIA and KGB to destroy all genuine, Eastern European /Russian
Bible-believers as well as all true nationalists, furthering the Ordersquest for world government under a Jesuit-directed Pope of Rome;
39. That during the Popes Cold War Hoax (premised upon the hoax ofmutual airborne nuclear war as explained in VAIII) the Orders CFR-
controlled American government provided the financing and technology
for the building of the Black Popes Soviet War Machine, erecting the
Kama River truck factory during the 1970s facilitated by Jesuit Fordham
University-trained Knight of Malta William J. Casey before becoming
the Director of Romes pro-Nazi, Central Intelligence Agency;
40. That upon the conclusion of the Jesuit Generals Second Thirty YearsWar (1914-1945), the American OSS/CIA continued to work together
with the Soviet NKVD/KGB throughout the entirety of the Cold War
Hoax; that this secret alliance is referred to in the Jesuit Orders
Hollywood Theater release, The Good Shepherd(2006);
41. That during this time of secret, mutual collaboration between theAmerican, Soviet and British intelligence agencies, stupendous acts of
treason were committed against the American people, including CIACounterintelligence Chief James Angleton giving many of the Agencys
top secrets over to Anatoli Golitsin, a Soviet KGB officer in the US.
Anthony Cave Brown makes this clear in his Treason in the Blood(New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994), page 555:
7 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
28/30
Angleton . . . demonstrated his confidence in Golitsin [a supposed
defector] by making available to him the CIA files on the personnel of
the main operating section of the CIA in the Cold War with Russia, the
thousand-odd men and women of the Soviet Division.;
42. That during the Cold War Hoax, both the American and Sovietintelligence agencies were manned with ex-Nazis, the papacy saving its
Nazi Gestapo/SS/SD inquisitional mass-murderers from justice under the
guise of fighting either Communism in the East or Capitalism in the
West as proven by author John Loftus in his Unholy Trinity: How the
Vaticans Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets
(New York: St. Martins Press, 1991);
43. That during the Cold War Hoax, former Nazi intelligence chiefReinhard Gehlen ran the West German BND in conjunction with the EastGerman SSD, Stasi. For ex-SS Nazi Hans Felfe, Gehlens right-hand
man in the BND, also worked for the East German SSD/Stasi for over
twenty years; thus, BND Chief Reinhard Gehlen and SSD Chief Marcus
Wolf worked together for over twenty years perfecting the East-West
united intelligence community subject to the Jesuit Papacy, partitioned
Berlin serving as a foremost rendezvous for East-West agencies:
44. That during the Cold War Hoax, Moscow served as a training base forthe Jesuit Orders world revolutionary socialist communists, including
Fidel Castro, Michael (Martin Luther) King, Yasser Arafat, Jesuit-
trained Bill Clinton and indeed, president-elect Barry Davis Obama;
45. That during the Popes Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control ofboth East and West, was perfecting its internationalist/anti-nationalist
socialist-communist revolution; its Unified International Intelligence
Community; its International Banking Cartel; its International Mafia
Organized Crime Syndicate; its International Drug Trade; its plot to
assemble a military coalition of nations to one day attack and subjugate
the heretic and liberal American peoples, said coalition having beenbuilt and financed by the Popes CFR-controlled American government;
that the culmination of this plot will be a Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion
into North America ending what is left of the Grand and Glorious White
Northern European Protestant Reformation;
8 of 9
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
29/30
46. That I, Eric Jon Phelps, am willing to testify as to the accuracy of everystatement above in any venue permissible.
FURTHER Affiant Saith Not.
Affirmed and so Subscribed before me on this day of June,in the year of 2010.
Lh&wEric Jon a l p s ,Affiant 7203 South Fort Zellers Rd.Apt. DNewmanstown, PA17073
AClllA N LEAWNotary hrbllcbOROWiH,aeRKsCOUMYMy Comml~lon xplrsr Apr 21,2012
-
8/9/2019 Strunk Declaration in Opposition to Appellees Motion DCC Appeal Case 10-5082 071510
30/30
U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbia
Appeal10-5082-cvCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
OnJuly15,2010,I,ChristopherEarlStrunk,underpenaltyofperjurypursuantto28USC1746,causedtheserviceofacopyoftheAppellants OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES'MOTION(S) FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCEdeclaredJuly15,2010withAffidavitofEricJonPhelpsannexedasacompletesetofwhicheachplacedinasealedfolderproperlyaddressedwithproperpostageservedbyUSPSmailupon:
WynneP.KellyAssistantUnitedStatesAttorney5554thSt.,N.W.
Washington,D.C.20530rr:70100780000116198542JohnMichaelBredehoft,Esq.KAUFMAN&CANOLES,P.C.150WestMainStreetPOB3037Norfolk,VA23514rr:70100780000116198528JohnMarcusMcNichols,Esq.
WILLIAMS&CONNOLLY,LLP72512thStreet,NWWashington,DC20005rr:70100780000116198535
Ms.MariaJ.Rivera,Esq.TexasOfficeOfTheAttorneyGeneral
P.O.Box12548
Austin,TX78711rr:70100780000116198504SethE.Goldstein,DeputyAttorneyGeneralCaliforniaDepartmentofJusticeOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral1300IStreetSuite125Sacramento,California94244-2550rr:70100780000116198598StephenKitzinger,AssistantCorporationCounselNewYorkCityLawDepartmentOfficeofCorporationCounsel100ChurchStreetNewYork,NewYork10007rr:70100780000116198581
Idodeclareandcertifyunderpenaltyofperjury:Dated:July15th,2010/s/Brooklyn,NewYork_________________________Christopher- Earl : Strunk in esse
593VanderbiltAvenue-#281 Brooklyn.,NewYork11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]