UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NO: 10-5082
(C.A. NO. 09-cv-1295)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,

Appellant,
v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al.,

Appellees.

APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES' MOTION(S) FOR

SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

I Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, hereby state and declare under penalty

of perjury with 28 USC §1746:
That I am the Appellant herein and make this combined declaration in
opposition to all the Appellees’ Motion(s) for Summary Affirmance of Judge
Richard J. Leon's March 15, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting:
Federal Appellees’ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, China Lobbyist Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States
Department of Commerce, United States Department of Homeland Security,
Dame of Malta 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 the
usurper to office of the President of the United States Barry Soetoro et al.;
Society of Jesus Appellees’ : NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF
JESUS (NYSJ), FR. GERALD CHOJNACKI, S.J., NYSJ Provincial;
MARYLAND PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS (MDSJ), TIMOTHY

1
B. BROWN MPSJ Provincial; the State of California Appellee; the State of
Texas Appellee; THE CITY OF NEW YORK (NYC), and NYC usurper Mayor
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG in his official capacity and individually; as well as the
defaulting Defendants the States of Hawaii and Maryland (“Appellees) dismissal.
BACKGROUND
According to John M. McNichols of Williams and Connolly LLP counsel for the
MPSJ Appellees in summary says “Distilled to its essence, Strunk's claim is
that the U.S. Census Bureau's alleged practice of including "tourists" in the
U.S. population will, after the 2010 reapportionment [sic ALLOTMENT], result
in a loss of Congressional seats for New York and a consequent dilution of his
voting power as a New York resident. Ex. 1 (Compl.) ¶14. According to
Strunk, the counting of tourists is part of a Jesuit-orchestrated scheme to
“disenfranchise" non-Catholics like him by shifting "control of Congress to the
Southwestern region," and ultimately to "regionalize and dismantle the USA.";
see the Affidavit of Eric Jon Phelps annexed for which Appellant subscribes.
In 1912, the Congress passed a law increasing the members of the US
House to 435 when both Arizona and New Mexico entered the Union.
In 1920, when President Wilson pressured Republican Senators Borah
and Lodge to adopt the Versailles Treaty and League of Nations he had
Commerce Secretary Redfield conduct the 1920 Census enumeration in
January 1920 rather than in the spring as previously done and as a result the
enumeration counted all the Republican Farmers and their families living in
Democratic towns rather than on the farm in January before the planting
season; and therefore handed power to the Democrats who generally

2
controlled the towns and as a result there was no allotment or enlargement of
the House in 1920 as done every ten years from 1790.
In 1929, 9 years later, without a census allotment before the 1930
Census, Congress corrected the unconstitutional behavior to remedy the
wrong that disrupted the presidential Elections of 1924 and 1928 by enacting
2 USC §2a that redistributed the electoral college using the 1912 enacting
legislation and formula for the allotment in 1930 now used until this day.
Appellant contends both the cumulative effect of non-enlargement of the
House is to deny effective representation in Congress and the intent of the
electoral college that is compounded due to the outrageous violation of INA
and related laws including the outrageously illegal sanctuary policies of
Texas, New York City, California, Maryland, Hawaii unequally enforce INA as
with other entities and States of the several States that injures Plaintiff /
Appellants 14th Amendment section 2 rights that have been violated among
others, and that Plaintiff has been denied equal protection under the law and
substantive due process required before any representation may be taken
away from Plaintiff / Appellant along with those similarly situated.
That Appellant's contention is that even were a person born here to two
tourists at will and or a diplomat of two foreign citizens when neither is a US
Citizen or permanent resident alien such birth does not make such person a
US Citizen and that the 14th amendment does not afford such person
citizenship nor transform a Republic into a Jesuit Utopian Democracy.
That when sanctuary is provided to tourists at will, whether documented
or not, who then produce off-spring, then none of those persons including
those tourists, those diplomats or members of the diplomatic corps of a

3
sovereign state are to be considered in the allotment of members of the US
House of Representatives and or the electoral college.
THE CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH ISSUE
Appellant contends that a child born in the United States, of parents
who are tourists at will of a foreign nation, who, at the time of the child’s birth,
are subjects of the foreign nation, do not have a permanent domicile
residence in the United States (that a State of the several States may NOT
grant a tourist a permanent domicile), are not as tourists to carry on business,
and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign
nation; therefore, may not become at the time of birth a citizen of the United
States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution, does not change the Republic into a Jesuit Utopian Democracy.
The Fourteenth Amendment of 1868 established that US citizenship is
the primary citizenship in this country, and that state citizenship depends
upon citizenship of the United States and the citizen's place of domicile.
The Fourteenth Amendment established a written national rule
declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. According to the
14th Amendment,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject

to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside."
During the original debate over the 14th amendment Senator Jacob M.
Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the
clause as excluding not only Indians but also “persons born in the United
States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors
or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the

4
United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person
described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any
person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty
other than a U.S. state or the federal government.
Thus, the status of natural born citizen is conditional upon being born
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States -- a condition not required
under the common law. This national rule prevents us from interpreting
natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the
possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
In conclusion, P.A. Madison draws attention to Rep. John A. Bingham’s
(OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is
the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of
parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong.
Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)
P.A. Madison provides context to Bingham’s definition.

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in

Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United
States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. To be born
within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely,
the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty
(remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance”
doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing
allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
In defining a “natural born citizen” or for that mater any form of
citizenship per se, the Courts have considered other ideas when determining
who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.”
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) on March 28, 1898, in
5
delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court for United States v. Wong Kim
Ark, in which the Supreme Court had to determine,
“whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese
descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of
China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United
States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any
diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at
the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,”

Justice Gray stated,

“In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by

the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the
supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the
act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which
the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the
history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which
the new act must be read and interpreted.”
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words,
either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done
by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States.’ In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the
light of the common law, the principles and history of which were
familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”
Justice Gray referred to several cases brought before the court, which
helped establish precedents for his decision, “This court is of opinion that the
question must be answered in the affirmative.”
Justice Gray came to his decision based on the idea that birth and
allegiance equal “natural born citizenship.” This idea was first promulgated in
the common law. By example, he cites United several court cases, the first
case here is representative of the reason to his conclusion.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the
circuit court, said:
6
 “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born
subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are
natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule
of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as
of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle
of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has
always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same
exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’”
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to
English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty,"
"obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all
persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection.
Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the
maxim “protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem” -- and
were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or
to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of
aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born
in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the
children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children
of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part
of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not
born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be
said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

In Minor v. Happersett (1875), argued on February 9, 1875 and decided

March 29, 1875, Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which
included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law at the
time of the US Constitution’s passage and subsequent legislation. His opinion
diverges slightly from Justice Swayne’s:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-

born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the
Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in
a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon
their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and
include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference
7
 to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class, there have
been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is
not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we
have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization
Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white
person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that
the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United
States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such
naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States,
and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born
beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be
considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted
have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted
since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended,
and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits
of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be
at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to
be citizens also. [n9]
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien
who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner
provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and
children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and
entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary
oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who
might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169]
who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be
deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the
legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be
made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended
that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native
women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”
In the Dissenting Opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Chief Justice
Fuller objected to the idea that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the
first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil:

“[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied

to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United

8
 States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of
foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the
country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian,
Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of
our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
At issue is whether or not a parent must be a citizen in order for a
person born under the jurisdiction of the United States to be considered
a “natural born citizen.”
There were conflicting views, represented by the opinions and dissents
of the courts and in writings reflective of the time period.
E. de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758).

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the

country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of
what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of
course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his
children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers
is therefore that of the children.”
The Current definition above is where the definition of “natural born
citizen” currently stands. That according to the State Department Foreign
Affairs Manual, a U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through
naturalization and U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth
that embody two legal principles:
1. Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the
place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law,
this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
2. Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil
law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one

9
or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or
“derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such
citizenship is granted through statute. As laws have changed, the
requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also
changed.
Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person
after birth, by any means whatsoever” or conferring of citizenship upon a
person. Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an
application. Under U.S. law, foreign naturalization acquired automatically is
not an expatriating act.
In the U.S. Code definition with Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code
provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen, (i) Anyone born inside
the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which
exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision (ii) Any Indian or Eskimo
born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair
the person's status as a citizen of the tribe (iii) Any one born outside the
United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one
parent has lived in the U.S. (iv) Any one born outside the United States, if
one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other
parent is a U.S. national ; (v) Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent
is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year ; (vi) Any one found in
the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as
long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 ; and (vii) Any one
born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the
other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years

10
(with military and diplomatic service included in this time) .
Regarding The Federalist Papers (Oct 1787-May 1788) there are 85
essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.
Professor Yinger explained that the main focus of essays 2-5, written by Jay,
and titled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence" is on

“the need for a strong central government to protect a nation from

foreign military action, they also suggest that a strong central government can
help protect a nation from "foreign influence." Concern about foreign influence
also appears in essay number 20, written by Hamilton and Madison; essay
number 43 by Madison; and essays number 66 and 75 by Hamilton.
Moreover, the role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign
influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68.

Hamilton said:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle

should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly
adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to
make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the
desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How
could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the
chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all
danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have
not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting
bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their
votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the
people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary
and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from
eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too
great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other
person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the
numbers of the electors.
Regarding the Laws of Nature Federalist Blog author, P.A. Madison,
factors in President Washington’s admonition about foreign attachment when
formulating what the Founders and Framers meant by natural-born citizen.

11
Our first President warned that a “passionate attachment of one nation for
another, produces a variety of evils.”

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary

common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the
quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It
leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others,
which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by
unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting
jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal
privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of
their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding,
with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable
deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
P.A. Madison concludes that that there is no “better way to insure
attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his
American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign
father.” This is because, “Any child can be born anywhere in the country and
removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be
for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him
foreign influences and intrigues.” and with confidence, P.A. Madison
subscribes to the idea that a natural-born citizen of the United States can only
mean,

“those persons born whose father the United States already has an
established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves
citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a
double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the
United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of
law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said
to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but

12
 never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of
nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”
Framer James Wilson said, “A citizen of the United States is he, who is
a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State
were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and
thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual
States citizens of the United States.
Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of
the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect.
Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the
only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State.
Congress was vested with the power to make uniform rules of
naturalization in order to remove alienage from those who were already born
abroad (outside of the States) who had immigrated to any one of the
individual States. Congress could declare children born abroad to fathers who
were already a citizen of some State to be citizens themselves. Naturalization
only provides for the removal of alienage and not for the creation of citizens
within individual States.

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT ISSUE

Read literally, the Eleventh Amendment places no limitations on the
power of the judiciary to entertain suits brought against a State by residents of
that same State. Nonetheless, the Court in a controversial 1890 decision,
Hans v Louisiana, concluded that the Eleventh Amendment was in fact a bar
to federal suits against a state by that state's own citizens. The Court
reasoned that at the time of the amendment's ratification in 1798 that such a
limitation was taken for granted.

13
 The Court limited the effect of Hans somewhat in the 1908 case of Ex
Parte Young. The Court allowed a suit for injunctive relief against a state
official reasoning that if a state official violated the Constitution he can't be
acting on behalf of a state, which can only act constitutionally. Thus, state
officials--but not states--might be sued when the violate the Constitution, even
when they do so in the name of the state.
The question raised in this instant action is, does any State have
sovereign immunity from abiding with the INA and laws regarding harboring
undocumented aliens or as I refer to tourists at will. That in Printz v United
States (1997), the Court found that Congress had unconstitutionally intruded
upon state sovereignty in the law in question in Printz was a provision of the
Brady Act requiring chief law enforcement officers of states to run background
checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Court rejected the federal
government's argument that it could enlist states in enforcing federal law,
even though it might be unconstitutional to require states to make law--the
problem identified in New York v U. S. However such may not be applied to
both INA and related law in that as a result of the enactment of the US
Constitution every State of the several States in perpetuity relinquished the
right to determine the grant of US Citizenship to any alien as it once had
power to grant under the Articles of Confederation; and therefore no public
official of any State of the several states may ignore the provisions of INA and
related law including the racketeering provisions of harboring without acting
ultra vires and that any law passed to the contrary of Federal INA and related
law except to adopt said law as the law of the State per se with both civil and
criminal provisions to match as such any State action to the contrary may be

14
enjoined by a Citizen of another state without bar by the Eleventh
Amendment.
In Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that
the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice
Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706 (1999):

“[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment

but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we
conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress
necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or
otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits
as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the
enumerated powers.”
Although the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit for
money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young,
209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin
state officials from violating federal law. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445
(1976), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity
from suit under the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as is
done with the INA and related Federal Law.
The States of Texas, California, Hawaii, Maryland along with New York
city and its’ agents have denied Appellant as a US Citizen equal protection
under the law as well as deprived Appellate life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law as is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment Section 1. All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State

15
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The States of Texas, California, Hawaii, Maryland along with New York
city and its’ agents as a result of sanctuary policies have denied Appellant as
a US Citizen and Citizen of New York the right to vote for and have adequate
proportional representation in the US House of representatives from the State
of New York and the district in which Appellant resides notwithstanding the
gerrymandering issue complained of elsewhere and again in 2012.
It is explicit in the 14th Amendment Section 2 that reduces a State's
apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote, while
explicitly permitting felony disenfranchisement. However must be affirmatively
done with substantive due process and historically this provision was never
enforced while the southern states continued to use various pretexts to
prevent many blacks from voting right up until the passage of Voting Rights
Act in 1965; and that Appellant is a minority within a Section 5 covered district
that has been disproportionately denied adequate representation as those
tourists have been illegally given sanctuary must not be counted on the
census as if equal to citizens or those permanent resident aliens duly resident
within a respective state.
Section 5, construed broadly by the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v.
Morgan (1966). However, the Court, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), said:

“Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under

the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.”
Appellant contends Congress does not have the non-remedial power
under the Fourteenth Amendment nor any section of the Constitution to use
the remedial law 2 USC §2a to deprive Appellant or those similarly situated

16
from adequate representation guaranteed by Article I Section 2 related to 13
USC §141 and §195 and especially when the Federal Government
maliciously refuses to enforce the INA and related law that would guarantee
protection of Appellate against injury and loses of liberty which is ongoing.
STANDING ISSUE
As for the alleged lack of Standing Strunk denies the allegation and argues
as follows:
Standing as a doctrine to limit judicial review has gone through different
phases. Its history shows that standing really does not have any one
constitutional standard and that its standard may change over time given the
existing political and social environment. See Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Is
Standing Law or Politics?, 77 N.C. L. Rev. 1741, 1788 (1999). The Warren
Court developed what it believed was a relaxed view of standing. Association
of Data Processing Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1979). The
Burger Court then made it more difficult to establish standing. Allen v. Wright,
468 U.S. 737 (1984). Then the early Rehnquist Court made it even more
difficult to prove standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
(plurality opinion). Under the influence of Justice Kennedy, the Rehnquist
Court in its later years opened the court's door somewhat. Defenders of
Wildlife, (Kennedy, J., concurring); FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). Today,
under the Roberts Court, the law of standing is not so clear. Compare
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007) (grant standing), with Hein v.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007) (deny standing)).
What is really behind standing is separation of powers. As Justice Scalia
stated before joining the Court, "the judicial doctrine of standing is a crucial
and inseparable element of [separation of powers], whose disregard will

17
inevitably produce ... an over-judicialization of the processes of self-
governance." Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential
Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 881 (1983)
[hereafter Scalia]. Relying on the separation of powers doctrine, the courts
have said they cannot dictate the methods used by the executive to enforce
the laws for to do so would be interfering with the President's responsibility to
"take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
761 (1984). On the court's proper role, Justice Scalia stated:

"[T]he law of standing roughly restricts courts to their traditional

undemocratic role of protecting individuals and minorities against impositions
of the majority, and excludes them from the even more undemocratic role of
prescribing how the other two branches should function in order to serve the
interests of the majority itself." Scalia, at 881.
The major separation of powers concerns voiced in modern standing cases
is the freedom of the executive branch (see, M., Lujan, 504 U.S. 555;
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007) and the potential creation of a
nation of undifferentiated Appellant / Plaintiff. See, ~ Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.
737 (1984); Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 127 S.Ct. 2553
(2007). However, as we shall see, these problems are not present in the case
filed by Appellant / Plaintiff. "Generalizations about standing to sue are largely
worthless as such." Ass'n of Date Processing Servo Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S.
150, 151 (1970). Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), shows
that the issue of standing is highly fact sensitive. ENDNOTE 3. All a litigant
must do to demonstrate standing is "allege personal injury fairly traceable to
the ... allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested
relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,750 (1984) (cited and quoted in U.S. v.
Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 340 (3rd Cir. 1992). The current-day test for

18
Article III standing was established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555 (1992) (plurality opinion).

RESPONSE ARGUMENT
Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts his/her allegiance to
the government in exchange for its protection, which includes the government
providing for the person's safety, security, and tranquility. Under the Fifth
Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, a person is entitled to life,
liberty, and property and cannot be deprived of those rights by the
government without due process of law. Hence, under the Constitution, a
person is entitled to receive from the government its protection of his/her life,
liberty, and property. These components necessarily include the right to
safety, security, tranquility, liberty and a republican form of government.
Can one reasonably deny that persons should have a right to protect
themselves? The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendment recognize that
citizens have the right to vote for their representatives and protect that right.
Citizens exercise their right to protect themselves by voting for
representatives in whom they entrust their life, liberty, and property and
expect these representatives to best protect their safety, security, and
tranquility. Hence, if persons are expected to vote for those representatives
whom they believe will best protect them and that right is protected by the
Constitution, a person also has a constitutional right to bring an action under
the Fifth Amendment against the federal government and/or its agents to
demand that the government continue to provide him/her with the protection
he is entitled under the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a contract or social compact between the people,
the states, and the federal government that defines and limits the role of the

19
federal government and the rights of the states and the people. It is the
Constitution as a social compact and the citizenship contract itself between a
citizen and the government that provides the citizen individually with that right I

to protection, safety, security, and tranquility. Hence, the right to receive

protection, safety, security, and tranquility from the government is a personal iI
1
1
contractual right that belongs to a citizen of the United States. Appellant / I

Plaintiff, as citizens of the United States and part of the people thereof, are
parties to this contract. They therefore have standing to enforce the
requirements of Article I Section 2 as to the conduct of the census
enumeration so as not to enumerate tourists and diplomats for the allotment
of US House seats as that then applies to the 1 4Amendment
~ Section 2 as to
who a citizen is as well as for Article 2 Section I as to the "natural born
Citizen" clause when Appellant has suffered an injury in relation thereto.
Appellant respectfully desires the opportunity to fully brief this appeal as
outlined in the preliminary statement on an expedited basis because the
allotment is due to be made with 2 USC §2a by December 31,2010done with
the use of tourists at will and diplomats along with those similarly situated as
those under the jurisdiction of foreign State(s) and who are not permanently .
domiciled here in any State of the several States; and thereby injures
Appellant's sovereign inalienable rights that interfere and injure Plaintiff /
Appellant's liberty and right to contract and property having questionably
pledged allegiance to the USA and Newyo&,Respecffully subnlittgd by,

Dated: July 1
5 2010
Brooklyn New York
m s t o p h e r - ~ a r lStrunk
: in esse
593 ~anderbiltAvenue #281
Brooklyn New York 1 1238
(845)901-6767Email: chris@strunk.ws
 Affidavit
Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia
From Czar Alexander I to the Present

I, Eric Jon Phelps, Author of Vatican 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 Jesus
from 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 Jesus

had 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 Superior
General 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 papacy’s 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;
6. That because of the Order’s suppression throughout the Holy Roman
Empire 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 Order’s protection from both Frederick and

Catherine, Roman Catholic Poland was partitioned by those monarchs,
eliminating the rule of Poland’s Roman Catholic monarch, thereby
rendering the pope’s Bull of none effect in that nation, saving the Order’s
massive property holdings and treasure from confiscation;

8. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company

established 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 Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company

sought 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 Order’s admittance into Russia, Empress

Catherine 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 Order’s suppression by Pope Clement XIV, the
Company founded a host of other secret societies including the Bavarian
Illuminati in 1776;

12. That having founded the Bavarian Illuminati from Ingolstadt College
near 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
13. That having established its invisible power in Russia, Prussia, Poland
and 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 Coadjutor
Napoleon 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 General
in Russia reduced the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta to his service
in anticipation of the Order’s formal restoration by the pope, which
restoration would come in 1814;

16. That as a result of Napoleon’s Jesuit War on the Vatican, on the Roman
Catholic 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 of

Jesus 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 Order’s quest to
control 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 and
the 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
20. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna, the Secret Treaty of Verona
was 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 his
beloved 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 Order’s past expulsion from Orthodox Russia by
Czars 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 Sir
Thomas More’s 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 Napoleon’s war on papal

political 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 remained
formally 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 II’s brutal murder, the assassination

having 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
26. That as a result of Alexander III’s pogroms, the Order instilled a hatred
for 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 III’s pogroms, his son and successor, Czar
Nicholas II, would launch the bloodiest pogroms in Russian history,
further driving the Jews of Russia into the Order’s Bolshevik Communist
revolutionary camp;

28. That in preparation for the Order’s overthrow of Orthodox Russia

pursuant 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 a
scholarship 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 Order’s control of Czars Alexander III and
Nicolas 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 the
White 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
32. That as a result of the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty and the
subordination 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 upon
the 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 Rome’s apparent enemy of Islam in
1453 AD, thereby conveniently benefitting the papacy; Moscow, had
fallen to Rome’s 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 Communists
ruling 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 Pope’s 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 were
begun by American cartel-capitalists, including Masonic Henry Ford
furnishing the Gorky auto plant mechanizing the Soviet War Machine;

6 of 9
37. That because the Jesuit Order plotted to use the White Protestant,
Baptist and Roman Catholic Middle Class of its American Empire to
build Rome’s 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 Rome’s
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 Order’s
quest for world government under a Jesuit-directed Pope of Rome;

39. That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax (premised upon the hoax of
mutual airborne nuclear war as explained in VAIII) the Order’s CFR-
controlled American government provided the financing and technology
for the building of the Black Pope’s 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 Rome’s pro-Nazi, Central Intelligence Agency;

40. That upon the conclusion of the Jesuit General’s Second Thirty Years’
War (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 Order’s
Hollywood Theater release, The Good Shepherd (2006);

41. That during this time of secret, mutual collaboration between the
American, Soviet and British intelligence agencies, stupendous acts of
treason were committed against the American people, including CIA
Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton giving many of the Agency’s
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
 “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 Soviet
intelligence 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
Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991);

43. That during the Cold War Hoax, former Nazi intelligence chief
Reinhard Gehlen ran the West German BND in conjunction with the East
German SSD, Stasi. For ex-SS Nazi Hans Felfe, Gehlen’s 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 for
the Jesuit Order’s 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 Pope’s Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control of
both 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 been
built and financed by the Pope’s 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
 46. That I, Eric Jon Phelps, am willing to testify as to the accuracy of every
statement above in any venue permissible.

FURTHER Affiant Saith Not.

Affirmed and so Subscribed before me on this day of June,

in the year of 20 10.

I

Lh&w
Eric Jon a l p s , Affiant 7
203 South Fort Zellers Rd.
Apt. D
\ Newmanstown, PA
17073

AClllA N LEAW
Notary hrbllc
bOROWiH,aeRKsCOUMY
My Comml~lonExplrsr Apr 21,201 2
 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Appeal 10-5082-cv

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 15, 2010, I, Christopher Earl Strunk, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC
§1746, caused the service of a copy of the Appellant’s OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES'
MOTION(S) FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE declared July 15, 2010 with Affidavit of Eric
Jon Phelps annexed as a complete set of which each placed in a sealed folder properly
addressed with proper postage served by USPS mail upon:

Wynne P. Kelly Ms. Maria J. Rivera, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
rr: 70100780000116198542
John Michael Bredehoft, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street – POB 3037
Norfolk, VA 23514
rr: 70100780000116198528
John Marcus McNichols, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
725 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
rr: 70100780000116198535
Texas Office Of The Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
rr: 70100780000116198504
Seth E. Goldstein,
Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General
1300 “I” Street – Suite 125
Sacramento, California 94244-2550
rr: 70100780000116198598
Stephen Kitzinger,
Assistant Corporation Counsel
New York City Law Department
Office of Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
rr: 70100780000116198581

I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: July 15th , 2010 /s/

Brooklyn, New York _________________________
Christopher- Earl : Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281
Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws