strunk motion to reconsider dcd 10-cv-151 decision and strunk reply in the usag case dcd 10-0066

8/9/2019 Strunk motion to reconsider DCD 10-cv-151 decision and Strunk Reply in the USAG Case DCD 10-0066

1/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

---------------------------------------------------------------x

Dr. Orly Taitz, PRO SE

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 Civil Action: 10-CV-00151E-Mail: dr [email protected] (RCL)

Plaintiff,

v.

Barack Hussein Obama,

c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, District of Columbia 20500;

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------x

STRUNKS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT

TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT(S)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk, bySpecial-Appearance, affirmed April 20,, 2010 will move this Court for reconsideration of the

Memorandum/Order and Judgment of April 14, 2010 before Chief District Judge Royce C.Lamberth at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333Constitution Avenue NW Washington District of Columbia, on the day and month in 2010, at a

time and courtroom designated by the court, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.

Dated: April 20th

, 2010

Brooklyn New York /s/

_____________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281

Brooklyn, New York 11238Email: [email protected] Cell-845-901-6767

cc: listing of service to follow

Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S.

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Alan Burch, AUSA

Office of the U.S. Attorney for theWashington District of Columbia

555 4th St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530


2/25



---------------------------------------------------------------x

Dr. Orly Taitz, PRO SE

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 Civil Action: 10-CV-00151E-Mail: dr [email protected] (RCL)

Plaintiff,

v.

Barack Hussein Obama,

c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, District of Columbia 20500;

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------x

STRUNKS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF THE JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

AS TO DEFENDANT(S)

I, Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746:

1. This is Strunks declaration in support of the Motion for reconsideration of the Judgmentto Dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to Defendant(s) with the Memorandum / Order and

Judgment entered April 14, 2010.

2. That the DOJ stipulated with Declarant for an extension of time to respond in oppositionto the motion to intervene, and that when Declarant replied the Clerk of the Court voided the

document and returned it, see the cover page in which the clerk stamped void (see Exhibit).

3. That Declarant appreciates the thoughtful opinion of the Court however asserts suchanalysis as applies is conformed to by Declarant who was not given a chance to reply; and for

reasons Declarant is unable to discuss until say June 17, 2010, and requests an extension of time

to file a reply to the motion to dismiss as to the intervention or otherwise strike the portion of the


3/25

Judgment that references Declarant.

4. As for the Courts use of the adjective quixotic behavior that is noble in an absurd way orthe desire to perform acts of chivalry in a radically impractical manner, neither Plaintiff nor

Declarant believes that fighting to save the sovereignty of the nation under our great constitution

is either absurd or impractical. It should be noted that Cervantes had enlisted as a soldier in a

regiment of the Spanish naval elite corps, Infantera de Marina, stationed in Naples, then a

possession of the Spanish crown. He was there for about a year before he saw active service.

5. That the Don Quixote story is more than mere reference by Cervantes to himself in hisown military exploits, in fact were informed by the heroic exploits of the Jesuit Basque Ignatius

Loyola whose distinguished service in both the Spanish Court and to the Jesuit company of the

Popes militia was really the model forDon Quixote in considering the Jesuit contemporary of

Cervantes as a devout Catholic.

6. Perhaps metaphorically quixotic may be a true expression of any federal court actiontoday that attempts to defend the chimera of the U.S. Constitution as the Court suggests, for the

Jesuits like Cervantes would revile the premise of the underlying protection of the individual

granted in the U.S. Constitution, which are the principles Plaintiff and Declarant fight for.

7. That the term quixotic special meaning that does not apply to Declarant as to that militiathe Jesuits and their collective whom I fight openly without dicing words.

8. That chivalry is not gone as the Court suggests; and to the contrary exists in just the sameway as when Barry Goldwater declared in the 1964 convention "Extremism in the defense of

liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no

virtue." he was merely quoting Cicero two millenniums thereafter, just like JFK had rhetorically

stated Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country came


4/25

from a Warren Harding convention speech too flowed from early history.

Wherefore, Declarant urges the Court to reconsider what we endeavor to do as worthy of the

Courts grant of relief as in keeping with the Courts oath of allegiance, and that Declarants

intervention without substantive due process be stricken from the judgment as premature until

say June 17, 2010 when I am obliged to speak freely; and that Declarant requests other and

different relief that the Court may deem necessary.

Dated: April 20th

, 2010 /s/Brooklyn, New York _________________________________


593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281Brooklyn, New York 11238

(845) 901-6767 email: [email protected]


5/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.............................................................. XDr. Orly Taitz, PRO S E 529839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-54 11;Fax (949)766-7603 Civil Action: 10-CV-00151E-Mail: dr [email protected] 3 (RCL)Plaintiff, 9v. 99Barack Hassein Obama, 3C/OTheWhite House 0 r-r - ->8 - -e1600km sy lva nia Avenue,N.W.Washington, District of Colum bia 20500 3

-"Defendant.r...................................................

8X C 1..,

STRUNK'S DECLARATION IN REPLY DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE 90THE MOTION TO INTERVENEI, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, declare and say under penalty of perjury with 28 USC51746:

1. ~ e c l a r k ts the petitioner who has a pending Notice of Motion to Intervene as an Ex-relator Intervener-Plaintiff with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and 24 in the Quo Warranto matter withFRCvP Rule 81 (A) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff.

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


6/25


7/25


8/25

Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 23 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 11


9/25



10/25



11/25



12/25



13/25



14/25



15/25



16/25



17/25



18/25



19/25

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

in re Taitz v. Obama, 10-cv-00151 (RCL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 21, 2010, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28

USC 1746:

Declarant caused the service of two (2) complete sets ofSTRUNKS NOTICE OF MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION and STRUNKS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS

TO DEFENDANT(S) with Exhibit annexed declared April 20, 2010, and did place each complete

sets in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper postage to be served by USPS mail upon:

Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. , J.D.

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Ronald C. Machen, Jr. United States Attorney

c/o of Counsel Alan Burch, AUSA


555 4th St., N.W.


I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: April ____ 2010Brooklyn, New York _________________________


593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281Brooklyn New York 11238

Phone: (845) 901-6767Email: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


20/25



------------------------------------------------------xChristopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, and Chris : 10-cv-00066 (RJL)

Strunk jus tertii - 593 Vanderbilt Ave. # 281 :Brooklyn New York 11238 Ph. 845-901-6767 :

:

Plaintiff, :

v. :

:U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, et al. :

:Defendants. :

------------------------------------------------------x

STRUNKS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

DISMISS IN PART AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, Christopher-Earl Strunk in esse declare under penalty of perjury with 28 USC 1746:

1. Declarant is the plaintiff herein responding in opposition to the Defendants motion todismiss in part and in the alternative for summary judgment due by April 23, 2010.

2. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly in his declaration Paragraphs 1through 5, neither admits nor denies that the statement is sufficient in information for Declarant

to make a response other than to say that if it is true Mr. Reillys service at the Bureau of Census

is so, it would prepare him for denying information as to the data and conduct of that census as

well as the census of farmers too in the aid of fraud and deception.

3. That Declarant contends NASS unreasonably withholds addresses and even zip code(s),notwithstanding the specific name or data of any farmer or other individual, beyond the privacy

protection for specific data of production and name of the provider, as such provides an

unreasonable immunity from prosecution contrary to law that was enacted to provide or protect

against disclosure of specific data and the name of who gave it, and for which Declarant did not


21/25

request any name or data.

4. That as such Declarant believes there are unnamed participants in agricultural subsidythat are acting above the law with impunity who have made a false claims to the U.S. Treasury in

the matter of agricultural subsidy through the Department of Agriculture for modification or

suspension of commodity production, and that various farmers have gamed the system using the

Perishable Agriculture Commodities Actand related law under color of the mis-application and

or mis-use of the intent and letter of the challenged law herein to rip off the U.S. Treasury; and

thereby the Department of Agriculture officials, who supposedly act under the honors system aid

and abet false claims by the overly broad use of the challenged statutes denying any address or

zip coeds going back 50 years, or whereasabouts or even confirmation of the existence of an

alleged farmer(s) who may or may not exist in fact, but are merely part of a fraud scheme in New

York and elsewhere for commodity manipulation and unjust enrichment.

5. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraphs 5 admits as to therequest that he only asks for addresses NOT name(s) or data; and Declarant asserts even zip

codes would begin to map the ongoing investigation.

6. That Declarant understands the law exists to protect any farmer offering production datafigures that if known would undermine proprietary annual yields and planning as to future

production; howver does not apply to what may have happened up to fifty years ago;

7. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly in paragraphs 6 through 9, neitheradmits nor denies that the statement is sufficient for Declarant to make a response other than to

say that by withholding the name and data from specific participants such may be done to

specifically protect against unfair competition and market manipulation by the big combines;

however Mr. Reilly then admits at paragraph 7 there are those who have access to the data at the


22/25

Department of Agriculture and elsewhere anyway under the security agreement, which provides

information to a limited group of individuals not available to Declarant, supposedly with a

security clearance that includes Congress and the Executive. and which means big agro-business

has access through graft and corruption to anyone in Congress or the Executive without any

citizen oversight or involvement whatsoever is ripe for ripe-off.

8. That Declarant claims the right to know the addresses and or zip codes with which seekout the existence of individual(s) if any who then may confirm to Declarant if they wish to

release data as they have the choice to do so according to the law or are they also prohibited

from telling Declarant too on a one on one basis which in fact is a Catch 22.

9. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraph 10 admits that the statutereference is correct; however, Declarant asserts that subsection (1) does not deny the provision of

the address or zip-code merely denies provision of the name of the person or data; as to (2)

Declarant does not request data nor the identification of the person; as to (3) Declarant does not

request any specific data or name of any person that supplied the particular information. The

express law does not deny release of an address or zip code.

10. Declarant as to the Declaration of Joseph T. Reilly at paragraph 11 denies that release ofan address or zip-code would allow the identification of the person who supplied particular

information especially from 50 years earlier is phony baloney; and even if the person were

released without any mention of data, such informational would remain under the control of that

person which is the intent of the law to protect the data.

11. Now if the system is being gamed as I believe, the abuse of the law by not allowingrelease of an address to confirm that a farm exists, if at all, and I believe that many farms are

phony baloney except for billing only for the purpose of ripping off the U.S. Treasury, then the


23/25

law was not intended in any of the express language to do so, and has been used by the

Department of Agriculture and its agents in an overly broad cover-up of crime in connection

with the Congress, the Executive and the big agro-business collective that like roaches dont stay

still when the lights go on.

12. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraphs 1 thru 4 neitheradmits nor denies that the statement is sufficient in information for Declarant to make a response

other than to say that I am sure that Ms. Hutchinson has a stellar record as a public servant;

however, she does not verify whether any of the data she obtains is correct as she operates under

an honor system as part of a system that compartmentalizes checks and balances to obscure the

data that protects fraud when it occurs, effects the futures market and creates derivative fiction.

13. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraph 5 and 6 admits asto the request and response, did only ask for addresses not names or data; and Declarant asserts

that even zip codes would begin to map the investigation ongoing back 50 years.

14. Declarant as to the Declaration of Stasia M. Hutchinson at paragraph 7 as to Exemption 3and 7 USC 2276 contends overly broad use especially as to addresses from 50 years earlier that

does not cover release of zip-codes or addresses that at paragraph 8 Ms. Hutchison admits the

Department takes data from other individuals who are not farmers without any security

agreement protecting the data for the farmer; so if the other individual is a lawyer, bookkeeper or

accountant or even an agro-business why wouldnt that address or zip-code be released? I am not

interested in names or data, Declarant only wants to ascertain whether there actually is a farm

involved because I do not trust the government or anyone to do so.

15. Agriculture is all about the futures market and commodity trading that started withfarming to help the farmers; but now because of the isolation of the agricultural sector under the


24/25

control of the international agro-businesses influenced by the Jesuits, there is proprietary trading

of derivative paper for paper and endless scams that have gutted our agricultural sector for the

vary reasons that the bureaucrats who operate beyond the express black letter of the law shows.

The reason why such bureaucrats would protect an address from 50 years ago goes to real

property, water, and utility scams that steal property and feed a big international enterprise that

has its hand over fist into the U.S. Treasury that is enslaving the future of the farmers, their

children thereby undermining the entire country in the process.

16. Wherefore, Declarant urges the Court to deny the Agricultural Department Defendantsmotion to dismiss and that the addresses and zip codes be released to Declarant even if it would

require entry into a security agreement; and that otherwise, the Court should issue a declaratory

judgment finding the USDA overly broad use of the express law is arbitrary and capricious

against public policy. As for the Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar and his water

exploitation shenanigans along with the U.S. Geological Survey as done here in the New York

watersheds involving theft of real property with use of sham and suppression of other readily

available juvenile sources of water described and proven by Michael A. Salzman in his 1960

BookNew Water for a Thirsty World(that counter intuitively by drilling wells into solid rock

and finding fissures with artesian pure water as with abiotic oil is generated by geologic

processes) and the fraud involved is destroying our national agricultural base with derivative

scams that must be exposed soon with or without their continued presence in this case, the other

defendants time will come; and requests other and different relief the Court may deem necessary.

Dated: April 20th , 2010 /s/

Brooklyn, New York _________________________________Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281

Brooklyn, New York 11238(845) 901-6767 email: [email protected]


25/25

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

in re Strunk v. US Dept. of Interior et al., 10-cv-00066 (RJL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 21, 2010, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, state under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28

USC 1746:

Declarant caused the service of a complete set ofSTRUNKS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT declared April 20, 2010, and did place the complete set in asealed folder properly addressed with proper postage to be served by USPS mail upon:

Ronald C. Machen, Jr. United States Attorney

c/o of Counsel Jennifer M. Olkiewicz, AUSA


555 4th St., N.W.


I do declare and certify under penalty of perjury:

Dated: April ____ 2010

Brooklyn, New York _________________________

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281

Brooklyn New York 11238

Phone: (845) 901-6767Email: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

strunk motion to reconsider dcd 10-cv-151 decision and strunk reply in the usag case dcd 10-0066

Documents