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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/30

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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]


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;


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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]

strunk declaration in opposition to appellees motion dcc appeal case 10-5082 071510

Documents