02-10-2009 – Strunk v US Department of State – Dkt 09 – Supplement amended verified complaint and petition for Writ under FOIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND : SECURITY,
Defendants.

Case No.: 08-cv-2234 (RJL)

SUPPLEMENT AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER F.O.I.A.

NOW COMES Christopher Earl Strunk, as the Petitioner, and brings this Supplement Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a)(1)(c)(1)(B)(d) of the Complaint filed with the clerk of the District Court on November 26. 2008, and pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, et sequitur, against the Defendants the United States Department of State, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, stating:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This cause of action arises under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552. Jurisdiction is properly before this Court pursuant to that federal statute with the United States District Courts under 28 USC §1331 with a Federal question and under 28 USC §1346.

2. This particular District Court for the District of Columbia affords the proper venue under 28 USC §1391 (e) (2) for this action in that the Defendant U.S. Department of State and Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security as each is located within the District of Columbia and the failure of the Defendant and or Defendants to act separately and or in concert was also within the District of Columbia. 3. Petitioner filed this complaint requesting this Court to Order the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Homeland Security to fulfill their obligations pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter “FOIA”) immediately turn over the following documents on the following individual:

a. Stanley Ann Dunham, a/k/a Ann Dunham a/k/a Stanley Ann Obama a/k/a Ann Obama a/k/a Stanley Ann Soetoro a/k/a Ann Soetoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Sutoro a/k/a Ann Sutoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Dunham Obama a/k/a Ann Dunham Obama, born November 29, 1942 at Wichita Leavenworth KS. U.S., a.k.a. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and who died on November 7, 1995 under the name Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (a.k.a. Sutoro), SSN: 535-40-8522; and

b. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. a/k/a Barry Soetoro Date of Birth: August 4, 1961 and as a living natural person; and

4. The following documents:

a. Any and all U.S. Applications for a U.S. Passport;

b. Entry and Exit Passport Records pertaining to the United States and Kenya from the period of time of January 01, 1960 to December 31, 1975 and January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1985;

c. Entry and Exit Passport Records pertaining to the United States and Indonesia from the period of time of January 01, 1960 to December 31, 1973 and January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1985;

d. The above travel records on for the dates specified travelling on a U.S. Passport, Kenyan Passport, Indonesian Passport or any other foreign passport and/or visa;

e. Foreign Birth Certificate registered and filed with the U.S. Embassy, Kenya and/or U.S. Embassy of Indonesia for Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro, Date of Birth: August 4, 1961;

f. Foreign Birth Registry filed with the U.S. Embassy, Kenya and/or U.S. Embassy of Indonesia by Stanley Ann Dunham, et al. Registering the birth of Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro, Date of Birth: August 4, 1961; and

g. Adoption Records and/or Governmental “Acknowledgment” wherein Barack H. Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro was “acknowledged” as Lolo Soetoro, M.A.’s son.

5. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk, petitions this Court for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus under 28 USC §1651, directed to Respondent, United States Department of State, and its employees and agents in the United States Department of State and ;

6. This action seeks to compel the U.S. Department of State to turn over the records requested pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act referred to herein.

7. In support of this amended verified petition, Petitioner avers the following:

THE PARTIES

8. Petitioner, Christopher Earl Strunk (hereinafter “Petitioner”), is an individual who resides with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, NY 11238; Email: uncasvotes2@yahoo.com, cell-845-901-6767.

9. Defendant, United States Department of State, is a Governmental Agency located at 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20520.

10. Defendant, United States Department of Homeland Security, is a governmental agency created pursuant the Patriot Act, and whose Executive level cabinet Secretary is Michael Chertoff with mailing address located at Washington, DC 20528.

11. That under the Patriot Act the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is in control of the Bureau of Customs and Border Control located at 799 Ninth Street, N. W. at the Mint Annex Washington D.C. 20229. FACTS

12. On October 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a FOIA request directed to the United States Department of State request for the above cited records for the person referenced at paragraph 3 (a) for the period from 1960 through 1963, and Petitioner sent the request via United States Postal Service, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested; a true and correct copy of Petitioner’s letter is attached hereto and incorporated in by reference as Exhibit A.

13. Petitioner filed the FOIA request for travel records shown as Exhibit A that was deposited with the USPS certified with return receipt request for two-day delivery by October 20, 2008, as per the true and correct copy of the USPS mailing purchase receipt attached herewith marked Exhibit B.

14. That on October 27, 2008, the USPS confirmed delivery of the FOIA request for records under the control of the United States Department of State, (see Exhibit C).

15. That on October 30, 2008, Defendants agent signed the return receipt for the FOIA request shown as Exhibit A for Petitioner’s FOIA request at the U.S. Department of State; that thereafter, was delivered to my mailing address by the USPS, (see Exhibit D).

16. On or about November 7, 2008 Petitioner never received any response from Defendant / Respondent for any of the information requested in regards to above paragraph 3(a).

17. On November 22, 2008, Petitioner filed the FOIA request with reference number B8475 the information detailed above in regards to above living natural person described in paragraph 3(b); see the U.S. Department of State request confirmation marked Exhibit E.

18. On November 22, 2008, Petitioner filed a declaration in support of the FOIA request with reference number B8475 the information detailed above in regards to above living natural person described in paragraph 3(b), with a cover letter and attachment of the FOIA request on the deceased person described in paragraph 3(a) see Exhibit F.

19. A true and correct copy of the return receipt is attached hereto and incorporated see Exhibit G.

20. That as a matter of Bureau of Customs and Border Control concern, based upon the school records (see Exhibit H) provided by Indonesian authorities as to Barry Soetoro’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro and schooling in Indonesia as a natural born Indonesian citizen, indicates that Barry Soetoro may be an illegal alien improperly in the United States.

21. That as a matter of Bureau of Customs and Border Control concern, based upon information and belief there is an imposter presently using the deceased Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro’s (a.k.a. Sutoro) SSN: 535-40-8522 for employment at the Ford Foundation and is residing in New York City.

22. On December 26, 2008, Petitioner filed a FOIA request for records cited above in paragraphs 3 through 4(g) and paragraph 21 directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Control of the U.S. Department Of Homeland Security located at 799 Ninth Street, N. W. in the Mint Annex Washington D.C. 20229 to the attention of Mark Hanson Director FOIA Division (see Exhibit I).

23. The above records do not fall within any of FOIA exemptions items.

24. The above documents do not involve any of the FOIA exemptions which include National defense or foreign policy records, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), internal personnel rules and practices of an agency, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(2); exemption by other federal statutes, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3); trade secrets, commercial or financial information, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4); inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5); personnel and medical files, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(6); information complied for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(7); information contained in or related to examination, operating or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions. 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(8); nor does the information requested involve geological and geophysical information, 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(9). 2

5. The above requested documents are extremely critical and important to Petitioner as well as the general public and are of substantial public interest.

26. The overwhelming majority of the Electoral College slates of the States of the several States received the majority advisory votes cast for Barack Hussein (“H.”) Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro [hereinafter "Obama"] and thereby won the general election votes on November 4, 2008; and subsequent to canvassing in each State of the several States the Electoral College of each state of the several states is to be certified by the state officials over every state on or about December 1, 2008 is to assembly in each State of the several States to cast their votes on December 15, 2008.

27. Mr. Obama is not a U.S. “natural born” citizen and ineligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

28. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii, he was actually born in Mombasa, Kenya to his mother a U.S. citizen and his father a Kenyan National.

29. Mr. Obama’s mother (referenced above in paragraph 3(a)) was not old enough pursuant to the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 to pass on U.S. “natural born” citizenship to Mr. Obama.

30. The U.S. Law in effect during Mr. Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen, under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999), Scales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005).

31. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, is the law that applies to a birth abroad and is in effect at the time of birth, MarquezMarquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth”).

32. Stanley Ann Dunham, Mr. Barry Soetoro’s mother, was only 18 when she gave birth to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else as a United States “natural born” citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements pursuant to our United States Laws; as such it does not matter that this is a minor technicality, the law is applied regardless – see United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

33. Mr. Barry Soetoro has been asked for his “vault” version birth certificate; however, he has refused, which has prompted law suits across the United States.

34. Instead, Mr. Barry Soetoro and or his agent(s) placed an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is issued for all birth’s registered in the State of Hawaii; the COLB, does not prove “natural born” citizenship or birth in Hawaii.

35. A COLB is sufficient proof of citizenship; however, it does not prove “natural born” citizenship, a COLB is issued to those who are simply “naturalized”.

36. There is absolutely NO doubt in Petitioner’s mind that Mr. Barry Soetoro’s birth in Kenya was registered in Hawaii, at which time, yes they would have issued a COLB; however, Barry Soetoro’s birth could have ONLY been registered as “naturalized” as his mother did not meet the citizenship requirements to register Barry Soetoro’s birth as “natural born”, Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava , 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998), United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188 F.3d 422, 426-27 (7th Cir. 1999), Scales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 232 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000), Solis-Espinoza v. Gonzales 401 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2005), and as such the law that applies to a birth abroad is the law in effect at the time of birth, Marquez-Marquez a/k/a Moreno v. Gonzales 455 F. 3d 548 (5th Cir. 2006), Runnett v. Shultz, 901 F.2d 782, 783 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “the applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child’s birth”).

37. Mr. Barry Soetoro’s citizenship status is further complicated by the fact he was enrolled by Lolo Soetoro in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia; the records received as copies of the school registration, in which it clearly states Mr. Barack Hussein Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian, shown as Exhibit H.

38. Mr. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, and Mr. Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam.

39. At the time Mr. Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government; and that Indonesia at this time was a police state and foreign students were not allowed to attend public schools.

40. The Indonesian school, upon registration of a new student, verified the citizenship status and name of the child with the Indonesian Government; moreover, Indonesian Immigration and police checked all public schools on a weekly basis to ensure the only students attending were in fact Indonesian citizens.

41. Due to Mr. Obama’s birth abroad, he could only be “naturalized”, second, he became a “natural” citizen of Indonesia; even if Obama’s adoption and/or acknowledgment allowed him to choose his citizenship status, there is more involved. 42. Indonesia, still to this day, does not permit dual citizenship, and the law in Indonesia states if a minor who lost citizenship in another country may reclaim that citizenship; however, prior to age 21, they must swear a declaration signed and served and filed with Indonesia their desire to relinquish their citizenship status.

43. Furthermore, if this is not done by age 21, they lose that right; and as stated in the Indonesian laws, “at the age of 18, the child can choose whether to stay an Indonesian citizen or follow their foreign father’s citizenship. They will be then given additional three more years to decide on which nationality to choose.”, e.g. 18 + 3 = 21.

44. The problem here is the citizenship of Mr. Obama’s father “Soetoro” is Indonesian; Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship.

45. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship); Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

46. The Hague Convention prevented the U.S. from interfering with Indonesia’s laws. 47. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship, thus, neither did the U.S.; and an adoption per se severs all relationship to the birth place and/or citizenship of a birth parent.

48. Once Indonesian “natural” citizenship status occurred, it stayed; and in order, according to Indonesia, which is whose law prevails, Mr. Obama would have been required to relinquish in writing under oath his Indonesian citizenship and file the declaration with Indonesia government.

49. Indonesian citizenship does not expire without a person, in declaration, swears under the penalty of perjury, to relinquish Indonesian Citizenship and files said document with the government no later then age 21, as under the Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

50. If Mr. Barry Soetoro wanted to fully regain any U.S. Citizenship status he may have had, he would have had to undue the adoption or go through paternity to prove Soetoro was NOT his father in the case of Soetoro Acknowledging Mr. Obama as his son, both of which gave Mr. Obama “natural” Indonesian status, which is the same as U.S. “natural born” citizenship status.

51. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son—in this case Obama—to be an Indonesian State citizen; the Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, and Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

52. Further, the Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states “It is stipulated that an adopted child has the same status as a natural child and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is severed by adoption”.

53. Further, the Indonesia Constitution, Article 2 states: “on the condition of ratification of the adoption by the District Court: ‘The law stipulates that children of mixed couples automatically assume their father’s citizenship, and a divorced wife cannot take custody of her children because they have different citizenship’….”.

54. Furthermore, Indonesia did not allow Dual Citizenship or Dual Nationality thus Mr. Barry Soetoro is not a U.S. Citizen, he is Indonesian; neither Mr. Obama’s place of birth or the nationality of his American parent are relevant, the Indonesian Law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930.

55. The United States accepts the existence of Dual Nationality only if the other country does; however, Hague Conventions are applied by the United States and this has been in effect since before 1930 (Memorandum on Nationality, including Statelessness: Document A/CN.4/67, Prepared by Ivan S Kerno, International Law Commission, United Nations General Assembly, 6th April 1953.); thus, Mr. Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” citizen and my not even be a naturalized citizen.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF

56. Petitioner / Plaintiff has standing to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994); and anyone denied information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994) has standing to sue regardless of his or her reasons. Akins vs.FEC, 322 US. App. D.C. 58; 101 F.3d 731; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31253 (1996), 524 U.S. 11 (1998); Public Citizen vs. FTC, 276 U.S. App. D.C. 222, 869 F.2d 1541(D.C. Cir. 1989).

57. Petitioner / Plaintiff has suffered an informational injury as a voter and member of the public; and the lack of information on Mr. Barry Soetoro’s citizenship, caused by the State Departments action, limited the information available to him as a voter and impaired his ability to influence and inform the public and policymakers.

58. If a party is denied information that will help it in making a voting decision that party is obviously injured in fact; and as stated in Akins, the court noted that: “[a] voter deprived of useful information at the time he or she votes suffers a particularized injury in some respects unique to him or herself just as a government contractor, allegedly wrongfully deprived of information to be made available at the time bids are due, would suffer a particularized injury even if all other bidders also suffered an injury.”

59. Even if all individuals who voted for any of the other Democratic candidates for President, suffered the same injury that does not take away from the individual injury that Petitioner / Plaintiff suffered.

60. Even assuming a request under FOIA triggered legitimate Privacy Act concerns, the U.S. Department of State was required to provide Petitioner with reasonably segregable portions of that correspondence, 5 U.S.C. §552(b); Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (1991) (disclosure of personal information without identifying details), Baltimore Sun v. Marshals Service, 131 F. Supp. 2d 725, 729 (D. Md. 2001) (identity of purchasers of seized government property disclosed).

61. There are no per se rules of nondisclosure, see Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 91 (D.C. Cir. 1984); and FOIA Exemption 6 does not justify the withholding of information regarding individuals particularly where the privacy interest is minimal and the public interest in disclosure is strong, and the balance of interests under Exemption 6 “instructs the court to tilt the balance in favor of disclosure.” Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

62. These issues can be easily resolved; the documents requested will either prove that Barry Soetoro is in fact a “natural born” U.S. Citizen or they will prove he is not, at which point he will have to be removed as the Presidential candidate and would require a restraint upon the Electoral College vote cast and certified on or after December 15, 2008; however, after January 20, 2009 will require Defendant U.S. Department Of Homeland Security with control of the Bureau of Customs and Border Control to enforce U.S. Title 8 and related laws as to Mr. Barry Soetoro, and the living person using the SSN: 535-40-8522 accordingly in coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice.

63. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public interest and without receiving said documents; our Country is at risk of allowing an illegal candidate to serve as President of the United States which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma.

64. The court determines whether disclosure is warranted by “balanc[ing] the public interest in disclosure against the [privacy] interest Congress intended the Exemption to protect.” Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 776 (1989). The public interest in disclosure lies in “open[ing] agency action to the light of public scrutiny,” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 772. 65. Under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Attorney Fees and Costs are appropriate pursuant to § 552 (a)(4)(E).

CONCLUSION

For the above aforementioned reasons, this Court should Mandate and Order the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Homeland Security and or agencies under it’s’ control to immediately turn over the documents referred to above.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 5, 2009

Brooklyn, New York ___________________________ Christopher Earl Strunk