bho opposition to strunk's motion to intervene with strunk's reply dcd 10-cv-00151

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

ORLY TAITZ, ))

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: 10-0151 (RCL))

v. ))

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ))

Defendant. ) )

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE

Defendant, Barack H. Obama, respectfully opposes the motion to intervene, (R.6), filed

by Christopher Earl Strunk. This case involves a challenge to the President’s eligibility for

office. Strunk’s motion should be denied because, like Plaintiff, Strunk lacks standing to seek

the relief sought in this case and has no separate cognizable interest in the outcome of Plaintiff’s

claims. Indeed, Strunk’s claimed interests suffer the same jurisdictional problems as Plaintiff’s

complaint: Strunk cannot show a specific injury fairly traceable to Defendant’s actions and this

Court cannot redress the injuries he claims. Strunk’s claimed interests similarly raise a

nonjusticiable political question, committed in the first instance to the country’s electorate and,

thereafter, to Congress. Finally, to the extent that Strunk seeks to rely on the Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”), in contrast to Plaintiff, his claims must be dismissed for the simple

reason that Defendant is not a federal agency subject to FOIA.

Because Defendant’s standing arguments are set forth in detail in his corrected

memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss, (R.12-1), the Court is respectfully referred to

that filing for further support for this Opposition.

2

Legal Standard for Intervention

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides:

Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action:(1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene;or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transactionwhich is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that thedisposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant'sability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequatelyrepresented by existing parties.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). In order to intervene under 24(a)(2), therefore, a movant must demonstrate

both an interest in the transaction(s) at issue and that his interests would be impaired should the

court deny him leave to intervene. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 523 F. Supp. 2d 5, 9

(D.D.C. 2007). Among other things, the movant must also establish Article III standing for his

claim, in order to intervene. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003);

Sierra Club, 523 F. Supp. 2d at 9 (citing Fund for Animals). The movant must also show that he

seeks to vindicate a right or interest that runs to him individually, rather than simply advocating

for the vindication of rights that would accrue to the existing parties to the suit. See Me-Wuk

Indian Community of the Wilton Rancheria v. Kempthorne, 246 F.R.D. 315, 319 (D.D.C. 2007).

Strunk cannot meet these standards. For purposes of the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint,

he is in no materially different position than Plaintiff with respect to his lack of standing and

inability to escape the political question doctrine. (R.12-1 at 6-13.) Nor is Strunk any differently

situated with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for mandamus relief or to seek recusal of the U.S.

Attorney’s Office from defending this civil action. (Id. at 13-14.)

The closest Strunk comes to differentiating his interests in the action from those of

Plaintiff is his attempt to tie his interests to the residents of New York State, (R.6 at 11), where

3

he resides, as opposed to Plaintiff, who lives in California. But in that same paragraph, he makes

plain that his interests are not materially distinguishable from those of any American citizen:

Affirmant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, in that the Usurper’sAttorney General and or his agents have not vigorously represented U.S.A. Citizens, theState of New York Citizens and or any other State’s citizens[.]

Id. There is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between the interests of Strunk as a New

York resident from those of Plaintiff, and Strunk effectively admits that his interests are the same

as every other “U.S.A. Citizen.” Therefore, he cannot meaningfully distinguish his interests from

Plaintiff and for this reason alone, his motion should be denied.

Furthermore, to the extent that the Court might interpret Strunk’s filings as seeking to

vindicate any rights conferred by FOIA, he cannot succeed for the simple reason that the

President of the United States is not an agency for purposes of FOIA. See generally Nat’l

Security Archive v. Archivist of the United States, 909 F.2d 541, 544 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“The

Supreme Court has made clear that the Office of the President is not an ‘agency’ for purposes of

the FOIA.”); see also Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 855-56 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Executive

Residence staff not covered).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully asks the Court to deny Strunk’s motion

to intervene.

March 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

RONALD C. MACHEN JR., D.C. Bar #447889United States Attorney

4

/s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. Bar # 434122Assistant United States Attorney

/s/ ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar # 470655Assistant United States Attorney555 4th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530(202) 514-7204, [email protected]

5

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I caused copies of the foregoing Opposition to Motion to Intervene to beserved by first class mail addressed to pro se Plaintiff at:

Orly Taitz29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

and on

Christopher-Earl Strunk593 Vanderbilt Ave., #281Brooklyn, NY 11238

on this 2nd day of March 2010.

ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar # 470655 Assistant United States Attorney

Interpleader Verified Cross Complaint page of 35 Taitz v. Obama DCD 10-cv-00151

- 1 -

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-00151 E-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; § § Obama for America; Obama Victory Fund; § Federal Election Commission (FEC); § U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); § U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT); § John and Jan Doe(s); XYZ Entities §

§ Defendants. § INTERPLEADER

and § § VERIFIED In the Quo Warranto matter of the § United States of America (USA) and ex relator § CROSS COMPLAINT Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, § 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 § Brooklyn., New York 11238 § (845) 901-6767 Email: [email protected] § § Ex-relator-Interpleader-Defendant. §

§ ---------------------------------------------------------------x

INTRODUCTION: Ex-relator-Interpleader-Defendant Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse

(Strunk), is self-represented without being an attorney, having petitioned on January 29, 2010 to

intervene with FRCvP Rule 19(a) and Rule 24 in the Quo Warranto matter with FRCvP Rule 81

(A) (2) as the USA and ex-relator plaintiff to supplement the Verified Petition filed January 27,

2010 (the Petition) by the Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S. J.D. who is self represented (Taitz),


- 2 -

each have a different injury and damages, are interested person(s) wishing Constitutional

remedies and relief with claims against similar funds controlled by Defendant Barack Hussein

Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) and or his agents; and that with FRCvP Rule 22 Interpleader

Strunk hereby adds Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund,

Federal Election Commission (FEC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Department of Treasury (DOT) and various John and Jan Doe(s), XYZ Entities as material

parties in interest, and in that regard the Strunk motion to intervene inter alia sought with FRCvP

Rule 15(d) to supplement the Petition with the Strunk Verified Complaint with two (2) causes of

action affirmed May 19, 2009 (See Exhibit 1 with Sub-Exhibits A through B) that was duly

served upon the Defendant Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), first offered to Jeffery

Taylor the U.S. Attorney for Washington District of Columbia and Eric Holder the U.S. Attorney

General in official capacity did not respond, defer to Strunk’s ex-relator further action and

inquest with DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 §3503. That Strunk with FRCvP Rule 22 hereby

makes this Interpleader Verified Cross Complaint to supplement Plaintiff’s Petition and the

Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 with additional Causes of action, in which Ex-relator

Strunk wishes a partial summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment

with 28 USC §2201 and §2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant

Obama’s admitted Dual Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents (See Exhibit 2)

contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression

Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is ineligible to be the chief law

enforcement administrator and trustee of the office of the President of the United States

(POTUS) and or of Strunk’s grant of power of attorney over personal accounts and matters.

Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to the incapacity to effect the

duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus directive to the Congress and

the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 and 25th Amendment

of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further, notwithstanding the FRCvP

Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC §1361 a writ of mandamus


- 3 -

of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obama’s alleged born in Mombasa Kenya under penalty of

perjury by Lucas Smith (See Exhibit 3); (ii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts of foreign contributors to

any and all Obama campaign committees including Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund,

and others; (iii) FEC / DOT ascertain facts for a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama,

the various Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities

conspiring as defined with 42 USC §1971, 42 USC §1983, §1985, §1986, the False Claims Act

with 31 U.S.C. § 3729–3733 and related law in entirety; and (iv) with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR

65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America,

Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and

investigation of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of

wrong doing for a jury trial on Plaintiff and Interpleader injuries, complains of Defendants with:

JURISDICTION

1. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Jurisdiction would be had as Ex-Relator(s) are

plaintiffs and or with FRCvP Rule 22 an Interpleader Relator Defendant with 28 USC § 1345 in

which the United States is in fact plaintiff - Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress,

the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings

commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue

by Act of Congress; and that this case is also done with 28 USC §1343 as a Civil rights and

elective franchise, in which (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil

action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to

his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the

United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of

Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing

any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur

and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute,


- 4 -

ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the

Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens

or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure

equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights,

including the right to vote; that (b) For purposes of this section— (1) the District of Columbia

shall be considered to be a State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the

District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia; and as with

State Action in Washington DC with 42 USC 1983 that with 28 USC §1344 in this post Election

dispute, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action to recover possession

of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, United States Senator,

Representative in or delegate to Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law to

be commenced, where in it appears that the sole question touching the title to office arises out of

denial of the right to vote, to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color or previous

condition of servitude, in that the jurisdiction under this section shall extend only so far as to

determine the rights of the parties to office by reason of the denial of the right, guaranteed by the

Constitution of the United States and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the

United States to vote in all the States; and that with 28 USC §1357 for injuries under Federal

laws, the district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any

person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by

him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or to enforce the right of citizens of the

United States to vote in any State; and with 28 USC §1361, this action to compel an officer of

the United States to perform his duty, provides that the district court shall have original

jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the

United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff and or Interpleader;


- 5 -

and that with 42 USC §1985 for Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; and with the U.S.

Constitution in its entirety especially Article 2 Section 1 with related State Law as applies to

appointment of an electoral college in each state, and the remedy available using the Fourteenth

Amendment for violation of rights and liberty associated with the first 10 Amendments of Article

7, and the relief that shall be provided with the 25th Amendment.

VENUE 2. Pursuant of the above Introduction, Venue is properly had in this particular District Court

for the District of Columbia that affords the proper venue under 28 USC §1391 (e) (1) for this

action in that Defendant in esse is usurping the Corporate office of the President of the United

States of America (POTUS) located within the District of Columbia and the failure of the

Defendant in esse to act in good faith with his corporate duty within the District of Columbia; in

that Plaintiff and Interpleader Ex-Relator(s) Petition demands the Quo Warranto Act mandates

with the DC Code Chapter 35 Title 16 §3503 that this Court create an inquest / jury trial to

determine the issue of facts: (i) whether or not both his parents were United States’ Citizens at

his birth; (ii) Obama cover-up, and thereafter, a jury trial on the facts of the injury and damages

that the Court as a matter of first impression must determine the law as to what is the natural-

born-citizen requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States’ Constitution.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff – Orly Taitz in esse, hereinafter “Taitz.”, place for service is located at 29839

Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100 Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688 Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax

(949) 766-7603, E-Mail: dr [email protected]

4. The Plaintiff is a resident of California and president of the Defend Our Freedoms

foundation. She is a Doctor of Jurisprudence and a Doctor of Dental Surgery. Through her

foundation, she has popularized Constitution and fought violations of Constitution and civil


- 6 -

liberties of U.S. citizens. As part of her work, she has filed numerous legal actions, representing

over 200 US citizens: State Representatives of different states, candidates on the ballot and high

ranked members of US military. Her clients are seeking release of original vital records of

Barack Hussein Obama, to see if he is eligible for US presidency. As of now in spite of over 100

legal actions filed all over the Nation by some 13 licensed attorneys and numerous pro se

plaintiffs and in spite of 12 citizen grand jury presentments and indictments, Obama refused to

provide any vital records that would be acceptable in any court of law.

5. Taitz has an exploratory effort to run for the Office of the Secretary of State of California

in the 2010 General Election.

6. Defendant – Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), hereinafter “Obama”,

place for service is in care of The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington,

District of Columbia 20500;

7. That Obama has campaign committees: Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund duly

registered in Washington D.C. with the DOT and FEC by the 42 USC 1971 authority over each;

8. Notwithstanding facts requiring a report on the law to the contrary that renders Obama a

Usurper, Obama nevertheless remains the Acting President of the United States and Commander

in Chief, who refused to present in any court of law or to the public any vital records that would

show his eligibility as for POTUS based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution, as one born

in the United States to two citizen parents without allegiance to any other sovereignties. From

birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship and allegiance to several other nations: Great

Britain, Kenya, Indonesia and as a Sunni Muslim to Saudi Arabia where he bows toward Mecca.

9. Mr. Obama is not a USA "natural born" citizen eligible to serve as the United States

President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

10. Although Mr. Obama claims to have been born in two (2) separate hospitals in Hawaii,


- 7 -

he was actually born in Mombasa, Kenya to his mother a U.S.A. Citizen and his father a Kenyan

National British Citizen within the United Kingdom with law and Monarchy that governs.

11. That Mr. Obama and as Soetoro is a trained radical Sunni Muslim by birth right, training

and practice that is admitted in Defendants speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo in 2009 –

practices Shariah law and is devoted and aligned to King Saud of Saudi Arabia.

12. That Mr. Obama is also a Prince Hall 32nd Degree Freemason who starting in 1979 at

Columbia University was mentored by SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski, a Polish

national from a Polish aristocratic family, who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen and who

during the Carter Administration served as the National Security advisor from 1977 to 1981.

13. That Mr. Obama Jr.’s natural father Mr. Obama Senior, was a British Citizen governed

under the laws of the United Kingdom married to Mr. Obama Jr.’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham

at the time of Mr. Obama Jr.’s birth on August 4, 1961.

14. Defendant Obama admits that his father at the time of his birth was a citizen of the

United Kingdom and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governs dual citizenship at birth.

15. That Mr. Obama acknowledges by endorsing Senate Resolution 511 that you need two

(2) U.S.A. Citizen parents at birth to be qualified to be a natural born citizen.

16. That Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st

Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866) stated: “… every human being born within the jurisdiction of the

United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of

your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.”

17. 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.

18. A COLB is sufficient proof of citizenship; however, it does not prove "natural born"


- 8 -

citizenship, a COLB is issued to those who are simply "naturalized".

19. Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse (hereinafter "Interpleader", “Ex-Relator”), is

an individual who resides with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, NY

11238, Email: [email protected], SKYPE: cestrunk and Telephone (845) 901-6767.

20. That Strunk is a natural-born citizen of New York with both Parents being citizens there

in the city of New York at the time of Interpleader’s birth, and that both Parents were married

natural-born citizens of the United States of America (USA).

21. That Interpleader is eligible to become the President of the United States of America

(POTUS) unlike Defendant meets the three requirements of eligibility: be at least 35 years of

age, 14 years resident of the USA and be a natural born citizen at birth.

22. That Strunk makes a special-appearance in this action without relinquishing sovereignty

and or any inalienable individual right.

23. In explanation, Strunk’s Special-Appearance is as a Living-Soul Son-of-the Most-High-

God-Yahweh in existence nunc pro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son

Made Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk

Stands in the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh, and that is under reserve, without

dishonor, without prejudice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this court and or

any temporal entity or person is unable to offer a higher consideration.

24. That Strunk has inalienable individual rights as described by the Declaration of

Independence of 1776 that pre-existed the creation of the United States’ Constitution.

25. That Strunk is the creator of the United States’ Constitution nunc pro tunc at the moment

of his Creation as an inheritance upon birth as a natural born-citizen.

26. That Strunk’s sovereign authority to protect his inalienable individual rights creates the

Federal government and to define express limited rights for the government to operate by.


- 9 -

27. That there are four political branches of government: the three who govern with the

consent of the people granted to The Congress, The Executive, The Judiciary and the fourth most

important branch The People who are resident in a respective State of the several States.

28. There is an overriding Constitutional question of first impression historically ignored

since June 1912 that even with enactment of the interim measure of 13 USC §141 to re-balance

the electoral college for the people of each State of the several States in 1929 still is contrary to

the required House decennial enlargement as to the actual population in Article I section 2 that

each House member represent only with the consent of the people among the 30,000 persons in

each member district, that now is somewhere around say one House member per say 690,0000

persons, and as such remains a festering cancer upon the national government that according to a

recent Rasmussen survey 61% of the people say the government acts ultra vires without consent.

29. The first political branch, The Congress, has not followed the requirement of the U.S.

Constitution in so far as enlargement since 1912, that representative government has fatally

weakened the guarantee of a republican form of government, especially as it applies to the

second political branch, The Executive, dependent upon the Electoral College election process in

each state of the several states to appoint POTUS; and

30. Further, that since 1928 the Office of POTUS without the equal protection provision of

decennial enlargement of the first Branch has evolved into a cult of tyranny that will only worsen

without a representative sized electoral college commensurate with the increase of the people to

select the chief magistrate, (i.e. in New York in 1960 with 12.5 million residents had 45 electoral

college votes now in 2010 with say 19.5 million residents based upon the 2000 Census now only

has 31 electoral college votes schedule to loose two more with the 2010 Census); and

31. Further, one hundred years later without an enlargement of the electoral college more

than ever before the chief law enforcement officer must have no appearance of impropriety or


- 10 -

even the slightest question of allegiances as with the Usurper Obama, who is the epitome of the

fears of the framers as to undue foreign influence in Article II Section 1 in use of the express

eligibility mandate of any candidate shall be a natural-born citizen without dual allegiance; and

32. Further, without enlargement The Congress has become a tyrannical dictatorship

disconnected from the people who are restrained by an every increasing difficulty in running for

office or participating with a reasonable expectation of success, and as evidenced now with the

Usurper who operates under a continuous state of arbitrary and capricious declared emergencies;

that will only chronically worsen every ten years without the required U.S. House size

reasonably reflecting the consent of the people, in that the House increasingly operates for a

cabal of special interest contributors whose surreptitious campaign funding violations of laws

and side deals operate without the consent of the people, and as such the House increasingly

lacks the ability to as a regular expectation of their duties to impeach high crimes and

misdemeanors in the executive, and especially members of the judiciary who rather than report

on the law make the law with impunity so much so that the people now fear the judiciary for

being arbitrary and capricious in a chronic corruption as seen with Alcee Hastings who even

after soliciting bribes from the bench left by an impeachment process only then to become a

U.S. House member from South Miami in Florida.

33. That unlike Plaintiff, Strunk has a 42 USC §1983 cause of action in Strunk v. Paterson et

al. NYS Supreme Court in Kings County Index no.: 08-29642 before the Honorable New York

Supreme Court Justice David I. Schmidt complaining of a state action civil rights injury suffered

in the 2008 General Election process in New York’s appointment of its Electoral College that

relies on action and discovery herein to proceed.

34. That Strunk’s individual authority creates the corporate office of the President of the

United States of America, POTUS, to which Defendant Barack Hussein Obama was


- 11 -

questionably elected without presenting eligibility proof of his qualifications other than his

opinion he was somehow eligible.

35. This application is made because of the failure of our representative government to

uphold the U.S. Constitutional form of governance. The three branches of government are co-

opted by a cabal of interlocking directorships of entities and especially the Sovereign Military

Order of Malta (1) whose members are also citizens of that sovereign state, thereby have at least

1 The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes, and of Malta (Italian: Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta) (known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta [SMOM], Order of Malta or Knights of Malta for short) is a Roman Catholic order based in Rome, Italy. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law.

It takes its origins from the Knights Hospitaller, an organization founded in Jerusalem in 1050 as an Amalfitan hospital to provide care for poor and sick pilgrims to the Holy Land. After the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, it became a Catholic military order under its own charter. Following the loss of Christian held territories of the Holy Land to Muslims, the Order operated from Rhodes (1310–1523), and later from Malta (1530–1798), over which it was sovereign.

Although this state ended with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. SMOM is considered the main successor to the medieval Knights Hospitaller.

Today the order has 12,500 members; 80,000 permanent volunteers; and 20,000 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and paramedics. The goal is to assist the elderly, the handicapped, refugees, children, the homeless, those with terminal illness and leprosy in five continents of the world, without distinction of race or religion. In several countries—including France, Germany and Ireland—the local associations of the Order are important providers of first aid training, first aid services and emergency medical services. Through its worldwide relief corps—Malteser International—the Order is also engaged to aid victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts.

The International status of the Order with its unique history and unusual present circumstances, the exact status of the Order in international law has been the subject of debate: it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state. Its two headquarters in Rome—the Palazzo Malta in Via dei Condotti 68, where the Grand Master resides and Government Bodies meet and the Villa Malta on the Aventine, which hosts the Grand Priory of Rome, the Embassy of the Order to Holy See and the Embassy of the Order to Italy—are granted extraterritoriality.

However, unlike the Holy See—, which is sovereign over the Vatican City—SMOM has had no sovereign territory (other than a few properties in Italy with extraterritoriality only) since the loss of the island of Malta in 1798. The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing


- 12 -

dual allegiance and hold questionable titles that are in conflict with Title 18 Chapter 45 for USA

invitation to participate as observers." For instance, while the International Telecommunication Union has granted radio identification prefixes to such quasi-sovereign jurisdictions as the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority, SMOM has never received one. For awards purposes, amateur radio operators consider SMOM to be a separate "entity", but stations transmitting from there use an entirely unofficial call sign, starting with the prefix "1A". Likewise, for internet identification, the SMOM has neither sought nor been granted a top-level domain, while Vatican City uses its own domain.

There are differing opinions as to whether a claim to sovereign status has been recognized. Ian Brownlie, Helmut Steinberger, and Wilhelm Wengler are among the experts who say that the claim has not been recognized. Even taking into account the Order's ambassadorial status among many nations, a claim to sovereign status is sometimes rejected. The Order maintains diplomatic missions around the world and many of the states reciprocate by accrediting ambassadors to the Order. Wengler—a German professor of international law—addresses this point in his book Völkerrecht, and rejects the notion that recognition of the Order by some states can make it a subject of international law. Conversely, professor Rebecca Wallace—writing more recently in her book International Law—explains that a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that SMOM is an example of this. This position appears to be supported by the number of nations extending diplomatic relations to the Order, which more than doubled from 49 to 100 in the 20-year period to 2008. In 1953, the Holy See proclaimed "in the Lord's name" that the Order of Malta was only a "functional sovereignty"—due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty, such as territory.

SMOM has formal diplomatic relations with 104 states and has official relations with another six countries, non-state subjects of international law like the European Community and International Committee of the Red Cross, and a number of international organizations. Its international nature is useful in enabling it to pursue its humanitarian activities without being seen as an operative of any particular nation. It has claimed sovereignty is also expressed in the issuance of passports, license plates, stamps, and coins. The coincidence of Rome being the capital of the Italian Republic, the Holy See and the Order of Malta leads to a high density of diplomatic instances in the city.

The coins are appreciated more for their subject matter rather than for use as currency, however, their postage stamps have been gaining acceptances among Universal Postal Union member nations.

The SMOM began issuing euro-denominated postage stamps in 2005, although the scudo remains the official currency of the SMOM. Also in 2005, the Italian post agreed with the SMOM to deliver internationally most classes of mail other than registered, insured, and special-delivery mail; before this agreement, the following countries recognized SMOM stamps for franking purposes: Argentina, Austria, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia. San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Togo, Uruguay, Vatican City.


- 13 -

Foreign Relations and that with dual allegiance are operating outside and above the law.

36. That SMOM member Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski has played a crucial role for the

Vatican State and SMOM to create global regionalism that subsumes national sovereignty and as

the Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed his view of regionalism at

Mikhail Gorbachev’s October 1995 State of the World Forum, that quote:

“We cannot leap into world government in one quick step...The precondition for eventual

globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization.”

37. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski’s sons, Mark was a member of the advisors in

the Defendant Obama’s Campaign and Ian was an advisor on the McCain Campaign and both

now are serving in government.

38. That SMOM member Zbigniew Brzezinski works with SMOM Member King Juan

Carlos to further global regionalism with the European Union, North American Union, and now

the Mediterranean Union (MU) dependent upon the elimination of the Sovereign State of Israel.

39. That SMOM Member Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria de Borbón y Borbón-DosSicilias

has titles that include in official use: King of Jerusalem, as successor to the royal family of

Naples, King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of

Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of

Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras,

of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and

Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and

of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Roussillon and of

Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina; and as such is the principal organizer of the downfall

of Israel per se as a sovereign state with control over Jerusalem.

40. That for Juan Carlos, a deal was cut with the Arabs that he gets his cut of Jerusalem.


- 14 -

However, he has bigger plans than the Arabs understand. Last November he flew to Malta to

open the offices of the Mediterranean Union. Just prior to his American voyage, the MU held a

conference entitled, On the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians. Israel did not attend

because...King Juan Carlos going to Malta in November http://www.middle-east-

online.com/english/?id=31629 with the “5+5 Forum” discusses re-launching the Roman Empire

as the Med Union and that this February assembled Senior officials from 10 western

Mediterranean countries met here Tuesday to discuss the relaunch of the Mediterranean Union,

which has been stalled over the recent war in Gaza. The one-day meeting in the southern city of

Cordoba brought together foreign ministers or representatives from Spain France, Italy, Malta,

Portugal, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia. ..The five Catholic nations and the

five African Arab nations are united to re-form the early Roman Empire, the same entity that

crushed ancient Israel.

41. On February 17, 2010, King Juan Carlos of Spain met President Obama in Washington.

Told Obama that Israel will not be able to survive the next war. Obama celebrated by sending

William Burns of the CFR to Damascus to announce the impending new American ambassador

to Syria. Moreover, no one paid any attention to the coordination of the King's visit and this

diplomatic about face. And is no secret that both Carlos and Obama are out to get Israel and the

cabal against USA sovereign policy and national security interest is led by the Jesuit-trained

King of Spain, Juan Carlos, and as we know, Juan Carlos believes he is a descendent of Jesus

himself and the title he is proudest of is Custodian of the Holy Sites Of Jerusalem. He wants the

Jews out of Jerusalem and the Vatican back in, as Juan Carlos believes he is the King of

Jerusalem. With a few twists, he will get his throne back. The setup for the endgame began after

Israel's disastrous war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. The leaders of the world met in

Rome and appointed a UN army, 80% from Catholic Europe, to separate Israel from Hezbollah.


- 15 -

Just before meeting Obama, Juan Carlos dropped in on the UN's newest Security Council

member, Lebanon, for dinner and a meeting with the new Spanish commander of the UN

separation troops. We were not there but we will safely assume the discussion had nothing to do

with stopping the upcoming war, and lots to do with ignoring Hezbollah launching tens of

thousands of rockets at Israel.

42. That SMOM member Juan Carlos was also the principal instigator of the North American

Union and principal investor in the Texas Trans-corridor Highway system using the Law firm of

SMOM member Rudolf Giuliani that fits into the Regional Planning Association,

http://www.America2050.org plans of its sponsor entities (2) in conjunction with efforts of David

2 America 2050 and its agents operate as a national initiative associated with elements of the Intelligence community including the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency that as a private unelected entity is used to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050; and is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers develop a framework for the nation's future growth considers trends such as:

A major focus of America 2050 is the emergence of megaregions - large networks of metropolitan areas, where most of the population growth by mid-century will take place. Examples of megaregions are the Northeast Megaregion, from Boston to Washington, or Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana, Mexico. They comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks. At least ten megaregions have been identified in the United States.

In Europe and Southeast Asia, governments are investing tens of billions of dollars in high-speed rail and goods movement systems to connect networks of cities in what are termed "global integration zones." These counterparts to America's megaregions are increasingly being viewed as the new competitive units in the global economy, where knowledge workers can move freely among urban hubs. Economic regeneration strategies are also being deployed at this scale, to transition former industrial regions to the new information economy.

America 2050 is serving as a clearinghouse for research on the emergence of Megaregion and a resource for Megaregion planning efforts nationwide. Its aim is to advance research on the emergence of this new urban form while promoting planning solutions to address challenges that span state and regional boundaries, demand cooperation / coordination at the Megaregion scale; America 2050 supporters: The Rockefeller Foundation; The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; The Surdna Foundation; The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; The J.M. Kaplan Fund; AECOM; Park Foundation; The William Penn Foundation; STV Group, Inc.; The Ford Foundation.


- 16 -

Rockefeller (3), Robert Pastor, Anthony Lake, George W. Bush, Vicente Fox, and Zbignew

Brezinski whose Trilateral Commission based in Georgia had The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,

in September 7, 2001 publish the editorial announcement that called for North American

integration that therein stated “The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North

American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union.”

43. That Defendant Obama’s Indonesian Citizenship and multiple allegiances enabled the

SMOM through its member knights especially Zbigniew Brzezinski to implement operations in

Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and other countries including Africa where travel by

U.S. Citizens on an American passport was prohibited or raised questionable allegiance in those

authorities as to the purpose of travel into those countries.

44. Zbigniew Brzezinski has a sworn oath of allegiance to the Roman Catholic Pope and to

the leader of the SMOM who is now His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master

Fra' Matthew FESTING (4), and thereby has at least three allegiances in conflict with USA law.

3 “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller in his Memoirs (2002) made this incredible admission against interest.

4 The Council Complete of State elects the Prince and Grand Master for life from the Professed Knights. According to the Constitution, as the religious Superior and Sovereign, he must fully dedicate himself to the development of the works of the Order and to set an example of living by Christian principles, to all the members of the Order. He is vested with supreme authorities. Together with the Sovereign Council, the Grand Master issues the legislative measures not covered by the Constitutional Charter, promulgates government acts, manages Common Treasure assets, ratifies, international agreements and the summoning of the Chapter General. The States with which the Order has diplomatic relations recognize the Grand Master with the prerogatives, immunities and honors reserved for Heads of State.

The title of Most Eminent Highness is bestowed on the Grand Master, and the Holy Roman Church confers him the rank of Cardinal.


- 17 -

45. That Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States’ Constitution is controlling and

only requires three qualifications be proven to be eligible for assuming the corporate office of the

Presidency, i.e. an applicant shall be 35 years of age, 14 years resident of united States of

America and a natural-born-citizen; this is a case of first impression about natural-born-citizen.

AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant’s default and Failure to

Reply to the return of contract further acts are void ab initio)

46. Strunk repeats each and every allegation contained in the above introduction and

paragraphs 1 through 45 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length

however omits it for brevity and economy.

47. That on January 23, 2009 within 72-hours from Barack Hussein Obama’s offer of His

contract of Oath received by Interpleader on 20 January 2009 and again on 21 January 2009

respectively, Interpleader provided a timely return response by Registered mail with the United

The Grand Master resides at the Order’s seat of government in Via Condotti in Rome.

Profile of His Most Eminent Highness the Prince and Grand Master Fra' Matthew FESTING Fra’ Matthew Festing, an Englishman, was elected Prince and Grand Master of the Order

of Malta on 11th March 2008 by the Council Complete of State of the Order of Malta. He succeeds Fra’ Andrew Bertie, 78th Grand Master (1988-2008), who died on 7 February.

Born in Northumberland on 30 November 1949, educated at Ampleforth and St. John’s College Cambridge, where he read history, Fra’ Matthew, an art expert, has for most of his professional life worked at an international art auction house. As a child, he lived in Egypt and Singapore, where his father, Field Marshal Sir Francis Festing, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, had earlier postings. He is also descended from Sir Adrian Fortescue, a knight of Malta, who was martyred in 1539.

Fra’ Matthew Festing served in the Grenadier Guards and holds the rank of colonel in the Territorial Army. He was appointed OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) by the Queen and served as one of her Deputy Lieutenants in the county of Northumberland.

He became a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta in 1977, and took solemn religious vows in 1991, becoming a Professed Knight of the Order. Between 1993 and 2008 he was the Grand Prior of England. In this role, he led missions of humanitarian aid to Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia after the recent disturbances in those countries, and he attended the Order’s international annual pilgrimage to Lourdes.

Since September 2008, he has been an honorary citizen of the city of Rapallo in Italy. In October 2009, he was awarded an Honorary Degree of Humane Letters by Catholic University of America.


- 18 -

States Postal Service (USPS) in care of the Agent in Charge of the united States‘ Secret Service

with NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS

NOTICE TO AGENT and FOR THE RECORD, and that both were accepted for value, timely

without dishonor and with consideration returned redrafted in the offer of contract of

Interpleader’s choosing wishing no contract in full accord with the Unified Commercial Code

(U.C.C.); for a true copy of the original shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A.

48. That Strunk’s return response shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit A by Registered mail with

the USPS in care of the Agent in Charge of the Secret Service with Registered mail

Label/Receipt Number: RE40 0301 908US was delivered at 8:07 AM on January 27, 2009 in

WASHINGTON, DC 20223, for a copy of the USPS Tracking record and proof of service by

registered mail shown as Exhibit 1 Sub Exhibit B.

49. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper that has seized the corporate office of the

United States of America Presidency in a wide-ranging conspiracy.

50. That Defendant Obama in esse is the usurper whose actions while pretending as if the

corporate office of the United States of America Presidency are void ab initio.

51. That Defendant Obama admits to dual allegiance in his autobiography “Dreams from my

Fathers – A story of Race and Inheritance” published in 1995 by Crown Publishing features on

the front cover a picture shown as Exhibit 2 depicts Defendant’s British Citizen Father Barack

Hussein Obama Sr. in Defendant’s Grandmother’s arms and Defendant’s American Citizen

Mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Defendant’s Grandfather’s arms.

52. That on or about August 26, 2009, Defendant Obama through his agent after due notice

required by law responded in writing with a special demurrer (See Exhibit 4); however, the U.S.

Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor and or his replacement have

failed to respond or otherwise appear, and that Affirmant has exhausted the administrative


- 19 -

process and other available remedy to appear as the ex-relator afforded by law.

53. That Strunk as the nunc pro tunc creator of the USA presupposes that the Federal

Constitution is still in effect with full force even under the 1929 reorganization plan that after

1933 with “the Switch in Times Cases” in re United States v. the United States of America, Inc.,

series of SCOTUS cases that allow the creditors to put the united States of America Inc. through

bankruptcy reorganization that in the process transforms the office of the President per se into

the Trustee administrator for the U.S.A. debtor in control of the assets under the bankruptcy

reorganization plan.

54. That the United States of America, Inc. was created when under the first method to repay

the revolutionary War debt the Articles of Confederation failed necessitated the adoption of the

second repayment plan method with the stronger Federal Union in 1789, that then without debt

repayment in 1859 again was transformed the third time promulgating the war between the

states, which then re-emerges as the Jesuit’s 14th Amendment America for the fourth time in

1929 with the Switch in Time cases that transformed the Constitution so that with the

Administrative Procedures Act of 1948 when Administrator Clinton found 5 trillion Dollars to

pay the debt, but rather than to pay the debt eliminated the Glass- Stegall Act of 1933 and

continues the multi-level ponzi scheme again beyond five levels, notwithstanding the SCOTUS

dicta against operation beyond the fifth reorganization cited in the Amway Case decision.

55. Ex-Relator / Strunk has not only suffered an informational injury as a voter and member

of the public, has been denied a reasonable expectation of effective participation in the election

process that infringes speech, association and liberty, that by the lack of necessary information

on Mr. Barry Soetoro's background and citizenship status, Defendant usurpation is taking

Strunk’s personal property along with those similarly situated without substantive due process

that also undermines Plaintiff’s sovereignty and inalienable liberty.


- 20 -

56. That Strunk’s ex-relator action preliminary to a jury inquest with DC Code Chapter 35

Title 16 §3503, with FRCvP Rule 22 makes this Interpleader Verified Cross Complaint hereby to

supplement Plaintiff’s Petition and the Verified Complaint shown as Exhibit 1 wishes a partial

summary judgment with FRCvP Rule 56(d) for a Declaratory Judgment with 28 USC §2201 and

§2202 as to the legal controlling facts in this case of Defendant Obama’s admitted Dual

Allegiance at birth without two U.S. Citizen parents contrary to the U.S. Constitution Article 2

Section 1 Clause 5, as a matter of first impression Defendant Obama is not a natural-born citizen

and therefore is ineligible to be the chief law enforcement administrator and trustee of the office

of the President of the United States (POTUS) and or of Strunk’s grant of power of attorney over

personal accounts and matters. Further, because the Usurper action(s) are thus void ab initio as to

the incapacity to effect the duties of the POTUS, Ex-relator(s) requires a Writ of Mandamus

directive to the Congress and the President of the Senate Joseph Biden as to Article 2 Section 1

Clause 6 and 25th Amendment of Article 7 under the separation of powers doctrine; and further,

notwithstanding the FRCvP Rule 56(d) Declaratory Judgment, Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC

§1361 a writ of mandamus of: (i) DHS to ascertain the facts of Obama’s alleged born in

Mombasa Kenya under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith shown as Exhibit 3.

AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obama’s action to pay the debt with debt is wasting Strunk’s asset)




58. Defendant Obama has publicly announced he is paying the debt of the USA with debt,

which is a Federal fraud crime when payment of debt may only be in specie, takes my property

along with those similarly situated and that Defendant is wasting Strunk’s asset.


- 21 -

59. That Strunk claims the Defendant Obama along with agents Timothy Geithner Secretary

of the Department of Treasury and Gary Locke Secretary of the Department of Commerce are

unjustly detaining the Strunk's goods and chattels, as the Usurper is ineligible to be the POTUS

trustee / administrator over the Departments secretaries with fiduciary responsibilities and the

Usurper having been denied use of Strunk’s power of Attorney on January 22, 2009 has by his

continued actions that are void ab initio seized Interpleader’s personal property to wit:

A) The Strunk’s Bond issued upon his birth certificate of CHRISTOPHER EARL

STRUNK after the birth in New York City on January 23, 1947 in the amount of 19687.5

troy ounces of gold.

B) the Strunk’s private account at the US Treasury is secured by the Interpleader’s

numbered Bond kept at the U.S. Department of Commerce with the number issued by the

Social Security Administration as shown on the reverse side of the Strunk’s Social

Security Card;

C) The interest accrued upon Strunk’s investment in commerce since the year of 1963

thru now calculated upon the recorded by the Social Security Earnings Statement

compounded annually at the annual treasury bonds rate.

60. And that Strunk claims that the same be taken from the defendant and delivered to him;

or, if they are eloigned, that Strunk may have judgment of their value and all mesne profits and

damages, which he estimates at the present value of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the

equivalent current market value of gold worth a net value of 5,817 troy ounces of gold based

upon Interpleader’s actuary life span, and 909 troy ounces of gold in interest on Strunk’s

investment in commerce since 1963 besides costs.

61. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 §16-3701- In an action of Replevin brought to

recover personal property to which the Interpleader is entitled, that is alleged to have been


- 22 -

wrongfully taken by or to be in the possession of and wrongfully detained by the defendant, it is

not necessary to demand possession of the property before bringing the action; but the costs of

the action may be awarded as the court orders.

62. That Ex-Relator’s Replevin Demand of Defendant Obama, Gary Faye Locke, and

Timothy Franz Geithner were duly served according to §16-3701, upon each Debtor by Certified

Return Receipt: 70092250000365685338, 70092250000365685277, & 7009225000036568534.

63. That Ex-Relator duly served notice of the respective demand of each debtor named above

upon the State of New York Secretary of State under the Uniform Commercial Code Section 9-

501 that governs place of filing. Subsection (a) (2) the financing statement is filed as a fixture

filing and the collateral are goods that are or are to become fixtures. Subsection (a) (2) provides

that the office in which to file a financing statement to perfect a security interest is the office of

the Secretary of State in all other cases pursuant to subsection (b) a fixture filing for a

transmitting utility would also be filed with the Secretary of State.

64. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 § 16-3548, the Ex-relator may obtain recovery

of damages from the usurper at any time within a year from a judgment in a quo warranto

proceeding, the relator may bring an action against the party ousted and recover the damages

sustained by the relator by reason of the ousted party's usurpation of the office to which the

relator was entitled.

65. That accordingly to DC Code Chapter 37 § 16-3704, in the matter of an Undertaking to

abide judgment of the court, the Ex-relator at the time of filing a complaint in replevin, must

enter into an undertaking by himself or his agent with surety, approved by the clerk, to abide by

and perform the judgment of the court.

66. That Ex-relator alleges that Defendant Obama has utilized funds from his campaign fund

that were raised in bad faith with the law in a conspiracy to defraud Strunk along with those


- 23 -

similarly situated to illegally become the Chief law enforcement Officer administrator and

trustee for the office of the POTUS with control over Strunk’s property and that according to the

Federal Election Commission the Obama for America currently has $8,957,536.38 cash on hand

(See Exhibit 5) to be used to guarantee Ex-Relator’s undertaking in lieu of another surety agent

that would otherwise be based upon Strunk’s Federal Contract underwritten and collateralized

by the private account guaranteed by the Federal Reserve bank of New York.

67. That Ex-relator wishes relief with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining

Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and

or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court

appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a) (b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury

trial on Plaintiff and Interpleader injuries.

68. For the above aforementioned reasons, the above requested documents are of great public

interest and without receiving eligibility proof, Interpleader / Plaintiff liberty is at risk were the

usurper of the POTUS administrator which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma to

continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time as

the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment.

AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Defendant Obama’s actions in conspiracy with others to use the campaign

organization entities Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund to solicit and obtain foreign donations in violation of 42 USC §1971 administered by the FEC)




70. That starting no later than 1988 Defendant Obama’s actions as an aspiring attorney in

conjunction with attorneys and Social Justice activists entered into a conspiracy with others to


- 24 -

use the campaign organization entities to effect control over the suffrage process and from 1996

Defendant Obama entry as a candidate for the State Legislature, and for national office in 2000

for U.S. House, 2004 for the U.S. Senate and from no later than 2004 conspired with attorneys

who were associated with his various campaign committees to circumvent Article 2 Section 1

Clause 5 express eligibility mandate that he be a natural-born-citizen.

71. That to further the conspiracy on February 2, 2006 the Editor of the Chicago-Kent Law

School Law Review, Sarah P. Herlihy, published a memorandum with approved edits of 11-23-

05 entitled AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION

AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE at Vol. 81: 275 (See Exhibit 6) and with a special

footnote designating the author has a J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005 and that the

author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004–2005 Globalization and

Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note.

72. That in the memorandum shown as Exhibit 6, Part one of this paper provides a brief

history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational

reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes

abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the

arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies

common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a

Constitutional amendment.

73. That in the Conclusion shown on page 26 of Exhibit 6, Ms. Herlihy as a proponent for the

elimination of the Natural Born Citizen clause requirement argues in support of globalization

writes quote:

“Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in


- 25 -

globalization. The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstandings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans’ subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their perceptions of globalization’s negative effects, to justify their decision to allow emotion to prevail over reason. “ (emphasis by Strunk)

74. That according to Sarah P. Herlihy’s resume on line (See Exhibit 7) with the

International Law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Chicago after Ms. Herlihy was the Law Clerk

to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of

Illinois, 2005 – 2006 she has been employed by the firm and in the resume she is listed with

receiving the award of the Order of the Coif whose various members of the Society are traced

throughout the Obama support network working in the conspiracy with the Defendants.

75. That a Principal of Kirtland & Ellis LLP, Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance

committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.

http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm …itemID=7845 (towards bottom of the page)

76. In addition to members of the firm making donations to the Obama campaign , Jack S.

Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital

Association’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital

community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama.

77. That Kirtland & Ellis LLP is a global firm with powerful international clients listed on

the website (See Exhibit 8).

78. According to the Defendant Obama’s published biography, in late 1988, Obama entered


- 26 -

Harvard Law School. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his

first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to

Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and

Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from

Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago. Obama's election as the first black president of the

Harvard Law Review gained national media attention and led to a publishing contract and

advance for a book about race relations, which evolved into a personal memoir. The manuscript

was published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father with the cover page shown as Exhibit 2.

79. In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at

the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at

the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as

a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.

80. From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration

drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers associated with ACORN and related “Social Justice”

organizations in part funded by the Catholic Church; and it achieved its goal of registering

150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, and led to Crain's Chicago

Business naming Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.

81. In 1993, Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm

specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development (in partnership

with Syrian Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born July 1955, is a political fundraiser, restaurateur, and real

estate developer / slumlord in Chicago, Illinois, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery

in 2008 and who is involved in fundraising for Obama), where Obama was an associate for three

years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming

inactive in 2002.


- 27 -

82. Obama served from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of

Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities

Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. He served

on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding

president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.

83. Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer

as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side

neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.

84. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah

in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002.

85. In 2000, Obama lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to

four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

86. That Defendant Obama, his agents and committees for his election to POTUS used

various campaign fund raising entities including Defendants Obama for America, Obama

Victory Fund to solicit and obtain both domestic and foreign donations violating the 42 USC

§1971 administered by the FEC.

87. That on February 26, 2010 according to the FEC on the matter under review MUR #

6127 (See Exhibit 9) fined Obama for America and Martin Nesbitt in his official capacity as

treasurer (associate of Chicago billionaire Penny S. Pritzker who “lost” $400 plus million of

depositor’s money in the sub-prime mortgage scandal); Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund

and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and

Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; VIDA Fitness; Urban Salons, Inc. doing

business as Bang Salon Spa; David von Storch; and Saul Ewing, LLP.

88. The complaint to the FEC alleged that Obama for America (OFA) and Nesbitt, in his


- 28 -

official capacity as treasurer, converted campaign funds to Obama’s personal use by paying

some of his personal travel expenses during the 2008 presidential campaign. It alleged further

that VIDA Fitness facilitated the making of contributions and made prohibited contributions to

the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), a joint fundraising committee comprised of OFA and the

Democratic National Committee, by using a corporate email list to distribute OVF fundraising

solicitations and allowing OVF to use VIDA’s facilities for a fundraiser. The complaint also

alleged that OFA failed to disclose the transfer of a donor list to Project Vote, an affiliate of

ACORN, and that OFA intended to accept and Saul Ewing LLP intended to make an excessive

contribution in the form of pro bono legal services.

89. In Monday September 29, 2008 NewsMax published an article entitled “Secret, Foreign

Money Floods Into Obama Campaign” by Ken Timmerman (See Exhibit 10) reported that

quote:

“More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)…” “With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.” All the people in the Arab and Islamic world


- 29 -

and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store. .. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30. The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made. Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.” Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous —and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

90. That for the above aforementioned reasons, the above referenced documents are of great

public interest and require investigation, in that Plaintiff and Interpleader liberty is at risk were


- 30 -

the Usurper POTUS administrator to remain which constitutes a huge National Security dilemma

to continue and as Strunk along with those similarly situated suffers irreparable harm with time

as the essence is deserving of equity relief of a preliminary injunction with Declaratory Judgment

and TRO of various accounts.

91. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC §1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, DOT and FEC to

ascertain the facts of foreign contributors to any and all Obama campaign committees including

Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others; and of the DOT to ascertain the facts for

a full accounting on all monies paid to Obama, the various Campaign committees, agents and or

John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring as defined with 42 USC §1971, 42

USC §1983, §1985, §1986, the False Claims Act with 31 U.S.C. § 3729–3733 and related law in

entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO restraining Defendant Obama, the

Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund and or agents use of any

account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation of a court appointed special master

with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing for a jury trial on Plaintiff and

Interpleader injuries because the FEC has admitted it is unable to do so.

AS AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conspiracy defined with 42 USC §1985 by Defendant Obama, Obama’s agents with

various John Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk’s rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff )




93. There is a conspiracy defined with 42 USC §1985 by Defendant Obama, Obama’s agents

including the Campaign funding organization with various John / Jane Doe(s) and XYZ entities

to violate Strunk’s rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff to


- 31 -

further the fraud to violate the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 and to cover-up that

Defendant Obama not only has dual allegiance but was born in Mombasa Kenya on August 4,

1961 as alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as shown in Exhibit 3 when he went to

Kenya bribed a Kenyan official to obtain a copy of the actual birth certificate there.

94. Defendant Obama and his agents associated with his campaign and administration are

Preventing officer(s) from performing duties in New York and Washington D.C. in the matter of

the 2008 General Election cycle, and after by coercing various members of the Congress not

challenge during the electoral college tally required in Article 2, and by not calling for a

challenge if any there; and to conceal treason or felony by one not participating in the crime, and

by seditious conduct against New York and United States of America governments.

95. That Obama and his agents in New York and Washington DC as if a State or Territory

conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threaten, Joseph Biden and other candidates from

accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from

discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to

leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or

to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his

office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest,

interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

96. Defendant Obama and his agent(s) in his campaign and administration act to Obstruct

justice; intimidate a party, witness, or juror such as Judge Carter and Judge Land and suborned

witnesses to proceedings promote a breach of fiduciary duties of public officials.

97. That Obama and his agent(s) in New York and other States conspire to deter, by force,

intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such

court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure


- 32 -

such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,

or to influence the verdict, presentment, in any such court, lawfully assented to by him; and

98. That Obama and his agent(s) of his campaign and administration conspire for the purpose

of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any

State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure

him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or

class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

99. Defendant Obama and his agents of his campaign and administration as misprisors

deprive persons of rights or privileges of Strunk and those similarly situated.

100. That Obama and his agents in New York and other States conspire against Governor

Paterson, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, Strunk and the class of

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;

or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory

from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of laws;

101. That the fruit of the poison tree by frustration of effort and cover-up by Mr. Obama in

commission of a fraud has been asked for his "vault" version birth certificate; however, he has

refused, which has prompted lawsuits across the United States and is liable for damages.

102. Obama and his agents including Eric Holder and his agents act and conspire to prevent by

force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support

or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person

as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress;

103. Obama and his agents injure Strunk and his property on account of such support or

advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby


- 33 -

another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or

privilege of a citizen of the United States,

104. Thereby Strunk as the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of

damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any of the conspirators;

105. That Plaintiff and Interpleader liberty and fundamental rights have been violated and

Plaintiff has been directly injured by those who have been deployed in support of the conspiracy

to surround, channel and mis-direct Taitz’s legal actions as evidenced by the combined sorted

background of each provocateur including those being convicted criminals including document

forgery and perjury; as it is even more important to Intervener and those similarly situated to

know as a matter of National Security to have DHS and or its agents with authority to verify the

Kenyan document shown as Exhibit 3, not only as a matter of continued good relations with the

Nation of Kenya whose officials are alleged to have been instrumental in the conspiracy to

destroy USA / Kenya affairs in violation of the Logan Act, 18 USC §953 and related law under

Title 18 Chapter 45 for Foreign Relations to resolve the Quo Warranto inquest, for if Obama

were born in Mombasa Kenya is ineligible to the office of POTUS by Obama’s own admission.

106. Ex-relator(s) require with 28 USC §1361 a writ of mandamus of: DHS, to ascertain the

facts alleged under penalty of perjury by Lucas Smith as to Defendant Obama, the various

Campaign committees, agents and or John Does(s) Jane Doe(s) and or XYZ entities conspiring

as defined with 42 USC §1971, 42 USC §1983, §1985, §1986, the False Claims Act with 31

U.S.C. § 3729–3733 and related law in entirety; and with FRCvP Rule 65 and LCvR 65.1 a TRO

restraining Defendant Obama, the Supplemental Defendants Obama for America, Obama

Victory Fund and or agents use of any account(s) to be placed under the control and investigation

of a court appointed special master with FRCvP Rule 53(a)(b) to ascertain facts of wrong doing

for a jury trial on Plaintiff and Interpleader injuries.


- 34 -

AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama’s agents with various John Jane

Doe(s) and XYZ entities to violate Strunk’s rights and liberty along with those similarly situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages)




108. That the Unjust enrichment of Defendant Obama, Obama’s agents with various John Jane

Doe(s) and XYZ entities that have injured Strunk’s rights and liberty along with those similarly

situated including Plaintiff with different claims and damages; and as Ex-Relators are

whistleblowers representing the People of the USA as a Qui Tam matter, individually claim a

portion of the $8,957,536.38 and other sources yet to be determined under the Court’s control;

109. Strunk wishes a judgment of the value of the return of:

a. Property and all mesne profits and damages, which he estimates at the present value

of $21,656,250.00 dollars based upon the equivalent current market value of gold.

b. all the False Claim disbursements from the DOT to date;

c. all Campaign matching funds and funds taken under false pretense;

d. Reimbursement of all damages caused by the conspiracy to be determined at a jury

trial including punitive treble damages prescribed by law;

e. Reimbursement of all the expense of a special master and associated costs of

investigation and litigation to date;

f. And for other and different relief as the court and jury deems just.

Respectfully submitted by,

Dated: March 4th , 2010 /s/ Brooklyn, New York ___________________________ Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse 593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 Brooklyn., New York 11238 (845) 901-6767 Email: [email protected]


- 35 -

V E R I F I C A T I O N STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KINGS ) Accordingly, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, by special-appearance being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

1. That I am the Interpleader / Ex-Relator, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, with place for service at 593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 Brooklyn, New York 11238.

2. That I am the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over my grant of power of attorney consent given to administer the United States of America Inc.

3. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen.

4. That Respondent in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate office capacity.

5. I hereby give my permission for a Quo Warranto jury trial of the issue of facts. 6. I have read the above Interpleader Verified Cross Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial

on the injury and damages after a Declaratory Decision and Order is issued on the question of first impression with exhibits attached and aver that Interpleader is in support of the Plaintiff’s efforts nonetheless has a dispute on the facts to be issues before the court as well as to the source of reimbursement for damages and injuries and the manner of obtaining the extraordinary relief in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, and I know its contents; the facts stated in the Cross Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be true.

/s/ ________________________ Christopher-Earl : Strunk © in esse

Sworn to before me This 4th day of March 2010 /s/ _____________________ Notary Public

INTERPLEADER VERIFIED CROSS COMPLAINT IN TAITZ V OBAMA DCD 10-CV-00151 (RCL)

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:08-cv-02234-RJL Document 19-2 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 213 of 243

QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION

EXHIBIT A

Ia atre of: 593 Vsmdertrilt Avenue - 281

Brookrlp New York Zip Code exempt DMM 122-32

CI~k~pher-Earl: Stm& Q Not a c a p a t i o z i

Livhg-snul Deelarant

No Third P d e s h c k H& O h in @8@,

&a Bany S m in as%, ~ a ~ ~ h we, a l k ( a ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ DBA BARACE: HSJSSEIN O B U INC. -VEOR(S), W S ) , AGENTCS), MSLCI?(S] I n a n E ~ f : the AGENT m* CHARGE OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE 9tJF~e oft3avmmmf rmd Pubfic flairs 245 M.lrpay Drive* Budding 410, Washingtan, DC 20223

NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO PWCIPAL NOTICE TO PRFNCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

RE: OFFER OF CONTRACT Received 20 January 2009 and received 21 January 2009

FOR TEE RECORD RlETURN AM) REDRAPT

TIMELY1 WITHOUT DISHONOR WrrH THE l W S l 3 U m SPECIAL-APPlURANCE

NOT A COWORATION The Lming-Soul

Atmhents: Oath of 20 January 2009 offer for mntrmt /Returned & Reddbd

* Oath of 21 darmary 2009 off= for csntract IReturnd & R* * Notice to the Clerk of Records

Judicial Notice b e 1 of 2) * Judicial Notice @age 2 of21

! :

Ohms md US chief

mixed S~te3.''

President Obama; "And will to the best of my abili

Presiht O W a : "Pmewe, pratect and defend the cm States. "

Robertr;: "So help me e d . "

Pm'sidet Oba: 'Sb help me Go&"

R&m "And will to toe best &my abiiity . "

Roberts, O b d ' l h m ! ~ P W y i t i j d

: PmidWal Qath FOX News

Bmck Bbma 3tirmE:ed $qhllj wwr brief, awkward m m w d in an othewb

ing fine, tT* whi& BE preS&if repab

mingm la@ TechniGalty, mmifig pmidenf begins at

- - 8 7 - - -- the Offlce of President of the ljnitea States, and I will to the k t of my

n m on Jm. 20

TRANSCRIPT OF O A T ~ ~ E ~ 4

CJ Roberts. -Are you p&ai#l BHO : "I am.' sJ

BHO : --.- ----- '

to t h e b - BHO: "#at 1 will &xGicuPe.. CJ Roberts: "faithfully ...the OfF1~3 of President of We Uniied Sd.- BHO : 'fhe W e of President of the United States faitbfullfl CJRobeW "andl wltotl ie besfofmyabili ty... BHO: 'en= ! wi!! ta a& hest of my stiility..

8HO: " CJ Roberts: *...preserve protectand defend fheCai~stitutioA

". . .preseTve protect arro' defend the Cmstifufr"0n of the t . . CJ Roberts: "So he:^ ybti God" BHO : *So help me Gad",

'4' U.S: Cadtutioion ArWe 2 Section 1 Clause 8. .. 'I do solernnlv swear tor aHim

the ~o~wfttution of the united ~ t a ~ s . " w;JP-d~

NOTlCE TO W E CLERK OF RECORDS

Ttit minnte yon d v e any recod, document, paper, proceeding, map, book or od~m thing depOsitea with you, you are commhhg aim= against justice d m Revised S W t s of the United Stam First Section 43 Congms, Sections 5403,5407 aad 5408 totaling up to $9,000 in h w and up to 12 years in prison pm a&hvityaufailtoremrd T i t l e l 8 U S C ~ m 2 0 7 1 atsocaui-kqimpriisonmentand dkplification of&- If p u t county attorney toid you not to file any documents like mine, yon are still rsspomible, as I da no acmpt e rd-party-intebvenem. Any attorney, district attorney, or q m e h m the hwydng d am dl parties and do not have a licu~se to make a legal detmmhation in this matter as they do not represent M e and Yau, the oomty c l e do not have the authority to r e p m t Me. Should You fail to uphold Your swom o& and +rm your duties I will h v e no choice but to rcwrd aaA€iiaaVit of Cr imid Complaint agahtst Your amd Liend a mpy to Your bonding company.

Title I X X 4 ~ , - C W . 4 . CIUMES AGAINST JUSTICE

5-03. Every person who willfully destroys M attempts to deshoy, or, with intent to steal or d m y , takes and carries away any mmd, paper, or promding of a c o w of justice, filed or deposited with any c l d or oEcer of so& court, or any papa, or document, or record fled or depasikd in any public ofice, or wid^ any judicial or public officer, &dl, withunt rehmce to the vaIue of the record, paper, d o m e d , or procGediag srr taken, pay a h e of not more than two thousand dollars, or s* imprisonment, at hard l a b , aot mwe thaa tree ywm, or both: [S* Q 8 540834 1 1,54 t 4.1 J Titie =.- C - . - CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST msnm h, pablic-ds.)

SC5407. If two or more peasons in my State or Taritory conspire for the purpose of impeding hindering. o b c h g or defeating, ia any m, the d m come ofjustice in any State or Territory, with intent d q to my citizen the equd protection of the laws, or to in* him or his property fur lawhlly wforcin& or att~tllpting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of person, to the equal protection of thelaws, ewhofsochpersonshall beprmishedby a f i n e o f n o t l ~ t b a n ~ e h m d r e d n o r m o r e ~ f i v e thomaad dollam, or by imprkoammt, witb or withut harrl I&ra wt less than six month nor more tban six years, or by both sueh h e and imprisonmeai. S w 5 9 1977-1 991,2004201 0,5506-5510.1 Tide LXX - CIUMES. - CK.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enfammart of the laws.)

SEC5408. Evwy officer, having the custody of my m r d , document, paper, or proceding specified in e m fifty-fim hundrcd and three, who f m d d d y takes away, or withdraws, or destroys any soah rwmd, docmmt, paper, or pmcdkg filed in his OEM or depsitsd with him or in his cmtody, shall pay a fine of not more fhan two thougand dollars, or d e r imigrisoammt at bard labor not more than three yms, or bo€b and W moreaver, Wcit his office and be foreva d k w a r d disqualified froan holding arry ofice u a d a the Govmment of the United States. @esbyiug record by oEca in charge.)

S d o n 2071. Concealment, ternoval, or mutilation geblmlly

(a) Whoever wiifulIy and unlawfUfly c m c d s , removes, mutilates, obliterab, or d a m p , w attmnpts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and canim away my record, proceeding, map, book, paper, documen5 or other thing, flbd or dtposited with any clak or of ica of any mnd of the United W, or in any public office, or with any jdicia! orpublic o 5 c a of h e United States, shall be ha under ihs title w imprisoned not more tban k years, or both

(b) Wh-, M g the wstody of my such reed., proceeding, map, book, doarmeat, paper, or other thing, wiIlllly and d a w f d y conads, removes, mutilates, obliterates, fddies, or destroys the same, Bhall be fined unda this title or imprimned mot more than tbrae years, M hth; d s h d forfeit his office andbe disqualified ftwn ho?di~~g any office mdu the United States. As used in this subsection, the t m u~ffi~e" does not include the oftice held by my pason as a reaired officer of the Armed F o m of the United States.

[While the misrcpresentetiw of a matend fact, pgst or present may eonslim basis for an inf- of 1-1 Viad." any act omission or- &ih holves a breach oflewl duty, m or cmf~dencc justly r e p o d and is injurious m another. or hy which an undue advantage is taken of another, may become the hundation far i n f ~ of fraud, aud wtren them is a duty to tk o o ~ l m e r r t ofa matetiid fact may b equally rts wrongful as t positive misctpnsenhtbn. Tex. Civ. App. 1943 Ruebeck t*, Hrt~tt. 171 SW2d 895, Wwmed I v6 S1Ud 7382 I42 T m 167i I50 A. L. R ""5.1

(Party having supmior knowWge who takes ahan- of mother's ignoramx of the law to deceiivs him by studied canceatment or mismpremtatiwr can be held reqm- sible fbr that conduct. rex. 1987. Fina Sup&. Im v. rfbilene Nati~~nul h k 726 SW2d S3A

[We (judge5j have na mom right ta decline ttu3 exercise ofjraisdiction which is given, (thb will include the county court of recod jradgg Victw CariIlo) than lo usurp tha~ which is n d given. The one or the other would be -II to the C.nnstitution." Chhm v. 6 Kkut 264. (1821); U.S v. WiIJ, 499 US. 2M.I

r'(W)hea a governmwa becomes a patw in my imdhp company, i r diva^^ hl f , s(l far tls tmcenc~ the mwactim of dmt cornparry. of its sovereign c b t c r , and t a b that of a private c m . .-It &ends to a level with tba with whom it associate i ~ i f , and rakes the c w which bbgs to its asxxiahts and to the business which is to be transacted.* &rnk tfUhiledSIata v. PI MI^ ' Bank rlfUmr~iu 22 US. 904(l rP24I. J

["The United States as drawee of cdmmemial p p r stands in no dierent light tfian any o h r drawee." "The IJpited Statu does business on busirmtss terms. It is not exem@ fKHn the gem1 rules governing the ii@m and duties of drawees by the largmts of its deaIinp and its having& employ agents to do what ifdone by a principal in pmm would kave no mom for dmMW CI@& Mt C h v. United ,SCLICRP. 318 iLS. 36311 943),]

1°C- enforcing mem saaates do mot act judicially, but rninkwialiy, having na judieial lmulunky, and unlike Corpts of LAW, do not obtain jlPisdition by m i c e of pmm nor even by Amst and Compelled Appemme." BanueII v. Qrir, 9 HOW& 336, 34x1

VWant uf jurisdiction may not be cured by msmt ofthe ~ ' e s . " I ~ i d . t r l r l i i t > n Asstxiation E CL R. 323 US 310.3 13.1

[ Judicial Notice ]

1. ["A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void" World Wde VoIKrwagot W d e r r , 444 US. 286,29 I ; National Bmtk v. WiZey, 195 US 257; Penmyer v. Ne_t 95 US 7143

[ ",.. the .mpkmmts of due process must b met Wore the court can properly assert in persomnt j ~ c t i o n " WeZIs Fargo v. W e b Fargo, 556 F2d 406,416.1

[. Notification of legal respnsibiity is we essential of due process of law." C o d & v. Geaeral Combwdion Co., 269 US 385,3911

[. wA~whicheitherforbi&orreq~~do'mgofm~in~sovaguethat men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the tmntial of due process of law." C o d I y v. General Comimction Co.. 269 U.S. 3 8539 I]

[. nWhenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter juzisdiction, the ant is obliged to dismiss the actiua" Elly v. Coastal Cop., 503 U.S. 13 1,136-37; U S. v. Texar, 252 F. Supp 234,2541

[. " O n o e ~ c t i o n is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly sppea~s that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather should d i e the &m'' Melo v, US, 505 F.2d 10261

is no d i d o n to ignore lack o f ~ c t i c m " Joyce v. US, 474 F 26 2151

QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

AND DECISION ON QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION

EXHIBIT B

I I I Pnrn your name

W Attachthiioaudtbthebrdcdthemaitpiece, i SranthelCmtta

~ m e m S 1 . 2 a n d 3 . A L s o ~ ~ 4 1 ~ D e l h r e r y I s d e s L e d a m

t W Print yaw name and address on Um meme "Add=-q

?mrr r i tm lC ik r t f f~pmJla I ! D . b c M w l y ~ ~ f r a n R B m 1 ? OYes 1 . klwn-e . . If YES. enter delivery address bebw: No I

r \ insured Mall C.O.D. I

, -- 4. -mivay)mJaw O b

'ps am-381 1. ~ebnrary 2 0 ~ brmsstic ~etum ~eceipt

W .mplete items 1.2, and 3. Aiso complete ' item4ifReshictedDelhmryisdeshed.

Print you name and address on the meme so that m, can mtum the card to you.

- Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, aonlhefmnt if space permits.

_ --- --

n YES, enter <

.PSFcmn3811. ~etxuary2004 ~anestlc ~etum ~eceipt rcag54~&im*- -% - - i


EXHIBIT 2


EXHIBIT 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Smith, September 3, 2009 - 4– Notices of Filing Declaration & Attorney’s Change of Address

DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

26302 LA PAZ SUITE 211

MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92691

(949) 683-5411

E-MAIL: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA (SOUTHERN) DIVISION

Captain Pamela Barnett, et al., § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Civil Action: § Barack Hussein Obama, § SACV09-00082-DOC (Anx) Michelle L.R. Obama, § Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, § Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, § Joseph R. Biden, Vice-President and § President of the Senate, § Defendants. §

28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith with Exhibit

1. My name is Lucas Daniel Smith. I am over 18 years old, am of

sound mind and free of any mental disease or psychological impairment of

any kind or condition.

2. I am a citizen of the United States of America, I am 29 years old and

I was born and raised in the state of Iowa.

3. I have personal knowledge of all the facts and circumstances

described herein below in this declaration and will testify in open court to

all of the same.

4. On February 19, 2009 I visited the Coast General hospital in

Mombasa, Kenya.

5. I visited the hospital accompanied by one more person, a natural

born citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as

“Zaire” and before independence as the “Belgian Congo”).

6. I traveled to Kenya and Mombasa in particular with the intent to

obtain the original birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama, as I was

told previously that it was on file in the hospital and under seal, due to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS



(949) 683-5411


Exhibit A:

Lucas Daniel Smith’s Photocopy of Birth Certificate from the

Coastal Hospital; District of Mombasa Kenya, obtained in

February 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DR. ORLEY TAITZ

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS



(949) 683-5411


PROOF OF SERVICE

I the undersigned Charles Edward Lincoln, being over the age of 18 and not a

party to this case, so hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on this, Friday,

September 4, 2009, I provided facsimile or electronic copies of the Plaintiffs’ above-

and-foregoing Notice of Filing of the 28 U.S.C. §1746 Declaration of Lucas Daniel

Smith with attached Exhibit, as a supplement to Plaintiff’s

FIRST AMENDED SPECIAL MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS

ROGATORY AND FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT PRE-RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY

TO DEFENDANT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, etc., TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY, PRESERVE EVIDENCE, and TRANSMIT

LETTERS ROGATORY PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. §§1781(a)(2)-(b)(2)

to all of the following non-party attorneys whose names were affixed to the

“STATEMENT OF INTEREST” who have appeared in this case in accordance with

the local rules of the Central District of California, to wit:

THOMAS P. O’BRIEN

LEON W. WEIDMAN

ROGER E. WEST [email protected] (designated as lead counsel for President

Barack Hussein Obama on August 7, 2009)

DAVID A. DeJUTE

FACSIMILE (213) 894-7819

DONE AND EXECUTED ON THIS Friday the 4h day of September, 2009.

Charles Edward Lincoln, III [email protected] Tel: (512) 923-1889 Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney-at-Law (California SBN 223433) Orly Taitz Law Offices Telephone: (949) 683-5411 E-Mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




EXHIBIT 4

THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

August 26,2009

Mr. Christopher Strunk Unit 28 1 593 Vanderbilt Avenue Brooklyn, New York 1 1238

Dear Mr. Strunk:

Thank you for contacting the office of President Barack Obama. The President appreciates your taking the time to voice your concerns and opinions.

We would like to be of assistance to you; however, due to the separation of powers, it is not within our authority to become involved in legal matters. You must resolve this issue through the judicial system.

Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.Pov or call 1-800-FEDINFO for information about Federal Government assistance.

We hope your concerns are resolved to your satisfaction.

Again, thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher . . Special Assistant to the President and

Director of Presidential Correspondence


EXHIBIT 5

HOME / CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS AND DATA / PRESIDENTIAL REPORTS / 2009 OCTOBER QUARTERLY / REPORT FOR C00431445

REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS

By An Authorized Committee of a Candidate For the Office of President or Vice President (Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

FILING FEC-436016

1. OBAMA FOR AMERICA PO Box 8102 Chicago, Illinois 60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

3. This report contains activity for a Primary Election

4. Report Type: October Quarterly

Filed 10/15/2009

SUMMARY DETAILED SUMMARY PAGE ALLOCATIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS BY STATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ZIP CONTRIBUTIONS BY DATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY ELECTION DISBURSEMENTS BY PURPOSE DISBURSEMENTS BY PAYEE DISBURSEMENTS BY DATE DEBTS BY VENDOR

SUMMARY 5. Covering Period 07/01/2009 Through 09/30/2009

6. Cash on Hand at BEGINNING of the Reporting Period 8,919,953.56

Page 1 of 5REPORT FOR OBAMA FOR AMERICA

2/22/2010http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q3/C00431445.html

Treasurer: Martin H. Nesbitt Date Signed: 10/15/2009

(End Summary, FEC FORM 3P)

DETAILED SUMMARY

Of Receipts And Disbursements

7. Total Receipts This Period 895,304.40

8. Subtotal (6 + 7) 9,815,257.96

9. Total Disbursements This Period 857,721.58

10. Cash on Hand at CLOSE of the Reporting Period 8,957,536.38

11. Debts and Obligations Owed TO the Committee 0.00

Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D

12. Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee 0.00

Itemize all on SCHEDULE C or SCHEDULE D

13. Expenditures Subject To Limitation 0.00

14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans) -549,888.04

15. NET Operating Expenditures 50,881,580.91

Column A

This

Period

Column B

Election

Cycle-To-

Date

Column

C

I. Receipts

16. Federal Funds (Itemize on

Schedule A-P) 0.00 0.00 0.00

17. Contributions (other than loans) From:

(a) Individuals/Persons Other than

Political Committees -92.22 -434,681.69 0.00

(b) Political Party Commitees 0.00 0.00 0.00

(c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00

(d) The Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00

(e) Total Contributions (11(a) +

(b) + (c) + (d)) -92.22 -434,681.69 0.00

18. Transfers From Other Authorized

Committees 0.00 3,500,000.00 0.00

19. Loans Received:



(a) Loans Received From or

Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00

(b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00

(c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00

20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc):

(a) Operating

754,945.39 6,775,608.39 0.00

(b) Fundraising 0.00 0.00 0.00

(c) Legal and Accounting 0.00 0.00 0.00

(d) Total Offsets To Expenditures

(20(a) + (b) + (c))

754,945.39 6,775,608.39 0.00

21. Other Receipts (Dividends,

Interest, etc)

140,451.23 227,654.27 0.00

22. Total Receipts

895,304.40

10,068,580.97 0.00

II. Disbursements

23. Operating Expenditures

696,524.05

57,657,189.30 0.00

24. Transfers to Other Authorized

Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00

25. Fundraising Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00

26. Exempt Legal and Accounting

Disbursements 0.00 0.00 0.00

27. Loan Repayments Made

(a) Repayments of loans Made or

Guaranteed By Candidate 0.00 0.00 0.00

(b) Other Loans 0.00 0.00 0.00

(c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) 0.00 0.00 0.00

28. Refunds of Contributions To:

(a) Individuals/Persons Other

Than Political Committees -3,816.48 115,206.35 0.00

(b) Political Party Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00

(c) Other Political Committees 0.00 0.00 0.00

(d) Total Contribution Refunds (28

(a) + (b) + (c)) -3,816.48 115,206.35 0.00

29. Other Disbursements

165,014.01

12,022,264.50 0.00



(End Detailed Summary Page, FEC FORM 3P)

ALLOCATION OF PRIMARY EXPENDITURES BY STATE

For A Presidential Candidate

1. OBAMA FOR AMERICA

PO Box 8102 Chicago, Illinois 60680

2. FEC Committee ID #: C00431445

Allocation By State

30. Total Disbursements

857,721.58

69,794,660.15 0.00

III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.)

31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated 0.00

State

Allocation

This

period

Total

Allocation

To Date

State

Allocation

This

period

Total

Allocation

To Date

Alabama 0.00 0.00 Nebraska 0.00 0.00

Alaska 0.00 0.00 Nevada 0.00 0.00

Arizona 0.00 0.00 New

Hampshire 0.00 0.00

Arkansas 0.00 0.00 New Jersey 0.00 0.00

California 0.00 0.00 New Mexico 0.00 0.00

Colorado 0.00 0.00 New York 0.00 0.00

Connecticut 0.00 0.00 North

Carolina 0.00 0.00

Delaware 0.00 0.00 North

Dakota 0.00 0.00

District of

Columbia 0.00 0.00 Ohio 0.00 0.00

Florida 0.00 0.00 Oklahoma 0.00 0.00



(End Allocation of Primary Expenditures Page, FEC FORM 3P)

Generated Thu Oct 15 14:24:43 2009

Georgia 0.00 0.00 Oregon 0.00 0.00

Hawaii 0.00 0.00

Pennsylvania 0.00 0.00

Idaho 0.00 0.00 Rhode

Island 0.00 0.00

Illinois 0.00 0.00 South

Carolina 0.00 0.00

Indiana 0.00 0.00 South

Dakota 0.00 0.00

Iowa 0.00 0.00 Tennessee 0.00 0.00

Kansas 0.00 0.00 Texas 0.00 0.00

Kentucky 0.00 0.00 Utah 0.00 0.00

Louisiana 0.00 0.00 Vermont 0.00 0.00

Maine 0.00 0.00 Virginia 0.00 0.00

Maryland 0.00 0.00 Washington 0.00 0.00

Massachusetts 0.00 0.00 West

Virginia 0.00 0.00

Michigan 0.00 0.00 Wisconsin 0.00 0.00

Minnesota 0.00 0.00 Wyoming 0.00 0.00

Mississippi 0.00 0.00 Puerto Rico 0.00 0.00

Missouri 0.00 0.00 Guam 0.00 0.00

Montana 0.00 0.00 Virgin

Islands 0.00 0.00

TOTALS 0.00 0.00

Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1100 For the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 219-3336 Send comments and suggestions about this site to: [email protected].




EXHIBIT 6

HERLIHY AUTHOR APPROVED EDITS 11-23-05 (H)(P).DOC 2/22/2006 4:49:09 PM

2006] AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT 279

posed an amendment that would allow a citizen who has lived in the United States for thirty-five years to become eligible for the presidency.27 In addi-tion to Congressional action, Arnold Schwarzenegger supporters have de-veloped a website and advertised on television advocating a Constitutional amendment to help the amendment process gain momentum.28 Yet, regard-less of the recent political action and the political popularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen requirement has yet to be changed.

II. WHY THE INCREASE IN GLOBALIZATION PRESSES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT

Although varying definitions of globalization exist and considerable debate continues regarding the true meaning of globalization, for the pur-poses of this paper, the term globalization refers to the concept of “goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually becom[ing] similar in all parts of the world.”29 In other words, globalization can be seen as the process by which cultures and societies are becoming more and more simi-lar because of the increase in communication, ease of travel, media access, and immigration. The process of globalization provides a number of attrac-tive reasons why the natural born citizen requirement should be abolished. This section of the paper identifies some of the reasons why supporters of a Constitutional amendment seek to abolish the natural born citizen require-ment and also identifies why the increase of globalization makes each of these reasons more persuasive. Specifically, the natural born citizen re-quirement is discriminatory, the requirement is outdated and undemocratic, and a person’s place of birth is not an effective means of determining whether he or she will be a good president.

A. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Discriminatory

The most frequently cited reason for abolishing the natural born citi-zen provision is that the provision is discriminatory.30 This provision pre-

27. Joe Mathews, Maybe Anyone Can Be President: Support Is Growing to Amend the Constitu-tion to Let Foreign-Born Citizens Lead the Nation. So, Which Governor Comes to Mind?, L.A. TIMES,Feb. 2, 2005, at A1.

28. See AmendforArnold&Jen, http://www.amendforarnold.com (last visited June 17, 2005). 29. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp ?key=33184&dict=CALD (last visited June 17, 2005). 30. Some people feel quite strongly that the natural born citizen requirement is discriminatory. John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, noted, “It will never be known how many potentially great presidents have never even aspired to the office because of the constitutional prohibition. Show me a person who believes that the natural born qualification clause should remain in the Constitution,


280 CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 81:275

vents over 12.8 million Americans, including two governors, numerous statesmen, and 700 Medal of Honor winners, from having the same oppor-tunities as their natural born counterparts.31 Therefore, the natural born citizen requirement does not promote “equality[,] which ought to be the basis of every law.”32 This lack of equality is especially abhorrent when one recognizes that the difference between a naturalized citizen and a natu-ral born citizen is arbitrary. For example, many Americans, if asked whether the natural born citizen requirement should be repealed may re-spond, “No, of course not, only an American should be President.” How-ever, this response fails to recognize that naturalized citizens are American citizens. “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”33 Moreover, many people would probably agree that a natu-ralized citizen who is born abroad and adopted by American parents at the age of three months and goes to American schools would have better quali-fications to be president than a person who is born in the United States but moves to France at the age of three months, attends French schools, moves back to the United States at the age of forty, enters politics, and runs for the presidency at the age of fifty-four.34 Allowing the natural born citizen in the preceding example to be eligible for the presidency discriminates against the naturalized citizen because it provides the natural born citizen with an opportunity that is not available to the naturalized citizen.

In addition to limiting the opportunities available to one class of citi-zens and therefore harming those individuals, this type of discrimination also harms America as a whole. Advocates of a Constitutional amendment argue that this provision relegates “naturalized citizens to second-class status.”35 Discrimination harms the country because it creates an additional

and I will show you a bigot, pure and simple.” John W. Dean, The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FINDLAW, Oct. 8, 2004, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html. “[I]t is absurd that [Arnold Schwarzenegger] and other foreign-born citizens of the U.S. do not have the right to run for president.” Joanne Madden, Editorial, No Right to Run for President, TORONTO STAR, Jan. 21, 2005, at A17. 31. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 32. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 854 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, (June 20, 1785), http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html). 33. Post, supra note 1, at 193 (quoting Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)). 34. Article II of the Constitution also requires that a person be a resident of the United States for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the Presidency. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. 35. Safire, supra note 3, at E15. Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts said that the natural born citizen clause “tells immigrants they are somehow flawed.” Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presidency, TULSA WORLD, Dec. 13, 2004, at A14. See also Kennedy, supra note 1, at 175 (discussing the natural born citizen clause and noting “[o]ne concrete way of measuring the



dividing line separating one class of Americans from another. In a country divided by race, religion, abortion, and countless other issues, an unjustifi-able distinction based on a person’s place of birth merely contributes to the internal divisions that already pervade America. Amending the Constitution to abolish this arbitrary distinction would eliminate one more division amongst Americans and would help to ensure that all Americans are treated equally under the law.

Although discrimination between natural born and naturalized citizens has existed since the ratification of the Constitution, globalization dictates that we amend the natural born citizen clause now because discriminating against naturalized citizens in favor of natural born citizens is no longer justified. In 1789, the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause because they were afraid of a foreigner becoming presi-dent.36 They were allegedly afraid that a person who was born abroad, in a foreign culture, and with foreign influences would come to America, be-come president, and take over the country. Today, unlike in 1789, discrimi-nating against naturalized citizens based solely on the fact that they were not born in the United States is no longer justified because globalization has lessened the differences between natural born citizens and foreign-born citizens. The increase in travel, the growth of international economic mar-kets, and the increase in the number of people who are multi-lingual con-tribute to making people in the world more similar. Globalization is breaking down the differences amongst cultures because people throughout the world now have access to the same information, buy and sell the same products, and frequently travel or move out of their “home” countries dur-ing their lifetimes. Accordingly, the natural born citizen requirement no longer serves the same purpose that it did in 1789 when travel was ex-tremely limited and foreign cultures were, in many cases, very different than the culture in America.

In addition to minimizing the differences between cultures, globaliza-tion is also one of the reasons37 why discrimination against naturalized citizens is as widespread as it is today. Globalization and the homogeniza-tion of the world have led to an increase in the number of foreign compa-

extent to which people affiliated with different social groups are full and equal members of this nation is to ask whether a person associated with that group could plausibly be elevated to the highest office in the land”); Editorial, A More Perfect Democracy: Why Not a Naturalized Citizen for President?,DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Sept. 28, 2004 (“It doesn’t make sense to keep the 12 percent of the U.S. population that was born overseas in a second-class political category.”).

36. See supra p. 277–79. 37. The United States’ policy on immigration could also be cited as a reason why discrimination is as widespread as it is today.



nies doing business in America, the number of Americans adopting for-eign-born children, and the number of people moving from one country to another.38 These increases result in the number of people being discrimi-nated against being higher than ever. For example, in 2000, there were over nine million naturalized American citizens. However, in 2004, there were over 12.8 million naturalized Americans.39 Therefore, even if there was previously no urgency to amend the natural born citizen requirement be-cause the provision did not discriminate against very many people, the increase of globalization should now compel Americans to pass a Constitu-tional amendment because the natural born citizen requirement discrimi-nates against more Americans with each passing year.

B. The Natural Born Citizen Clause Is Outdated

Those opposed to the natural born citizen clause also argue that the clause is outdated.40 Specifically, the increase of globalization has made this provision a relic of the past. Over 200 years have passed since the original drafting of the natural born citizen clause. During those 200 years, technological innovations have made it possible for people to travel and move from one country to another during their lifetimes, and the growth and development of the world market has created a need for people to move from one country to another because companies have to staff their offices, manufacturing facilities, and retail outlets throughout the world.

Additionally, considering that the Founding Fathers presumably in-cluded the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a “foreigner” coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and some-how using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland. The successful implementation and maintenance of a separation of power amongst the

38. See Let Arnold Run, ECONOMIST, Dec. 18, 2004, at 16 (noting that the need to abolish the natural born citizen clause has “become more pressing with the ever larger numbers of people flowing into the country”). Compare James C. Ho, Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents, 17 CONST.COMMENT. 575, 575 n.2 (2000) (noting that in 1997, there were over nine million naturalized citizens in the United States), with Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (recognizing that there are currently over 12.8 million naturalized citizens in the United States). 39. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 40. Proponents of a constitutional amendment argue that the prohibition against naturalized citi-zens being president is “archaic” and “even xenophobic.” Drive Aims to Let Foreign-Born Seek Presi-dency, supra note 35, at A14. See also Madden, supra note 30, at A17 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as “a relic from the past” and stating that the Constitution’s “qualifications for the office of president have become outdated and out of step with modern American society”).


275

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

SARAH P. HERLIHY

INTRODUCTION

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1“undecidedly un-American,”2 “blatantly discriminatory,”3 and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.”4 Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.7 In addition to Governor

J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005. The author would like to thank Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, and the 2004–2005 Globalization and Its Effect on Domestic Law Seminar Class for their valuable comments and insights on this Note. 1. When asked to identify the stupidest provision in the Constitution for a symposium issue of Constitutional Commentaries, two separate constitutional scholars independently chose the natural born citizen clause. Robert Post, What is the Constitution’s Worst Provision?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 191, 192 (1995); Randall Kennedy, A Natural Aristocracy?, 12 CONST. COMMENT. 175, 175 (1995).

2. Editorial, Don’t Rush to Change Constitution, GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE, Jan. 4, 2005, at A5. 3. William Safire, Essay, The Constitution’s Flaw, N.Y.TIMES, Sept. 6, 1987, at E15. 4. Post, supra note 1, at 191.

5. See Martin Kasindorf, Should the Constitution be Amended for Arnold?, USA TODAY, Dec. 3, 2004, at 1A. 6. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.

7. Editorial, Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, Jan. 10, 2005, at B6.



Schwarzenegger, the natural born citizen clause prohibits many other prominent Americans from becoming president, including Michigan Gov-ernor Jennifer Granholm,8 former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao,9 and over 700 Medal of Honor Winners.10 Even though many of these individuals have served in high political positions or fought in a war on behalf of America, they are not able to become president simply because they were not born in the United States.11

The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citi-zen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal sys-tem. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19–21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amend-ment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion. Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.

Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for

8. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada and moved with her family to the U.S. when she was four years old. Myriam Marquez, Editorial, No Terminating Inevitable Tugs of the Heart, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Oct. 24, 2004, at G3. 9. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A (noting that Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and Henry Kissinger was born in Germany); Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6 (noting that Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan). 10. Vicki Haddock, President Schwarzenegger?: Some Think It’s Time to Stop Excluding For-eign-Born Citizens from Serving in the Oval Office, S. F. CHRON., Nov. 2, 2003, at D1.

11. A Constitutional Anachronism, Editorial, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 6, 2003, at A10. The United States Code clarifies some of the ambiguities regarding who is and who is not considered a natural born citizen. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401–1408 (2000). 12. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A.



abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about glob-alization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Consti-tutional amendment.

I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZENREQUIREMENT

For a provision that excludes millions of Americans from having the opportunity to become the next American president, the natural born citizen requirement was added to the Constitution with surprisingly little fanfare. Unlike many other Constitutional provisions that were debated during the Constitutional Convention or analyzed in the Federalist Papers, very little written evidence exists regarding the addition of the natural born citizen requirement to the presidential eligibility clause.13 Despite the lack of clear evidence, many commentators trace the origin of the provision to a letter written by John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.14 The letter recommended that the drafters provide a strong check against the admission of foreigners into the government and expressly re-quire that the commander-in-chief be a natural born citizen.15 Specifically, Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.16

Many commentators believe that Jay wrote this letter to respond to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign power.17 Regardless of whether this letter prompted the inclu-sion of the natural born citizen requirement, many believe that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, Americans had a general fear of foreign influence after witnessing “how Austria, Prussia, and Russia infiltrated

13. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 14. Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD.L. REV. 1, 5 (1968).

15. Id.16. Id.17. Id.



Poland and carved up that country for themselves.”18 Additionally, some believe that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility that the power of the new government would end up in the hands of a single leader.19 Furthermore, at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, each state defined citizenship in its own way; therefore, some historians speculate that the natural born citizen provision was adopted in an effort to ensure that every citizen who was eligible for the presidency achieved citizenship in the same manner.20 Yet, even though commentators, scholars, and histori-ans have tried to determine exactly why the Founding Fathers adopted this phrase, “no explanation of the origin or purpose of the presidential qualifi-cation clause appears anywhere in the recorded deliberations of the Con-vention.”21

Despite the fact that limited information exists about why the found-ing fathers included the natural born citizen requirement in the Constitu-tion, Article II has never been amended since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Throughout the years, several members of Congress have proposed changing the natural born citizen requirement to allow natu-ralized citizens to become President,22 but none of these proposed amend-ments has generated two-thirds of the Congressional votes needed to be presented to the states for ratification.23 Most recently, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah and former Chairman of the Senate Judici-ary Committee, proposed an amendment that would allow an immigrant who has been naturalized for twenty years to run for President.24 The Sen-ate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the amendment in October 2004 but took no action.25 United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher from California has also introduced a similar Constitutional amendment in the House.26 Additionally, Representative Vic Snyder from Arkansas has pro-

18. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 19. It is reported that the fear of foreign influence gave rise to the Electoral College because people believed that foreign agents would find it impossible to penetrate and corrupt a presidential election due to the existence of the Electoral College system. Ray O’Hanlon, Arnie Could Break Presi-dential Mould; Letter From New York, IRISH NEWS, Oct. 14, 2003, at 8. 20. Haddock, supra note 10, at D1. 21. J. Michael Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 OKLA. CITY U. L. REV. 253, 260 (1987) (quot-ing Gordon, supra note 14, at 4). 22. The idea of abolishing the natural born citizen requirement has died in Congress more than two dozen times since the 1870s. Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A. 23. Id. The requirements for amending the Constitution are set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. art. V. 24. Chris Andrews, White House out of Reach: Not All Americans Are Equal—Path to Presidency Blocked for Naturalized Citizens, LANSING ST. J., Jan. 9, 2005, at 1A.

25. Id.26. Id.



branches of government as well as the effective checks and balances in today’s government make this scenario extremely unlikely. Therefore, be-cause the basis for initially including the natural born citizen clause is no longer as necessary as it once may have been, the requirement has become an outdated remnant from a previous era. It is a remnant that should be repealed because globalization has caused the world to change significantly since the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and because the federal government is no longer as open to the possibility of foreign subversion as it might have been in the late 18th century.41

C. Place of Birth Is Not a Proxy for Loyalty

The Constitution should be amended because birthplace is not a proxy for loyalty. One of the reasons for having presidential eligibility require-ments is to ensure that the person that Americans choose to be their leader is a “good American.” The “leader of the free world” needs to have numer-ous qualities, and arguably the most important is that the individual be loyal to America. Unfortunately, where a person is born tells nothing of a person’s loyalty or whether that person will be a good president. Moreover, place of birth is not something that a person chooses. For example, many Americans view the actor Tom Hanks as a loyal and arguably “good” American, while those same Americans may perceive the actor Martin Sheen as decidedly un-American or disloyal because of his political views. However, both Martin Sheen and Tom Hanks are natural born Ameri-cans.42 Similarly, many people consider the comedian Bob Hope to have been a “good” American—after all, he spent countless holidays traveling around the world entertaining U.S. soldiers; yet Bob Hope was not a natu-ral born American citizen. He was born in England.43 In contrast, John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old American who was captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan was born in Washington, D.C., and therefore is eligible to run for President.44

Ultimately, the natural born citizen requirement is illogical because it requires a person’s birthplace to act as a proxy for determining an individ-

41. See Let Arnold Run, supra note 38, at 16 (referring to the natural born citizen requirement as an “outdated and pointless piece of discrimination”). 42. Tom Hanks was born in Concord, California. Tom Hanks, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hanks (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). Martin Sheen was born in Dayton, Ohio. Martin Sheen, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Sheen (last visited Sept. 2, 2005). 43. Charlie LeDuff, Bob Hope Turns 100, With Quiet Thanks for the Memories, N.Y. TIMES, May 30, 2003, at A18. 44. Paul Bradley, Lindh, Who Fought For Taliban, Gets 20 Years, RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH,Oct. 5, 2002, at A6.



ual’s loyalty to America. Birthplace may at one time have been a more accurate indicator of persons’ loyalty to their native country than it is today because 200 years ago people rarely moved from one country to another. In today’s world, people are much more likely to move from one country to another and to raise their children in a country different from the country that is their homeland. This increased movement of people in the world and the resulting lack of differences between cultures decreases the effective-ness of using a person’s place of birth as an indicator of that person’s loy-alty.45 Accordingly, the natural born citizen provision should be repealed because it does not determine whether a person is a loyal American and therefore does not provide insight into whether a person should be eligible for the presidency.

D. The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Undemocratic

America is “a land of opportunity.”46 People come to America for the opportunities that it provides. They leave their homelands, leave their fami-lies, and move to America because they know that they will be treated fairly and have the same opportunities as their next-door neighbors. After all, the Pilgrims originally left England and moved to America to have the opportunity to practice their religion without fear of retaliation. The prac-tice of limiting the opportunities available to people in one segment of the population simply because those people were born in a foreign country runs counter to the American concept of equality. More importantly, limiting presidential eligibility based on place of birth is contrary to the American concept of democracy. The American government is a representative de-mocracy, where American voters vote for the candidate that they choose. Currently, Americans cannot do that. For example, even if every voter wanted to vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the next presidential election (implausible as that may be), Governor Schwarzenegger would not be able to become the next President of the United States solely because he was not born in this country. Preventing Americans from being able to vote for the candidate that they choose is undemocratic. Although some may argue that the other presidential qualifications prevent American voters from having

45. “The natural-born citizen requirement embodies the presumption that some citizens of the United States are a bit more authentic, a bit more trustworthy, a bit more American than other citizens of the United States, namely those who are naturalized.” Kennedy, supra note 1, at 176. 46. Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 486 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting) (referring to America as the “land of opportunity for diverse ethnic and racial groups”); President William Jeffer-son Clinton, State of the Union 1995, Jan, 24, 1995 reprinted in The President’s Address: ‘We Heard America Shouting,’ N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 25, 1995, at A17 (“America has always been a land of opportu-nity, a land where, if you work hard, you can get ahead.”).



the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice, the natural born citizen requirement is inherently different than the other requirements. For exam-ple, Americans cannot vote for someone who is under the age of thirty-five or for someone who has not lived in the United States for fourteen years. However, the requirement that someone be a natural born citizen is inher-ently different than the other qualifications because a person’s place of birth is immutable. Barring calamity, a thirty-three-year-old will eventually become thirty-five years old. Similarly, a person who is unable to meet the fourteen-year residency requirement could move to the United States and live here for fourteen years in order to be eligible for the presidency. A person’s age and length of residency are not immutable. They can change as time progresses, and when they do, the American public will be able to use the democratic system to vote for the candidate of their choice. In con-trast, the requirement that a person be a natural born citizen is undemo-cratic because it prevents Americans from ever having the opportunity to vote for a naturalized citizen.

Additionally, globalization is the impetus that should compel Ameri-cans to change this practice of only allowing natural born citizens to be president because one of America’s major exports is its belief in democracy and the beliefs surrounding the democratic system. Specifically, throughout its history, America has consistently tried to encourage other nations to adopt democratic systems and to convince other countries that freedom of speech, free press, and equality for every citizen are necessary ingredients for a successful democracy.47 Globalization and the increase of movement of people between countries make the American concept of democracy more and more visible throughout the world, resulting in other countries looking towards America as an example of a successful democracy.48 The existence of an anti-democratic and discriminatory provision such as the natural born citizen requirement in the American Constitution means that Americans do not “practice what they preach.”49 To continue to set the

47. The current situation in Iraq is the most recent example of America exportation of democracy to other countries. 48. As one commentator testifying before the House Judiciary Committee noted:

Eliminating the natural-born citizen requirement from the Constitution would also send a powerful message to people around the world about this nation’s commitment to equal rights. We will judge all or [sic] our citizens on their merits, this change would say, not on their place of birth. In these troubled times, a statement of this type can only serve to enhance our reputation as the world’s standard bearer for democratic values.

Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans: Before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (Oct. 5, 2004) (written testimony of Professor John Yinger, Trustee Profes-sor of Public Administration and Economics, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University) available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885. 49. This conflict between what America preaches by exporting democracy and what America practices by maintaining an undemocratic requirement such as the natural born citizen requirement



right “democratic” example for others to follow, globalization dictates that America should lead by example and amend the Constitution to end dis-criminating against citizens based on their place of birth.

III. ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND WHYCOMMON AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS OF GLOBALIZATION WILL PREVENT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT FROM BEING ABOLISHED

Although the increase in globalization has made the natural born citi-zen clause a relic of the past, the reality is that American perceptions about globalization will permit Americans to rely on their illogical fears and inse-curities and reject any attempt to abolish the requirement. The first portion of this section will identify reasons why many Americans will choose not to abolish the natural born citizen requirement and highlight why many of these reasons are based on emotion rather than on reason. The second half of this section will identify some common reactions and beliefs about glob-alization and argue that these beliefs will be the justification that Ameri-cans seek to allow them to rely on their irrational fears rather than logic when they vote against a Constitutional amendment.

A. Reasons to Oppose Abolishing the Natural Born Citizen Requirement

The following section will identify some of the reasons that Ameri-cans will rely on for not amending the Constitution. Not all of these reasons are illogical; however, many of them are based on emotional beliefs about what it means to be a natural born citizen, and others are based simply on generalized fear. Additionally, although I would prefer to refer to the rea-sons in this section as “the most popular” or “the most frequently cited” reasons that Americans cite for not amending the Constitution, the truth is that some of these reasons are not things that people openly admit. People rarely write law review or newspaper articles touting their personal racist beliefs and admitting that the reason why they would not want to see a

could affect how the world views America. Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Gov-ernment believes that “soft power,” the “ability to get what you want by attracting and persuading others to adopt your goals,” is a powerful tool to be used in foreign relations. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., SoftPower: Propaganda Isn’t the Way, INT’L HERALD TRIB., Jan. 10, 2003, at 6. However, this ability to attract others depends on your credibility. Id. If you are not credible, it will be increasingly difficult to convince others to do what you want through soft power alone and you will have to resort to “hard power,” “the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will,” in order to achieve your goals. Id. Accordingly, if one of America’s goals is to export de-mocracy without having to resort to economic sanctions or military action, the existence of this anti-democratic provision in our Constitution detracts from America’s credibility. This lack of credibility could cause other countries to view America negatively, thereby limiting the effectiveness of our soft power, which may prevent America from achieving its goal of exporting democracy.



naturalized citizen in the White House is because they believe that a natu-ralized citizen is more likely to be a race other than Caucasian. Therefore, although not all of the following reasons are frequently discussed in articles debating the merits of amending the Constitution, I believe that they carry significant force and play an important role in a person’s decision-making process.

1. Fear of Change

Many Americans fear change. Admittedly, Americans do not fear all change. Although Americans tend to embrace change in certain areas such as technology, medicine, and manufacturing, a large number of Americans are hesitant to tinker with traditional American institutions such as the Constitution50 because of the possible consequences that may result.51 Spe-cifically, people fear that passing a constitutional amendment will some-how destabilize the American legal system because any amendment to the Constitution opens the door for others to push forward Constitutional amendments to advance their own causes.52 The thought of an onslaught of amendments to the Constitution scares people into thinking that the Consti-tution will soon become nothing more than the United States Code—a set of laws that changes based on the whims of society—rather than the su-preme law of the land to be amended only when absolutely necessary.53

Moreover, people are afraid that each amendment represents a move-ment away from the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A substantial number of Americans believe in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and

50. Tom Blackburn, Amending the Constitution Hard, for a Reason, COX NEWS SERVICE, Nov. 28, 2004 (“Most Americans are averse to tinkering with the Constitution.”). 51. This fear of change can be seen in the recent debate over whether the phrase “under God” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Even though this phrase was only inserted into the Pledge in 1954, many people believe that it has become part of the social fabric of America and should not be removed; however, others argue that it should be removed because the phrase violates the divi-sion between church and state. See KeepThePledge.com, Defending the Pledge of Allegiance and American Freedom, http://keepthepledge.com (last visited June 20, 2005); see also Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

52. See Michael McGough, Editorial, Guns and the Governator: Two Reasons to Amend the U.S. Constitution, but Some Liberals Don’t Want to Alter a Jot or Tittle of that ‘Scripture,’ PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Jan. 3, 2005, at A-15 (recognizing that Americans’ desire to change the Constitution “may be dulled because the Constitution is under assault by various zealots who would amend it—in order to ban the virtually non-existent problem of flag burning, to make discrimination official with a gay-marriage prohibition, to take powers away from the Supreme Court to rule on such issues as the Pledge of Allegiance”). 53. Although this slippery slope argument has some basis in reason, the fact remains that the difficult amendment process should prevent an amendment such as removing the natural born citizen requirement from opening the floodgates for an influx of other constitutional amendments.



have faith that the Founding Fathers made the best decisions for America.54

Ultimately, whether fear of amending the Constitution is rational or irra-tional, the reality is that many Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment to the natural born citizen clause because they are afraid that a Constitutional amendment will diminish the stability of the law in America and will move America further away from its roots.55

2. This provision just does not affect that many people.

Additionally, opponents of a Constitutional amendment argue that even if it makes logical sense to allow naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency, the natural born citizen clause simply does not affect enough people to justify a constitutional amendment. Unlike the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, or the Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, the number of citizens that the natural born citizen clause discriminates against is relatively minimal. In addition to not affecting a huge class of people like the Thirteenth or Nineteenth Amendments, preventing someone from being eligible for the presidency is not as extreme as denying someone the right to be free or the right to vote because of the unlikelihood that a naturalized citizen will ever become president. When slavery was abolished, every slave was liberated. When women were given the right to vote, every woman was able to vote. In contrast, if the natural born citizen requirement is passed, not every natural-ized citizen will run (or even want to run) for president. Only forty-three people have ever been president of the United States, and even though this provision discriminates against naturalized citizens, many argue that this discrimination is so limited in scope that it does not warrant the extraordi-nary remedy of a Constitutional amendment.56

54. See Editorial, Unnatural Act?/Foreign-Born Citizens Don’t Need to Become President,PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, Oct. 11, 2004, at A-10 (“It is a brave person who contradicts the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.”). 55. It could be argued that this fear of change is one of the primary reasons why the Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the last 225 years. See Haddock, supra note 10, at D1 (noting that a constitutional amendment requires a “swell of public support”); see also Mathews, supra note 27, at A1 (noting that only twenty-seven of more than 10,000 proposed Constitutional amendments have suc-ceeded).

56. See Unnatural Act?/Foreign Born Citizens Don’t Need to Become President, supra note 54 (“[A] good reason exists why other generations haven’t rushed to change the situation—this isn’t a problem and it doesn’t need the drastic remedy of a constitutional overhaul. . . . President and vice president are the only offices in the land that naturalized citizens can’t aspire to, but millions of Ameri-cans, by virtue of their circumstances and talents, can’t reasonably expect to either. Only 43 men have been president, so the injustice of Article II is very marginal.”).



3. Fear of Foreigners

Although people arguing against a Constitutional amendment do not typically admit that they oppose abolishing the natural born citizen re-quirement because they are afraid that a naturalized citizen might actually be working for a foreign government, the fear of foreigners amongst Americans has increased in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Simi-lar to the fears that the Founding Fathers felt and the fear that John Jay mentioned in his letter to George Washington, the possibility that a for-eigner will come in and somehow “take over” America continues to exist in America, albeit in a slightly different form.57 Although it seems unlikely and has even been called ludicrous that a foreign power would conspire to place someone with foreign allegiances in the White House,58 some Ameri-cans more legitimately fear that a naturalized citizen will somehow try to change America by promoting his own culture to the exclusion of others. For example, a foreign-born president could soften immigration policies towards immigrants coming from his “home” country, or allow his previ-ous ties to a different country to influence certain foreign policy decisions such as whether to attack another country, when to issue economic sanc-tions against that country, or when to provide that country with American aid.59 Although these concerns may appear reasonable,60 this argument fails to recognize that a person seeking to become president will face in-tense public scrutiny during the election process, making it doubtful that anyone would be able to come to the presidency with a hidden agenda re-garding a foreign country. Therefore, although people may claim that they do not want a foreign-born person in the White House because of the influ-

57. Unlike the situation today, the Founding Fathers were presumably afraid of foreigners out of fear that they were working for another sovereign. In contrast, today people are afraid of terrorists who are not working for a foreign government. Typically, today’s terrorists are groups of people who share the same ideological beliefs and goals. See generally FRONTLINE, infra note 63.

58. Time for a Change?: Should Concerns Rooted Firmly in the 18th Century Still Disqualify Immigrants from Serving as President?, supra note 7, at B6. 59. As one commentator noted:

Here’s another scenario. Let’s say foreigners are allowed to run for president, and someone from France gets elected. He’s a great, upstanding individual with great ideas for this coun-try’s future. How do you think he would react if, during his term, we had to go to war against France, his homeland, a place where many of his relatives still reside?

Will Gardner, Editorial, Foreign-Born Not Fit for Presidency, THE POST ONLINE, Jan. 31, 2005, http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E4&date=013105. 60. If this generalized fear of foreigners was a rational reason to oppose amending the Constitu-tion, one would assume that the natural born citizen requirement would extend to other high-ranking political positions in the United States. However, the prohibition against naturalized citizens only applies to the president and the vice-president. Naturalized citizens are eligible to run for the Senate, to sit on the Supreme Court, and to be the Secretary of State. See Lawrence J. Siskind, Editorial, Arnold for Prez: Fix the Constitution and Let Foreign-Born Citizens Run for the White House, LEGAL TIMES,Jan. 3, 2005, at 28, 29.



ence that a person’s foreign status may have on that person’s policy deci-sions, the truth is that many people simply distrust foreigners.61

Distrust of foreigners is nothing new. The Founding Fathers distrusted foreigners so much that they included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution initially. Although some people argue that a general distrust of foreigners is merely thinly veiled racism,62 older Americans may believe that their fear of foreigners is legitimate after having lived through World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Although people hope that this fear diminishes as these events fade into history, events such as September 11th continue to bring this fear back to the forefront in the minds of Ameri-cans. Accordingly, even though being afraid of foreigners may seem war-ranted and rational in the wake of September 11th, relying on this fear as a reason not to amend the natural born citizen requirement is irrational be-cause it is doubtful that a threat to America today would come from a for-eign country. It is more likely that a threat would come from a group of people who are not officially sanctioned by any one particular foreign gov-ernment, but instead are trying to achieve an agenda that includes destroy-ing America.63 However, because the fear of terrorism often translates into a generalized fear of everything non-American,64 and some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are not “as American” as natural born citi-zens because of their ties to another country, fear of foreigners may be one of the main reasons why people will refuse to vote for a constitutional amendment regarding presidential eligibility.

61. According to Forrest McDonald, a retired University of Alabama professor of American History, “Most Americans have an instinctive distrust of foreigners . . . and this has not changed appre-ciably in the last two, three, four years.” Kasindorf, supra note 5, at 2A.

62. See Dean, supra note 30. 63. For example, Osama bin Laden’s movement against America is not meant to defend a foreign country; the purpose is to defend Muslim land. As Osama bin Laden stated in an interview with John Miller from ABC:

Allah has ordered us to glorify the truth and to defend Muslim land, especially the Arab pen-insula . . . against the unbelievers. After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in particular. . . . The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of re-ciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American [sic] has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. . . . We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind.

Interview by John Miller with Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan, May 1998, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html. 64. “Recent polls suggest that two-thirds of the country is not ready for a foreign-born president. And broad anecdotal evidence, admittedly less scientific, indicates that we pretty much still hate immi-grants.” Gersh Kuntzman, American Beat: Hyphenated in the U.S.A., NEWSWEEK, Oct. 27, 2003.



A good illustration of Americans’ fear and distrust of foreigners can be seen through an analysis of America’s views on racial profiling both before and after September 11th. Prior to September 11th, many Americans believed that racial profiling was merely a method of discriminating against foreigners.65 However, post-September 11th, public opinion on this topic shifted markedly.66 Post-September 11th, many Americans came to believe that the need to protect national security justified the use of racial profiling. People throughout the country became suspicious of foreigners, even those “foreigners” who were actually American citizens.67 Ultimately, this fear, whether rational or irrational, will most certainly affect whether Americans abolish the natural born citizen requirement.

4. Loyalty

Along the same lines as a generalized fear of foreigners, opponents of a constitutional amendment argue that foreign-born citizens should not be eligible for the presidency because foreign-born citizens retain an emo-tional attachment and a sense of loyalty to their homelands. As California Senator Diane Feinstein noted, “I don’t think it is unfair to say the presi-dent of the United States should be a native-born citizen. . . . Your alle-giance is driven by your birth.”68 Accordingly, Americans fear that a president who has an attachment to another country may allow that attach-ment to affect the decisions that he or she makes.69 Americans expect the

65. According to Professor Ramirez, [N]ational surveys conducted prior to September 11 indicated that a majority of Americans, regardless of race, believed that racial profiling was a significant social problem. According to a national Gallup Poll released on December 9, 1999, fifty-nine percent of the adults polled believed that the police actively engaged in racial profiling and, more significantly, eighty-one percent said that they disapproved of the practice.

Deborah Ramirez et al., Defining Racial Profiling in a Post-September 11 World, 40 AM. CRIM. L. REV.1195, 1199–1200 (2003). 66. “Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers, racial profiling has taken on new significance and has left people who were previously committed to eradicating racial profiling less sure of where they stand.” Id. at 1224. “A practice that once was con-sidered by many to be a blatant civil rights violation is now accepted by some as a necessary tactic during a time of terrorism.” Id. “According to a Gallup Poll, forty-nine percent of Americans would support a practice of Arabs and Arab-Americans, United States citizens or not, being forced to carry a special identification card; fifty-eight percent would support requiring Arabs to undergo more security checks at airports.” Id. at 1225.

67. See Phil Hirschkorn & Michael Okwu, Airline Faces Post 9/11 Racial Profiling, Discrimina-tion Suits, June 4, 2002, CNN.COM, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/04/airlines.discrimination/ (explaining how three American citizen passengers are suing four U.S. airlines for allegedly discrimi-nating against them based on race). 68. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29. 69. Along these same lines, it is impossible to know whether a person who was born in Mexico and came to live in America as a child has more or less of an emotional tie to Mexico than a person who was born in America to a Mexican-American family and culture.



president to put the United States above everything else. The American president must be prepared to make decisions for the good of the country. Whether a candidate is prepared to do that should be one of the primary inquiries of each presidential hopeful, not where the individual was born. Although the argument that naturalized citizens will have emotional ties to their homeland seems like a rational reason to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause, this argument fails to take into account the various situations under which many immigrants come to the United States. Many immigrants come to the United States to escape persecution in their own countries. Many naturalized Americans have been forced to risk their own lives and the lives of their children to escape tyrannical governments in their “home” country. Accordingly, these individuals may be more likely than natural born citizens to be loyal to America, the country that provided them with an opportunity to live free from fear of persecution.70

Secondly, deciding not to vote for an amendment abolishing the natu-ral born citizen requirement because a potential presidential candidate may be loyal to his place of birth ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens believe very strongly in America and the opportunities available to immi-grants in America because they did not have those same opportunities in their homelands. As Arnold Schwarzenegger stated in his speech at the Republican National Convention:

[I]n this country, it doesn’t make any difference where you were born. It doesn’t make any difference who your parents were. It doesn’t make any difference if, like me, you couldn’t even speak English until you were in your 20’s. America gave me opportunities, and my immigrant dreams came true. I want other people to get the same chances I did, the same opportunities.71

Furthermore, voting against an amendment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement ignores the fact that many naturalized citizens made a conscious decision to live in the United States. They are not here simply by an accident at birth. Many of these immigrants risked their lives and left their family, friends, and culture to make America their home. These peo-ple often do not know anyone in the United States, are unfamiliar with the culture, and cannot even speak the language. Additionally, a naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, makes a conscious decision to become

70. Siskind, supra note 60, at 29 (“Foreign-born Americans, particularly those from totalitarian countries, tend to be the most fiercely loyal of all citizens.”). 71. Todd S. Purdum, Upbeat Republicans Revive Bush Theme of Compassion, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 1, 2004, at A1.



a U.S. citizen and has to take an oath of allegiance to the United States.72

Citizenship is not automatic like it is for natural born citizens. Therefore, although believing that a foreign-born citizen should not be president be-cause he has an emotional tie to his homeland may be a valid reason to vote against amending the constitution, this belief fails to take into account the rigors and sacrifices that naturalized citizens make in order to have the opportunities of American citizenship.

5. Failing to Understand What It Means to Be a Natural Born Citizen

Additionally, Americans may oppose amending the Constitution to al-low naturalized citizens to run for president because they do not understand the difference between being a natural born citizen and being a naturalized citizen. Specifically, they do not understand what it takes to become a natu-ralized citizen.73 Therefore, when asked if the Constitution should be amended to allow naturalized citizens to run for president, many people may respond, “No, I don’t want a foreigner to be president. An American should be president.” Even though naturalized citizens are Americans who have satisfied very strict requirements before being eligible to become citi-zens, requirements that natural born citizens have not had to satisfy, some Americans believe that naturalized citizens are less American than natural born citizens. Although the ignorance of the American people sounds like a foolish and embarrassing reason for refusing to doing away with this dis-

72. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/teacher/oath.htm (last visited June 20, 2005). The naturalization oath states:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have hereto-fore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian di-rection when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Id. 73. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website lists the following general requirements for a person to become a naturalized citizen:

1. Live in the U.S. as a permanent resident for a specific amount of time (Continuous Resi-dence). 2. Be present in the U.S. for specific time periods (Physical Presence). 3. Spend specific amounts of time in your state or district (Time in District or State). 4. Behave in a legal and acceptable manner (Good Moral Character). 5. Know English and information about U.S. history and government (English and Civics). 6. Understand and accept the principles of the U.S. Constitution (Attachment to the Consti-tution).

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Becoming a U.S. Citizen, http://uscis.gov/graphics/citizenship/becoming.htm (last visited June 20, 2005).



criminatory practice, the failure of Americans to fully understand who is and who is not a natural born citizen may very well prevent a Constitu-tional amendment from passing simply because people do not truly under-stand what they are being asked to vote for.

6. Racism and Religious Intolerance

It is an unfortunate truth that many Americans are racist. Although tremendous progress has been made in race relations throughout this coun-try’s history, and especially within the last fifty years, racism continues to exist in American politics. For example, black candidates rarely generate enough votes to be elected, and researchers believe that this is primarily because white voters are reluctant to vote for a black candidate.74 This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate75 may cause voters to oppose amending the natural born citizen clause because they fear that this is a first step toward having someone who is not white occupying the White House. This fear is irrational because non-white citizens are just as capable of be-ing president as white citizens, and non-white natural born citizens, under the existing language of Article II, are eligible to be president. Despite these facts, it is possible that some Americans will oppose a Constitutional amendment because of their racist beliefs.

Similarly, there is a chance that Americans will not vote to amend the natural born citizen requirement for religious reasons.76 America faced the

74. See Patrick Reddy, For Black Candidates, A Ceiling of Their Own, WASH. POST, Jan. 19, 2003, at B4. Reddy highlights the impact that racism plays on politics and attempts to answer the question, “Why do mediocre white candidates often win the highest-level jobs while stellar black candidates succeed only when everything goes right?” “There seems to be a ‘tinted glass ceiling’ pre-venting black candidates from reaching the top offices—a ceiling held in place by a hard-core group of white voters who, in the words of former Congressional Black Caucus chairman Parren Mitchell, wouldn’t vote for you, if you were black, ‘even if you walked on water.’” Id.

75. Id. This reluctance to vote for a non-white candidate is apparent through an analysis of pre-election and post-election polling figures. Id. Pollsters have found that it is common for “white voters [to tell] interviewers that they are undecided and then [to vote] 10 to 1 against a black candidate.” Id. Moreover, research demonstrates that “on average, the margin in the actual election results differs from the margin in the pre-election poll by 10 percentage points to the white candidate’s favor.” Id. “When Anglo voters were asked by a pollster, they would indicate that they were supporting [the black candi-date] because they didn’t want to be perceived as a bigot. But in the privacy of the voting booth, they may have voted differently.” Matt Hendrix, Suppressed Prejudices Could Dash Kirk’s Senate Bid,DAILY TEXAN, Oct. 14, 2002, at 4. 76. A recent posting on a weblog included what its author would like to see if the presidential eligibility clause were to be amended.

Given the choice to amend the Constitution I would place the following requirements on the Presidential Nominee and the same for VP or a member of the Presidential Cabinet. Parents: Both US born, Christian, raised and educated, Nominee: US born, Christian, raised and edu-cated with four years active military service. (preferably one who has seen combat on the ground and the fighting from a foxhole when an enemy was trying to kill him.) I want a President who knows and understands that America was founded under the Christian philoso-phy, not Hindu or Muslim.



“religion” question when John Fitzgerald Kennedy ran for President in 1960. Kennedy was the first Catholic ever to serve as President and many people in the country feared that this would somehow influence him while he was in office.77 Although it is doubtful today that Americans would have much to say if a Catholic was running for President, religion would likely be a central issue if a Muslim were to run for the highest office in America. Even though this concern is not a legitimate reason to vote against abolishing the natural born citizen clause because many natural born Americans are Muslims, many Americans may oppose a Constitu-tional amendment because of the possibility that a naturalized citizen would be more likely to be a Muslim, Hindu, or some other religion besides Christian.

7. The Signal this Amendment Would Send to the Rest of the World

Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because of the in-ternational perception that it would create. Even though the increase of globalization dictates that America should amend the natural born citizen requirement, Americans may oppose a Constitutional amendment because this type of change would signal to the rest of the world that America is willing to be one country of many and that Americans are interested in becoming part of a global world culture. Commentators refer to the sym-bolic nature of the law as the “expressive function of law” and recognize that Constitutional amendments may have a dual effect.78 For example, a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning may not only deter people from burning American flags but also signal how important patriotism is to America.79 Similarly, opponents of a Constitutional amendment to amend the natural born citizen clause may believe that such an amendment would have dual effects. In addition to allowing naturalized citizens to become president, this amendment would signal to the global community that Americans want to become integrated with the rest of the world and that Americans no longer feel the need to be the leading country in the world but are content in being on equal footing with every other country. Al-though some Americans may believe that the expressive function of a Con-stitutional amendment is a positive signal to send, United States foreign

Posting of B4Ranch to Free Republic, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1294714/posts (Dec. 5, 2004, 5:28 PST). 77. Herbert G. Klein, Bush’s Win, Bush’s Challenge, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., Nov. 14, 2004, at G6.

78. See Cass R. Sunstein, On the Expressive Function of Law, 144 U. PA. L. REV. 2021, 2023 (1996).

79. Id.



policy indicates otherwise. Specifically, the United States government, led by the President who is elected by the people, takes great care in preserving its position as the world’s only superpower.80 In light of this consistent policy, it is doubtful that Americans will support an amendment to the presidential eligibility clause because this could send the wrong signal to the rest of the world.

8. The President as a Symbol of America

Another powerful argument against abolishing the natural born citizen clause is based on the American tradition and history surrounding the presidency. Americans view the presidency not only as a symbol of Amer-ica and American values but also as a symbol of America’s power and strength. Symbols such as flags, ribbons, songs, and phrases have been important parts of the American cultural landscape, and although some people may not believe that the president is a symbol simply because he is a human being, the president and the presidency represent the traditions of America. Not only is the president the direct product of the American de-mocratic system, but in his position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the president symbolizes the strength of America’s military power and supremacy in the world. Accordingly, some Americans may believe that any change to the requirements for presidential eligibility will begin to chip away at the traditions and values of America that the presidency repre-sents.81 Although this may seem like an irrational reason for not abolishing discrimination against naturalized citizens, Americans may find that the symbolism behind the presidency is more important than the limited dis-crimination that the natural born citizen provision causes.

An interesting situation arises when one stops to consider what impact globalization will have on symbols such as flags, songs, and the presi-dency. Although Americans’ need for symbols may lessen as the world becomes smaller and nations become more homogenized, it is possible that the continued expansion of globalization will force Americans to cling to these symbols in order to preserve the American identity. This need to pre-serve the American identity may very well be one of the main reasons why

80. See CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, GLOBAL VIEWS 2004: AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND FOREIGN POLICY 1 (2004) (“The United States is the world’s undisputed military and economic superpower. It has a more formidable global presence than ever, maintaining approximately 700 military installations abroad in 2003 and spending as much on defense in 2004 as the next 20 nations combined.”). 81. “Whoever holds this office represents our country to the world. He or she is the embodiment of what we are all about. In my eyes, for someone to fit the aforementioned criteria, he or she has to be a natural-born U.S. citizen.” Gardner, supra note 59.



Americans will view globalization in a negative light. Once this occurs, the impetus for repealing the natural born citizen clause ceases to have much force. Accordingly, Americans may rely on their belief that globalization is effectively eating away at “America” by lessening the strength of symbols such as the presidency to justify their decision to leave the natural born citizen requirement in place.

B. Common Perceptions About Globalization

As noted previously, globalization provides a number of rational rea-sons to amend the Constitution and abolish the natural born citizen re-quirement. However, globalization and Americans’ perceptions regarding globalization will also be a reason why Americans’ irrational beliefs will prevail over the rational reasons.82 Whether these perceptions about global-ization are valid or are actually misconceptions is not really the issue. Re-gardless of their validity, these perceptions about globalization will convince the American public to oppose a Constitutional amendment. This section will identify some of these common beliefs83 about globalization and identify why these beliefs will cause Americans to fall back on their emotional beliefs and lead them to vote against a proposed Constitutional amendment.

1. Americans do not understand globalization.

One common belief about globalization that may influence whether Americans rely on the rational reasons versus the emotion-based reasons is that globalization is really nothing more than the Americanization of the world. Many Americans simply do not understand the nature of the global economy and the concept of a global culture. Although it may be clear to scholars and economists that globalization is about the world coming to-gether both culturally and economically, a typical American citizen may

82. It is important to remember the difficulty that any Constitutional amendment faces. The sheer groundswell of support needed to have an amendment pass by two-thirds of the Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of the states is an enormous hurdle. See supra notes 22, 23 and accompanying text. 83. It should be noted that these beliefs about globalization are certainly not the only beliefs about globalization, and some would argue that more positive beliefs about globalization are slowly replacing the negative or indifferent views expressed in this paper. See infra note 86. However, this paper does not argue whether Americans view globalization positively versus negatively; this paper argues that the negative or indifferent beliefs about globalization are plentiful enough to justify Americans’ reliance on irrational fears rather than logical reasoning to avoid amending the Constitution’s natural born citizen requirement. Therefore, even though Americans may be slowly becoming more accepting of globaliza-tion, there is simply not enough positive public support for globalization to make a Constitutional amendment a likely possibility.



have trouble understanding this because he sees globalization as it is por-trayed on television. He is likely to see globalization as the idea of spread-ing McDonald’s and Hollywood throughout the world.84 As Thomas Friedman recognized, “[G]lobalization is in so many ways Americaniza-tion: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, [and] does its computing on an I.B.M. laptop with Windows 98.”85 Because these Americans do not understand that globalization is a two way street, including not only the exportation of American ideals and products but also the importation of foreign influences, products, and tech-nology into America, many Americans are unlikely to feel that an increase in globalization is a good reason to change a 216-year-old presidential eli-gibility requirement. This failure to appreciate that globalization is about more than just spreading American products, ideals, and values throughout the world will effectively prevent people from understanding why the in-crease in globalization makes the natural born citizen requirement objec-tionable.

2. America as the World Leader

Additionally, a common reaction to globalization from Americans is that globalization can only bring America down. Although globalization, from an academic standpoint, sounds impressive and useful, the idea that America will benefit from cultural globalization when viewed from a prac-tical standpoint is somewhat questionable. Americans already see America as the world’s only superpower because of the strength of the American economy and the American military. Accordingly, when faced with whether to vote for a constitutional amendment abolishing the natural born citizen clause, globalization is unlikely to pressure Americans into doing so. Americans are likely to recognize that America is the leader of the world and that America achieved this position without having to change its cultural institutions to be more “global”; therefore, the only place that America can go by attempting to assimilate with the rest of the world is down. From a practical and short-term standpoint, a belief that globaliza-tion is unnecessary may cause Americans to rely on their emotional beliefs rather than reason and oppose amending the Constitution.

84. Thomas L. Friedman, Op-Ed, Angry, Wired, and Deadly, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 22, 1998, at A15. See also Kurt Kuehn, Managing the Brand in an Age of Anti-Americanism, SHIPPING DIG., Oct. 4, 2004, at 78. “We know that, increasingly, the line is blurred between globalization and Americaniza-tion. For many people, the terms are synonymous. For some, globalization is an American-led phe-nomenon designed to benefit the U.S.” Id. 85. Friedman, supra note 84, at A15.



3. Americans are not prepared to give up the American identity in favor of globalization.

In addition to not wanting to change the Constitution because America is already the world leader, many Americans simply do not believe that globalization is necessary because they see globalization as a process that will cause America to lose its identity. American history, traditions, values, and morals took America from a fledging group of colonies and made America into a superpower. A movement towards globalization, especially cultural globalization, could be seen as stripping America of the attributes that led to her rise in power. As seen in the aftermath of September 11th, Americans are proud of their heritage and proud of their country. Any at-tempt to change that identity will certainly be viewed with skepticism and this skepticism may concern Americans enough to convince them to leave the Constitution as it is.

4. Globalization as a Threat

Another issue with globalization is that many Americans see global-ization in a negative light because it negatively affects their individual life-style.86 Specifically, many Americans believe that Americans are losing their jobs because of economic globalization and the resulting movement of American manufacturing jobs to places in the world where labor is less expensive. Additionally, many people view globalization in terms of Amer-ica’s immigration policy, believing that allowing widespread immigration directly affects them because many immigrants are willing to work for lower wages than their American counterparts.87 Therefore, increased im-migration results in American employers hiring immigrants rather than natural born citizens because employers are able to pay immigrants lower wages. Ultimately, the perception is that a natural born citizen must either accept lower wages in order to compete for jobs with immigrants or lose his job. In addition to these tangible economic perceptions about globaliza-tion,88 Americans may also see globalization as a threat to American values

86. Interestingly, although polls indicate that 62% Americans believe that “globalization” has a “good” effect on the United States, these same polls indicate that 64% of Americans believe that “their way of life needs protection from foreign influence.” PEW GLOBAL PROJECT ATTITUDES, VIEWS OF A CHANGING WORLD 85, 94 (June 2003). 87. CHI. COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, supra note 80, at 13, fig. 1-2 (noting that 78% of Americans polled believe that “protecting the jobs of American workers” should be a “very important goal of U.S. foreign policy”).

88. See generally Michael Sasso, Little Local Effect Seen on Moving Jobs Abroad, TAMPA TRIB., Oct. 26, 2004, at 1 (recognizing that public perception “holds that globalization is hurting the economy and job market”).



and morality. The millions of immigrants in this country bring with them their own cultures, languages, and ways of life. Therefore, the combination of lost jobs and perceived cultural erosion may scare Americans into be-lieving that globalization is not a good thing, and that they should resist globalization by voting against a Constitutional amendment that would essentially be a movement towards globalization.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the emotional reasons to oppose a constitutional amend-ment abolishing the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligi-bility will prevail over the rational reasons because the rational reasons derive, in large part, from the increase in globalization. The current Ameri-can perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstand-ings about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization. Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans’ subsequent percep-tions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement. Logi-cal Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons pro-moted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts. Whether it is because of fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers, Americans want to find a way to avoid changing the natural born citizen provision to allow natural-ized citizens to be eligible for the presidency. Ultimately, Americans will rely on the perceived negative effects of globalization, or rather their per-ceptions of globalization’s negative effects, to justify their decision to al-low emotion to prevail over reason.


EXHIBIT 7

First or Last Name Keyword

Sarah P. Herlihy [email protected] V-Card

Chicago Phone: +1 312-862-7089 Fax: +1 312-862-2200

Litigation

2005, Illinois

Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, 2005 - 2006

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 2005 with High Honors Order of the Coif Kent Legal Scholar Chicago-Kent Law Review, Executive Articles Editor Moot Court Honor Society: Winner - 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition - Buffalo, New York Second Place Brief – 2004 Herbert Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court Competition – Buffalo, New York

Professional Profile

Sarah Herlihy is an associate in the litigation practice group.

Publications

Note, Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle, 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 275 (2006)

Featured in Chicago-Kent Report from the Dean: Six Standout Professionals Reinvent Themselves as Law Students

Prior Experience

Manager of Guest Relations, The Field Museum of Natural History, 2001-2002

Manager of Training and Operational Services, International Theme Park Services, Inc., 1995-2001

Courts

United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Page 1 of 2Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.

2/28/2010http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8909


EXHIBIT 8

First or Last Name Keyword

Kirkland has been privileged to represent a wide array of corporate, individual and governmental interests in complicated litigation, corporate and tax, intellectual property, restructuring and counseling matters for major national and international clients.

In every year since 1995, Kirkland has ranked as one of the most frequently used firms by Fortune 100 companies in The National Law Journal survey, "Who Represents Corporate America."

3MAbbott LaboratoriesAES CorporationAgere SystemsAlcon LaboratoriesAonAppleBain CapitalBank of AmericaBarr LaboratoriesBellSouthBlue Cross and Blue ShieldBoeingBP America Inc.CIVC PartnersColgate-PalmoliveCollins & AikmanConcord EFSConsecoConstellation EnergyDIRECTVDow ChemicalExideForstmann LittleGeneral MotorsGTCRHoneywell InternationalIllinois Tool WorksInfineon Technologies AGInternational PaperKraftKubota Tractor

Madison Dearborn PartnersMcDonald'sMerisantMolson Coors Brewing CompanyMorgan StanleyMotorolaNationwide InsuranceNavistarNRG EnergyOracleR.J. ReynoldsRaytheonRepsol YPF S.A.S.C. Johnson & SonSamsungSara LeeSchering-PloughServiceMasterSiemensSolutiaStarwood Hotels & ResortsSun Capital PartnersTenet HealthcareTerra IndustriesThoma Cressey BravoTime WarnerUnited AirlinesVerizonVestar Capital PartnersWhirlpoolWilliam Blair & CompanyWillis Stein & Partners

Page 1 of 2Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Clients

2/28/2010http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=181


EXHIBIT 9

HOME / PRESS OFFICE / NEWS

News Releases

For Immediate Release Contact: Judith Ingram

February 26, 2010Julia Queen

Christian Hilland

FEC TAKES FINAL ACTION ON SIX CASES

WASHINGTON – The Federal Election Commission recently made public its final action on six matters under review (MURs). In one matter, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,500; the Commission found no reason to believe a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), occurred in connection with another allegation and it dismissed the remaining allegations. In another case, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,600. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the other four matters.

Under the law, the FEC must attempt to resolve its enforcement cases, or MURs, through a confidential investigative process that may lead to a negotiated conciliation agreement between the Commission and the individual or group.Additional information regarding MURs can be found on the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/em/mur.shtml.

This release contains only summary information.For additional details, please consult publicly available documents for each case in the Enforcement Query System (EQS) on the FEC web site at http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs.

MUR 6127

RESPONDENTS: Obama for America and Martin Nesbitt, in his official capacity as treasurer; Barack Obama; Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer; Democratic National Committee and Andrew

Skip Navigation

enter search here ABOUT THE FEC PRESS OFFICE QUICK ANSWERS SITE M

Campaign Finance Reports and Data

Meetings and Hearings

Enforcement Matters

Help with Reportingand Compliance

Law & Regulations

Page 1 of 520100226MUR

3/1/2010http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100226MUR.shtml

contributions outside VIDA Fitness’s and Bang Salon’s restricted class. In a conciliation agreement, VIDA Fitness, Urban Salons, Inc., d/b/a Bang Salon Spa, and von Storch agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,500.

MUR 6227

RESPONDENTS: Susan B. Anthony List, Inc. Candidate Fund and Frank Cannon, in his official capacity as treasurer

COMPLAINANT: Self Initiated

SUBJECT: Susan B. Anthony List, Inc. Candidate Fund and Frank Cannon, in his official capacity as treasurer, disclosed information to the Commission after an internal audit revealed that the committee had misreported the receipt, disbursement, and cash balance amounts on FEC campaign finance reports from 2005 to 2008. Under the Act, a political committee is required to disclose accurate financial records of campaign-related activity.

OUTCOME:The Commission found reason to believe the respondents violated the Act. In a conciliation agreement, respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,600.

MUR 6175

RESPONDENTS: Obama Victory Fund and Andrew Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer

COMPLAINANT: Jane B. Freidson

SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that Obama Victory Fund and Tobias, in his official capacity as treasurer, incorrectly processed a $500, online contribution made by Freidson, and instead charged $5,000 to her credit card.

OUTCOME:The respondents acknowledged the mistake in processing the original contribution and issued a $4,500 refund to Freidson. The Commission exercised



its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.

MUR 6165

RESPONDENTS: Patriots for Crimmins and William Baber, in his official capacity as treasurer

COMPLAINANT: Barry Baron

SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that the Crimmins Committee and Baber, in his official capacity as treasurer, failed to report a disputed debt owed to Baron, a political consultant who performed services for the campaign. The complaint alleged further that the Crimmins Committee tried to settle the dispute in an improper and possibly illegal manner. Crimmins was a 2008 candidate for California’s 53rd Congressional District.

OUTCOME: The Committee amended its FEC report to disclose the disputed debt and denies that improper action was taken to settle the debt. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.

MUR 6149

RESPONDENTS: Hillary Clinton for President and Shelly Moskwa, in her official capacity as treasurer

COMPLAINANTS: Daniel H. Weiner and Elizabeth A. Fuerstman

SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that former Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign failed to issue a refund to Weiner and Fuerstman for their contribution to Clinton’s general election campaign. Under the Act, general election contributions must be refunded if the person seeking office is not a candidate in that particular election.

OUTCOME: The Clinton campaign appears to have issued a second refund check promptly



after being notified that the first refund check apparently had not been delivered. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.

MUR 6155

RESPONDENTS: Hillary Clinton for President and Shelly Moskwa, in her official capacity as treasurer

COMPLAINANT: Michael Reznik

SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that former Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign committee failed to issue a refund to Reznik for his contribution to Clinton’s general election campaign.

OUTCOME: The Clinton campaign stated that a refund check was cashed after it was mailed to the complainant's "address of record" on August 28, 2008, and attached a copy of the endorsed check to its response. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

# # #

What’s New Library FOIA USA.gov Privacy Links eFiling Inspector General No Fear Act Subscribe

Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463 (800) 424-9530 In Washington (202) 694-1000 For the hearing impaired, TTY (202) 219-3336 Send comments and suggestions about this site to the web manager.




EXHIBIT 10

Newsmax Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

By: Ken Timmerman

More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Monday, September 29, 2008 09:23 PM

Page 1 of 6Newsmax - PrintTemplate

2/22/2010http://newsmax.com/PrintTemplate?nodeid=35666

Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

“We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

“We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro

When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them



for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Foreign Donations

And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $3.38 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” which the FEC often uses as an abbreviation for "information requested." Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel,



who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.



In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

“Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”

FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.



This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”

Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

CLARIFICATION

The original version of this story, published on this Web site Sept. 29, reported that the "IR" listed on 520 overseas donations is "often an abbreviation for Iran."

However, FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said Oct. 7 that “IR” generally means “information requested,” not Iran. “That’s often, but not always, what it means,” he said.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

copyright



bho opposition to strunk's motion to intervene with strunk's reply dcd 10-cv-00151

Documents

interests of strunk

united states district

strunks motion

united states attorney

states citizens

strunk lacks

closest strunk

assistant united states