recent FOIA partial-dump of Stanley Ann Dunham/Obama/Soetoro's passport records. As previously reported here, all pre-1965 passport records for Stanley Ann Dunham(Obama's Mama) were said to be destroyed even though they are required to maintain passport records for 100 years. The State Department website states the Passport Services maintain passport records for passports issued from 1925 to present.
Christopher Strunk whom obtained the said Dunham records just submitted his 'Declaration in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss'[Strunk v Department of State et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL)] in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The first ten pages from the declaration posted below and the full declaration embedded below that. The first ten sections pretty much sum the treason up. I encourage all to read the entire declaration and exhibits . It is very clear many people are involved in the biggest scam perpetrated against the American people in our history.
Via Christopher Strunk Declaration; Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Defendants’ agents:
a. have not made a good faith effort to search for and disclose records within the purview of their fiduciary responsibility and duty to safeguard and disclose under 5 USC §552 and related law;
b. have spoliated records associated with the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by John O. Brennan, Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Soebarkah “Barry” Soetoro), Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Sovereign Military Order of Malta members Hillary Clinton, Robert Mueller, Janet Napolitano, Leon Panetta, Zbigniew Brzezinski and others as yet named in violation of the U.S. Constitution, National Security Act of 1947 and related law including the Foreign Affairs and other laws too numerous to list herein for the purposes of this declaration;
c. have spoliated records associated with the egregious violation of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 in regard to a cover-up involving Soebarkah “Barry” Soetoro and Barack Hussein Obama (BHO);
d. that by spoliation and concealment have maliciously aided and abetted BHO to conceal Soebarkah Soetoro’s acts of treason (1) having taken the
1 ACTS OF TREASON, inter alia, by Aiding and Abetting: (a) nations, organizations, entities and persons who support and promote terrorism and the overthrow of the USA;
oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect the united States of America and the People against all enemies foreign or domestic his real name is (plaintiff does not know) and who at birth has a multiple allegiances simultaneously to Great Britain and Kenya through his natural father, notwithstanding where Soebarkah Soetoro may have been born is immaterial in the matter of multiple allegiances under the requirement of the U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and that based upon the facts associated with the documents released to date Soebarkah Soetoro is an Indonesian Citizen from six years of age till the present by the BHO adoption by Lolo S. Soetoro Mangunharjo, an Indonesian colonel in General Suharto's Armed Forces;
e. that by spoliation intended to conceal that Soebarkah Soetoro never renounced the allegiance to Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia, with citizenship there that when he attained majority he failed to take an oath
(b) willful failure to protect the USA borders for the purpose of unjust enrichment in commission of crimes by enemies of the People of the USA; (c) the Chinese Red Army in acquisition of preferred stockownership in British Petroleum control of Alaska Petroleum Production; (d) destruction of the California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural sector by maliciously withholding water with intent of Chinese Red Army ownership and control over food production to starve of the People of California and the USA; (e) creation of a private army dedicated only to his service without allegiance to the US Constitution; (f) Personal enrichment since 2005 in direct ownership in the pharmaceutical company that as a US Senator he advanced legislation for to produce a deadly virus and antidote; (g) as a US Senator supported and promoted the Election of Odinga whose acts of genocide were carried out against Christians in Africa by Muslims; (h) the Chinese Red Army partnership in the Lippo Group of Indonesia, James Riady and others in the usurpation of strategic minerals vital to the National Security of the People of the USA; (i) violation of the Logan Act and related Foreign Affairs Laws.
of allegiance to the USA and renounce all other allegiances, and that even upon his marriage to natural Born Citizen Michelle Robinson failed to take an oath of naturalization required under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and related law (INA), BHO falsified his application for admission to the Illinois Bar, and when he affirmed his oath(s) as a Senator for the Illinois State Senate, U.S. Senate from Illinois, and POTUS challenged by Declarant, who duly fired him on January 23, 2009 in the matter of BHO multi allegiances.
f. have aided and abetted a conspiracy to deny Plaintiff substantive due process and equal treatment with 5 USC §552 along with those similarly situated to maintain a republican form of government and thereby violate Plaintiff’s 1st, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendment right to protection associated with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness associated to the right to own property including but not limited to the right to contract and expectation of honest services associated with the oath of office of each member of the Executive Branch including Defendants’ Counsel;
3. That Plaintiff has employed the expert services of the retired Senior Border Patrol Agent of the Immigration & Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Philip Hans Jacobsen. who also served as the leader of the Association of Border Patrol Agents, to make an affidavit in regard to his applied experience and similar application for passport documents filed before 1968 along with his analysis supporting Plaintiff's above summarized contention of Defendants’ bad faith herein, see Exhibit 1 with Sub-exhibits A through F annexed thereto (the Jacobsen Affidavit).
4. In the Jacobsen Affidavit the set of circumstances in his own FOIA of his own mother that coincide with passport and related documents are dated from May 26, 1953 through October 28, 1985 that generally coincide with the same time frame of Plaintiffs FOIA requested of Stanley Ann Dunham with Barack Hussein Obama also named on those documents too.
5. The DOS / CBP response to Mr. Jacobsen is dated January 25, 2010 by Marionette Pleasant Team Leader, Law Enforcement Liaison Division Off of Legal Affairs Passport Services shown as Exhibit 1 Sub-exhibit B, provides a detailed listing of all resultant documents provided during the same time frame requested without any document missing from the period 1953 through 1985.
6. That Mr. Jacobsen affirms in the Affidavit facts as to his own FOIA request that support Plaintiffs challenge to the Defendants response allegations and facts related to his own FOIA request at Exhibit 1 paragraphs 8 through 12, and as such Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in the Jacobsen Affidavit paragraphs 8 through 12 shown in Exhibit 1 with the same force and effect as though herein set forth at length omits it for brevity.
7. That Plaintiff challenges the July 29, 2010 letter of Jonathan M. Rolbin, Director of the Office of Legal and Law Enforcement Liaison Bureau of Consular Affairs Passport Services in the matter with Case Control Number 200807238 with twelve pages of documents attached shown as Exhibit 1 Sub-exhibit A that says:
“We have completed a search for your records responsive to your request. The search resulted in the retrieval of six documents that are responsive to your request. After careful review of the documents, we have determined that all six documents may be released in full.”
“We did not locate a I965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. Many, passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.”
8. That Mr. Jacobsen’s applied research in his expert capacity is at paragraphs 15 through 21 on pages 4 through 7 shown as Exhibit 1 and the basis for Plaintiff to challenge the veracity of Defendants’ agents to meet the requirements of 5 USC §552 and the Court herein, and that Plaintiff contends have committed a fraud upon the court.
9. That the Jacobsen Affidavit affirms his own FOIA request for passports records that the DOS provided within the same time frame prior to 1967 (1953 through 1985) and that type of records requested conflicts with the Defendants’ allegations and partial provision of records to Plaintiff.
10. That there is a matter of denial of substantive due process and equal treatment under the law injuring Plaintiff when the July 29, 2010 letter of Jonathan M. Rolbin fails to provide: (a) any legal controlling authority for the alleged destruction; (b) any chain of custody of any of the documents to be provided and or alleged destroyed; (c) any record of security standard operating procedures in use in order to track the whereabouts and custody to audit the records; (d) any kind of Index of documents; (e) any administrative records related to the documents in question; (f) any confirmation of actual destruction; (g) any current administrative records within the October 2008 through present discussing the records requested; and (h) any records and or work product referencing the records after the alleged destruction between the 1980s until the Present.
11. That with regard to Defendants’ supporting declarations of Alex Galovich Acting Director of the Office of Information and Programs and Services of the DOS and Dorothy Pullo Director of the Freedom of Information Division, Office of international Trade, U.S. Customs and CBP based upon the above contentions Defendants have failed to proved sufficient facts to which Plaintiff may respond without a more definite statement provided and accordingly reserves the right to amend and extend Plaintiff’s response at the appropriate time or before trial is had.... ...so much more included in the declaration below.
...Jump to End; 31. Wherefore Plaintiff wishes an order of the Court denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss subject to a more definite statement of facts by order of Defendants and their agent to provide:
(a) any legal controlling authority for the alleged destruction;
(b) any chain of custody of any of the documents to be provided and or alleged destroyed;
(c) any record of security standard operating procedures in use in order to track the whereabouts and custody to audit the records;
(d) any kind of Index of documents;
(e) any administrative records related to the documents in question;
(f) any confirmation of actual destruction;
(g) any current administrative records within the October 2008 through present discussing the records requested; and
(h) any records and work product referencing the records after the alleged destruction between the 1980s until the Present;
(i) assignment of a U.S. Marshal at the DOS Archives to safeguard the records fro9m further tampering until all the additional records are provided or accounted for; and
(j) further and different relief deemed necessary by the Court for justice to be done herein. Dated: August 8th , 2010
- Full Declaration embedded below.
Strunk Declaration and MOL of Plaintiff in Opposition to Summary Judgment DCD 08 Cv 2234 - 8/9/2010