UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NO: 10-5091.
(C.A. NO. 09-1249)

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse,

\

, 3 -in
-
C

Appellant, -s
l-
3.
TIC)

v. z -9 ,%
G) c.

NEW YORK PROVINCE OF THE

" .ldrJ
-TJ
1
l40

>-.I<
i

0 .=pm
SOCIETY OF JESUS, et al., b9
4
A -;;GO
Appellees. -. --*-
,.
J' -
'2J
--F.
?V\

<n
APPELIANT'S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION(S) FOR
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE,

IChristopher-Earl: trunk in esse, hereby state and M a r e under penalty

of -perjurywith 28 USC 91746: .. . . . .s. . . . ,:;, . . .. ...
'
. ... .
. _< I \ :: 5 . . .. -. . . , . ~

1. That Iam the Appellant

,..
herein and make this c6rnbined:dedarationin
... . . . .
... :.
. . .. . .-. .
... . .,. . '
.
.. . .
h
. . . . ..' > . .,: .,
- . <

opposition to the ~ ~ p e l l e 6 s ' ' ~ o t i o

for
~ Summary
(s) ~ffinnance
of Judge ' ,

... . . . . . ..>~.. .: .. . . -.. ,

.. . ~. . .., :: . .
'
2 I
,-. . '
'.. . . , .
*: ' .

Richard J. ~'mn's
~ a r d8,201
r 0 Memorandum Opinion-&d order g=a"ting :'
.. .
. . . .

Federal~~~ellee'sand NEWYORKPROVINCEFTHESOCIETY~ . ..
,

.. . ... .- .
.+:.
;.
:.
. . _ . . , ., . , '
'.. .'
.
. . :. . .+.5 ::: , "
,. , . .
. . .
:
, ,

.. !
I

breach,ofduty " : '*. :I.

JESUS, et al Motions daismiss; and beyond the ~ederal- .
.
... .
.
. .
. . . . ,. ,

and neglect of honest setvice, Appellant respectfully desires theremand for :.,,
f
I

an opporiunity to amend the Complaint to include the state actions of the

/ -.
State of New York in failure to enforce the law as a violation of Appellants -- ----.6
sovereign inalienable rights lead to notorious Jesuit Chief of staff to hew A

1
York Roman Catholic Governor David Paterson among others who interfere
;
r C

1
with New York domestic Affairs injuring Plaintiff / Appellant and his right to

contract and property.

Background

2. Appellant realleges the facts that the New York Province of the

Society of Jesus is a Corporation in the State of New York and whose

members with an exclusive oath have not duly registered with the New York

Secretary of State or the Attorney General, as both are agents of the New

York Province of the Society of Jesus, that otherwise is a compelling state

issue of law enforcement under civil rights law; and notwithstanding the fact

that there is a federal matter because then President Ronald Reagan on

January 10, 1984 for the first time in USA history recognized the

sovereignty of the Vatican State, in what may only be compared to a

concordant.

3. Thereby recognized state sovereignty makes all the employees and

sworn members of the military order of the Society of Jesus as the Pope’s

personal militia subject to registration as foreign agents of a sovereign state

under the respective provisions of the Foreign Affairs statutes and also fall

under provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs with related

law, which is exclusively in the original jurisdiction of the SCOTUS; and that

such agents who have exclusively sworn fealty to the Pope at the Vatican

2
State and who operate in the Holy See present in New York City at the

United Nations along with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), a

sovereign state recognized by the USA, act with federal agencies and

officials and with named Appellees who have pledged exclusive oath of

allegiance, including the oath given for OPUS DEI, and or declared fealty to

the Pope, the Jesuit General of the Society of Jesus, the Grand Master of

the SMOM, are subject to the Foreign Affairs Laws with dual allegiance and

may not also serve Appellant as a sovereign person of New York who has

exclusive allegiance to the USA in exchange for protection and honest

services denied by Federal Appellees along with those similarly situated.

4. It remains true that the specific named Federal employees, like traitor

Robert Hansen, who have pledged an oath to the Pope or agree to employ

individuals who have pledged such an oath dividing allegiance to the USA,

that Federal Appellees are essentially unregistered foreign agents who

cannot simultaneously faithfully uphold the U.S. Constitution and laws and

to defend the USA and the sovereign States and Appellant against enemies

foreign or domestic are acting with cross allegiance and conflict of interest.

Standing

5. That Plaintiff / Appellant injury and standing are a function of

individual inalienable sovereign rights and to those rights granted to the

3
formation of the USA in exchange for the Protection guaranteed to Plaintiff

by the USA, and or its agents who failed in provision of honest services.

6. As for the alleged lack of Standing Strunk denies the allegation and

argues as follows:

7. Standing as a doctrine to limit judicial review has gone through

different phases. Its history shows that standing really does not have any

one constitutional standard and that its standard may change over time

given the existing political and social environment. See Richard J. Pierce,

Jr., Is Standing Law or Politics? 77 N.C. L. Rev. 1741, 1788 (1999). The

Warren Court developed what it believed was a relaxed view of standing.

Association of Data Processing Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150

(1979). The Burger Court then made it more difficult to establish standing.

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984). Then the early Rehnquist Court made

it even more difficult to prove standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555 (1992) (plurality opinion). Under the influence of Justice Kennedy,

the Rehnquist Court in its later years opened the court's door somewhat.

Defenders of Wildlife, (Kennedy, J., concurring); FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11

(1998). Today, under the Roberts Court, the law of standing is not so clear.

Compare Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007) (granting

4
standing), with Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587

(2007) (denying standing)).

8. What is really behind standing is separation of powers. As Justice

Scalia stated before joining the Court, "the judicial doctrine of standing is a

crucial and inseparable element of [separation of powers], whose disregard

will inevitably produce ... an over-judicialization of the processes of self-

governance." Antonin Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential

Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 881 (1983)

[hereafter Scalia]. Relying on the separation of powers doctrine, the courts

have said that they cannot dictate the methods used by the executive to

enforce the laws for to do so would be interfering with the President's

responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Allen v.

Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 761 (1984). On the court's proper role, Justice Scalia

stated: "[T]he law of standing roughly restricts courts to their traditional

undemocratic role of protecting individuals and minorities against

impositions of the majority, and excludes them from the even more

undemocratic role of prescribing how the other two branches should

function in order to serve the interests of the majority itself." Scalia, at 881.

9. The major separation of powers concerns voiced in modern standing

cases is the freedom of the executive branch (see, M., Lujan, 504 U.S. 555;

5
Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007) and the potential creation of

a nation of undifferentiated Interpleader and Plaintiff. See, Allen v. Wright,

468 U.S. 737 (1984); Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 127 S.Ct.

2553 (2007). "Generalizations about standing to sue are largely worthless

as such." Ass'n of Date Processing Servo Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150,

151 (1970). Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), shows that

the issue of standing is highly fact sensitive. All a litigant must do to

demonstrate standing is "allege personal injury fairly traceable to the ...

allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested

relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,750 (1984) (cited and quoted in U.S. v.

Local 560 (I.B.T.), 974 F.2d 315, 340 (3rd Cir. 1992). The current-day test

for Article III standing was established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555 (1992) (plurality opinion), where the Court stated:

“First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact' -- an invasion of a

legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b)
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be
a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -
the injury has to be fairly ... trace[ able] to the challenged action of the
defendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third
party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at
560-61 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Given the factual
allegations of their complaint/petition and the current state of the law of
standing, the Court should have found that Plaintiff have alleged sufficient
facts in their complaint/petition to show they have standing to bring their
causes of action. This Court's threshold inquiry into standing in no way

6
 depends on the merits of Plaintiff' contentions. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 500 (1975) (citations omitted).”

10. In the words of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett:

“There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political

community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the
promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated
becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it
allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in
this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the
other: allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. “ Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

11. Chief Justice Waite again instructs in United States v. Cruiksahank,

92 U.S. 542 (1875):

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a
government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments
is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it
allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. ...
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong.
They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their
associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the
dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and
the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the
formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as
they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called
upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights
of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no
other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by
the power it possesses for that purpose. “

***
He owes allegiance to the two departments [state and federal
government], so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay
the penalties, which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return,
he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction. Id. at
549-51. In Corfield v. Coryell, W6 F. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) (No.
3,230), we learn:

7
 The privileges and immunities, which belong, of right, to the citizens of all
free governments include protection by the government ... with the right
to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain
happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the
government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.

12. Appellant can see that the Supreme Court and other courts have said

that a citizen has a right to receive protection and safety from the

government in return for which he gives allegiance to that government. As

Justice Waite in Cruiksahank said, the right to receive protection is not only

a right that belongs to the collective society but also to the individual. It is

the individual's right to receive protection from the government, which was

the reason that the Founders constituted the new federal Constitutional

Republic, believing that the individual would be better protected if there

were a unified national government to provide that protection.

13. Citizenship determines allegiance. A citizen entrusts his/her

allegiance to the government in exchange for its protection, which includes

the government providing for the person's safety, security, and tranquility.

Under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, a person is

entitled to life, liberty, and property and cannot be deprived of those rights

by the government without due process of law. Hence, under the

Constitution, a person is entitled to receive from the government its

protection of his/her life, liberty, and property. These components

8
necessarily include the right to safety, security, and tranquility.

14. Can one reasonably deny that persons should have a right to protect

themselves? The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendment recognize that

citizens have the right to vote for their representatives and protect that right.

Citizens exercise their right to protect themselves by voting for

representatives in whom they entrust their life, liberty, and property and

expect these representatives to best protect their safety, security, and

tranquility. Hence, if persons are expected to vote for those representatives

whom they believe will best protect them and that right is protected by the

Constitution, a person also has a constitutional right to bring an action

under the Fifth Amendment against the federal government and/or its

agents to demand that the government continue to provide him/her with the

protection he is entitled under the Constitution.

15. The sovereign power in our Constitutional Republic lies with the

people and the Constitution they established to limit the power of the

Federal government and thus the Congress and its members who are part

of that government. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)

(explains that it is the people who are sovereign in our Constitutional

Republic). Any party to a contract as standing to enforce it.

9
 Response Argument

16. That in October of 1979 my friend Robert K. Dornan sought to remove

Fr. Robert Drinan S.J. ( 1 ) a Democrat elected to the House (1970-1981),

and to remove him, Bob Dornan met with Pope John Paul II and convinced

the Pope to order Fr. Drinan to leave the Congress (see Exhibit A.).

1
Robert Frederick Drinan, S.J. (November 15, 1920 – January 28, 2007) was a Roman
Catholic Jesuit priest, lawyer, human rights activist, and Democratic U.S.
Representative from Massachusetts. He was also a law professor at Georgetown
University Law Center for the last twenty-six years of his life. Whose education and legal
career Drinan grew up in Hyde Park, Massachusetts and graduated from Hyde Park
High School in 1938. He received a B.A. and an M.A. from Boston College in 1942 and
joined the Jesuit Order the same year; he was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1953. He
received an LL.M. and LL.B. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1950, and a
doctorate in theology from Gregorian University in Rome in 1954, in addition to receiving
21 honorary degrees throughout his life. He studied in Florence for two years before
returning to Boston, where he was admitted to the bar in 1956. He served as dean of the
Boston College Law School from 1956 until 1970, during which time he also taught as a
professor of family law and church-state relations. During this period he was also a
visiting professor at other schools including the University of Texas School of Law, and
served on several Massachusetts state commissions convened to study legal issues
such as judicial salaries and lawyer conflicts of interest. Sought election to Congress in
1970, an anti-Vietnam War platform, narrowly defeating longtime Representative Philip
J. Philbin, who was serving on the House Armed Services Committee, in the Democratic
primary. Drinan went on to win election to the House of Representatives, and was re-
elected four times, serving from 1971 until 1981. He was the first of two Roman Catholic
priests (the other being Robert John Cornell of Wisconsin) to serve as a voting member
of Congress. Drinan sat on various House committees, and served as the chair of the
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee. He was also a
delegate to the 1972 Democratic National Convention.
Drinan (along with fellow Fr. John McLaughlin, S.J. of the NBC McLaughlin
Report) was the first member of Congress, in July 1973, to introduce a resolution calling
for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, though not for the Watergate Scandal
that ultimately ended Nixon's presidency. Drinan believed that Nixon's secret bombing of
Cambodia was illegal, and as such, constituted a "high crime and misdemeanor".
However, the Judiciary Committee voted 21 to 12 against including that charge among
the articles of impeachment that were eventually approved and reported out to the full
House of Representatives. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Drinan played an
integral role in the Congressional investigation of Nixon Administration misdeeds and
crimes. Throughout Drinan's political career, his consistent support of abortion rights
drew significant opposition from Church leaders, who had also repeatedly requested
that he not hold political office in the first place. Drinan attempted to reconcile his
position with official Church doctrine by stating that while he was personally opposed to
abortion, considering it "virtual infanticide," its legality was a separate issue from its
morality. This argument failed to satisfy his critics. According to the Wall Street Journal,
Drinan played a key role in the pro-choice platform becoming a common stance with
politicians in the Kennedy family.

10
 17. There is no place in the USA for the Jesuits’ social democracy

doctrine and social justice theory and liberation theology and collective

class warfare devised to interfere with domestic tranquilly, and a republican

form of government that is antithetical to the rights of sovereign individuals

and contrary to the existence of the Union as devised by the Founders.

18. Many forms of government have risen and fallen throughout all of

history. Many different Forms of Government still exist in this world.

Experiments in the different forms of governments have been carried out

and a vast amount of expensive experience has been accumulated by

mankind in its struggle to find a Form of Government that is, on its face, the

most expressive of the requirements for an individual human being's

freedom and his or her pursuit of Happiness. The Founders were NOT

experimenting when they created our particular and unique Form of

Government made a rational selection based on factual historic knowledge

and their own practical experience. They founded Our Form of Government

on the authority of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" as expressed in

the Declaration of Independence and New York’s Constitution. The

Founders had certain basic concepts that they did everything they could to.

express, but more important, also guarantee to all Americans they would

forever be proud possessors of certain and ascertainable Unalienable

11
Rights not then, or since then, enjoyed under any other Form of

Government.

19. Our unique Form of American Govemment(s) especially in New York

when it entered the Union is not a Democracy in which people rule

themselves directly, or indirectly through unrestrained representatives, in

which the will of the majority alone governs. Incidental to the definition of

Democracy, as printed and published by the United States government,

and entitled The United States War Department Training Manual T-M 2000-

25 of 30 November 1928, we discover the following:

"Democracy. A government of the masses. Authority derived through

mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression. Attitude toward
property rights is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude towards
law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whatever it shall be based
upon; deliberation, or govern by passion, prejudice and impulse, without
restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguery, license,
agitation, discontent and anarchy. Mob-ocracy."

20. That definition of Democracy by the United States War Department

set forth the military training definition of Democracy. It, and many other

evidences of. that truthful definition must be accepted as authentic by any

American Court of proper and competent jurisdiction. Believe it or not,

shortly after the Roosevelt "Banking Holiday" in the nineteen thirties, "hush-

hush" orders from the White House suddenly demanded (by the ploy of

Presidential Prerogative, we assume) that all copies of the Training Manual

12
be withdrawn from the U.S. Government Printing Office *and the U.S. Army

Posts. They were, without explanation, supposed to have been destroyed.

21. The Form of Government defined as Democracy was considered, and

wisely rejected, by our Founding Fathers. Our Form of Government has a

written Constitution, which guarantees every State of this Union to have a

Republican Form of Government. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution

for the United States of America reads as follows:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a

Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on, Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence."

22. The word Democracy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution expressly restricted the Form of

Government defined as Democracy from all of the governments in Union

styled as the United States of America. Our American Form of

Governments in Union are correctly defined as Constitutional Republics.

The Source of all of the authority for all of the exercises of governmental

powers resides in and is inherent in the People of the United States of

America whose Status-at-law is the ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY of the

United States of America Our Form of Government is a government by the

consent of the Absolute Sovereignty to be governed That is generally

13
expressed as a government of the People, by the People, and FOR the

People!

23. It is not natural, nor was it ever natural, for an individual human being

at any time in history in any one or more of the Earthly Forms of

Government to have Divine Rights and be, therefore, exempt from the laws

which all of the other human beings were required by the Divine Absolute

Sovereign to obey. No human being is above the Laws of Nature and

Nature's God regardless of the name or definition given Nature’s God by

different group entities.

24. Our Founders established a Form of Government, which is our

Inheritance, wherein all human beings are equal before manmade laws and

are, endowed by their creator with ascertainable Unalienable Rights,

among which are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Any other form

of Government, by whatever names is an UNNATURAL Form of

Government. And the United States Supreme Court declared that: “Where

rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there shall be no

rulemaking or legislation that would abrogate them.” (Miranda v. Arizona

385 US 436)

25. There we stand! In our Form of Government, there are definite written

Constitutional Provisions, which are the Supreme Law(s) of the Land; and

14
by which a majority is of no consequence, and by which States and

Individuals are guaranteed certain Unalienable Rights, which are

EXPRESSLY RESERVED to the States, or to the people. These

Unalienable Rights are placed beyond the attack of our own Governments

in Union.

26. Further, not many history books tell us that prior to 1776 Thomas

Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was studying in

France under Professor Francios Quesnay (1694-1774) who was the

originator of the political philosophy known as Physiocracy. Physiocracy is

defined as a Form of Government based on the Laws of Nature and

Nature's God. Obviously, our Form of Govemment(s) in Union is founded

on the fundamental principle that each and every human being is a creature

of Nature's God and has been endowed by their Creator with certain

physical and spiritual characteristics, attributes, and natures. To these

characteristics, attributes, and natures certain rights attach which we

inherent and are an integral part of every human being's Nature.

27. As man has been endowed by his Creator with reason and free will,

he is possessed with Natural Right to personal freedom, which is simply the

exercise of his Free Will. As man has been endowed by his Creator with the

instinct and duty to worship, he must be free to exercise this instinct and

15
duty according to the dictates of his own conscience--the Natural Right of

freedom of religious Worship. As man has the thirst for knowledge

(curiosity) and the capacity to impart instruction to others, he must have the

Natural Right to education. As man has been endowed with the capacity

and duty to propagate his species, and his children are incapable of self-

sustenance for a long period of time, then certainly Nature has ordained

that he must fulfill this obligation by the most suitable means--the family. As

nature obliges man to sustain himself and to provide for those naturally

dependent upon him, he must have the natural right to produce, acquire

and possess those physical things (private property) which are necessary

for the fulfillment of these obligations.

28. There are other Natural Unalienable Rights of free human beings,

which are not clearly an instinctive part of man's physical nature but are a

part of man's spiritual nature, without which man would cease to be a free

human being. History and human experience has demonstrated that certain

Unalienable Rights are indispensable to every free human being if he or

she is not to be, knowingly or unknowingly, a political slave.

29. There are, among others, four fundamental Unalienable Rights, which

a human being must Possess to actually be a Free Human Being- these

fundamental unalienable Rights must, in fact, be beyond the reach of any

16
Form of Government or man; they are: (A) The Right to Freedom of

Contract; (B) The Right to Earn a Livelihood; (C) The Right to Enjoy ALL of

the Fruits of the Human Being's Labor; and (D) The right to acquire

Ownership; and

30. As Mankind is older than all manmade forms of government, some of

Mankind's Unalienable Rights are, likewise, older than any manmade Form

of Government, and therefore cannot be said to have been created by any

government. This being so, they are by their NATURE, beyond any

governmental organization. They are NATURALLY defined to forever be

exempted out of the general powers of government.

31. That the history of the Jesuit Order’s ongoing and unbroken mission

as militia to the Pope is to totally and forever eliminate remnants of the

Protestant reformation to reinstall the Pope as the single infallible world

absolute monarch over all matters spiritual and temporal bar none and are

actively set to eliminate the USA that claims to have national sovereignty,

sect, tribe or movement like the Shiite, Tibetans, and Jews who believe in

the coming of a single absolute monarch or messiah other than the Pope.

32. That the history, hidden knowledge and occult matters of the Society

of Jesus is a matter of national security for survival of the individual against

the Jesuits’ communist collective here in New York and the several States.

17
 33. I asked Eric Jon Phelps to make the attached Affidavit regarding the

Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia From Czar Alexander I to the

Present to summarize the Jesuits’ manufacture of the USSR / Third Rome

and Cold War now being revisited to destroy the USA today (see Exhibit B).

34. I subscribe to what Mr. Phelps states at paragraph 45 of Exhibit B:

“That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control of
both East and West, was perfecting its internationalist/anti-nationalist
socialist-communist revolution; its Unified International Intelligence
Community; its International Banking Cartel; its International Mafia
Organized Crime Syndicate; its International Drug Trade; its plot to
assemble a military coalition of nations to one day attack and subjugate
the “heretic and liberal” American peoples, said coalition having been built
and financed by the Pope’s CFR-controlled American government; that
the culmination of this plot will be a Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion into North
America ending what is left of the Grand and Glorious White Northern
European Protestant Reformation;”

35. That Plaintiff’s demand for protection in the enforcement of the

various Foreign Affairs statutes as applies to the Society of Jesus and

those Federal officers with allegiance to Rome is well founded and

essential and parallel to the demand to control the borders, for which the

Jesuits and the American Conference of Bishops are culpable for

interference with the domestic affairs of each State of the several States as

well as for the arbitrary and capricious non enforcement of the Immigration

and Naturalization Act of 1965 with amendments.

18
 36. The Sacred Principle of the American Form of Government in Union

is denied by anyone who used the powers of public office to stir up class

conflict, to cause opposition of class against class, and all who can not

work together toward a national destiny, intentionally stir up domestic

internal strife that is no less vicious than in international affairs.

37. On August 27, 1664, the Catholic King Charles II (then brother of

James Duke of Albany of Scotland) attacked the New Amsterdam Dutch

Republic at peace, with four English frigates that sailed into New

Amsterdam's harbor and demanded New Netherland's surrender,

whereupon New Netherland was provisionally ceded by director-general

Peter Stuyvesant; this resulted in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, between

England and the Dutch Republic.

38. In 1667, the Dutch did not press their claims on New Netherland, nor

did they relinquish them either, in the Treaty of Breda, in return for an

exchange with the tiny Island of Run in North Maluku, rich in nutmegs and

the guarantee for the factual possession of Suriname, that year captured by

them. The New Amsterdam city was subsequently renamed New York,

after the Duke of York , later King James II who with a close adviser Sir

Edward Petre, 3rd baronet S.J. (1631 –1699) an English Jesuit and privy

19
councilor, who after fleeing England in 1688 formed the Masonic Grand

Orient Lodge in France, forming the foundation of the French Revolution.

39. The Protestant Strunk family from the Holy Roman Palatinate of

Baden settled in Pennsylvania in 1756 along with others of the Palatinate

who had immigrated to New York in 1710, and who after 1723 sick of their

ill treatment in Jesuit I English New York headed for Pennsylvania just as

others of the Palatinate looked to the frontiers of the Mohawk River Valley.

In 1776, my family members were American revolutionaries against the

oppression of England monarchial feudalism and now the Jesuit counter

revolutionaries.

40. Appellant respectfully desires the remand of this case for an

opportunity to amend the Complaint to include the state actions of the State

of New York in failure to enforce the law as a violation of Appellant's

sovereign inalienable rights that interfere with New York domestic Affairs

injuring Plaintiff 1 Appellant's right to contract and property. Respectfully

submitted by,

Dated: July
Brooklyn New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk' in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281 ' *
Brooklyn New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
NancyPELOSI’S
NANCY Pelosi’sFAITH
faith in the culture
IN THE CULTURE of
OFdeath
DEATH
By Robert K. Dornan
“My parents did not raise me to be speaker of
the House. They raised me to be holy. They
raised me to do the right thing,” claimed Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) as a Baltimore street was
named after her. But there is more to the story
because she’s just the latest and maybe the
most dangerous leader in the long campaign by
anti-Catholics within the Church who mislead
Americans, get elected and advance the culture
of death.
In April 2004, USA Today ran
Pelosi’s announcement, “I fully
intend to receive Communion, one
way or another… I’m certainly
concerned when the Church
comes together and says it’s going
to sanction people in public office
for speaking their conscience and
what they believe.”
For years I have supported
American Life League’s crusade to
end the sacrilege of pro-abortion
“Catholic” politicians receiving
Holy Communion and apparently
the plea was heard in Rome.
Considering elections, in June
2004, Vatican official Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope
Benedict XVI, warned U.S. bish-
ops that if politicians who support
abortion or euthanasia try to
receive the Eucharist, “the minis-
ter of Holy Communion must
refuse to distribute it.” He cited
Pope John Paul II’s definitive
encyclical Evangelium Vitae, stating:
“In the case of an intrinsically
unjust law, such as a law permit-
ting abortion or euthanasia, it is
therefore never licit to obey it or to
‘take part in a propaganda cam-
paign in favor of such a law or vote
for it.’ Christians have a ‘grave
obligation of conscience not to
cooperate formally in practices
which, even if permitted by civil
legislation, are contrary to God’s
law… This cooperation can never
be justified either by invoking
respect for the freedom of others
or by appealing to the fact that
civil law permits it or requires it.’”
Even so, Pelosi’s propaganda
included a Mass “in recognition of
House Speaker-Elect Nancy
D’Alesandro Pelosi,” at her alma
mater Trinity University in
Washington, D.C. on Jan. 3. I
wasn’t invited, but I went. House
Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood
and his men welcomed me. Then I
was invited to sit among dissident
politicians, but I sat farther back
to worship Christ, pray for
Nancy’s change of heart and avoid
the appearance of approving the
spectacle.
Father Drinan damage
To my horror, the “presider” of
Pelosi’s Mass was 86-year-old
Father Robert Drinan, S.J.,
whom I had known for 34 years.
In 1973, when Rep. Drinan of
Massachusetts, a Democrat and
the first Catholic priest elected to
Congress, wrote in defense of Roe
v. Wade, I was hosting my fifth sea-
son of The Robert K. Dornan Show, a
live TV talk program in Los
Angeles. I had been exposing the
terror of abortion in California
since Gov. Ronald Reagan’s (R)
1967 signature on the no-restric-
tions law, which he later called
“the worst mistake of [his] life.”
Rev. Drinan testifies at the Clinton
impeachment hearings Nov. 1998
That summer, Fr. Drinan cam-
paigned against the Vietnam War
at my parish Saint Paul the Apostle
in Westwood, California. When I
asked Fr. Drinan about his defense
of Roe, he swiftly, violently and
inexplicably karate chopped my
neck with his right hand. My wife
Sallie broke down in tears. “You
didn’t expect that, huh?” he snarled
at me. “I’ve been warned about you
right-wingers.” I restrained myself,
but direct combat with Drinan
resumed when I was elected to
Congress as a Republican.
In 1977, my first year in the
House and Drinan’s seventh, the
first attack of the 95th Congress
was made against the year-old
Hyde Amendment, now a U.S.
law preventing taxpayer funding
to kill babies in the womb.
Drinan was waging war on
preborn innocents and he had the
propaganda game down. He
always wore his Roman collar and
he misappropriated Catholic
teaching. The scandal of bad
example unfolded quickly as 21
(Left) ALL’s youth group protests
Speaker Pelosi’s politics as she enters
St. Peter’s Catholic Church on Jan. 4

22 Celebrate Life March–April 2007 March–April 2007 Celebrate Life 23


Rep. Dornan pleads for Pope John Paul II’s help on the White House
lawn, Oct. 1979
“Catholic” congressmen began
their pattern of voting to support
abortion, using “Fr. Bob’s” bless-
ing as an excuse. Not one of those
21 has come home to truth and
respect for life right up to this year
of 2007.
In 1978, with the help of Rear
Admiral John O’Connor, head of
U.S. Navy chaplains and future
cardinal and archbishop of my
birthplace New York City, I
brought to the House floor an
amendment to the defense appro-
priations bill. It would ban federal
defense dollars from funding abor-
tions—and a miracle happened. It
passed with a bigger margin than
the glorious Hyde amendment.
More hard work was ahead to gain
Senate acceptance in Joint Con-
ference Committee and then the
signature of self-proclaimed born-
again Christian, President Jimmy
Carter (D). Yet before the first vote
in the House, there was Drinan the
priest, telling his fellow “Catholic”
Democrats and anyone else who
would listen, “Defeat Dornan, this
amendment is uncharitable.”
During the vote, I moved to
Drinan’s side as he went to put his
voting card into one of the cham-
24 Celebrate Life March–April 2007
ber boxes. I implored him not to
“betray all my and your years of
Jesuit tradition.” I put my hand
over the voting slot. He gave me a
sneering laugh, moved to another
box and quickly voted against my
amendment. “God forgive you,
Father Death,” I whispered at him.
For two and a half more years,
I said that prayer many times. But
these encounters were not the half
of it.
The pope steps in
In October 1979, Washington
D.C. was electrified by the first
visit from Pope John Paul II, who
had been the Vicar of Christ for
just one year. The people’s pope
held a huge Mass which Sallie and
I attended on the National Mall.
President Carter met with him
at the White House and invited the
members of Congress to meet him
on the front lawn. Sallie stood to
my right in a line of dignitaries and
the ruggedly handsome Vicar of
Christ approached us. My heart
was pounding. The pontiff took my
wife’s hands in his. My beautiful
Sallie Dornan beamed with joy.
She tried to turn the pope from her-
self to me saying, “Your Holiness,
this is my husband, Congressman
Bob Dornan, who tries to defend
life,” but she couldn’t finish because
the tears began flowing.
“Your Holiness,” I said, “my
name is Robert Dornan. I serve in
Congress with a Jesuit priest
named Robert Drinan. I’m Jesuit
educated and I try to pass laws
against abortion, but this priest, a
law professor, tries to block me
and cancels my every vote. And
the worst part is that 21 congress-
men pack around him and follow
his lead on abortion. Help me.”
The pope moved his left hand
up my right arm and strongly
gripped it. “I know. I know,” he
said as our right hands were still
clasped. Then the Holy Father
leaned closer and commanded,
“Write to me.”
I wrote to His Holiness and got
word when my letter was the only
thing on his desk. In 1980, news of
the pope’s decision spread like
wildfire on Capitol Hill. The May
19 issue of Time magazine reported
that Drinan had called his cam-
paign manager and said, “I’m not
running for re-election. I’ve been
forbidden to do so by the pope.”
Fr. Drinan left Congress and
taught law at Georgetown
University, but didn’t cease his
abortion campaign. In 1996, he
wrote New York Times and National
Catholic Reporter op-eds approving
President Bill Clinton’s veto of the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. Bear
in mind what partial-birth abor-
tion is: An abortionist reaches into
the mother’s womb, grabs the
baby’s feet with forceps and pulls
him out, except for part of his
head. He rolls the baby over so he
doesn’t have to look at the inno-
cent child’s face. He jams a pair of
scissors into the back of the baby’s
skull and spreads the scissors
apart, making a hole. The abor-
tionist removes the scissors, sticks
a suction tube into the skull and
vacuums out the little baby’s brain.
In 1998, Drinan caused fur-
ther scandal as a character witness
at the impeachment hearings of
President Clinton (D). In 2004, he
advised pro-abortion “Catholic”
presidential candidate Sen. John
Kerry (D-Mass.). In 2007, Fr.
Drinan turned the Pelosi Mass
into anti-American politics, all
under the guise that he and Nancy
cared about the children of Darfur
and New Orleans.
After he died on Jan. 28,
Speaker Pelosi said, “Father
Drinan was an inspiration to so
many in Congress, not just those
who served with him but those of
us who came after.” And I fear for
his immortal soul.
For the children?
I also fear for the first woman to
be “two heartbeats away from the
presidency.” Evidently, Nancy
Pelosi is Drinan’s star disciple.
This propaganda maven, who
branded herself as a devout
Catholic grandmother, also favors
diabolical partial-birth abortion.
In Congress, I urged her and all
dissident Catholics to vote pro-life.
On one occasion, both Nancy
and I were “working a door,”
which means standing at one of
five entrances to the House cham-
ber and confronting members to
vote one way or another on a bill
up for vote. An abortion measure
was up for the vote and Pelosi was
in my face at the west door
through which most of the senior
members entered off the elevators.
“Nancy,” I sincerely inquired,
“how can you, a Catholic mom with
five children, be so aggressive for
abortion? We have the same num-
ber of sons and daughters. Nancy,
you are going against Catholic
teaching and our pope’s plea to
stand up for life. I don’t know of a
single bishop in America, not even
the most liberal ones, who is pro-
choice to kill little human fetuses.
They all say it’s murder.”
“Oh, come on Bob,” Pelosi
laughed. “What would you do if
one of your daughters was raped
by a black man?”
Her racist excuse was appal-
ling, but she wouldn’t retract it.
For 20 years this lawmaker has
obstinately been an accessory to
every type of abortion and it is a
matter of public record. On Jan.
22, the 34th anniversary of Roe v.
Wade, Speaker Pelosi promised, “As
I have throughout my time in
Congress, I will continue to work to
ensure a woman’s right to choose.”
She led the charge for federal
funding of human embryonic stem
cell research, which kills defenseless
embryonic persons. Last July she
preached, “This research has the
biblical power to cure… Let’s all
pray the president will have a change
of heart and a change of mind. But if
not, let’s work very hard to make
sure that members of Congress rep-
resent their constituents and over-
ride a presidential veto.”
This is Nancy Pelosi’s work
“for the children” and now she’s
the most powerful woman in
America. On Jan. 14, Father
John Malloy, S.D.B., pastor of
Saints Peter and Paul Church in
her San Francisco home diocese,
released an open letter telling
Pelosi to stop calling herself
Catholic and receiving the
Eucharist because “you are fooling
yourself and many good
Catholics.” 1 But her archbishop,
George Niederauer, remains silent.
And Archbishop Donald Wuerl of
Washington, D.C. refused to deny
Pelosi and other dissident politi-
cians Holy Communion. He placed
the burden on faithful laypersons
with his retort, “What are YOU
going to do about it?” (Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette, Jan. 22).
Call to action
Well, I call Americans to a
national prayer and education
campaign, including distribution
of this article.
Several U.S. bishops enforce
Canon Law 915, but many do not.
Sign the petition to the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops at
www.CatholicCrusade.com.
I also urge my fellow Catholic
patriots to write brief letters of dis-
tress about the bishops who essen-
tially let “Catholic” politicians get
away with murder to His Holiness
Benedict XVI via Monsignor Georg
Gäenswein, Private Secretary to the
Holy Father, 00120 Via del
Pellegrino, Citta del Vaticano.2
This isn’t just about Nancy
Pelosi. It’s about our beloved
Church and country’s future—it’s
about saving millions of American
children.
Hon. Robert K. Dornan served in Congress
1977-83, 1985-97. He served in the USAF
active-reserve 1953-75. He’s an advisor to
American Life League, a speaker and a
substitute national radio host. (Editor
Anita Crane contributed to this article.)
E-mail this article from our
web site www.CLmagazine.org.
1 “A priest writes to Nancy Pelosi,” Feb. 1,
2007, California Catholic Daily.
2 Contact details from “A plea to the pope
for help” by Barbara Kralis, Jan. 25, 2007,
Renew America.
March–April 2007 Celebrate Life 25
 Affidavit
Power of the Society of Jesus in Russia
From Czar Alexander I to the Present

I, Eric Jon Phelps, Author of Vatic& Assassins: "WoundedIn The House Of

MY Friend ",Third Edition, concerninggihehistory of the ubiquitous,

Counter Reformation Society of Jesus in Russia, do solemnly state:

1. That in 1723 AD Czar Peter the Great expelled the Society of Jesus
. from Orthodox Russia for attempting to usurp the Romanov throne
and reduce its citizens to the absolute Temporal Power of the Pope of
Rome;

2. That by the mid-Eighteenth Century the power of the Society of Jesus

had grown so great, that nearly every monarch in Europe was under
the power of a Jesuit confessor or adviser directing affairs of state;

3. That due to this vast Jesuit power employed by the Jesuit Superior
General to create commercial monopolies as well as assassinate
selected enemies of the Society, be they popes or kings, the Order was
expelled fiom Roman Catholic Portugal in 1759, &om Roman
Catholic France in 1764, from Roman Catholic Spain in 1767, and
from Roman Catholic Malta in 1768;

4. That due to the most pow& European Roman Catholic monarchs,

including the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, expelling the
Company of Jesus fkom their nations and empires, Franciscan Pope
Clement XIV, after a four-year investigation, promulgated the lengthy
Bull, Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, forever suppressing and
extinguishing the Society of Jesus in.1773;

5. That because of the papacy's suppression of the Society of Jesus,

Pope Clement XIV was poisoned with a measured dose of "aquetta,"
subjecting the "Vicar of Christ" to excruciating pain and prolonged
suffering before he died in 1774; .

EXHIBIT B
6. That because of the Order’s suppression throughout the Holy Roman
Empire as well as the entire Roman Catholic world, the Society sought
and received protection from non-Roman Catholic monarchs. Three of
those monarchs (all of whom were racial Germans) were Frederick II
“the Great” of Prussia, Protector of the German Lutheran Church;
Catherine II “the Great” of Russia, Protector of the Russian Orthodox
Church; and King George III, Protector of the English Anglican Church
and Protestant Faith of Great Britain;

7. That as a result of the Order’s protection from both Frederick and

Catherine, Roman Catholic Poland was partitioned by those monarchs,
eliminating the rule of Poland’s Roman Catholic monarch, thereby
rendering the pope’s Bull of none effect in that nation, saving the Order’s
massive property holdings and treasure from confiscation;

8. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company

established its headquarters therein, and began to plot the neutralization
of all anti-papal priests and nuns within the Russian Orthodox Church;

9. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, the Company

sought to usurp and control the power of the Romanov monarchy,
proposing to submit both Czar and Orthodox Patriarch to the Temporal
Power of a future pope of Rome within the control of the Order;

10. That as a result of the Order’s admittance into Russia, Empress

Catherine created the “Pale of Settlement” for Russian Jews, forcing
them into a specific geographical region, later to be exterminated by
Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutors Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin whose
Gestapo and NKVD worked together during World War II;

11. That as a result of the Order’s suppression by Pope Clement XIV, the
Company founded a host of other secret societies including the Bavarian
Illuminati in 1776;

12. That having founded the Bavarian Illuminati from Ingolstadt College
near Munich, Bavaria, the Company used its new occult secret society to
consolidate all Masonic power into its hands, thereby creating
Illuminized Freemasonry, directed at its apex by the Jesuit General;

2 of 9
13. That having established its invisible power in Russia, Prussia, Poland
and England, the Company then launched the Masonic French
Revolution and subsequent Napoleonic Wars, taking vengeance on all
enemies daring to curtail the power of the Order;

14. That during the Napoleonic Wars, Masonic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor
Napoleon Bonaparte I drove the Knights of Malta from Malta, the Order
finding refuge in Russia via the power of Czar Paul I, later murdered by
the Company for refusing to wage war on Lutheran Germany;

15. That during the time of the Napoleonic Wars, the acting Jesuit General
in Russia reduced the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta to his service
in anticipation of the Order’s formal restoration by the pope, which
restoration would come in 1814;

16. That as a result of Napoleon’s Jesuit War on the Vatican, on the Roman
Catholic monarchs of Europe, and on the Protestant nations of Europe,
including Germany and the Calvinist Republic of the United Netherlands,
Pope Pius VII restored the Society of Jesus to its former power in August
of 1814, one month prior to the commencement of the Congress of
Vienna that restored the Papal States to the rule of the Pope;

17. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the Company of

Jesus set out to destroy all constitutional republics, especially the
Constitutional Republic of these United States of America, considered to
be the font of all anti-divine right and anti-papal movements in Europe;

18. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna and the Order’s quest to
control the Romanov monarchy in Russia, Czar Alexander I issued his
famous “ukase” in 1820 expelling the Society of Jesus from all the
Russias. Knowing the Order would then seek to secretly overthrow his
imperial power via Grand Orient Freemasonry, in 1822 Bible-friendly
Alexander closed every Masonic lodge in the empire;

19. That as a result of the expulsion of the Society of Jesus from Russia and
the closing of all Masonic lodges within the empire, Czar Alexander I
was given “the poison cup” in 1825 in accordance with the bloody Fourth
Vow taken by the highest of the Professed Jesuits within the Order;

3 of 9
20. That as a result of the Congress of Vienna, the Secret Treaty of Verona
was convened by Prussia, Austria and Russia (1822), plotting the
overthrow of the Protestant-Calvinist, constitutionally limited, anti-
absolute monarchy, government of these United States of America;

21. That as a result of the Secret Treaty of Verona, James Monroe issued his
beloved Monroe Doctrine (1823), warning all European Powers to stay
out of the Western Hemisphere to the chagrin of the Jesuit Order;

22. That as a result of the Order’s past expulsion from Orthodox Russia by
Czars Peter the Great and Alexander I, the Jesuits contrived another
means by which it would be able to reduce the Russian Orthodox
monarchy and peoples, to the Temporal Power of the Pope now governed
by the Jesuit General: that means would be Marxian Socialist-
Communism. For the Company had perfected the socialist tenets of Sir
Thomas More’s Utopia while the Order had operated its 59 socialist-
communist “Reductions” in Paraguay (1609-1759). These tenets were
codified into The Communist Manifesto, its penholder being Masonic Jew
Karl Marx, its authors being the Jesuits resident in England;

23. That as a result of the practical effects of Napoleon’s war on papal

political tyranny coupled with the preaching of the Reformation Bible
throughout Europe and America during the 19th Century, the Jesuit Order
was suppressed once again throughout Europe, so much so, the Company
has called it “the Century of Disaster;”

24. That during the “Century of Disaster,” the Jesuit Order remained
formally expelled from Russia since 1820. Beginning with the reign of
the great Alexander II, Russia was beginning to experience political
liberty at the hand if her greatest of Czars. But on the day he was to sign
a written Constitution limiting the power of the monarchy and abolishing
the secret police (the Okhrana), he was assassinated by the Anarchists,
hired assassins of the Jesuits, later to murder President McKinley;

25. That as a result of Alexander II’s brutal murder, the assassination

having succeeded on the fifth attempt, the only Jew involved in the
murder was blamed by successor Alexander III who then launched a
bloody pogrom killing tens of thousands of Jews throughout Russia;

4 of 9
26. That as a result of Alexander III’s pogroms, the Order instilled a hatred
for the Romanov dynasty in the hearts of Russian Jews. This was
necessary as the Order was to use its obedient Masonic Jews to lead the
Bolshevik Revolution giving the appearance to the world that Bolshevik
Communism was in fact “Jewish Bolshevik Communism;”

27. That as a result of Alexander III’s pogroms, his son and successor, Czar
Nicholas II, would launch the bloodiest pogroms in Russian history,
further driving the Jews of Russia into the Order’s Bolshevik Communist
revolutionary camp;

28. That in preparation for the Order’s overthrow of Orthodox Russia

pursuant to the Council of Trent, Moscow being “the Third Rome,” the
Jesuits trained their prize student for the task, Josef Stalin. Educated by
Roman Catholic Capuchin priests in Gori, Georgia, Stalin was given a
scholarship by those priests to attend the Orthodox Tiflis Seminary in
Tiflis, Georgia. There, under the tutorship of secret Jesuit, Orthodox
Father Demetrius, Stalin was taught the doctrines of Marxian
Communism in preparation for the Bolshevik Revolution (1917);

29. That as a result of the Order’s control of Czars Alexander III and
Nicolas II, while exciting anti-Czarist fury among the Jews of Russia, the
Bolshevik Revolution was a success. From 1920 to 1922 the Order
conducted a Bolshevik Civil War throughout Russia, killing off all
nationalist resistance led by Orthodox patriots. The Jesuit-led Bolsheviks
totally decapitated all leaders within the Russian Orthodox Church who
were against the Papacy, over 5,000 priests and nuns losing their lives;

30. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Civil War against the
White Russian Orthodox, Masonic President Warren G. Harding gave
over 60 million dollars to the Reds in 1922---the same year Stalin
readmitted the Jesuits into Russia---further entrenching their rule;

31. That as a result of the successful Red Bolshevik Revolution, Edmund A.

Walsh, an American Jesuit priest from Georgetown University, was
dispatched to Moscow to negotiate for the Vatican with the Bolsheviks.
From 1922 to 1924 Walsh resided in the new, Jesuit slave state of the
“USSR” naming Josef Stalin Secretary of the Communist Party;

5 of 9
32. That as a result of the elimination of the Romanov Dynasty and the
subordination of the Russian Orthodox clergy, Edmund Walsh, in his
Total Empire: The Roots and Progress of World Communism
(Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1951), page 28, wrote
about the Russian Revolution of 1917, that it was,

“. . . the most significant single political event in the history of Western

civilization since the decline and disappearance of the Roman Empire.”;

33. That the reason Jesuit Edmund Walsh put such tremendous weight upon
the success of the Bolshevik Revolution lay in the fact the Order had
used its Marxist Socialist-Communism to submit its old enemy, Orthodox
Moscow, “the Third Rome,” to the Roman Papal Caesar. Constantinople,
“the Second Rome,” had fallen to Rome’s apparent enemy of Islam in
1453 AD, thereby conveniently benefitting the papacy; Moscow, had
fallen to Rome’s apparent enemy of Communism in 1917 AD, also
conveniently benefitting the papacy, the world in fact to be deprived of
the truth that both Islam and Communism are creations of the Vatican;

34. That the Jesuits were now in total control of the Bolshevik Communists
ruling the USSR with deadly cruelty, the Julian calendar was replaced
with the Gregorian calendar (1917) composed by the Jesuit Christopher
Clavius; that every Jewish leader during the Revolution was slowly and
systematically executed or murdered save one, Lazar M. Kaganovitch;
that Jesuit Coadjutor Josef Stalin launched a murderous inquisition
against the Orthodox peoples of the Ukraine, starving from 7 to 10
million people in one year; that the inquisition extended to Protestant
Mennonites, Lutherans and Baptists throughout the USSR in accordance
with the Black Pope’s Counter Reformation Council of Trent;

35. That the Jesuits were now in control of the USSR, Jesuit Edmund A.
Walsh sat in the White House next to his servant, Masonic American
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the president formally recognized
the USSR as a sovereign nation in 1933;

36. That as a result of FDR recognizing the USSR, massive projects were
begun by American cartel-capitalists, including Masonic Henry Ford
furnishing the Gorky auto plant mechanizing the Soviet War Machine;

6 of 9
37. That because the Jesuit Order plotted to use the White Protestant,
Baptist and Roman Catholic Middle Class of its American Empire to
build Rome’s Red Communist monster in Moscow, the USSR was made
a partner of the Allies during World War II, FDR giving 11.3 billion
dollars in Lend Lease funds and materials to Stalin, never to be repaid to
the American people;

38. That as a result of the Jesuit Order being in total control of its CFR-
directed American government since no later than 1865 with Rome’s
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, FDR gave all of Eastern
Europe into the hands of the USSR at the Yalta Conference at the
command of Jesuits Harry Hopkins and Averell Harriman, in preparation
for the ensuing Cold War Hoax during which the Society of Jesus would
use its CIA and KGB to destroy all genuine, Eastern European /Russian
Bible-believers as well as all true nationalists, furthering the Order’s
quest for world government under a Jesuit-directed Pope of Rome;

39. That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax (premised upon the hoax of
mutual airborne nuclear war as explained in VAIII) the Order’s CFR-
controlled American government provided the financing and technology
for the building of the Black Pope’s Soviet War Machine, erecting the
Kama River truck factory during the 1970s facilitated by Jesuit Fordham
University-trained Knight of Malta William J. Casey before becoming
the Director of Rome’s pro-Nazi, Central Intelligence Agency;

40. That upon the conclusion of the Jesuit General’s Second Thirty Years’
War (1914-1945), the American OSS/CIA continued to work together
with the Soviet NKVD/KGB throughout the entirety of the Cold War
Hoax; that this secret alliance is referred to in the Jesuit Order’s
Hollywood Theater release, The Good Shepherd (2006);

41. That during this time of secret, mutual collaboration between the
American, Soviet and British intelligence agencies, stupendous acts of
treason were committed against the American people, including CIA
Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton giving many of the Agency’s
top secrets over to Anatoli Golitsin, a Soviet KGB officer in the US.
Anthony Cave Brown makes this clear in his Treason in the Blood (New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994), page 555:

7 of 9
 “Angleton . . . demonstrated his confidence in Golitsin [a supposed
defector] by making available to him the CIA files on the personnel of
the main operating section of the CIA in the Cold War with Russia, the
thousand-odd men and women of the Soviet Division.”;

42. That during the Cold War Hoax, both the American and Soviet
intelligence agencies were manned with ex-Nazis, the papacy saving its
Nazi Gestapo/SS/SD inquisitional mass-murderers from justice under the
guise of fighting either “Communism” in the East or “Capitalism” in the
West as proven by author John Loftus in his Unholy Trinity: How the
Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991);

43. That during the Cold War Hoax, former Nazi intelligence chief
Reinhard Gehlen ran the West German BND in conjunction with the East
German SSD, Stasi. For ex-SS Nazi Hans Felfe, Gehlen’s right-hand
man in the BND, also worked for the East German SSD/Stasi for over
twenty years; thus, BND Chief Reinhard Gehlen and SSD Chief Marcus
Wolf worked together for over twenty years perfecting the East-West
united intelligence community subject to the Jesuit Papacy, partitioned
Berlin serving as a foremost rendezvous for East-West agencies:

44. That during the Cold War Hoax, Moscow served as a training base for
the Jesuit Order’s world revolutionary socialist communists, including
Fidel Castro, Michael (“Martin Luther”) King, Yasser Arafat, Jesuit-
trained Bill Clinton and indeed, president-elect Barry Davis Obama;

45. That during the Pope’s Cold War Hoax the Jesuit Papacy in control of
both East and West, was perfecting its internationalist/anti-nationalist
socialist-communist revolution; its Unified International Intelligence
Community; its International Banking Cartel; its International Mafia
Organized Crime Syndicate; its International Drug Trade; its plot to
assemble a military coalition of nations to one day attack and subjugate
the “heretic and liberal” American peoples, said coalition having been
built and financed by the Pope’s CFR-controlled American government;
that the culmination of this plot will be a Sino-Soviet-Muslim invasion
into North America ending what is left of the Grand and Glorious White
Northern European Protestant Reformation;

8 of 9
 46. That I, Eric Jon Phelps, am willing to testify as to the accuracy of every
statement above in any venue permissible.

FURTHER Affiant Saith Not.

Affirmed and so Subscribed before me on this day of June,

in the year of 20 10.

I

Lh&w
Eric Jon a l p s , Affiant 7
203 South Fort Zellers Rd.
Apt. D
\ Newmanstown, PA
17073

AClllA N LEAW
Notary hrbllc
bOROWiH,aeRKsCOUMY
My Comml~lonExplrsr Apr 21,201 2
 . .
, .
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Appeal 10-509 1-cv

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 5 2010.1, Christopher Earl Stmnk, under penalty of pejury pursuant

to 28 USC 91746, caused the service of a copy of APPELLANT'S -

OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION(S) FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

signed-~uly
4,2010 as a complete set of which each placed in a sealed folder

properly addressed with proper postage served by USPS mail upon:

KYMIAN D. RAY
Special Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th St., N.W. 2
-
-2vl
Washington, D.C. 20530 0 go
10n
* L
;kn
John Michael Bredehoft, Esq. =I
T I - +c?
om
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. c
VI '-777

150 West Main Street - P.O. Box 3037 C',

- --2,f'l
-5-0
Notfolk, VA 23514 -
4

.c 9 ,.-22
5
. .j4 P
4' -
rn '

I do declare and certify under penalty of pejury:

Dated: July 5 ,2010

Brooklyn, New Yor Y
Christopher- Earl :Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - 8281
Brooklyn., New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws