Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 13-1 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 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.

 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 13-1 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 5

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 transaction
which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the
disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's
ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately
represented 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

2
 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 13-1 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 5

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’s
Attorney General and or his agents have not vigorously represented U.S.A. Citizens, the
State 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 #447889

United States Attorney

3
Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 13-1 Filed 03/02/10 Page 4 of 5

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

/s/
ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar # 470655
Assistant United States Attorney
555 4th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-7204, alan.burch@usdoj.gov

4
 Case 1:10-cv-00151-RCL Document 13-1 Filed 03/02/10 Page 5 of 5

Certificate of Service

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

Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

and on

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

on this 2nd day of March 2010.

ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar # 470655

Assistant United States Attorney