UNITED STATEES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISIKUCT OF COLUMBIA

--
Christopher-Earlrl: Strunk 0 in esse, 1
593 Vanderbilt A;. ~enue- #28 1 1
Brooklyn New Work 11238 845-901-6767 )
1
Plaintiff, )
1
v. 1 Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
1
U.S. DEPAR-NT OF STATE, and )
U.S. DEPARTME,NT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, 1
Defendant. )
1

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BBY LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR A VAUGHN INDEX

PLEASE TAKEE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse, 1
by Special-Appeaxirimce, aflkms March 20,201 1 he will move this Court for reconsideration of I
I

the order of Mardch 10,2011 by leave to file a motion for a Vaughn Index by the Honorable I
i

Richard J. Lean,15 U.S.D.J, at a time afforded by the Court if necessary at the United States

Courthouse, at 3 3 3 Constitution Avenue, NW.,Washingtos DC 20001, in 201 1 ,at a time and

courtmom desigqnated by the court, or as soon

Dated: March 20,2011

Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk Qinesse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1
Brooklyn, New York;
Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cell-845-901-6767
cc: Brigham ii John Bowen Esq,
U.S. DEEPARTMENT OF J U S T ~ E
20 Massaachusetts Avenue, N W
Washingqon, DC 20530
(202) 5 144-6289 Fax: (202) 6 16-8460
Email: bridgham.bowen@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
-----------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, )
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 )
Brooklyn New York 11238 845-901-6767 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, )
Defendants. )
)
------------------------------------------------------x

DECLARATION I N SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BY LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR A VAUGHN INDEX

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1746 as follows:

1. Declarant as Plaintiff in esse without an attorney makes this appearance in support

of the notice of motion for reconsideration of the order of March 10, 2011 (see attached) by

leave to file a motion for a Vaughn Index.

2. The Court’s order held that Defendant U.S. Department of State had withheld the

requested documents in good faith despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary that

it had committed a fraud upon the court.

3. That from the start of Declarant’s FOIA requests for documents the Defendant has

acted in bad faith: first by not responding to the request(s); second by showing a proven

pattern of withholding and or delaying any FOIA request by subjecting the requestor to a

political test; third when Declarant did file this adverse action herein Defendant denied due

process in the imposition of change of counsel by bringing the Defendants’ national cleaner

1
in against other adverse requestors deemed due a second class of treatment; fourth when

cornered to respond DOS denied that the documents exist without presenting proof of the

chronological paper and or electronic index of all records related to the subject with the bold

face lie that the GSA and or National Archives had ordered the documents destroyed and

compounding such fraud without submitting any proof of such destruction; and Fifth and not

least when cornered, the counsel for the Defendant(s) deconstructed the sworn statement of

Philip Jacobsen to fit the consistency of the fraud upon the court; so where is the good faith

that the court seems to find compelling to be able to allege good faith?

4. Now as for the Court from the beginning it is clear, and Declarant is no Pollyanna

to the process that chooses Judges, that Declarant challenged the bias of the Court with a 28

USC §144 and 28 USC §455 demand for recusal: with allegations that the Judge has a

conflict of interest since he teachers and is paid by the Jesuits at Georgetown University as a

clear conflict in that the Defendant is directed by the Knights of Malta in service of the

Vatican who have foist this jackanapes usurper into the executive against the U.S.

Constitutional interest of the people of the United States as a coup d’ tat; and to which when

requested the Court refused to return the original page of the motion alleging the court took

an extreme oath to serve the Vatican as a member of the Knights of Columbus and or CFR

was ignored, so where is unbiased justice without the appearance of impropriety to be found?

5. As for the bad faith exhibited by the United States Department of State (DOS) ,

FDR referred to as the DOS permanent bureaucracy by right of birth, that as an oligarchy

within Declarant’s lifetime has agents and leadership there who have committed horrendous

treasonable acts subject to the ultimate punishment act with impunity including; but not least

according to the documents released to John Loftus Esq. used in his book “America’s Nazi

2
Secrets” prove that the DOS and the Dulles family added and abetted by Papal Knight

William Donavan and others were responsible for transferring by “Operation Paperclip” and

other operations the entire Nazi Intelligence structure into the United States after 1945 and

elsewhere as agents of US foreign policy well beyond the known example of General

Gehlen, and done by using the Vatican “Ratlines” and der spinne resources acquired by

Martin Bohrman from 1933 forward that were enacted in 1933 when Nazi Germany entered

into a concordant with the Vatican to act as one entity thereafter to be served by all the

Knights of the Pontifex Maximus – this must not be overlooked by this Court.

6. According to open sources John Foster Dulles and the Dulles family including no

less than Allen Dulles and Fr. Avery Dulles S.J. service to Rome started when John Foster a

envoy to Switzerland cooperated with the Vatican State by facilitating transport of IV Lenin

by train into Russia to extirpate the Czar, overthrow the Kerensky government and in

accordance with the Jesuit’s Fatima Prophesy destroy the competing true Christian Eastern

Orthodox faith; and then in furtherance of the scheme, Fr. Pietre Tacchi Venturi S.J.

fashioned the Latern Treaty of February 1929 to recreate the sovereignty of the Vatican

State and temporal financial power through reparations equivalent to say $99 million. And

that by facilitating the Vatican Bank with liquidity, then in October 1929 proceeded to

collapse the New York securities Market(s) and Chicago Board of Trade through efforts of

Knight of Malta Joseph Kennedy and other Knights who used the intentional shortage of one-

third of available paper dollar liquidity by the Federal Reserve to deprive cash needed to

meet margin calls, and with the collapse the agents of the Vatican Bank quickly bought up

U.S. Industry a penny on the dollar and imposed a corporate fascism thereafter with the

3
 Freemasonic tdtool FDR then under the watchfid eye of Jesuit Fathers Charles Coughlin, John

Ryan and Edrfmnnd Walsh themdter at the State Department - as a matter of public record.

7. TL'his constitutional republic exists with a social compact between the tyrannical

oligarchy andd the safeguard of liberty of an individual. The compact may only last as long as

there is enforaicement of a constitution per se to secure and guarantee republics provision of

the rights andd liberty of that individual against exigencies of power and tyranny that must be

secured with order and fair and reasonable justice. We are now left with only the Jesuit's

fascist order inn service of the corporate Council on Foreign relations instead.

8. Th'he Court does not get many Plaintiffs like me to be able to guarantee a

constitutionald republic still exists - don't let the chance fade.

9. wnpt does Dekndant lose! by providing the Court with the Vaughn Index proof

that what it aldlleges to the Plaintiff and Court as to the missing documents is true and with the

paper index rmecord beyond the hyped up electronic index is the proof the court must seek to

remain unbiarsed in what until now has been a politically spotless record of service to Rome;

must grant leceave for the Plaintiffs motion in demand of a Vaughn index submission to be

by M)OS. Respedllly submitted by:

Dated: March 20,2011

Brooklyn New York

593 ~GderbiltAvenue #28 1

Brooklyn, New York;
Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cell-845-90 1-6767
cc: Brigham1 John Bowen Esq.,
U.S . DEPP 4RTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massaclichusetts Avenue, N W
Washinggton, DC 20530
(202)514-:,6289Fax: (202)616-8460
Email: hriligham.bowen@usdo.gov
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I

1
CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1
)
Plaintiff, 1
1
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1
OF STATE, et al., 1
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

March /2=2011

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment Pkt. #37] is GRANTED IN
rbp- .-- - ? - .* -- - ad-- ---- '- ,
PART and DENIED IN PART WlTHOUT PFUXJDICE., it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Notice of Motion for an Order of the Department
of State to Release the FOLA Requested Information of Stanley-Ann Dunham [Dkt. #35] is

DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall file a renewed motion for summary

judgment with respect to p 1 a i . W FOIA

~ request to U.S.Customs and Border Protection not

later than April ,29,2011; plaintiff shall file his opposition or other response to the motion not

later than M a y 27,2011; defendants shall file a reply, if any, not later than June 17,2011.
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK,

)
Plaintiff, 1
1
v. Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1
OF STATE, et al., 1
1
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

March 1- 1

Plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA), see 5 U.S.C.

= - --.,.-- - 7 - - % -
552, seeking information h m the United States Departments of State ("DOS") and Homeland
-
Security ("DHS")about Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obarna's deceased mother. This matter
I
is before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment, and for the reasons discussed

below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice.'

I. BACKGROUND

A. FOL4 Requests to the State Department

1. Request No. 200806553

Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to the DOS, Am. Compl. 7 12, seeking the following:
I

1
The Court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to
the DOS's response to plaintiffs FOIA request, and plaintiffs "Notice of Motion for an Order of
the Department of State to Release the FOIA Requested Information of Stanley-Ann Dunham"
will be denied.
I 1
 [I]nformation or records related to Stanley Ann Dunham born
November 29,1942 at Fort Leavenworth KS. U.S., a.k.a. StanleyAnn
Dunham Obama . . . who died on November 7,1995 under the name
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (a.k.a. Sutoro) for any and or all exit
and entry records for travel outside of the USA for the period between
1960 through 1963.

Id., Ex. A (Letter to the DOS fiom plaintiff dated October 16,2008). The DOS assigned the
I
request a control number, Request No. 200806553, and notified plaintiff that this information

likely would be maintained by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), a

component of the DHS. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. for Surnrn. J. ("Defs.' Mem."),

Decl. of Alex Galovich ("Galovich Decl.") 7 5. The DOS provided plaintiff the address to which

he could submit a FOIA request directly to the CBP, and closed the matter. I . ,Ex. 2 (Letter to

plaintiff fiom Patrick Scholl, Chief, Requester Communications Branch, DOS, dated January 12,

2009).

Plaintiff submitted a separate request "electronic[ally] via the [State] Department's FOIA

website," Galovich Decl. 76, for the following:

@l]ocuments on. . . Stanley Ann Dunham, akla Ann Dunham akla

Stanley Ann Obama a/k/a Ann Obama akla Stanley Ann Soetoro
W a Ann Soetoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Sutoro a/k/a Ann Sutoro a/k/a
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama W a AM Dunham Obama, born
November28,1942 at Fort LeavenworthKS U.S., a k a Stanley Ann
Dtmbam Obama and who died on November 7,1995 under the name
Stanley A m Drmham Soetoro (aka Sutoro)

Am. Compl., Ex.E (FOIA request dated November 22,2008, Ref. No. B8475).2 Specifically,
I
I

2
The Court already has resolved the portion of plainWs FOIA request for records
pertaining to then-President-Elect Barack O b See Sh.tark v. US.Dep 't of State, 693 F. Supp.
2d 112-(D.D.C. 2010).
2
 plaintiff sought:
I

a. applications for a U.S. Passport;

b. entry and exit passport Records pertaining to the United
States and Kenya from January 1,1960 to December 3 1,1975
and from January 1,1979 to December 31,2005;
c. entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States
and Indonesia from - Jvuary 1, 1960 to December 3 1, 1973,
and from January 1,1979 to December 3 1,1985;
d. .
travel records . . on a U. S. passport, Kenyan passport,
Indonesian passport, or any other foreign passport or visa;
e. foreign birth certificate registered or filed with the U.S.
Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack H. Obama;
f. foreign birth registry filed by Stanley Ann Dunham with the
U.S. Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack H. Obama;
and
g. adoption records or other government records acknowledging
Barack H. Obama as Lolo Soetoro's son.

See id. at 1. "[Aln automated response acknowledging and summarizing Plaintiffs request was

E-mailed to [him]." Galovich Decl. 7 7; see id., Ex. 3 (E-mail message to plaintiff dated
!@& .-- - .-.- a%
-- - AT .--vr - 5 -=.&

Acknowledging that Ms. Dunham "is widely known as a matter of public record to be

deceased," Galovich Decl. 7 9, the DOS "process[ed] the request for records in category (a) of

[plaintiffs FOIA] request under . . . control number 200807238." Id; see id, Ex. 5 (Letter to

plaintiff from P. Scholl dated January 12,2009) at 1-2. A search of records maintained by the
I

08Lice of Passport !krvices located six documents, all of which were released to plaintiff in full.

Id 7 12 The "other aspeds of his FOIA request assigned case control numiii

200807272." Id 7 10. Records responsiveto categories (b), (c), and (ti)of plaintiffs request
"would be with the [DHS7s]Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or with the National.

Archives," and the DOS provided plaintiff with addresses of those agencies. Id
 B. FOL4 Request to the Department of Homeland Security

In a separate FOIA request to CBP, see Am. Compl. f 22, plaintiff sought the same

information as that listed in his request to the DOS, id., Ex. I (Letter to Mark Hanson, Director,

FOIA Division, CBP, fiom plaintiff dated December 23,2008) at 1-2. A search of the TECS

electronic database yielded "[olne page of responsive records forstanley Ann Dunham." Defs.'

Mem., Decl. of Dorothy Pullo ("Pullo Decl.") 7 6. After redacting certain information under

FOIA Exemptions 2 and 7(E), the CBP released the document to plaintiff. Id, T[ 7; see id., Ex. A

(Letter to plaintiff fiom M. Hanson dated February 3,2009).

11. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment in a FOL4 Case

"[Tlhe court may . . :grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials -

including the facts considered undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it." FED.R. CIV.
- -- -
P. 56(e). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322 (1986). "[A] material fact is 'genuine'

.. .if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return.a verdict for the nonmoving party"
on an element of the claim. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). Factual

assertions in the moving party's affidavits or declarations may be accepted as true unless the

opposing party submits his own affidavits, declarations or documentary evidence to the contrary.

Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453,456 @.C. Cir. 1992).

In a FOIA case, the Court may grant summary judgment based solely on information

provided in an agency's affidavits or declarations if they are relatively detailed and when they

describe "the documents and the justiIic@ions for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail,
P

demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption, and are

not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith."

Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724,73 8 @.C. Cir.1981). Such affidavits or

declarations are accorded "a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by 'purely

speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents."' Safecard

Sews., Inc. v. Sec. & Ejcch. Comm'n, 926 F.2d 1197,1200 @.C. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground

Saucer Watch, Inc. v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 692 F.2d 770,771 (D.C.
Cir. 1981)).

B. Searchesfor Records Responsive to Plainfirs FOU Requests

"An agency fulfills its obligations under FOIA if it can demonstrate beyond material

doubt that its search was 'reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."' Valencia-

Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 32 1,325 @.C. Cir. 1999) (quoting Truitt v: Dep 't of

897 F2d 540,542 @.C.-- Cir. 1990)); Campbell v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20,27
35%-4%&- + - .- -r
-*-.,.a;
%r -;- .---^ - -

\3.C. Cir. 1998) @urnrequires agency to conduct search using methods reasonably expected to

produce requested information). The agency bears the burden of showing that its search was

calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Steinberg v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 23 F.3d 548,

551 @.C. Cir. 1994). To meet its burden, the agency may submit affidavits or declarations that
I

explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the agency's search. Peny v. Block, 684

F.2d 121,126 @.C. Cir. 1982). In the absence of contrary evidence,such fidiivits or

declarations are sufficient to demonstrate an agency's compliance with the FOIA. Id at 127. If

the record "leaves substantial doubt as to the sufficiencyof ule search, summaryjudgment lor the
 1. State De~artrnent

The DOS's Office of Information Programs and Services ("IPS")responds to FOIA

requests. Galovich Decl. 77 1-2. Upon receipt of a FOIA request, IPS staff "evaluate[] the

request and determine0 which offices, overseas posts, or other records systems . . . may
Il reasonably be expected to contain" responsive records. Id. 7 13. The "description of the records

requested . . . [and] the nature, scope, and complexity of the request" are considered in

determining whether or where responsive records might be maintained. Id.

With respect to plaintiffs Request No. 200807238 for Ms. Dunham's passport

applications, IPS staff "determined that the Office of Passport Services would be the only office

that would reasonably be expected to maintain the records requested" because "Passport Services

I is charged with issuing passports to U.S. citizens." Id. 7 14. Its Passport Information Electronic

Records System ("PIERS") is an electronic database containing "the records of some 144 million
- -..- - 4
.- - - - --,-- x - -

passports that have been issued fiom 1978 to the present." Id. The DOS "also maintains paper

records of some passport applications." Id. Using variations of Ms. Dunham's name, including

those variations plaintiff supplied in his FOIA request, IPS staff searched both PIERS and paper

records. Id. 7 15. The search yielded six responsive passport records, id., all of which were

released to plaintiff in 111,id., Ex. J (Letter to plaintiff h m Jonathan M. R o l b i Director,

Office of Legal Afhirs and Law Enforcement Liaison, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport
Services, dated July 29,2010). The records themselves were not submi#ed with the agency's

declaratioa3 However, the DOS's response to plaintiffs FOIA request iildicated that "a 1965

3
It appears that the DOS released 12 pages of records, copies of which plaintiff
submits in his opposition as attachments to the Jambsen AlEdavit. Srr PI.% Decl. in 0pd'n to
(continued...)
6
 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in

the released documents" was not located, likely because "[mlany passport applications . . . from

that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General

Services Administration." Id.,Ex. J at 1. In addition, it was explained that "passport records

typically consist of applications for United States passports and supporting evidence of United

States citizenship," and therefore they "do not include evidence of travel such as entrancelexit

stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport book

after issuance." Galovich Decl. 7 12; see id., Ex. J at 1.

Plaintiff responds with the affidavit of Philip Hans Jacobsen, whose FOIA request for

passport records about his deceased mother "dated fiom May 26,1953 through October 28,1985

. . . generally coincide[s] with the same time frame of Plaintim'ls request0 of Stanley Ann
Dunham." Pl.'s Decl. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Surnrn. J. to Dismiss [Dkt. #39] (" Strunk
.-- - -- .-- - -
Decl.") 7 4; see id., Ex. 1 (Jacobsen.AK) 8-10, The DOS apparently searched records ''from

, 1945 to presenty'and located five documents pertaining to Mr. Jacobsen's mother, including

passport applications from 1953,1956,1957 and 1985, and applications for amendment of a

passport from 1957. Id, Jacobsen Aff., Ex. B (Letter fiom Marionette Pleasant, Team Leader,

Law Enforcement Liaison Division, Office of Legal AfT",Passport Services, dated January 25,

2010). From Mr. Jacobsen's review of the DOS and the National Archives and Records

Administratonwebsites and the Federal Register,see Jambsen Aff. 16-19, he concludes that

"the U.S. Government either at the DOS, or the . . . Washington National Records Center,

3(. ..continued)
Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. to Dismiss Ipkt. #39], Ex. 1 ( J a c o b M.and Letter to plaintiff from
J.M. Rolbin dated July 29,2010 with attachments).

7
 Suitland, Maryland[,] must maintain passport applications and related records for 100 years," id.

7 21. Mr. Jacobsen further concludes that the government maintains paper records of passport

issuances from 1909 to 1978, and "an electronic index of all application records created

since 1978 and some passport application records fiom 1962 to 1978." Id.

Relying on this affidavit, plaintiff contends that Mr. Jacobsen's success in obtaining

records about his mother, which had been generated during the same time period as Ms.

Dunham's records, "conflicts with the [DOS's] allegations and partial provision of records."

Strunk Decl. 7 9. According to plaintiff, defendants' agents "have not made a good faith effort to

search for and disclose records" responsive to his request and "have spoliated records associated

with the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by Barack Hussein Obama

and others, resulting in Obama's "having taken the oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution

and protect the IU]nited States of America and the People against all enemies foreign or
I- - "---- -
domestic . . .who at b i i has multiple allegiances simultaneouslyto &eat Britain arid Kenya . . .

and . . . is an Indonesian Citizen." Id. 7 2.

Next, plaintiff attacks the DOS's suggestion that respdnsive records may have been
'
destroyed pursuant to a GSA directive. Plaintiff notes that the DOS provided no authority for the

alleged destruction of responsive records, an index or chain of custody for such documents, or

co-on that such documents were indeed destroyed. Strunk Decl. fl10,30; see generally

PI.% Second Supp. Decl. in Opp'n to DeK's Mot. for Summ. J. to Dismiss [Dkt. #40]; see id, Ex.

11 (Richardson A@.) fl15,18. in support of his argument, plaintiff submits the declaration of

William A. Richardson, who describes himself as "a business system quality manager." Id.,

Richardson AfT.7 3. According to Mr. Richadson, "the GSA has Never, Ever, issued a directive
 to the [DOS] on record retentions to US citizens." Id. 7 15.4 Based on Mr. Richardson's
I
findings, plaintiff contends that individuals conspired to "break[] . .. into the [DOS's] passport
database to effect spoliation of documents in criminal violation of law," Strunk Decl. fi 14, such

that government officials are "withhold[ing] facts essential .. .for proving that [Obama] is not a

natural-born citizen [of the United States]," id. 7 18.5 Further, plaintiff accuses the DOS of

"being disingenuous with the Court in bad faith," id. 7 29, and he "will not believe the records

were somehow eaten by the dog without the DOS provision of proof that the GSA backed up a

forklift to put them into a dumpster," id. fi 30.

Plaintiffs opinion and speculation as to the existence or wrongful destruction of

responsive records are not relevant considerations in this FOIA action. "The adequacy of an

agency's search is measured by a standard of reasonableness, and is dependent upon the

circumstances of the case." Weisberg v. U.S. Dep 't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 @.C. Cir.
- .- .
- , - - .
I 1983) (internal citations and quotation marki omitted). It is "determined not by the Gts of the

search, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search." Iturralde v.

Comptroller of Currency, 3 15 F.3d 311,315 @.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Steinberg, 23 F.3d at 55 1).

4
It appears that one page of Mr. Richardson's affidavit, which presumably sets
forth jmagmphs 8 through 13, is missing.
5
Plaintiff also rec0~11tsthe efforts of another FOIA requester who sought Ms.
Dunham's passport records for the period fiom January 1,1959 through December 31,1962, and
the denial of her request for expeditious handling of the request. Pl.'s Supp. Decl. in Opp'n to
Def.'s Mot. for Surnm. J. to Dismiss [Dkt. #41] fi 3. Apparently plaintiff believes that
expeditious handling of that individual's request is essential because Obaina's presidency is itself
a "grave matter of national security." Id. 7 2. Indeed, he claims that Ms. Dunham's
"whereabouts . . . is crucial a s a matter of law," because it determines whether President Obama
is a United Statescitizen. Id fi 26.
 "The [mere] fact that a particular document was not found does not demonstrate the inadequacy

of a search." Boyd v. Criminal Div. of US. Dep't of Justice, 475 F.3d 381,391 @.C. Cir.)
I (citations omitted), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1007 (2007). Plaintiffs "assertion that an adequate
I
search would have yielded more documents is mere speculation." Baker & Hostetler LLP v. US.

Dep't of Commerce, 473 F.3d 312,3 18 @.C. Cir. 2006).

I '
The DOS establishes that it looked for responsive records in the systems of records most

likely to contain Ms. Dunham's passport applications, using several variations of the subject's

name as search terms, for the time period set forth in plaintiffs request. Its failure to locate a

document to which another responsive record referred does not render its search inadequate. No

agency is required to produce records that it does not possess. See Rothschild v. Dep 't of Energy,

6 F. Supp. 2d 38,40 (D.D.C. 1998) (concluding that plaintiff who identified two responsive

documents which may be in the agency's possession but were not released merely "demonstrates

that the &h was not perfec&"howeve; ''k]erfection .. .is not the standard");
Jones v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 41 F.3d 238,249 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding that the court

cannot order an agency "to make amends for any documents destroyed prior to the request").

The Court concludes that the DOS has conducted a reasonable and adequate search for

responsive records, notwithstanding the agency's lack of success in locating the particular

documents plaintiff sought. Accordingly, defendants' motion will be granted in part with respect

to plaintiffs FOIA request to the DOS.

2. Customs and Border Protection

The CBP uses the TECS electronic database to "conduct enforcement checks on

individuals seeking to enter or depart the United States." Defs.' Mem., Pullo Decl. 7 6. "TECS
 includes combined databases of over 20 federal agencies," and since January 1982, TECS has

captured "traveler arrivals and departures into and out of the United States." Id Paper records

predating TECS "no longer exist and are no longer archived." Id.

Because TECS maintains arrival and departure records, it was considered "the system . . .

mostly likely to have entry and exit data pertaining to Ms. Dunham." Id "Working with the

CBP Office of Chief Counsel, the FOIA Division conducted a search in the TECS database," and

that search yielded "[olne page of responsive records for Stanley Ann Dunham." Id. This

cursory description of the CBP's search provides no basis from which the Court can determine

whether the search was adequate under the circumstances. See Schoenman v. Fed Bureau of

Investigation, No. 04-2202,2009 WL 763065, at * 15 (D.D.C. Mar. 19,2009) (finding that

agency's search was inadequate where the declarant "fails to include sufficient reasonable detail

as to the specific search conducted in response to Plaintiffs FOIA[] Request"); Prison Legal
*
Nms v. Lappin, 603-F.Supp. 2d 124, 126-27 (D.D.C. 2009) (noting supporting affidavit's

failure to "outline the search methods undertaken . . .,who would have conducted the searches,

and . . . how [the &ant] is personally aware of the search procedures or that he knows they were

followed by each of the [Federal Bureau of Prisonst]sentities tasked with responding to this

request"). Accordingly, the defendants' motion will be denied in part without prejudice, and the

Court will set a schedule for the filing of a renewed motion. See McKinley v. Fed. Deposit Ins.

Corp., No. 10-420,2010 WL 5209337 (D.D.C. Dec. 23,2010) (inviting the agency to "either (1)

conduct a new search (or searches) for the records sought by the plaintiff to ensure the search is

adequate consistent with governing caselaw; or (2) provide the Court with declarations from

which the Court c& find that the declare@have personal knowledge that the search
 1 methodology, procedures, and searches actually conducted were reasonably designed to locate
tb

documents responsive to plaintips requests").

The State Department has demonstrated its full compliance with the FOIA. Its declarant

describes a search for records responsive to plaintiffs FOIA request that was reasonable under

the circumstances, and that the records it located have been released to plaintiff in full.

Plaintiffs speculation as to the existence of additional records and collusion or bad faith among

government officials to wrongfully withhold or destroy responsive records is not sufficient to

rebut the presumption of good faith accorded to DOS's supporting declaration. For these

reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART. However,

because the CBP has not demonstrated that its search for responsive records was adequate,
I

defendants' motion will be DENIED IN PART without prejudice. The Court defers
1
m
consideration of th'6CBP's decision to withhold records under Exemptions 2 and 7 0 and

1 segregability. An Order is issued separately.

FUCHARDJ . ~ N
United States District Judge
DATE:
 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Strunk v DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On March 20,2201 1,1, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, under penalty of . i

perjury pursuaant to 28 USC 1746, caused the service of a copy of the I
1
PLAJNTIFF'S C Notice with DECLARATION I N SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF I

MOTION FOR3 RECONSIDERATION BY LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR A

II

VAUGHN INDBEX signed March 20,201 1with the order of the court annexed !*

thereto.

That a cmplmte set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with I
1

proper postage served by USPS mail upon:

Brigham J. Bowen
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, FFederal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, PO Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D3.C. 20044

I do declare and certify under penalty of pejury:

Dated: arch 13 ,201 1

Brooklyyn New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 ~anderbiltAvenue #281
Brooklyn New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: chris@strunk.ws
 UNITED STAITES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTXICT OF COLUMBIA
.-
Christopher-Earlrl: Strunk 0 in esse, 1
593 Vanderbilt ALa.venue- #281 1
Brooklyn New YYork 11238 845-901-6767 )
)
Plaintiff, )
1
v. 1 Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
1
U.S. DEPARTM!HENT OF STATE, and )
U. S.D E P A R T M I X OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, 1
Defendant. ) .
)
.a

P NOTICE OF MOTION FOR VAUGHN INDEX DEMAND

PLEASE TAKBE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse,
by Special-Appearance, affirms March 20,201 1 he will move this Court with leave to file a

motion for a Vaqughn Index to be provides by DOS to the Honorable Richard J. Leon, U.S.D.J, at

a time afforded b by the Court if necessary at the United States Courthouse, at 333 Constitution

Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20001, in 201 1 ,at a time and courtroom designated by the

court,or as soonln themfter as counsel can be heard.

I
Dated: March 20,2011
Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk Qin esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #28 1
Brooklyn, New York,
Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cell-845-901-6767
\ cc: Brigharnn John Bowen Esq,
U.S. DEFDARTIWBT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washinglgton, DC 20530
(202) 5 14 16289 Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: bt>righam.bowen@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
-----------------------------------------------------x
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, )
593 Vanderbilt Avenue - #281 )
Brooklyn New York 11238 845-901-6767 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.: 08-2234 (RJL)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, and )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND )
SECURITY, )
Defendants. )
)
------------------------------------------------------x

DECLARATION I N SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION

FOR VAUGHN INDEX DEMAND

I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1746 as follows:

1. Declarant as Plaintiff in esse without an attorney makes this appearance in support of the

notice of motion for a Vaughn Index Demand in anticipation of leave of the Court to file.

2. That from the start of Declarant’s FOIA requests for documents the Defendant has acted

in bad faith: first by not responding to the request(s); second by showing a proven pattern of

withholding and or delaying any FOIA request by subjecting the requestor to a political test;

third when Declarant did file this adverse action herein Defendant denied due process in the

imposition of change of counsel by bringing the Defendants’ national cleaner in against other

adverse requestors deemed due a second class of treatment; fourth when cornered to respond

DOS denied that the documents exist without presenting proof of the chronological paper and or

electronic index of all records related to the subject with the bold face lie that the GSA and or

National Archives had ordered the documents destroyed and compounding such fraud without

1
submitting any proof of such destruction; and Fifth and not least when cornered, the counsel for

the Defendant(s) deconstructed the sworn statement of Philip Jacobsen to fit the consistency of

the fraud upon the court; so where is the good faith that the court seems to find compelling to be

able to allege good faith?

3. When the FOIA was created, there was no mechanism in the Act for the government to

justify its withholdings or for plaintiffs to have a description of what the information being

withheld from them was. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came up

with an answer in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). The DC Circuit required

agencies to prepare an itemized index, correlating each withholding with a specific FOIA

exemption and a justification for that justification. Vaughn at 827. The required justification

became standard in almost all FOIA cases.

4. The only alternative to a Vaughn Index is for agencies to submit their withheld material

to the court in camera, and then let the court decide if the agencies processing was proper. This

alternative, however, has many drawbacks. Plaintiffs receive no opportunity to challenge the

redactions because they do not know the agencies rationale for withholding them. Defendant

agencies lose control over their documents, and in the case of an overzealous judge, may lose

appellate rights. The subject matter herein is of high national importance as both a security and

constitutional matter for the people to known certain.

5. A plaintiff’s challenge of the government’s use of an exemption, alleging the destruction

of documents without proof of such claim, in a FOIA case triggers the need for the government

to produce a Vaughn. A number of factors determine exactly how the finished Vaughn will look.

The Vaughn Index can take many forms such as a straight affidavit, a narrative document, an

affidavit with a chart or index detailing the withholdings attached, or a hybrid of any of these

2
examples. All Vaughns serve the same purpose; give a meaningful justification for any withheld

materials.

6. The bottom line for any Vaughn Declaration is that it must allow a court to decide if the

agency’s FOIA withholdings were proper, however to date no paper index has been produced.

The types and size of the withholdings will often dictate the format the declaration takes. For

instance, if only a few pieces of information are withheld, a simple affidavit justifying them will

most likely be more than adequate. However, a case involving hundreds, or even thousands of

documents, and probably thousands of redactions will require more than a small affidavit. As the

amount of work involved in a large Vaughn is a huge strain on an agency’s legal and FOIA

resources, the agency will seek to provide a justification for only a sample of the withheld

material. Additionally, the agency may seek to provide a coded Vaughn. A coded Vaughn

involves giving each redaction a specific code and then providing a justification for each code,

rather than specifically pointing out where each redaction is on a certain page. The coded

documents are then attached to a declaration, which is a general affidavit describing and

justifying the redaction categories. A coded Vaughn can be done with a sample of the withheld

material to provide a manageable size to the Vaughn. The bottom line is that agencies do not like

preparing Vaughns and will do whatever it takes to make the final product as small and simple as

possible.

7. Regardless of the format of the overall declaration, the most important thing in preparing

a Vaughn is to adequately and meaningfully describe and justify the withheld documents.

Without a paper index of all records presented to the court the person who will be the declarant

must ensure that the redactions or destruction of documents are properly described has yet to be

done. If the declarant can make no sense of something in a declaration, then the agency will

3
know that there is a problem and a target for attack by the plaintiff. After review of the index, the

declarant must then review the withheld material.

8. A Vaughn Index is a factual document. Legal arguments and case sites should rarely, if

ever, be used. The Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) will cite the applicable law in a

dispositive motion used to support the Vaughn. Whenever an AUSA filed one of my Vaughns

without a supporting brief, trouble was never usually far behind. The Court had nothing in front

of it to rule on, and the bare declaration, no matter how well prepared it was, was usually just

used as a punching bag by plaintiffs.

9. The use of computers has aided the Vaughn process by allowing agencies to use previous

indices as templates. However, this can cause problems in that agencies that fail to carefully

proofread their Vaughn products may add arguments and justifications not applicable to the case

at hand. Furthermore, the use of previous indices may not provide justifications with enough

specificity to justify the redactions in the case before the court.

10. Another important step in the preparation of the Vaughn Index is that someone with both

knowledge of FOIA case law and release authority should examine the underlying documents

including the paper index record as well as the electronic index. In many cases, FOIA processors

accidentally withhold information that either is intended for release or is clearly releasable. This

material should be released before the filing of the Vaughn. Additionally, information that may

be protectable by the agency, but for some reason the agency does not want to litigate over or

push the envelope on should also be released before the Vaughn is prepared and filed.

11. What does Defendant lose by providing the Court with the Vaughn Index proof that what

it alleges to the Plaintiff and Court as to the missing documents is true and with the paper index

record beyond the hyped up electronic index is the proof the court must seek to remain unbiased

4
in what until n o w has been a politically spotless record of service to Rome; so order Dekndants

.m.submit.the Vwghn index to be provided herein. ReqwcthIly submitted by:

Dated: March 20,2011

Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl: Strunk 8in esse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn, New York;
Email: chris@strunk.ws
Cell-845-90 1-6767
cc: Brigham J John Bowem Esq.,
U.S. DEPP 4RTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massaachusetts Avenue, NW
Washingt@on,DC 20530
(202) 5 14-i 5289 Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: bripigham.bowen@usdoj.gov
 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Strunk v DOS et al. DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL)

CERTIFICATE OF SFBYJJrS-

On March 20,2201 1, I, Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, under penalty of

perjury pursuannt to 28 USC 1746, caused the service of a copy of the

PLAINTIFF'S !Notice with DECLARATION I N SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF

MOTION FOR3 VAUGHN INDEX DEMAND signed March 20,201 1. That a

complete set w a s placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with proper

postage sewedd by USPS mail upon:

Brigham J. B o w n
Trial Attorney
United States COepartment of Justice
Civil Division, FFederal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, ;20 MassachusettsAve., N.W.
Washington, D3.C. 20044

I do declare and certify under penalty oNrjury: .

Dated: March $8 , 2011

Brooklyyn New York
Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse
593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281
Brooklyn New York 11238
(845) 901-6767 Email: 'chris@strunk.ws