response declaration w exhibits dcd 08-cv-2234

8/6/2019 Response Declaration w Exhibits DCD 08-Cv-2234

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/response-declaration-w-exhibits-dcd-08-cv-2234 1/53



UNITED STATEESDISTRICTCOURT

FOR THE DISIKUCT OF COLUMBIA

- -Christopher-Earlrl:Strunk0 n esse, 1593 Vanderbilt A;. ~enue #28 1 1

Brooklyn New Work 11238 845-901-6767 )1Plaintiff, )

1v. 1

1U.S. DEPAR-NT OF STATE, and )

U.S. DEPARTME,NT OFHOMELAND )

SECURITY, 1Defendant. )

1

Civil Action No.: 08-2234(RJL)

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BBY LEAVETO FILE A MOTION FOR AVAUGHN INDEX

PLEASE TAKEE NOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse,

by Special-Appeaxirimce, aflkmsMarch 20,201 1 hewill move this Court for reconsideration of

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

Richard J. Lean, 5U.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 0001, in 201 1, t a time and

courtmom desigqnated by the court,or as soon

Dated: March 20,2011

Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl:StrunkQinesse

593 Vanderbilt Avenue #281

Brooklyn, New York;

Email: [email protected] 1-6767

cc: Brigham ii John BowenEsq,U.S. DEEPARTMENT OF J U S T ~ E

20 Massaachusetts Avenue,NW

Washingqon, DC 20530

(202) 5144-6289Fax: (202) 6 16-8460

Email: [email protected]



1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

-----------------------------------------------------xChristopher-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



2

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



3

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



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

Ryan and EdrfmnndWalsh themdter at the State Department- s 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 secureand 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 serviceofthecorporate 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 CourtwiththeVaughn 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 spotlessrecord 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 ~Gderbilt venue #281

Brooklyn,New York;


cc: Brigham1 John Bowen Esq.,U.S . DEPP 4RTMENT OF JUSTICE20Massaclichusetts Avenue,N W

Washinggton, DC 20530(202)514-:6289Fax: (202)61 6-8460

Email: hriligham.bowen@usdo gov



UNITED STAITES DISTRICT COURT

FORTHEDISTXICT OF COLUMBIA

.-Christopher-Earlrl: Strunk0 in esse, 1593 Vanderbilt ALa.venue #281 1Brooklyn New YYork 11238 845-901-6767 )

)Plaintiff, )

1v. 1

1U.S. DEPARTM!HENTOF STATE, and )

U.S.D E P AR TM I X OF HOMELAND )SECURITY, 1

Defendant.) .

)

CivilAction No.: 08-2234 (RJL)

a

PNOTICEOFMOTIONFOR VAUGHN INDEX DEMAND

PLEASETAKBENOTICE that upon the annexed affidavit of Christopher-Earl : Strunk in esse,

by Special-Appearance, affirms March 20,2011he will move this Court with leave to file a

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

a time afforded b by the Court if necessaryat the United StatesCourthouse, at 333 Constitution

Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20001, in 201 1, t a time and courtroom designatedby the

court,or as soonln themfteras counselcan be heard.

Dated:March 20,2011I

Brooklyn New York

Christopher-Earl: StrunkQin esse


Brooklyn, New York,


Cell-845-90 1-6767

\ cc: Brigharnn John BowenEsq,U.S. DEFDARTIWBTOF JUSTICE20 Massachusetts Avenue,NW

Washinglgton, DC 20530

(202) 514 16289Fax: (202) 616-8460

Email: bt>[email protected]



1

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



2

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



3

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



4

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



in what until n o w has been a politically spotless record o f service to Rome; soorder Dekn dants

.m.submit theVwghn index to be provided herein. Re qw cth Ily submitted by:

Dated: March 20,2011

Brooklyn New York

Brooklyn, New York;

Christopher-Earl: Strunk 8 i n esse



cc: Brigham J John Bowem Esq.,

U.S.DEPP 4RTMENT OFJUSTICE

20 Ma ssaachusetts Avenue, NW

Washingt@on,DC 20530

(202) 514-i 5289Fax: (202) 616-8460




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

1CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, 1

)Plaintiff, 1

1v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2234 (RJL)

1UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1OF STATE, et al., 1

)

)efendants.

ORDER

March /2=2011

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

ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment P k t . #37] s GRANTED IN

.-- - ? - .* - - ad-- ---- '- ,

PARTandDENIED NPARTWlTHOUT PFUXJDICE., it is

FURTHERORDERED that pla int iffs 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

judgmentwith respect to p 1 a i . W ~OIA request to U.S.Customs and Border Protection not

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

later than May 27,2011; defendants shall file a reply, if any, not later thanJune 17,2011.



[I]nformation or records related to Stanley Ann Dunham bornNovem ber 29,1942 at Fort Leavenworth KS. U.S., a.k.a. StanleyAnnDunham Obama . .who died on November 7,19 95 under the nameStanley 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 between1960 through 1963.

Id., Ex. A (Letterto the D OS fiom plaintiff dated October 16,2008). The DOS assigned the

request a con trol 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 G alovich ("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 . , x. 2 (Letter to

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

2009).

Plaintiffsubmitteda separate request "electronic[ally] via the [State] Department's FOIA

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

@l]ocuments o n . ..StanleyAnn Dunham, akla Ann Dunham ak laStanley Ann Obama a/k/a Ann Obama akla Stanley Ann SoetoroW aAnn Soetoro a/k/a Stanley Ann Sutoro a/k/a Ann Sutoro a/k/aStanley Ann Dunham Obama W a AM Dunham Obama, born

November28,1942 atFort LeavenworthKSU.S., a k a StanleyAnnDtmbamObama ndwhodiedon N ovember7,1995 under the nameStanleyA m rmham Soetoro(aka Sutoro)

Am. Compl.,Ex.E FOIA requestdatedNovember 22,2008 , Ref. No. B8475).2 Specifically,

2 The Court alreadyhas resolved the portion of pl a in W s FOIA request for recordspertaining to then-President-ElectBarackO b ee Sh.tark v. US. ep 't of State, 693F. Supp.2d 112-(D.D.C. 2010).

2



plaintiff sought:

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 3 1,200 5;c. entry and exit passport records pertaining to the United States

and Indonesia from J vu ar y 1, 1960 to December 3 1, 1973,and from January 1,1979 to December 3 1,198 5;

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 theU.S. Embassy in Kenya or Indonesia for Barack H. Obama;and

g. adoption records or other government records acknowledgingBarack H. Obama as Lolo Soetoro's son.

See id. at 1. "[Aln automated response acknowledging and summ arizing Pla int iffs request was

E-mailed to [him]." Galovich Decl. 7 7; see id., Ex. 3 (E-mail m essage 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 fo r records in category (a) of

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

plaintiff from P. Scholl dated January 12 ,200 9) at 1-2. A search of records maintained by the

08LiceofPassport !krvices located six documents, all ofwhich were releasedto plaintiff in full.

I d 7 12 The other aspedsof hisFOIA request assignedcase controlnumiii

200807272."Id

7 10.Recordsresponsiveto 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 Hom eland 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 23,2 008) a t 1-2. A search of the TECS

electronic database yielded "[olne page of responsive records forsta nley 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 docum ent 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 - how 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 ,32 2 (1986). "[A] material fact is 'genuine'

. f 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. 2 42 ,24 8 (1986). Factual

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

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

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

InaFOIA case, theCourt 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 specificdetail,



*

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,[email protected]. Cir. 1991) (quoting Ground

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

B. Searches for Records Responsive to P la in f ir sFOU 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. . Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 32 1,[email protected]. Cir. 1999) (quoting Truitt v: Dep ' t of

897 F 2 d 540,542 @.C. Cir. 1990)); Campbell v. US. Dep 't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20,2735%-4%&-

--+ - .- -r -*-.,.a;%r ;- .---̂ - -

\3.C. Cir. 1998)@urnequiresagencytoconduct search using methods reasonablyexpected 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,

[email protected]. Cir. 1994). To meet its burden, the agency may submit affidavits or declarations that

explain in reasonable detail the scopeandmethod of the agency's search. P e n y v. Block, 684

F.2d 121,126 @.C. Cir. 1982). In theabsenceofcontraryevidence, uch fidiivits or

declarationsare sufficienttodemonstrateanagency's compliancewith the FOIA. I d at 127. If

the record "leaves substantialdoubt as to the sufficiency of ule search, summary judgment lor the



1. State De~artrnent

The DOS's Office of Information Programs and Services("IPS") esponds 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

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

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-- -. -

- - - - --,-- - -

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 in111, d., Ex. J (Letter to plaintiffh m onathanM. R o l b i Director,

Office of Legal Afhirs and Law Enforcement Liaison, Bureau of ConsularAffairs,Passport

Services,datedJuly 29,2010). Therecords hemselves were not submi#ed with theagency's

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

3

submitsIt appears that the DOS released 12 pages of records, copies of which plaintiff

in his opposition as attachmentsto the JambsenAlEdavit. 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 . . rom

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

ServicesAdministration." 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 respondswith 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 StanleyAnn

Dunham." Pl.'s Decl. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Surnrn.J. to Dismiss [Dkt. #39] (" Strunk.-- - -- .-- - -

Decl.") 74; 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, JacobsenAff., Ex.B (Letter fiom Marionette Pleasant, Team Leader,

LawEnforcement Liaison Division, Office of LegalAfT", assport Services, dated January 25,

2010). From Mr. Jacobsen's reviewof the DOS nd theNational Archives and Records

Administratonwebsitesand theFederal Register,see Jambsen Aff. 16- 19, he concludes that

"theU.S.Government eitherat 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 bM.and Letter to plaintiff fromJ.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

andprotect the IU]nited States of America and the People against all enemies foreign or

- "---- -domestic . .who atb i i has multiple allegiances simultaneously o &eat Britain arid Kenya . ..and . . s 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 documentswere indeed destroyed. StrunkDecl. fl10,30; see generally

PI.% SecondSupp.Decl. inOpp'n toDeK's Mot. for Summ. J. toDismiss Dkt. #40]; see id, Ex.

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

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

RichardsonAfT.7 3. According to Mr. Richadson, "the GSAhasNever, Ever, issued a directive



to the [DOS] on record retentions to US citizens." Id. 7 15.4 Based on Mr. Richardson's

findings, plaintiff contends that individuals conspired to "break[] .. nto 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 . . or 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 arenot 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." Weisbergv. U. . Dep 't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 135 [email protected]. Cir.- .- .

- ,- .

1983)(internal citations and quotation marki omitted). It is "determined not by theGtsof 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 551).

4 It appears that one page of Mr. Richardson's affidavit, which presumably sets

forth jmagmphs 8 through 13, is missing.

5 Plaintiff also rec0~11ts he efforts of anotherFOIA requester who sought Ms.

Dunham's passportrecords for the periodfiom January 1,1959throughDecember 31,1962, and

the denial of her request for expeditioushandling of the request. Pl.'s Supp.Decl. in Opp'n toDef.'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. . s crucial a s a matter of law," because t determines whether President Obama

is a United Statescitizen. Id fi26.



"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.)

(citations omitted), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1007 (2007). Plaintiffs "assertion that an adequate

searchwould have yielded more documents is mere speculation." Baker&HostetlerLLP v. US.

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

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 notperfec&"oweve; ''k]erfection . . s 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

toplaintiffs FOIA request to theDOS.

2. Customs and Border Protection

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

individuals seeking to enteror 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. Fe d 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 Pla int iffs 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]s entities 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)

conducta 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 de clare@ have personal knowledge that the search



tb

methodology, procedures, and searches actually conducted were reasonably designed to locate

documents responsive to plain tips requests").

The State Department has dem onstrated its full compliance with the FOIA. Itsdeclarant

describes a search for records responsive to pla int iffs FOIA request that was reasonable under

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

Pl ain tif fs 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 GRANTEDINPART. However,

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

defendants' motion will be DENIED IN PART without prejudice. The Court defers

consideration of th'6CBP's decision to w ithhold records under Exemptions 2 and 7 0 nd

segregability. AnOrder is issued separately.

FUCHARD J . ~ NUnited S tates 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 IPLAJNTIFF'S C Noticewith DECLARATIONI N SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF

1I

MOTION FOR3 RECONSIDERATION BY LEAVE TO FILEA MOTION FOR AI

I

VAUGHN INDBEX signed March 20,2011with the order of the court annexed !*

thereto.

That a cmplmte set was placed in a sealed folder properly addressed with I1

proper postage served by USPS mail upon:

BrighamJ. Bowen

Trial AttorneyUnited States Departmentof JusticeCivil Division, FFederal Programs BranchP.O. Box 883,PO MassachusettsAve., N.W.Washington, D3.C. 20044

Ido declare and certify under penalty of pe ury:

Dated: arch13 ,2011Brooklyyn NewYork

Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse593 ~anderbilt venue #281

Brooklyn New York 11238(845) 901 6767 Email: [email protected]

response declaration w exhibits dcd 08-cv-2234

Documents