As stated above, Plaintiff as well as tens of millions of American voters, Democrats and persons disinclined to vote for the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Senator McCain, will suffer irreparable harm, if declaratory and injunctive relief is not granted. Plaintiff does not have any other way of redress regarding these very significant and important issues.
The DNC has failed Plaintiff as well as voters across the country, by its failure to perform due diligence, and to properly ascertain Obamaâ€™s ineligibility to run for Office of the President.
Should Obama become the Nominee of the Democratic Party, and it should then be discovered by virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, on his part not to have revealed material evidence showing him to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America, presumably his nomination or his election will at some point be voided, to the irreparable harm of Plaintiff and others, including but not limited to:
A) Functional, or actual, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens,
being members of the Democratic Party or other persons wishing to
vote for a viable candidate other than Senator McCain, who will have been deprived of the ability to choose and to elect a Constitutionally eligible candidate of their liking;
B) Irreparable Harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn this too would lead to Disenfranchisement; and
C) A severe and genuine likelihood of turmoil or even civil disturbance, by virtue of reaction to such disenfranchisement.
II. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFFâ€™S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PUT A STOP
TO DEFENDANT OBAMAâ€™S FRAUDULENT CAMPAIGN SCHEME
Plaintiff is plainly entitled to a temporary restraining order, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to halt the use of Defendant Obamaâ€™s fraudulent campaign schemes to secure the Office of President of the United States, knowing he is not eligible under the provisions of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I.
Specifically, this Court must grant Plaintiffâ€™s motion for a temporary restraining order (â€œTROâ€) because: (1) there is reasonable probability that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits; (2) they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) there will be little or no harm to the Obama if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest demands a grant of relief. See, e.g. Swartzwelder v. McNeilly, 297 F.3d 228, 234 (3rd Cir. 2002); Alessi v. Pennsylvania Dep â€™t of Public Welfare, 983 F.2d 1444, 1447 (3d Cir. 1990); Prison Health Servs., Inc. v. Umar, Civil Action No. 02-2642, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12267 (E.D. Pa. May 8, 2002). The standards for a preliminary injunction and a TRO are the same. Mertz v. Houstoun, 155 F. Supp.2d 415, 425 n.12 (E.D. Pa 2001); Bieros v.
Nicola, 857 F. Supp. 445, 446-47 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While the degree of probability of success on the merits required to obtain such relief varies among Federal Courts of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requires only a â€œreasonable likelihoodâ€ of success. See Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg.Co., 715 F. Supp. 110, 112 n.1 (D. Del. 1989). Plaintiff easily meets each of the four requirements for a temporary restraining order.
A. Plaintiff Has A Very Strong Likelihood of Success in Challenging Obamaâ€™s
Eligibility to Run For Office of President of The United States
If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the U.S. laws on the books, at the time of his birth, stated if a child was born abroad, and only one parent was a U.S. Citizen (which plainly applies to Obama) Obamaâ€™s mother would have had to have lived ten (10) years in the U.S., five (5) of which were after she reached the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obamaâ€™s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18), and therefore it is an impossibility that she met the residency requirements, under the prevailing law, to give her son Obama U.S. Citizenship. The laws in effect at the time of Obamaâ€™s birth withheld U.S. citizenship from children born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obamaâ€™s mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a â€œnatural bornâ€ citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S.C. Â§1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved (Attâ€™y Gen. 1944). If born in Kenya, Obama could have become a United States citizen by naturalization at some date subsequent to his birth â€” but a naturalized citizen is not qualified to be President, and it would be a terrible travesty and disservice to the public and to an orderly electoral process to permit an unqualified non-citizen or naturalized citizen to be placed on the general election ballot. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I.
Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states in pertinent part: â€œ(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten (10) years, at least five (5) of which were after attaining the age of fourteen (14) years.â€
Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.
Even if Obama was born in the United States â€” which Plaintiff believes he was not â€” he apparently lost his United States citizenship when he was six (6) years old. Obama lived in the care and custody of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Obamaâ€™s mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and relocated with Obama to Indonesia. There is no indication that Obamaâ€™s mother, during his minority; herself took the Oath of Allegiance necessary for her to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Presumably, therefore, Obama could not have regained his U.S. Citizenship until he turned eighteen (18) years, and upon taking the Oath of Allegiance before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the U.S. before the Attorney General or the judge or clerk of court. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama failed to regain his citizenship, by taking the Oath of Allegiance.
If Plaintiff is incorrect in making this allegation, it should be a simple matter, as the oath of allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, for Obama to produce in Court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered â€” if, in fact, he took the oath. 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1435, Nationality Act of 1940.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans, which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision, and who is qualified and eligible to run for the office of President under the qualifications of the United States Constitution.
The DNC has failed to make adequate inquiry into Obamaâ€™s eligibility status.
Should Obama become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and it should then be discovered that he concealed information showing him to be Constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, as every major party nominee has political enemies with resources behind them sufficient to institute and to maintain court proceedings to that end, it is unthinkable that there would not be an effort made to disqualify Obama, to strike his name from the ballot, to declare him ineligible to assume the Office of President if elected, or even to force him to resign or be removed from office, were he to be elected and sworn in January 2009. Any of these outcomes would be a disaster to the political stability of the United States, to our countryâ€™s standing in the world, and to public confidence in the electoral process, and would inflict irreparable harm upon Plaintiff and others, including but not limited to:
A) Functional, or actual, disenfranchi sement of large numbers of citizens,
being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been
deprived of the ability to choose a nominee of their liking; and
the disenfranchisement of voters of whatever affiliation who would have
liked the opportunity to select a Constitutionally-eligible candidate other
than Senator McCain;
B) Irreparable Harm to the structure and integrity of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee. In turn this too would lead to disenfranchisement; and
C) A severe and genuine likelihood of political turmoil, and even civil
disturbance by virtue of reaction to said disenfranchisement.
B. There Will Be Minimal Harm To Obama If Relief Is Granted
Granting Plaintiffâ€™s motion for a temporary restraining order will result in negligible harm to Defendant Obama, or the DNC. The Obama campaign and the DNC have raised millions of dollars to support his candidacy for the presidency. If Obama was born in Honolulu as claimed, it should be short work for him (or a person acting in h is behalf) to obtain, and to present to the Court, a verifiably genuine, certified copy of his birth certificate. Likewise, assuming proof of Obamaâ€™s birth in Hawaii, if Obamaâ€™s mother (during his minority) or Obama himself (after reaching the age of 18) regained the United States citizenship lost by reason of Stanley Ann Dunhamâ€™s second marriage to the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro and her relocation with Obama to Indonesia, those facts will be susceptible of proof from public records, as Obama (given his considerable resources) should be able to produce in court in a matter of a few days, at most.
Should it be the case that, as Plaintiff alleges, Obama is either a non-citizen of the United States, or is a citizen only by virtue of naturalization (as in the case that, in
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet 1 5
Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082 108 (2).doc
fact, he was born in Kenya) manifestly it is better that those facts, which is to say Obamaâ€™s ineligibility to be President of the United States, come to light now, rather than hereafter.
C. The Public Interest Supports A Grant of Relief
Plaintiff meets the fourth prong of the temporary restraining order test, as well, because the public interest supports the request for immediate relief. No legitimate public interest whatsoever can be served by permitting the continuation of what amounts to a knowingly unlawful, fraudulent scheme to obtain the presidency for an individual who, whatever his political views, his accomplishments, or his personal qualities, is simply not eligible under the Constitution to hold the office. Plaintiff, the people of Pennsylvania, Democratic voters nationwide, potential voters desiring an alternative to Senator McCain, and even non-voters who, even if indifferent to which candidate becomes President, have an int erest in avoiding the disruption or even civil disturbance that might attend a further-delayed determination of Obamaâ€™s ineligibility, all have a compelling interest to be vindicated far more effectively and in a more targeted way if the United States Constitution is upheld and Obama is removed from the Presidential election.
This Court should issue a temporary restraining order, prohibiting Obama from being formally confirmed as the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, and enjoining Obama, the DNC, and persons acting in concert with them or in their behalf, from continuing to solicit donations for his candidacy, pending expedited discovery and a prompt hearing, at which time Obamaâ€™s and the DNCâ€™s attorneys can satisfy the Court, by appropriate testimonial and documentary evidence, that Obama qualifies as a natural-born
citizen of the United States, and if elected will be eligible under the Constitution to serve in that office.
Plaintiff has demonstrated a very strong likelihood of success that this fraudulent campaign scheme of Obamaâ€™s violates the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I; that Plaintiff and millions of U.S. citizens will suffer irreparable injury, if relief is denied; and that the failure to grant injunctive relief would pose nothing less than a danger to Constitutional government and potential civil disturbance. The balance of hardships imposes
little burden on Obama: all he need do is to prove that he was born in Hawaii, and that he (or, during his minority, his mother) took the Oath of Allegiance to restore U.S. citizenship lost when Obamaâ€™s mother re-married an Indonesian citizen and moved with Obama to Indonesia.
III. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFFâ€™S
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Plaintiff also seeks leav e from this Court to begin discovery immediately so that Plaintiff can demonstrate to the Court, as part of preliminary injunction proceedings, the full extent of Obamaâ€™s fraudulent schemes in way of attempting to run and get elected as President of the United States knowing he is ineligible as he is not a â€œnatural bornâ€ citizen. It is crucial Plaintiff obtain certified copies of Obamaâ€™ s birth records, oath if it exists, adoption records, passport records and all other records which prove he is not a citizen of the United States and/or a â€œnatural bornâ€ citizen.
Courts have authorized expedited discovery on good cause shown, notwithstanding the strictures of Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (that
no discovery shall take place until the parties have conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f). Indeed, the Third Circuit has emphasized that â€œ[u]nder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our jurisprudence, district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery.â€ Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724,734 (3d Cir. 1995). Specifically, in the context of expedited discovery sought for purposes of a preliminary injunction motion, courts have inquired as to the â€œreasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.â€ Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Oâ€™Connor,
194 F.R.D. 618, 624 (N.D. Ill. 2000); see also Educational Comm â€™n for Foreign Sch.Med. Graduates v. Repik, Civil Action No. 99-1381, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7185, at *7 (E.D. Pa.May 14, 1999) (â€œExpedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction motion is appropriate.â€). In Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 614 (D. Ariz. 2001), in ruling on a motion to permit expedited discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) scheduling conference, the court stated that â€œ[a]bsent credible authority to the contrary, the Court adopts a good cause standard.â€ See also Pod-Ners, LLC v. Northern Feed & Bean, 204 F.R.D.675, 676 (D. Colo. 2002).
The reasons furnished by Plaintiff in support of his request pass any of the legal thresholds used by district courts in assessing motions to expedite discovery. Here, there is good cause for discovery to begin immediately. Plaintiff believes that, at this moment, there is a strong likelihood that, in the absence of injunctive relief, Obama will be formally nominated by the Democratic Party as its nominee for the Office of President of the United States. Plaintiffâ€™s request also works minimal prejudice or unfairness to Obama, himself, as (at most) all that Obama would have to do in person (although certainly he would be entitled to appear and to give testimony, or su bmit an affidavit
stating the facts) would be to execute authorizations, prepared by his attorneys or by members of his staff, for relevant birth, passport, consular (Oath of Allegiance) and other relevant documents to be obtained and certified.
Finally, Plaintiffâ€™s discovery request is narrowly tailored to obtain only the information it needs to pursue preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting Obama from running for President, and enjoining the DNC from naming Obama as a Democratic President Nominee.
This Court should grant Plaintiffâ€™s request for a temporary restraining order and should allow focused discovery to begin immediately.
s/ Philip J. Berg
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Attorney in Pro Se
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Identification No. 09867