, 857 F. Supp. 445, 446-47 (E.D. Pa. 1994). While the degree of probability ofsuccess 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 “reasonable

likelihood” 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 thefour requirements for a temporary restraining order.

A. Plaintiff Has A Very Strong Likelihood of Success in Challenging Obama’s

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) Obama’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

Obama’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 Obama’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. Obama’s

mother did not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born”

citizen. Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat.

163, 235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved

(Att’y Gen. 1944). If born in Kenya, Obama could have become a United States citizen by

naturalization at some date subsequent to his birth — but a naturalized citizen is not qualified

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

12to 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: “(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.”

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 — which Plaintiff believes he was

not — 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. Obama’s mother married

Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and relocated with Obama to Indonesia. There is no

indication that Obama’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

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

13Plaintiff 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 — if, in fact, he took the oath. 8

U.S.C. § 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 Obama’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 namefrom 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 country’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, disenfranchisement of large numbers of citizens,

being members of the Democratic Party, who would have been

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

14deprived 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 Plaintiff’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 his behalf) to

obtain, and to present to the Court, a verifiably genuine, certified copy of his birth certificate.

Likewise, assuming proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, if Obama’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 Dunham’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

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

15fact, he was born in Kenya) manifestly it is better that those facts, which is to say

Obama’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

interest in avoiding the disruption or even civil disturbance that might attend a furtherdelayed

determination of Obama’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.

D. Conclusion

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 Obama’s and the DNC’s attorneys can satisfy the Court,

by appropriate testimonial and documentary evidence, that Obama qualifies as a natural-born

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

16citizen 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 Obama’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 Obama’s mother re-married an Indonesian citizen and moved with Obama to

Indonesia.

III. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF’S

Plaintiff also seeks leave 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 Obama’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 “natural born”

citizen. It is crucial Plaintiff obtain certified copies of Obama’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 “natural born” 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

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

17no discovery shall take place until the parties have conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f).

Indeed, the Third Circuit has emphasized that “[u]nder the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and our jurisprudence, district courts have broad discretion to manage

discovery.”

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 “reasonableness of the request in light of

all the surrounding circumstances.”

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. O’Connor,194 F.R.D. 618, 624 (N.D. Ill. 2000);

see also Educational Comm’n for ForeignSch.Med. Graduates v. Repik

, Civil Action No. 99-1381, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7185, at*7 (E.D. Pa.May 14, 1999) (“Expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary

injunction motion is appropriate.”). 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 “[a]bsent credible

authority to the contrary, the Court adopts a good cause standard.”

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. Plaintiff’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 submit an affidavit

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

18stating 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, Plaintiff’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.

IV. CONCLUSION

This Court should grant Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and

should allow focused discovery to begin immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Philip J. Berg

_____________________________

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

Attorney in

Pro Se555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12

Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Identification No. 09867

(610) 825-3134

C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet

Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaMemSupportTRO082108 (2).doc

19