1

Motion for Accelerated Hearing for an Ex Parte Injunction or Temporary

Restraining Order

Darrell Prince, Plaintiff in Pro Se Case Number 17-1042

IN THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT FOR PENNSYLVANIA

DARRELL PRINCE, Plaintiff in Pro Se

V.

Defendants

Majority Leader of United States Senate;

Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
The President of U.S. Senate;

Vice President Joseph Biden

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20510

President Pro Tempore of U.S. Senate;

Orrin Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Minority Leader Of U.S. Senate;

Charles Schumer
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Speaker of United States House of Representatives;

Paul Ryan
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Minority Leader of
 2

United States House of Representatives;

Nancy Pelosi,
233 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Scott Pruitt
2777 Crystal Dr,
Arlington, VA 22202

Jeff Sessions
50 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Rex Tillerson

Donald J Trump,
1400 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 201515

US Government et al;

Request for Emergency Accelerated

Hearing on

Application for an Ex Parte or Temporary

Restraining Order

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65 (a)

Order to Show Cause Why

This Temporary

Restraining Order Should

Not Be Granted
 3

Emergency Request to enjoin United

States Government Officers from

engaging in further behavior arresting or

impeding environmental protection

processes

Temporary Restraining

Order against Officers of

United States Senate, Senate Officers

Mitch McConnell Majority

Leader,

Joseph Biden President of

United States Senate,

Orrin Hatch President Pro Tem

United States Senate

Charles Schumer, Minority

Leader of U.S. Senate

And against Officers of

United States House

House of Representative

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the

United States House of

Representatives,

Nancy Pelosi, Minority

 4

Leader United States

House of Representatives,

Donald J Trump, Jeffrey Sessions,

Scott Pruitt ,

And any officers of environmental or

scientific organizations to preserve any

data, processes , programs, or staff as are

currently in place as necessary to the

functioning and the Defense of the

Republic, to protect and preserve life as

unpolluted with the wastes of Interstate

Commerce

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

UNDER F.R.C.P. RULES 65 (a)

Darrell Prince, Plaintiff moves this court for the entry of an ex parte or

temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo pending hearing and

resolution of plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.

 5

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________

Darrell Prince, Plaintiff in Pro Se

AFFIDAVIT OF URGENT NEED OF ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,

Plaintiff, hereby states that there is an urgent need for this U.S. Appellate in the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania to issue this proposed ex parte or, failing that,

temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until this court, the United

States Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court give rulings

on the merits of substantial claims made in the civil complaint of this case. The

issuance of the temporary restraining order is necessary to protect the citizens of

the United States of America from a clear and present danger to the Republic. The

wastes of interstate and international Commerce, regulated by the US

Government, (defendants) are causing irreparable harm to citizens in the form of

early deaths (estimated at 200,000 per year) and the current degredation of the

atmosphere, and threatening the integrity of the Republic itself, as well as that of

human civilization at large.

 6

(1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages);

This truly not relevant to the scope of this requested order; the apparent election of

these officials gives them leave to radically alter policies in the US government, and

they have promised to do so, in

a manner that has been demonstrably proven to be the exact cause for this

complaint, detrimental to the life, liberty and property of the citizens of this

country, en masse, and thus ask

(2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction;

Various members of this administration have taken very deliberate stance with the

potential for harm to environmental data, the subject of Climate change. One of the

members of the administration, the person occupying the office of the Secretary of

State is still party to the lawsuit as the chief Executive of Exxon Mobil for

deliberately deceiving the public as to the dangers of global warming.

The prospective EPA chair has a court order requiring the release of emails with the

oil and gas industry, and denies that man-made global warming is a real thing.

The person occupying the office of the President, has publicly denied the existence

of man made global warming, promised to pull the United States out of the Paris

peace accords.

Congress has passed a bill slashing climate change funding at NASA

Its 70 degrees in February in the Northeast, in the 3 rd consecutive hottest year ever.

We have no more time to deal with people who deny the existence of obvious

problems. Especially because there are feedback loops. The pace of warming will

continue to accelerate, and the warming of today, may be the result of Reagan era

emissions at worst, and Bush era emissions at a minimum. See exhibit B in the

Addendum.
 7

(3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying

merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial;

A. The issue of CO2, and methanes effect on warming the lower atmosphere, is

literally a subject of no debate amongst serious scientists, including people who

deny that it is a major factor today(Richard Lindzen, Prager U, MIT

(https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-

scientists-say @ 2:20), as it has been accepted as fact, by the scientific community

for nearly 200 years, that without which, life on earth would not exist.

B. Just the United States, just from Oil, from puts 15 billion pounds of CO2

(calculated from the 33 million barrels of oil burned per day statistic, available and

widely used by the oil and gas industry). into the atmosphere, each, and every day

of the year, not counting coal, and not counting methane, which is an under

reported factor-having 86 time the warming effect over a 25 year time span- we

literally are not measuring it- so the total man made effect of greenhouse gases is

not fully quantitated

C. CO2 levels in 1950 were at 280 PPM, close to the record high, over the last

400,000 years. 2017 they are at 410 PPM, the highest in 4 million years
 8

source: NASA.gov

Match of CO2 data, and Antarctic Temperature

D. The reputation of weather prediction service is unassailable in the public

opinion, and is perhaps the most regularly checked service in the world,

predicting with accuracy days and weeks ahead, what the weather will be
 9

like. This service is a large subset of the oft quoted 97% of scientists believe

in man made global warming

"Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit

by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level

that allows us to predict with accuracy, if not control, the outcomes of

events in the natural world. Science especially enhances our health,

wealth, and security, which is greater today for more people on Earth

than at any other time in human history."

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

From Skeptical Inquiry magazine Sept/Oct 2016

F. Recent effects. The world has just experienced the third consecutive hottest

year on record, as a fact. Anecdotally, it has been noticed, that for three

consecutive Christmases, temperatures have exceeded 60 degrees in the

Northeast United States. Its been warming, as predicted, by people who

generally do a good job of predicting the weather weeks and months out- and

denied by people who do a lot of selling of fossil fuel and fossil fuel products.

(4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party

opposed to the injunction;

(5) the moving partys right to the relief sought is clear.

The risks posed to the populace at large are beyond significant, they are

catastrophic. Famine, loss of cities, 20+ millions of refugees from coastal cities, all

of them in the United states, trillions of dollars lost. Disease becomes more likely in
 10

these scenarios, as does wars, and the possibility for dissolution of the Republic.

The chances of it happening? As good as they can be warming was predicted,

warming is clearly happening. 97% percent of the relevant scientific community has

spoken. It is highly doubtful that you could get 97% of humans to agree that they

breathe air. For arguments sake, lets call that 85%. That would be an 8-1 Supreme

Court decision, or an election in which 1 candidate won 85% of the vote. The best

technical term for such a clear victory is actually a colloquialism beatdown.Simply

unimaginable. While all branches of human learning relies on prevailing opinions of

the day- subjective to the whims and tides of prevailing thoughts of the day- the

work of scientists

The risk here, is as clear as can be- and the associated risks- like the 200,000 early

deaths per year in the US attributed to pollution, which would be solved in the same

set of processes that gets CO2 and methane emissions reduced significantly.

Contrast this with the annual numerical American death toll due to foreign born

terrorists- less than 25 per year going back to 9/11, and nearly 3000 on 9/11. So

provided hear is the overly kind to opposing ideas doctrine. 10% of the pollution

deaths EVERY YEAR is 5 times the number of Americans who have died from foreign

born terrorists in the LAST FIFTEEN YEARS, and we spend maybe a billion on the

former and at least 150 billion on the latter.

1. Does the US government have a responsibility to take actions- appropriate

measures to act to protect the citizens, from major threats? To protect them from

its own actions, and those of the businesses it regulates?

2. Does the consensus opinion of the previous President, the scientific agencies with
 11

in the Government, the Pentagon, as well as the consensus opinions of every major

scientific body on the planet constitute a threat?

3. What constitutes a real action to preserve those citizens, on the scale of the

threat?

(5) the moving partys right to the relief sought is clear.

For greater length exposition into the doctrine of Standing- see Civil Action 16-6702.

John Marshall, who stated in the Virginia ratifying convention: "Congress is

empowered to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction, as to law and fact, of

the Supreme Court. These exceptions certainly go as far as the legislature may

think proper for the interest and liberty of the people." However, this was prior to

the adoption of the 1st Amendment.

Pursuant to the 1st Amendment right to Petition for the right to redress of

Grievances, for which Congress shall make no law (implying thusly that court

doctrines, approved by Congress) restrict the right of, Plaintiff submits this

grievance. Pursuant to the Guarantee Clause, in which the entire United States

Government is pledged to provide a Republic in perpetuity, pursuant to the 5 th

amendment due process clause which states that neither life liberty nor property

shall be taken from, nor threat of same, without due process of law, Plaintiff claims

that due process. Pursuant to the official document that began the American

Experiment, the very definition of a legal document, Plaintiff claims the right to alter

or abolish a government that has become detrimental to his rights as a citizen.

Pursuant to the Actual text of Article III, this case directly relates to a Controversy

involving the US federal government, involving the stability of the Plaintiffs life,

lifes work and passions(see 2-12-cv-03787) and the future of all of Plaintiffs
 12

family members.

___________________________ Darrell Prince, Plaintiff in Pro Se date

13