Emergency Injunction- Climate II

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                                                                                                                                    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

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 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 plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

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.

  • 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

It’s 70 degrees in February in the Northeast, in the 3rd 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.

(3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial;

  1. The issue of CO2, and methane’s 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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

source: NASA.gov

Match of CO2 data, and Antarctic Temperature

  1. 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 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

  1. 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. It’s 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 party’s 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 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 argument’s sake, let’s 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 it’s own actions, and those of the businesses it regulates?
  2. Does the consensus opinion of the previous President, the scientific agencies with 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 party’s 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 5th 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 Plaintiff’s   life,  life’s work and  passions(see 2-12-cv-03787) and the future of all of Plaintiff’s  family members.

___________________________ Darrell Prince, Plaintiff in Pro Se     date

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                                                                                                                                    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

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 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 plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

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.

  • 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

It’s 70 degrees in February in the Northeast, in the 3rd 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.

(3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial;

  1. The issue of CO2, and methane’s 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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

source: NASA.gov

Match of CO2 data, and Antarctic Temperature

  1. 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 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

  1. 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. It’s 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 party’s 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 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 argument’s sake, let’s 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 it’s own actions, and those of the businesses it regulates?
  2. Does the consensus opinion of the previous President, the scientific agencies with 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 party’s 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 5th 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 Plaintiff’s   life,  life’s work and  passions(see 2-12-cv-03787) and the future of all of Plaintiff’s  family members.

___________________________ Darrell Prince, Plaintiff in Pro Se     date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *