United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Election Commission and

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS

Motion to Consolidate Hearings on

Preliminary Injunction and Merits

& Brief In Support

Motion

Plaintiff, The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. (RTAO), moves to consolidate the hearing

on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment with the trial on the merits,

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65(a)(2), i.e., so that the hearings on preliminary injunction and summary

judgment will be consolidated and conducted at the conclusion of the currently scheduled

briefing. Defendants consent to this motion. 

Brief in Support

A. Resolution of This Case Turns on Purely Legal Issues.

This case presents the concise legal question of whether (a) 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b)

(“expressly advocating” definition) and the FEC’s enforcement policy regulating determination

of PAC status, including interpreting and applying the Supreme Court’s major-purpose, see

Motion to Consolidate

and Brief in Support

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 5
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976), are unconstitutionally overbroad, void for vagueness,

and contrary to law, as violating the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the

United States and exceeding the FEC’s statutory authority under FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.;

(b) the regulations and the enforcement policy are void and should be set aside under the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706; and (c) the FEC and DOJ should be

preliminarily and permanently enjoined from enforcing FECA based on the regulation and

policy, both facially and as applied, to RTAO and to its intended activities set out therein. 

All the facts necessary to resolve this case are contained in RTAO’s Verified Amended

Complaint and the memorandum in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and

Summary Judgment. The only issues to be resolved are legal questions.

B. Consolidation of the Hearings Will Preserve Judicial and Party Resources.

Consolidating the hearings will allow the Court to avoid repetitive presentations of

evidence. The drafters of Rule 65(a)(2) noted that consolidation “can be exercised with particular

profit when it appears that a substantial part of the evidence offered on the application [for a

preliminary injunction] will be relevant to the merits . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) 1966

advisory committee’s note. In such cases the use of a “routine” accelerated trial “preserve[s]

judicial resources and save[s] the parties from wasteful duplication of effort.” See NOW v.

Operation Rescue, 747 F. Supp. 760, 768 (D.D.C. 1990). Numerous courts have recognized the

utility of Rule 65(a)(2) consolidation. See e.g.’s West Pub. Co. v. Mead Data Cent., Inc., 799

F.2d 1219, 1229 (8th Cir. 1986) (“This procedure is a good one, and we wish to encourage it”);

Bright v. Nunn, 448 F.2d 245, 247 n.1 (6th Cir. 1971) (consolidation is appropriate when

Motion to Consolidate

and Brief in Support 2

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 5
material facts are uncontested); U.S. ex rel. Goldman v. Meredith, 596 F.2d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir.

1979) (trial on merits was not justified and consolidation was proper because the only disputed

question was one of law); Pughsley v. 3750 Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Bldg., 463 F.2d 1055,

1057 (7th Cir. 1972) (when discovery is concluded or unnecessary “consolidation may serve the

interests of justice”).

Here, the parties will present the same facts on summary judgment as at a preliminaryinjunction hearing. Thus, in determining the motions for preliminary injunction and summary

judgment, this Court will have before it the same facts, arguments and legal analysis.

Consolidation will therefore preserve judicial time and effort by avoiding duplicative hearings.

Additionally, consolidating the hearings will help ensure an expeditious resolution to

RTAO’s claims. The stated goal of as-applied challenges “to resolve disputes quickly without

chilling speech through the threat of burdensome litigation,” should apply here. FEC v.

Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449, 468 n.5 (2007) (“WRTL-II”) (Roberts, C.J., joined by

Alito, J.) (This opinion states the holding. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977)).

C. Consolidation Will Not Unfairly Prejudice the FEC and DOJ

Consolidating the hearings will not deprive the FEC or DOJ of their right to notice and a

full and fair opportunity to be heard. In fact, in conferring over the Joint Proposed Briefing

Schedule (Dkt. 123), Defendants consented to this motion. 

In sum, because of the purely legal nature of this case, preservation of judicial resources,

the need for an expedited resolution and adequate notice to the FEC and DOJ, granting the

Motion for Consolidation is appropriate. For the stated reasons, RTAO asks this Court to

Motion to Consolidate

and Brief in Support 3

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 5
consolidate the hearings on preliminary injunction and summary judgment.

James Bopp, Jr.,* jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson,* rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom,* bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Kaylan Phillips,** kphillips@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

812/232-2434 telephone

812/234-3685 facsimile

 *admitted pro hac vice

 **pro hac vice application pending

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Local Counsel for Plaintiff

Motion to Consolidate

and Brief in Support 4

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127 Filed 09/20/10 Page 4 of 5
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on September 20, 2010, I served upon the below listed persons copies

of this document by electronically filing this document for electronic transmission.

John Richard Griffiths

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington, DC 20044

john.griffiths@usdoj.gov

Debra Jean Prillaman

Office of U.S. Attorney

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, VA 23219

debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov

J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert, P.C. 

5019 Waple Ln 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org

Thomasenia P. Duncan

tduncan@fec.gov

Audra Anne Hale-Maddox

ahale-maddox@fec.gov

David Kolkler. dkokler@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley, kdeeley@fec.gov

Holly Baker, hbaker@fec.gov

Vivien Clair, vclair@fec.gov

Seth Nesin, snesin@fec.gov

Adav Noti, anoti@fec.gov

Claire Rajan, crajan@fec.gov

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

And I hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-filing users:

Daniel R. Ortiz 

John Allan Love Professor of Law 

University of Virginia School of Law 

580 Massie Road 

Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738 

Jonathan Lee Riches

F.C.I. Williamsburg

P.O. Box 340

Salters, SC 29590

Richard Briffault 

Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of 

 Legislation 

Columbia University School of Law 

435 West 116th Street 

New York, NY 10027 

/s/ 

Michael Boos (VA State Bar No. 37524)

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

703/691-7717 telephone

703/691-7543 facsimile

michael.boos@gte.net

Motion to Consolidate

and Brief in Support 5

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127 Filed 09/20/10 Page 5 of 5
United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Election Commission and

United States Department of Justice,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS

Order Granting Consent Motion to Consolidate

It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate the Hearings on

Preliminary Injunction and Merits be GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Plaintiff’s motion.

SO ORDERED this ____ day of ________________2010.

___________________________

James R. Spencer 

United States District Judge 

 

Order

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127-1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 3
Distribution:

Michael Boos

Law Office of Michael Boos

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313

Fairfax, VA 22030

James Bopp, Jr.

jboppjr@aol.com

Richard E. Coleson

rcoleson@bopplaw.com

Barry A. Bostrom

bbostrom@bopplaw.com

Kaylan L. Phillips

kphillips@bopplaw.com

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510

John Richard Griffiths

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

P.O. Box 883

Washington, DC 20044

Debra Jean Prillaman

OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800

Richmond, VA 23219

J. Gerald Hebert 

J. GERALD HEBERT, P.C.

5019 Waple Ln 

Alexandria, VA 22304 

Thomasenia P. Duncan

David Kolkler

Kevin Deeley

Holly Baker

Vivien Clair

Seth Nesin

Adav Noti

Claire Rajan

Order 2

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127-1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 2 of 3
Audra Anne Hale-Maddox 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

Daniel R. Ortiz 

John Allan Love Professor of Law 

University of Virginia School of Law 

580 Massie Road 

Charlottesville, VA 22903-1738 

Jonathan Lee Riches

F.C.I. Williamsburg

P.O. Box 340

Salters, SC 29590

Richard Briffault 

Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of 

 Legislation 

Columbia University School of Law 

435 West 116th Street 

New York, NY 10027 

Order 3

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 127-1 Filed 09/20/10 Page 3 of 3