UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, INC., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and ) OPPOSITION TO INJUNCTION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) PENDING APPEAL 

JUSTICE, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM IN 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) respectfully submits this 

memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.’s (“RTAO’s”) 

Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. On September 11, 2008, this Court denied, inter alia, 

RTAO’s motions for preliminary injunctions against the Commission’s enforcement of certain 

campaign finance regulations and policies. On September 12, RTAO filed a notice of appeal of 

the Court’s decision, as well as a motion for an injunction during the pendency of that appeal. 

Because RTAO has failed to meet its heavy burden to justify an injunction pending appeal of a 

determination that it is not entitled to a preliminary injunction, RTAO’s motion should be 

denied. 

Although RTAO’s motion refers only to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C), it appears to be made 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c), which governs injunctions pending appeals “from an interlocutory 

order . . . that . . . grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction.” District courts within the Fourth 

Circuit apply the following standard in resolving such motions to grant or stay injunctive relief 

pending appeal: 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 72 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 1 of 4
2

[A] party seeking a stay must show (1) that he will likely prevail on the 

merits of the appeal, (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is 

denied, (3) that other parties will not be substantially harmed by the stay, 

and (4) that the public interest will be served by granting the stay. 

Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1970); see Hodges v. Shalala, 127 F. Supp. 2d 

790, 791-92 (D.S.C. 2001) (quoting Long); St. Agnes Hosp. v. Riddick, 751 F. Supp. 75, 76 (D. 

Md. 1990) (same); Mowbray v. Kozlowski, 725 F. Supp. 888, 889 (W.D. Va. 1989) (same). “As 

with any other motion, the burden is upon the movants . . . to support their request for the desired 

relief.” Hodges, 127 F. Supp. 2d at 791-92. Where the issue to be decided on appeal is the grant 

or denial of a preliminary injunction, “[t]he burden on a party requesting a stay is a heavy one, 

since the party seeking a stay has already lost the initial determination resulting in the 

preliminary injunction and the factors are similar.” O’Brien v. Appomattox County, Civ. No. 02-

0043, 2002 WL 31663226, at *1 (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2002). 

RTAO’s cursory motion fails to meet this high standard. In denying RTAO’s preliminary 

injunction motions, this Court determined that RTAO failed to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of 

success on the merits, (2) “an irreparable harm greater than that of Defendants,” and (3) “that 

public policy would be served by granting these injunctions.” Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. 

FEC, Civ. No. 3:08-483 (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2008). Under the similar Long factors, these 

holdings are dispositive of RTAO’s present motion. 

Accordingly, RTAO’s motion for an injunction pending appeal should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ 

Audra Hale-Maddox, Attorney, ahale-maddox@fec.gov 

VA Bar No. 46929 

Thomasenia P. Duncan,* General Counsel, tduncan@fec.gov 

David Kolker,* Associate General Counsel, dkolker@fec.gov 

Harry J. Summers,* Assistant General Counsel, 

hsummers@fec.gov 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 72 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 2 of 4
3

Adav Noti,* Attorney, anoti@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

September 19, 2008 * pro hac vice

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 72 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 19th day of September, 2008, I will electronically file the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification 

of such filing (NEF) to the following: 

Michael Boos, michael.boos@gte.net 

Attorney & Counselor at Law 

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

James Bopp, Jr., jboppjr@aol.com 

Barry Alan Bostrom, bbostrom@bopplaw.com 

Clayton James Callen, ccallen@bopplaw.com 

Richard Eugene Coleson, rcoleson@bopplaw.com 

Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom 

1 South 6th St. 

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 

John Richard Griffiths, john.griffiths@usdoj.gov 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

Post Office Box 883 

Washington, DC 20044 

Debra Jean Prillaman, debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov 

Office Of The U.S. Attorney 

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800 

Richmond, VA 23219 

 /s/ 

Audra Hale-Maddox 

VA Bar No. 46929 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

ahale-maddox@fec.gov 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 72 Filed 09/19/2008 Page 4 of 4