meroni v isbe - meroni responds to reese 10-09-20

8/8/2019 Meroni v ISBE - Meroni Responds to Reese 10-09-20

1/60

IN THE C IR CUIT C OU RT FO R THE SEVEN TH JUD IC IAL CIRCUIT O F ILL IN OIS SA NGAMONCOUNTY, SPR INGF IELD ILL INO IS

))))))) 2010 MR501)))))))))))))}))}))})}})}))}))}))}))}RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

IN THE MATTER OF:SHARON Al\TNMERONI -OBJECTOR AND PETmONER

VS.

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONSSITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTEDSTATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARDBRYAN A. SCHEIDER"VANDAL. REDNOURALBERT S. PORTERJOHN R. KEITH~LL~lF.MCGRUFFAGEJESSE R. SMARTPATRICK A. BRADYROBERTJ WALTERS

CANDIDATESCONSTITUTION PARTYJEFF TREXLERMICHAEL L. "VHITEGARY DUNLAPLOUIS COTTONTIMOTHY BECKERDAWN CZARNYLIBETERIAN PAHTYBILL MALANJAMES PAULYJOSH HANSONJUILEFOXMIKELABNOED RUTLEDGELE.,XGREE JGREGG MOORECAHLE.OFFICEHWILLIE BOYD,jR.COREY DABNEYEDWARD]. SCANLONCHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN

10 SOEB GE 524-10 SOEB GE 53210 SOEB GE 53310 SOEB GE 53410 SOEB GE 53510 SOEB GE 541

10 SOEB GE 52610 SOEB GE 52710 SOEB GE 52810 SOEB GE 52910 SOEB GE 53010 SOEB GE 54310 SOEB GE 54410 SOEB GE 52510 SOEB GE 53710 SOEB GE 55310 SOEB GE 53910 SOEB GE 54010 SOEB GE 542, 545, 546, 547,548,551, 552

llPageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bill of rights


2/60

RESPONSE TO DEFENSE AND OPPOSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONSI - Introduction - Personal Statements

I , Sharon Ann Meroni (One Surrey Lane, Barrington Hills, Illinois, 60010) testifies to thesestatements contained in this introduction:I have been seeking resolution to what is a profound question related to the most basic right of ourConstitution. The Right to be represented by constitutionally eligible representatives, regardless at whatparty they are from, the level they preside, or specifically in what capacity they govern.

Constitutionally qualified to govern ....According to the USand Illinois Constitutions means to bea USACitizen. Age restrictions apply. Other specif ications include voter registration; address andlicense requirements, etc. Courts have long held states can place specifications on candidates forparticipation in the election process. It is in these specifications that many ballot access issues arise forthe courts to review. It is how the game is shaped. Still, age and cit izenship requirements are mandatedby both Constitutions. Thus as an undisputed FACT;the laws must support the fulfillment of theserequirements.

Before I briefly outline the journey that got me here, let me explain what I learned has stunnedme. Nowhere in the election process in Illinois does the law support the constitutional mandates suchthat the Administrators of the election can certify that candidates for office meet the constitutionalmandates. Furthermore, the law is so eschewed such that even when a citizen seeks to discern thesame, there is no ability to do so. There is a luck ofthe draw approach to citizenship requirements forballot placement with no remedy or relief in the law available.

I began the journey into this controversy at hand about a year ago... Seeking to determine howthe ISBEassured the constitutional integrity ofthe ballot in February 2010; I sought relief twice inMcHenry County Court.

The first time seeking to speak to the Local Grand Jury to testify to how there was no integrity inthe ballot served to me in the 2008 election. (Patriot's Heart V McHenry County Grand Jury) I learned,after the 5 day qualifying period, it is the discretion of the State's Attorney and the Attorney General toinvestigate if a candidate was eligible to serve and they could only bring a cause of action if there werefacts in the record from which they could apply the Law. Assistant State's Attorney Bianchi, both incourt and in meetings between the interested parties, communicated that this was a bar he needed tosee in order to use his discretion to bring this matter before the Grand Jury. He stated that the CountyGrand Jury is not financed specifically as an investigative body. Summarizing, that generally the County

21PageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights amongthem are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotection of laws. {II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11 - Bil l o f r igh ts


3/60

Grand Jury hears evidence investigated by other bodies. I discerned that this case had fatal flaws as filedand determined my next step was to go to the body legally empowered by the General Assembly toadminister the election statutes.

February 2010, the timing was such - in my growing evolution of understanding of election lawand procedures - that the Primary for 2010 was in its final phase. I elected to file a TRO in the McHenryCounty Court asking to prevent the certification of the Primary results until after the candidates hadestablished they were constitutionally eligible. (Meroni v ISBE- McHenry County) McHenry CountyJudge Caldwell ruled that I had timeliness issues, that I had not exhausted procedures of the ISSE, andthat the correct jurisdiction was either Sangamon County or Cook County. He ruled the flaws were fatalin his court.

While the case was never tried on the merits, In this case, McHenry County Clerk KatherineSchultz and Lake County Clerk Willard Helander provided certified statements as evidence that affirmednowhere in the election process is there verification that voters are USCitizens, nor is there any postingof factual documents affirming citizenship or age of candidates for office. Furthermore, there is noauthority for, nor resources allocated for the Clerks to check that candidates are constitutionally eligible.In addition, Mark Sheldon, Champaign County Clerk answered in writing, questions specificallyaddressing the fact that in Illinois apparent conformity standards are not equal and that the Illinois StateBoard of Elections had permitted Alan Keyes ballot placement even though he had not personallyapplied for it and did not sign a Statement of Candidacy (Exhibits page 03-05 SHELDON)

In Meroni v ISSE- McHenry County the Assistant Attorney General argued and prevailed in theirargument, that I had not gone through the Administrative processes of the Illinois Board of Elections.I was disappointed because once again, I was denied accessto redress for my legitimate grievance, (as aNatural Born Citizen of the United States of America and of the grand State of Illinois, and a qualifiedlegal voter who had participated in both the 2008 and 2010 Primary and General elections) to know ifthe ballot I was given contained only candidates that were 'legally quclified" or if indeed the law isdeficient in ascertaining in the public record as fact, that they were. Still, for a variety of reasons allunrelated to the merits ofthe controversy, and based on the Judge's ruling, I concurred thatthe casewas likely fatal, now understanding the need to go through the Administrative process, (10 ILCS5/10-8) before this could come to its natural remedy as questions of law.

III Election Code sets out a 5 day period for which a candidate's application for ballot placementcan be contested by other candidates and qualified voters in the respective districts - or simply for any

31FageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, l iberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bi ll of r ights


4/60

candidate that applies for my ballot, I can contest during time periods set out in 10 ILCS 5110-8.This is the only place I can contest a candidate placement on my ballot.In good faith, I contacted the Assistant Attorney General Mark Ishu, seeking to testify before

the Illinois State Board of Elections about this controversy. (R 133) I was never asked to testify.ThelSBEofdutiesaredefinedlO ILCS 5/1A-8} (from Ch. 46, par. lA-8)

Section lA -8 defines the duties and includeReview and inspect procedures and records relating to conduct ofelections and registration as may be deemed necessary and toreport violations of election laws to the appropriate State'sAttorney or the Attorney General; (8) Recommend to the GeneralAssembly legislation to improve the administration of electionsand registration;When a controversy over the very constitutional integrity of the ballot was filed against the ISBE

in a court of law, even while procedurally they prevailed, they had to argue I should go throughprocedure, they have should have provided an opportunity to hear about the vulnerability of the ballotas it relates to this controversy. They did not respond to my request to testify before them.

This controversy cannot be resolved through facts because it is the lack of facts that is thiscontroversy. The Law (10 ILCS 5/10-5) does not support the constitutional mandates ofCitizenship.

Nowhere has the State argued that the candidates are constitutionally eligible. They have failedto affirm that in the record. The State has only argued their own deficiency and then ... Demonstratingthe sheer arrogance of this process, stated I needed to go the Legislature, when in fact the Codespecifically mandates that that is the job of the Illinois State Board of Elections. ( (10 ILCS 5/Art. 1A)

Timmons, 520 u . s . at 358, 1371. Ed. 2d at 598, 117 S. Ct. 1369 affirms that states mustenact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election-and campaign-related disorder. The State and the ISBE have failed to enact reasonable regulations that securein the public record facts asserting constitutional eligibility, thereby denying the petitionerequal protection rights.

Indeed the law as currently practiced, provides for politicians to be a special class. The federalgovernment routinely requires proof of citizenship for many federal jobs, including joining the Militaryand various other federal jobs posted on http:Uwww.usajobs.opm.gov , USAJOBSis the Federal

41PageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, l iberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


5/60

Government's official one-stop source for Federal jobs and employment information. Most positionsrequire a background check, which includes proof of citizenship.

Indeed this is not a political question, it is a judiciable question.Lastly, the reason that I chose all of the candidates on my ballot is because it really is a question

that affects all of them. I believe candidates from the major parties should be held to the same standardof proof. The issue is how and where. That question is part of the issue needing resolution. I do notattempt to answer it for myself except to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander ...and by-golly if our men and women in arms must provide a raised seal birth certificate to serve then whycan't candidates for office? Perhaps passports will work .

I believe the how and where is part ofthesolution needing to be ascertained through judicialinquiry.

l i . , - Res'ponse_to Defenses "Brief in support of administration decisionResponse: BRIEFIN SUPPORTOF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-This section is a direct response to thebrief filed by the Illinois State Board of election through the Assistant State's Attorney, Jessica L. Reeves.Comments related to Defense's Introduction

1) Defense" Introduction and Background" stipulates "lllinois Election Code Requires that theseprospective candidates fi le, among other things, a Statement of Candidacy." (101LCS5/10-5.)

2) The Board admits it's own legal deficiency in the follow - up sentence IfWith the exception ofone candidate Christopher Pederson, (discussed later), ....Iegal qualifications of office"

a. According to Druck V ISBEthe board is required to use apparent conformity standardsb. Accordingly, they do this at the time the petitions are accepted.c. It is a question of ignoring the law and Judicial decisions that the Illinois State Board of

Elections (SBOE)is violating in refusing to impose apparent conformity standardsd. It is a due process violation when the state refuses to make available to the public

apparent conformity standards or the lack there of.. Meroni's pleadings from the ISBEHearing process consistently aff irm that the Illinois

State Board of Election (SBOE)refuses to do its job in not using apparent conformitystandards

f. This refusal has prejudiced Meroni's ballot choices at least in the 2008 and 2010 Primary(Alan Keyes) and influenced the current objection process by causing for an inordinate

51PageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursui t ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bill of rights


6/60

number of unqualified candidates application to be placed for ballot position for thepetit ioner and others to object to, causing for disarray in the election process.(Especially Pedersen, but not exciusively- Many candidates did not fulfill apparentconformity standards -)

g. Just prior to testimony before the SBOEMeroni called Mr. Steve Sandvoss in his capacityas Counsel for the ISBE(SBOE)and asked at what point does the ISBEassert apparentconformity standards. Mr Sandvoss stated that the ISBE(SBOE)does not apply anystandards of apparent conformity.

3) The Board asserts "there is no evidence presented to rebut these Statements of Candidacy".a. This statement argues against the State's later assertion that the correct Standard of

Judicial Review is Law and Fact.b. State stipulates there are no facts in dispute.c. State stipulates there were never any facts in question

4) The Petitioner's original petition makes 4 points.a. Asserting Meroni's standing and clearly stating her interest as a "Citizen desirous of

seeing to it that the Illinois and Us Constitutions are upheld, laws governing the filing ofnomination papers for a candidate for election to the office of __ are properlycomplied with and/or that only a qualified candidate would appear on the ballot as acandidate for said office.

The Defense provides no challenge to Plaintiffs standing or interest

b. Meroni's second point defines the challenge in an affirmative statement of Law, not astatement of fact. "All candidates for off ice must meet certain Constitut ionalrequirements to be qualified for office. " She then affirms the constitutionalrequirements in question in the objection petition "All candidates must be a specificage and be a Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois"

At no point during this process has the Hearing Office, the ISBE(SBOE)nor in Ms.Reeves Response do they

i. Dispute this point of Lawii. Claim any deficiency whatsoever in this statement.

61PageAll men are bynature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due processo f law nor be denied the equalprotection of laws. (II Const itut ion Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bil lo f rights

_______ 0._.._._0


7/60

iii. Indeed the State ignores this statement entirely because it disputes their claimthat the petition lacks specificity. This second point on the objector's petitionaffirms with exact specificity what the question is about.

c. Meroni identifies who the candidate she is objecting to is and the office sought.

d. Meroni affirms: That the papers are insufficient because they fail to demonstrate orprovide documentation (fact or evidence) the candidate meets the constitutionalrequirements for office.

i. This is not disputed by any fact.

e. "The remedy is that the papers be declared insufficient and not in compliance with thelaws of the State of Il I inois." Meroni affirms, she did not ask that the candidates beremoved from the ballot because the law stipulates that if the papers are not incompliance the ministerial obligation of the Board is to not award the candidate thedesired ballot position.

i. The Defense offers no fact to substantiate its claim of deficiency. Indeed itcannot, because to do so would argue its own deficiency. The current practice ofthe ISBEis to permit candidates ballot access whose papers are not in apparentconformity on the ballot

ii. This deficiency is both according to statute and to legal rulings mandatingotherwise. (Druck)

iii. The petitioner seeks permission to write a Mandamus to compel the ISBE(SOEB)and the General Assembly to do their jobs!

The State's errs in its pleading that what was insufficient about Meroni 's statement, claiming"no further detail to what was insufficient about the candidate papers" (Defense motion - page two line7-9) as if closing its eyes to the 2nd statement on the petition defining the requirement means it does notexist.

Indeed on the flip perspective, what fact could the Plaintiff have affirmed was missing? If thePlaintiff, in the Objection, had stated a lack offactual evidence specifically itemizing a birth certificate,or naturalization papers, she would have ended up in the same place; the ISBE(SBOE)would have

7lPagf:All men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent ofthe governed. Noperson shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bill of rights


8/60

affirmed Meroni wasaskingfor something not required, andthis would fatally prejudice througherroneousfact, proceedingsin a strike and dismissmotion filed bycandidates. Herclaim by necessityisstrictly a question of law.

RPage128-130The Defense incorrectly states Meroni's position that "potential candidates are

constitutionally required to prove to the Board that they are citizens of the United Sates andeludes to the fact that this procedure somehow caused harm during the 2008 elections" (R 128-130 and 121)" (Defense motion p3 line 1-4)

The discussion on these pages (R 128-130 - specifically points 81-116) involve theabsence of public document to establish constitutional qualifications. This defect of laweviscerates the election process, undermining and destroying the natural and intended effect ofher right to object during the 5 day qualifying period and that this presents a due process issue.

Indeed these lapses also violate 1st and 14thamendment rights because it treats oneparty favorably during the contest period, and forever prejudices against the voter as objectoror the voter in her ballot access; and through painful violations of the most grievous sort of herequal protections afforded under the law. The only party that has factual evidence ofcompliance with Constitutional mandates is the candidates.

In addition, these points argue that through apparent conformity and other statuteprovisions various other constitutional requirements are proven in the public record! ( forinstance: statement of economic interest, voter registration) and as such can then be used asevidence for factual challenges to the candidate's applications.

In addition the points on these pages prove that the Statement of Candidacy (hereinsaC) is too general and therefore imposes deficiencies in the uniformity of elections. The sacviolates 14thAmendment equal protection rights and 1stAmendment rights because the sacdoes not specifically identify conformity with us and IlConstitutional mandatory requirementsto be a USACitizen. The sac therefore eviscerates the petitioner's right to assesscandidate'ssubjective and self certifying statement of being legally qualified.

81PageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, l iberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


9/60

The Plaintiff makes the point there is no definition of legally qualified from which shecan find asreference to assessthe candidate's applications. Again, affirming that "whileevidence of eligibility exists in the public record for other qualifications required for legallyqualified, it does not for citizenship." (R p129 point 104)

On page 130, Meroni states the fact that this problem will re-occur in the 2012 election.(point 108) Specifically reporting that there is no definition in the Illinois Statues (or in FederalStatues) that define natural born citizen. Without a definition, the voter who has a right toobject, cannot assesthe veracity ofthe candidate's self certifying and self defining statementaccording to a standard of law, especially as required in legally qualified.

Big time due process problem!

Furthermore, the requirement for being legally qualified for any office specifically asrelates to citizenship status (natural born citizen, UScitizen or naturalized citizen) or age, isnever moot; yet without public record that information cannot be accessed nor can it beprosecuted. This refers back to lessons learned from State's Attorney Louis Bianchi in McHenryCounty Court. (Meroni v ISBEFebruary 2010)

It is this very question that originally brought the petitioner to this controversy of lawsurrounding the most profound right in a Republic; the veracity of the vote, and the integrity ofthe ballot.

It is a question of law that there is no definition of natural born citizen and also noposting of proof establishing fact or evidence of "legally qualified"

These questions of law will re-occur. They already have. (Separate issues in 2008 - AlanKeyes- placed on ballot without signing a Statement of Candidacy and Obama) While thesecases are not part of this review, they are germane as examples. This question of law requiresjudicial intervention and resolution because fundamentally this is not a political question thatshould be resolved by negotiations in the legislature.

These questions of law will re-occur when the petitioner returns during the next cycle ofcandidate qualification for ballot to discern if the candidates are legally qualified. If the

91PageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, l iberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


10/60

petitioner adjusts her wordage in some fashion} the Board will still refuse her, not because themerit ofthe claim is deficient} but because the ISBE will hide behind similar proceduresdesigned to frustrate the petitioner's lawful accessto the election process.

The harm done to the public confidence in its government is indisputable.Just a month ago, CNN - a Liberal Cable News Media posted the following shocking

poll. Poll numbers for those questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama continueto rise. It is shocking to have such a basic question unanswered considering it is the core to ourRepublic (Exhibits pages 01-02 CNN)

Doyou think BarackObamawas definitely born in the UnitedStates, probablyborn in the UnitedStates, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?July 16-21,2010

Americans Democrats Independents RepublicansDefinitelyborn in U.S. 42% 64% 37% 23%Probablyborn in the U.S. 29% 21% 31% 34%Probablyborn in another country 16% 7% 17% 27%Definitelyborn in another country 11% 8% 12% 14%Noopinion 2% 1% 2% 3%

Other polls reflect similar or even larger percentages of Americans (around 1/3) whoquestion the very validity of this government, which if not constitutionally eligible, is reducingAmericans to mere slaves, (15 Amendment violation) as unwilling recipients of the ExecutiveOffice's contrived governance that is not constitutionally based.

Is Mr. Obama a natural born citizen? The truth is he subjectively self certified to legallyqualified; he is the only one with proof of his affirmation, and he has refused to enter thatproof into the public record. Despite obvious political realities of the situation, the reason thislarge public question isgermane to this discussion is because of this unconstitutional law (10IL5C 10) and a lack of governance from the ISBE ( 50 E8) and the General Assembly. There is noability for the public to look for resolution of that question. Thus, the question lingers in thepublic arena, now nearly 1/3 of the electorate are concerned with this same profound question,demoralizing the voting public and undermining the authority of the office Mr. Obama (or anyother candidate or elected official) holds.

It is beyond the absurd, it is tragic.

10 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. Tosecurethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall be deprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bill of r ights


11/60

Just like there is no record in a legal format establishing that Mr. Obama is a naturalborn citizen, so too there is no evidence of citizenship of any candidate in office in Illinois; withthe exception of the 11 or so that produced proof to the petitioner.

Subjective self certification of legally qualified is not legally sufficient for proof forconstitutional mandates, especially when the description of legally qualified is subjective to theopinion ofthe signer and no fact is in the public domain to assess it.

While the initial scope of this petition of Judicial Review of an Administrative decision,does not factually address the issue of natural born citizen; this is included here as a case inpoint affirming the Plaintiff 's testimony, especially since the Defense mischaracterizedPlaintiff 's responses on these pages of testimony in question.

It is incredibly demoralizing to struggle so intensely for such a simple answer ..."Yes, but .... Are they legally qualified .... ?"

Lastly these pages (R 128-130) the Defense referenced, address the fact that the ISBEis notdoing its job because it refuses to enforce standards of apparent conformity.

Meroni asserts in arguments on these pages that the obligation shifts on a SOCfor thesignatory to prove with evidence their qualifications when challenged. (by affirming they are inpossession of licenses required and because they are the only one who has accessto theinformation)

Meroni also asserts that apparent conformity standards that do not include proof ofconstitutional eligibility deprive the objector of due process because she cannot challenge whatis not provided in the factual record.

RPage 121Defense also erroneously references Plaintiff 's testimony in R- 121, claiming the

Plaintiff affirmed candidates had to prove citizenship to the Board. This section includes theOath of office ofthe Board of Election members. This Oath was renewed on July e" 2010

11 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


12/60

The pleadings then progress to establishing responsibility of the various players in thegame. There are many important points in those pleadings, none of which include a statementto the effect that the petitioner believes candidates are constitutionally required to prove tothe Board they are citizens. This is a misstatement of Meroni's position.

However, to address that point specifically. This is a question of Law. The candidatesmust be UScitizens (and of certain ages, no less then 18). There is no public posting of proofsuch that only one party in the contest has proof of eligibility, and therefore the election thatthey administer over is not "fair and equal" as required by the Illinois constitution (3rdAmendment). The ISBE(SBOE)eviscerates the voter's rights when they fail to assure thefairness ofthe election process. While they cannot make law, they are required to report tothe General Assembly. They have broad powers which include that they are bound by oath touphold the Illinois and USConstitution. Yet, they fail to do so. Who ultimately is responsiblefor holding the proof of USCitizenship, that question the petitioner deliberately does notaddress. Her point is that proof of citizenship should be part of the public record and availablefor examination during the application for ballot and subsequent objection period. Asubjectively derived and self certifying statement is not legally sufficient to establish fact ofcitizenship in the public record.

Lastly page 121 addresses the fact that barriers to contest citizenship ascurrentlyframed are an extreme barrier on the electorate. And that a constitutionally unstable or falseballot undermines the American electoral process with implications at all level ofthegovernment.

standard-of ReviewThe Defense is fundamentally wrong in arguing that this is a mixed question of fact and law.The Defense admits in its own pleadings there are no facts in dispute and that no facts wereever in dispute. Clearly there are only questions of law involved because there is no evidenceavailable, and therefore the question of law arises in this controversy.

12 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. Tosecurethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powersfrom theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of l ife, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitut ion Ar lSec 1 AND11- Bill of r ights


13/60

The correct standard of Review in this case is a Question of Law. Questions of Law arereviewed de nova. (Bill v Education Officers Electoral Board of Community Consolidated SchoolDistrict NO. 181, 299 JII.App.3d 548701 N.E.2d 26223311/. Dec. 619 (i"Dist. 1998)

Mixed questions of law and fact require the following (1) where historical facts areadmitted, (2) where rule of law is undisputed, and (3) where the only remaining issue iswhether the facts satisfy a statutory standard. Meroni's petition involves no facts. The Defenseand Plaintiff agree that there are no admitted facts. The Defense refuses to prove what factsare admitted because there were none.

Clearly there is a rule of law in dispute.Speaking of facts: There are no facts to judge because no facts are given, so what are

we to argue? We are to argue questions of law! Thus Ms. Reese's brief is in error. To be amixed question the rule of law must be undisputed. In this case the rule of law is what thedispute is about.

The offending laws do not require any public fact to establish proof of eligibility - Thereare no facts regarding eligibility. The Defense correctly argues there is "no dispute as the factpresented". This is because no facts are available in the public record to prove or not,eligibility. (Defense motion page 6 line 4)

If the question of Law to be considered is whether the objections meet the statutoryrequirement, then Defense has failed to provide any fact to prove that the objections were too vague.No evidence is presented affirming that the candidates objected to were confused or somehowprejudiced against because of confusion, nor that they did not understand what was asked of them. 11of the candidates challenged produced proof of citizenship.

The Defense deliberately ignores Plaintiffs 2nd statement. Her Objector petition must be read inits entirety to be understood.

Objections Insufficient asa Matter of Law:The State does not claim any case in point nor identify anyone who was unsure of what the

Petitioner was seeking, conveniently ignoring the definition of constitutional requirements in question-"all candidates for office must meet certain Constitutional requirements for off ice. A" candidates mustbe a specific age and be a Citizen of the United States of America to hold office in Illinois. (R 1 #2)

13IPageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. Tosecurethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shallbe deprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bi ll of r ights


14/60

The Legal Question here is: Does the Rule 4 allow broad based denial ofthe petitioner's 1st and14th Amendment Rights, aswell as Illinois Constitutional Rights (Article LSee1and 2; and Article III See 3)

u When reviewing challenges to a state's election laws, courts must weighthe urn'character and to the rights protected by the First and FourteenthAmendments .' against 'the precise interests put forward by the State asjustifications for the burden imposed by its rule.'O" Burdick v. Takushi, 504U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 2063, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) {quoting Andersonv. Celebrezze, 460 u.s. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 1570, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983.In applying this flexible standard, courts must also consider "the extent towhich those interests make it necessary to burden the Plaintiff's rights." Id.(quoting Anderson, 460 u.s. at 789, 103 S.Ct. at 1570) . If the state subjectsthese rights to "severe" restrictions, the regulations must be "narrowly drawnto advance a state interest of compelling importance," Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S.279, 289, 112 S.Ct. 698, 705, 116 L.Ed.2d 711 (1992); rnseeSocialist WorkersParty, 440 U.S. at 184, 99 S.Ct. at 990. If the state imposes reasonable,nondiscriminatory restrictions on these rights, however, the state's importantregulatory interests will generally be sufficient to justify the regulations.Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. at 2063-64. Libertarian Party v. Rednour"

10 ILCS 5/10-8 permits any voter having objections to any certificate of nomination ornomination papers the right to file objections within the 5 day qualifying period. In this case theobjection is based on insufficiency of the candidates papers, not because of proof that the candidate isspecifically lacking in constitutional sufficiency but because there is no fact in the public realm to discernthe constitutional Qualifications of the candidate. This is a Question of Law.

Motion to Strike and DismissPlease enter these exhibits as testimony provided during the SOEBhearings.Exhibit: Meroni Responds Constitution Party (R-120-146)Exhibit: Meroni Responds Boyd (R-147-162)Exhibit: Meroni Responds Libertarian Party ( R163 - 190)Exhibit Meroni Responds Gregg Moore (R190- 108)Exhibit Meroni Responds Stephen Estill (R- 209 -223)Exhibit Meroni Responds Carl Officer (R224- 239)Exhibit: Exception to the Hearing Officer's and General Counsel's Recommendation to GrantMotions to Strike and Dismiss. (Meroni Exhibits p 014-019)

14 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are li fe, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent ofthe governed. No person shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bill o f rights


15/60

Exhibit: EstillResponds(Meroni Exhibits033)

The SOEBdecision granting a motion to Strike and Dismiss to Carl Officer again reflectsthe Board over stepping it's authority in order to avoid the question at hand. Meroni did notreceive Mr. Officer's motions, and she alerted the Board and Mr. Officer ofthis (Meroni Exhibits06-07- Officer Email). In addition even after complaint was made about not receiving themotion, none were produced in the record. To Meroni's knowledge, Mr. Officer never made amotion to Strike and Dismiss, thus the Board, acting like the lawyer for Mr. Officer, pleading forhim. Essentially sua sponte, making motion for Mr. Office.

The same istrue of Mr. Stephen Estill. The Plaintiff is not aware of any Motion to Strikeand Dismiss from Mr. Estill. The motion Mr. Estill did file provided no response to Meroni'sobjection. Clearly it was insufficient. Bytaking on the role of Mr. Estill's counsel, the Boardviolated Meroni's rights to equal protection, the Hearing Officer obviously biased against herinterests with no fair arbitrator at the Board.

Ironically and incredibly, the Hearing Officer Menzel's ruling - affirmed by ISBE(SBOE)-effectively stepping in to protect Mr. Estill's insufficient pleading, while arguing the right to doso against Ms. Meroni's petitions on grounds her pleadings were insufficient. Essentially suasponte, making motion for Mr. Estill

I know huh?Mr. Moore failed to file a Strike and Dismiss Motion. His motion to dismiss was

inaccurate because it stated that the age and citizenship proof was in the filed papers. Had thisclaim been held in a Hearing under the weight of evidence standards, it would have beenproven clearly as false. Therefore the Board erred in granting essentially sua sponte a motionthat essentially assumed Mr. Moore's role as counsel, while arguing Ms. Meroni's deficiency inher part 3 of her petition.

Mr. Moore makes an interesting example for the Defense to use. First, the ISBE(SOEB)assumes a motion for Mr. Moore. (No Strike motion was submitted) secondly they decided togrant a motion he did not make depriving Meroni the natural effect of her right to object tocandidates legal qualifications to be on her ballot.

15 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotec tion of laws. (11Constitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bil l of r ights


16/60

Importantly - Thirdly, the petitioner had the opportunity to meet with and to speak withMr. Moore on a couple of occasions. A black man, he clearly has a strong foreign accent. Mr.Moore expressed some offense to the petitioner's objection to his candidacy saying anyoneshould be able to run for office, regardless of citizenship status. Still, he proudly affirmed he isproud to be a Naturalized Citizen. Meroni assured Mr. Moore that her objection was notprejudicial to him, and that she had objected to all of the candidates. Mr. Moore promised tosend Meroni a copy of his naturalization papers, but to her knowledge, he has thus far failed todo so.

If the Petitioner had accessto Mr. Moore during the 5 day period, or earlier, and hadobjected strictly based on his accent, then the Constitutional Rights (1st and 14th) of both thecandidate and the objector would be infringed upon. Further the objector at that point couldonly assert a reason based on profiling and thus is forced by the insufficiency of the Statue, toissues related to "1983" and civil rights infractions.

Shon-Tijan Santiago Horton makes a different case. During the 5 day objection period,the only information the Petitioner had about Horton was his name. "Shon Tijan SantiagoHorton" Unfamiliar, with the ethnic background of Mr. Horton's name, on the face of hisapplication, Meroni was unable to discern if he was a man or woman, let alone his citizenshipstatus. As it works out, Mr. Horton provided his birth certificate. Thus while he is not aDefendant in this case, his case is germane because the Petitioners objection to his candidacywas rejected in the Board's erroneous sua sponte Rule 4 decision.

To the point of civil rights, if either of these candidates had been challenged andargument in support of that objection was based on accents or ethnicity of the name, thePetitioner could be held in violation of civil rights profiling. Thusly, affording rights unequallybetween candidates and the voters is costly in many regards, not the least of which is creatingan unnatural civil rights tension between voters and candidates; which are easily resolved be itnot for this restrictive and unconstitutional law. (10 ILCS5/10) The petitioner is denied herright to assesscandidates except through profiling as a consequence of this deficient statute.

The Luck of the Draw Worksheets filed out for each candidate succinctly illustrates thedifficulty of the problem. (R145-146, 161,177-183, 206-207, 223, and 225). There is no rational

16 I P a g eAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1AND11- Bill of rights


17/60

legal basis to use to discern constitutional mandates establishing "legally qualifications" in thepublic record. Related to Standing and Remedy (R- 136)

Invoking Rule 4 - Sua Sponte and to Strike ObjectionsPlease review "Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommendation to Invoke Rule4 Sua Sponte

and to Strike Objections in their entirety" (Meronl Exhibits pages 08~013)In addition, Plaintiff assets - Christopher Pederson: This candidate brings a unique challenge to

this Legal question. In the first instance, the ISBE(SBOE)erred in accepting his candidate fil ings becauseon the surface they were clearly insufficient. This shows complete disregard for its duties as required byLaw (Election Code 10 ILCS 5/10) and judicial rulings (Druck).

Incredibly the ISBElater attempts to shift the responsibility for its lack of governance to thePlaintiff stating without any legal authority that this is an issue she should have with the Legislature,effectively eviscerating the election process, especially since the election code 10 LlCS5/10 - 8 allowsobjectors a 5 day time to assesscandidates for ballot placement according to being legally qualifiedand it is the ISBE(SOEB)ministerial mandate to advice the Legislature and make policy, not thepetitioners. (10 ILCS 5-1a)

Druck is particularly interesting because it rules against candidate access. The candidate, Druckwas denied ballot access because ofthe number of voter signatures in his nomination papers. (Druckthought his attorney Spiegel) argued that the Apparent Conformity standards were randomly enforcedthrough the objection process. " (2) whether Druck's first and fourteenth amendmentrights are violated if the signature requirements for ballot access insection 10-2 of the election code are only enforced when the objections arefiled pursuant to section 10-8 of the election code" (Druck v. Illinois State Board ofElections [1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26,2008 pg 2)

The court decided 1) the nomination papers have to be filed as required by the Code and (2) thenomination papers have to be in apparent conformity with the provisions the election code 10 ICLS5/10-8 (West 2006) (Druck v. Illinois State Board of Elections [1-08-2440] Fourth Division November 26,2008Pg 14)

The Defense does not argue or present evidence that any candidate was confused by theobjection. It assumed the deficiency, standing in as counsel and making argument for the candidates,prejudicially in their favor, and denying her any right to a hearing on the question of merits.

17 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, l iberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. Tosecurethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent ofthe governed. Noperson shallbe deprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due process of law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1 AND11- Bill of r ights


18/60

The 4th rule needs to be struck as providing the Illinois Board of Elections assumed powers. Thisis a first impression case on this rule. The Defense provides no legal justification for the right to imposethis Rule 4. Petitioner would like to brief specifically about it.

AmendingJllinois CodeThe petitioner believes it is well within the wisdom, mandates and abilities for the

General Assembly and the ISBE (SBOE) to fulfill their mandated responsibilities, and surely thatrole should not be given to a mere voter.

The Defense mischaracterizes the petitioner by refusing to admit that the petitionerattempted to resolve this issue of law within the processes of the board along with her right toobject, the core of the disagreement is over the law.

"Iwould ask the Board, what would you likeme to state and to prove that myballot is constitutional and that my candidates are eligible" (Pg90 Line 16-18 )

"One of the options that I made for all, because I recognize the difficulty of thisproblem. The IllinoisGenerol Assembly has not done their job. The ISBEhas not donetheir job. You have not recommended that we have a security issue related to our ballotthat anybody basically - right now, Mickey Mouse could sign up and get on there as longas nobody objects to it.

Nobody has done their job in that regard. And I recognize that. I'm sympatheticto it. But what Idon't understand is what we're going to do ABOUTMY BALLOTINNovember. Because when you guys turn down ... and Ifully understand that my optionsof winning here, my chances of winning in this board is very small. Okay... but when youturn it down, the consequences are going tobe that I'm going to court.

And I am here to say our country right now is in a huge problem. Chicago is too.Is there any way that we can avoid court? I would like to try to do that as part of ourconversation today.

And I also want to go to some of these candidates and say, if you.... If the Boardmakes this decision today, and you decide that, yes, you are going to... you are going tohold these objections up (meaning deny the Objector her Hearing on the merits-

18 I P 3 g eAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall bedeprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


19/60

clarification in words added) then you've now got all of these candidates that all theyhad to do was show me a birth certificate and I would withdraw my objection to themand they would not have to go on to the next level of civilcourt.

And Iknow you may not be able to jorcibly say "present your certifications" butyou can recommend it. There's nothing in the policies and procedures that wouldprohibit that.{pg 92-93)

Second: Response to Defense quoting -The full transcripts state."And the arguments don't say that I'm not entitled to the information. They just say

procedurally that there's no process. But if you don't provide me the process, how can I be inconformity under my five-day objection period?

I know you guys are a ministerial body. I know you don't set laws. I know you're notgoing to address constitutional issues. That's not your role potentially. But this is an issue ofprocess. I want to have a ballot that Iknow is valid. I can't do that going to the GeneralAssembly" (R- 95) In this context by process, Meroni affirms she was referring to the fact thatthe law does not provide for a process that the ISBE enforces assuring constitutional eligibility-The ISBE (SBOE) doesn't enforce any apparent conformity standards.

The comment in relation to the General Assembly refers to the fact that saveextraordinary legislative action, nothing can be done in the General Assembly to assurecandidates on Meroni's upcoming 2010 ballot are constitutionally (legally) qualified.

This is clearly a question of law.

"IfPlaintiffwishes to see the Statement of Candidacy provision changed, then herrecourse is with the legislature and not with the Board" ( Defense motion - P 9 lines 6-9)Defense fails to establish legal sufficiency or legal precedence imposing this limitation on herright to vote and is clearly wrong.

Delay V Board of Elections is important because the Court affirms in Delay that the Board cannottake an interested role in the proceedings, thus Meroni asserts in fact this ruling does apply to her point

19 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protect ion of proper ty, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent ofthe governed. No person shall be depr ived of li fe, liber ty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 A ND 11- Bill of rights


20/60

that the Board exceeded its authority when devising motions for candidates and then deciding on thatmotion, sua sponte. Defense has not presented case law to substantiate the usage of sua sponte.

The Defense complains about Plaintiff's lack of case law to prove her position in opposition of theBoard's erroneous usage of sua sponte, yet refuses to cite any legal cause for their extraordinary usageof power and in support of their Rule 4, Rules of Procedure as adopted by the Board at its July 6, 2010meeting. (Defense motion p 12 Line 15-19); or of their usage of sua sponte motions - both as Motions toStrike and Dismiss and in the Rule 4 usage.

III :Addjtioi'laJ-lssues - Apparent ConformityIn relation to apparent conformity, besides constitutional requirement, having consistent

standards holds considerable weight from judicial viewpoints. '[ A]s a practical matter, there must bea substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order,rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process' "quoting Storer v. Brown, 415US.724, 730, 39 L. Ed. 2d 714, 723, 94 S. Ct. 1274, 1279 (1974),

When the word "shall" appears in a legislative provision, courts have generally interpreted theprovision to be mandatory Watson v. Howard, 322 III. App. 3d 562, 565, 749 N.E.2d 427, 429 (2001);Niziolek v. Chicago Transit Authority, 251111.App.3d537, 541, 189111.Dee.780, 620 N.E.2d 1097 (1993).

In Druck V ISBE the Court states "Wefind, based upon our reading of the ElectionCode, (1) that section 10-2 of the Election Code imposes signature requirements; (2) that section10-8 imposes conditions precedent for nomination papers to be valid before a candidate's nameisplaced on the ballot; (3) that section 1O~14 requires the SBOE, the election authority withwhom the nomination papers arefiled, to certify the papers; and (4) that, if the nominationpapers are valid on their face and the election official does not remove the candidate's namefrom the ballot, section 10-8 provides a vehicle for an objector to challenge the nominationpapers. 10 ILCS 5/10-2, 10-8 (West 2006).

This Judicial opinion supports the ministerial (not discretionary) requirement of the ISBEto enforce apparent conformity standards. It also affirms that 10-8 rightfully provides a vehiclefor the objector to challenge nomination papers. However, in the instance of constitutionalmandates of age and citizenship, the subject at hand, that vehicle is denied its intended effect forthe petitioner because of a lack of fact in the public record.

20 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and havecertain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. Noperson shall be deprived of l ife, l iberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bil lof rights


21/60

To avoid questions of fact from entering into this dispute, Meroni agreed to remove allobjections from candidates who produce proof of citizenship. This was the only option available to herin light of the deficiency of the Statute. (10 ILSC5/10-8)

Candidate's potential claims of privacy issueswhen the constitutional mandates forpublic office is citizenship would not sustain a judicial review, based on the merits. Surely, thePublic's right to know would prevail.

IV Conclus ionThat this matter is exclusively a matter of law, and that the Judge examines the Law questions,

de nova. These cases do raise a judiciable controversy under the Constitution and cannot be relegatedto the political arena.

That the Primary question of law involved: Is the public entitled to a public record affirming thatUSand Ill inois Constitutional mandates are met, especially as relates to age and citizenship?

That the court will allow the petitioner to amend her remedies to be as follows:To rule as a point of law denying the Board the right to act as the moving party in the

proceedings for motions of Strike and Dismiss.To rule that Rule 4 restricts the due process rights of the Petitioner and is unconstitutional.That the Court will answer - Is there a fundamental due process, and 1stand 14t h Amendment

controversy, especially equal protection violations caused by the insufficiency of 10-5/10-5 and 1- 5/10-8.

There is a National Security issue to assure only elected officials are holding office. Thepetitioner seeks leave to write a brief on this.

To find that 10 ILSC5/10-8 is unconstitutional because it fails to assure a process whereby proofof citizenship and age is included in the public record, especially during the 5 day contest period.

That Constitutional mandates are never moot, that the Court, in it's judicial wisdoms, assureproof of citizenship is kept available in the public record for as long as required.

That the Court find that in order to affirm an application of legally qualified, evidentiary proofof meeting all milestones of legal compliance with the specifications of "legally qualified" becomes partofthe public record.

21IPageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of proper ty, governments are insti tuted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or protection without due process of law nor be denied the equalprotect ion of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1 AND 11- Bill of rights


22/60

That the Court would rule on the problem of the term for legally qualified on the Statements ofCandidacy being too general and leaving the term to the subjective interpretation of the self interestedpolitician. Therefor definitions of legally qualified must be made public.

That the Court rule it is unconstitutional to keep from the public apparent conformity standardsand that these should be kept in the public view.

That the court rule the Board acted outside of its authorities in granting the motion to Strike andDismiss and the Rule 4 sua sponte, depriving the petitioner of her various constitutional rights,especially 1st and 14th.

The Court permits the petitioner time to prepare a Writ of Mandamus to seekingtestimony from the Board about how it secures the constitutional integrity of the ballot, and toaccount for its willful disregard of the Court's and Law requiring them to practice and enforceapparent conformity standards.

In lieu of a Writ, that the Court rule as judicially empowered on the issue of the Board'sfailure to perform it's ministerial duties.

Meroni seeks the Court to bring grant other reliefs she is entitled to.

22 I P ageAll men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To securethese rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall bedeprived of l ife, liberty or protection wi thout due processof lawnor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (II Constitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bil lof rights

~~ ----------------------------


23/60


24/60

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI certify I have served, through email and through the US Postal Service, the defendantswere served via their attorney of record, Jessica Reeves. At the address know for her at the

Illinois State Board of Elections in Springfield

CANDIDATES:JEFF TREXLERMICHAEL LWHITEGARY DUNLAPLOUIS COTTONTIMOTHY BECKERDAWN CZARNYBILL MALANJAMES PAULYJOSH HANSONJUILEFOXMIKELABNOED RUTLEDGELEX GREENGREGG MOORECARL E. OFFICERWILLIE BOYD, JRCOREY DABNEYEDMUND J. SCANLONCHRISTOPHER PEDERSEN

on September 20,2010SHARON MERONI~;I/~>

24 IP~;;c C1 C "-Ail men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among them are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness. To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed. No person shall be deprived of l ife, liberty or protection without due processof law nor bedenied the equalprotection of laws. (IIConstitution Ar lSec 1AND 11- Bi ll of rights


25/60

Meron i's Exh ib it sCNN pg. 001 - 002Mark Shelder - Apparent Conformity pg. 003 - 005Officer Emails pg. 006 - 007

Exception: - Motions to Strike and Dismiss pg. 008 - 013Exception - to Rule 4 sua sponte pg. 014 - 020Meroni v ISSE - McHenry County pg. 021 - 032Estill Response to Objections , pg. 033


26/60

OPINIONRESEARCH

..I oa.

Interviews with 1,018 adult Americans,including 335 Democrats, 398Independents, and 285 Republicans, nducted by telephone by OpinionResearcb Corporation on July 16-21, 2010. The margin of sampling errorfor results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.Results in this document labelled "All Americans" or "Total" are based onthis sample of 1,018 adults.

FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4 AT 11 AM

_ ~ I OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION 10 -1- July 16-21,2010

------.---------------------


27/60

41. Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the UnitedStates, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?July 16-21, 2010

AllAmericans Democrats Independents Republicans

Defmitely born in U.S.Probably born in the U.S.Probably born in another countryDefinitely born in another countryNo opinion

42%29%16%11%2%

64%21%7%8%1%

37%31%17%12%2%

23%34%27%14%3%

. ~ I OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION 10 -2- July 16-21,2010002....


28/60

ent Conformity I Blog - Champaign County Clerk, IL - Mark Shelden http://blog.champaigncolIDtyclerkcom/2009/08/05/apparent-confor

Home Blog PoliciesAug 052009Apparent ConformityPublished by Champaign County Clerk at 10:07am under ElectionsChallenges to nominating papers are a brutal reality in Illinois politics. Hundreds of decisions have been rendered around the State eitherremoving people from the ballot or sustaining their right to be on the ballot. The primary vehicle for removing someone from the ba1lotisthrough the objection process. This iswhere an interested voter objects to the nominating papers of a candidate or a public question.A less known course, and far less taken, is for an Election Official to refuse to file or certify a candidate. The justification for thisis found inthe Illinois Election Code.

Certificates of nomination and nomination papers, and petitions to submit public questions to a referendum, being filed as requiredby this Code, and being in apparent conformity [emphasis added] with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to be validunless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination ornomination papers or petition for a public question (10 ILCS 5/10-8)A 1914 Illinois Supreme Court case, Giese v. Dillon, also provides some guidance on this concept.

The statute imposes the absolute duty on the clerk to submit the question to be voted upon when a petition is filed in compliancewith the statute. He is given no discretionary power when a petition proper on its face is filed. His only function is to determinewhether, upon the face of the petition, it is in compliance withthe law. (Giese v. Dillon, 266 Ill. 272)

Around the State, Election Authorities have been loathe to play the "apparent conformity card". It has been subject to substantial debatebecause the defmition of apparent conformity is not, well, apparent. In one case, the court conceded that there is substantial grey area in thematter, while ruling that on the particular issue apparent conformity had not been met. Election Authorities have often asked that this be betterclarified in the Election Code.In Champaign County, we likewise have been reluctant to refuse a filing based on apparent conformity. I consider it to be an extraordinaryremedy and one that should not be used when others are available and when, in the absence of employing the remedy, no harm will be done tothe election process. The one time we rejected nominating papers based on the lack of apparent conformity was in 2003 when the Green Partywas trying to claim established political party status in Champaign based on Carl Estabrook's race for Congress in 2002. At the time, there was

9/2012010


29/60

pp ar en t Conform ity I Blo g - Champ aign County C lerk, 1 L - M ark Shelden http://b log .ch ampaignc oun ty clerk.coml20 09/08/0 5/app arent-confor

some idea that our office might accept the nominating papers and allow the objection process to play out. I decided against that because Irealized there could be harm to the election process (we would have been required to print Green Party ballots for every precinct in the Countyfor the March 2004 Primary election). While the objection process might have resolved the issue, there was no guarantee that it would. I wassued over the decision and the Circuit Court agreed with my actions.Shortly thereafter, we established our own guidelines as to what apparent conformity is. We also created an extensive information sheet toguide candidates through the requirements. Here is what we look for in order to accept a filing. First, the nomination papers must contain asigned and notarized statement of candidacy and at least one petition. Second, the statement of candidacy must have an office that is ontheballot and the party (for the primary filing period) must be one that is established (Green, Democratic, and Republican). Notable isthe fact thatin the past we have not counted signatures in Champaign County prior to filing. This is probably the most contentious element in the apparentconformity debate.Our reason for not counting signatures was two fold. First, ifthe nominating papers conform as above, there is really no injury to the processby allowing a candidate on the ballot who falls short of the signature requirements. Second, there is a suitable remedy available for others toremove the person from the ballot. Third, while the statutes define the signature requirements, they have been subject to much review by thecourts and in fact some signature requirements were struck down in 2006 by a Federal Court. Fourth, there isa potential for an arbitraryelement to be applied in counting the signatures. (Unregistered voters, incomplete or missingaddresses, invalid signatures, etc.)However, a number of Appellate Court decisions (none in our own 4th District) have been issued in the last decade that have a less strictinterpretation of apparent conformity. In my eyes, rejecting a filingis an extraordinary remedy, like an injunction or restraining order. I thinkthe recent apparent conformity cases consider it to be a less serious and more ministerial matter. Of interest might be these cases.

Nomination petitions that on their face lack the number of signatures required for ballot access in section 10-2are not inconformity of the Election Code. (Druck v. State Board of Elections, 326 Ill. Dec. 220)For example, by examining the face of the petition, a clerk can determine whether it contains the requisite number of signatures.(Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.) If it does not, the petition is not in apparent conformity withthe election statutes and the clerk has noduty to certify the question for the ballot. (North v. Hinkle. 295 Ill. App. 3d 84)

In light of these and other cases, we will be counting the number of signature lines filled on petitions to make sure they meet the minimumpublished guidelines and to reject those petitions that don't meet that threshold. We willnot be checking the validity of those signatures.At the State Board of Elections level there was an interesting filing for the 2002 election. Marisellis Brown filed to run for Governor as anIndependent candidate in December 2001 with a statement of candidacy and a single petition sheet with a single signature. The requirement atthat time was for 25,000 signatures. The State Board accepted the filing, no one objected, and Brown appeared on the November 2002 ballot.If you apply the past standards for Champaign County above you'll see that our office would have handled it the same way. Under the newstandards, we would refuse the filing.

f6 9/20/201 02:5


30/60

arent Conformity ISlog - Champaign County Clerk, IL - Mark Shelden http://blog.champaigncolmtyclerk.com/2009/08/05/apparent-confor

More dubious I feel was the State Board of Elections' handling of the Alan Keyes Presidential filing in November 2007 for the February 2008Primary. The filingfor Keyes included just five petition sheets and no statement of candidacy. No valid objection was filed and Keyesremained on the ballot, absent any written notice from him that he wanted to be on the ballot. We would not have accepted the filingunderour standard in Champaign County. Once again, we would be looking at the potential injury. Without a sworn statement of candidacy, itwould be possible for someone to put a person on the ballot without their knowledge orconsent.Like many areas of election law, there is a lack of clarity in the statute that occasionally gets settled in court, only to find the matter oncemorein dispute in future elections. Anyone wanting more background onthis issue can read some of the cases below.Jenkins v. McIlvain, 338 Ill. App. 3d 113Welch v. Educational Officers Electoral Board for Proviso High School District 209. 255 Ill. Dec 641Haymore v. OlT,et. a12008, 325 1lIDec. 89Bruns v. Kuntz, Unpublished Iroquois County caseOne response so farOne Response to "Apparent Conformity"

1. # Champaign County Clerk on 24 Aug 2010 at 9:08 am by Auditor Referendum Will Not Be on November Ballot I Blog - ChampaignCounty Clerk, IL - Mark Shelden[...] have writ ten in the past about the principle of apparent conformity. This decision I ammaking today comports well with what I havewritten in the past. Of[ ...]

Trackback URI I Comments RSSLeave a Reply

NameMail (hidden)Website

0f6 9/20/20102


31/60

Page lof lSubj:Date:From:To:According to the fist sent out, Mr. Spiegel is representing Mr, Walls and Mr. Scanlan. This is my secondnotification I have not received a response.

Re: Meroni v Officer 10 SOEB GE 537 - Motion for extension of time [granted]7112/201011:12:37 P.M . Central Daylight Time. ,~ ,

In a message dated 7/9/2010 5:49:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected]:Thank you -I believe you are also representing a couple of additional candidates? I have only receivedthis one.Thanks,SharonIn a message dated 7/9/2010 5:27:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected]:

ISharon :Here is the consolidated motion on behalf of the Libertarian CandidatesCopy was already sent to the hearing Officer.Andrew B. Spiegel

Monday, September 20,2010 America Online: Angelica37


32/60

Subj:Date:F rom :R eply -to :To: tI never received in themail.Mr. Officer's response. Not knowing what to'do, Lhcve respondedwithout it and ask that I be allowed to amend my response ... if needed.

Sharon Meroni Response to Carl E. Officer7/15/201012:19 :54 P.M . Centra l D a ylig ht T ime

A lso , should I snail mail this to Mr. Officer? I do not have a fax.Please contact me if there are any issues.God Bless,Sharon

(So)Monday, September 20, 2010 America Online: Angelica37

Page 1of1


33/60

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS )) SS)OUNTY OF COOK

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED STATEOFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARDSTATE OF ILLINOISIN THE MATTER OF: )SHARON ANN MERONI )Objector, )

VS. ))JEFF TREXLER ) 10 SOEB GE 524MICHAEL L. \iVI-IITE ) 10 SOEB GE 532GARY DUNLAP ) 10 SOEB GE 533

LOUIS COTTON ) 10 SOEB GE 534,TIMOTHY BECKER } 10 SOEB GE 535DA\-\TN CZAR.NY' } 10 SOEB GE 541)BILL MALAN ) 10 SOEB GE 526JAMES PAULY ) 10 SOEB GE 527JOSH HANSON ) 10 SOEB GE 528jUILEFOX ) 10 SOEB GE 529MIKE LABNO } 10 SOEB GE 530ED RUTLEDGE ) 10 SOEB GE 543LEX GREEN ) 10 SOEB GE 544}GREGG MOORE } 10 SOEB GE 525)CARL E. OFFICER } 10 SOEB GE 537}STEPHEN F. ESTILL ) 10 SOEB GE550)'W1LLIE BOYD,JR. ) 10 SOEB GE 553Candidates. )

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER'S Al'JD GENERAL COUNSEL'SRECOMMENDATION TO GRANT MOTIONS TO STRIKE Al~D DISMISS (Al~D/ORFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)A.NDMOTION TO DISMISS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HJ:


34/60

2

recommendations to the Board to grant the Motions to Strike and Dismiss (and/or for SummaryJudgment) filed in the above referenced matters and filing this Motion to set aside therecommendations.1. Mr. Ken Wenzel is the Hearing Officer, Mr. Steve Sandvoss is the General Counsel who

have made recommendation in this matter to the ISBE through the SOES.2. Verified Objector's Petitions were timely filed on June 28, 2010 with respect to each of theCandidates. No one has claimed a lack of timeliness or found deficiency in the Objector's

Statement of Interest filed according to 10 ILCS 5/10-8Any legal voter of the political subdivision or district in which thecandidate ... having objections to any certificate of nomination ornomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector's petition....he objector's petition shall give the objector's name and residenceaddress, and shall state fully the nature of the objections to thecertificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions in question,and shall state the interest of the objector and shall state what reliefis requested of the electoral board.

3. The Objector's Statement of Interest states the Objector's" interest in filing the following objections is that of a citizen

desirous of seeing to it that the Illinois and US Constitutions areupheld, laws governing the filing of nomination papers for a candidate forelection to the office of are properlycomplied with and/or that only a qualified candidate would appear upon theballot as a candidate for said office."

4. Neither of the Recommendations addresses the Constitutional issues raised in theObjector's Statement of Interest.

5. The two Recommendations seek to circumvent the Objectors Standing and therefore'Interests' without legal cause and without finding insufficiency in the Objector's Interestwhich is in the Spirit and Intent of all Election Law as set out in the Illinois and USConstitution.

6. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board ofElections that her Civil Rights are violated by their lack of governance in this matter.

7. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board ofElections that her various US and Illinois Constitutional Rights are violated by their lack ofgovernance in this matter. (Especially, but not exclusively, US Bill of Rights, Illinois Bill ofRights, Illinois Article III, Section 3 & 4)

8. The US and Illinois Constitution requires all Candidates for office be US and Illinois Citizens.The Soard refuses to permit any process by which Objectors can exercise their (her) right toObject and/or verify "Legally Qualified" during the 5 day period.

2


35/60

3

9. The Hearing Officer and General Counsel seem to believe the Petitioner is magical and canproduce evidentiary testimony when the process and those administrating it refuse torequire it.10. The Recommendations fail to address critical Civil Rights Issue and seek to dismiss withoutmerit the Objector's uncontested Interest to uphold the Laws and the Constitution.11. The Objector has claimed her Civil Rights are violated by the Board's, and it's lawful agents,lack of correct governance and refusal to act upon their oath to uphold the US and IllinoisConstitution.

Civil Rights violations exist because there is no way for the Objector to identify thequalifications of candidates except to use "Profiling" evidence.(See Exhibits from the MeroniResponse) Also this example is clearer shown in a recent related issue in Missouri ( HectorMaldonado candidate for US Senate Letter on Scribd and Mr. Maldanado on video declaringhis Civil Rights were violated)12. Civil Rights violations exist because the issue places an unnatural tension between theCandidates running for office and those that wish to object when no evidence is available toobjectively evaluate that candidate.13. Civil Rights and Due Process violations exist based on a lack of legal statutes that prove"Must and Shall" constitutional qualifications for the position applied for are met, andbecause of the lack of an official process by which Candidates - who are almost alwaysmore than willing to prove their Citizenship - can in fact prove their qualifications.14. Due Process violation: The only party that has access to the information affirming LegallyQualified is the candidate.

15. The Hearing Officer in refusing to hold hearings, had deprived the Objector's uncontestedStanding and Interest to examine the Candidate's claims of being Legally Qualified.16. The Recommendations claim:

" The Objector does not raise, reference or cite any requirement under theIllinois Election Code indicating that the Candidates must provide theproof she desires to see, and there is no allegation as to any specificElection Code requirement(s) which any of the Candidates are alleged tohave violated with regard to the Petitions."

17. RESPONSE - The Objector's Petition lays out the full objection as she understands it.There is no proof of the Candidate's affirmation available in the public record. The Objectorcan not specify a deficiency without alleging information that she has no way to acquire,especially during the brief 5day objection period.

18. RESPONSE - That Recommendation (above) violates various Illinois and US Constitutionalrights, not exclusive to, but especially Due Process.19. RESPONSE - The recommendations do not argue that there is another path by which theinformation could be obtained.

3010


36/60

4

20. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer fails to find the Objector is deficient in her claim thatinsufficient evidence exists in the nomination papers, only that she could not produce whatdoes not exist in the public record.21. RESPONSE - The Recommendations do not argue she is not entitled to the information,only that procedurally there is no process to provide it - Establishing the Board's deficiency.22. RESPONSE - Fails to state that the Board is not required to provide information provinglegally qualified - only that it has not done so.23. RESPONSE - The Objector makes her Objection to each candidate, not based on non-existent code but on the USA and Illinois Constitution to which the Board and all of itsAgents, Codes and Rules must answer to and uphold.24. RESPONSE - The Objector cannot refer to some law or rule that does not exist.25. RESPONSE - The lack of.existence of a law, rule or regulation to prove constitutionaleligibility is not the fault of the Objector, but it is the responsibility of the IBSE in itsAdministration role.26. The Recommendations Claim:and .,. shall state what relief is requested of the electoral board. H

"Each of the Candidates signed standard forms of Statement of Candidacy whichincluded, verbatim, the language averring to their qualifications for officethat is required under Section 10-5 of the Illinois Election Code (10 ILCS5/10-5) . Those averments are unrebutted, and nothing could be presented bythe Obj ector within the proper scope of hearing the Obj ections that wouldrebut them."27. RESPONSE - I cannot rebuke statements without a public record to do so.28. RESPONSE - Relief requested is

WHEREFORE, your Objector respectfully requests that the petition papers of__________________________________ , as a candidate for, be declared insufficient and not in----~------~--~~----~--~--compliance vrith the laws of the State of Illinois

29. RESPONSE - When the Relief is granted, it is step 1 and step 2. If the Nomination papersare insufficient, then the candidate is not placed on the ballot.30. "The Candidate's nomination papers are insufficient because theyfail to demonstrate and/or provide documentation that the candidate

meets the constitutional requirements for office."31. RESPONSE - The Objector petition is specifically phrased because the Objector is unableto prove or disprove the Candidate's affirmation of being 'Legally Qualified" because noevidence is available in the public record.

401 I


37/60

5

32. RESPONSE - The ISSE fails to provide a definition for "Legally Qualified" such that theObjector can exercise her rights with Due Process.33. Through the March 2010 TRO, (Meroni Vs Illinois State Soard of Elections) and the letter tothe ISSE (Exhibit 2) the Objector has openly informed the Soard and attempted to follow upseeking to testify and or present these various deficiencies to the Soard.34. The Objector takes particular issue with the Hearing Officer's blatant attempt to mis-characterize her legally filed response to the Candidates listed above as rambling and notrelated to the matter. The Hearing Officer makes this statement devoid of any cause of Lawor without citing any evidence, attempting to prejudice this process without proving hisridiculous affirmation. He makes this statement clearly demonstrating he does not grasp theconstitutional issues raised, or without demonstrating any respect to the Citizen's rights andthe tremendous effort involved in these Objections -35. Also without cause of evidence to prove his claim the Hearing Officer places the following

unsubstantiated statement into the Public Record.The Objector appears to have some passing awareness that there arelongstanding legal remedies provided at law should an unqualified personsomehow be elected (e.g. quo warranto) and that the law provision fordealing with the situation (e.g. the doctrine of de facto officers) butfinds them unsatisfactory.

36. This statement is presented without proof and is prejudicial to the process, clearly trying toshift the burden of responsibility from wherein it currently remains, with the ISSE and its AgentMr, Menzel and Mr. Sandvoss who have the responsibility, as their Oaths require, to upholdthe US and Constitution.37. Objector was told in the March 2010 TRO testirnony.tjvleroni V ISSE) by your counsel,Mark Ishu, that she had to exercise her options through ISBE Administrative processes (seetranscripts from the Court Proceedings)38. The Objector went through the procedures and has standing and is still denied access toany information whatsoever establishing the Legal Cause to claim the candidates are legallyqualified ..39. FURTHER RESPONSES - The ISSE incorrectly identified Mr Gregg Moore, Mr. StephenEstill, Mr. Carl Officer as having filed "Motions to Strike and Dismiss" when they did not filethese Motions.

40. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer failed to rule on the specific motions by the variousparties. Specifically, the Hearing Officer and General Counsel failed to address the filings ofMr Gregg Moore, Mr. Stephen Estill, Mr. Carl Officer.41. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer and General Counsel erred in their assessment of thefil ings of Mr Gregg Moore, Mr. Stephen Estill, Mr. Carl Officer.

OiL 5


38/60

6

42. RESPONSE - Contrary to Illinois code 10 ICLCS 5/8 - 8 and legal bindings andresponsibilities(Specifically, the clerk s duty is to determine whether, upon theface of the petition, it is in compliance with the law. Dillon, 266Ill. at 276.)The ISBE does not use Apparent Conformity Standards to vet applications and nowprovides no way for the citizenry to do so either.

43. The ISBE fails to set or post clear Apparent Conformity Standards so the public understandwhat qualifications the Applicants on the Ballot have.44. The ISBE Fails to have any Apparent Conformity Standards and in direct opposition to it'sresponsibilities45. The Board of Elections fails to provide a definition for 'legally qualified' creating a due

process violation for the petitioner who wishes to challenge the legal qualifications of thecandidates46. No Candidate's (listed above) papers provide evidence that the Candidate is legallyqualified. Therefore the Objector has offered each candidate the opportunity to prove they arecitizens, and then she will withdraw her objection.47. Rule /I-B and E Objections to Circulators provides the "Competent evidence" may bepresented to prove eligibility. Yet no such rule specifies "competent evidence" that will provethe same standard for Candidates.48.4 Candidates have provided proof of citizenship: These candidates' objections wereremoved.49. The Objector moves to

1) Set aside/Deny the Motions to Strike and Dismiss of the candidates for the ConstitutionParty and the Libertarian slate, along with Mr. Boyd and to allow Hearings to proceed asrequired to establish Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.2) Set aside the Hearing Officer's bizarre recommendations as relates to motions neverfiled by Mr. Moore, Mr. Officer, and Mr. Estill.3) Request all candidates objected to voluntarily submit proof of Citizenship, with a raisedseal birth certificate or naturalization papers. This will reduce the need for further

litigation4) The Hearing Officers unsubstantiated statements in point above (34 and35) be strickenfrom the record for a lack of proof.

Respectfully Submitted,

SHARON A MERONI PROSE

6

/

8/8/2019 Meroni v ISBE - Meroni Responds

meroni v isbe - meroni responds to reese 10-09-20

Documents