Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/79292578/Obama-Motion-to-Dismiss-Illinois-Ballot-Challenge
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 07:27:27
Document Index: 336395411

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§\n11', '§ 15', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1']

Description: Please visit obamaballotchallenge.com for news on all of the Obama ballot challenges nationwide.
Please visit obamaballotchallenge.com for news on all of the Obama ballot challenges nationwide.
JRN-24-2012 08:51P FROM: 81/24/2812
12:32 312-814-1863
TO:18669082252
IL STATE 8D ELECTION
PAGE 62/30
ras MATTER
OF OBJECTIONS BY
~ No.12SOEBGP )
The Undersigned enters the appearance of (clrcle ODe):
13 A SA c.~
OBJECTOR~
QeAIY) zt
Appearing (circle one): Pro Se I ~
EMA1L
JRN-24-2012 08:51P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
312-B14-1863
IL STATE BD ELECTION
TO: 18659082252
PAGE 03/3B
FOR THE HEARING OF AND PASS1NG UPON OBJECTIONS TO THE NOMlNATION PAPERS FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF
BEFORE THE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS OF
TO THE NOMINATION PAPERS OF BARACK TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MARCH 20, 2012 PruMARY ELECTIONS.
STATES TO BE VOTED UPON AT THE OBAMA AS A CANDIDATE FOR NOMJNATION
~ )~ SotB GP JO~
CANDrpATE'S MOtION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS OBJECTOR'S PETITION
NOW COMES Respondent-Candidate Baraek Obama, by his attorneys. Michael Kreloff
and Michael J. Kasper, and moves to strike and dismiss the Objector's Petition, and in support
thereof. states as follows:
A. Objector Failed to Comply With Section 10-8, Never Stating "Objector's Interest" In Filing the Objection, Nor Any Appropriate Relief Within the Power of the Electoral
Doom ••
Pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/10-8 of the Election Code, an Objector to nominating papers and petitions must allege certain mandatory allegations: "The objector's petition shall give the
objector's name and residence address, and shall state
fully the nature of the objections to
the ... nomination papers or petitions in question. and shall state the interest of the objector and shall state what relief is requested of the electoral board." (emphasis added). First, nowhere in the entire document is any mention made of Objector's alleged interest,
rendering the Objection fatally defective. Second, the Objection fails to seek any relief directed at the March 20, 2012 Primary election ballot. Rather. Objector seeks "prohibition" of President Obama "on the U.S. Presidential ballot." Whether:Mr. Obama is placed upon the "U .5. Presidential ballot" is a decision to be made by the Democratic National Nominating Convention next summer. Said
JAN-24-2012 08:51P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:38
312-814-1853
TO: 18669082252 PAGE
prayed- for relief is outside the scope of authority of the Electoral Board. See Delgado v. Bd.
Election Comm'rs, 224 Dl.2d 481. 485 (2007).
B. Objector's Petition is Based Upon an Incorrect
Constitutes a "Natural Born Citizen".
Leaal Interpretation
The gist of Objector's claim is that President Obama, as the son of a British citizen, is not
a "natural born" citizen. (No mention is made by Objector, of President Obama's mother, a
Kansan by birth.) Indeed, after various pieces of litigation have been filed against the President ever since Mr. Obama sought the Presidency
http://en.wikipedia.orglwikilBarack_
years ago (see cases collected at:
Obama_presidential_eligibility _litigation), the White
House released a copy of the President's birth certificate, establishing his birth in the State of
Hawaii. (http://www. whitebouse.govlblogl2011l04127/president-obamas-longcertificate). A copy of said birth certificate is attached hereto as Ex. A. Contrary to Objector's claims, President Obama's birth in the United States establishes his eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen". Ankeny v, Governor of the State oj Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (In. App. 2009). A copy of Ankeny is attached hereto as Ex. B. form-birth-
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons. Respondent-Candidate respectfully prays that
the Motion to Strike and dismiss be granted.
One of the Attorneys for Candidate Michael Kreloff Attorney at Law Glenview, II.. 60025
847.657.1020 1926 Waukegan, Suite 310 Michael J. Kasper Attorney at Law 222 N. LaSalle, Suite 300 Chicago, lL 60601 312.704.3292 312,368.4944
847.486.0230 (frot)
capitolaction@yahoo.coro
TO: 18669082252
IL STATE ED ELECTION
P.4 PAGE
," '~
.'; I
\.;"
,' "', ri •. ·
" ~.I~
,;',,'
,APR ~ S' ,2Q\1
,,',",'-
[ . I. ~, _':.:', 'Io,'.'l·:'·,
~i.';-'~ ,:-1:.
."~ r _ ;1"...•"..... ~ , ':~",:,:;..,:"i,~... li;~~'
, ,'. '
'~~',~,
~;'" '~:~ J
. ::'
"."':')
"/ '.\
n ~.,;
,~~. .~, I~
08:52P FROM:
312-814-1863
01/24/2012 12:32
TO: 18669082252 IL STATE BD ELECTION
APPELLAID'S
s.~:
ATTORNEy§
FOR-APPELLEE;
STEVE .ANKENY
New Castle, Indiana Roselawn, Indiana
Attomey (Jenn of Indiana
GREGORY F, ZOELLER
Dcp1ty Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
STEVE ANKENY AND BILL KRUSE, )
Appcllants- Plaintiffs,
ll'IDIAN~
Appellee-Respondent,
APPEAL FROM TIm MARlON SUPERlOR COURT The Honorable David J. Dreyer, Judge Call1IeNo. 49DIO-0812·PL·55511
November 12, 2009 OPINION - FOR. PUBLICATION
JRN-24-2012 08:52P FROM: 81/24/2612 12:32 312-814-1863
P.6 PAGE 136/38
Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, "Plaintiffs'')t pro se, appeal the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana. ("'Govem.or"). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the mal com erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. Z The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008~ Plaintiffs filed a «PETITION
FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF ,PROHIBITION" against the Govemor~ to prevent
the Governor "from issuing a 'Certificate of Ascertainment, ~ or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Baraok Obama and Joe
Biden for the appoiniment as Chief Electors ... [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors." Appellants' Appendix at 6. On January 30. 2009, the
1 We note that. p-o .re litigants, such as Plaint:i.m, "are held to the same standard as licensed lawyers." NoJ.:atny v. Nqy§ny. 812 NE.2d 673. 677 n.s and. Ct App. 2007). This court will not "indulge in any benevolent presumptions on [their] behalf, or waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct !'If [their] appeal.'! Foley v, Mantwt. 844 N.E.2d 494. 496 n.l (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Thus, we will attempt to address the Issues raised by Plaintiffs. To the extent that Plaintiffs raise addltlonal issues, the Plaintiffs fail to develop a cogent argument and cite to ll.Utbority. Consequently. the IlfgUments are waived, ~ y" Loomis v. Ameritccll. 764 N.E.2d 658, 668 (Ind. a. App. 2002) (holding argument waived for failure to cite authority or provide cogent 31iUmCt1t), rell's ~ tI.mt. denied.
l The trial court also granted the Governor's motion to dimliss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(l) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs faJled to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.1l12CB)(6). we need not address the trial com's
alternative grounds for disnissal.
National Committee, andJotm McCain as defendants. The PlalntJ:ffs state, without citation to the rer:ord, thll!: "only the Governor of the State of Indiana. accepted Service ()f Summorul.". Appellants' Brief at 3. We note that the Plainti.ffs' case summary lists only the Governor as appellee. the Plaintiffs) notice of appeallists only the Governor as defendant, and the Plaintiffs' briefS contain certificates of service indicatingth6t the bdefswerc served upon only the govc:mar.
The Complaint also named the Democratic National Committee. Barack Obama,. the Republican
JAN-24-2012 08:53P FROM: 81/24/2012 12:32
Governor filed Ii motion to dismiss alleging in part that "the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" Appellee's Appendix at 1. The Governor also filed a memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Governor's motion to dismiss. On March 16.2009, the trial oourt granted the Governor's motion to dismiss after a hearing. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal. The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed PlaintiffS' complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. General CaSt Ins. Co. y, Bright" 885 N.E,2d 56,57
(Ind Ct. App. 2008) (citing Charter One Mortg. Corp. y.
Com 865 N.E.2d
(Ind. 2007)). Thus, our review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is de novo.
lA at 58,
When reviewing a motion to dismiss. we view the
pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, 'With every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant's favor. Id. A complaint may not be dismissed for failme to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless it is clear on the face of
the complaint that the complaining party is not entitled to relief.4 Id. However, a court
4 In his brief, tbe Governor argues that the motion to dismiss included an a:ffi.davit,and therefore because "matters outside the pleadings [were] presented to the court on a 12(B)(6) motion, the motion shall be treated as (tic fot~mmary judgment under T.R. 56. Tlt 12(B)[" Appellec"sBrie.fat 6. While true that the general rule is that "Whena motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim undc:r T.R. 12$)(6) is supplemented with materials outside the pleadings it should be treated as a. motion for aunmary judgment., we note that:
aimed at Slbstantiating or contradicting the complaint's factual allegations is irrelevant.
cntitlal to relief under any set.
[W]hen examination of the face of a complamt alone reveals that the plaintiff wiU not be
circumstancos, conlrideration of ertemaJ mattrials
JAN-24-2012 08:53P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
P.8 08/30
need not accept as true any "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions."
Irish v. Woods. 864 N.E.2d 1117, 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). "Thus, while we do not test
the sufficiency of the facts alleged with regards to their adequacy to provide recovery, we
do test their sufficienoy with regards to whether or not they have stated some factual scenario in which a legally aotianable injury has occurred." Clybs of Northwest Indiana....... N_E.2d 130. 134 (Ind. 2006). 845 In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to
.ImjJ. y. Boys and Girls
determine a person's eligibility to become President in issuing the "Certificate of
Ascertainment" "officially appoint[ing] the electors" who cast the State of Indiana's
votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of
the United States ("President',. Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue
that the Governor did not oomply with this duty because: (A) neitller President Baraok
Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible "to be appointed 'Elector in Chief' in viola.tion of Article II. Section 1. Clause 2's prohibition
that no United States Senator
because lJ.!orliorl the complaint fails to state a. claim upon whim relief can be granted under any factual scenario. In that instance, the trial court should exdude material outside the pleadings which are sibmittedwith a 11$)(6) motion, rotherthan convert the motion into one fer summary judgment. because the external material are irrelewnt to the motion. Dixon v, Soo. 661 N.E.2d 600. 603 (Ind. a. App. 1996). In thi!l case, there is no evidence that the mal court considered the maUrial contained in the affidavit prepared by J_ Bradley King, Co-Director for the Indiana Election Division, which contains nine paragraphs explaining the vote..tallying process actually carried out following the November 4, 2008 election. The affidavit was not relevant to the trial court's a'der granting the Go-vem.or's motion to disniss. Thus. it was proper for the trial court to exclude this affidavit and handle the G<wernor's metion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Nther tlwl one for $llJllmary Judgment. ~ Jrail y. Boys and Girls Clubs !'Iortlmest Indian!!. 845 N.B.2d 130, 134, 140 (Ind. 20(6) (affuming the trial oourt's grant of a. m.otion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6) even after the parties "filed several affidavits, exhibits. and briefs").
JAN-24-2012 08:54P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
P.9 09/30
currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,» and (B) neither
President Baraok Oboma. nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of
because neither were "bom naturally within any Article IV State of the 50
United States of America .... " Appellants' Appendix at 11~12. 16-18. Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party's nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do t.hey develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, far the
reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama CIt Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. We will handle each of Plaintiffs' arguments in turn.
§itting Senator First, Plaintiffs argue that "[t]he Constitution of the United States enumerates
qualification for the Office of Presidential and Vice-Presidential EleetotS, and no 'sitting Senator,' such as Senator Baraok Ohama and Senator Joseph Biden, or Senator John MoC~
was qualified." Appellants' Brief at 8. We hold for the reasons stated below
that Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable legal claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs' claim. one need not go further than compare their framing
of the electoral process in the State of Indiana with Indiana's electoral process as constructed by state and federal statute, and indeed by the: U.S. Constitution itself.
Article D~Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth how the President is chosen; the
JAN-24-2012 08:54P FROM: 81/24/2012 12:32
TO:18669082252 IL STATE BD ELECTION
P.10 PAGE 10/30
mechanism used is called the Electoral COllege. See 3 U.S.C. § 4. Article II, Seotion 1 describes how the Electoral College is filled as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. a Number of Electors. equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State maybe entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States. shall be appointed an Elector.
§ 1, cl. 2. Much oftbe rest of Article U, Section 1 was changed by the
Twelfth Amendment which was ratified in June 1804. The Twelfth Amendment directs: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President . . . and transmit sealed to the seat of the govenunent of the United States. directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, having "thegreatest number of votes for President, shall be the President ... U.S. CONST. amend. XU. Thus, the U.S. Constitution vests in the various state legislatures the authority to
detennine how their state chooses their Electors. The Indiana Legislature acted on this open all the certificates and the votes shall then be oounted;-- The person
authority when it enacted Ind Code § 3-10-4-4, which allows voter ballots to carry the name of the "nominees for President and Vioe President of the United States of a political party:' and that such votes for each nominee «is a vote cast or registered for all of the candidates for presidential electors of the party .. , " Byvirtue ofits nine members of
the House of Representatives and its two Senators, Indiana was entitled to eleven electors
in the November 4, 2008 eleotion.l
nominated eleven individuals who were residents of the State of Indiana to serve as their party's electors in the 2008 presidential election. 6 See Inel. Code § 3-8-4-2 ("[aJ political party shall conduct a state convention to .. .nominate candidates for presidential electors and alternate electors .... "); ~
also Appellants' Appendix at 21-22. Neither President
Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were nominated as electors for their respective parties in the 2008 election. Appellants' Appendix at 21-22. "N ot later than noon on the second Monday followbJg an election, each circuit court clerk shall prepare a certified statement ... of votes received by each candidate for:
(1) federal offioe .... " Ind. Code § 3-12-5-6(a). These certified statements are sent to
the election division of the Secretary of State. Ind. Code § 3-12-j-6(b). Once the clection results have been tabulated, "not later than noon of the last Tuesday in November." the
Secretary of State ."sha11 certify to the governor the candidate receiving the highest
number of votes for each office." Ind. Code § 3-12-5~7. The Governor must then execute
S The date of the election was chosen pursuant to Ind Code § 3-10-2-1, which states that "(a] general election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each evennumbered year... ,"
R.epubUcanParty's candidmes for Indiana electors were: (1) Chuck WUlisms. of'Valptlf9.iso~(2) Edward Smith. of Galveston; (3) B!II'bara Krisher, of Fort Wayne; (4) Daniel Bortner, of Bedford; (5) Virginia Marner, of Kokomo; (6) Susan Lightle, of Greenfield; (1) Pearl Swanigan, of IndIanapolis; (8) William
Springer, of SulliVRIl; (9) David Buskill. of JeffersonVille; (10) Samuat Wayne Goodman, of Greenwood;
~ The Oemocrll.f.icparty's candidates for Indiana. electors were: (1) Jaffrey L. Chidester. of Valparaiso; (2) OWen "Butcb" Morgan, of South Berl.d; (3) Michelle Boxell. of Warsaw, (4) Charlotte Martin. oflndianapolis; (5) Jerry J. Lux, ofShclbyvil1e~ (6) COnnie Southwmth, of Salamonia; (1) Alan P. Hogan, of Indianapolis; (8) Myrna E. Brown, of Vincennes; (9) Clarence Benjamin Leatherbury, rl Salem: (10) Daniel J. Pmker, of Indianapolis; and (11) COrdelia Lewis Burks, of Indianapolis, The
ond (11) JiJana Watson. of Columbus. AppeUants' Appendix at 21-22;~. 2008 Presidential Elector Candidates, alaikWle at http://www.in,gov/soslelectionslfilesl2008 Presidential Elector Candidate List.pdf (last visited Oct. 8, 2009), 7
JRN-24-2012 08:55P FROM: el/24/2012 12:32
P.12 12/30
a certificate of escertainment which officially appoints the w.inning presidential electors; a copy of the certificate of ascertainment is then sent to the Archivist of the United
States.7 3 U.S.C. § 6.
electors assemble "in the chamber of the Indiana house of
representatives on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December as provided by 3 U.S.C. 7. or on another day fixed by the Congress of the United states, at 10 a.m. to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States," Ind Code § 3-10-4-7. The eleotors then furnish copies of the "certificates so made by them and the lists attached
tbe.(e!;o·,a to
the Vice President, the Indiana Secretary of State, the Archivist oftbc United
States, and <Judge of the district in which the electors
have assembled."
~ U.S.C. §
11. The votes of the electcrs of each state are then tallied by the Congress of the United
states and the new President
is announced. 3 U. S.C. § 15.
The Plaintiffs have a different view of the electoral. process in the State of Indiana.
In their complaint. the Plaintiffs allege that By allowing the name of Barack Obama upon the ballot far
appointment of Electors. the Governor of the State of Indiana has allowed Baraok Obama to be appointed "Elector in Chief' in violation of Article II, Section I, Clause 2's prohibition that no United States Senator currently
holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State.
7 '!he Archivist of the United States transmits copies "to the two Houses of Congress ... of each and every such certificate so received .... " 3 U.S.C. § 6.
3 The electors prepare the certificates in accordance with 3 U,S.C. §§ 6, 9-1L
08:55P FROM:
Appellants' Appendix at 16. The Plaintiffs make a similar charge against Senator John McCain's name appearing on the ballot.
In essence, Plaintiffs a:r:gue that because
President Baraok Obama and Senator John McCain were United States Senators on November 4, 2008, they were constitutionally ineligible to be appointed as presidential
elector (or, as Plaintiffs put it, ''Elector in Chief). Plaintiffs do not state a meritorious claim. Notwithstanding the fact that it is
unclear what Plaintiffs are referring to by the phrase "Elector in Chief," Plaintiffs' characterization of the electoral process in the State of Indiana simply is not oons1.9tent
with the applicable laws. The faot that the names "Barack Obama" and "John McCain"
are the ones that appeared on the ballot does not change the fact that they were in fact candidates for the presidency, not any of Indiana's electors.
This distinction between a oandidate and an elector is readily ascertainable
throughout Title 3 of the Indiana Code. As an example. we examine Ind. Code § 3 8-1·o, titled "President or Vice President electors. n That code section states: (a) A oandida.te for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2. Section I, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States. A candidate for the office of elector for President and Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Artiole 2, Section 1. clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States and Seotion 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Ind Code § 3-8-1-6 (emphasis added), Thus, Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6 expresses a dichotomy
between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees end the slate of electors
JAN-24-2012 08:56P FROM: 61/24/2612 12:32
P.14 PAGE 14/30
appointed by each political party to serve in the Electoral College. S!P' il§Q. Ind, Code § 3-10~4-1 (stating that the names of the "electors of President and Vice PIesident of the United States may not be placed on the. ballot," but that '4[t]he names of the nominees for President and Vice President of the United States. , , shall be placed ... on the ballot ..
Thus, we conclude that Plaintiffs' argument that the Governor has allowed President Baraek Obama and Senator John MoCain to be appointed "Elector in Chief" in violation of Article II. Section I, Clause 2's prohibition against sitting Senators being appointed Elector for any State fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. B. Natural Born Citizen Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not 'natural bom Citizens" as required for qualification to be President under
Article II~ Section I, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because
neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, "[tjhe Governor ... should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial oourt] ... from issuing any certificate
of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of
Indiana .... " Appellants' Appendix. at 13. Before addressing the Plaintiff's' specific arguments» we think it helpful to point out the context in which this claim arises. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election
9 'The Plaintiffs cite the "natural born Citizen" clause as Article: 1I, Section 1. Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article Il, Section 1, Clause 4 . .s~.ulsQ Ind. Code § 3-8·1·6.
JRN-24-2012 08:56P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32 312-814-1853
P.15 PAGE 15/30
and in the ensuing months after. a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging
Baraek Obama and Senator John McCain's10 status as "natural bam
See,..!t.&. Berg v. Ohama. 574 F.
Citizens .. under Article II of the U.S. Constitution
Supp. 2d S09 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain.. 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D,N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Qba.nm. No. 08"2150.2008 WI.. 5191864 (D. D.C. Dec. 11,2008). aff'd]n! 2009
WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir.
Sept. 8. 2009); Wromowski v. Bysiewic;?, 958 A.2d 709 (Corm..
2008). As to President Obama's status, the most common argument bas been waged by
members of the so-called "birther" movement who suggest that the President was not
born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to ..the President's
alleged refusal to disclose publioly an 'official birth certificate' that is satisfactory to [the birthers]." Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09"CV-I06, 2009 WL 2997605. at *1 (M.D. Ga.
Sept. 16~2009). reQQnsideration depiedQ_y 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18.2009).
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based sttictly an
oonstitutional interpretation.
Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that
jurisdiction'
''natural bom Citizen" "involves having [two] parents of u.s. Citinnsbip. owing no foreign a.11egianC%." Appcllant's Brief at 23. The Plaintiffs then concede that "John Mccain ... qualifiers] as R 'citizen of the united States: by being bom of [two] parents who were in tum 'citizens of the United States,' and owed no foreign slleglam:e .... " ~ 11leJr me! continues that "John McCain was born 'subject to the
of th e United States, but he was not born in one of the SO States of tire Union under Article
Senator John McCain lIS a natural authority cited by the Plaintiffs to of the U.S. Constitution does not Plaintifli; state in their txiet' that
to The United states Senate passed a resolution on April 30, 2008 which explicitly r~ognjzcd born citizen, 5.1. Res. 511. 110th Q)ng. (2008). Also, the supposed support their claim as to the meaning of Article Section 1, Clsust 4 support the argument that John McCain is not a natural born citizen,
t1te difference between being a "citizen of the United States" and a
IV oltho Constitution, and thus .. .wss not Q 'natural born Citizen •.. '" ld,.llt 23·24. Plaintiffs do.not cite to any authority or develop any cogent legal argument for the proposition that a person must actually be bom within one Gf the fifty stsres in order to qualify as a natural born citizen. and we therefore do not
address Plaintiffs argument as it relatesto Senator McCain. 11
k Loomis. 764 N E.2d 31668.
08:57P FROM: 12:32 312-814-1853
IL STATE BO ELECTION
P.16 15/30
"'[e]ontrary to the t:hinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural bom Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign. allegiance." Appellants' Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a oitizen of the United Kingdom. President Obama is oonstitutionallyineligible to assume the Office of the President
The bases of the Plaintiffs' arguments come from such sources as FRctCheck.arg,
The Rooky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled
"The Law of'Nations," and various citations to nineteenth oentury congressional debate.ll
For the reasons stated below. we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments t1til to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the mal. court did not err
dismissing the Plaintiffs' oom,pltrint.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Canstitutiongovems who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that '4[a]U persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. are citizens of the United States ...
:. u.s.
amend XIVt § 1. Mole
a special requirement to assume the
Presidency; that the person be a "natural bam Citizen." U.S. CONST. art. II, § It 01. 4.
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and
"{t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
MIDOX'v.
11 PlaintiftS
do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate. quotations to which they
JAN-24-2012 08:57P FROM: 01/2412612 12:32
P.l? 17/30
HaJ?PCISett. 8(21 Wall.) U,S. 162, 167 (1874). In MinOI, written only six years after the & Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not. in words, say who shall be natnral-bom citizens, Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law) with the nomenol ature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves. upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children bom within the jurisdiction without reference to the oitizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts. but never as to the first. Por the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167·168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a. person who is born within the United States of alien patents is considered a natural born oitizen.12 Then, in !l.s' v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Com confronted the question of ''whether a chUd born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth. a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment .... " 169 U.S. at 653t 18 S. ct. at , 4.58. We find this case instructive. The Court in 'N.Pni Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in
that the meaning of the words "oitizen of the United States" and "narural- born citizen of the United States" 'nmst be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution." l!i at 6.54, 18 S. Ct. at 459, They noted that "[tjhe interpretation of the constitution of the United States
12 Note that the Court in :MW,gr contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citiz«.ls or aliens, rather in the case of President Ohama, whose mother was a. U.S. cit~en and father was a citizen of the UtUtedKJngdcm. 13
JAN-24-20l2 08:57P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32 312-814-1853
TO:l8669082252
P.l8 18/313
is necessarily influenced by the taot that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct at
459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama. 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct 5(4) 569 (1888)). The:¥lgng Kim Ark Court explained
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'powert-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance end protection were mutual. -as expressed in the maxim. 'Proteetio trahit subjeetiorem, et subjeotio protectionem,' -and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects. or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predioable of aliens in amity, so lang as they were within the kingdom. Children. born in Englan~ of such aliens, were therefore natural- born subjects. But the children, bom within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions. were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power. or. as would be said a.t this day. within the jurisdiction, of the king. This fundamental principle. with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as
'Calvin's Case: or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608. after a
hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke. 1. 4b~6a., 18a, 18b~Ellesmere, Postnati, 62~64; s. c. 2
How. St. Tr. 559. 607.613-617,639,640) 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Liti. Sa, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62~ 1 Bl. Comm. 366,369) 370, 374~ 4 B1. Comm. 74.92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300. 308; Cookb. Nat. 7~ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173177. 741.
JRN-24-2012 08:58P FROM: 01/24/2812 12:32
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said 'By the common low of England, every person bam within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents and, In the latter case" whether the parents were settled. or merely temporarily scjouming in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them). or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions. his principal rules being printed below in italics: ''British su/Hect' means any person who owes permanenz allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to clistinguish the allegianoe of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'tempcrary'allegience to the crown. 'Naturalborn British subject' means (J British tJUbject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' ISubject to the exceptions IMreJntVter mentioned, a1U' person who (whatever the nationality qfhis parents) is hom within the BriUsh domwons is a natural-born BrUish subject. This role contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality: The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person' s birth is ;in hostile occupation, is an alien,' '(2) Any person whose father (hems- an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: <The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that" though at common law nationality OI allegiance :in substance depended on the place of a persons birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being bom within the allegiance. or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.' DiceYt ContI. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to
08:58P FROM:
the present day. aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every ohild born in England of alien parents was a natural-hom subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born, III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwBIds, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.P
14:. at 655-658,
18 K Ct. at 459 460.
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim .Ark. Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis"yTrustees of Sailors' Snug HarbOL 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that ''Nothing is better
settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens. born. in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and
owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.8. at
660J 18 S. ct. at 461 (quoting Iug!is, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856): The fust section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a namral-bcm citizen.' It thus: assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time or the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
to Wes11aw. Wons Rim Ark has been cited to in over 1.000 cases.
JRN-24-2012
08:59P FROM: 312-814-1853
61/24/2012 12:32
Wong Kim AI!), 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred SOQtt. 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis. J.~dissenting)). The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: All persons bom in the allegiance of the king are natural-bern subjects) and all persons bom in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule oftha oommon law, and it is the common law of this country, as well 8S of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained hare wi tb. the same vigor, and subj ect only to the same exceptions. since as before the Revolution, Id at 662-663. 18 S, Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that
Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States "at the time of his birtb..,,14 Id. at
705.18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II. Section 1. Clause 4 and the guidance provided by :Wong Kim Ark. we conclude that persons born within 1he borders of the United States are "narural born Citizens" for Article
n, Section
1 purposes, regardless of
the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-bom British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [J natural ..bom citizens.,~lS
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong I<lm Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Conflitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all rut forty.fCtlr people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen Wider the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. '!he issue addressed in Wgng Kim Ark was whether Mr _Wong Kim Ark was a citize:n of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. at 70S. 18 S. Ct. at 478.
IS We reiterate that we do not address the qucs:iQn of natural born cltl:zen f.ta.tUS for petsonswho became United States citizens B1 birth by virtue of being born of United States cifu:en parents, despite the 17
JAN-24-2012 08:59P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32 312-814-1863
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in
their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent tbat these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "oonclusory; non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we
need not aocept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ~
864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus. we cannot say that the
when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' case.
~ee generally McCalme.nt v. Eli Lilly & Co ... arguments had been
860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs'
suffioiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant' s motion to dismiss far failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted); ~
Diaz·Salazar v. I.N S.. 700 F.2d 1156,
1160 (7th Cu. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was
fact that they were bom abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court, Without addressing the question, however, we note thot.nothing in our opinion today shQuld be understood to held that being born within the fifty United States is the only w~ one can receive nl1tuntl bom citizen Wlt'us.
16 We note that. President Ohama is not the first U.S. President bam of parents of diffc:rln,g citizenship. Ote£r A. Arthur, the twenty-fir&: U.S. President. was bom of R mother who was a United
LIP.EOF Cmsm AlAN AR'IHlJR3-4 (1975). During .the election of 1880, there arose ~ rumor "tbBl: [Arthur] had been born in CsnadB, rather than in Vermont as he claimed. and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Oliff' Executive." lQ.. at 3. Although President Artbur's status lUI It natural bam citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather then Vermont. the argument was not made that because Arthur's Mer was an Irish citizm he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. See generally id, . 18
States citizen IWd a father who was on Irish citizen.
k THOMAS C. RElMr.S.
GEN'Ir..EMAN
JRN-24-2012 09:00P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
IL ST~TE 8D ELECTION
P.23 23/38
not a oitizen ofth.e United States, he had children who were ''.natural-bom citizens of the United States"~~denied 462 U.S. 1132. 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, we a.ffirm the trial court's grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss. Affirmed CRONE, J., and MA v, I.) concur.
JAN-24-2012 09:00P FROM: 61/24/2612 12:32
TO: 18669082252 IL STATE SO ELECTION
P.24 24/36
BEFORE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE HEARING OF AND PASSING UPON OBJECTIONS TO THE NO!vfINATION PAPERS FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO TI:IE NOMINATION PAPERS OF BARACK OBAMA AS A CANDIDATE FOR NOMINATION TO mE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE VOTED UPON AT THB MARCH 20,2012 PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
NITCHAELJACKSON
IN THE MA TIER OF THE OBJECTIONS OF
CANDIDATE'S MOTION 10 STRIKE AND DISMISS OBJECTOR'S PETITION NOW COMES Respondent-Candidate Barack Obama, by his attorneys. Michael Kreloff
and Michael 1. Kasper, and moves to strike and dismiss the Objector's Petition, and in support
thereof: states as follows:
A. Objector Failed to Comply With Section 10~8,Never Statinfl 'lObjeclor's Interest" In FiUng the Objection, Nor Any Appropriate RelitfWithln 'the Power of the Electoral Board ..
Pursuant to 10 ]LeS 5/10-8 of the Election Code, an Objector to nominating papers and
petitions must allege certain mandatory allegations: "The objector's petition shall give the
objector's name and residence address, and shall state fully the nature of the objections to the ... nomination papers or petitions in question, and shall state the Interest of the obieetor and shall state what relief Is requested of the electoral board." (emphasis added).
First, nowhere in the entire document is any 'mention made of Objector's alleged mterest. rendering the Objection fatally defective.
Second, the Objection fails to seek any relief directed at the March 20,2012 Primary election ballot. Rather, Objector seeks "prohibition" of President Obama "on the U.S. Presidential ballot.') Whether Mr. Obama is placed upon the "U.S. Presidential ballot" is a decision to be made by the Democratic National Nominating Convention next summer. Said
JAN-24-2012Og:OOP FROM:
TO:18669082252 IL STATEBD ELECTION
P.25 PAGE 25/36
prayed-for relief is outside the scope of a.uthority of the Electoral Board. See Delgado v. Bd: Election Comm
I,.S,
224lli.2d 481, 485 (2007).
B. Objector's Petition is Based Upon an Ineorreet Legallnterp.tetation of'Wbat Constitutes a "Natural Born Citb:en". The gist of Objector's claim is that President Obama, as the son of a British citizen. is not a "natural born" ci1lten. (No mention is made by Objector, of President Obama's mother. a
Kansan by birth.)
Indeed, after various pieces of litigation have been filed against the President ever since
Mr. Obema sought the Presidency four years ago (see cases collected at:
http://en. wikipedia.org/wikilBarack_ Obam.a_pr~idential_eligibility _litigation), the White House released a copy of the President's birth certificate. establishing his birth in the State of Hawaii. (http://www.whitehouse.govlblog/2011/04127/president-obamas-long-form-birthcertificate). A copy of said birth certificate is attached hereto as Ex. A.
Contrary to Objector's claims, President Obama's birth in the United States e$blishes his eligibility for office as,a '"natural born citizen". Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N .E.2d 678 (In. App. 2009). A copy of Ankeny is attached hereto as Ex. B. WHEREFORE. for the foregoing reasons, Respondent-Candidate respectfully prays that the Motion to Strike and dismiss be granted. One of the Attorneys for Candidate Michael Kreloff Attomey at Law Michael J. Kasper Attorney at Law 222 N. LaSaJIe~Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60601 312.704.3292
1926 Waukegan, Suite 310
capitolaction@yahoo.com
Glenview. 11 60025 847.657.1020 847.486.0230 (fax)
312.368.4944
09:00P FROM:
01/24/2812
JRN-24-2012 09:01P FROM: 81/24/2012 12:32 312-814-1863
IL STATE SD ELECTION
INDEX OF ELECTORAL BOARD PSC[SJONS Dllcembcr 2011 Objections that elleged that siiners of aldermanic candldate's petition previously slgned petitions for other cllldidatClJ fOr Ihe sa1l).eoffice fail to fully state the nature of the objections where the objections failed to identitY t11e signatures being challenged and what other petitiollll those individuals signed.. A subsequent "Bill of Particulars" filed by the objector in response to the candidate's motion to B1like IIIld dismiss the objectiOJl!l lWIouuted to an improper attempt to amend fui original petitions. Elias v. Lopez, 11· EB-ALD·024, CBEC. December 29, 2010. Where Appelldix-ReCipitulat!Qn contained items designated with an ''x!' as to certain circulator and notal)' iSsues that did not have corresponding paragraphs in the text of the objector's petition. said items failed to :tUlly state the nature of the objermons as requited by Section 10·8 of the Code, PtJry 1/, Guereca, ll-EB-ALO~226, CBEC, January 11,2011.
Although the "Other" objecticn is not described in the text oftbe petition., many of the objectlons are described more specifically in the Appendix.Reclipitullition sheets. Sttwart \I. C11IZ, 11.EB.MUN.032,
CBEC January 18, 2011.
Objector's petition that fails to state the interest of the obj ector and. the relief requested of orol bOllJd d008 not satisfy Sectlon 10-8. Yam,.. v. Martine.lIi-W~ALD-7. CBEC, Februmy 3,1986. , . A prayer for relief In the obj<:etor's petition seeking the removal of "Ollie Vernon Ross" trom the ballot, when the candtdate's name was Reginald Oaniel~, invalidates the obj~(tr's peddoo. ~ Daniels. PUB.LEG.l? CBEC, February 10,1992.
OOj._.
RDSlliy.
~[Smissed
Oberg 87-l3B-ALD-74. CSEC, January 7,1987,
petltlon th..
• """ er
for ""'"
.... "" tho ""~
Objeotor's petition tha.t filed specific objlWtion sepQ.t(l.tely from the objEctor's petition wag held invalid as the petition lacked the specificity requited by Section 10.8 of the El=ction code. RamOi )J, Sandoval, 87-EB.ALD-77, CJ3EC;.lanuary 22. l!i87•
Bad Faith. or "Shot 0':ID", Objeotions There is no per se n.tle prohibiting "dual objections," Le., objections alleging bofu that tb~ petition siFcr W8lI not registered at address shown and that the signer's slinatlJre is not genuine. Such objeotiOtllJ nre not necessarily inconsistent nor an ihey necessarily evidence of a bad faith or "shot. ,gun" ObJecdoll. While Rule 6 of the Eleotoral Board's Rules of ~cedure provides thet when the objec~on is made that a 5igllll.~ is nOI genu.Ul.eand is not that of the penon waese name appeMJ on tile petition ~heet but ue registration record can be round for thc'pcrtlon in question. the objectiClIIwill be oVCInlle6 jlt the records c1«Imination, if the objector bas independmt evidenoe {i.e., orber than the Board's registration records) to GUppott such an objection, tbe objector is free to present web evidence during an evidentiary hearlll~. Stearns )I. radke', 08.EB-ROA:!;.?;, CBEC, December 14,2007,
Appen4Jx aU!lched to objector's petition consisted of one p.a.ge. In the column under ''Page No." were three rows :filled in. The first row referred to "1.50"; the second row referre;d to "51·100"; and the third row referred to "100·140." On each of the three rows, the columtlS for "Signer Not R.eSistered," "Not SIgned in Own Proper Person" and "Name or Address Missing or Incomplete" are filled in with the marking "'1-.20," purportedly objecting on each and ~cry ground to each and f!1Very silMture all lines 1·20 of each and every meet of the ClUldidll.tc's nOminating petition. The candidate filed 2,445 8iptllrCS on 140
petition sheets. On many of these sheets there were not even 20 mgIlRturcs on the ~otilion
sheet. ThU$, not oPly did the obJector's petition object to each and every signature on the candidate's pet!tion, but it a.l~
objeoted to signature~ that did not evC1\eXist. Dlll'btg bearing on candidate's motion to strike IIJlddlsmiss the objector's petition, the objector prMented no evidence to show wh~t mvestlgat!OI:lS were made in preparing objector'S petition. The electoral board found that the objector's petition was not prepared as the result of a reasonable inquiry or Investigatioo of the: facts and was Dot made iJt SOOd fhllhi thl!fefore. the S\lec:tonJ bolU'd snmted the clUldidate's motion to strike and dismiss the objector's petition. PrlnM l!. Colyin, 08.EB-RGA-33. CBEC. December 7,2007.
JAN-24-2012 09:01P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
P.28 28/30
ImC-ALD
STATE OF ILLINOl:S ) CO!JN'IT OF COOK )
tlPON OF OBJEC'l'lO»S 1'0 NOMINATINGPEmIONS
OFFICES IN RE: ObjectiOn of )
m ELEC'rOltAL
BOARD FOR THE HEARING AND PASS:wG
OJ", ALDERMAN A.N:o WAB.D COlltMI'1nlE!:Wl
=-~~o_u~~~~ __~z~~~ __~
to the Nomi~tin8 Petition of
NO. 86-EB-ALD - ' __ .......
-=--:--_-=2;!2n~d.=:- w;jl-rd in the
Chicago, Ill1no1s
__~m~J6~n~~~tup~~E~M~6i~T~um~~~ ) __~~~_____ candidate for the Oftic~ af Alderman, )
DECISION ':rhe duly ~onSilt1tutec1 Elee1:ol'~l Board. consisting of MICHAELE. LAVILtE~
ullued
JAM!!:SI.. NOLAN and COiNE!t A.. DAVIS. organ:l.ze4 by law iD rel!;poW!le to a Call by MICHAEL LAVEXJ.E.,..Gba1~ E.
Elac.toral
:soard, for the
purpOSII
of hudn,
and passina
Object1oDe
Petitions for the Offiees of Alderman
21 ~ 1986..d,1; ,9;30
and. 'Ward COmDti.ttHDlll1), baV'1;n•. convened
on ,January
in RoOlll 1707,
Rieha.rd
.16 Daley
CentQr~
Cook,_County,
Illido1.s:
and baring
heal'd and
o.etera4ned 1.
1:0 tbe petition
in the. above entitll!d
Dltter,
The said E!e.ctoral. Board hat been legally const1 tuted accord1D1 to the l8~. the State of Illinois; of Objections to the. nominating herdn were duly filed; pet1.t1on -of the candidate .....~_ ..
3. A Call to the hQa~1ng On sa1d objections .as duly issued and walt s:carvad upon the '!lembers of the Ele.c1:oral Board ~ serviea as provided by statute;
4. A publi.c: bellI':J.ng wai held on JanU8:r:y 27~ 1986.
~h. objector an~ the candidate by mail aDd by personal
on theae. objections' co:mmeucins;
The followins pe.rsons, emcnS others, were present at SUCh heariags: tbe mambers of the Eleetoral Board~ the objecto~. pro ae liIi~ and the c~nd1datet ~by c.ounsel;
JAN-24-2012 09:02P FROM: 01/24/2012 12:32
2'3/30
NBC-ALD-2.
The BOARD I~ants candidate's ~t1on
peti t10n on the gJ;oqnds that
to str1ke objector's pet1t:ton fails
obj e.cto;r
to state. !ntB~est of objector and the relief ~.3u.sted
of the B~ .,.
as required by Section 10-8 of Chapter 46 •
,, OJ'
tb@ Office
of Alde2:lllBn. for the
2.2nd ----=-=-
City of Ch!cago,
llltoois~ &hQll ~
held on March 18, 1986.
be 'printed
on the ballot at the Sp8c1al Rlection
I1aced at Ch:Lcago, Ill:iJio:i.s.
t;bi$ __
.3_,_,__
day of ]l'eb~J
JRN-24-2012 09:02P FROM:
___ B=1,,-1;;;_24/2IH212: 32 312-814-1863
NBC-ALD
OF Itt.:mOIS
) 5t1.
comrn or
UPON OF OBJEC'rIONS '1'0 NOMINATING l'ETI'llOllfS
til! ELECtoRAL !OUD
THE B!AR.lNG Alm PASSING 1981 ELECTION
AND Al.DElUWttC OFFICES, FEBRUARY24.
FOIl HDNICIl'At.
ObjMt:f.OIl ot
:-s_us~a_n~M_.~·R_O_SS~i~~~~~ ~
To the Nomtu.~1ns '.c1~ion of Robert N. Oberg )
) u..EC,I.S!ON
!{O.
S7-D-AtD
Candidace fo~ ebe Ofi~ee of AldefmlG.
44th • ward in duI Ctcy of
Cb1cqo, ,I1UDvL.t
tba lid, .lAHES
COI1II1;tt1lt.d
Eleetot:1l
loud, cou1stiaa
JaCBAJr,
t. LAVILtI•
BOI..4Bu4
COIHBAt.A. DA.VU- a~paU.4 by 1•• :lD f4apou" aaa1"d, for
C&11 ttauu
by mcau;r.. E. UVEI.t.E, CbaUau of :IUd Electoral
Pt.&Z'Po of ••
and Passtpi Ul'ou, Objectiod to !f_~tiul
() and. Wtucl COlllll1tr.eam. Bichllrci J. Dde, harins
Petic:Jon. for tba Office. of Wensu
10:.1D·•• 111. ia lI.oQ 170~ &lAd
~atl...,eoed oc. I)ee.utlar 21. ·1986
Ce.te%,
Ch1c..Pt
CoClkCgunt1 t 111111011 .ud h.;r.l.nl heu4 i 1ft tl!e above tmtitled
matt6ZO.
,.,.. d..~.I:"III!ftad. the abjece.!oD8 to ch. 'P.c::ltioa 1.
The ,aid lleccoJ:'.l Ioard bas be_ 1.. &11,. coQtc!t.utltd acccr41a1 ~o the laws af the Staee of ll~o1s; ObjeQdon. to the a_1l&II'i~ hardu "'fIre clul.1 filed; A call
to the beariq
CJa TId
pel;1t1.oR of the aud.idat:e ... d.uly :f._uN
s.ne4 UPOll che.IIUh......of the Electoral Board.. eM Objeccor ed the IllAdU.,. by aU aDd by p.r.oaal ••~ce as prowi4.d by le.tut.;
It. public heat1A, VM held OD thesa objeetiOnl Oil Declj1lbet 29. 1986. _
aaic1 obj.ot1.o=_
c:a..,d.q
_X««Xr~X.by
he~,,:
1'be lallouiD,
..-beI'B
p.nen., ~.
cO~Hli
othen. "'" pruce at: .-u.c:h of che ll.otor&1 Board, tb* obj.~to~.
and the aaruUdaU1 pro ...
ta:bu~b
"") ..