TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Second Appellate District) FOR MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No.

: PATRIOT‟S HEART MEDIA NETWORK, INC. ) “CHALICE JACKSON” ) (AKA XXXXXX XXXXXX ) ) 728 NW HWY, Fox River Grove, IL 60021 ) 847-304-8800 ) ) ) ) Petitions, ) ) ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ) )

PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The petitioner, appearing pro se as an individual, in accordance with the directions of personal convictions and loyalty to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, and the Illinois Constitution, on oath and before God Almighty, set forth this prayer by way of motion in the TwentySecond Judicial Circuit (Second Appellate District) McHenry County, IL: MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

I. Introduction 1. Here comes the petitioner, “Chalice Jackson,” of Patriot‟s Heart Network, with a petition seeking Injunctive Relief, and seeking to enjoin the Illinois State Board of Elections, from certifying the election results from the February 2nd, 2010 Primary and November 2010 General election, because of deficient election processes, resulting in questionable ballots, and claiming current codes and statutes provide deficient authority, processes and allocated resources to election officials to verify the constitutional eligibility of candidates before placing them on the ballot. This issue is of immediate and significant public interest because of the Primary election held on February 2nd 2010. All duly nominated candidates for the upcoming November General election, as well as newly elected representatives to various offices at the local and state level were placed on the ballot without a check for or verification of constitutional eligibility. The petitioner presents the voluntarily submitted evidence of Katherine Schultz the McHenry County Clerk, Willard Helander the Lake County Clerk, and Mark Shelden the Campaign County Clerk who through their offices represent the significant public interest of over a million, two hundred and twenty thousand Americans. All three are available to testify in the hearing. It is natural to assume, most Americans believe their ballot is valid and constitutional. It is a „must and shall‟ in their constitutions. The petitioner believes most Illinois residents do not know there is no checking for constitutional qualifications before ballot placement in Illinois.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

2.

3.

4.

1

5.

Illinois election practices are so unconstitutional that a candidate can literally be certified for ballot placement without ever affirming being legally qualified, or signing a Statement of Candidacy. Voter Registration in Illinois is not uniform as required in the Illinois Constitution, impacting all election results.

6.

Verification of Eligibility vs. Certification of Ballot Placement
7. Deficient codes and statutes create extreme vulnerabilities in the election process by allowing for contestants to be certified for ballot placement without verification for constitutional eligibility. A constitutionally unstable or false ballot undermines the American electoral process. For American citizens living in Illinois, and for thousands of others across the nation that the petitioner has specific knowledge of, and for the petitioner; this ballot deficiency creates a constitutional crisis at the county, state and federal level. Apparent Conformity standards are not uniform across the State of Illinois. Apparent conformity standards lack uniformity and prohibit a secure ballot. In the Primary election of 2008 where at least one candidate was certified without signing the Statement of Candidacy affirming eligibility. The current process does not authorize or provide resources to check the eligibility of new voter registrants.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12.

Venue
13. In Illinois this is the court of General Jurisdiction. (10 ILCS 5/23-5) (from Ch. 46, par. 23-5) 14. The State Board of Election has general supervision over the administration of the registration and election laws throughout the state, and certifies election results in Illinois. Patriot‟s Heart Network Media is a private Illinois Corporation solely owed by the petitioner. Members of the network come from across McHenry County, the state of Illinois and the nation. The petitioner appears pro se in this action which is based on the current election that occurred on February 2, 2010. The petitioner comes to this matter as an aggrieved and concerned citizen and as a Citizen Journalist with a growing expertise about constitutional issues related to election processes. By way of personal introduction, the petitioner is a natural born citizen of the United States, and a longtime resident of McHenry County. She is registered to vote and voted in the primary election on February 2, 2010 at her polling place in Fox River Grove, Illinois. The petitioner seeks to have the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and the laws of the State of Illinois upheld.
It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

History
15.

16.

17.

18.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

2

19.

Chalice Jackson is the Internet name for the Petitioner that she is known by as the Founder of Patriot‟s Heart Network. It is her business identity, thus she seeks leave of the court to file this case in her internet name. The Petitioner seeks to have her birth name kept confidential.
“So that the public is encouraged to report irregularities, the names of the complainants shall be kept confidential.” http://www.elections.state.il.us/AbouttheBoard/InvestigationsDiv.aspx

20.

21.

Chalice is a founder of Patriot‟s Heart Network Media, an Internet based and volunteer driven, citizen journalist media outlet. Generally speaking, Patriot‟s Heart Network provides programming about constitutional issues and reports on events relating to infringements of the US Constitution. The history bringing the petitioner to this place began over a year ago, when she along with various members of Patriot‟s Heart Network learned that no one had verified the citizenship status of candidates on the 2008 Primary and 2008 General election contests, to which she had voted assuming there was constitutional veracity in the ballot she was given. Since then, the petitioner along with numerous volunteers at Patriot‟s Heart Network, have been unrelenting and to date unsuccessful in their attempts to receive an answer to eligibility questions of certain contestants who were victors in the 2008 elections. The petitioner understands the same processes to be in place that led to the alleged theft through fraud of her vote in the 2008 elections, and to which she is seeking to testify to the McHenry County Grand Jury about and for which redress has been the impermissible barrier to the simplest question. Was the ballot constitutionally sound?

22.

23.

24.

25.

In the course of trying to understand the circumstances that led to this fraud in the ballot in the 2008 Primary and General elections, this petitioner studied the process of candidate certification for elections in Illinois. What she uncovered stunned and shocked her, leaving her no choice but to seek remedy for the egregious injustice. If needed to demonstrate „irreparable harm,” the petitioner is prepared to testify about the considerable sacrifice and loss for her family and for the petitioner.

26.

Election History
There are three Legs of an Election: citizens, contestants and the administrators of the election. 27. American Citizens: You must be an American to vote. Not all Americans are allowed to vote. It is a regulated right of citizenship. One must be registered to vote and/or participate in most election processes. Contestants: To run for an office in the Federal and Illinois governments, the contestant must be an USA citizen. Contestants are required to be a registered voter, a certain age, and resident of a locality for a regulated period of time to be eligible to run for office in that locality. Successful contestants must also attain other milestones to qualify as in apparent conformity, and able to withstand objections launched during a 5 day contest period.
It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

28.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

3

29.

The Clerk certifies the successful contestant for ballot placement. Ballot placement is afforded through the contestant‟s actions in apparent conformity to requirements such as petitions, credentials, economic statements, and licenses for the respective offices. The Administrators: This group reflects the constitutional imperatives administered through codes and statutes, and governing the election processes and the officials administering them. The State Board of Elections is authorized as Administrators, with the State Board of Elections and the individual County Boards providing ultimate certification. Access Rights: Administrators have access governed through the concept of apparent conformity, and through rules of the game that set out how the contest is fairly run. Essentially a ministerial role, the codes and statutes must be sufficient to afford access rights required to be fair and equal arbitrators and thereby deliver a uniform product for all three legs of the electoral process.

30.

31.

32.

After the age of 18, United States Citizenship, while not the only constitutionally mandated requirement, is the only one that is unwavering across all later definitions of “legally qualified” to participate in whatever aspect of the election process. Truly it is a‟ priori to all access within the electoral process.

Definitions
33. Constitutional Eligibility:, In this motion is defined as the qualifications specifically mandated in the US and Illinois Constitution to be eligible for office or to register to vote. These include citizenship, age and residency requirements. Sometimes certain other qualifications as well, such as a license. These are mandated in constitutional terms of „must and shall.‟
the Illinois Supreme Court explained that the responsibility for determining whether an election petition apparently conforms to the law rests with the town clerk. Dillon,266 Ill. at 275-76. Specifically, the clerk s duty is to determine whether, upon the face of the petition, it is in compliance with the law. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If the petition on its face appears to comply with the statutory requisites, the clerk may not look outside the petition to determine whether in fact it does comply; he must submit the question to the voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.

34. Apparent Conformity is the standard used to certify candidates for ballot placement.

35.

Legally Qualified: The term signatory affirm to on the Statement of Candidacy.
shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petition for a public question, with the following exceptions…(IL Code 10/8)

36. 5 Day Objection Period:

37.

Natural Born Citizen: First Impression Case: The phrase is used in the Constitution as a qualification for President, but the state of Illinois and the Federal government refuse to provide a definition for this phrase such that the signatory on the Statement of Candidacy can be assessed

Verified Complaint
38. Evidence supporting claims in this petition will be testified to by the elected County Clerks of over a million, two hundred and twenty thousand citizens!
It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

Petition for Injunctive Relief

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

4

39.

Witness One: McHenry County Clerk Katherine Schultz, representing 320,000 residents. The petitioner affirms the attached EXHIBIT 1 and 2 are the exact printed copy of her words as received in email on December 30, 2009 and January 4, 2010. In addition, attached is a brief certified statement from her. (Exhibit 1-3 Certified) Witness Two: Lake County Clerk Willard Helander, representing 715,000 residents. The petitioner affirms the attached exhibit 3, is the exact printed copy of her words as received on February 1st 2010. Ms. Willard also sent the following attached statement (Exhibit 4-5 Certified) Witness three: Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden representing 200,000 residents. The petitioner affirms the attached Exhibit 6, is the exact printed copy of his words as received on February 1st 2010. While the petitioner is but one citizen, the willing and supportive testimony of the three elected County Clerks representing over a million, two hundred and twenty thousand citizens represents a significant public interest in this matter. Ms. Schultz, Ms. Helander and Mr, Shelden were aware when answering the questions that the answers would be used in a court action. They answered the petitioner‟s questionnaire, verifying her petition. They did not participate in the writing of this motion. The questionnaire was developed as part of the petitioner‟s research into election matters. The answers also helped to further direct her research because the petitioner learned more about election processes through the factual answers of each of the Clerks. The petitioner, as a citizen journalist can personally testify to the difficulty caused to uncounted Americans who feel grieved from the 2008 ballot, and who ask the question: “If the obligation is on the signer of a Statement of Candidacy then how does the citizen get standing to challenge that obligation?” The petitioner has attended numerous events where this very issue was discussed, including listening to thousands along the Tea Party Express route last fall. This action is to prevent re-occurrence of harm already received from constitutionally unverified ballots related to the 2008 Primary and general election.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Causative Factors
46. The petitioner believes the issues are caused by: a. Deficient statute and code: especially parts of Illinois Election Code 10 ILCS 5/10 and 10/8 b. Deficient Statement of Candidacy Form (10 ILCS 5/10-5) c. Deficient authorities for Clerks related to certifying for ballot placement and apparent conformity. d. Deficient notification per the 5 Day Objection Period (IL Code 10/8) e. Because of changes in HIPAA laws, causing for insufficient information to be available in the public record. f. Because of the lack of uniformity between Illinois and the Federal Government in laws of voter registration

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

5

Relevant 2nd District Decision
47. In 1997, there was a case in Lee County, Illinois. The petitioners had been excluded from the ballot placement for “apparent conformity” issues related to the Statement of Candidacy. The 2nd Appellate Court opted to rule on this issue. Judge Tomas M. Magdich wrote the decision. (North v Hinkle No. 91
MR 0004) Mootness The criteria for the application of the public interest exception are (1) the public nature of the question, (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination for the purpose of guiding public officers, and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur. Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d at 395. In this case, we are satisfied that the public interest criteria have been met. The procedures for certifying candidates for election to public office are doubtless of substantial public interest….Finally, we are convinced that the facts of this case are not unusual and are likely to recur. See Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d at 395-96.No. 97--MR—0004

II. Ascertainable rights in need of protection
48. The petitioner has a right to be represented, regardless of political affiliations or whether she likes any particular elected official‟s policies, by a constitutional government. This right is core to the authority and subsequent survival of our Republic. Along with this right, undeniably, to have security and faith in the constitutional authority of those governing her. And lastly, placed in this group of 3 fundamental rights, is the fact that the petitioner has the right to due process when there are questions of the constitutionality of her government or the codes, statutes, authorities, processes and tools used to elect that government. The petitioner‟s right to free and equal elections is a right in need of protection and has been infringed upon because of deficient election codes. The petitioner has a right to a „general and uniform‟ election process especially as relates to voter registration and the conduct of elections. Current election statutes and procedures violate the Illinois Constitutional requirement for uniform elections. The petitioner has a fundamental interest and right to a ballot that has constitutionally qualified contestants. Questions on elections must be fairly arbitrated, completely accessible to all 3 legs of the election process, and ensure that all contestants and voting participants are constitutionally qualified to be judged as “free and equal” participants in the election contest. This right needs protecting. The petitioner has a right to know by what definition Illinois uses to define legally qualified for all positions and specifically as pertains to the constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

6

HIPAA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104-191) 54. The HIPAA Privacy Rule protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information. The HIPAA Security Rule sets national standards for security of electronic protected health information and for confidentiality provisions related to the Patient Safety Rule. The petitioner has a right to sufficient information to establish candidates are constitutionally eligible to hold office. When a candidate refuses to provide certified proof of citizenship information to the public, HIPAA privacy rights for individuals, infringes on the public‟s right to information in the public realm proving constitutional eligibility of candidates for office. Election processes need adjusting to assure documents proving eligibility are available to the public.

55.

Voter Registration
56. The electorate is registered from the pool of Americans. Registered voters, who are not citizens, change the election results in ways we cannot measure, since we do not track the issue and have no authority to. A constitutionally qualified electorate is integral to the petitioner‟s right to a fair and free election. Current voter registration processes are not uniform as constitutionally required. There are separate processes with varying registration requirements. The current voter registration processes, not being uniform, are prejudicial against citizens registering by one process verses another, each with varying requirements to certify. In Illinois, access by Americans to voter registration tools shall be general and uniform. That does not mean, unchecked. The lack of verification, or any resources to check, seriously infringes on the petitioner‟s right to have her vote measured against others legally qualified to vote, and impacts all election results. Access to voter registration processes is prejudiced in favor of the questionably registered citizen, having more rights than other registrants. The prejudice is in favor of the voters who have not been verified as eligible to the determent of other qualified registrants. With little security in the voter registration system, the petitioners‟ right to object to voters at the polling place is infringed and sets up voter to voter prejudices because of a lack of uniformity in the registration process and because there is no redress for the petitioner to safe guard her right to a free and equal election, except to look at external factors such as ethnicity or language and object accordingly. No documents are required to register to vote with the NVRA form. There is no element of a source document or element of verification in the mail-in registration form Voter Registration has changed because of other changes in our society. New scrutiny has been added to other aspects of the voting process and allows for audit of voting systems, but not of those allowed access to the system through registration.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61. 62. 63.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

7

64.

The state maintains a required statewide registry of voters. It is managed on an ad hoc basis in the varying jurisdictions and is not enforced uniformly, nor is it uniformly administered at the local level. Procedures for using statewide registry are not consistent or uniform across the state.

65.

66.

According to the current system of verification, someone cannot sit on a jury, but can vote to elect to retain those managing the criminal justice system. The petitioner has a right to a constitutional ballot. The petitioner has a right to a constitutional ballot in the General election, 2010. The ballot should not be left to the „luck of the draw‟ as to whether or not some candidate is challenged as relates to constitutional eligibility to be placed on the ballot. Currently, the constitutional sanctity of the ballot statistically is left to the luck of the draw, to the 5 day objection process, or to some mischievous or fraudulent misconstruction by a candidate or lawyer. Election statutes do not provide uniform notification processes, infringing on the petitioner‟s right to object. The petitioner has a right to be noticed of her right and obligation as gatekeeper to assure candidates are constitutionally qualified for ballot placement. During the 5 day period, the lack of notice, and the absence of any public documents establishing constitutional qualifications available to her, deprives the petitioner the opportunity to challenge contestants on the ballot. Currently the 5 day period, deprives the petitioner redress assuring a constitutionally qualified government, should she question, not issues of apparent conformity which are access tools, but issues of qualifications as mandated in the US and Illinois Constitutions and have no „term limits‟. In circumstances of contests, County Clerks can only investigate eligibility question based upon the evidence provided them during the objection period. No information affirming eligibility is required, prejudicing the process against the County Clerk‟s and the public‟s right to due process. Statement of Candidacy The Statement of Candidacy requires the signatory to affirm to “qualified voter” and “legally qualified to hold such office” without clear definitions of the meanings of these subjective statements, denying the voter the opportunity to assess the veracity of that claim. The signatory on the Statement of Candidacy has the obligation to prove his claim of being legally qualified, but the petitioner‟s right to that information is denied her.

Ballot
67. 68. 69.

5 Day Objection Period
70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

8

77.

The petitioner has a right to know what the meaning of „legally qualified‟ is so she can assess the veracity of the signatory on the Statement of Candidacy. It is possible to claim “legally qualified” subjectively, but without a definition to challenge, that affirmation cannot be tested, creating a due process issue. One example is Natural Born Citizen. There is no definition in the statutes defining legally qualified as pertains to the Presidency, except for Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution. Without a definition, anyone can claim they are a Natural Born Citizen, depriving the petitioner the right to a constitutional government. The affirmation of legally qualified as pertains to the office of the Presidency, as in a Natural Born Citizen is not provable, depriving the petitioner her right to object.

78.

Apparent Conformity 79. The petitioner has a right to information proving the candidates are in apparent conformity so she may exercise her rights to object or to use as part of her voting decision. 80. Apparent conformity requirements that do not include proof of constitutional qualifications are deficient and deprive the petitioner of due process to challenge what is not provided both during and after the 5 day period. Voter registration rolls, not verifying citizenship are not of sufficient veracity to assure candidates are legally qualified to be on the ballot and no other public documents proving citizenship are required or made available. The current ministerial processes, through apparent conformity, do not compel or authorize the County Clerks to verify constitutional qualifications of candidates for elected office. These processes are deficient in assuring the petitioner‟s right to a legal ballot. The petitioner has a right to a clear definition of apparent conformity so she may assess the candidate‟s qualifications. The petitioner has a right to be informed that a candidate has been placed on the ballot through apparent conformity without ever signing the Statement of Candidacy. The lack of publication of the Statement of Candidacy, a requirement for apparent conformity, deprives the petitioner the right to even know such a danger existed!

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

III. Likelihood plaintiff will succeed on the merits 86. Free and Equal: In Illinois elections, Article III, section 3 is the measure by which the end result of any election contest is entrusted, and through the word „shall,‟ is mandated. “All elections shall be free and equal” (Article III. Section 4) General and Uniform: The Illinois Constitution mandate general and uniform “shall be” the legal standard governing voter registration and the conduct of election statutes and procedures. Current statutes violate the Illinois Constitutional requirement for uniform elections. “The General Assembly by law shall define permanent residence for voting by all qualified persons. Laws governing voter registration and conduct of elections shall be general and uniform. (Article III. Section 4) 87.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

9

88.

Access Rights: American citizenship is a‟priori to access rights and privileges afforded the citizenry as part of the voter registration process. All American citizens are entitled to access rights related to registering to vote or becoming a contestant for elected office, regardless of whether or not access is then denied by statute or objection. (i.e. felons or residency restrictions) There are a variety of ways to register to vote, each with differing requirements to register. Current voter registration procedures violate the Illinois Constitution because they are not free and equal; and uniform as required in the Illinois constitution. (Article III Section 3 & 4) An a‟ priori to the election process is citizenship. The burden does not belong on the electorate to assure the constitutional veracity of qualified participants of the election process. The current process, permitting no verification, leaves it to the luck of the draw, failing to provide the electorate an election process that is fair and equal, and uniform. Barriers to contest citizenship are an extreme burden on the electorate.

89.

90.

HIPAA 91. Recent changes in HIPAA regulations and related privacy rights prevent the public from access to information establishing through the public record facts related to constitutional eligibility. It becomes a game of cat and mouse to learn that which is rightfully the public‟s information to know, and sets up prejudices and conflicts within the election process when access to the information is denied. 92. Lack of Access to Information: Evolution in state and federal privacy laws inhibit and completely restrict the citizenry from obtaining personal information required to verify eligibility, setting up impermissible administrative barriers to obtain sufficient knowledge of potential contestant‟s constitutional veracity to be on the ballot. Due Process Issue: The petitioner cannot evaluate a candidate‟s credentials to serve, when required information is withheld because of privacy rights afforded to everyday citizenry and not intended as a barrier to public information required to assess eligibility of candidates.

93.

Voter Registration 94. The successfully completed registration is not the mere presumption of citizenship, but the verified proof of citizenship. The current voter registration processes are not uniform. 95. The Citizen: The vast majority of Americans were born here; their forefathers (regardless to how many generations past or how they originally arrived in America) were born here or became naturalized. The vast majority of our citizens, 95%, are natural born citizens. Citizenship is easily ascertained as a fact. The gatekeeper to election processes and rights is from the voter registration process. Legally, the privilege of voting and being a contestant comes in part, through the successful act of registration. While America has many residents and visitors, access rights to the voter registration process is constitutionally afforded to one group, American Citizens Voter Registration is germane to this question because voter registration is a requirement for ballot placement through „apparent conformity‟ and the „Statement of Candidacy.
It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

96.

97.

98.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

10

99.

Voter Registration is germane to this question because voter registration is the gateway to the entire electoral process.

100. Voter Registration binds this topic to the ballot issue at hand because being a registered voter is required to run for office, creating a massive illusion that it assures constitutional veracity of the ballot. 101. The current voter registration processes are not uniform. There are separate processes with varying registration requirements prejudicing against a citizen registering by one process verses another. 102. Contestants in the election must be registered to vote but this registration is not verified by election officials. 103. Current processes fail to verify or require informed and verified affirmation of US Citizenship when registering to vote. 104. The current election process affords access to voter‟s rights, before citizenship is verified. 105. The current process assumes the voter‟s affirmation to citizenship, but has requirements for establishing the lesser requirement of address. This system allows no verification mechanisms, creating a deficiency that impacts the fairness in all elections. Resources are not allocated empowering the County Clerks to verify citizenship status of anyone that registers to vote. 106. The current process assumes citizenship of candidates and allows no verification, creating a severe deficiency that potentially impacts all elections. 107. Through deficient codes, Clerks are restricted in their ability to access government databases which would allow simple anonymous access to determine voter role eligibility, and thusly restricted in fulfilling the obligation to the electorate to assure a fair voting database; especially Ms. Schultz in her responsibility to the petitioner as a registered voter in McHenry County. 108. Unbelievably, State Board of Election training requires that individuals denied a State ID or Driver‟s License on the basis of providing false ID, MUST be offered to register to vote and that registration is then verified despite proof of identity fraud before the state official. The registration is still certified as valid. Thus, in the Motor Voter program, the veracity of the voting electorate is given less legal priority or substance then the right to drive or to have a State ID. Besides unconstitutional, this is deeply troubling to the survival of our Republic. 109. As a gateway to assure constitutional eligibility for apparent conformity and resulting in ballot placement, voter registration is deficient because it fails to verify citizenship status and because the registration process is not uniform. Currently, the Clerks responsible for certifying candidates for ballot placement cannot verify or certify that the candidate is constitutionally eligible for apparent conformity because the law fails to empower County Clerks to do so. Even with the 5 day contest, there is no verification possible because there is no information required to establish constitutional conformity. 110. The process of voter registration allows registration with and without the registrants‟ knowledge. Voter registration currently allows unqualified voters to register without knowing they have done so.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

11

111. Applicants registering by mail do not take an oath or show ID. They “self-certify” 112. Current voter registration processes allow anyone to say they are an US Citizen, without fear of challenge. One need not even say where they were born. 113. Access to voter registration processes is not uniform. Voter Registration practices include at least these three procedures with varying requirements. In person before a Deputy Registrar Agency based registration Registration by mail 114. Procedures providing the electorate uniform registration laws, and proving citizenship status are well within the government‟s ability to implement and are authorized and mandated to be in conformity with Article III – Section 3 and Section 4. 115. Although not uniformly required, precedence for requiring qualifying documentation to register is part of the current process. 116. Proof of citizenship and constitutional eligibility is required for many other privileges in our society and is not an undue barrier to the right to vote. 117. Without proof of citizenship, during the 5 day objection period, the electorate lacks sufficient information to judge the veracity of a candidate or a voter at the voting booth. The deficiency creates prejudice amongst the voters, between voter and contestant, and between contestants, especially where there is no way to ascertain if someone is constitutionally eligible to vote or to hold office, except to look at things such as accents, or ethnicity. 118. The State refuses to run the statewide voter registration database against the list of illegal residents. 119. The State refuses to authorize a voter registration system that has verified integrity. 120. The State refuses to track or make known to the public any reliable data regarding the integrity of the voter registration database making it conveniently impermissible for anyone to object to something which is not tracked. 121. In practical terms, voter registration is an honor system. This is not of sufficient substance to meet constitutional mandates. 122. Law enforcement rarely takes interest in or allocates investigators to voter registration issues. 123. Clerks will testify to instances where persons repeatedly voted and later applied for citizenship. 124. There are voter registration processes currently in use that do not require potential voters to swear to place of birth and that they are US citizens authorized to vote.

The Ballot
125. The ballot is the means by which We The People affirm our sovereign will in our Republic.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

12

126. The oath on the application for a voters ballot is not stated in clear, direct terms. 127. The ballot, representing all the voters‟ choices for the contest, is crucial to any determination of a free and equal election. 128. The ballot must have two elements: o o Constitutional reliability In apparent conformity with other election standards

129. Requirements for ballot placements do not verify the constitutional eligibility of the contestants. 130. County Clerks and other election officials are empowered with deficient tools, authority and resources to verify the ballot as constitutional, as opposed to in apparent conformity. 131. Mr. Alan Keyes was placed on the Illinois Primary ballot without requesting it. He did not sign the Statement of Candidacy, and no one in the State of Illinois required him to submit or sign one during the contest period proving he desired to be on the ballot after a voter‟s actions, and not his own sworn statement. There is no evidence available to the petitioner that he was even notified of the fact he had been certified for ballot placement in the 2008 Primary. 132. Mr. Keyes never affirmed a desire to be on the ballot, nor affirmed he was eligible, clearly setting a highly dangerous precedence such that anyone can be placed on a ballot, the signature meaningless. 133. Apparent Conformity, without a clear standard or definition, is so distorted that the State Board of Elections self justified its certification of Mr. Keyes for the ballot placement. No voter could object when the Statement of Candidacy was not posted. 134. The petitioner understands on the face of the matter it is moot as Mr. Keyes did not come close to victory in his quest for the Presidential prize. However, this point gives proof of a deficiency clearly demonstrating the deficient code from which this petitioner seeks redress for. 135. This reality was not covered in the media. However, it did not pass the notice of many County Clerks. Some have now decided to review their own apparent conformity rules and are posting apparent conformity standards for their counties. 136. There is no uniformity in apparent conformity standards between the differing election boards creating a ballot with no uniformity. The current ballot has differing standards for apparent conformity from the State of Illinois, and McHenry County. 137. Recently, in Livingston County, apparent conformity resulted in an improperly registered official suddenly withdrawing from a rather contentious election contest after the election ended in a tie. While this information was easily ascertainable from the Livingston County records, because the standards of apparent conformity do not permit checking of constitutional eligibility, the voter registration information on the Statement of Candidacy was not checked. The County Clerk was not allowed to check. In this instance a local elected official failed to keep his voter registration current and thus withdrew
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

13

from the election tie contest. It was only ascertained after a tie in the vote that he was constitutionally ineligible. If the vote had not been close, an unconstitutional and ineligible candidate would have been in office. 138. The Livingston County challenge had nothing to do with eligibility. The lack of eligibility was not tested as the contestant withdrew. This situation illustrates yet another example of luck of the draw ballot integrity. 139. Not touching the obvious political question, however related to the 2008 election, there is a LARGE public question demanding resolution about the verification process for constitutional eligibility, and specifically the definition of the term Natural Born Citizen. The Federal and State have failed to provide a clear definition such that the citizenry can clearly ascertain the eligibility of contestants. This deficiency tracks back to the certification process of candidates for the ballot. The petitioner‟s initial interest in this matter started because of this profound question. 140. The February 2nd Primary has candidates certified for ballot placement and not verified for the constitutional requirements of citizenship. The petitioner has no faith in the ballot. 141. It is well within the government‟s ability to secure a constitutional ballot for upcoming elections. 142. The petitioner prays the Court will respond quickly. The upcoming General election is 8 months ahead allowing sufficient time for the State Board of Elections and the General Assembly to address the issues. 143. The petitioner cannot ascertain if someone is constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot except to look at things such as accents, or ethnicity. The electorate lacks sufficient information to judge the veracity of a candidate. This creates a prejudice and lack of faith between the electorate and their elected government, when there are questions about eligibility and no way to gain remedy to that question. 144. No public record is required to prove constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot for any position voted on in Illinois. No documents proving eligibility are requested, required, recorded or posted. 145. Through HIPAA privacy laws, the petitioner lacks access to information that could affirm the constitutional eligibility of the contestants on the ballot. 146. The petitioner has a right to a constitutional ballot. The State has the obligation to deliver a constitutional ballot. Currently it is statistically left to the „luck of the draw‟ and to whether or not some candidate is challenged, to whether the ballot is a constitutional ballot.

5 Day Objection Period
147. Posting for Public Notice: It is common administrative procedure to post public notice when the public‟s right to object to a government action is involved. 148. County or department ordinances must be published to provide the public with notice that an ordinance is going up for a vote. Examples are so common, it is prima fascia. 149. Illinois Election law affords a period of 35 days for posting of public questions for the ballot.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

14

150. The 5 day rule unjustly deprives the petitioner of standing. 151. Public Notification: The 5 Day Objection (IL Code 10/8)
shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petition for a public question, with the following exceptions…

152. The 5 Day Rule: In the election statutes there is no public notification required. Election Code in Illinois does not require the posting of a Notice of Candidates for which petitioner has the brief 5 day period to object. 153. The 5 day notice law is unreasonable because the rules allow the petitioner 5 days to object without:
a. b. c. d. e. f. Public posting of proof contestants are constitutionally qualified. Being noticed of her right and duty to challenge these contestants during the objection period. Being noticed that if she did not object, there could be unconstitutional candidates on her ballot. Being noticed that the state does not verify constitutional eligibility only certifies ballot position. Being permitted access to required information to ascertain eligibility. Being noticed what constitutes apparent conformity, with evidence available during the contest period.

154. Illinois Elections Codes and Statutes decentralize authority to the various boards to post notice, making it confusing for voters and lacking uniformity. (10 ILCS 5/10-6) 155. Public notification and posting during the objection period is discretionary to each County Clerk, causing for a lack of uniformity in notifications amongst the voters of various counties across Illinois. 156. The County Clerks do not have information about candidates filing at the State Board of Elections offices until certification occurs. 157. Statewide, Illinois code does not provide a uniform notification process for the public to utilize, such that they are notified of all the candidates they are qualified to object to. 158. Lack of Public Awareness: Voters, not having been afforded their right of notice are hardly, if at all, aware of their right and obligation to be gatekeepers for ballot placement, especially as relates to constitutional qualifications. 159. The sanctity of the ballot is statistically left to the luck of the draw or some mischievous candidate or lawyer. It is too great of a burden to expect the citizens to verify the constitutional veracity of a ballot through the objection process, especially lacking access to sufficient information. 160. The process of election essentially involves contests. If a candidate is to be screened for ballot position, it is left to the other contestants in the race and/or to engaged and alert citizens, to do so through the 5 day objection process. When there is only one person on the ballot, there is no natural predator of the unchallenged contestant on the ballot, enhancing the statistical odds for an unconstitutional ballot.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

15

161. The lack of notice, and available qualifying documents establishing constitutional qualifications, deprived the petitioner the opportunity to challenge all contestants on the current ballot, during the 5 day period. 162. Even with notice the burden is on the State Board of Elections, and the Secretary of State to deliver a constitutional ballot that is in apparent conformity to the voting electorate. 163. The election code allows for public posting and verification of other less substantive requirements. Statement of Economic Interest (10 ILCS 5/1/0-5) Campaign Finance (ARTICLE 9. DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES)

Statement of Candidacy
164. The form required of all applicants for office (10 ILCS 5/10-5) 165. Forms provided by the State Board of Elections do not specifically identify conformity with the state or federal constitutional requirements. 166. The Statement of Candidacy has a self certifying obligatory statement with no way for the citizen to challenge or receive proof of that statement after the 5 day objection period. 167. “General and Uniform” - The Statement of Candidacy is too general imposing deficiencies in the uniformity of the election. 168. All contestants are required to be US citizens to qualify to sign the Statement of Candidacy. No public document proving age, citizenship or residence is required to run for any office. “Legally qualified” and the address are affirmed to on the Statement of Candidacy. 169. All candidates for office essentially use the same form with the same words and the same oath. Thus this phrase “legally qualified to hold such office” means different things to different signers of the same form. 170. The oath on the Statement of Candidacy is subjective to the applicant‟s interpretation of what is legal. Illinois statute lacks specific language to define “legally qualified.” Federal statues lack specific language to define “legally qualified.” 171. The Statement of Candidacy allows for subjective statements. “Legally qualified to hold such office” is relative to the office and requiring a subjective declaration to a legal term thereby leaving it up the candidate‟s opinion of what legally qualified means. 172. If a candidate lies on their application, Illinois and Federal law is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of “legally qualified to hold office.” There is no statute or judiciable definition of Natural Born Citizen as relates to the US Presidency, yet this form is used for presidential candidates to affirm they are „legally qualified.‟ There is no basis for the signatory‟s affirmation of „legally qualified‟ to be challenged if the definition of Natural Born Citizen is left to the signatory‟s subjective interpretation.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

16

173. The presumption is that the signer is telling the truth. The obligation is on the signer of the Statement of Candidacy, but after the 5 day objection period there is no process by which a citizen can easily get remedy to compel the signer to prove the affirmation that he/she is obligated to by signature. 174. It is a due process violation that there is no specific law or statute from which the veracity of the candidate‟s legal qualifications to serve can be challenged after the 5 day period by a simple citizen. All citizens have the right to know if a ballot is constitutional. Law enforcement generally does not get involved. 175. Legally qualified could mean registered to vote. A contestant can be registered to vote, but still not be constitutionally eligible for the office. 176. No public record is required or available to prove the signature affirming constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot for any position voted on in Illinois. 177. Candidates have been certified for the ballot without signing the Statement of Candidacy. 178. If no one challenges the candidate‟s Statement of Candidacy during the contest period, the candidate is placed on the ballot, the Statement of Candidacy form signed or not.

Apparent Conformity
179. Apparent conformity is the standard clerks use before certifying a ballot. 180. While the act of voter registration is required, constitutional eligibility is not measured by specific actions to get into the game. Constitutional eligibility is a priori to qualifying activities for apparent conformity. Thus constitutional eligibility does not refer to signatures on a petition with procedures from statutes specifying details such as numbers and gathering processes, or to how they are to be challenged. Such processes fall under „apparent conformity.‟ 181. The current law fails to empower County Clerks to verify constitutional mandates for eligibility. 182. “Apparent conformity” is not of sufficient legal substance to meet the obligation of “must be” or “shall be” as required by the US and Illinois Constitutions unless there is a reliable instrument establishing constitutional eligibility, such that the clerk, through apparent conformity, can certify that constitutional mandates have been met. 183. It is a deficiency of election statute that it specifies as required for „apparent conformity,‟ the filing of documents related to special interests as mandated by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, yet does not require filing of documents to prove the higher standard of constitutional eligibility. 184. Ministerial Roles: Apparent conformity prejudices the election towards a crafty contestant who may lack constitutional qualifications, but because of appearance, clerks are “required‟ to certify him as qualified for ballot placement. 185. There are varying standards for apparent conformity from the different election authorities, with no requirement to post these standards, nor to post the Statement of Candidacy for the public.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

17

186. If „apparent conformity‟ were combined with „constitutionally qualified‟, then there would not be this problem that we face today.

Irreparable harm of the injunction is not issued
187. Irreparable damage and lack of adequate remedy at law are assumed, because the legislature, in enacting the election statutes has determined that violations of the election law causes irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 188. Current processes fail to verify or require affirmation of US Citizenship causing irreparable harm to the voting electorate. 189. There can be no question of the irreparable harm to our Republic when there is no veracity to the constitutionality of the ballot.

Voter Registration
190. The lack of uniform voter registration laws creates irreparable harm to the sanctity of the election, especially in close elections. Irreparable harm will continue to inflict its un-quantified toll until voter registration laws are brought into conformity with the constitutional mandates. 191. It is impossible to assess the damage to the American public. There are no resources available to check and there are no processes in place to audit, or to establish standards of compliance with constitutional requirements that voter registration be uniform. This is avoidable harm as it is within the government‟s ability to secure quality audits assuring compliance with standards that are quantifiable and measurable, such that the electorate can assess their government‟s performance. Without this, the public has no basis to evaluate or criticize the government‟s performance in its obligatory duties. 192. Prejudicial registration processes continue to build an unfair voter basis and must be altered immediately. Altering requirements to make them uniform is within the General Assembly‟s obligation and ability. 193. Any burden expecting the petitioner to go directly through the legislature is deficient. The petitioner feels this is a conflict between the General Assembly‟s authorized body, the State Board of Election, and her rights. 194. The current voter registration processes causes irreparable harm between the electorate and their government through the questionable validity of the vote because there is no standard to which we can assess if the contest was fairly run. The Ballot 195. The voting public in general, and specifically the petitioner, has the right to know if the candidates just elected are constitutionally eligible, because confidence in the ballot certified through current processes is irreparably harmed. 196. The February 2nd 2010 election was a Primary. We are well within the time to correct the problem should disqualified contestants be discovered before the General election in November 2010.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

18

The 5 Day Rule:
197. Lack of Public Awareness: The public is not aware of their right and obligation to be gatekeepers for ballot placement, especially relating to constitutional qualifications. The public needs to be alerted to avoid further irreparable harm. 198. Citizens should not have the burden to verify the constitutional veracity of a ballot through the objection process, creating irreparable harm that the State Board of Elections can eliminate by verifying constitutional mandates for the ballots are met through corrected procedures. 199. The public do not have access to information during the 5 day objection period to make decisions about whether they should object or not. There is no way to stop the reoccurrence of this due process violation without intervention of the Court. 200. If no one challenges the candidate‟s Statement of Candidacy during the contest period, he is placed on the ballot, thus no one checked the current contestants, creating irreparable harm to the sanctity of the ballot. 201. The question of constitutional eligibility is never moot to a candidate‟s right to office. The public and the petitioner is irreparably harmed because the current 5 Day Rule and resulting procedures provides no redress to easily affirm that a candidate does meet constitutional standards, or not.

Apparent Conformity
202. The public is harmed because the definition for apparent conformity does not include mandates to, nor proof of qualifications affirming constitutional eligibility. 203. The public is harmed and must be protected to assure they can publically view all matters related to apparent conformity so they can decide if the standards are met. This includes constitutional qualifications and the public posting of all documents used to make the assessment of apparent conformity. 204. The lack of uniform standards in apparent conformity creates an unconstitutional and prejudiced ballot. IV. There is no adequate remedy at law HIPAA 205. HIPAA privacy laws prevent the citizen from access to information establishing through the public record information required to make a decision about the constitutional credentials of candidates on the ballot. 206. The petitioner and other voters lack access to or standing to request qualifying information about the candidates, and to legal processes and redress because of the deficiency. 207. The petitioner cannot evaluate a candidate‟s credentials to serve, when required information is withheld because of privacy rights afforded to everyday citizenry and not meant to frustrate the public‟s right to proof of eligibility for public office.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

19

Voter Registration
208. Unqualified registered voters change the result of an election, impacting the voting population and the candidate pool, without remedy available. 209. It is impossible to assess the level of damage to the American public because there are no resources made available for the administrators of elections to assure the registered voter is a legal citizen. We have no resources or processes available to do a quality audit of the voting process, and thus perform an assessment of the damage to the public. 210. There is no verification of citizenship status of the candidates, creating an unfair barrier between the electorate and the candidate and to which there is no redress. 211. Without adequate legal remedy, this promotes prejudice, suspicion, and anger between the electorate and their elected officials, creating a barrier because of questionable and unequal registration laws. 212. The lack of verified registrations for citizenship makes it impossible to judge the veracity of a voter while at the voting booth. There is no remedy. 213. Natural separation between the branches, along with difficulty of prosecution, sets up a barrier such that the police and state‟s attorneys do not often investigate election matters, especially citizenship of registrants. 214. In terms of standing, the electorate has no individual remedy to system wide deficient registration processes. The electorate is deprived quantifiable information to assess the veracity of the voter registration process. 215. There is no remedy at law when the Clerks are denied usage of current state and federal databases that would allow for them to do their job in screening and securing a valid electoral pool. 216. Current voter registration processes allow anyone to say they are an US Citizen, without fear of challenge. One need not even say where they were born, no one can check. There is no remedy at law.

Ballot
217. Once a contestant is placed on the ballot, legally, it is difficult to remove him and/or to change the election results. 218. Once a candidate is elected, legal remedies are prohibitive and rarely taken, making redress for the citizen impermissible. Law enforcement officials rarely get involved. 219. Without standing, and through HIPAA privacy laws, the petitioner lacks access to information affirming constitutionality of the contestants on the ballot. 220. There is no legal remedy to losses from prejudice, suspicion, and anger between the electorate and their elected government caused because of questions about elected officials eligibility. The petitioner is able to provide personal testimony to many attempts made in the 2008 election.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

20

The 5 Day Objection Period
221. The 5 day objection period is an impermissible legal barrier for the voting public when contestants are not constitutionally verified, in effect making citizenship requirements governed by apparent conformity rather than „shall be‟ as constitutionally mandated. 222. The legal remedy of citizens, through the objection process, being gatekeepers to assure the constitutional integrity of the ballot, is too great of a burden and is not possible. 223. The public as a gatekeeper assuring constitutional eligibility, accordingly, has no remedy at law to object to the candidates. To object to a candidate, the public needs „evidence.‟ How can that evidence be found when privacy laws restrict access, and there is no evidence asked for or required in the process of becoming a candidate. This burden creates fundamental due process issues without legal remedy. 224. It is within the obligation of the General Assembly and the State Board of Elections, to deliver a fair and equal election by assuring only eligible Americans are on the ballot that is in apparent conformity. 225. The Constitution does not say that a candidate only must be constitutionally eligible for office during that period of time set out through administrative code to prepare a ballot. Currently, past the 5 day period, questions of constitutional eligibility, administratively and in the courts, in the realm of standing, have impermissible barriers to resolution. 226. When there is only one person on the ballot, there is no natural predator of the unchallenged contestants and no remedy for the electorate. Statement of Candidacy 227. The Statement of Candidacy has a self certifying obligatory statement with no way for the citizen to challenge or receive proof of the veracity of that statement after the 5 day objection period. 228. The statement of „legally qualified‟ is too vague, and makes legal challenges difficult. There is no legal remedy to challenge a statement that is not legally defined in law. 229. Without notifying the public through public disclosure at the time of filing, the State Board of Elections set a precedence of permitting unsigned Statement‟s of Candidacy, creating irreparable harm to the integrity of the petitioner‟s 2008 Primary ballot and thus serving an unconstitutional ballot to her. 230. There is no legal definition in Federal or State code, or specific legal precedence defining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen specifically as relates to qualifications for the US Presidency. There is no way for the veracity of such a claim to be assessed. 231. The obligation on the Statement of Candidacy is on the signer, but after the 5 day objection period there is no process by which a citizen can easily get remedy to compel the signer to prove the affirmation that he/she is legally qualified. The legal remedy is different than ones for apparent conformity (ie signatures on a petition) because constitutional qualifications to serve in office cannot be legally usurped or placed a time limit on.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

21

232. There is no remedy at law when a candidate lies on their application. Illinois and Federal law is vague and ambiguous as to the meaning of „legally qualified to hold office.‟ Law enforcement generally does not get involved. There is no way for the citizen to find redress. 233. No public record is required to prove the signature affirming constitutional eligibility to be on the ballot for any position voted on in Illinois creating due process and impermissible legal barriers. 234. If no one challenges the candidate‟s Statement of Candidacy during the contest period, he is placed on the ballot, regardless to whether he is constitutionally eligible, placing the burden on the electorate to seek legal remedy when there is none. Apparent Conformity 235. Apparent conformity does not compel or authorize County Clerks to verify constitutional eligibility of candidates for elected office. These processes are deficient in assuring constitutional veracity of the ballot. There is no remedy at law. 236. There is no remedy when the election clerks, through apparent conformity, must certify for ballot placements candidates who may not be constitutionally eligible. There is no remedy at law for the electorate who cannot check the veracity of that certification because no posting of proof is required. 237. Documents for „apparent conformity‟ as mandated by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, are required allowing for legal remedy for later challenge, but information establishing constitutional qualifications is not required or available. 238. This barrier makes for an unbalanced electoral process because one leg of the election process is not permitted required information to ascertain eligibility. There is no remedy for this loss. 239. There is no remedy at law for the petitioner when apparent conformity standards in Illinois lack uniformity. 240. There is no remedy at law, nor notification to the public that varying standards for the same ministerial act occurs from one election authority to another. Specifically the 2008 and 2010 ballots have candidates certified for placement with different apparent conformity standards.

VI. 5th factor: Balancing Equities
241. The temporary Injunction will not prevent the State Board of Elections from doing their job. It is the State Board of Elections responsibility to assure the certified results are constitutionally valid. There is no burden to the State Board of Elections, except to perform its duties, quickly. 242. The burden of the loss is the plaintiff‟s (as a member of the voting public) and the voting public, if the State Board of Elections does certify the election without verifying the eligibility of the candidates on the ballot. 243. There is sufficient time to allow for a hearing on the merits.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

22

244. The Temporary Injunction can be heard in the time frame allowing the State Board of Elections sufficient opportunity to address the issue without undue complications. 245. If the current contestants are qualified, it should be a simple matter to get confirmation that constitutional mandates have been met. 246. In balancing the equities between unregistered voters and registered voters, the petitioner believes that the higher standard of interest in the matter is not for the unregistered, but for the registered voter. However, this is not an argument for barriers to registration, quite the contrary. It is simply a call for the Illinois General Assembly to set up a registration system that protects both parties, with the favor towards constitutional qualifications becoming provable as part of the registration process.

VII. Public Policy and Public Interest
247. Substantial Public Interest: Certifying candidates for elected office is of substantial public interest
(North v Hinkle No. 91 MR 0004)

248. It is of peculiar public interest that the integrity of the voter registration pool, when registration is required for all processes related to electing our government. 249. The petitioner and the public is at a loss to determine the damage to our Republic when non-citizen and otherwise constitutionally ineligible voters or candidates participate in the electoral process. All results of that election become eschewed, impacting the very faith the public has in the authority of their government. 250. The process of certification of candidates for ballot placement is crucial for the integrity of the current election and for all future elections. This situation is likely to reoccur. 251. The current process prohibits the public from information establishing costituional eligibility of candidates, especially when no information is provided depriving the public of due process and of standing to object. 252. Ms Schultz, Ms Helander and Mr, Shelden provide evidence for the plaintiff, demonstrating significant public interest. 253. Reoccur: Constitutional deficiency, due process and equality issues related to voter registration and certification of contenders for ballot placements of contestants will re-occur and deserves the attention of the court.

VIII. Prayer For Relief
254. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows: 255. A preliminary injunction on State Board of Elections until the constitutionality of the candidates is proven. The preliminary injunction is entered to preserve the status quo pending trial of the case on the merits. 256. An Injunction enjoining the State Board of Elections to verify candidate‟s constitutional eligibility for ballot placement until procedures are put in place correcting the current deficiencies outlined here.
Petition for Injunctive Relief It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

23

257. An Injunction enjoining the State Board of Elections from certifying new voter registration applications until procedures are put in place correcting the current deficiencies outlined here. 258. Any and all other relief the court may deem appropriate 259. List of Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Katherine Schultz questions 1-14 Katherine Schultz email questions 1-3 Katherine Schultz certified affirmation Willard Helander‟s Answers 1-17 Willard Helander‟s certified statement Mark Shelden Questions 1-17 (Certified statement pending arrival)

VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS
The Statements and Claims made herein are the statements and claims of the petitioner‟s and those statements incorporated herein of others as part of the public record concerning these matter. On oath and subject to the laws of perjury, the undersigned petitioner affirm and assert that the preceding allegations and factual statements, including those factual statements alleged on information and belief are true to the best of her knowledge, and that she has asserted these claims, being legally competent to testify to these matters, and having acted voluntarily without promise of payment or by threat; in good faith and based upon her understanding of the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, and the duly enacted laws which spring there under. On my sacred honor and in witness before my Lord God.

________________________________ XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX (AKA CHALICE JACKSON) AND FOUNDER OF PATRIOT‟S HEART MEDIA NETWORK, IT‟S DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

24

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

25

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

26

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

27

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

28

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

29

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

30

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

31

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

32

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

33

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

34

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

35

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

36

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

37

Petition for Injunctive Relief

It‟s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin

A frequent reoccurrence to the fundamental principles of civil government is necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. These blessings cannot endure unless the people recognize their corresponding individual obligations and responsibilities. (Article 1, Section 23 IL Cons.)

38