1

STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK

) ) SS )

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SITTING AS THE DULY CONSTITUTED STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE MATTER OF: SHARON ANN MERONI Objector, vs. JEFF TREXLER MICHAEL L. WHITE GARY DUNLAP LOUIS COTTON TIMOTHY BECKER DAWN CZARNY BILL MALAN JAMES PAULY JOSH HANSON JUILE FOX MIKE LABNO ED RUTLEDGE LEX GREEN GREGG MOORE CARL E. OFFICER STEPHEN F. ESTILL WILLIE BOYD, JR. Candidates. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

10 SOEB GE 524 10 SOEB GE 532 10 SOEB GE 533 10 SOEB GE 534 10 SOEB GE 535 10 SOEB GE 541 10 SOEB GE 526 10 SOEB GE 527 10 SOEB GE 528 10 SOEB GE 529 10 SOEB GE 530 10 SOEB GE 543 10 SOEB GE 544 10 SOEB GE 525 10 SOEB GE 537 10 SOEB GE 550 10 SOEB GE 553

EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER’S AND GENERAL COUNSEL’S RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS (AND/OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT) AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND GENERAL COUNSEL
This matter comes before the State Board of Elections as the duly qualified Electoral Board. Now here comes the Objector, taking Exception to the Hearing Officer‟ and General Counsel‟s 1

2 recommendations to the Board to grant the Motions to Strike and Dismiss (and/or for Summary Judgment) filed in the above referenced matters and filing this Motion to set aside the recommendations. 1. Mr. Ken Wenzel is the Hearing Officer, Mr. Steve Sandvoss is the General Counsel who have made recommendation in this matter to the ISBE through the SOEB. 2. Verified Objector‟s Petitions were timely filed on June 28, 2010 with respect to each of the Candidates. No one has claimed a lack of timeliness or found deficiency in the Objector‟s Statement of Interest filed according to 10 ILCS 5/10-8
Any legal voter of the political subdivision or district in which the candidate ... having objections to any certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector's petition ….The objector's petition shall give the objector's name and residence address, and shall state fully the nature of the objections to the certificate of nomination or 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. 3.

The Objector‟s Statement of Interest states the Objector‟s
“ interest in filing the following objections is that of a citizen desirous of seeing to it that the Illinois and US Constitutions are upheld, laws governing the filing of nomination papers for a candidate for election to the office of _________________________________ are properly complied with and/or that only a qualified candidate would appear upon the ballot as a candidate for said office.”

4. Neither of the Recommendations addresses the Constitutional issues raised in the Objector‟s Statement of Interest. 5. The two Recommendations seek to circumvent the Objectors Standing and therefore „Interests‟ without legal cause and without finding insufficiency in the Objector‟s Interest which is in the Spirit and Intent of all Election Law as set out in the Illinois and US Constitution. 6. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board of Elections that her Civil Rights are violated by their lack of governance in this matter. 7. The Objector takes strong exception and makes strong protest to the Illinois State Board of Elections that her various US and Illinois Constitutional Rights are violated by their lack of governance in this matter. (Especially, but not exclusively, US Bill of Rights, Illinois Bill of Rights, Illinois Article III, Section 3 & 4) 8. The US and Illinois Constitution requires all Candidates for office be US and Illinois Citizens. The Board refuses to permit any process by which Objectors can exercise their (her) right to Object and/or verify “Legally Qualified” during the 5 day period.

2

3 9. The Hearing Officer and General Counsel seem to believe the Petitioner is magical and can produce evidentiary testimony when the process and those administrating it refuse to require it. 10. The Recommendations fail to address critical Civil Rights Issue and seek to dismiss without merit the Objector‟s uncontested Interest to uphold the Laws and the Constitution. 11. The Objector has claimed her Civil Rights are violated by the Board‟s, and it‟s lawful agents, lack of correct governance and refusal to act upon their oath to uphold the US and Illinois Constitution. Civil Rights violations exist because there is no way for the Objector to identify the qualifications of candidates except to use “Profiling” evidence.(See Exhibits from the Meroni Response) Also this example is clearer shown in a recent related issue in Missouri ( Hector Maldonado candidate for US Senate Letter on Scribd and Mr. Maldanado on video declaring his Civil Rights were violated ) 12. Civil Rights violations exist because the issue places an unnatural tension between the Candidates running for office and those that wish to object when no evidence is available to objectively evaluate that candidate. 13. Civil Rights and Due Process violations exist based on a lack of legal statutes that prove “Must and Shall” constitutional qualifications for the position applied for are met, and because of the lack of an official process by which Candidates - who are almost always more than willing to prove their Citizenship - can in fact prove their qualifications. 14. Due Process violation: The only party that has access to the information affirming Legally Qualified is the candidate. 15. The Hearing Officer in refusing to hold hearings, had deprived the Objector‟s uncontested Standing and Interest to examine the Candidate‟s claims of being Legally Qualified.
16. The Recommendations claim: “ The Objector does not raise, reference or cite any requirement under the Illinois Election Code indicating that the Candidates must provide the proof she desires to see, and there is no allegation as to any specific Election Code requirement(s) which any of the Candidates are alleged to have violated with regard to the Petitions.”

17. RESPONSE – The Objector‟s Petition lays out the full objection as she understands it. There is no proof of the Candidate‟s affirmation available in the public record. The Objector can not specify a deficiency without alleging information that she has no way to acquire, especially during the brief 5 day objection period. 18. RESPONSE – That Recommendation (above) violates various Illinois and US Constitutional rights, not exclusive to, but especially Due Process. 19. RESPONSE - The recommendations do not argue that there is another path by which the information could be obtained. 3

4

20. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer fails to find the Objector is deficient in her claim that insufficient evidence exists in the nomination papers, only that she could not produce what does not exist in the public record. 21. RESPONSE - The Recommendations do not argue she is not entitled to the information, only that procedurally there is no process to provide it - Establishing the Board‟s deficiency. 22. RESPONSE – Fails to state that the Board is not required to provide information proving legally qualified – only that it has not done so. 23. RESPONSE – The Objector makes her Objection to each candidate, not based on nonexistent code but on the USA and Illinois Constitution to which the Board and all of its Agents, Codes and Rules must answer to and uphold. 24. RESPONSE – The Objector cannot refer to some law or rule that does not exist. 25. RESPONSE – The lack of existence of a law, rule or regulation to prove constitutional eligibility is not the fault of the Objector, but it is the responsibility of the IBSE in its Administration role.

26. The Recommendations Claim :
and … shall state what relief is requested of the electoral board.” “Each of the Candidates signed standard forms of Statement of Candidacy which included, verbatim, the language averring to their qualifications for office that is required under Section 10-5 of the Illinois Election Code (10 ILCS 5/10-5). Those averments are unrebutted, and nothing could be presented by the Objector within the proper scope of hearing the Objections that would rebut them.”

27. RESPONSE – I cannot rebuke statements without a public record to do so. 28. RESPONSE – Relief requested is
WHEREFORE, your Objector respectfully requests that the petition papers of ___________________________________, as a candidate for _________________________________, be declared insufficient and not in compliance with the laws of the State of Illinois

29. RESPONSE – When the Relief is granted, it is step 1 and step 2. If the Nomination papers are insufficient, then the candidate is not placed on the ballot. 30. “The Candidate’s nomination papers are insufficient because they fail to demonstrate and/or provide documentation that the candidate meets the constitutional requirements for office.” 31. RESPONSE – The Objector petition is specifically phrased because the Objector is unable to prove or disprove the Candidate‟s affirmation of being „Legally Qualified” because no evidence is available in the public record. 4

5

32. RESPONSE - The ISBE fails to provide a definition for “Legally Qualified” such that the Objector can exercise her rights with Due Process. 33. Through the March 2010 TRO, (Meroni Vs Illinois State Board of Elections) and the letter to the ISBE (Exhibit 2) the Objector has openly informed the Board and attempted to follow up seeking to testify and or present these various deficiencies to the Board. 34. The Objector takes particular issue with the Hearing Officer‟s blatant attempt to mischaracterize her legally filed response to the Candidates listed above as rambling and not related to the matter. The Hearing Officer makes this statement devoid of any cause of Law or without citing any evidence, attempting to prejudice this process without proving his ridiculous affirmation. He makes this statement clearly demonstrating he does not grasp the constitutional issues raised, or without demonstrating any respect to the Citizen‟s rights and the tremendous effort involved in these Objections – 35. Also without cause of evidence to prove his claim the Hearing Officer places the following unsubstantiated statement into the Public Record.
The Objector appears to have some passing awareness that there are longstanding legal remedies provided at law should an unqualified person somehow be elected (e.g. quo warranto) and that the law provision for dealing with the situation (e.g. the doctrine of de facto officers) but finds them unsatisfactory.

36. This statement is presented without proof and is prejudicial to the process, clearly trying to
shift the burden of responsibility from wherein it currently remains, with the ISBE and its Agent Mr, Menzel and Mr. Sandvoss who have the responsibility, as their Oaths require, to uphold the US and Constitution. 37. Objector was told in the March 2010 TRO testimony,(Meroni V ISBE) by your counsel, Mark Ishu, that she had to exercise her options through ISBE Administrative processes (see transcripts from the Court Proceedings) 38. The Objector went through the procedures and has standing and is still denied access to any information whatsoever establishing the Legal Cause to claim the candidates are legally qualified.. 39. FURTHER RESPONSES – The ISBE incorrectly identified Mr Gregg Moore, Mr. Stephen Estill, Mr. Carl Officer as having filed “Motions to Strike and Dismiss” when they did not file these Motions. 40. RESPONSE – The Hearing Officer failed to rule on the specific motions by the various parties. Specifically, the Hearing Officer and General Counsel failed to address the filings of Mr Gregg Moore, Mr. Stephen Estill, Mr. Carl Officer. 41. RESPONSE - The Hearing Officer and General Counsel erred in their assessment of the filings of Mr Gregg Moore, Mr. Stephen Estill, Mr. Carl Officer.

5

6 42. RESPONSE – Contrary to Illinois code 10 ICLCS 5/8 - 8 and legal bindings and responsibilities (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.) The ISBE does not use Apparent Conformity Standards to vet applications and now provides no way for the citizenry to do so either. 43. The ISBE fails to set or post clear Apparent Conformity Standards so the public understand what qualifications the Applicants on the Ballot have. 44. The ISBE Fails to have any Apparent Conformity Standards and in direct opposition to it‟s responsibilities 45. The Board of Elections fails to provide a definition for „legally qualified‟ creating a due process violation for the petitioner who wishes to challenge the legal qualifications of the candidates 46. No Candidate‟s (listed above) papers provide evidence that the Candidate is legally qualified. Therefore the Objector has offered each candidate the opportunity to prove they are citizens, and then she will withdraw her objection. 47. Rule II-B and E Objections to Circulators provides the “Competent evidence” may be presented to prove eligibility. Yet no such rule specifies “competent evidence“ that will prove the same standard for Candidates.

48. 4 Candidates have provided proof of citizenship: These candidates‟ objections were
removed. 49. The Objector moves to 1) Set aside/Deny the Motions to Strike and Dismiss of the candidates for the Constitution Party and the Libertarian slate, along with Mr. Boyd and to allow Hearings to proceed as required to establish Constitutional eligibility of the candidates. 2) Set aside the Hearing Officer‟s bizarre recommendations as relates to motions never filed by Mr. Moore, Mr. Officer, and Mr. Estill. 3) Request all candidates objected to voluntarily submit proof of Citizenship, with a raised seal birth certificate or naturalization papers. This will reduce the need for further litigation

4) The Hearing Officer‟s unsubstantiated statements in point above (34 and35) be stricken
from the record for a lack of proof. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________________________
SHARON A MERONI PRO SE

6

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful