This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
michael jackson <email@example.com>
Urgent Ethics Complaint
1 message michael jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM To: email@example.com Bcc: Pamela Barnett <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Scott&Diane Martin <email@example.com>, Michael Ferguson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dale Colby <email@example.com> Dear Inspector General Meza,
I am contacting you to bring before you a most serious and egregious ethics complaint related to an objection petition I brought before the IL State BOE Feb 2, 2012 regarding the ballot eligibility of Candidate Barack Obama. I and the State of Illinois are entitled a fair and impartial hearing. This complaint I am filing involves Spoliation of Evidence, Violation of the General Rules of Procedure and Intimidation on the part of the BOE. I as well, had my guaranteed rights afforded me in the IL Constitution violated, specifically Article I Section 1,2,4, and 5. May I also bring to your attention that the BOE has sworn an oath before God to support both the IL and U.S. Constitution (10 ILCS 5/1-2.1). The following people are being named in this complaint: (BOE Commission) Chairman William McGuffage, Vice Chair Jesse Smart, Harold Byers, Betty Coffrin, Ernest Gowen, Judith Rice, Bryan Schneider, Charles Sholz; Dep. Gen. Legal Counsel Ken Menzel, Gen Counsel Steve Sandvoss, Asst. Legal Counsel Bernadette Harrington, Sue Klos; Hearing Examiner Jim Tenuto; Candidate Counsel Michael Kreloff and Michael Kasper. The spoliation of evidence is a term often used during the process of discovery. Spoliation of evidence happens when a document or information that is required for discovery is destroyed or altered significantly. If a person negligently or intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that will be required in an action, is liable for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. I will share with you a basic timeline of when I submitted evidence, legal documents and exhibits in a timely fashion and such evidentiary information was suppressed from the public and not put on the record and consequently not considered in the Board’s adjudication of my complaint. Not only were such acts committed, there was a violation of the General Rules and Procedures by the BOE, adopted as recent as Jan 24 , 2012 which(oddly) happened to be on the day I met at the IL State BOE to speak with the Hearing Officer Jim Tenuto (emphasis added). The evidence and documents I submitted to the Hearing Examiner will be provided in the attachments with this submission I bring before you. Those documents were in good faith provided to all the afore mentioned in this complaint. The timeline of such submissions are as follows: My objection petition (Mr. Romney-- withdrawn 1-23-12 & Mr. Obama) time and date stamped 1-13-12; My Motion to Oppose 1-26-12; Exhibit to the Motion (Amicus Brief on Natural Born Citizen) 1-26-12; Exception To Hearing Examiner’s Recommendation with Exhibits 1-31-12; A 2 Exception To BOE’s Recommendation To Dismiss on 2-3-12 was submitted asking for an immediate rehearing of the case due to what appears to be a hiding from public record the previous Exception and other Exhibits and evidentiary documents. Though these documents which include the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Minor V. Happersett (1875), an Amicus Brief, and evidentiary exhibits were sent and confirmed to have been received, they appear to have been expunged and spoliated from the public record and this is evidenced in the final Recommendation To The BOE To Dismiss, as well, as in the transcript record, that is provided. The Minor V. Happersett (1875) ruling and the Amicus Brief help to define and support the Constitutional requirement an individual seeking office of POTUS must be a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore, the BOE has General Rules of Procedure in which they are to follow and some of those rules have been “conveniently ignored”. Some of those General Rules which were violated are as follows: · Appearance—The candidate or objector may appear on his or her own behalf and participate in any proceeding before the Board.
· Authority of the Board—The Board itself or through its duly appointed hearing examiner if applicable shall conduct all hearings and take all necessary action to avoid delay, to maintain order, to ensure compliance with all notice requirements, and to ensure the development of a clear and complete record. The Board or its designated hearing examiner shall have all powers necessary to conduct a fair and impartial hearing including, but not limited to d) Rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant evidence; i) Consider such competent and relevant evidence as may be submitted, including, but not limited to, documentary evidence, affidavits, and oral testimony (emphasis added). · Hearing Examiners—In addition, any hearing examiner appointed by the Board is authorized and directed; a) to hold a full hearing and receive all evidence and argument. In cases where a hearing examiner is appointed, the Board shall not issue a final decision until a proposal for decision submitted by the hearing examiner is served upon the parties and an opportunity is afforded each party to take exceptions , whether written or oral, and, if the Board so permits, oral argument before the Board. The Board will make a final ruling on the objection and may consider the following as part of its consideration and appraisal of the record: the petition and the objection thereto, the hearing transcript, the hearing examiner’s outline, recommendations and proposal for decision, and any exceptions, briefs, exhibits, offers of proof or arguments presented by the parties (emphasis added). · Evidence—Evidence will be heard by the Board or the duly appointed hearing examiner as may be submitted, including, but not limited to documentary evidence, depositions, affidavits, and oral testimony (emphasis added). · Argument—All arguments and evidence must be confined to the points raised by the objector’s petition and objections, if any, to the objector’s petition. The Board reserves the right to limit oral arguments in any particular case and will ordinarily allow not more than ten minutes per side per argument. The proper and timely submitted evidence and exhibits provided to the BOE and opposition were never given the opportunity to be presented on the public record, whether in written or oral form, evidenced in the final written decision rendered by the BOE and in the hearing transcript. According to statute (10ILCS 5/10-8) “any legal voter” who has “objections to any certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an objector’s petition,” thus meeting the requirement of my voter interest according to such said statute. Furthermore, pursuant to (10ILCS 5/10-5), the candidate “being first duly sworn…that I am legally qualified to hold such an office” is to affirm they are legally qualified as such requirements would be according to our supreme legal document the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section I Clause V, which the BOE swore an oath to support (10 ILCS 5/1-2.1). In addition to these complaints, I strongly submit that Chairman McGuffage used intimidation to cause fear in pursuing my statutory right to file an appeal to the Circuit Court with threatened sanctions and as a person of little financial resources, was made afraid and harmed in becoming financially dependent upon others if such said sanctions were imposed upon me. Such intimidation and tone is evident by just reading the transcript: CHAIRMAN McGUFFAGE: “No. No. This matter is -- it's a birther objection. These types of objections are not relevant under state statute and we don't need to hear anymore about this. In fact, we're getting sick and tired of having these objections filed every couple of years, and they have no basis in fact or law. If such an objection was brought before a court of law, there would be sanctions imposed. Okay. So I don't see any reason to hear any testimony from the objector.” It is apparent to the objective mind and those who desire liberty, that ALL laws, rules and procedures be adhered to no matter who the person’s name may be on the ballot and that fair, equal, and impartial hearings are conducted. By virtue of not allowing multiple evidentiary documents to be brought before the public, I as well as “we the people” of the State of IL have not been afforded a fair, impartial and equal hearing on the facts. This is an infringement upon my guaranteed U.S. Constitutional rights in the 14th Amendment Section 1 that states no “ State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,”(my ballot) “without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
1 of 2
4/23/2012 1:53 PM
Gmail - Urgent Ethics Complaint
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” as stated so in my original petition. Furthermore, though not exhaustive, my IL Constitutional rights were infringed upon, namely Article I Section 1, 2, 4, and 5. It needs to be reminded that in Article I Section 1 of the IL Constitution the “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (emphasis added). In conclusion it is imperative and demanded by I and “we the people” of the State of IL, that this Executive Office of the Inspector General call for an immediate rehearing of this objection. As well, not only the reconvening, but the reconvening of newly appointed BOE officials body to conduct a fair and impartial hearing of this matter on whether candidate is “legally qualified to hold such an office” as POTUS by virtue of being a Natural Born Citizen according to Article II Section I Clause V of our still legal and lawful U.S. Constitution, holding binding precedent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Minor V. Happersett 1875. We are a nation of laws and these laws help provide and protect our individual liberties. If we thus no longer are a nation of laws we become a nation of men who don’t seek to enforce and obey the law, but become political activists making and adjudicating law for the sake of monetary and political expediency. I beseech and implore you Inspector General Meza to call for an emergency rehearing regarding this matter as “the truth matters, the Constitution matters”. Please know I have contacted the IG over the IL State BOE (Sharon Steward)regarding this very matter and that office has refused to call for an investigation and a new emergency re-hearing.
Respectfully, /s/ Michael Jackson 2-21-12 11 attachments
Date Stamped Objection.jpg 797K
BOE 2-2-12 Decision.jpg 369K
BOE 2-2-12 pg 2.jpg 199K
IL St BOE Ballot Objection.docx 20K Gmail - Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint 2.pdf 24K Gmail - Exhibit 1 Amicus Brief on Natural Born for Memorandum of Law for Oppostion to Motion to Dismiss.pdf 26K Hearing Examiner Recommendation.pdf 49K Gmail - Exception To Recommendation To Strike & Dismiss.pdf 35K Gmail - Excerpt of State Board Meeting 2 2 12.pdf 43K Gmail - rules of proceedure.pdf 22K Before Duly Constituted BOE.pdf 26K
2 of 2
4/23/2012 1:53 PM