Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Obama Ballot Challenge Illinois Jackson Hearing Feb. 2
Obama Ballot Challenge Illinois Jackson Hearing Feb. 2
1020 South Spring Street, P.O. Box 4187 Springfield, Illinois 62708 217/782-4141 TTY:217/782-1518 Fax: 217/782-5959 James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 14-100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 312/814-6440 TTY: 312/814-6431 Fax: 312/814-6485 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Rupert T. Borgsmiller BOARD MEMBERS William M. McGuffage, Chairman Jesse R. Smart, Vice Chairman Harold D. Byers Betty J. Coffrin Ernest L. Gowen Judith C. Rice Bryan A. Schneider Charles W. Scholz
PUBLIC NOTICE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD MEETING
The Illinois State Board of Elections will conduct a SPECIAL Board Meeting on Thursday, February 2, 2012. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. in the Boards conference room 14-100 in the James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, IL and via video conference at the Boards principal office located at 1020 S. Spring St., Springfield, IL. Admittance to the 14th floor of the Thompson Center requires security screening and production of a government issued identification. The State Board of Elections will convene to consider the candidate withdrawal of Alan Nudo - 52nd Senate District following certification. The State Officers Electoral Board will also consider the following objections to candidate nominating petitions for the March 20, 2012 General Primary Election: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Brimm v. Newman, 12SOEBGP102; Freeman v. Obama, 12SOEBGP103; Jackson v. Obama, 12SOEBGP104; Petzel v. Ritter, 12SOEBGP522; Rodriguez v. Rutagawibira, 12SOEBGP523; Coyle/Bigger v. Miller, 12SOEBGP524; Schaeflin/Brezinski v. Cunningham, 12SOEBGP525; Billerman/Pettlon v. Harris, 12SOEBGP526; Cunningham v. Biggert, 12SOEBGP527; Cunningham v. Harris, 12SOEBGP528; Sutton v. Baker, et al,. 12SOEBGP501.
The State Officers Electoral Board will also consider objections wherein the objection was withdrawn in the matter of Meroni, et al. v. Obama 12SOEBGP500. The State Officers Electoral Board will recess to the State Board of Elections and may address other matters as needed and/or recess into executive session to consider litigation and/or personnel matters.
BEFORE THE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE HEARING OF AND PASSING UPON OBJECTIONS TO THE NOMINATION PAPERS FOR CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS OF MICHAEL JACKSON TO THE NOMINATION PAPERS OF BARACK OBAMA AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE NOMINATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE VOTED UPON AT THE MARCH 20, 2012 ELECTIONS.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) 12SOEBGP104
DATED JANUARY 27, 2012 NOW COMES Objector Michael Jackson, self-represented, and moves to take Exception to Hearing Examiners Recommendation dated January 27, 2012. Regarding RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER takes Exception to the following:
1.
Paragraph 9 and 10 are incorrect. Objector did in good faith file a response as proven by Number 10 which is Exhibit 1 of Objectors Opposition to Candidates Motion to Strike and Dismiss Objectors Petition, which Hearing Examiner Tenuto admitted to receiving before the deadline. Due to Objectors error in sending the email to the Examiner and opposing council, the Opposition to the Motion to Strike
did not arrive before the 5p.m. deadline. However the email labeled the Amicus Brief did arrive as Exhibit 1 Amicus Brief on Natural Born for Memorandum of Law for Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. Exhibit 1 is an Amicus Brief that was just accepted into Obama ballot eligibility cases in Georgia, it is not illogical, nonsensical and not worthy of consideration. On its face as an Amicus Brief that proves Obama is NOT Constitutionally eligible. The Examiner appears to have made this judgment out of context. The Amicus Brief is a thorough legal brief based in law which 100% supports Objectors argument that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen because of post 14th Amendment Supreme Court ruling Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-168 (1875). Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875): Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or naturalborn citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens (emphasis added).
Objector resubmits the above referenced Amicus Brief by Leo Donofrio as his adopted Memorandum of Law for this petition. (Exhibit 1) 2. OBJECTOR CONTESTS PARAGRAPH 4 UNDER MOTION TO DISMISS The Hearing Examiner contends that the birth certificate attached as Exhibit A clearly establishes the Candidates eligibility for office as a Natural Born Citizen. The Hearing Examiner is legally incorrect on his assessment that Obamas birth certificate proves he is a Natural Born U.S. citizen. Obamas counsel has submitted never before seen prima facie evidence to the Illinois State Elections Board. Obamas long form Hawaii birth certificate was not available to the Board during the 2008 election cycle. This birth certificate proves that Obama is a native born citizen of the United States and on its face also proves that Candidate Obama is NOT a NATURAL Born Citizen. His mother Stanley Ann Dunham was a U.S. Citizen but his father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan foreign national with British Citizenship that was passed to Candidate Obama by right at his birth under the British Nationality Act of 1948: 4)Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by
birth: (5)Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ...." Further, Obama, Sr. was only on a student visa in the United States at the time of Candidate Obamas birth. (Exhibit 2) Candidate Obama, a British born citizen, cannot possibly be a U.S. Natural Born Citizen. Moreover, the federal government recognizes that there is a legal difference between Native born and Natural Born citizens: (http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-048602.html). Candidate Obamas attorney argued and Hearing Examiner appears to erroneously believe that dicta from an Indiana Appellate Court case (Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana 916 N.E. 2d 678 (In. App. 2009) overrides the U.S. Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett on the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Candidate Obama is a Constitutionally ineligible candidate for President and he cannot possibly have valid nomination papers, because any nominating petition signed would be fraudulent on its face. The Illinois State Election Board has been duly informed of Candidate Obamas U.S. Constitutional ineligibility under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution. If the Board allows Candidate Obama on the ballot, they commit massive fraud against the citizens of the state of Illinois.
Respectfully Submitted,
JacksonlRl.jpg
746 pixels)
http://obamaballotchallenge.comlwp-contentluploads/20
'N,lli::\rr'
~, eGIIH~g~
IL State BO Chairmen
o~
McGutfage, M~'fr:sj,den t is
law "biding I can
IS
.5. cinz
b
tiorn
"<IS born
in MO
born ro
U,S.
ctuzen narcnt
. Thi
attc-; to,
cannot attest
r:
am a
Na
<lS;;,
born,
hus I could
never be a Natu
ar
ralic pr rrnarv
for
r~
Iden!
to I!ltnol
5tatulte
SJ~d (<If'ldid<!tt!
a,nd 45io1ed~ I ha et
UJl<l1l
/t,:lJonyq
~Jl
l(Jilt
pH
eunea
[Q
hold such on ojtice . WIU) g((~(ll c ncern to "hgoffy quallfiad to hold sucb tm
I Ii
W'r"
_dl(J
.~ tl 'JrliS
olP
C-I
am
bmltung
bjector'
petruor."
aut to
pt1l1 l(jfliJnl
Boar a oj -/ .;!to/JS,. or
rt'
I"
tbe
affice. of
(10
e etecu
loulf di!cll'oll
DfP
.hjl wttb
\'1
whom
II
fL:!>
fin'
cl:rrljl
of nomlnatlon,
re on [iic".
rv
renvOf,
subscribe
,.. "YOUI' ch a
gP.15
gr
~! 111 D
er
to porE:'Sf:
thl:
dlJt.), is to prohibit
and rcr
and
'in !! I'. I
I'. tlMilC
Oharna.
- n in or
<!~
! cis
p
.a: to
hold th _ Off[
Fnl1S
Born
Cit.i
cW' to'
quotifiedto
. Cous trrution
oj rhe Adoptio
i
oitins
Constr
.1Ii('}Il,
shall be (,,(I(Jib/p
av= 0 tinned
f(
tbe (jfi
eat Pr(.~.i{J(rt;n.
ifn J
If" r()
.'iQ/lllor
PC!r~,and
been fourteen
1 of 1
1/11120127:33
AM
http://obamaballotchallenge.comlwp-contentiuploads/20
"Addition<might alway. be mode to the cnuensntp of the United stores In two ways: first by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself- for it provides that 'no oetson except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, sholl be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shalt have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturottzotion.' Thus new ctttzens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. "The Constitutlon does not, in words, soy who shall be noturat-bom citizens. Resort must be hod elsewhere to ascertain that. A t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficientfor everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens" (emphasis added).
In addition, supporting case law has been adjudicated by the Ll.S, Supreme Court which confirms and
helps define a Natural Born Citizen. 1. The Venus, 12 U,S. 8 Cranch 253 289 (1814): Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition of Vattel: 'The citizens are the members of the civilsociety; bound to this society by certain duties, and
subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." 2. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830): Justice Story, who gave
the ruling, cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a "natural born citizen": ... she
might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.
In light of these facts it is important the public his birth certificate to know that on April 27, 2011, Barack Hussein Obama released to servers. It clearly shows Barack Hussein in December 1963, it was
Obama's father as being born in Kenya. Prior to Kenya becoming independent a colony of the commonwealth of Great Britain.
lofl
1111120127:34 AM
Jackson3.jpg(JPEG
Image, 1974
http://obamaballotchall enge.com/wp-contentluploads/20
(1/)"5ubject to the
of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth: (S)Subject of this section, a person born after the commencemenr if his father to
United Kingdom and Colonies by descent the time of the birth ...
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who
was a British citizen under Section 4. Barack Obama's father never became a U.S. citizen. He was a foreign student on a VISA granted by the INS. Supporting documents and references will be provided to attest to the veracity of these facts ( It therefore appears that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements ). for seeking and
holding the office of President of the United States because: Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1of the United States Constitution. Obama's qualifications Accordingly, I hereby challenge Mr.
to seek and hold the office of President of the United States on such grounds. of Barack Hussein Obama on the U.S. Presidential ballot.
Barack Hussein Obama is not "legally qualified" to be on the presidential ballot as he is not a Natural Born Citizen, which is a requirement mandated in Article II Section I Clause V of our U.S. Constitution to
be eligible for President or Vice President. expenses incurred; that my 14th Amendment deprived nor caused to suffer injury.
Moreover, I would seek relief in the recovery of all litigation rights provided in Section 1 of U.S. Constitution are not
!jl
(
~l(i:,6'>-
!- t) - I L
V'v CJ..- 5Zl.
lj
_
<,.,
1 of 1
1111120127:35 AM