Obama Ballot Illinoios Ethics Complaint

8/3/2019 Obama Ballot Illinoios Ethics Complaint

1/55

2-8-12

Sharon Steward

Office of Executive Inspector General

607 East Adams 14th Floor

Springfield, IL

Dear Inspector General Steward,

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 Associations 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 Boards 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 24th

, 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

Examiners Recommendation with Exhibits 1-31-12; A 2nd

Exception To BOEs 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.


2/55

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:

AppearanceThe candidate or objector may appear on his or her own behalf and participate inany proceeding before the Board.

Authority of the BoardThe Board itself or through its duly appointed hearing examiner ifapplicable 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 aclear 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 ExaminersIn addition, any hearing examiner appointed by the Board is authorized anddirected; 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 examiners outline, recommendations

and proposal for decision, and any exceptions, briefs, exhibits, offers of proof or arguments

presented by the parties (emphasis added).

EvidenceEvidence will be heard by the Board or the duly appointed hearing examiner as maybe submitted, including, but not limited to documentary evidence, depositions, affidavits, and

oral testimony (emphasis added).

ArgumentAll arguments and evidence must be confined to the points raised by the objectorspetition and objections, if any, to the objectors 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


3/55

(10ILCS 5/10-8)any legal voter who has objections to any certificate of nomination or nomination

papers or petitions filed, shall file an objectors 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 swornthat 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, were 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 persons 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 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 bereminded that in Article I Section 1 of the IL Constitutionthe 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 dont 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 Steward to call for an

emergency rehearing regarding this matter as the truth matters, the Constitution matters.


4/55

Respectfully,

/s/ Michael Jackson

2-8-12


5/55


6/55


7/55

www.elections.il.gov

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

STATE OF ILLINOIS

1020 South Spring Street, P.O. Box 4187 BOARD MEMBERS

Springfield, Illinois 62708 William M. McGuffage, Chairman

217/782-4141 TTY:217/782-1518 Jesse R. Smart, Vice Chairman

Fax: 217/782-5959 Harold D. Byers

Betty J. Coffrin

James R. Thompson Center Ernest L. Gowen

100 West Randolph, Suite 14-100 Judith C. Rice

Chicago, Illinois 60601 Bryan A. Schneider

312/814-6440 TTY: 312/814-6431 Charles W. Scholz

Fax: 312/814-6485

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Rupert T. Borgsmiller

PUBLIC NOTICE

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONSand

STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARDMEETING

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 principaloffice located at 1020 S. Spring St., Springfield, IL. Admittance to the 14th floor of the Thompson Centerrequires security screening and production of a government issued identification.

The State Board of Elections will convene to consider the candidate withdrawal of Alan Nudo - 52 nd SenateDistrict following certification.

The State Officers Electoral Board will also consider the following objections to candidate nominating petitionsfor the March 20, 2012 General Primary Election:

a) Brimm v. Newman, 12SOEBGP102;b) Freeman v. Obama, 12SOEBGP103;c) Jackson v. Obama, 12SOEBGP104;d) Petzel v. Ritter, 12SOEBGP522;e) Rodriguez v. Rutagawibira, 12SOEBGP523;f) Coyle/Bigger v. Miller, 12SOEBGP524;g) Schaeflin/Brezinski v. Cunningham, 12SOEBGP525;h) Billerman/Pettlon v. Harris, 12SOEBGP526;i) Cunningham v. Biggert, 12SOEBGP527;

j) Cunningham v. Harris, 12SOEBGP528;k) Sutton v. Baker, et al,. 12SOEBGP501.

The State Officers Electoral Board will also consider objections wherein the objection was withdrawn in thematter of Meroni, et al. v. Obama12SOEBGP500.

The State Officers Electoral Board will recess to the State Board of Elections and may address other mattersas needed and/or recess into executive session to consider litigation and/or personnel matters.

DATED: January 31, 2012

Rupert T. Borgsmiller, Executive Director


8/55

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 ) 12SOEBGP104

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. )

OBJECTORS EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER

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. OBJECTOR CONTESTS PARAGRAPH 9 AND 10

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


9/55

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 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 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


10/55

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 BornCitizen.

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/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-

48602.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,

/s/ Michael Jackson

______________________________

Michael Jackson, OBJECTOR

1/31/2012


11/55


12/55


13/55


14/55


15/55


16/55


17/55


18/55


19/55


20/55


21/55


22/55


23/55


24/55


25/55


26/55


27/55


28/55


29/55


30/55


31/55


32/55


33/55


34/55


35/55


36/55


37/55


38/55


39/55


40/55


41/55


42/55


43/55


44/55


45/55

JacksonlRl.jpg (JPEG Image, 609 x 746 pixels) http://obamaballotchallenge.comlwp-contentluploads/20 12/0 1I J

'N,lli::\rr' ~,eGIIH~g~ILState BO Chairmen1020 Sprm~ St.:Sp l.ng fl ld, IL 6 o~Dc.ar Chalrman McGutfage,M f name IS M~'fr:sj,den t is I an a rc is crcd voter in rne'5 ate of IL I arn a constrtuuenatrv law "biding .5. cinz '11 tiorn Of! U.S. &011, I\.1 father "


46/55

Jackson-2.jpg (JPEG Image, 1986 x 2724 pixels) - Scaled (21%) http://obamaballotchallenge.comlwp-contentiuploads/20 I 210 I IJ

"Addition


47/55

Jackson3.jpg(JPEG Image, 1974 x 2754 pixels) - Scaled (21%) http://obamaballotchall enge.com/wp-contentluploads/20 12/0 1/Ja

British law and this according to the British Nationali ty Act of 1948 asfol lows: (1/)"5ubject to theprovisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after thecommencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth: (S)Subject tothe provisions of this section, a person born after the commencemenr of this Act shall be a citizen of theUni ted Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of rhe Unlred Kingdom and Colonies otthe time of the birth ...Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama's father became a British citizen under Section 4 bybeing born on the so il of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama wa s born in 1961 inHawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent f rom his father whowas a British citizen under Section 4. Barack Obama's father never became a U.S. citizen. He was aforeign student on a VISAgranted by the INS. Supporting documents and references will be provided toattest to the veracity of these fac ts ( ).

It therefore appears that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for seeking andholding the off ice of President of the United States because: Mr. Obama isnot a natural born citizen, asrequired by Article II, Section 1of the Uni ted States Constitution. Accordingly, I hereby challenge Mr.Obama's qualifications to seek and hold the office of President of the United States on such gr ound s.I, Michael Jackson seek relief by the prohibition of Barack Hussein Obama on the U.S. Presidential ballot.Barack Hussein Obama is not "legally qualified" to be on the president ial ballot as he is not a NaturalBorn Citizen, which is a requirement mandated in Article II Section I Clause V of our U.S. Constitution tobe eligible for President or Vice President. Moreover, I would seek relief in the recovery of all litigationexpenses incurred; that my 14thAmendment rights provided in Section 1 of U.S.Constitution are notdeprived nor caused to suffer injury.

For Christ and Country and Most Respectfully,Signedy/t-d,oJ! ! j l ~l(i:,6'>-Date !-t) - IL

ljV'vKC J .. - 5Zl. ( _SEAl.TERRY L. SCHULTZ


48/55

michael jackson

Exception to Board's Recommendation1 message

michael jackson Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Cc: "Tenuto, Jim" , [email protected], "Menzel, Ken" , "Sandvoss, Steve"

, "Harrington, Bernadette" , "Klos, Sue"

Bcc: Pamela Barnett

See attached for subject.

Sincerely,

Michael Jackson

BEFORE THE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD.docx

17K

l - Exception to Board's Recommendation https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&s

2/8/2012


49/55

michael jackson

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss1 message

michael jackson Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Cc: [email protected], [email protected]

Case No 12SOEB GP104The file did not make it through and somehow I sent you you your motion. Thank you for alerting me to this. I thought it was attached.

Sincerely,

Michael Jackson

obama ballot challenge opposition to motion to dismiss.pdf

393K

l - Opposition to Motion to Dismiss https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&cat

2/8/2012


50/55

michael jackson

Exhibit 1 Amicus Brief on Natrual Born for Memorandum of Law forOppostion to Motion to Dismiss1 message

michael jackson Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Bcc: [email protected], [email protected]

Amicus Brief Exhibit 1 Motion in Opposition To Dismiss

Case No 12SOEB GP104

Sincerely,

Michael Jackson

AMICUS BRIEF NBC.pdf

7627K

l - Exhibit 1 Amicus Brief on Natrual Born for Memorandum of La... https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&ca

2/8/2012


51/55

michael jackson

Exception To Recommendation To Strike & Dismiss2 messages

michael jackson Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:58 PM

To: "Tenuto, Jim" , [email protected]

Jim & et al.,Good afternoon. Please find attached my submission of Exception to Hearing Officer's Recommendation of Motion to Strike and Dismiss Objector's

Petition. Including Amicus Brief & Obama Sr Alien Card. Thank you.

Case No. 12 SOEB GP 104

Most Sincerely,

Michael Jackson

3 attachments

amicus brief donofrio.pdf

7621K

obama senior alien card.pdf

20K

Exception to BOE Hearing Examiner.docx

17K

michael jackson Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:24 PM

To: "Sandvoss, Steve" , "Harrington, Bernadette" , "Menzel, Ken"

, "Klos, Sue"

Bcc: Pamela Barnett

I am forwarding this e-mail to you that I sent to Jim and Michael regarding my submitting an Exception to the Recommendation to Strike and Dismiss

Most Sincerely,

Michael Jackson

[Quoted text hidden]

3 attachments

amicus brief donofrio.pdf

7621K

obama senior alien card.pdf

20K

Exception to BOE Hearing Examiner.docx

17K

l - Exception To Recommendation To Strike & Dismiss https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&ca

2/8/2012


52/55

michael jackson

Excerpt of State Board Meeting 2/2/122 messages

Erin Johnson Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

To: "[email protected]"

FIRST TIME E-TRAN USERS:

YOU MUST DOWNLOAD VIEWER - CLICK HERE

http://reallegal.com/softwareDownloadETranscriptViewer.asp

For assistance installing your E-Transcript Viewer or questions about a transcript, please call 312-263-0052

and ask for the Production Department or email [email protected]

For McCorkle Repository username and password please call us at 312-263-0052 or [email protected]

To Schedule with McCorkle, please call 1.800.MCCORKLE (800-622-6755) or email

[email protected]

Use our Online Repository

Securely Stream Legal Videos 24/7

Download or view Transcripts and Exhibits

Schedule quickly and easily with Smart Scheduling

Access your Personal Calendar, Invoices and moreFree McCorkle App at the iTunes Store and Android Market

Download Viewer / My E-Transcript / Schedule / Services

2 attachments

excerpt 2-2-12 jackson.txt10K

excerpt 2-2-12 jackson.docx

20K

michael jackson Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

To: Pamela Barnett

[Quoted text hidden]

2 attachments

l - Excerpt of State Board Meeting 2/2/12 https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&cat

2/8/2012


53/55

excerpt 2-2-12 jackson.txt

10K

excerpt 2-2-12 jackson.docx

20K

l - Excerpt of State Board Meeting 2/2/12 https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&cat

2/8/2012


54/55

michael jackson

rules of proceedure1 message

Pamela Barnett Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

To: michael jackson

illinois board presidential rules.pdf

140K

l - rules of proceedure https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&ca

2/8/2012


55/55

michael jackson

FW: Jackson v Obama; 12 SOEB GP 1042 messages

Tenuto, Jim Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM

To: "[email protected]" , michael jackson

Cc: "Sandvoss, Steve" , "Harrington, Bernadette" , "Menzel, Ken"

, "Klos, Sue"

The Parties are hereby advised that this matter will be decided by the State Officers Electoral Board at their meeting on February 2, 2012, at

11:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Chicago Office of the State Board of Elections with a video hook-up to the Springfield Office. Parties may

appear if they desire.

James Tenuto

Hearing Examiner

From: Nauman, AndySent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:52 PM

To: Tenuto, Jim

Subject: Jackson v Obama

Michael Jackson v Barack Obama.PDF

73K

Tenuto, Jim Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

To: "Tenuto, Jim" , "[email protected]" , michael jackson

Cc: "Sandvoss, Steve" , "Harrington, Bernadette" , "Menzel, Ken"

, "Klos, Sue"

In reviewing the Recommendation, I noticed that Par. 9 was incorrectly included and made a part of my Recommendation. Par. 9 should be stricken

as the Objector DID timely file Objectors Opposition to Candidates Motion to Strike and Dismiss Objectors Petition. The Objectors Motion was

noted in Par. 10 of the Recommendation and was considered in reaching the Recommendation set forth. The Recommendation is not changed by

this oversight in Par. 9. Par. 9 only applies to 12 SOEB GP 103 which is Freeman v. Obama.

Jim Tenuto

Hearing Examiner

From: Tenuto, Jim

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 1:14 PM

To:[email protected]; 'michael jackson'

d d l l

l - FW: Jackson v Obama; 12 SOEB GP 104 https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=efef195ac6&view=pt&ca

Obama Ballot Illinoios Ethics Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Obama Ballot Illinoios Ethics Complaint