Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Illinois Board of Elections to hear Obama Eligibility Cases Feb. 2
Obama Ballot Challenge

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 Board’s conference room 14-100 in the James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, IL and via video conference at the Board’s 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) 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The State Officers Electoral Board will also consider objections wherein the objection was withdrawn in the matter of Meroni, et al. v. Obama 12SOEBGP500.

The State Officer’s 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.

DATED: January 31, 2012

Feb. 2 hearing on whether Illinois State Board of Elections will allow Barack Obama on the Illinois Presidential ballot even though he is NOT a NATURAL Born Citizen according to Supreme Court precedent Minor v. Happersett (1875) Hearings are open to the public. Please attend to support the objectors if you can.

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/illinois-board-of-elections-to-hear-obama-eligibility-cases-feb-2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80061947/Obama-Primary-Ballot-Access-Challenge-Hearing-in-Illinois-Scheduled-for-February-2nd

3 Separate Ballot Access Challenges Against Obama Now Filed And Pending In The State of Illinois: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/3-ballot-access-challenges-against.html

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Obama Primary Ballot Access Challenge Hearing in Illinois Scheduled for February 2nd

Flier/Handout - Obama Not a Natural Born Citizen with Venn Diagram - Support Art2SuperPAC

31 comments:

  1. I hope the GA decision is publicised before this hearing. Then again, it IS Chicago. Someone might get Rahmboed!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Illinois is just trying to even the score card after the Georgia hearing.
    Looks like Obama is going to have to reach deep in his pockets to "pay off" the growing list of blackmailers to take his side. The stakes are getting higher now and the bribes more costly. Sooner or later a rat will fink him out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. obama orchestrated BS, note absence of the usual "players"

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live in IL where even the dead have the sacred right to vote. Obama WILL be on the ballot. We have the best politicians money can buy.
    Patricia Weir

    ReplyDelete
  5. If this IL challenge gets thrown out prior to GA issuing a ruling, or worse, some corrupt judge finds in favor of the defendant (President Zero), what implications might that have in terms of establishing a legal precedent that Obama can use to get off the hook?

    ReplyDelete
  6. How much of our tax money has been spent to allow Mr. & Mrs. Obama aka Bounel to buy off the constitution?

    ReplyDelete
  7. WHO ARE THESE PLAINTIFFS? Anyone know WHO they are ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I certainly don't expect the Usurper's home state to do anything, but we'll see. There's so much corruption there that I don't hold out much hope for the hearing to go "our" way. Screwing America seems to be the new and popular scenario since 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was just advised that the precedents established be State Case Law are not binding on other States.

    This means that relevant cases from other States can ONLY be cited for the purpose illustrating to the Judge how other States haved ruled on the same or a similiar matter.

    For example IL could rule in favor of Obama with regard his ballot eligibility or his Natural Born Citizen status, but by doing so they would NOT be establishing a binding precedent that the State of GA would have to follow.

    That is very good news indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments."

    When a Husseinite has no valid arguement they always fall back to inappropriate behavior and threats. They can not win without doing this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. California Birther/Dualer/DoubterFebruary 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    So a government-issued ID is required to attend this hearing but not for voting? How hypocritical is that? At any rate, I'm not holding my breath for Illinois to do justice to these cases. More likely they continue kissing Barry's commie ass and believe anything he says as the gospel truth.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If everyone uses common sense and has an open mind,we will prevail in this case! God Bless America. Charlie from central N.Y. state

    ReplyDelete
  13. good reply by Jackson, short and to the point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @jollyroger88805

    Really...then what's this then..?

    ============================

    Black Belt said...[Reply]
    @Anonymous@11:35

    You are a fucking idiot. Just more evidence that you have absolutely no interest in the constitution and the law. Just like Hannity and Beckel.

    Go fuck yourself and take your pablum puking liberal asshole friends with you.

    February 1, 2012 3:56 AM
    ======================================

    ReplyDelete
  15. I doubt this little panel has the authority to rule that they are going to ignore the consitution. I don't see how they can override the constitution simply by holding a little vote on a little panel. Even if this panel says you don't have to be a natural born citizen to run for president, the US Constitution already says the opposite. Their "ruling" is nullified the instant it is made, all they achieve is exposiong themselves as anti-Americans.

    I don't understand the hearing, they don't have the authority to repeal wording of the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4wtJ6UVUdM0

    Doug Vogt's Mega Neutron Bomb On Obama's Eligibility

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  17. So the Hearing Examiner called Leo's brief "illogical, nonsensical and not worthy of consideration". Yikes.

    How often does the State Board of Elections take the recommendation of the hearing officer?

    My guess would be at least 99% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is the georgia judges fault.He had 6 days to rule and he just took his time like we have time to waste. When will people learn that when you go after obama you have to do it everyday all day long and you have to do it as soon as possible. You cant wait 6 days!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. "You cant wait 6 days!!"

    There are those things called court rules and court procedures. This isn't Taitz's fantasy legal-land.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now that the Florida Primary is done, Citizens of Florida have ONLY a 10 day window to file a ballot challenge against Obama in Circuit Court:

    “After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”

    Gary Holland, Assistant General Counsel:

    “After an election, section 102.168, Florida Statutes, provides that any unsuccessful candidate for the office being sought, any voter qualified to vote in the election, or any taxpayer may file an election contest in the circuit court based upon the successful candidates’s ineligibility for the office sought. Such contest must be brought within 10 days of the date the last board responsibe for certifiying the results officially ceetified the results of the election being contested.”


    Florida Election statutes

    "Title IX"

    "102.168 Contest of election.–
    (1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

    (2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

    (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

    (b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

    excerpt of an advisory opinion:
    "If a presidential candidate (or the party in the case of a political party nominee) files the required papers under Chapter 1 03, Florida Statutes, which papers are complete on their face, the Secretary must grant ballot access to the candidate. HOWEVER, the Secretary’s ministerial granting of ballot access WOULD NOT PRECLUDE LITIGATION FROM PROPER PLAINTIFFS to remove a candidate’s name from the ballot if the candidate DOES NOT SATISFY THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anonymous

    @ 3:01

    That's an excellent idea, to file a ballot challenge in Florida within 10 days after the election.

    Oh, wait. There was no Democratic primary in Florida. No need to hold an election when the party is slating only one candidate.

    Never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wait just a darn minute. In the very first paragraph it says you must have a government issued ID to be admitted to the proceedings. Won't that "disenfranchise" some people. You need ID to observe a Board meeting but not vote?! WTF!

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Anonymous

    It does not matter that there is only one candidate running you can still challenge Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot provided you do it within the alloted time.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The people paying the bills in Illinois are fed up with the Kenyan. If this goes thru in the land of corruption it's curtains for the Usurper.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "For example IL could rule in favor of Obama with regard his ballot eligibility or his Natural Born Citizen status, but by doing so they would NOT be establishing a binding precedent that the State of GA would have to follow."

    And vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Anonymous

    @ 4:58

    "It does not matter that there is only one candidate running you can still challenge Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot provided you do it within the alloted time."

    You don't get it, do you? There was no ballot because there was no primary election for the Democratic Party in Florida. Ten days after a nonexistent event is ... nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Par for the course. It's what they do-they're a mob.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anonymous
    "You don't get it, do you? There was no ballot because there was no primary election for the Democratic Party in Florida. Ten days after a nonexistent event is ... nothing."

    Are you 12 years old? Because that what it sounds like.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Anonymous

    As I understand it, there are no implications. The verdicts or precedents established in one State court are not binding upon another State court.

    It is entirely possible that one State court will find Obama to be eligible to be on the ballot and another State court will find him to be ineligible.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous

    Even if I am 12 years old, I am a precocious 12-year-old. Quite obviously, I am more informed on current events than you are. At least I know that Obama was not on the Florida ballot this past Tuesday because there was no Democratic primary. No election = no ballot = nothing to contest under the statute you so cleverly cited.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Illinois Board of Elections has unanimously voted 8-0 to allow electors for Barack Hussein Obama II to be on the ballot for the general election in November.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.