Illinois Election Challenge

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#226

Post by Piffle » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:01 am

Oooh, meroni has been "nonsuited"©, Stevie B has a skerit plan.


[/break1]defendthevote.com/component/content/article/66/205#.TysipWHohi0.twitter]http://www.defendthevote.com/component/ ... i0.twitter




Edit: nonsuit n. a ruling by the judge in a lawsuit either when the plaintiff (the party who filed the suit) does not proceed to trial at the appointed time or has presented all his/her/its evidence and, in the judge's opinion, there is no evidence which could prove the plaintiff's case. A nonsuit terminates the trial at that point, and results in a dismissal of the plaintiff's case and judgment for the defendant.





Score another loss for merloony. She's about to bust 50.
I hate to split hairs, but that definition of "nonsuit" may be inapplicable to this situation. The term means different things in different jurisdictions, but there is generally a difference between a voluntary nonsuit and a compulsory nonsuit. Here, it looks like Barrister Bolton moved for a voluntary nonsuit. In effect, he's saying, "Nevermind, I withdraw the suit." (The definition above describes a compulsory nonsuit imposed by the judge in the middle of a trial i.e., GTFOOMC.)





Based on a quickie look at Illinois law, the effect on future suits by our favorite patriot (bless her heart) could be complex if the order is entered "without prejudice." It's quite possible that Sharon & Stevie may not be barred from re-filing a similar suit within a year, after tweaking their legal basis. (Aren't they always tweaking their various legal theories and shopping for friendlier forums?) But like I say, interpreting whether or not res judicata will apply is complex.





So, for our purposes, does this amount to a loss? Meh. Sure, why not? :D



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#227

Post by realist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:41 am

Well, here's the answer as to Stevie's plan...DefendtheVote Defend the VoteToday we nonsuited Meroni V ISBE - On Wednesday we will file a [highlight]strict constitutional case[/highlight]. #tcot #phnm @hillbuzz bit.ly/zdOUMD 13 hours ago


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27316
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Illinois Election Challenge

#228

Post by Addie » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:52 am

Here's the record. All three challenges [/break1]elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32]Overruled.


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#229

Post by everalm » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:10 am

So....Moroni says they withdrew yet Illionois says they were overruled.....it's a pickle, who would be the more trustworthy of the pair..... :?:



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#230

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:23 am

So....Moroni says they withdrew yet Illionois says they were overruled.....it's a pickle, who would be the more trustworthy of the pair..... :?:If they lacked discretion to "overrule" or "dismiss," perhaps "overrule" is their only choice. I don't know if it's with prejudice or not or has any res judicata effect.If they did have discretion, I think they were thinking along the lines of Piffle a couple posts up. Perhaps having encountered galaxy-renowned election law genius Boulton before, they suspected the "withdrawal" was simply an attempt to go file a similar pile of poop before a more friendly tribunal.I can't imagine they're happy to have Merooni and her band of loonies deliberately wasting their time with nonsensical challenges based on nothing.



User avatar
Tomtech
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
Location: Betwixt the Big and Black Cypress Bayous

Illinois Election Challenge

#231

Post by Tomtech » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:17 pm

Withdraw or not to withdraw, that is the question! ](*,) There is a short window of time to submit election challenges and I would imagine that window is closed.In cases where an administrative board handles an issue, you cannot file in a court unless you went through the administrative process first and have no opportunities for administrative appeal. [-( If you withdraw from an administrative process, you cannot file for judicial review. :-# I hope she didn't withdraw, since I'm here for the LoL's. :rimshot:


The Chriscam is open for public viewing.

User avatar
shrek
Posts: 1299
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#232

Post by shrek » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:23 pm

I've heard the withdrawal method has a poor success rate... :-



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Illinois Election Challenge

#233

Post by GreatGrey » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:23 pm

Slightly off topic, but where did the link to Boulton's dismissal go?
Edit: Nevermind, a kitten showed me.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27316
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Illinois Election Challenge

#234

Post by Addie » Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:24 pm

Another peculiarity. The ISBE styles the challenge as [/break1]elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32]MERONI, CLEVELAND, BOULTON V OBAMA.





Chalice uses [/break1]defendthevote.com/home/66-front-page/205-meroni-v-isbe-citizenship-update]Meroni v. ISBE.


Thursday, 02 February 2012 17:38 | Written by Sharon Meroni





Today, Meroni V ISBE was in the Cook County Court. In court, we filed a motion and "nonsuited" the case in favor of a broader court action. This means we dropped the cause of action related to Duffy and Howland.





This morning, rather then go through a Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision, we made the decision to go directly at the constitutional issues involved. Mr. Boulton believes our issue is constitutionally founded and will proceed quicker with a case that is designed based on the constitutional issues. He and I will update you on Monday. We plan to file on Wednesday.If the "nonsuiting" pertained to Duffy and Howland, leaving Obama "suited" then the Obama challenge was not "withdrawn" as previously classified and is now "Overruled." Or what?


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

Illinois Election Challenge

#235

Post by Paul Lentz » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:59 pm

Another peculiarity. The ISBE styles the challenge as [/break1]elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32]MERONI, CLEVELAND, BOULTON V OBAMA.





Chalice uses [/break1]defendthevote.com/home/66-front-page/205-meroni-v-isbe-citizenship-update]Meroni v. ISBE.





Thursday, 02 February 2012 17:38 | Written by Sharon Meroni





Today, Meroni V ISBE was in the Cook County Court. In court, we filed a motion and "nonsuited" the case in favor of a broader court action. This means we dropped the cause of action related to Duffy and Howland.





This morning, rather then go through a Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision, we made the decision to go directly at the constitutional issues involved. Mr. Boulton believes our issue is constitutionally founded and will proceed quicker with a case that is designed based on the constitutional issues. He and I will update you on Monday. We plan to file on Wednesday.If the "nonsuiting" pertained to Duffy and Howland, leaving Obama "suited" then the Obama challenge was not "withdrawn" as previously classified and is now "Overruled." Or what?

Addie, it's two different challenges filed with the ISBOE:





Meroni v. ISBOE





Marooni originally filed objections (challenges) to five candidates for the Illinois legislature. All five of Marooni's objections were "eligibility" based. The ISBOE overruled those five objections (dismissed them) on 1/12/12. Marooni filed in the Cook County Circuit Court for judicial review of that administrative decision. In that filing, she only retained two (Duffy and Howland) as challenged candidates, and named them, along with the ISBOE as respondents (defendants) in her filing. Marooni had a hearing scheduled yesterday (2/2) in the Cook County Circuit Court with regard to this matter, and it appears that this is the matter which she claims Boulton filed to "unsuit." And she further claims that they will be filing (next Wednesday?) something different (still with the Circuit Court, I assume) related to these challenges.





Meroni, Cleveland, and Boulton v. Obama





This is a different challenge (objection) filed by Marooni and her compatriots with the ISBOE, challenging the candidacy of Barack Obama based on alleged irregularities in petitions (number of valid signatures; petition execution, etc.). During the course of validating the Obama petition signatures, apparently it became obvious to Marooni, et.al. that their challenge would fail, as it was clear that President Obama had more than sufficient valid signatures on his petitions to qualify for a place on the ballot. Thus, Marooni, et. al. withdrew the objections prior to the ISBOE's officially ruling on it. However, at their meeting yesterday (or the day before; whatever), the ISBOE accepted Marooni's withdrawal and then proceeded to overrule the objection as invalid.





Make sense now? :)


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 27316
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Illinois Election Challenge

#236

Post by Addie » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:04 pm

Perfectly, thank you :-bd Make sense now? :)


¡Sterngard! come home.

User avatar
Tomtech
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
Location: Betwixt the Big and Black Cypress Bayous

Illinois Election Challenge

#237

Post by Tomtech » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:16 pm

Make sense now? :)No, but these are birthers, so I expect not making sence to be the norm. :rimshot:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


The Chriscam is open for public viewing.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#238

Post by mimi » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:34 pm

Michael Jackson:Request for Re-Hearing In Obama Illinois Challenge[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80614316/Request-for-Re-Hearing-In-Obama-Illinois-Challenge] ... -Challenge



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#239

Post by realist » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:39 pm

Michael Jackson:Request for Re-Hearing In Obama Illinois Challenge[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80614316/Request-for-Re-Hearing-In-Obama-Illinois-Challenge] ... -ChallengeI only very quickly scanned it. I see where he takes exception to the board's ruling. I did not see where he's requesting a re-hearing (which will of course be denied), but I could have missed it.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8820
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#240

Post by Chilidog » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:49 pm

Michael Jackson:Request for Re-Hearing In Obama Illinois Challenge[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80614316/Request-for-Re-Hearing-In-Obama-Illinois-Challenge] ... -ChallengeI only very quickly scanned it. I see where he takes exception to the board's ruling. I did not see where he's requesting a re-hearing (which will of course be denied), but I could have missed it.No, he just takes "exception" to the ruling. How nice. So what.



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Illinois Election Challenge

#241

Post by GreatGrey » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:55 pm

Michael Jackson:Request for Re-Hearing In Obama Illinois Challenge[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80614316/Request-for-Re-Hearing-In-Obama-Illinois-Challenge] ... -ChallengeHas anybody tried to sell this guy some meat lately?


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#242

Post by woodworker » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:00 pm

[link]The Obama Challenge: Rats!!!,http://chicagogop.com/home/the-obama-ch ... l#comments[/link]








WRITTEN BY QUESTIONING, FEBRUARY 01, 2012


I see the Fogbow has arrived. For those that do not know them, there is a core of bloggers and such who go on the attack at anyone who opposes Obama. All are labeled "birthers.". I believe a few are about to be sued, as their annonimity is slowly stripped away.Sued for what? :-k

That link is hilarious. Steve Boulton wrote it. He also appears in the comments. Like this gem:





written by Stephen Boulton, January 30, 2012


We are not birthers. We are Republicans that are sick and tired of the falsehood in elections. Take a look at Obama's false 2008 Petitions in Indiana. Did the indictments on that come down yet?and this one:





written by Stephen Boulton, January 30, 2012


On the ISBE, that was part of the plan. If we presented them with the numbers, what were they to do? if they did not toss him, we would have strolled over the the U.S. Attorney's office.


I just posted the following over there (and the information I posted is correct):





I understand you are attempting to sue Fogbowers (although I don't understand the theory upon which you would sue), but that you need to strip away the anonymity. Let me help: I post under Woodworker on Fogbow, my name is Howard M. Appel, my email is [/break1]com]howardappel@yahoo.com and I live in California. If you send me an email at that address, I will give you my home address for service of process.





Oh, and I think that all of you birther, right-wing nut jobs are racist, bigoted, stupid, ignorant, US Constitution hating, blithering idiots. And to quote President George W. Bush (whom I assume is one of your heroes (or was until he proved to be a complete failure)), bring it on.


Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

gshevlin
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Contact:

Illinois Election Challenge

#243

Post by gshevlin » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:54 pm

One could always use the latest dismissive gem, courtesy of Ken over at Popehat:"Snort my taint"Failing that, there is always the pithy succinct summary of Arkell v. Pressdram.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24522
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#244

Post by bob » Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:45 am

P&E: [/break1]thepostemail.com/2012/02/08/the-post-email-speaks-with-illinois-ballot-challenge-plaintiff/]The Post & Email Speaks with Illinois Ballot Challenge Plaintiff


“I WAS SILENCED”





Jackson told The Post & Email that the “hearing” was over in no more than ten minutes, and he wasn’t allowed to respond to the decision of the Illinois State Board of Elections. The Board consists of four Democrats and four Republicans with staggered terms of service. One of its responsibilities is to “investigate and refer apparent violations to law enforcement agencies. The Board’s role is to see that procedures provided for by state law are complied with throughout the state.”





[...]





“It was over in ten minutes. They suppressed the evidence that I had sent to them, the Amicus Brief, as well as my exhibits…noen of that was brought to the light of day. When they made a motion to dismiss the petition, I stood up and asked the Board if I would have an opporutnity to address the Board based on the fact that I was a registered voter in the state of Illinois; that’s why I was here. He interrupted the chairman, got his attention, and said that they were not going to allow me to speak beause they had made a motion that the ‘birther’ issue that had been going on for the last three or four years had already been dealt with, and they felt that there was no forum here based on law for them to address my petition.”





Jackson reported that he left the room between 11:10 and 11:15. We asked if both Freeman and Jackson’s cases were dismissed at the same time, and Jackson reported that Mr. Freeman “was not there.” Jackson said that an objector to another candidate was allowed to “bring his argument forth” in a hearing following Jackson’s.





As Jackson exited the hearing room, he stated to the man who escorted him, “I felt like I was in a communist nation.” The escort, the executive director of the Board of Elections, reportedly responded, “I’m not part of this group!”


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#245

Post by Tarrant » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:03 pm

When read posts like this it's clear that these people think that a court or hearing should be like it is in Matlock, or Law and Order, or any other TV court show. They complain that they aren't allowed to go on long meandering stories, or to just say something without backup, or "Address the Court" after a decision is rendered, like Matlock would...his client found guilty, then Matlock asks to speak and is so eloquent ad accusatory that the Real Killer cant take it anymore and confesses and the jury flash-changes its verdict as the ending credits roll.Real courts don't work that way, nor do most hearings. People have things to do. They need to get onto their next case. As some pointed out there are days when Judge Malihi has >50 cases on his docket...for ONE DAY.It isn't "communist" that after you lose you don't get to stand up and rant at the court or board. They are busy people who don't have time to sit there and listen to your irrelevant blather.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#246

Post by mimi » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:26 pm

Obama Ballot Chumps Challenges:





Illinois State Board of Elections Illegally Excludes Ballot Challengers Evidence That Proves Obama Not NATURAL Born, Asks For New Hearing





Posted by By Pamela Barnett at 10 February, at 00 : 52 AM Print





blah, blah, blah, didn't consider evidence, that's illegal, blah, blah.





In addition,they also threatened Jackson with sanctions if he were to pursue an appeal in the courts. See transcript to see how Chairman McGuffage a licensed attorney disparaged and threatened Jackson. These hearings are supposed to be heard according to the law without bias. Jackson with meager financial means and without an attorney was afraid to lose what little he had, so he did not pursue the legal appeal that he could have under Illinois statute. They also refused to allow oral evidence to be given in a further attempt to cover up their crime of spoliation of Jackson’s evidence.Jackson is pursuing administrative remedies of filing an ethics complaint with the Office of Executive Inspector General and has contacted his representative. The state legislators also have a responsibility to ensure that elections are orchestrated according to the law.





Jackson is asking for a rehearing of Obama’s eligibility with new board members. If you are an attorney and can assist Jackson in any way, please contact director @obamaballotchallenge.com.[/break1]com/illinois-board-of-elections-illegally-excludes-ballot-challengers-evidence-that-proves-obama-not-natural-born-asks-for-new-hearing]http://obamaballotchallenge.com/illinoi ... ew-hearing



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24522
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#247

Post by bob » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:44 pm

OBC steals republishes something behind P&E's paywall: [/break1]com/criminal-complaint-of-treason]Illinois Ballot Challenge Plaintiffs File Criminal Complaint of Treason


“IT’S UP TO US TO MAKE THEM FACE IT”





Illinois registered voters Michael Jackson and Benjamin Freeman filed separate objections to the placement of Barack Hussein Obama‘s name on the Illinois ballot for the November presidential election. Both objections were dismissed by the Illinois Board of Elections on February 2, 2012. The Elections Board stated that in Freeman’s case, the objector “failed to comply with Section 10-8, Never stating objector’s interest in filing the objection.” The Board stated that Jackson did not “adequately state his interest in filing the objection.” Following the ten-minute hearing, Jackson told The Post & Email, “I was silenced.”





[...]





Jackson contacted his U.S. representative yesterday about the results of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation . . . .





Jackson and Freeman also sent letters to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan . . . .





Jackson and Freeman have filed the following criminal complaint with the all 100 U.S. Senators. . . .





The criminal complaint was also sent to the editor of a local newspaper.





[Petition for Redress: Treason snipped.]





Jackson said that the letters should have arrived today or should be received at the latest on Monday. “We’re putting an olive branch out to them,” Jackson said. “If they don’t take action, they’re complicit.”





Jackson also delivered a package to his county sheriff today with information from Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Tomtech
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:08 pm
Location: Betwixt the Big and Black Cypress Bayous

Illinois Election Challenge

#248

Post by Tomtech » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:49 pm

OBC steals republishes something behind P&E's paywall: [/break1]com/criminal-complaint-of-treason]Illinois Ballot Challenge Plaintiffs File Criminal Complaint of Treason


“IT’S UP TO US TO MAKE THEM FACE IT”





Jackson and Freeman have filed the following criminal complaint with the all 100 U.S. Senators. . . .





The criminal complaint was also sent to the editor of a local newspaper.





Jackson also delivered a package to his county sheriff today with information from Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference.I must have missed the part of civics classes about sending criminal complaints to Senators, but only packages to the sheriff.


The Chriscam is open for public viewing.

borealis
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:06 am

Illinois Election Challenge

#249

Post by borealis » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:30 pm

What happened to Sen. Durbin's response? They didn't post it. I do hope someone has the sense to impose severe financial sanction on these "litigants". They somehow think they're draining the President's personal financial reserves and they aren't. They're so stupid they're willing to bankrupt only themselves and their families in the process ultimately alienating most of their friends and family. Didn't Jackson say he could barely pay his personal bills? So who's paying for this chicanery? Roeser?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Illinois Election Challenge

#250

Post by realist » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:53 am

Michael Jackson of IL has filed another ballot challenge...





From [link]OBC,http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-b ... ertificate[/link]





Obama Ballot Challenge Filed in Illinois based on forged birth certificate





Posted by By Pamela Barnett at 13 September, at 23 : 01 PM Print





Challenge made to Obama’s eligibility in Illinois after they accepted his forged birth certificate as proof that Obama is a NATURAL Born Citizen to get ballot access there in the primaries. This case is one of only two cases that the the forged birth certificate was entered into court by the Obama defense. [highlight]Michael Jackson and two other Illinois registered voters made the challenge that has a hearing in Chicago and in Springfield (teleconference) Monday, Sept. 17 at 10:30.[/highlight] Supporters can go to either location for the hearing.Challenge may be seen [link]here,[/link]


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”