If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

ILLINOIS RESIDENT OPENS THE DOOR TO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGING OBAMA’S CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS TO HOLD OFFICE

by Sharon Rondeau

The mottos of the state of Illinois are "State Sovereignty" and "National Union"

(Jul. 3, 2010) — An Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petition to some of the candidates on her 2010 ballot.  Her objection states that there is insufficient evidence that the candidates in question meet the constitutional eligibility requirements for the offices they seek.  Her petition will be presented to the State Electoral Board on Tuesday, July 6.

The details of the hearing can be found here.

Sharon Meroni is the Managing Editor of Patriot’s Heart Network. She broadcasts on Internet radio as Chalice Jackson. Patriot’s Heart Network’s main website is www.patriotsheart.us.  To follow Sharon as this action moves forward, join their TownSquare Forum. The topic on the Illinois State Board of Elections challenges is located in the Patriot’s Heart Legal Action forum. For now, you must be a member of the TownSquare to read the updates breaking news from Chalice.

Ms. Meroni gave her first exclusive interview on her petition to The Post & Email and discussed the ramifications it could have on future elections in her state and throughout the country in regard to determining candidates’ eligibility for office.

MRS. RONDEAU: Thank you so much for allowing The Post & Email  your first interview regarding the Objector’s Petition.  Has it officially been filed yet?

MS. MERONI: I do think that this is an extremely important topic to discuss and put out there, and timeliness is everything, so I appreciate your availability and dedication to get this information out to the public.  It was filed on June 28, 2010, the final date for the contest period.  I got it in just under the wire before the period ended and was the last party to file  an objection.  This objection is not filed in a court initially, but rather, at the State Board of Elections.  There, they give it a time stamp and we all come together on July 6 and schedule actual hearings for each one of the objections.  I’m not sure what to expect after the scheduling; there might be some amount of decision-making going on.  But there should be a scheduling of hearings at that point, and for me, there should be 32 hearings because I have filed objections to 32 candidates.  (Editor’s Note: The hearing schedule linked to above mistakenly lists 31 objections for Ms. Meroni.)

There’s a chance that the Board will handle it another way, but what I have outlined is the normal procedure.  It’s not something that’s going to wait 30 days; they process the objections very, very quickly.  I would anticipate that if there is a reason that I cannot proceed with verification of the constitutional eligibility of my candidates, it would then move into the court arena.

MRS. RONDEAU: When did you discover that you could even file such a motion?

MS. MERONI: That’s an excellent question.  At the end of last November, I decided to learn eligibility law in Illinois to find out how it was that there was this issue about Obama’s eligibility.  It just blew me away, so I decided I had better do the research myself, and I took everything off my plate and delved deeply into Illinois election law.  At that point, I learned how it was that no one in the state of Illinois at any level of government is ever verified to be constitutionally eligible. So then I looked deeper and learned that there are different ways in which We the People are given an opportunity to protest or to object in a “contest” situation.  They frame elections as “contests” here.  When I began my research, I also attempted a couple of court actions along the way as part of  my learning experience. My final attempt in court was to have a temporary restraining order on the State Board of Elections in Illinois to keep them from certifying the election results from the February 2010 primary.

My basis for that was that the candidates had not been verified as being constitutionally eligible.  “Constitutionally eligible” is not the same thing as “How many signatures did you get on a petition?”  Those are governed by something called “apparent conformity.”  What I am talking about when I say “constitutionally eligible” is “as mandated by the U.S. Constitution and not given over to law.”  The eligibility regarding petitions is based on law, but the Constitution sets out the parameters which the law must support.   The eligibility requirements here are citizenship and age.

I discovered that nowhere in Illinois do they test at that level.  After investigating, I found out that the only time I can contest someone’s eligibility is during the five-day objection period.  There were a couple of fatal flaws in the TRO application, which was why it was turned down; one of them was that I lacked standing, and the timing was wrong because I had not contested during the five-day period during which the candidates had to qualify to get on the ballot.

MRS. RONDEAU: So were they correct to deny your TRO application at that point?

MS. MERONI: Well, I don’t know if I would state that; I assessed my legal strategy at that point and I believe I wrote a very powerful temporary restraining order. If it wasn’t delivered in the correct manner, then I believed that the best strategy was to take all of that information and find another venue where you have a stronger chance of success.  So my decision at that point was that there were a couple of fatal flaws that would hinder the real question from being heard, and “standing” is always one of those questions or hindrances.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have reason to believe that any of the candidates on your ballot is not constitutionally eligible, or are you simply testing the system with this objection to see what the Election Board will do?

MS. MERONI: The fact is that I can’t assess a situation without the data to do so.  When people ask me, “Do you believe that this person is or is not eligible?” I can only honestly say, “I have no clue,” because there is no way to test it.  They don’t have to provide any documentation.  HIPAA and privacy laws prohibit us from gaining access to people’s personal health information, and birth certificates fall under that category.  I can’t go out into the public domain and look it up; I can’t get it from the candidates, because they’re not asked to provide it; and if I miss the five-day period, I lack standing to ever go forward in court to find out.  So when someone says to me, “Do you have any reason to believe…?” I can only say, “I don’t know what to believe because there is no data available to me,” and yet, this is a constitutional requirement.  So the way I look at it is: “This is my ballot; it’s my one chance to exercise my sovereign will in support of this republic, and if I don’t have a ballot that has constitutionally eligible candidates on it, then my one opportunity is corrupted.  I have that right.

I don’t care who the candidate is, quite honestly.  I don’t want to cause third-party candidates any unnecessary problems, and I say that from my heart because the way this worked out, I’m challenging the third-party candidates.  That is a process in Illinois:  the first primary is always with the established parties, and the second candidate eligibility period is when the third-party candidates get to register.

The way this all transpired, I wasn’t in a position to contest during the five-day period for the major-party candidates, and that’s why I did the TRO, which failed.  So now, it’s at this level, and whatever happens, there will be another opportunity, I believe, for us to contest this in November if it’s not resolved at this time.  And I do have standing to question the signers.

MRS. RONDEAU: Would you have liked to have filed this earlier against the major-party candidates?

MS. MERONI: Yes, because I think every time I go to the ballot place, I should have the assurance that my ballot is constitutional, so for me, the sooner, the better.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is this a law that has been on the Illinois books for a long time?  Was it in existence in 2008 when questions arose about Obama’s constitutional eligibility?

MS. MERONI: In regard to 2008, I think that people didn’t know about the law, and I think that we need to challenge this law right now because we need to find out what the rules are.  If we have to make legislative changes, then we need to get that done before 2012 so that we don’t continue with this problem.  I was actually astounded when I did this research over the winter, and I was floored to find out that not only does no one check constitutional eligibility, but no one is able to check.  The only way that we can find this out is through this five-day contest period unless somehow, it’s unveiled in the public and then there’s an uprising and then the state’s attorney might somehow file a charge later on.

And it’s not just Illinois; it’s all across the country.  When I went out on the Tea Party Express, I said to people that the eligibility issue is not about just Mr. Obama; it’s about our nation having a constitutional government.

In Illinois, we have one situation, for instance, that is very real.  Let’s just say that they bring the Gitmo prisoners to Thomson, IL, where there’s a prison.  That community has 600 members in it, and the town mayor has a great deal of control over what goes on there.  One of the things people are concerned about is if they bring the prisoners there, they’re going to have a huge population of Muslims moving in right next to the prison.  So let’s say they flood the town.  Only 50% of the people tend to vote, and now we get 300 new residents, and they elect a mayor but nobody ever challenges his eligibility when he’s a candidate.

I have to take it one more step, and I know this is a little complicated.  But the second step is that in Illinois and everywhere, we register people to vote.  When you register to vote in Illinois, one of the places you can go is the Department of Motor Vehicles.  I have testimony from an elected county clerk in Illinois who stated that if somebody goes to the Motor Vehicle Department and wants to get a state ID or a driver’s license and they’re turned down because upon examination by the person at the window, it’s determined that the ID presented is false, then that person will not permit them to get a state ID or a driver’s license, but they are required to offer to register them to vote and to permit them to register.  When that happens, you might say, “Well, surely, somebody will catch it,” but that’s not the case.  In Illinois, they do not allow the county clerks access to the nationwide database of illegals; they do not allow them any access to find out the citizenship status of people who register.

MRS. RONDEAU: So people could be bringing a fake ID which the clerk might detect, but the clerk has to give them the opportunity to register to vote even if they suspect that they’re an illegal alien?

MS. MERONI: Yes; it doesn’t matter what they suspect.  As long as they know that that ID is fake, it’s not good enough for a state ID or a driver’s license, but we don’t value our sovereign will vote enough to say that it’s not good enough to register to vote.

MRS. RONDEAU: Most people probably have no idea of this!

MS. MERONI: That’s why I’m passionate about it; this is life-changing for us because it’s how people are getting elected.  They’re changing the reality of the elections.  To bring that to a full circle, how does that impact us?  One of the qualifications for candidates is that they’re supposed to be registered to vote.  If you go back to the example of Thomson and have a flood of people coming in, they can illegally register to vote and grab the mayorship of that town in no time.

In the state of Illinois, there are five days to contest a candidate’s placement on the ballot.  The system by which one does that is not user-friendly.  If you go on the internet and look at the Illinois State Board of Elections website, you will not see a whole explanation as to how a citizen can file an objection during the five-day period.  They assume that that’s just for the involved people.  And who’s involved in election contests?  Politicians and their lawyers.  We citizens are busy and we trust it to other people.

MRS. RONDEAU: I think we have all done that, believing that elections are prepared for properly.  However, as we know from the election of 2008, they might not be.

MS. MERONI: Exactly.  And to bring back the issue of voter registration, when a candidate goes to file his papers to get on the Illinois ballot, he or she is supposed to be a registered voter.  You could go and look to see if  that’s the case, but because there’s no verification of when they registered to vote, it’s not a system that can assure that the person is constitutionally eligible.

MRS. RONDEAU: Which proves what you said before:  that an illegal alien could run for office, win and take office.

MS. MERONI: Yes, and that goes for almost any location in America.  America needs to wake up about this.  That is how we got into the crisis that we have.  It’s not just because of “natural born Citizen.”  It’s because most  people assume that when a candidate signs a statement verifying that he or she is eligible, they are.  So then they give you five days to object, and if you miss that five-day period, then you lack standing.  It’s difficult to find out this information, and often when we do find it out, it’s too late to do anything.  Therefore, getting into the game so that you can fight a particular candidate whom you suspect is not legal is very difficult. It also becomes more complicated when the information isn’t asked for or provided, and we can’t research it because of privacy laws.  So they have us all tied up in knots and rope, and they’re saying, “You can’t get out of this hold!”  The only way out is during this five-day period that I know of when you can at least begin to get an audience.

MRS. RONDEAU: So you have taken advantage of that five-day period, filed the Objection, and you have a hearing on July 6, which is next Tuesday.  What do you expect will happen?

MS. MERONI: That date will be a hearing according to Illinois State Board of Elections terminology.  The only thing that I understand will happen during that hearing is scheduling.  I have been told that all of the hearings will be held in Springfield.  So what they’ll probably do is set aside a certain number of days for this type of challenge, and they’ll come in rapid-fire.  I have 32 objections, so I’ll have to attend 32 hearings.  Some of the 32 are being challenged by other parties as well.  I was debating with an expert in election law in Illinois about this, and he and I were trying to discern how the State Board of Elections would react, and we don’t really know.  Thirty-two hearings is an administrative nightmare for them.

MRS. RONDEAU: Does that mean other people have discovered the same thing that you did from your research and have filed objections based on lack of proof of constitutional eligibility?

MS. MERONI: No, those are my contests.  The Board has a lot of other objections because other politicians would be objecting to each other during the contest period right now.  Most of those contests are about petitions and signatures, and political nastiness enters in as they go line by line through the signatures.  Illinois is well-known because that’s how Mr. Obama was elected his first two times.  His lawyers went in and attacked the signature petitions and were able to disqualify enough of the signers to destroy the candidate’s eligibility based on lack of valid petition signatures.

There’s something called “apparent conformity” in Illinois.  What happens is when an election clerk receives filing papers for a candidate to appear on the ballot, they call it “ballot positioning.”  The elections clerk looks at the first page, and if she can see that 1, 2 and 3 are completed, then the application appears in “apparent conformity” and they then qualify for ballot placement based on the time at which they submitted their petitions.  But she cannot open up that application to count the number of signatures that are there, nor can she check to see if those signatures are valid.  The only way that can be done is through someone objecting.  So what usually happens then is that political candidates will object and then they get to look inside to see the signatures.

MRS. RONDEAU: So the politicians know the way the system works, and they use it.

MS. MERONI: All the time.  This is very interesting, because in the 2008 presidential primary election, we had a situation in Illinois that was absolutely unprecedented and widely unreported.  A local citizen downloaded a petition for Alan Keyes to run as a Republican on the ballot.  She downloaded it; she got a few signatures, under 50, and submitted it.  Through “apparent conformity,” the Illinois Election Board clerk verified Mr. Keyes for ballot position for the 2008 Republican presidential primary campaign.  He wasn’t elected. However, Mr. Keyes never signed the statement of candidacy to ask to be on the ballot.  So by not signing that, he never affirmed that he was constitutionally eligible.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is it possible that he might not even have known about it?

MS. MERONI: Yes, and as a result, they broke a long-standing standard of apparent conformity, which was that the statement of candidacy had to be present.  One of the funny things about election law is that it’s all done at the local level, so first you have your state election board and then you have your county election board.  So across the state right now, the county election boards, which are all run by the elected county clerks, are saying, “What is my standard for apparent conformity?”  Because there’s no uniform rule throughout the state such that everybody has to make sure that they actually have the signatures or that they have their statement of candidacy signed or that they are eligible; there’s no check-and-balance.  Part of that is because we don’t want election clerks opening up and deciding if a candidate can run because they are short one signature.  That’s where the theory behind that came from.  But in Illinois, the application of it has come down to the fact that someone who doesn’t even know he’s on the ballot could be on the ballot unless someone contests it during that five-day period.  And we know that people don’t always contest it because how did Mr. Keyes get on the ballot with only 15 signatures?

MRS. RONDEAU: And it might not have been a focus of his campaign to get on the ballot in Illinois.

MS. MERONI: Yes. So it’s kind-of complicated, but I think it’s fairly consistent across all states, although I don’t have any expertise about other states.  However, I know that all elections are managed at the state level and then the state generally disperses that management to the local level.

MRS. RONDEAU: How can citizens learn what they can do to determine whether or not candidates for office are properly qualified?

MS. MERONI: We would like to spread this information across the country.  It’s a little bit late, as many of the primary periods have passed, but certainly not all of them.  The best way to get information is to call the state and county election boards.  The clerks, at least in Illinois, are amazingly helpful, and they care; they bend over backwards; they seem to be so surprised to have a citizen call in.  That, to me, is the fastest way to get through the maze:  call an election clerk.

Everybody is getting onto the web now and it’s brand-new, so a lot of these websites are complicated and still evolving in regard to being user-friendly.  Call the clerk; they’ll stay on the phone with you and walk you right through the website.  That’s what I would say to people:  if you know you have another election period coming up and there are still candidates rushing out to get signatures, then you can challenge them.

MRS. RONDEAU: Or if you suspect that someone is an illegal alien running for office, you could challenge that?

MS. MERONI: Yes, and you should challenge that, absolutely.  But if you don’t challenge it during your short contest period, then you’re going to lack the standing that everybody lacks in the case of Obama.

This hurt to do this, actually; it wasn’t easy, because I don’t want to do anything to upset the third-party candidates.  I believe that we need to have the voice of all the people heard and not just the Democrats and the Republicans.  This is not a challenge against the candidates personally; in fact, one of them is Andy Martin.  To me, however, even more important than their right to be on the ballot is my right to have a constitutional ballot.  I really grappled with that, and I don’t know another way to have this issue addressed so that we know that our candidates are constitutionally verified.  If they’re not, then let’s remove them from the ballot and get somebody who is.  So the long-term objective would be to have the legislative body make a stipulation that part of that checklist for conformity includes verification of constitutional eligibility.

MRS. RONDEAU: Could someone ask a state legislator to introduce such a bill during the next convening of the legislature?

MS. MERONI: Yes, but the truth is that it won’t make it in Illinois’s legislative session because Illinois is controlled by Democrats, and even if it were controlled by Republicans, there is an inherent prejudice in that the legislators want to be re-elected.  So that’s why election law tends to be so distorted; it’s distorted on the side of the people currently holding office who make the rules.  And that’s one of the strategies that I discussed with election experts:  taking it to the legislative body.  I concluded that I have no chance there right now, which is a shame.  The only way I’m going to get a chance is if we get into the system and people hear about it and come to understand, and then they push it forward from the ground up.  Other than that, there is no conversation about this topic, and yet, we could have an constitutionally unqualified person administering law in any position in Illinois.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there a chance that if someone had objected during the five-day contest period back in 2007 or 2008 that Obama might have actually had to show his birth certificate and other proof that he is a “natural born Citizen”?

MS. MERONI: Yes, and that’s one of the things I’m testing.  I believe that’s one of the challenges that I’m sure I’m going to face when I go before the Board:  “What standing do you have to say that this person is not eligible? ” And all I can say is, “On what basis does he say that he is?  How can I know it?” and the burden of proof is on the signer of the statement of candidacy; it’s not on me.  They’ve signed it, and this is my time to challenge that contest and signature.  Going directly back to Mr. Obama, by testing it now, it gives us an understanding of what we’re going to face in 2011, when this will come up.  So that’s part of the question:  what’s going to come up.  Also, it’s a wake-up to Mr. Obama because we’re not asleep anymore, and if he doesn’t qualify, then he’s not even going to run.  That’s what I think:  if he doesn’t qualify, he’s not going to run. If he does, and we prove that he’s not constitutionally eligible, we will have a huge constitutional crisis because we’ve had a “president” whom now we would find out isn’t eligible.  To me, he never intended to be in office any longer than one term, and of course there are grave questions about his constitutional eligibility that have never been answered.

MRS. RONDEAU: So one person could do what you’re doing during any election cycle as long as it’s during the designated period and file an objection to Obama’s constitutional eligibility and have standing to find out?

MS. MERONI: It’s the political parties which screen major-party candidates for eligibility for the ballot.  Still,  however, when they present their candidate on the ballot, any citizen could challenge it.  We’re still learning how the Board is going to address this, because I don’t know.  As far as I understand, there’s no precedent on constitutional eligibility.

But the other side of it is that Mr. Obama has a higher standard of citizenship than everyone else.  He has to be a “natural born Citizen.”  The third part of this is that the state of Illinois and the federal government lack a justiciable definition of “natural born Citizen.”  What I uncovered in my research is that when I go to challenge Mr. Obama as to whether or not he is a “natural born Citizen,” the test is:  how do I challenge it?  So it would have to go up to the higher court to come out with a definition of “natural born Citizen.”  Because Illinois fails to provide a definition, in my earlier lawsuit, I stated that that was unfair, because how could I challenge something that doesn’t exist?

In the statement of candidacy, the candidate says “I am legally qualified for this office,” so the question arises about what “legally qualified for this office” means if there’s no definition for the term “natural born Citizen.”  We all know what a Citizen is, so it’s not an issue in my objection going on now in the Illinois State Board of Elections.  But this would happen at the next level when I say, “If he says that he’s legally qualified, by what measure is he affirming that by his signature?”

So that challenge will come.  As as far as I’m concerned, no matter what, he can’t run for a second term.  He won’t go through that challenge because if he does, then what will instantly happen is it will be rushed through the courts to get a definition of “natural born Citizen.”  Chances are that it would go to the Supreme Court, and then the question would arise about Obama’s appointee(s):  would they have to recuse themselves for conflict of interest?  The court will have to decide the definition of “natural born Citizen,” and that will have to be done very quickly between 2010 and 2011.  They can’t take their time on that, because election matters are very quickly pushed through the courts.  After the election, they might take forever, but during that special objection period, as soon as an objection is made, it goes into a hearing within a week, and then there’s a determination and then there are immediate court challenges. In Illinois, all of those court challenges get pushed to the top of the docket.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think it’s accurate to say that your research has shown how citizens can take the power that was given to them by the Constitution and use it to make sure that their elected officials qualify by all standards set forth in the law?

MS. MERONI: Absolutely, and in the Constitution.  Right now we’re working in tandem with the United States Justice Foundation to build a template to assist citizens across the country to get into their state elections systems and find out how to go about entering objections.  It’s not uniform, so we can’t just say, “This is the perfect formula.”  We just say, “If you use this process, it will make your discovery much quicker.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Regarding the five-day objection period in Illinois, do you know how long the law has been on the books?

MS. MERONI: I’m not sure how long the objection period has been five days, but there has been an objection period for at least 100 years.  It could go back much longer than that.  I do know that there have been lawsuits that were filed and decided upon in my local appeals court over 100 years ago that related to the whole apparent conformity concept and they referenced the five-day period there, so I’m assuming it’s at least that old.

The other thing about the law that people should understand is that if they want to put something on the ballot, such as a referendum, in Illinois, at least, it mandates what’s called a “public posting period.”  I’m assuming that most states have public posting periods for whatever the action is that is contemplated by government.  In Illinois, they have a set period for everything, and all proposed actions have to be put in the newspaper and other places.  The law mandates how it has to be posted for the public to know.  However, no posting is required for the five-day objection period; it’s optional.  So that’s why when you go on the website, you can’t find anything that mentions the five-day objection period.  It’s just not there.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you know why they don’t have to publicize it?

MS. MERONI: Because they don’t want citizens to object to candidates.  Because who wrote the law?  Politicians wrote it, and they already know how the game is played, so they don’t have to be notified.

MRS. RONDEAU: Where did you find most of the information on Illinois election law?

MS. MERONI: I read through three thick books which are about 800 pages each. McHenry County, Illinois, is one of the most amazing little places, and the judge of our district set up a law library for us.  I spent quite a bit of time there talking to the different professionals.  I was outside of their normal exposure, but they were able to direct me to the correct text.  I think that’s the first place people should start:  find out if you have a free library through your county court system.  It seems to be a movement that is spreading across the country, but I do understand that McHenry County was one of the first in Illinois.  Also, I understand that a lot of libraries will feature legal texts in one of their branches.  If you call your local library, they can tell you which library in their system is the legal repository.

All I really needed was the Illinois Election Code, and that’s also posted online.  It was a little cumbersome to read it that way because I still like to have things in my hand.  You have to keep looking for information.  The other thing I found out that really blew me away is that election law is a highly-trained specialty, and there are not many election lawyers who are qualified to answer your questions right off the cuff.  Most of these election lawyers make their money arguing before the State Election Boards or the major parties.  So when you’re dealing in election law, you’re dealing with an extremely limited pool of lawyers, and those lawyers have interests that very likely are in conflict with the kind of thing that you’re challenging.  So I found you have to be careful as you look for that advice.  And, who will take it?  A lot of lawyers will say “I can’t take it” because I have  a conflict of interest.

MRS. RONDEAU: So where does that leave the matter of qualifying candidates?

MS. MERONI: The solution is the citizen.  We’re not stupid; we know how to do research, and that’s what each one of us needs to do to ensure that our candidates are properly screened.  If we don’t want to be one world, then we have to behave as if we’re a community.  We have to get into the community because that truly is the genius of our U.S. Constitution:  it’s meant to be administered locally.  I have never been politically active in my life; in fact, I used to think about going to meetings as the last thing on my list.  “Who would want to go to a political meeting?” was the attitude I always had.  But now that I have gotten involved, I see how limited my vision was.  It’s exhilarating, it’s fascinating, there are people at all levels who are reaching out to change their government.  It is also sometimes deeply politically agonizing because there are factions, and at the local level, you’re engaged in your issue and you care passionately.  But don’t let that dissuade you; just keep raising the bar as high as you can to stay focused on the most important point.  That’s what I think is one of the things that’s been happening to the tea partyers who have taken that wonderful step to get involved locally; they’re finding some of the issues that they’re confronting to be so factionalizing.  That’s part of the game, and we just have to rise above it, and how we do that helps to determine how successful we’ll be in doing what we’re supposed to do:  being part of our local political establishment.  For me, this has become an obligation.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you know when your objections will be heard this coming Tuesday?

MS. MERONI: Well, I have 32 objections, and I think there are an additional 28 or so coming from others, so that makes about 60.  The process will go on for at least 30 days because they’ll have to hold a hearing for each one of the objections.

MRS. RONDEAU: What do you believe the state will do to ascertain the eligibility of the candidates you’ve challenged?

MS. MERONI: This is essentially a test, a sincere test to find out what type of information the candidates will be asked to provide to prove their eligibility, so I really don’t know how it will proceed.  There are some wild cards.  One is what the State Board of Elections will do:  will they simply make one ruling that says everyone has to show a birth certificate, and then we’re done, and then they’ll just dismiss my objection out of hand?  If they do that, then I lack standing to challenge it.  That could be one solution.  Or maybe a candidate will refuse to produce verification.  If I get a ruling that the onus of proof is on the signer, then I can take that ruling and say, “Look, they’ve ruled at this level that he has to prove it.  I may lack standing, but he still has the responsibility to prove it.” Then I would have something that would throw me back into court, wouldn’t I?

Obama came in under the secrecy of election law, at which he is an expert; that’s how he won the other elections.  I’m sure the strategy was very well-calculated, and they assessed their risk factors and decided to go for it.  There still are those risk factors, and Obama’s risk factor is that he can’t run again.  If you look at the history, while in China, he made the statement that he would serve only one term.  I think he knows it, and we can’t sit back and assume that he’s going to run again, but if we don’t do something, then we leave the door open for that and we lose the chance a second time.

MRS. RONDEAU: Thank you very much for explaining your petition in such great detail.  The Post & Email will follow up with you next week after the July 6 hearing, and we wish you the best as you go forward with your action.

Join the Conversation

46 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The Constitution tests the president’s loyalty to the government which it created in two ways: the oath requirement and the natural born citizen requirement.

    While the Constitution requires an oath of every federal office holder, it prescribes an oath only for the President. That oath is NOT to this country, but rather to the government which the Constitution established in this country. In other words, the President could not simply be loyal to this country under any government (such as the first government under the Articles of Confederation) but the President must be loyal to the government which was established by the Constitution – the government which created the Office of the Presidency.

    A natural born citizen is not simply a person born in the United States to parents who are its citizens, such as Zachary Taylor. Rather, a natural born citizen is a person who is born with sole allegiance to and protection of the government established by the Constitution, without particular regard to parentage or location of birth. Perhaps a natural born citizen must be born in the US, but not all US-born people are natural born citizens (see Zachary Taylor). Perhaps a natural born citizen must be born to two US citizen parents, but not all people born to two US citizen parents are natural born citizens (see John McCain).

    The Constitution exempted many US-born people from having to satisfy the natural born citizen requirement because they were Citizens of the Untied States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution did not exempt these US-born people by accident. The Constitution exempted these US-born people for a deliberate cause: they were not natural born citizens because they were born in the US under the government established by the Articles of Confederation (or born in the US under no government at all.) The Constitution was a revolution – a coup d’etat – against the government of the Articles of Confederation. Neither a person born under the government established by the Articles nor a person born under the government established by the British Sovereign is a natural born citizen.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born a US citizen in Honolulu. But he was also born a British subject in Honolulu. For this reason, like Zachary Taylor, he is NOT a natural born citizen of the Untied States.

    The Constitution alone tells us so.

      1. mganzi, thanks for the question. I meant Zachary Taylor for sure.

        The Constitution does not provide a definition of natural born citizen, BUT it does indicate that the definition of natural born citizen is more narrow than today’s conventional wisdom.

        naturalborncitizen2.blogspot.com

  2. Must see video of Hernando Maldonado, who is running for MO senate, explaining the hypocricy of MO’s Sec. of State who asked him to show proof of eligibility to be on MO ballot. (Note: This SOS is running for the same seat but she’s Democrat and he’s Republican). He asked the good Secretary if she did her job and required BHO’s birth certificate, but he’s not received a reply. I think he plans on sueing the SOS of MO for discrimination:o) Hopefully, many more Sec. of State’s will be taken to task for not making sure Obama was eligible to be on their state’s ballots.

  3. Karen Handel was Secretary of State in Georgia when Obama was certified. She resigned and is now running for governor in the Republican primary. Her motto is: “Bring it on!” So , I did! I asked what she did to vet Obama before certifying him for the 2008 election. I also contributed to her campaign. She accepted my money, but she refuses to respond to any of my correspondence in referrence to eligibility!!

    1. I wouldn’t contribute to her campaign if she will not do her job and be transparent, as well. If she wouldn’t do her job as SOS, then she will not do her job as Governor. I have to be able to trust a candidate, and it is apparent that Ms. Handel is refusing to be transparent about the Obama eligibility. There is a better candidate out there for GA, imo.

  4. ‘Private Attorney General”
    Quote:
    “Private attorney general is an informal term usually used today in the United States to refer to a private party who brings a lawsuit that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff.

    The person considered “private attorney general” is entitled to recover attorney’s fees if he or she prevails.

    The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large.”

    Go here and learn more…. (also follow the links on the page)

    http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2010/04/private-attorney-generals-objections-re-supreme-court-issues-order-lindsey-springer-complied-with-or.html

    Even Pelosi supports the principle. (when on the site, at lower left of image, click ‘Full’ & read)

    http://www.slideshare.net/Sharon4Anderson/usa-private-attorney-general-oo

  5. http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

    Sharon:

    The Federal Election Code Section 595 shows that what the Hawaiian officials did at the time of the election was illegal. Thought you would find this most interesting.

    ************

    § 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

    Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled
    1
    (Except for an incumbent President and Vice President, who file with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, candidates for President and Vice President file with the Federal Election Commission. House candidates file with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate candidates file with the Secretary of the U.S. Senate.
    Federal Election Campaign Laws)

    by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President,
    Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

  6. Sharon, can you answer this? How will she challenge the pictured COLB everyone says is legit if he produces that particular one that Robert Gibbs says is on the internet? What is her strategy? I also noticed on her Objection Form the term Citizen is used. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 says you have to be a Natural Born Citizen. Will she replace that wording because Obama can just claim he is just a citizen because of his mother giving him that status since his dad was a British National?
    ————————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Her challenge to senatorial candidates on the Illinois ballot is a “test case,” if you will, of what might need to be done for 2012 if Obama runs again, or if anyone suspected of being an illegal alien should try to run for office. The point of her actions is to test the objection system which is already in place and see what the elections officials will call for in order to satisfy her objections.

  7. I thought I would see what Oregon was like. The election officials here say that any federal candidate, from US Congress or President/Vice P., are all regulated by Federal Elections Committee and the Congress vets them. The state has no authority. This is so funny that a state is subjected to federal people with no authority to investigate them.

    I will contact the Federal Elections Committee and find out why, when I contacted the Democratic Party, they refused to provide documentation on their candidate and what laws control political parties, when these parties break the law, interstate commerce, present false candidates and collect monies across state lines.

    Should be interesting. Hope others are investigating in their own fashion. The more flashlights we shine on these people, the more they will try to do the right thing, just like streelights keep crime down.

    God bless America

    1. If the states are saying that the only validation of eligibility they do on a federal candidate is to accept whatever the feds give them for validation, isn’t it unlikely that pursuing how the states validate Constitutional eligibility concerning Obama will be useful? For state candidates yes, federal no?

      On a related note, did anyone ever get an answer from the DNC as to why Nancy Pelosi signed and had notarized two different letters of certification for Obama/Biden 2008?

      The certification letter sent to Hawaii included the words, “eligible as required by the U.S. Constitution”; the one sent to the other states had no mention of Constitutional eligibility. They were both signed by Pelosi and notarized on the same date.

      Logical, (or even illogical), reason been given by the DNC?

      1. I don’t believe an answer was given for the two different letters, but it has been determined that the DNC did the same thing for the 2000 and 2004 elections. If 2008 had been the first time, then that would have been very significant in terms of Obama’s eligibility.

  8. Before the BAR association took over legislating voluminous contrived obstacles there was a simple solution to settle a dispute where one’s integrity was being trampled without mercy: a duel. That forced most people to be honest and respectful as well as informed. Today all you have to do is sneak about the system hiding behind obscure rules and regs and you can stand on the necks of the public with the force of law behind you. Common sense and the obvious intent of the nations founding be damned, it is now the domain of lawyers to reign over us all.

  9. This legal devise “No Standing”….where does it come from? It’s not in the Constitution! So I ask..Is it Constitutional? The three branches of government work for the main headquarters….WE THE PEOPLE! How is it possible then for a representative republic that is under Constitutional Law to have it’s tax paying citizen’s told by their own employees (the three branch’s) that they have “No Standing” when it comes to controversial Constitutional issues for which the people are asking for clarification! You know what I say? I say that this nonsense of “No Standing” violates the 9th Amendment! Any citizen who sees what appears to be any violation of the United States Constitution has “STANDING” to bring that matter directly to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Justice’s had better pay attention or else they risk being removed for “BAD BEHAVIOR” as pointed out in Article 3 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution in my opinion!

  10. Two things:

    1. She’s right, Obama won’t run for a second term.
    2. I beleive Natural Born Citizen has been pretty much defined in Minor vs Happersett, which refers back to Vattel’s “Law of Nations”! And don’t forget, the “Law of Nations” is referenced as the guide to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas! See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10.

    1. Correct, and Minor says no 14th amendment citizen can ever be a natural born citizen. It says this because in the holding it says that the definition of natural born citizen is nowhere in the Constitution, and since the 14th had been added 6 years prior, it is not in the 14th which was already part of the constitution.
      This means even if Obama were born in Hawaii, which he wasn’t, but even if he was he was only ever a 14ther and therefore never a NBC.

  11. Fla. has a similar law in Federal elections that I intend to use. Citizens have the right to challenge the results of the election. In Fla.’s election statutes is a provision that the candidate be constitutionally eligible (candidates oath). It has been co-opted by the Presidential Primary Selection Committee, which is a group of Fla. State Senate and House leaders , along with the State Political Party Presidents, with the Secretary of State as the chair. They are charged with putting then candidates on the ballots, but do not admininister the oath (Fl. SS 99.21 B). The meeting lasts 10 minutes.

  12. Sharon, you need to do an interview with Dr. Edwin Vieira…in a News With Views commentary he did, he said the “Standing ” argument is…AN EXCUSE!

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

    You can contact him either through Committees Of Safety (http://www.committeesofsafety.org/node/17) or at his home in Manassas, Virginia. He was featured in a movie called Don’t Tread on Me, which can be found at Infowars/Prison Planet
    ————————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I am familiar with Dr. Vieira’s work as well as the specific article you cited. We could not repost it here due to the possibility of copyright infringement. However, it is an excellent article which everyone should read, so I have left the link there.

    1. Thank you Sharon. I apologize for not knowing about the possible;e infringement, but I do appreciate you putting the link up.
      ———————
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: Certainly, Bob; it was an excellent article and should be read by all. I believe all NewswithViews articles are copyrighted, so I didn’t want to take a chance. We know what it’s like to have our work stolen and reprinted without our permission!

  13. This could be good news, The Globe Magazine has an article in the current issue about Obama not having a Hawaii birth certificate. It being the Globe the Obots will of course discredit it…but, they had an article about John Edwards and his mistress long before the main stream, (now “state-run”) media…and look how that turned out:

    http://www.globemagazine.com/

    1. Do you know who the author of the story is? Perhaps he or she will not be afraid to ask the legitimate question of Constitutional law below, which has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate or where he was born, as the question pertains to Obama’s British citizenship by descent from his British citizen father:

      How can the status at birth of a natural born citizen of the United States of America be governed by the laws of Great Britain?

      The basis for this question comes from a statement on Obama’s Fight the Smears website:

      “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    2. “It being the Globe the Obots will of course discredit it…but, they had an article about John Edwards and his mistress long before the main stream, (now “state-run”) media…and look how that turned out:”

      Bob1943, that is exactly what I thought/think about it. Most of the time, the Globe publishes BS. Sometimes, however, what they publish is so over-the-top that it seems like it’s BS but it turns out that the Globe scooped all the others.

      Anyway, that anyone published the story at all is promising. It’s a step in the right direction as far as getting the news out to the mostly misinformed public.

    3. I couldn’t resist and bought the darn thing today. Main thesis of the story is the Tim Adams angle they also added a few facts about his Kenyan family. Certainly not anything no one here already knows; the point is the rag mag is at every check out stand in America. The best part is The Globe did not trash the ‘birthers” for once!!

      It should be noted The Globe’s sister paper, The National Enquirer is who broke open the Edwards scandle. Who knows???

  14. That research took tremendous tenacity and perseverance on her part and I appreciate her efforts. And it confirms what many of us have long suspected. Somehow we have gotten to the point of having PROFESSIONAL politicians run our country, an elite group that knows how to get on the ballot and operate the system and get the millions of dollars in campaign funds. In my district, for example, we have only have had 4 representatives since Texas became a state.

    For real.
    One served for 48 years and the one we got now is 86 years, been there for 32 years and running AGAIN for the 16th time. This is not government BY the people. Oh, and I wonder why the guy never answers my emails? Why should he?

    But there’s a new kid on the block these career politicians had better start worrying about — the internet. That wonderful tool we the people can use (until Obama pulls the switch, that is) to share information and truth. I hope this cascades into citizens looking into election rules in every state in the nation. I know my radar is up. As another poster said— Godspeed.

  15. There is hope. On this independence day, our founders would be very proud of the work you all are doing and the sacrifice you all are making to preserve our country for her original intent. Godspeed.

  16. it matters not… you have no standing in” corporate law…..common law was suspended march 28 1861…and changed to corporate law july 4th 1861…… NOW i ask………. CAN YOU SUE THE GOVT/…… SO there’s your answer … you CAN’T SUE.. cuz you have been incorporated into the BIG U UNITED THE BIG S STATES… the organic constitution…….. IS ” WE THEE PEOPLE”” the corporate constitution…….is the FICTION PERSON…. enumerated by numbers… taxes…. properties…..monetary worth.. as IN CHATTEL.READ the 37 th congressional records… you WILL see the SMOKE and MIRRORS.. of the color of LAW… such as executive orders……treaties . and ACTS….HIS EXCELLIENCY abe lincoln KNOWS far too well.. WHAT WAS INFLICTED upon this ONCE FREE LAND…..”OF THE REPUBLIC.”

    1. Peggy, can you write a brief article on this for The Post & Email and how the Bar factors into this? I suspect reticence on the part of attorneys who are members of the Bar, call themselves Esq. etc, to be legitimate in their attack on the eligibility issue.

      1. from what i have read peggy is correct. everyone is wasting time and money by following all these paths related to the obama eligibility issue. there was a blogger at the apuzzo site that constantly reported on this issue but mario never responded.

        i am not an expert so do your own research but there is no evidence that we are under constitutional law. those that have studied this issue claim all courts are administrative. there has been discussion that no court can try the president because they have no authority to do so. it is odd that no one covers guys like rod class who have been working the courts for years trying to straighten out this mess. and no one wants to talk about the restore america plan because it appears such a fringe group. political correctness has certainly achieved its desired affect.

        the one and only issue is the corporation dba usa. good luck. its not easy for the average joe to comprehend.

  17. This is an excellent interview. It opens our eyes on the role of ACORN and the Project Vote – i.e., voters registration – in the last elections. The result of these elections has been in the works for a long time!

  18. Too bad we didn’t know this in time to challenge Obama’s eligibilty to be on the 2008 Presidential election ballot. On the other hand, if one/more of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility was filed in time in one/more State(s) having such a special period and was dismissed due to lack of standing I would think that that dismissal could be appealed and overturned on the grounds that ignorance of the law on the Court’s/Judge’s part is no excuse.

  19. But such is the case of Kerchner that is being decided right now. He did contest Obama eligibility at the right time. It is the only case that is going to be judged on its merits right now. http://www.puzo1.blogspot.com
    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Oral argument on the merits was canceled around the 19th of June. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on July 2 that the appeal was frivolous. They have also imposed sanctions on Atty. Apuzzo, although he has 14 days to respond as to why he should not be sanctioned. The Post & Email will be following these developments and whether or not the case can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

      1. The court gave a poor rationale for rejecting the appeal. They admitted that Kerchner attempted to distinguish his case from the Berg case, and noted that accepting Kerchner’s argument would create an ‘impermissibly large class’ with a ‘unique ability to sue’ in federal court. Nowhere do they explain how large a class (as in class action lawsuit) can be, nor do they explain their contradiction that the grievance was generalized yet somehow the ability to sue is unique. Unique is the opposite of general, so it can’t be a generalized complaint if someone has a unique ability to sue.

        Bottom line is they think that any injury resulting from an ineligible president is ‘too general’ because it is shared by everyone. That doesn’t make much sense to me, but it is what they said.

        Next they said the grievance should only be handled through the legislative branch and that the remedy may be found through Kerchner’s vote. Again, this is nonsense. As a voter, you might vote for or against your legislators for not dealing with your complaint, but this doesn’t have any direct impact on whether the Congress as a whole would vet a president-elect’s eligibility. Besides, your vote doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the legislators you want (which is only for your state, not all 50) and it certainly doesn’t guarantee you’ll get a qualified president or that an unqualified president would be removed. The court is basically dodging this issue and making poor excuses.

    1. Does anyone know when the 5-day period was for New Jersey for the 2008 election?
      ——————-
      Mrs. Rondeau replies: Each state is different, and NJ might have a longer or shorter objection period. The best thing to do is call your state Elections Board and ask until you get an answer.

      1. Well, NJ is not my state, but I suppose this is something that Commander Kerchner and/or his lawyer Mario Apuzzo will be checking into. Although, it seems that this 5-day period (or however long it is in NJ) would have been many more days before the election than when Kerchner filed his case.

  20. Interesting study done in 2006 by the Gov’t on Birth Certificate Fraud.

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:emwRKqthjvsJ:oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf+vital+statistics,+fraud&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiY5Nw1U_dhknregwXtIXR7lg2DfRoMB0iNWVAeOvkqiUxKyamirekIA4dmXcehq17Z4tZh-HAq8bXEQtoZ5bk6Sh-Z41N6EdiMhkP88I_IDJrhYbUDXa2i503woDjuTSu4wZil&sig=AHIEtbR0V3tgrvLC47vHonMuFE4L6ozp6g

    This study should be relied on in Sharon’s lawsuit. It clearly states it is recommended that BC are NOT the only thing that is used to prove identification. It goes on to state interviews with relatives, etc. should also be used. Excellent piece of info to bring up to the Election Board don’t you think?

    1. There is an interesting quote in that document – “The issuance of birth certificates in the United States is the responsibility of 57 State vital records registrars…” (pg. 2). During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated that he had visited the 57 states. Strange coincidence. The document spells out the 57 as 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, New York City, and Washington DC. Perhaps Obama read this report due to his keen interest in Birth Certificate fraud and the “57 State” part stuck in his head.

  21. Maybe citizens all across the country in every city, county and state should flood their election offices with requests to be on the ballot. If no one checks signatures or eligibility, maybe it will take an action like this to make the whole election process come to a grinding bureaucratic halt. Maybe this will bring about the changes in the election process that are desperately needed. I commend you for your tenacity and courage to educate yourself and stand up for you rights Sharon!

  22. The state of Hawaii has this same five-day period in their lawbooks in which to challenge a presidential ballot. If one were to get a hearing from the chief election officer, then it’s feasible that you could legally qualify as having a right to Obama’s birth certificate or an official verification of birth from the HI DOH.

    It’s §11-113: “If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question. A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91. A decision shall be issued not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the conclusion of the hearing.”

    There’s still a question as to whether they would follow their own laws, but this challenge is available, but someone has to make sure they take advantage of the law.

    1. ksdb,

      There is always much wordiness in these statutes. Forgive me this question, but please tell me your understanding:

      When is the “finding of eligibility”? The election day? When is one found to be “ineligible” or “eligible”?

      Thanks. It’s no wonder lawyers have a bad rap. This stuff often lacks sense and/or is subject to manipulation or twisting of the original written intent (read: The Constitution, nationally and historically).

      Thanks

      1. I believe it’s around the 60th day prior to the election (if I read the statute correctly), although it says the candidate will be notified by the 10th business day after filing about whether they’re found eligible or not. Ten business days might actually be 12-14 days later and then you’d have five days after that to file your objection. That would be about 45 days prior to the election, give or take.

  23. So the question is !! Will this open up a Court Room to try “OBAMA”?
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The first step is to file an objection during that special period, whatever that might be in your state, and you should have standing to do so as long as you’re a registered voter.