MERONI V McHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY (09mr399) - 09 - Amended Filing: Motion To Set Aside and Motion For Exception (Jan. 20, 2010)

• •
Illinois board of elections

TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT(Second Appellate District)
2 FOR MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Case No.:
3 Chalice Jackson)
lvlCJulftNETWORK, )
4 INC., Members JOI-IN DOES and JANE )
DOES 1-20, Registered Voters and Members )
5 of PATRIOT'S HEART MEDIA NETWORK, )
INC., (728 NW HWY, Fox River Grove, IL ) /he Ci!);!!t !;M
6 6002 I 847-304-8800) )
AMENDED FILING: MOTION
7 TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION
FOR EXCEPTION
8 Petitions,
9
MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY )
10 FOREMAN AND GRAND JURY MEMBERS)
II
12 Now here comes Petitioner, appearing pro se as an individual, as a member of the

Citizen Press and as the Founder of Patriot's Heart Media Network, Inc (a Citizen
13 IUn media outlet) in the role of "spokesperson" for John and Jane Does,
members of Patriot's Heart Media Network, Inc, in accord with the directions of
14 personal convictions and loyalty to the Constitutional Republic of the United
States of America, and the Illinois Constitution, on oath and before God
15
Almighty and her Lord, set forth this prayer by way of amendment in the
16 Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit (Second Appellate District) McHenry County, IL
of her original EMERGENCY PETITION FOR REDRESS BEFORE THE
17 MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY.
18 It is with the gravest concern and unyielding seriousness of heart that this
petitioner humbly returns to the Court through this Amended filing and a Motion
19
to Set Aside and Motion for Exception. The petitioner prays for this opportunity
20 to present sufficient factual basis as specified in the December 16th Order by
Honorable Judge Sharon Prather.
21
Personal, Introductory Statement:
22 Sovereign Will: Perhaps a concept meaning more to me, rather than one spread
throughout legal definitions, sovereign will, simply meaning;
24 I, me, my and mine; expressing.
25
26
I'a£e 1- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION, .
0~mR
Tire lihenies ofa people never were or ever will be secure, when the transactions o/Illeir rulers may be concealed
from litem Polrick Henry 31Q/
\1
• •
In governance, in any representalive democracy, that expression is in our vote.
In the vote, each individual's sovereign will resides. It is considered the gem of
our representative government. While we are enjoined to many responsibililies
2
by the government that manifests as a result of each expression ofsovereign will
3 and of the collective ofsovereign wills, we only get one place to express it. Thai
is the vote.
4
Thus, I bold the s an w in sovereign will. It is not a noun, iI is a verb. It is my
5 action.
6
There is no doubt the American people thoroughly love their vote. Not everyone,
7 not at all times, or more at some times then others ... They may not exercise that
right, but to remove that vote, noll' that is a different thing entirely!
8
The vote, it comes at the bal/ot. The ballot happens at home. Perfectly
9 synchronislic with the natural concept ofsovereign will, is that the ballot happens
10 at home!
11 I have leaned this in my journey and I confess it has been eye opening and in a
strange way, I have finally found solace to the pain this 'eligibility' passion has
12 kept me in. Yes, I am here by my actions, bw I elect those actions because
through my vow with the Almighty Sovereign, I must do everything that I can to
13
protect that sovereign willfor my children andfor theirs ...
14
Tn the beginning ofmy journey, I thought I had to go to the federal officials. I
15 asked Police Chief Michael Murphy of Barrington Hills his view. He was not
giving me legal advice, but he did state that a complaint of the theft of my ballot
16 leveled through him, would track to the county and possibly to Ihe state,
potentially to be passed up and out of the state to the federal government, who
17
:,'ould do nothing. There was no standing.
18
Like a seer or perhaps an emballied professional, his words marked true. The
19 federal government allows no redress. The process has come down to one reality.
Sovereigll will and my vote in a representative republic, that is the place where
20 the election related d4iciencies createdji-aud.
21
Well truly who would have believed, that a mere ... lei's say 2.5 years ago, that
22 there was ANY chance America could be in the hands of an usurper government?
Such slatements would have been the ridicule ofmost, accompanied with
23 accusations such as 'tomfoolery' or tin hat conspiracist! For me, not even a
thought ofsuch. Why would I?
24
25 I love my country with such a passion, if1 had thought this, surely, I would have
taken every means at my disposal to prevent it. Especially because to act 2.5
26
Pago 2 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR I3EFORE THE MCHENR Y COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
Tire liberties oja pe(}ple "ever were or ever will be secure, when the trallsactions oft/Jetr rulers mny be concealed
from them. Patrick Henry
• •
years ago would have solved the problems we face now and avoided the hardship
I have had to endure to get here to finalfy find redress!
2
I know of thousands, and assume many more, who would likewise affirm the
3 same!
4 Why is it important to recognize so~'ereign will as an action? Sovereign will in a

representative government cannot be removed because ofpast events caused by
5 an errant legal process or procedure, nor preventedJi"om remedy because oflhe
6 collective will. For the sovereign will is Ji"om whence our representative republic
begins Qnd is entrusted.
7
The problem is 10 find a form of associalion which will defend and protect with the
8 whole common force the person and goods of each associale, and in which
each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as
9 free as before. 1. J.J. Rousseau, The Social Contrac" (1762), in Les Philosophes: The French
Philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modem Democracv. ed. by Norman L. Torrey (N.Y.: 1960.
Perigee Books) page 149.
10
II Thus our vote must never be considered in past tense. Yes, it happened in a time
frame thai occurred already, but its manifestation and consequence unfold in the
12 course ofthe present, and is thus happening.
13 Nowhere, in the documents, the US Constillltion and the Illinois Constitution,
14 entrusted by our sovereign will for governance; nowhere does it say, because of
inconvenience 10 the government governing, or some portion ofthe governed,
15 that our vote can be counted as pas/tense in terms ofconstitutional veracity.
16
17 I. Introduction:
1.0 rn the publications discussing voter fraud, readers shall find mUltiple
18 references to fraud at the ballot. Discussions center primarily around offences
19 and obstructions to access at the ballot. Someone was either prevented from
access or someone had access that was not entitled. Additionally, there is fraud
20 such as ballot box stuffing. The fraud this petitioner addresses is fraud related to
access.
21
The petitioner and the various petitioners from Patriot's Heart Network were
22 deprived of a constitutional ballot when voting in the 2008 Primary and 2008
23 General election contests. The events leading up to the theft of the ballot are
complex. In some regards they are related to deficient statute and code, in others
24 because of changes in our laws in one area (HIPAA), because of the lack of
definition from the Federal Government, and finally because of crafty politicians,
25
26
Page 3 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tile liberties of a people /lever were or ever will be secure, when tile trallsactions o/Iheir rulers may be cOllcell/ed
jmm them. Patrick Henry
• •
fully aware of the vulnerabilities of the system and manipulating it to prevent the
public from having a "Free and Fair Election," administered "uniformly."
2
The Culprits: Unconstitutional Illinois Election Code 10 ILCS 5/1 0-5 and 10-8,
3 the Statement of Candidacy and the lack of definition of natural born citizen as
required to be President of the United States of America. The crafty politicians, at
4 least, include Barack Oba~a, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. The Grand Jury is
needed to determine just how this fraud occurred. There is evidence to suggest
5 media manipulation as well.
6
Standing: This is not a "normal case" of standing. On one hand there is a
7 standing with the State's Attorney office, on the other with the Judge, and finally
with the Grand Jury. This case touches at the County, State and Federal Level
8
9 In order to have standing, must petitioner show that the form and the statue and
10 resulting actions obstruct her a priori right to free and equal elections? And that
constitutionally, free and equal elections requires a verified ballot affirming
11 constitutional requirements have been met, not a ballot with names certified for
position as is currently the practice.
12
Assuming so, in standing to exercise her right to object, even in a campaign of the
13 yester year, or of one this year as is about to take place, petitioner must show a
14 few things to this cour. It is her fervent prayer, through Christ her King, as she
attempts to be a worthy convincer of such facts, that she is successful in this
15 endeavor!
16 2.0 Setting the Scene: Essentially there are three panies to election contest
occurring in McHenry County: the citizens, the contestants, and the administrators
17
of the contest.
18
2.t The Citizen: American Citizenship: For most, it is a given. The vast
19 majority of Americans were born here, their forefathers (regardless to how many
generations past or how they originally arrived in America) were born here or
20 became naturalized. The vast majority of our citizens, 95%, are natural born
citizens.
21
22 2.2 EquaJ ... Except: The only separation in rights between the citizenship
levels is that the natural born citizen is qualified for the Presidency. This is not a
23 flexible separation. Only a natural born citizen may be President (and Vice
President) of the United States of America. Thus, in our Republic we are all
24 equal, save that one job which is drawn from 95% of the populace pool. The
25 reason for this is national security. The source of this goes back to the Founding
Fathers.
26
I'ETI'I'ION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
'flte liberties 0/11 people nel'er HieTt or ever will be secure, H!ltellliJe transactions o/their rulers may be COllcealed
from 1IIl!ltt Patrick Hellry
• •
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote a letter to George Washington
on July 25, 1787, indicating that he feared the possibility that the commander-in-chief
2
could devolve upon someone who was the subject of a foreign power at the time of the
3 birth: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong
check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government;
4 and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be
given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Historians agree that fear that a
5 foreign ruler might someday be imported to reign over the United States prompted Jay's
6 letter. (Exhibit 3: Citizenship" Citizen, Born Citizen, Natural Born Citizen by Mountain Publius Goat)
7 2.4 Under Jurisdiction: The natural born citizen is one who is under the
jurisdiction of the United States of America. This level of citizen is natural and
8 does not require any law or action of state to establish it. It is the right indigenous
to birth which 110 law can empower or remove the natural right.
9
10 2.5 Reference Documents: In determining citizenship, core philosophical
concepts come to the foreground. This ultimately will be a "First Impression"
\I issue for the Supreme Court to resolve. This petition includes three important
documents to assist the court and the state's attorney to understand the natural
12 born citizen issue. The petitioner prays the Court will permit her leave to submit
a brief on natural born citizen specifically.
13
Exhibit 4 What is Putative President Obama's Current U.S. citizenship Status?
14
Exhibit 5 The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen (thebinher.org)
15
2.6 95% of the Citizenry: This is the first time in modem history the debate
16 has arisen, because unquestionably all former Presidents were of that 95% pool.
17 2.7 Fraud through Suppression: It is this very debate that Mr. Obama and
his supporters, during the Primary and General Election of 2008 tried to avoid,
18 and in doing so, led to deliberate and fraudulent actions to keep the public from
19 engaging in this essential debate. The media is complicit too.
20 2.8 Grievous Deficiency: Define Natural Born Citizen! But for now, let this
much needed debate be placed to the side, and simply as required for this
21 document assert, as prima fascia fact, that the Federal and State government do
not have a standard definition to natural born citizen, especially as relates to the
22
President (and Vice President) of the United States.
23
This grievance deficiency has placed our nation in grave constitutional danger
24 and requires the utmost attention to its immediate resolution.
25
26
Pngo 5 - EMI;IWENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETtTION AND MOTtON TO SilT ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
The fihertil!.'i lIftl people IUl'er wel'e or el'er will be Joecure. when Ille transaetiolls of/heir rulers rna)' be cmrceale(/
from Ihl!ItL Patricli Henr)'
• •
3.0 Three Legs of an Election: Citizenship, contestants and the administrators of
the election.
2
3.1 American Citizens: Not all Americans are allowed to vote. Thus, it is a
3 regulated right of citizenship. The gatekeeper to the election process is the
registration process. The privilege of voting and being a contestant comes
4 through the successful act of registration.
5 Access Rights: While America has many residents and visitors, access rights to
6 the voter registration process are afforded to one group, American Citizens. Thus
to enjoy those rights, and to all actions related to them, you must flrst be an
7 American Citizens. Any registration that does not verify citizenship is
constitutionally de·ficient.
8
A priori to the successfully completed registration is the fact of citizenship.
9
10 3.2 Contestants: To run for an office in the Federal and lllinois governments,
the contestant must be a USA citizen. Contestants must also be a certain age, and
11 resident of a locality for a regulated period of time to become a registered voter in
that locality. Contestants must also attain other milestones to qualify as in
12 apparenl conformity, and able to withstand objections.
13
Access Rights: To be judged as equal or not, one must first get into the game.
14 That is done through registration, and thus through establishing oneself as a
citizen. Secondly, access is afforded through the contestants actions in apparent
15 conformity to requirements such as petitions and credentials.
16 To have integrity within the contestant pools, all must be equal.

17
3.3 The Administrators: Or are they the arbitrators? This group reflects the
18 constitutional mandates compelling government officials, through laws and
processes, to be fair and equal arbitrators of the election. In Illinois, the
19 constitutional mandate is that all processes must be uniform.
20 Access Rights: Administrators have access controlled through the concept of
21 apparent conformity, and through rules of the game that set out how the conlest is
fairly run. Essentially a ministerial role, the codes and statutes must be sufficient
22 to afford access rights required to be fair and equal arbitrators and thereby
delivering a uniform product for all three legs of access.
23
The administrators obtain access rights from statutes.
24
25 3.4 Wherefore these descriptions are overviews, they are fair representations.
26
I'age 6-EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. ORA
Tlte libertie.'i .0/iI people never were or ever will be secure, wilen the traJlsactions oftheir rulers may be concealed
fmm litem. Patriek lIenr),
• •
2 Primary Substantive Questions:
The substantive issue here will ultimately be the US and Illinois Constitutions over
3 deficient election code. A bright line statement: The Constitution is substantive over
Administrative Code.
4
1.0 Free and Equal: In Illinois, the process of election, amongst the three
5 legs; citizens who decide the results, candidates who compete in it, and the
6 administrative process whereby, a "free and equal" election "shall be" the result,
Article 1lI, section 3 is the measure by which the end result of any election contest
7 is entrusted, and through the word 'shall,' is mandated. Free and equal is the
measure by which we set our sights to determine the veracity of any election
8 contest.
9 Thusly, the petitioner asserts, eligibility contest questions on elections must be
10 fairly arbitrated, completely accessible to all 3 legs of the election process, and
ensure that all contestants and voting participants are constitutionally qualified to
\I be judged as "free and equal" participants in the election contest.
12 SECTION 3. ELECTIONS
All elections shall be free and equal.
13 (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
http://www.ilga·90v/co~~ission/lrb/con3.htrn
14
15 2.0 A Priori: All eligible citizens have the right to know that all candidates
engaged in the contest are constitutionally eligible. This is a higher standard of
16 substance, a priori, whereby through constitutional absolutes of "must" and
"shall", Illinois election codes are given an imperative to assure constitutional
17
eligibility before contestants are certified for ballot placement, regardless of other
18 requirements for the same ballot. Other requirements are based on lesser
substantive constitutional requirements and are as set forth by code and
19 interpreted by statue.
20 Incredibly, current statutes require verification and public disclosure from

candidates for the lesser procedural qualifications of campaign operations, all
21
based on the statues, but none for the constitutional requirements. None!
22
Prima Fascia: Petitioners passionately argue, eligibility to hold office is required
23 by the US Constitution and the Illinois Constitution depending on the office
specified.
24
25
26
PETITION ANI) MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCI,PTlON: .
Tile liherties of II people never were or ever will he secure, when the trallsacliolfS of/heir rulers may be eoucea/etl
fmm rhein. Patrick HeJIT)'
• •
Thus, to be an applicant for ballot placement, verification of constitutional
eligibility is a priori to access and before 'apparent conformity' dictates the ballot
preparation.
2
3 3.0 Verification of Eligibility \"s. Certification of Ballot Placement: To

Verify or to Certify: What is the role of the various codes mandating how
4 elections are conducted in McHenry County? Currently, severely deficient codes
and statutes create extreme vulnerabilities in the election process by allowing for
5 contestants on ballots to be certified for placement and not verified for
6 constitutional eligibility. This deficiency has created a constitutional crisis at the
county, state, and federal levels.
7
Requirements for the Ballot: What is required of the ballot? Must it be
8 constitutional to meet the free and equal standard required of elections?
9
Substantive Affirmation: To verify or to certify constitutionally mandated
10 requirements for any position, regardless iffrom the county, state or federal role,
is an operative question that underlies this petition.
II
4.0 The Ballot: The ballot is the means by which We The People affirm our
12 sovereign will in our Republic. While not everyone voted for the victor, all enjoy
the fruit of the election and are held to the product of it. Thus the integrity of the
13
ballot, which contains the options available, is sacred. Surely no one will dispute
14 this!
15 4.1 Integrity of the Ballot: The ballot, representing all voters' choices for the
contest, is crucial to any determination of a free and equal election.
16
Substantive Affirmation: What does a ballot of integrity look like? Petitioner
17
presents to the Court, in order:
18
1st. Constitutionally eligible
19 2nd. In apparent conformity with other election standards
20 To have integrity, the requirements for ballot placements must require verification
21 of the constitutional eligibility of the contestants. To not do so, is substantive to
core issue of the fairness of any contest.
22
4.2 Youth Sports can do it: For example, maintaining equality amongst
23 contestants in a typical American community is identified when viewing
requirements to engage in youth sports. In almost all instances, there are age
24 requirements and sometimes weight requirements. Age requirements, that are not
25 grade based, usually mandate the contestants to produce a birth certificate,
verifying date of birth. This becomes particularly important in play-offs such as
26
rhe liberties of a people ne ..er were or ever will he secure, when lite transactions o/their rulers ltUly be COllcealed
from them Patrick He.",)'
• •
Litlle League, where contestants progress from local events to state competitions,
eventually leading to the world finals. In these events, age verification is carefully
scrutinized. With no less sCl)ltiny and as required, weight mandates are carefully
2
measured and recorded and posted for the public. Imagine a wrestler claiming his
3 HIPAA privacy rights and refusing to step on a scale in front of anyone ...
4 4.3 Back Home Again: How is it our government has failed to provide We
The People with the same such basic guarantee through verification of the
5 contestants in an election contest? That, your Honor, has consumed the
6 petitioner.
7 How could this have happened? That question started a long exhausting
journey and, to the petitioner's astonishment, leads her right back home to
8 McHenry County, where she cast her vote.
9 5.0 Voters Too: And yes, notto lose the importance of verification on all
10 three legs, it must also be asserted here: verification of the participants in the
election must also include voters. If a voter must be a citizen to vote, all
II registration 'must and shall' verify citizenship, and not with some half baked
system put together primarily assuming the rights of the non-registered .... ie those
12 not yet having fulfilled the requirements to be part of the "team," that gets to
participate in the expression of sovereign will in our elections. The system must
13
protect the rights of those who are citizens and have achieved the milestone
14 of having a verified registration ... too.
15 Oppppsssss ..... Who is that?
16 5.1 Registration Processes: Do voters have verified registrations such that

we know the mandates in the constitution, 'must and shall', are achieved?
17
Admittedly, petitioner knew almost nothing about the registration process two
18 weeks ago, but she is working to remedy that deficiency and in the process, to her
complete astonishment, learned ANYONE can say they are an US Citizen, pretty
19 much without fear of challenge. The petitioner's research has proven to her this is
a grievous injustice!
20
21
5.2 Teams Do It, Arc Voters a Team? Along the same analogy, of the
sports teams; say there is an election for an award, Best Player for instance, of
22 team members amongst themselves. Agreements of the processes set for the
competition for that award would be made and would likely include that eligible
23 voters must be team members, and that 'team members' would be defined. It is
natural to believe any sports team, clearly knowing their members, would only
24 accept votes from qualified members.
25
26
Page 9 - EMERGIlNCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORil THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile liberties Of a pe(Jple lIel-'er were or L~'er will be secure, w/ren 'lie transactions 0/ their rulers may be concealed
fronl them. Patrick lie",,.
• •
So what is this? That in this great land, our election processes fail not only to
verify the constitutional eligibility of the contestants, but also of the voters!
2
Compared to sporting contests, so much more serious is the sanctity of our
3 Constitutional Republic. Yet, we take fewer measures to assure the very integrity
and security of our governing body than our town's youth sporting competitions.
4 The petitioner was astonished to learn this!
5 5.3 Ben Franklin must be in a spin: Can anyone imagine the response of the
6 Founding Fathers to the current state of elections in our Republic? "A Republic if
you can keep if' Mr. Franklin exclaimed. This petitioner hears his words, and
7 feels obligated to work to 'keep it.'
8 There is honor in holding office in America. Or at least there should be. There is
honor to be a US Citizen, qualified to choose the destiny of this great nation.
9 Through inspiration and sacrifice our ancestors empowered We The People by
10 ratifying our Constitutions. Consequently, by way of the vote, to choose those to
govern our affairs as a result of election contests. Fair and equal elections are
11 core to the Republic!
12 Substantive Conclusion: We must, to preserve the Republic, have integrity

amongst all three legs of the election process.
13
14 6.0 This Issue is Far From Moot! In 1997, there was a case in Lee County,
Illinois. The petitioners had been excluded from the ballot placement for
15 "apparent confomlity" issues related to the Statement of Candidacy. Amazingly,
the Appellate Court opted to rule on this issue and in doing so, justified their
16 position according to the following quote taken from the decision from the
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, and Honorable Judge Tomas M.
17
Magdich. (North v Hinkle No. 91 MR 0004)
18
Mootness
19 At the outset, we note that the April 7, 1997, election
already has occurred and that all of the offices sought by
plaintiffs in that election have been filled. Nevertheless,
20
we will not treat this cause as moot.
One exception to the rnootness doctrine allows a court to
21 resolve an otherwise moot issue if the issue involves a
substantial public interest. Bonaguro v. County Officers
22 Electoral Board, 158 Ill. 2d 391, 395 (1994). The criteria
for the application of the public interest exception are (1)
23 the public nature of the question, (2) the desirability of an
authoritative determination.for the purpose of guiding public
24 officers, and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur.
Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d at 395.
25 In this case, we are satisfied that the public interest
criteria have been met. The procedures for certifying
26
Puge 10- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tlte liberties of a pe(}ple "ever were or e~'er will be secure, when Ille transaction.Ii oftlleir rulers may be cOllcealed
from '''em. Patrick IIc!Ilry ,
• •
candidates for election to public office are doubtless of
substantial public interest. In addition, the Illinois courts
have not directly addressed the issue presented by this case
2 in more than 80 years.
Finally, we are convinced that the facts of this case are
3 not unusual and are likely to recur. Accordingly, we will
address the merits of this appeal. See Bonaguro, 158 Ill. 2d
4 at 395-96.No. 97--MR-0004
5 6.1 Substantial Public Interest: The petitioner states that there is no

better way for her to position the veracity of her argument against mootness than
6 this decision! CertiJYing candidates for elected office is of substantial public
interest! Having a constitutional President, or not, is undoubtedly a national
7 emergency! Therefore, the petitioners pray the court will apply this same standard
to any question of mootness that may arise.
8
9 6.2 Desirability: First Impression case - There has never been a ruling on
the substantive issues relating to deficient authorities and mandates pemlitted to
10 the administrators of the election in their role to certify contestants for Presidency
( Vice President) as natural born citizens, and as required in the US Constitution.
11
Nor, on the substantive issue that access rights to voter registration are secondary
12
to vcrification of USA citizenship.
13
Severe Statue Deficiency: The Doctrine of Futility rules any attempt to prove a
14 registration application is constitutional, and thus for the public to access
constitutional qualifications of any contestant.
15
16 Due Process: Administrators of elections cannot do their job without direction of

the court and/or correction of the statutes. Citizens lack access to legal processes
17 ad redress because of the deficiency.
18 6.3 Reoccurrence: This situation will occur again. Come the start of the
Primary season in late 20 I 0, one of three things will occur:
19
20 a. Mr. Obama will run for office and will be challenged in 50 states to
prove he is eligible. Contest periods will allow for this and the electorate is no
21 longer trusting of the contestants or the administrators to safeguard their
interests. There will be intense public debate about it. Wily wait?
22
Mr, Obama will have to show proof of citizenship and the public dialogue will
no longer be able to be suppressed through deceptive and contrived silliness
24 stating this is a conspiracy theory that has been disproven, and affinnations
related to mootness. Additionally, it's the 'the deal is done' type of
25 justifications which are currently forced upon the electorate as if to convince the
26
Pusc II - EMERGENCV MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE HIE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. em A
Tire liberties 11/ Q people Ifeper wefe t)r ever will he secure, wllellille transactiolls o/their rulers may be conceilled
from ,heJlL PtlIrick Hellr),
• •
voters their interests are all in the past tense! Statements such as these will
finally be called to task for transparent scrutiny and revealed as the public fraud
2 that they are! WIlY Wait?
3 What then, if he proves to be ineligible, as this petitioner asserts?
4 b. If the code remains deficient as is, Mr. Obama may be found eligible
as far as being an actual USA citizen, but the certification will be challenged to
5 the Supreme Court to define natural born citizen, and standing will be restored
6 to the electorate. (Relevant facts to this scenario)
7 Mr. Obama's location of birth is unproven.

Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, regardless to place of birth.
8
c. Mr. Obama will not run for re-election, thus denying the electorate the
9 due process to establish his eligibility to serve as President.
10
6.4 Voter Registration: Severe deficiency, due process and equality
II issues related to voter registration and the certification of citizenship for all
contestants will re-occur and deserves the attention of the court to mitigate this
12 crisis
13
6.5 Circuit Court Direction: The petitioners humbly argues that the 2nd
14 Appellate Court, the Court to hear any challenge to this petition, has already
provided the honorable Judge of the 22 nd District the mandate and the authority to
15 rule in favor of the petitioners.
16 The petitioners believe the 2nd Appellate boldly spoke for We The People in
choosing to make this decision. The petitioners understand the remedy is different
17
because of the request for the Grand Jury, but they argue the substantive issue
18 remains the same.
19 6.6 Definitely Not Moot! Wherefore the petitioners argue this is the
correct venue, they affirm the importance of the certification process, is as
20 important for the current election that has just begun.
21
Without resolution of the eligibility verification and registration process, there is
22 no doubt this issue will arise again.
23 6.7 HIPAA: In discussing HIPAA, later, the petitioner prays to show

how recent changes in the law have impacted the election process, further
24 compelling the assertion that this issue is far from moot!
25
26
"age 12 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
""TITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
~/H! liberties of a people never were or ever will be secure. whellllle transactions olfheir rulers may be c(1Ifcealed
Jrom ,"em. Plllrick Henry
• •
7.0 Venue: The petitioner believes the Circuit Court is the correct venue for
this election fraud issue.
2 (10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a) (from Ch. 46, par. 23-1.8a)
Sec. 23-'1. Sa. Election contest - Statewide - ~rocedures
3 for recount and initial hearing. In all cases for which the
Supreme Court finds it appropriate that there be conducted a
4 recount or partial recount of ballots cast in any election
jurisdiction, or a hearing regarding the conduct of the
5 election within any election jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
shall, in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Judicial
6 Circuit in which each such election jurisdiction is located,
assign a Circuit Judge of that JUdicial circuit to preside
7 over the recount or hearing. If more than one election
jurisdiction within a single Judicial circuit is subject to
8 recount or hearing( the Supreme Court may assign a different
Circuit Judge to preside over the recount or hearing for each
9 such election jurisdiction.
10
(10 ILCS 5/23-5) (from Ch. 46, par. 23-5)
II Sec. 23-5. The circuit court shall hear and determine contests
of election of all other countYl township and precinct
12 officers, and all other officers for the contesting of whose
election no provision is made.
13 (Source: Laws 1965, p. 3493.)
14
7.1 See Section IX: Secondary Procedural Questions, especially as relates to
15 the grand jury as a remedy.
16
8.0 KISS and McHenry County Wisdoms: Current election codes are
17 deficient as they do not provide for verification of citizenship status at any level
of the election contest. On December 29 th , 2009, Katherine C. Schultz, McHenry
18 County Clerk, responded to a brief questionnaire from the petitioner.
19 The full texts are attached as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 and are a true copy of our
20 words. (Emphasis added only to bold the questions)
I) Please briefly list the process by which a candidate gets On the ballot in McHenry
21 County.
A candidate is required to file petitions papers, with the required number of signatures, a statement of
22 candidacy and would also possibly file a loyalty oath during the prescribed filing period
23 2) What documents are required ofa candidate to prove constitutional eligibility to be on

the ballot?
No proof required - Statement of Candidacy form states "qualified voter" and "legally qualified to hold
24 sllch oflice'l
25 3) Please specify how election law and related processes verifies the constitutional eligibility
of 11 candidate for office.
26
I'llgc 13 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The liberties (if a people never were or ever will be secure, wilen the Iraluactions oflhe;r r14lers may be cOllcealed
from them. Patrick lIenr),
• •
To the best afmy knowledge verification is not required and is not part of the filing procedures
4) What statement or oath is required of candidates swearing eligibility?

A loyalty oath is optional. The Statement of Candidacy does state that the candidate is a '~qualified
2 voter" and "h:gaHy qualified to hold suell office", The candidate must sign said form and hisllu:r
signature must be notarized
3
5) How is the citizenry notified of potential candidates for the ballot during the
4 qualification period?
No notification is required. McHenry County posts all filings received in the County Clerk's office on
tne Clerk's website. NOimally newpapers will also report filings as pan of their new coverage
5 3. What process is available for a citizen to contest a candidate's eligibility for
office during that period?
6 Filings are public record and arc open lor inspection during nonnal business hours. There is a
set time for liling objections to candidate petitions
7
b. \Vhat avenues are available to a citizen questioning a candidate's eligibility
8 after that time period?
After the objection period has passed, and no objections are filed, a candidate is placed on the ballot
9 6) In the authority of your office and after the above mentioned contest period, should you
Question if a candidate is constitutionally eligible for office, what election law empowers
10 you to investigate your suspicion?
This is a legal question and would need 10 be researched. My roll in filing petitions is basically
11 ministerial
7) When an election has occurred, vote tallies completed, is there a process then for which a
12 candidate is ,"'erHied as constitutionally eligible for the office?
I am not aware this is a requirement. There is no process in place to my knowledge
13
8) In the Illinois and Federal election processes that you are familiar with, are there
14 procedural differences such that names submitted for ballots in McHenry County from
State and Federal sources, are verified as constitutionally eligible for office?
You would need to speak or check with other sources as to their procedures. I am nOlaware afany law
15 requiring verilication
16 9) One requirement for candidacy is voter registration. Please explain the ways ,,'oters are
registered in Illinois. \Vhat documents are required to establish age, citizenship and
17 residence?
There arc different methods of voter registration: County Clerk's office, deputy registrars, drivers
license facilities) agency registrations and mail in registration being the majority. All ask for age, proof
18 is not required. Place of birth is asked for by the Clerk's office and by deputy registrars, Proof is not
required. Registrants bom outside or the US arc asked for additional naturalization infonnation, Voter
19 registration done at drivers license facilities and agencies are asked if the,' are citizens and sign an oath
that they are, and mail in, simply sign an oath attesting to citizenship. On registrations done through the
20 Clerk's ofticc and/or deputy registrars, 2 forms of ID are required, botlJ with the registrants name and I
with his/her current address. Keep in mind that registration sources, other than [he Count)' Clcrk~s
ofiice andlor deputy registrars and appIicalions to register and ifany information is not received or if the
21 voter 10 card is returned undeliverable the registration application is not accepted.
22 10) Are there ,,'oter registration processes in use right now, that does not require potential
voters to swear to place of birth a~d that they are US citizens authorized to \-'ote?
23 All require the oath of citizenship. Only Clerk's office and deputy registrars require place of birth
24 II) As an overview only, and as possible, please describe an instance within the current
system where citizens have unknowingly been registered to vote through the State
Driver'S license registration process.
25
26
Page 14 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY, OR A
The libertie.f of a people Ilever were or e.'er will be secure, when the trallsactions oftheir rulers may be concealed
from them. Patrick Henry
• •
We have occasionally had registrations that have been processed and later the registrant has requested
removal because they are not citizens. I have ne\'er seen one: where someone bas voted on these
requests for removal
2 12) In the voter registration process, how is citizenship status verified? \Vhat code authorizes
the process for verifying citizenship status of a registered voter?
3 Citizenship is not verified and I am not aware of any requirement andlor authorization to do this
4 13) If a voter comes to the poll, and there is a question of his identity or registration status,
by what means is the voter's right to "ote accommodated during the voting process?
5 There is a challenged affidavir 10 fill out and verification and/or proof required
14) Please include any other information you think might assist the Court in understanding
6 tbe process of,,'erification ofeligibUity or candidates for ballots in McHenry County and
the citizens entitled to vote in McHenrJ County. Information. especially as relates to
7 vulnerabilities in the system which may allow ineligible participants to engage in the
election.
8 I think all of my answers havc stated Ihe requirements and proccsses as I am aware of them
9 S.l Qualifications: All contestants are required to be US citizens. To the

petitioner's knowledge, this is true of all elected offices in the Federal
10 Government and in Illinois. Other constitutional requirements depend on the
office, and are laid out in the text of the constitutional documents. The common
II
elements of such requirements consist of citizenship, age, residency, and voter
12 registration. Remarkably, no document proving age, citizenship or residence is
required to run for any office. "Legally qualified" and the address are affirmed to
13 on the Statement of Candidacy. (Katherine Schultz, que 2)
14 8.2 Yes, you must be registered to vote .•• Contestants in the election must
be registered to vote. Reality stuns the discerning questioner upon realizing there
15
is no verification ofvoter's eligibility either! At least, not as far as verifying
16 citizenship status or age is concerned. So what does the registration to vote mean
as an indicator of eligibility? Currently, it is but a slippery standard to measure
17 'must and shall' constitutional requirements for eligibility to hold office.
18 Grievous Injustice: On so many levels, it is hard to comprehend the implications

to our Republic of this profound lack of constitutional governance.
19
20 8.3 Shall and Must: These words are hardly suggestive of a compromise to
come, or wiggle room to squinn. They demand specification! Contestants and
21 Voters must be constitutionally qualified. Period!
22 To become President of the United States of America, candidates are required to
23 have the most sacred of all levels of US Citizenship, natural born citizen.
Unbelievably, not even a photo 10 is required to establish qualifications to meet
24 this 'shall be eligible' standard of the US Constitution.
25 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States~ at tlle lime of the adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Presidcnt~ neither shall any person be eligible to that
26
I>.ge IS -EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY, OR A
Tile libertie.f ofa people never were or ever will be seC14re, when Ihe trollsaclions oftheir rulers may be cOllcealed
frolll them. Patrick Henry
• •
oflice who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident
within the United States. (Article II section I)
I) What documents are required of a candidate to prove constitutional eligibility to be on the

2 ballot?
No proof required - Statement of Candidacy form states "qualified voter" and ';legally
3 qualified to hold such office" (Katherine Schultz Que 2)
5 8.4 Really? The petitioner queries "how can this beT Currently, election
statutes require nothing to participate in election contests, save for the petitions, a
6 Statement of Candidacy, and a statement of economic interests as required by the
III inois Governmental Ethics Act.
7
Such certificate of nomination or nomination papers in addition shall
8 include as a part thereof, the oath required by section 1-10.1 of
this Act and must include a statement of candidacy for each of the
9 candidates named therein, except candidates for electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States. Each such
statement shall set out the address of such candidate,· the office for
10 which he is a candidate, shall state that the candidate is qualified
for the office specified and has filed (or will file before the close
II of the petition filing period) a statement of economic interests as
required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, shall request that
the candidate I 5 name be placed upon the official ballot ... ((10 ILCS
12 5/10-5) (from Ch. 46, par. 10-5) (bolding added)
13 Where is 'Shall be eligible'? This statute, with the purpose to administer

14
elections, sets out the requirements of the Statement of Candidacy, and has no
language requiring the affirmation or proof of being constitutionally eligible.
15 'Qualified/or Ihe ojJice' is a vague term with subjective definition.
16 Substantive Assertion: The phrase "shall state (hat (he candidate is qualifiedfor
the ojJice specified" is a lesser requirement then the constitutional mandates of
17 'shall and must' or 'no person except".
18
8.5 Prima Fascia Remedy: The petitioners passionately argue that this
19 statute, to be constitutionally viable, must mandate "shall state Ihatlhe candidate
is constitutionally eligible and qualifiedfor Ihe ojJice specified, with proof 0/
20 citizenship included, '.' (or some such appropriate variation) followed by a
requirement that evidence be provided and affirmed in the public record.
21
22 It is a deficiency of this statute that it specifies as required for 'apparent

conformity,' the filing of documents related to special interests as mandated by
23 the lllinois Governmental Ethics Act, yet does not require filing of documents to
prove the higher standard of constitutional eligibility.
24
25 8.6 Severe Deficiency: No public record is required to prove constitutional

eligibility to be on the ballot for any position voted on in Illinois.
26
I'ETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tlte liberties ofa people never were or ever will be secure, when the transaet;olls oftheir Tulers may be concealed
from Orem. Prl1rkk Hellry
• •
8.7 Severe Deficiency: The statement of economic interest is posted for the
2 public to review. No documents proving eligibility are requested, required,
recorde.d or posted.
3
8.8 Substantive Affirmation: Therefore, the current registration processes
4 violate (he Illinois Constitutional 'requirement for uniform elections. (Sec 3 IL
Const.)
5
6 9.0 A priori and the Ballot: The citizen's right to have a constitutional ballot
is a priori, lest it otherwise be left, in many respects to the 'luck of the draw' as to
7 whether or not some candidate is challenged, especially as relates to constitutional
eligibility,
8
9.1 The Couch view: As if sitting on the couch observing this fact, we come
9 to know, a priori that when the constitution says "must and shall" then the contest
10 tools, to be constitutional, "must and shall" meet ALL requirements laid out in the
constitution!
II
9.2 Hardships Galore: Passionately the petitioners argue: Therefore through
12 constitutional mandate, administrative tools of that contest, 'must and shall'
assure equally, without the deciders of the contest, We The People, having to
13
endure tremendous hardship and impermissible barriers to discover if a contestant
14 is constitutionally eligible for the contest to which the voter is given one chance to
exercise their sovereign will.
IS
9.3 "Your Honor, I yearn to have my ballot back. The petitioners do
16 too ..."
17
The Beleaguered Ballot: Alas, the ballots, the end result of the contest is there!
18 For it is only here that the petitioner is able to finalize her sovereign will as her
choice. But what contest is this that has no standards to guarantee the rules are
19 equal, such that crafty contestants may not manipulate for unfair favor!
20 9.4 Procedures: Current election statutes inhibit the ability for election
21 officials to administer a free and equ.al election:
22 3. Please spedfy how election law and related processes nrHies the constitutional eligibility da
candidate for office;
23 To the best afmy knowledge verification is not required and is n01 part of the filing
procedures (Katherine Schultz)
24
25
26
Page 17 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE mE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETiTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
rhe liberties 0/ a people never were or e~ler will be !OeCI4Ff!. wilen the transactioll,,. a/their rulers may be concealed
from them. Patrick Hellry
• •
Wow •.• It takes a lot! It is too large ofa burden on the citizenry to have to object
separately to potential contestants on the ballot, simply to establish the eligibility
2 to be in the contest. This is an a priori requirement of the ballot.
3 We are not talking signatures on a petition with procedures in statutes specifYing

details from numbers, to gathering processes, to how they are to be challenged.
4 Processes at this level fall under 'apparent conformity' specifications and will be
discussed later.
5
6 9.5 Substantive Assertion: Constitutional eligibility is not measured by

specific actions to get into the game; they are a priori to be in the process of even
7 engaging in qualifying activities. Thus, citizenship must be achieved, and verified.
8 9.6 Substantive Assertion: The burden to verifY citizenship does not belong
on the electorate. It belongs to the arbitrators of the election.
9
10 9.7 Self - sacrifice: Accommodations for the burden and personal sacrifice
imposed on citizenry when they do report election fraud is reflected in Illinois
II Law by affording special accommodations of confidentiality to those that
contest elections as encouragement for them to take the risk.
12
"So that the public is encouraged to report irregularities. the nameS of the complainants shall be
13 kept confiden Ii al. " hI IV :1/www.cleetions.statc.il.uS!A boutthe Board!1 nvesti r!ntionsDiv.aspx
14
9.8 Conclusion: All other issues related to the contest as applied by Illinois or
15 Federal Code are secondary to the substantive obligation of constitutional
veracity.
16
Grievous Injustice: Resulting, from deficiency in current code requiring
17 immediate and emergency remedy for the petitioners.
18
Grievous Injustice: Against the petitioners when McHenry County residents are
19 expected to decide on questionable ballots.
20 10. HIPAA and Hawaii Privacy Rights: Recent changes in HIPAA

regulations and related privacy rights have complicated the security of
21 certification process and thusly, compel the petitioners to seek immediate redress.
22
10.1 Lack of Access to Information: Evolution in state and federal privacy
23 laws inhibit and completely restrict the citizenry from obtaining personal
information required to verify eligibility, setting up impermissible administrative
24 barriers to obtain sufficient knowledge of potential contestant's constitutional
veracity to be on the ballot. (Hawa;'; Rev;sed Statutes *338·18)
25
26
I'age 18 - EMI;RGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY, OR A
The liberties of a petJple never were or ever will be secure, when tire transactions of Illeir rulers may be concealed
from ("eIIL Patrick IIrmry
• •
10.2 Due Process Question: Simply, it is true; the petitioner cannot evaluate a
candidate's credentials to serve, when required information is withheld because of
2 privacy rights afforded to everyday citizenry.
3 10.3 Election Consequences: Elections result in We The People hiring a

politician ... Where is 'free and equal' when contestants withhold required
4 information from those deciders of the contest?
5 10.4 Hide and Seek Games: Mr. Obama has frustrated the electorate by hiding
6 behind Privacy, HIPAA Laws. (EXHIBIT 8 Hawaii refuses to verify President's online
COLBs. Aug 2,2009 WND article)
7
Really and truly, in astounding arrogance and disregard for the public he serves,
8 Mr. Obama refuses to authorize the release of his birth documents based on
privacy rights afforded to him as an everyday citizen, but surely 1I0t afforded to
9 prevent public disclosure of facts allowing the citizens to ascertain his eligibility
to serve in the highest office under our Republic!
10
11 10.5 The Hawaiian Connection: A vague interpretative statement by a

Hawaiian official does not meet the constitutional imperative of 'must and shall'.
12
"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Samek Hussein Obama~s official birth cenificate. State
law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a tcrlified birth certificate to persons
13 who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record," DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.
14 Statements by Hawaiian officials are carefully crafted and measured and do not
15
provide the 'must' and 'shall' level of verification required to prove eligibility.
(EXHIBIT 6: FAQ about From the Hawaii website)
16
Dr. Fukino cannot prove her words in the public record because ofMr Obama's
17 privacy rights, frustrating the relationship between the Several States as well as
between We The People and Hawaii.
18
10.6 Substantive Argument: The Hawaii Department of Health lacks
19
authority in Hawaii to certify candidates as eligible.
20
The Hawaii Department of Health statement is non-binding in Illinois, especially
21 when it cannot undergo public scrutiny from Illinois residents. DOH lacks all
authority in Illinois to affirm anything in relation to certification of candidates.
22 Should Illinois be compelled to accept such a statement, it would only be done so
through the courts or through release of public records to remove all questions of
23
veracity related to such statements specifically, and in general to Mr. Obama's
24 claims that he is a natural born citizen.
25
26
I'age 19 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO ArrEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tlte IibeNies Of a pelJple "ever were or ever will be secure, when the transactiolls oflheir rulers may be cOllceaied
from 'hem. Patrick Henry
• •
10.7 A Signature, the Obvious Solution for Mr. Obama: Undeniably, much
of this confusion is avoidable by such a mere measure as a signature on a privacy
release form!
2
3 10.8 Natural Procedure: Thus, HIPAA needs to be reformed to allow for
exceptions, such as are required, to assure the citizens can obtain citizenship
4 information on all candidates for election. Or, election code must mandate that all
candidates verify citizenship to qualify for the contest. The petitioner would
5 argue the latter is natural and thus the more reasonable solution.
6
10.9 Exhibit: Here is a list of all American Presidents and their birth
7 documentation. This is important for perspective. The petitioner hears silly
arguments such as 'did you ask to see George Bush's certificate?' To which the
8 petitioner must reply, 'no, his birth facts were never in question.' (EXHIBIT 7:
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate: Why It Matters: List of birth facts of all US Presidents)
9
11.0 Probable Cause: As things currently stand, this public disclosure is
10
controlled by one person, Mr. Obama. Thus, probable cause is evident, Mr.
11 Obama is purposefully shielding information despite the signed statement,
swearing "(including being the holder 0/ any license Ihalmay be an eligibililY
12 requiremenl/or Ihe office I seek the nomination/or)" (SOC)
13 11.1 Mr. Obama, he knows! 62 cases (and counting) in the courts prove Mr,
Obama knows there is a question among the electorate that he serves, about his
14
constitutional eligibility to hold the office! Knowing full well of court challenges
15 to his birth documents, rather than addressing the issue head on, despite affirming
in oath that he has 'any license that may be an eligibility requirement,' Mr.
16 Obama has stonewalled all 62 cases, either directly or through the resources of the
Executive Branch in the courts.
17
18 12.0 Not a Political Question: This is not a political question. At the core, it is
a substantive constitutional question. The consequences are political and of the
19 highest security concern, however the question is constitutional.
201 I. The Culprits!

1.0 Deficient Code is set out IL Code: 10/8
21 Sec. 10-8. Certificates of nomination and nomination papers, and
petitions to submit public questions to a referendum, being filed as
22 required by this Code, and baing in apparent confor.mity with the
provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to he valid unless objection
thereto is duly made in writing within 5 bUsiness days after the last
23 day for filing the certificate of nomination or nomination papers or
petition for a public question, with the following exceptions:
24 A. In the case of petitions to amend Article IV of the
Constitution of the State of Illinois, ·there shall be a period of 35
25 business days after the last day for the filing of such petitions in
which objeotions can be filed.
26
Page 20- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tlte liberties 0/ a people never were or e~er will be secure. when the transactions of/heir rulers may be cOllcealed
/rtlm them. Plltrick Hellry
• •
B. In the case of petitions for advisory questions of public
policy to be submitted to the voters of the entire State, there sha11
be a period of 35 business days after the 1ast day for the filing of
such petitions in which objections can be filed.
2 Any legal voter of the political subdivision or district in which
the candidate or public question is to be voted on, or any legal
3 voter in the State in the case of a proposed amendment to Article IV
of the Constitution or an advisory public question to be submitted to
4 the voters of the entire State, having objections to any certificate
of nomination or nomination papers or petitions filed, shall file an
objector's petition together with a copy thereof in the principal
5 office or the permanent branch office of the State Board of
Elections, or in the office of the election authority or local
6 election official with whom the certificate of nomination, nomination
papers or petitions are on file. In the case of nomination papers or
7 certificates of nomination, the State Board of Elections, election
authority or local election Official shall note the day and hour upon
which such objector's petition is filed, and shall, not later than
8 12:00 noon on the second business day after receipt of the petition,
transmit by registered mail or receipted personal delivery the
9 certificate of nomination or nomination papers and the original
objector's petition to the chairman of the proper electoral board
10 designated in Section 10 9 hereof, or his authorized agent, and shall
transmit a copy by registered mail or receipted personal delivery of
the objector's petition, to the candidate whose certificate of
II nomination or nomination papers are objected to, addressed to the
place of residence designated in said certificate of nomination or
12 nomination papers. In the case of objections to a petition for a
proposed amendment to Article IV of the Constitution or for an
13 advisory public question to be submitted to the voters of the entire
State, the State Board of Elections shall note the day and hour upon
which such objector's petition is filed and shall transmit a copy of
14 the objector's petition by registered mail or receipted personal
delivery to the person designated on a certificate attached to the
15 petition as the principal proponent of such proposed amendment or
public question, or as the proponents' attorney, for the purpose of
receiving notice of objections. (Emphasis added)
16
17 2.0 Apparent Conformity

and being in apparent conformity with the provisions of this Act,
18 shall be deemed to be valid unless objection thereto is duly made in
writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the
19 certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petition for a
public question .., Sec. 10-8.
20
2. t Judgment Call: Here comes a phrase which is a requirement for a
21 judgment call from arbitrators of our elections, that is insufficient to meet the
constitutional requirements of candidate eligibility: 'Apparent conformity' is the
22 standard applied by Election Code Sec 10-8 which, once met, requires election
23 officials to deem as valid, the Statement of Candidacy. Thus, placing individuals
on the ballot regardless of constitutional mandates set for the contest.
24
The 1997 decision in North V Hinkle, provides a fairly recent decision as to the
25 defmition of apparent conformity.
26
I'ugc 21- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tlte libel1iC!.f ofa people Ile~'er HJere or el-'l!r will he secure, when tire transactlmrs oftheir rulers may be concealed
from '''em. Patrick Henry
• •
In affirming the trial court s granting of the writ of
mandamus, the Illinois Supreme Court explained that the
2 responsibility for determining whether an election petition
apparently conforms to the law rests with the town clerk.
3 Dillon,266 Ill. at 275-76. Specifically, the clerk s duty is
to determine whether, upon the face of the petition, it is in
4 compliance with the law. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. If the
petition on its face appears to comply with the statutory
5 requisites, the clerk may not look outside the petition to
determine whether in fact it does comply; he must submit the
6 question to the voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. Because the
validity of signatures and the authority of officers cannot be
determined by examining the face of an election petition, the
7 court concluded that the petition was in apparent conformity
with the law and thus that the clerk was obligated to submit the
8 question to the
voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.
9 However, the court continued, had the petition not appeared
on its face to have complied with the statutory requisites, the
10 clerk would have had no duty to submit the question to the
voters. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. For example, by examining the
II face of the petition, a clerk can determine whether it contains
the requisite number of signatures. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276.
12 If it does not, the petition is not in apparent conformity with
the election statutes and the clerk has no duty to certify the
13 question for the ballot. Dillon, 266 Ill. at 276. (INGLIS, 2'd
District Appellate Court)
14
2.2 Prima Fascia: The current law fails to empower County Clerks to fulfill
15 constitutional mandates for eligibility. (Katherine que # 3 and que # 5 b, que #7, and 12)
16 2.3 SUbstantive Affirmation: "Apparent conformity" is not of sufficient legal
17 substance to meet the obligation of "must be" or "shall be" as required by the US
and III inois Constitutions unless there is a reliable instrument establishing
18 citizenship, such that the clerk, through appare.nt confonnity, can attest that
constitutional mandates have been met.
19
2.4 Citizenship: In most cases, (95%) citizenship is selfevident. However, it
20 is not always so. Procedures to assist the electorate in proving citizenship status
21 are well within the government's ability to implement and are authorized and
mandated to be in conformity with Article III - "All elections shall be free and
22 equal" of the Illinois Constitution.
23 Prima Fascia, establishing citizenship is not an undue burden for anyone wishing
to participate in the privi leges of citizenship.
24
25
26
P"ge 22 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tire liberties 01 a people net'er were or ever will he secure, when tlfe transac/iolls oftluir rulers may be cOllcealed
frtlm tltem. Patrick Hemy
• •
2.5 Substantive Argument: As matters currently are, and in the instance of
natural born citizen, there can be no apparent conformity without instruction from
the Supreme Court. The several states need direction from the US Supreme Court.
2
3 For instance:
To be eligible to serve as a member of the General Assembly, a
4 person must be a United States citizen, at least 21 years old,
and for the two years preceding his election or appointment a
5 resident of the district which he is to represent. (Sec 2 part 3
IL Con)
6
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
7 shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
8 the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the united States. (Article 2 US Constitution)
9
2.6 Due Process Issue: 'Apparent conformity' cannot trump constitutional
10
requirements of 'must and shall'. Thus deficient as a verification tool, it is a
11 causative factor for the petitioners' loss of their right to a free and equal election!
12 3.0 Ministerial Roles: Apparent conformity prejudices the election towards a

crafty contestant who may lack constitutional qualifications, but because of
13 appearance, clerks are "required' to certify him as qualified for ballot placement.
14
3.1 Which Law? The petitioner asked Katherine Schultz the following
15 question
16 6. In the authority of your office and after the above mentioned (ontest period. should you question
if a candidate is constitutionally eligible for office, what election law empowers you to investigate
your suspicion?
17 This is 8 legal question and would need to be researched. My roll in liling petitions is basicaUy ministerial
18 North V Hinkle adds insight here too, when the 2

nd
District Appellate Court stated
19 the following:
Thus, as we read the Code t the candidates whose names are

20 entitled to be printed on the ballot are those whose nominating
papers are (1) filed ,as required by the Code, (2) in apparent
21 conformity with the Code when filed, and (3) not subject to a
duly filed objection.
22
The court decision affirms a ministerial role for the election officials. If Clerks are
23
to have a strictly ministerial role, then they must be empowered to assure veracity
24 and integrity of the constitutionality of the ballot through the statutes.
25 4.0 Due Process and Impermissible Barrier for Citizens: The process of
election essentially involves contests. Currently, if a candidate is to be screened,
26
The IIbertie.'f ofa people never wert! or ever will be secure, when the transactions oftheir ruleTS may be concealed
• •
it is left to the other contestants in the race andlor to engaged and alert citizens, to
do so through the objection process.
2
4.1 Here comes a substantive question: Does the statule allow for due
3 . process in relation to We The People's right 10 a constitutional ballol, whenlhere
is no contestant to an office, such as only one /lame is on the ballot for that role?
4 What then? Who is the natural predator of the unchallenged contestant? Where is
the security that the unchallenged contestant is constitutionally qualified? Who
5 checks these credentials?
6
No one! (Schultz que #2 and 3)
7
4.2 Suggested Remedy: If 'apparent conformity' were combined with
8 'constitutional conformity to the eligibility requirements', then there would not be
this problem that we face today. Thus, the petitioners argue the statute is deficient
9 and must change!
10
5.0 Public Notification: The 5 Day Rule
II
shall be deemed to be valid unle$S objeotion thereto duly made in is
writing within 5 business days after the last day for filing the
12 certificate of nomination or nomination papers or petition for a
public: question, with the following exceptions." (IL Code 10/8)
13
5.1 The Good news: We The People do get to object under current statutes!
14
The bad news is we only have 5 days, no one has to tell us who we can object to,
15 we aren't allowed to see proof of eligibility to decide if we should object, and no
one has to give notice of our right to object.
16
5.2 Unequal in Elections: Amazingly, in the election statutes there is no
17 public notification required. Election Code in Illinois does not require the posting
of a Notice of Candidates for which petitioner has the brief 5 day period to object.
18 (Katherine Schultz questions 5, 5a and 5b)
19
5.3 Substantive Deficiency: No Natural Predators: The petitioners suggest
20 it is a substantive deficiency when after the 5 day period, any candidate can
obfuscate without fear of being caught, despite the obligation being on the signer
21 of the form attesting to eligibility.
22 5.4 More Due Process Violations: For lack of remedy for the electorate, this
23 5 day period is an unconstitutional restraint on the petitioners' rights to have a
constitutionally elected government. The petitioners note, obviously, nowhere in
24 either Constitution does it say, that a candidate only must be constitutionally
eligible for office during that period of time set out through administer code to
25 prepare a ballot ...
26
Page 24 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRANO JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTtON TO SET ASIOE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tilt! liberties ofII people never were or ever will be secure, when tlte transactiolls o/their rulers may be conCf!Olell
frtJm IhenL Patrick Henry
• •
BUT
2
The petitioners have lacked standing, and similarly over 100 other litigants have
3 found they lack standing because of a rule, admittedly not the same rule, none-the
less, rules blocking access to the same basic question! Currently, past the 5 day
4 period, questions of Mr. Obama's eligibility, administratively and in the courts, in
the realm of standing, have tendered failure!
5
6 The obligation remains upon the signer of the Statement of Candidacy.
7 5.5 Frustrated Electorate: In the petitioner's case, the 5 day rule is clearly
unconstitutional because it frustrates transparency, rather than assuring it for the
8 participants who have a right to know if the candidates are constitutionally
eligible. It has become the impermissible barrier.
9
10 6.0 Public Notice Act: Here comes the petitioner looking into the Public
Notice Act for guidance, as to how she should be properly noticed of her right to
II object during the 5 day contest period, locating this:
12 (715 ILCS 5/3) (from Ch. 100, par. 3)

Sec, 3. Whenever notice is required by law, or order of
13 court, and the number of publications is not specified, it
shall be intended that the same be published for three
14 successive weeks.
(Source: R.S. 1874, p. 723.)
15
It seems that the default standard for notice is three weeks, unless specified
16 otherwise. For elections, and the 5 day period, We The People deserve to be
noticed for this period as provided here, or for a period as set out specifically by
17
law. No notice was provided in the 2008 and 2009 elections cycles for the 5 day
18 period.
19 7.0 Ground for Objections: [fthere is no public posting of proof of

eligibility, then what use is the 5 day period in determining the veracity of the
20 ballot contenders?
21
7.1 Deficient and Unconstitutional: The 5 day notice law is unreasonable
22 because the rules allow the petitioners 5 days to respond, without being given
sufficient notice of their rights and obligations, or public posting of proof
23 contestants are constitutionally qualified, and to which objections may be
fashioned to ...
24
25 o Or of her right to challenge these contestants.
26
Page 25 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BHORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY, OR A
1'llTITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
the liberties ufa people never wert! or everwU/ be secure, when Ihe IrOllsactiom; oftheir rulers may be concealell
fTfJm them. Patricio Henry
• •
o Or that if she did not object, there could be unconstitutional candidates on
her ballot.
o Or that the state does not verify constitutional eligibility, only certifying
2
ballot position.
3
7.2 We The People Want to be Noticed Too! Filing infonnation in public
4 record in some location perhaps hundreds of miles from home, without due notice
the event is occurring, is not adequate notice to satisfy reasonable provisions of
5 notice and opportunity, thus denying petitioners' right to have standing save for
6 this challenge to the 5 day rule.
7 7.3 State Board of Elections - Wisdoms: On January SIn around 3pm, the
petitioner had the pleasure of speaking with Jane Gasperin at the Springfield State
8 Board of Election. Mrs. Gasperin, titled as 'Election Specialist' is the 'go to"
authority for election questions in Springfield at the State Board of Elections. The
9 petitioner was seeking to know how public notice is given of the "Notice Period"
10 for the Presidential candidates.
II Mrs. Gasperin explained she is not aware of a procedure requiring posting about
the 5 day objection periods, or where such notice is posted, 'but that the public
12 must know because the Board gets objections, especially on the last day.' Like
McHenry County, the State Board maintains candidate infonnation under its
13
domain, some in the Springfield office and some online. The web address is
14 located here: ( wWlv.eleclions.state.iI.lI'/ ) Mrs. Gasperin assisted the petitioner to learn
how to maneuver the website.
15
Jane Gasperin essentially confinned what Mrs. Schultz spoke about in tenns of
16 the ministerial role of certifying ballots for placement. The conversation with
Mrs. Gasperin can finned there is no specific public posting of the 5 day notice
17
period. Some basic candidate infonnation is posted online along with objections
18 as soon as they are filed. Specifics related to the actual Statement of Candidacy
are viewed by going to the office.
19
7.4 Due Process Deficiency: During the 5 day notice period, there is no
20 posting of candidate's constitutional qualifications or documents supporting, or
21
not, eligibility.
22 7.5 Discretionary Posting: Illinois Election Code does not require the
publication of the Statement of Candidacy, with qualifying evidence in any public
23 board or newspaper from which We The People might exercise the right to
object. It is discretionary and thus unequal and lacking unifonnity for all residents
24 in the state.
25
26
Tire liberties (If a people never were or e~'er will he seCilre. wizen the transactions o/their rulers may be concealed
from t"em. Patrick Henry
• •
7.6 Posting for Public Notice: It is common administrative procedure to post
public notice when the public's right to object to a government action is involved.
2
County or department ordinances must be published to provide the public with
3 notice that an ordinance is going up for a vote. Examples are so common, it is
prima fascia.
4
Public notices run for set periods, thus allowing the public to have notice so they
5 may, at their discretion, exercise their obligations.
6
7.7 Unreasonable, Unequal and Unconstitutional: The petitioners argue,
7 the 5 day notice rule is unreasonable because it fails to require people of Illinois
be notified through public notice of their rights and obligations.
8
7.8 Deprived! But for the lack of notice, and of qualifying citizenship status
9
infonnation affinning eligibility, the petitioner was deprived opportunity to
10 challenge Mr. Obama's eligibility in a timely fashion.
11 7.9 More McHenry County Wisdoms: Just for good measure, petitioner
asked Katherine Schultz in the following 3 follow up questions: (Exhibit 2)
12
Three additional questions have come to mind.
13 1) During the 1\5 day Contest Period" for ballot qualificati.on,
does McHenry County post notice of candidates for all state and
Federal offices.
14 I do not. r believe that the SBE posts all filings that are done
at their office.
15
2) Specifically, was Barack Obama Statement of Candidacy posted
16 for the US Presidentia1 election in 2008? And if so, may r please
know where.
r '''ould imagine that posting of his filing was done, but again it
17 would not be done by this office
18 3) Are you aware if any local Newspapers posteQ the information of

Mr, Ohama's Statement of candidacy during the contest period?
I would think that the papers would have done coverage on this
19 filing, but again it is not something this office would track
20
Lack of Public Awareness: Conclusions from these questions are stark. There is
21 no local notice to the petitioner or the general public in McHenry County of the
objection period during which the petitioner has a right to object. And what
22 posting that is done by the State Board of Elections is deficient as a self evident
process to which Mrs. Schultz would automatically direct the petitioner or other
23 . citizens. This is not a negative reflection on Mrs. Schultz. Quite the contrary, her
24 office reflects openness and dedication to assist the citizens of McHenry County.
25
26
The liberties Oftl people never were or ever will be secure, wIlen tire transactions oftheir rulers may he couceafed
from t"em.. Patrick Hemry
• •
Rather, these answers reflect just how distant this notice period is in the
continuum of the election process. Surely if the petitioner's question were
2 standard, Mrs. Schultz out of efficiency and basic knowledge of her roles would
have easily been able to refer the petitioner to the location. Clearly, there was no
3 attempt on her part to avoid the question.
4 7.10 Gatekeeper for Ballot Placement: Indeed, lIIinois Elections Codes and
Statutes decentralize authority to the various boards to post notice, making it
5 confusing for voters. (10 ILCS 5f10-6)
6
Voters, through the discriminatory practices of the arbitrators of our elections and
7 not having been afforded their right of notice with any required procedure, are
hardly, ifat all, aware of their right and obligation to be gatekeepers for ballot
8 placement, especially as relates to constitutional qualifications.
9 Therefore the sanctity of our ballot is left to a luck ofthe draw or some
10 mischievous candidate or lawyer.
11 7.11 Who'd have thought? It is natural to assume, understanding human

tendency, that most Americans believe their ballot is valid. Most Americans
12 assume the ballot is constitutional. They assume for good right, it is a must and
shall in their constitutions. Realiy, who concerns themselves with such details
13
months and months, even a year and more, before an election? The ones who
14 think about it are the ones involved in the contests.
15 It is like the sneaky period in the American election process. Politicians and their
lawyers, like hawks to a mark, are observant to and geared up for such time
16 franles. They know the power of this time to manipulate the ballot placement,
and thus they do so. Arguably, some objecting legitimately, while surely others
17
for the chance to eliminate competition in the early phase of the election cycle.
18
7.15 Substantil'e Argument: Mr. Obama, during his bid for the State Senate
19 and US Senate, used the 5 day period to successfully challenge contestants to the
same office, thus eliminating them from the contest. Proof that he is quite
20 familiar with Illinois election code!
21
Exhibit 9. Obama played hardball in first Chicago campaign
hnp:/Iwww.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.htm)
22
Exhibit 10. How Hussein Seized the US Senate hnp:/Iwww.stop-obama.org/?p=)88
24
7.16 Notice in other election matters: In the election code, talking about providing
25 public notice on other election matters to We The People, codes refer to varying periods
26
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTtON FOR EXCEPTION:
Tile libert;es of a pe.ople lIever were. or ever will be secure, when the transactions oftheir rulers ma), be concealed
1m", them. Patrick Henry
• •
of 5 to 35 business days to file objections as part of providing Notice to the electorate.
(ILCS 10/8)
2
A. In the case of petitions to amend Article IV of the
3 Constitution of the State of Illinois, there shall be a period of 35
business days after the last day for the filing of such petitions in
4 which objections can be filed.
B. In the case of petitions for advisory questions of public
5 policy to be submitted to the voters of the entire state, there shall
be a period of 35 business days after the last day for the filing of
such petitions in which objections can be filed.
6
AND
7
(10 ILCS 5/12-5) (from Ch. 46, par. 12-5)
Sec. 12-5. Notice for public questions. For all elections
8 held after July 1, 1999, notice of public questions shall be
required only as set forth in this section or as set forth in
9 Section 17-3 or 19-3 of the School Code. Not more than 30 days
nor less than 10 days before the date of a regUlar election at
10 which a public question is to be submitted to the voters of a
political or governmental subdivision, and at least 20 days
11 before an erne~gency referendum, the election authority shall
publish notice of the referendum. The notice shall be
12 published once in a local, community newspaper having general
circulation in the political or governmental subdivision.
13
Severe Deficiency: That there was no notification of the objection period.
14
15
Severe Deficiency creating due process violation: Even with a notice period, if
the citizens are not permitted to see the qualifYing documents, to what end is the
16 notice?
17 Timing: Timing concerns are an administrative role, but are clearly subservient to
the constitutional mandate.
18
19 7.] 7 Multiple Attempts: Actually, after the 5 days, petitioner can see no way
she could have objected, save doing as she is now, and becoming an election
20 expert of this issue. It is through this process that she finally came to understand
the answer to the question of how she was defrauded of her vote.
21
The Court would kindly recall in the original petition, the petitioner referred to all
22 the attempts she and many others with her, and many more on their own, have
23 made to get the answer to this question of voter fraud.
24 7.18 Severe Deficiency -The Current Election: But for the lack of notice, and
available qualifying documents establishing constitutional qualifications, The
25
26
Page 29 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR I3EFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SH ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
The liberties of a people lIever were or ever will be secure, whell the trmlsactions o/their rulers may be cOllcealed
from liwnL Patrick Hell,>'
• •
petitioner was deprived the opportunity to challenge all contestants on the current
ballot, now before her, (voting begins January 11th) in a timely fashion.
2
7.19 Motion for Exception: Through the unconstitutional requirement of the
3 obligation of the 5 day rule, petitioner was not given the opportunity to challenge
Mr. Obama's Statement of Candidacy in a timely fashion.
4
7.21 Truth or Dare?: Whether Mr, Obama lied in his application is a question
5 to which the petitioner lacks standing to ask because of the 5 day notice period to
6 which she was served no notice. Additionally, there is no redress for the petitioner
to question the 'signer,' who has the obligation, on any Statement of Candidacy
7 after 5 days. Thus a crafty and experienced contestant knows that after the 5 day
period, save extreme citizen effort, that they are considered eligible.
8
7.22 Conclusions:
9 Due Process Argument: It is unreasonable to expect the petitioner can object to
10 something to which she was not given notice. The 5 day period is unreasonable
because no statue or administrative procedure requires the citizenry be "noticed"
II during the 5 day period.
12 Unreasonable: It is unreasonable to expect the citizen to object to something

without being afforded public proof to something for which objection can be
13
based.
14
If the burden is to be on the citizens to object to assure a constitutional ballot, then
15 the citizens should be afforded due notice with the necessary documents to
discern objections.
16
Suggested Remedy: To require all constitutional qualifications be verified and
17
affirmed, along with verifying documentation. Verifying documentation is made
18 available for public scrutiny.
19 In addition, the petitioners argue that confonnity to constitutional eligibility

mandates for office cannot lack standing based on timing (ie the 5 day rule). Thus,
20 when there is a dispute of citizenship, that dispute is gennane until status is
determined.
21
221 The Other Culprit: The Statement of Candidacy Form:

Time for a revision here! How many changes are needed?
23
1.0
24 (10 ILCS 5/10-5) (from Ch. 46, par. 10-5)
Sec. 10-5. All petitions for nomination shall, besides containing
25 the names of candidates, specify as to each:
1. The office or offices to which such candidate or candidates
26
The liberties 0/a people new!r were or e'.-'er will be secure, when the transactions oltlleir rulers may be cOlJcealed
from '''em. Patrie/': Henr),
• •
shall be nominated.
2. The new political party, if any, represented, expressed in not
more than 5 words. However, such party shall not bear the same name
as. nor include the name of any established political party as
2 defined in this Article. This prohibition does not preclude any
established political party from making nominations in those cases in
3 which it is authorized to do so.
3. The place of residence of any such candidate or candidates
4 with the street and number thereof, if any. In the case of electors
for President and Vice-President of the United States. the names of
candidates for President and vice-President may be added to the party
5 name or appellation.
Such certificate of nomination or nomination papers in addition
6 shall include as a part thereof, the oath required by Section 7-10.1
of this Act and must include a statement of candidacy for each of the
7 candidates named therein, except candidates for electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States. Each such
statement shall set out the address of such candidate, the office for
8 which he is a candidate, shall state that the candidate is qualified
for the office specified and has filed (or will file before the close
9 of the petition filing period) a statement of economic interests as
required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act, shall request that
10 the candidate's name be placed upon the official ballot and shall be
subscribed and sworn to by such candidate before some officer
authorized to take acknowledgments of deeds in this State, and may be
II in substantially the following for.m:
State of Illinois)
12 ) S8.
County of ....•... )
13 I, .•.. , being first duly sworn, say that I reside at .... street,
in the city (or village) of .... in the county of .... State of
Illinois; and that I am a qualified voter therein; that I am a
14 candidate for election to the office of .... to be voted upon at the
election to be held on the ... , day of .... , ..... ; and that I am
15 legally qualified to hold such office and that I have filed (or will
file before the close of the petition filing period) a statement of
16 economic interests as required by the Illinois Governmental Ethics
Act, and I hereby request that my name be printed upon the official
ballot for election to such office.
17 Signed ...• " .......... .
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me by ....
18 who is to me personally known, this .... day of .... , ..... .
Signed ....... '......... .
(Official Character) (emphasis added)
19
20 1.1 Definitions, Again: All candidates for office essentially use the same
fonn with the same words and the same oath. Thus this phrase "legally qualified
21 10 hold such office" means different things to different signers of the same form.
22 Illinois statute lacks specific language to define "legally qualified for this
office."
23
24 Federal statues lack specific language to define "legally qualified for this
office."
25
26
""go 31- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
I'ETfTION AND MOTION TO SETASIDE AND MOT10N FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tlte liberties ofa people never were or ev!!r will he secure, when the trun:"actiolls of their rulers InOY be cOJlcealed
from tIJenL Patrick JlelJlY
• •
Federal and Illinois statues lack specific language defining natural born citizen.
2
1.2 Substantive Argument: "Legally qualified to hold such office:" This is
a subjective statement relative to the office that requires a subjective declaration
3 to a legal term, thus leaving it up the candidate'S opinion. There is no specific law
or statute from which the veracity of the candidate's signature can be challenged.
4
Squeaking by: Crafty and clever candidates, with self interest as their motive,
5
squeak through the cracks unchallenged because Illinois law is deficient in
6 providing a definition for' legally qualified.' And they know itt
7 1.3 Subjective Oath: Statement of Candidacy is subjective to applicant's

interpretation of what is legal. There is no standard.
8
1.4 Legally Qualified: The petitioners argue, with no language defining
9
natural born citizen, the candidates defie the meaning for themselves, thus the
10 words 'legally qualified' are subjective to Mr. Obama's opinion and definition of
legally qualified.
11
I.S Due Process Conflict: If a candidate lies on their application, Illinois and
12 Federal law is vague and ambiguous because there is no set standard definition for
"legally qualified to hold office" to allow for contests to the claim.
13
14 1.6 Due Process: How can anyone argue a fonn that has mUltiple meanings,
and from which crafty contestant can squiggle around? And to which, the
15 questioner has to struggle to define to challenge the statement of the signatory.
16 1.7 Remedy: The petitioners argue that meanings on fonns certifying a

candidate's request to be on a ballot must be clear to be fair and equal. Clearly,
17
this statute fails that simple standard and thusly is labeled unconstitutional
18 through deficiency!
19 2.0 The Statement of Candidacy is Severely Deficient: The presumption is

that the signer is telling the truth. The obligation is on the one making the
20 statement.
21
Self Serving Testimony: Already established, except through objection, nowhere
22 does Illinois Code require verification of the self serving testimony from
applicants.
23
2.1 Veracity of a Signature: Mr. Obarna signed the Statement of Candidacy
24 on October 29, 2007. Swearing
25
26
Page 32 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENR Y COUNTV GRAND JURY. OR A
l'ETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
TI,e liberties of a people Il(!ver were Qr ever will be secure, whellllle transactiolls o/tlleir rulers may be concealed
Imlll IhenL Patrie/.- Henr),
• •
''. .. that I am a candidate for nomination to the office of President of
the United States of America, to be voted upon at the primary
election to be held on February 5 th 2008, and that I am legally
qualified (inoluding being the holder of any license that may be an
2 eligibility requirement for the office I seek the nomination for) to
hold such office and .. (Emphasis added)
3
2.2 Now here comes the petitioners, turning to the phrase "(including being
4 the holder ofany license that may be an eligibility requirementfor the office J
5 seek the nomination for). (Emphasis added)
6 Exactly what does this mean? This foml is for the highest office in the land.
What license is he referring to? Is this some thematic word for which We The
7 People might take comfort to know, thusly he is constitutionally qualified?
8 2.3 Deficient: This statement, through Mr. Obama's brazenness, is uncovered

as thoroughly inadequate to stand as a constitutional gateway for eligibility. It
9
compels nothing! It is improvable! It's absurd, almost laughable were it not for
10 the seriousness to which it endangers our Republic.
II 2.6 Due Process Issue: What license? We don't license births, we certify
them, hence birth certificates! There is no such thing as a "license that may be an
12
eligibility requirement" for President of the United States of America!
13
2.7 No Requirement for Proof '" How can we ask to see a license, for which
14 it is up to a self-interested politician's interpretation that he has, or not, when
there is none required 10 begin wilh?
15
A literal meaning ofthis statement is: "I am qualified based on my definition and
16 other than apparent conformity; there is nothing that I have to show to prove it."
17 This law is deficient to the mandates of the Constitutions, both of them!
18 2.8 Lack of Uniformity: Arguably, someone might say this phrase is meant
to cover "constitutionally eligible" when it refers to a license. It does not hit the
19 mark, indeed it is not even on the board! JUdicially, what never existed cannot be
asked for!
20
Perhaps we should liberally interpret this to mean, in this particular instance that
21
he has obtained a license that states he is a natural born citizen as required for the
22 highest office in this land? Does such a license exist? Nope!
2.9 Galling! It says here ... "that may be a requirement". The Statement of
Candidacy woefully fails to use any constitutional imperative phrases such as
24 'shall and must'.
25
26
I'''ge 33 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The liberties ofn people never were or ever will be secure, wizen lite transactions oftheir rulers ltUl)' be con£'ellied
from them. Patrick HelJry
• •
2.10 Motives: The petitioner asserts, Mr. Obama, the constitutional lawyer
from Harvard, twice successfully winning election in Illinois through
disqualifying his opponents with election code, knew he was affirming to nothing
2
and thus the reality was that once the 5 days were past, his citizenship status
3 would hardly matter.
4 Probable Cause: Did he laugh when he saw the ease with which the great
American contest could be obfuscated? Surely if he had nothing to hide, he
5 would not waste his time hiding something. Especially, not something that is
6 politically messy only when hidden.
7 So Much for Transparency: Instead, obfuscating, Mr. Obama hides behind

privacy laws and keeps all answers about his eligibility from the public view. (See
8 videos on the CD for evidence)
9 2.11 Substantive Poiut: Current Election: All candidates affirming to a
10 statement that has no relevance or basis for which it can be examined or disputed
constitutionally have affirmed to nothing!
II
2.12 Human Resources Knows: Veritlcation of credentials and otherrelevant
12 background information is part of the process in any hiring contest. Imagine
asking an interview team to assess the ability for contestants to become part of
13
their team, without having a "show me" requirement for the team to asses if the
14 pre-requisites for the position are fulfilled and the contestant is truthful in their
self declarations.
15
Thusly, and wisely, background checks are common as part of most hiring
16 processes.
17
2.13 Security: McHenry County Court House: Does McHenry County Court
18 hire a person for security before doing a background check, thus screening their
credentials and eligibility to hold such a position of security? Based on knowledge
19 of employment processes, the petitioner is willing to predict, McHenry County
performs background and credential checks on their security professionals.
20
21 2.14 National Security: Blinding: Yet, we elect a President to the highest
position of security in the Republic without providing the electorate information
22 or access to information to establish mandated eligibility? There is no background
check.
23
Apparently, the public is supposed to qualify contestants blindly.
24
25 2..15 The Current Election: Likewise, it is, for all candidates on all ballots.
26
P"go 34 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE TIlE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile lihertie.~ (if u people never were or ever will be secure, When the transactiolls oftlleir rulers may he concealed
from 'hem. Patrick Hell'},
• •
2.16 NOTICE: Ballot may contain unconstitutional candidates: Alas, the
employment process is one this petitioner is weB acquainted with. Hiring is
routinely done with background checks. All Americans know this as customary
2
practice, and while the invasion into their private space may feel intrusive, if it is
3 the way to get the job, pretty much everyone signs the release form. In fact, many
employment offers come with a clause such as 'pending successful completion of
4 a background check,' which, depending on the position, includes specific areas to
check. .
5
6 Not so for elected office. Yet most people, as is consistent with natural logic but
is truly common illusion, assume that politicians undergo a vetting for
7 constitutional requirements specified as 'must and shall.' They do not. No check
for constitutionality. We The People have never been noticed to that!
8
2.17 Election Code: Allows for public posting and verification of other less
9 substantive issues.
10 i. Statement of Economic Interest (10 !LCS 5/1/0-5)
ii Campaign Finance (ARTICLE 9. DISCLOSURE AND REGULATION OF CANPAIGN
II CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES)
12 2.18 Conclusion: Lack of Verification: lfno one challenges the candidate's

Statement of Candidacy during the contest period, he is placed on the ballot.
13
Grievous Injustice: An unconstitutionally placed candidate on the ballot deprives
14 the petitioners of primary First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech and
Illinois right to free, equal and uniformly administered elections.
15
16 The petitioner's claim all their constitutional rights that have been infringed upon
through this process, even if not listed here! .
17
v. Pendulum Swings: Voter Registration:
18
19 1.0 We Squat, We Vote: Voting is not an assumed right, like a squatter
claiming land. Once 18, it is the privilege of citizenship expressed after taking the
20 responsibility to register.
21 The voter absolutely has responsibility to prove he is eligible for the contest he
wishes to participate in, not to frustrate citizen access to vote, but to assure a fair
22 and equal election, administered uniformly.
23
Such eligibility must be affirmed and verified in the registration process.
24
1.1 Here we come here to the issue of Voter Registration. The petitioner
25 debated long and hard on what to do with this issue. What brought her to study
26
rage 35 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile liberties of (I people never were (}f ever will be secure, when the tram;aclions oltheir rulers may be cOllceaJed
[ftlm (/rem. Patri,""lIe'I".'
• •
election law was the 2008 election. However, once deep into the codes, statutes
and processes, the petitioner learned that,just as the candidates must be verified
as eligible to participate, so too must the actual voters. But they are not!
2
(Quote US and Illinois Constitution)
3
Adult citizens of the United States who are residents of one of the 50
states or the District of Columbia may not be restrained from voting
4 for a variety of protected reasons, stated in the aforementioned 15th,
19th J 24th and 26th Amendments. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-
5 sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution)
6 SECTION 1. VOTING QUALIFICATIONS

Every United States citizen who has attained the age of
18 or any other voting age required by the United States for
7 voting in State elections and who has been a permanent
resident of this State for at least 30 days next preceding
8 any election shall have the right to vote at such election.
The General Assembly by law may establish registration
9 ~equirements and require permanent residence in an election
district not to exceed thirty days prior to an election. The
General Assembly by law may establish shorter residence
10 requirements for voting for President and Vice-Pre~ident of
the United States.
11 (source: Illinois Constitution, Amendment adopted at general election
November 8,1988.)
12
1.2 Bindings: Voter Registration issues bind this topic to the ballot issue at
13 hand because being a qualified voter is required to run for office. Thus, many
might assert unknowing of the truth, "yes they are qualified because they have
14
registered to vOle" as required to run for office. Alas, there is no verification of
15 US citizenship during the registration process. None! None save a self interested
affirmation ...
16
Indeed, one need not even say where they were born. (Katherine Schultz Question
17 9)
18
1.2 Stranger than Fiction, but it is true! According to Katherine Schultz, the
19 duly elected Clerk for McHenry County, in her ministerial role, there is no
authority for her to verify citizenship of registered voters!
20
12. In the voter registration process, how is citizenship status verified? What code authorizes the
21 process for \'erifying citizenship status of a registered voter?
Citizenship is not verified and I am not aware of any requirement and/or authorization to do this
(Question 12)
22
That simply, is grievously unfair! The petitioner demands constitutional
23 qualifications be verified to be part of the 'voting team!' How else shall the
24 petitioner find solace that her vote was equally administrated if it cannot be
qualified against others who are equally eligible to participate?
25
26
"ase 36- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
"ETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEI'TlON: .
rile liberties Ofa people lIeve,. were or el'l!" will be secure, when the traJlsacJions oftheir rulers may be concealed
from Ihem. Patrick Henry
• •
1.3 Due Process Issue: Illinois and Federal codes, statutes and procedures
that allow for unverified participants within the electorate infringe on the
petitioners' rights.
1.4 A note here: This section troubles the petitioner greatly. The reality
impacts the registered voting public. Arguably, the only remedy is voters wiII
have to verify eligibility. This means to assure fair elections, verifying voters as
US citizens must be part of the process before a registration is completed. Without
this, there is no remedy, nor guaranteed veracity to the core of our Republic, the
vote.
The petitioner believes she needs the investigation of the Grand Jury to help study
this question. The petitioner also seeks to address the issue of voter registration I
a separate brief, if needed. For now, addressing this as pertains to the fact that
voter registration is a gateway for candidate qualifying and as required for
apparent confol111ity, yet it is a meaningless gateway.
1.5 It is not a barrier to access issue: The petitioner agrees there are absolute
rights for Americans to vote, un-frustrated by manipulations designed to deny
them a vote. The operative word here is 'Americans'.
1.6 Quality Audit Test: Such audits are routinely done to check processes in
business environments. Would the voting system pass a "Quality Audit" testing
the integrity and security of the election process? The petitioner argues no.
Non-citizens voting destroys We The People's ballot by changing the contest

results, thusly infringing on the petitioner's constitutional right to a free and equal
election. The petitioner asserts, it is time to righten the swing of that pendulum, to
return to the priority of the constitution. You know ... 'must and shall' be a
Citizen to register to vote.
Must Be Uniform:
1.0 Grievous Injustice: The General Assembly has failed to meet

Constitutional mandates establishing Unifonn elections:
SECTION 1. VOTING QUALIFICATIONS
,., The General Assembly by law may estab1.ish registration
requirements and require permanent residence in an election
district not to exceed thirty days prior to an election. The
General Assembly by law may establish shorter residence
requirements for voting for President and Vice-President of
the United States.
(source: Illinois Constitution, Amendment adopted at general election
November 8,1988.)
!'ago 37 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
!'1,T1TION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
The fiherlie,\' ofa people never were or ever will be seCllre, when the transactions of their rllleTS may be cOllcealed
Imm them.. Palricli Henry
• •
The General Assembly is clearly authorized to establish registration
requirements. The failure to establish general and uniform statutes (section 4
Election Laws) verifying citizenship through voter registration process, as
2
required by the Constitution, compromises the ability of the State Board of
3 Elections to administer free and equal elections. The result is grievous injustice to
the petitioners.
4
The General Assembly will benefit from the wisdoms of a grand jury that looks
5 into the process of elections in Illinois. Provided the Grand Jury deems it
6 warranted, they will be able to make "presentments" regarding the same.
7 2.0 General and Uniform:
8 S~CTION 4. ~L~CTION LAWS

The General Assembly by law shall define permanent
9 residence for voting purposes, insure secrecy of voting and
the integrity of the election process, and facilitate
10 registration and voting by all qualified persons. Laws
governing voter registration and conduct of elections shall
11 be general and uniform. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
12 Deficient and Unconstitutional- Due Process Violations: Petitioner asserts

similar loss of due process from code deficiency at the federal and state level in
13 registering voters and in the conduct of elections.
14
15 2.1 Due Process Violation I: Katherine Schultz provides testimony that voter
registration is not uniform as "shall be" provided in the Illinois Constitution,
16 Section 4 Election Laws
17 9. One requirement for candidacy is voter registration. Please explain the ways "'oters are
registered in Illinois. What documents are required 10 establish age, citizenship and residence?
There nrc ditlcrcm methods of voter registration: Count}' Clerk's office~ depU[y registrars. drivers
18 license facilities. agency registrations and mail in registration being the majority. All ask for age, proof
is not required. Place ofbinh is asked for by the Clerk's office and by deplJl)' registrars. Proofis not
19 required. Registrants born outsid~ of the US arc asked ror additional naturalization infonnation. Voter
registration done at drivers license racilities and agencies are asked irthey arc cili7.cns and sign an oath
20 that they are, and mail in, simply Sign an oath attesting to citizenship. On registratiDns done through the
Clerk's office andlor deputy rcgistrars~ 2 (orms of ID arc required, both with the registrants name and I
with hisfher current nddress. Keep in mind that registration sources.. other than the County Clerk's
21 ollicl! andlor deputy registrars and applications to register and iran), information is not received or irthe
\"ott:r II) card is retumed undeliverable the registration application is not accepted,
22
23
2.2 Due Process Violation 2: Some Voters Have Redress: Access issues are
24 mitigated with the questionably registered voter having the option ofa challenged
application which can be verified later, and once done, the vote counted.
25 Rightfully, these voters receive such generous accommodations in this contest,
26
Pago 38 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE nlE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The Uhertie.ij Of fl people ne1'l!T were or e~'er will be .vecure. when Ihe Ir,msaClioll,\' o/their rulers may he cOllceab:ti
fmm litem. Patrick lIell1)'
• •
because of the assumption that I/O American be injured or lose their vote from
discriminatory barriers to the registration process.
2
2.3 Redress Lacking: Simply, due to grievous deficiency in the current
3 process, unregistered voters, or voters with questions about their registration have
more rights than registered voters. The registered voter, all of them, have a right
4 to know that only qualified voters are voting, and to obtain redress when it is not
so!
5
6 While there is some access to the citizenry to protest individual voters, the overall
vulnerability in the system is much greater when voter citizenship is not verified.
7
2.4 Demoralizing a Republic: It is deeply demoralizing to the voting public
8 that the one opportunity they have to reflect their sovereign will is corrupted
through deficient processes. Currently, anyone can register at nearly any moment,
9 with no ability for the voters to have assurances they are constitutionally
10 qualified. No one checks! There is no authority to check! (Katherine Schultz:
que 12)
II
It threatens the very fabric of our Republic.
12
2.5 Substantive Affirmation: Constitutional Eligibility is a priori for access
13
or claims to any and all rights afforded under administrative rules governing the
14 election. Voting access is exclusively granted to Americans, thus citizenship is
required before a potential registrant is provided the access rights afforded to
15 citizens. Citizenship is a priori to achieving voting access rights.
16 Prima Fascia: One remedy is to have citizenship verified prior to access rights
enjoying the benefits of participation, whatever those benefits be. This is prima
17
fascia to the question and to the integrity of any Republic. A Republic based on
18 the collection of sovereign wills ....
19 2.6 Self Evident: All residents in America enjoy the fruit of American
elections, but only citizens enjoy the right to participate in the process.
20
21 2.7 nue Process 3: Current practices recognize voter registration as the
gateway to participation in the electoral process. Contestants and voters must be
22 registered. This is a natural way to organize the participants
23 Thus to be "free and equal" administrated "uniformly," citizenship must be

verified prior to certification of registrations. .
24
25 2.8 Privilege and Responsibility: Many privileges require processes for
which one must qualify to obtain. In the Amcrican election process, voting is
26
Tire liherlie.,· ()/ a people /lever were or ever will be secure, when lite transactions oftheir rulers may be concealed
from 'hem. Patrick lIeur)'
• •
a privilege for those who are American citizens and 18 years ofage, residing
within the voting district, and duly registered.
2
2.9 Voting is not the only privilege for Americans: So too is the right to
3 move about freely within the society. Still, the State places license restrictions
upon drivers of vehicles, such that besides the overall right of movement, it comes
4 with responsibilities that must be met before the privilege to drive a car is
achieved.
5
6 Imagine going to the Driving Inspector and saying ... "1 can drive, really I can ... "
without being willing to have that affirmation placed under inspection through a
7 driver's test. There is zero to no chance such an aspiring driver will get a license
from any reputable inspector. For public safety, Inspectors are required to view
8 the veracity of statements of eligibility to drive, personally.
9
Once the license is achieved, drivers are required to update residency and remain
10 in compliance to driver's standards.
11 Prima Fascia: In the vast majority of cases, it is much easier to ascenain

citizenship then to learn how to drive. Practices and procedures can easily be
12 established to assure voter registration of Americans is verified and is fair, equal,
and uniform.
13
14 2.10 Ballot Uniformity: "Must be uniform" refers to voter registration and to
the election process. Thus, it applies to the ballot. Already established is the lack
15 of uniformity in the codes.
16 When candidates are allowed on the ballot, without verification of their
constitutionality, it allows for a lack ofunifomlity in the election process.
17
18 While not all contests will have ineligible contestants, it cannot be left up to the
luck of the draw as to whether the ballot is constitutional.
19
2.1 I General and Uniform: These carmot be contradictory. Where a statute
20 allows for general, it cannot sacrifice unifoml. The Statement of Candidacy, is
21
too general and thus, imposes deficiencies on the integrity of the election.
22 2.12 Conclusion: Section 4: Election laws, is not some antiquated clause in the
Illinois Constitution. It mandates how we administrate and evaluate elections
23 sllch that they may be certified as "fair and equal".
24 VII: Natural Born Citizen: First Impression:
25
26
Pago 40 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile lihf!rtie.,· Of a people Ilf!l'I!T wefe or ever will be secure, when tire transactiolls olt"e;r ruJers ma)' be concea/r!ll
/mlll them. Patrick Hell'),
• •
The legal question affirming definition of natural born citizen specifically as
relates to the President of the United States has never been heard, thus this is a
2 First Impression case.
3 First Impression Case: Drifine Natural Bom Citizen: This petitioner, along with
various members of Patriot's Heart Network, have fervently been seeking the
4 answer to the query, is this a constitutional Presidency?
5 1.0 Grievous Injustice: Define Natural Born Citizen: In any contest, there
6 must be equal and fair rules that are a basis by which the arbitrators of the contest
make decisions.
7
Federal Law is deficient in establishing definitions for natural born citizen,
8 especially as pertains to the Presidency, thus creating an unfair contest to which
petitioner has no relief.
9
10 1.0 Define Natural Born Citizen: The burden of expecting states to legally
certify or verify the constitutionality of contestants in federal elections is
11 unreasonable without providing a definition of the constitutional requirement and
its meaning.
12
1.1 "Natural Born Citizen's" meaning as reiates to the qualification for US
13
President, in the Constitution (Article II, Sec 2) has clear historical references
14 from the Founding Fathers relating to security and jurisdictional allegiances for
holders of this office.
15
EXHIBIT I L Emmerich de Vattel: Law of Nations Quote)
16 EXHIBIT 12. Vanel's rnfluence on the term a Natural Born Citizen www.birther.org)
17 1.3 Substantive Point: Unreasonable Deficiency: With the Court's

permission, the petitioner seeks to file a separate brief discussing natural born
18 citizen, wishing to state for the record here, not her definition of natural born
citizen, but that it is unreasonable/or tile Federal Government to expect tile
19 several States to apply a standard when no standard has been made.
20
2.0 Exigent Circumstances: Elections of the past did not have the same
21 circumstances and as such, until now, did not cause for a challenge of this sort.
22 3.0 Deficiency Requiring Remedy: Essentially, Presidential and Vice

Presidential candidates squeak through the cracks of constitutional scrutiny
23 because of the grievous deticiency of the Federal and Illinois government in
24 requiring a lesser, or worse yet, no citizenship standard for ballot position.
25
26
Page 41 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCI-I£NR Y COUNTY GRAND JUR Y. OR A
rile /ibertie.f ofa people nelfer were (lr ever will he secure, when the transactions 0/ tlleir rulers may be concealed
front them. Patrick Hellry
• •
It is ridiculous to assume 'apparent conformity,' to something which has not been
defined!
4.0 EMERGENCY: Circular reasoning at its best! This is a constitutional

crisis! Our national security is in a state of emergency!
5.0 The Perfect President: Even with a benevolent, all perfect. ... With
everyone in the country and the world loving himlher as President, if they are not
constitutionally eligible, it is a constitutional crisis and thus a national security
issue!
5.1 The perfect con game. is to set up a situation where you swear to
something you don't have to prove, then run interference on transparency you
have vowed to provide because of assumed rights to privacy afforded to private
citizenry and not the Presidency. Then frustrate the electorate as they try to get
the answer that is naturally and lawfully theirs to have. The con then conceals,
and mocks them all the while smirking that he is in control and there is nothing
that can be done about it, knowing full well there is no definition from which to
argue. Thus, strategically setting out his own definition which becomes part of
the public.1ore, and through his own actions, prevents We The People from
getting the question asked let alone answered.
That is the perfect con ofMr. Obama.
6.0 DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!!!!
Official Certification of Nomination:

1.0 Illinois State Board of Election, confirms they did not check Mr.
Obama's eligibility for office: (EXHIBIT)
2.0 Democratic National Committee: Fraud or what were they thinking?

The Official Certification of Nomination from The Democratic Committee,
signed by Nancy Pelosi, apparently has two versions. In the attached exhibit, the
story unfolds that there was a single legal form altered into two versions. This is
evidenced by the same typo in both versions. (see word 'though ')
2.1 I nternet researchers have uncovered that the exact same "template" was
used for all 50 states. The difference is that Hawaii's was altered to state
"constitutionally eligible"
It is the petitioner's understanding, in part based on the attached article by JB

Williams, that the version given to the 49 states have the language "were duly
/lominated"
Page 42 - EMERGIlNCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MGIENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: '
rhe liberties ofa people never were or ever will be secure, when/be lrimSllclitms oftheir rulers ma), be cOllcealed
• •
2.2 The certification Illinois received from the ONC is attached (EXHIBIT 13)
". and thlll,he!olJowing candidates/or President and Vice President o/Ille United SIOIes are legally
2 qualified 10 sen'e under the prOl'isions ofthe United Stales ConslilUlioli. "
3 2.3 The Certification signed by Mrs. Pelosi for Hawaii is different using these
4 words: (EXHIBIT 14)
5 "were du(v nominated ... and that the following candidates for Presidelll and
Vice President of the United States are legally qualified 10 serve under the
6 provisions of the United Stales Constilution. "
7 2.4 'Why Two: The mystery is why two versions of the exact same form, all
8 signed at the same time? Is there a devious reason? Is there an administrative
reason why Hawaii would justify a certification of legally qualified and the rest of
9 the several States only receiving a certification that they"are 'duly nominated?'
10 Two articles by JB Williams of the Canada Free Press cover this issue in-depth
and are included as EXHIBIT 15 and EXHIBIT 16.
II
12 Journalist, Mr. Williams articles proposes these questions:
13 I. Why did the DNe certify Obama!s eligibility only in Hawaii?

2. Why did no Slate DNC oflicc:, DNe elector, or Ek.-clion Commission office catch it?
3. Since rhe ONe made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
14 4. Without any such ccrtification, isn't it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate
and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of"natural born citizcn'?"
15 5. Why did the DNe use TWO difft':rcllt docs~ one incomplcte, when the RNC uscd the same
complete doc nationwide?
16 6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8. When will eve,)' American demand answers to these and many more questions?
17 htw:llwww.flmadafreepress.fom/index.php/articlc/15127
18
2.5 Due Process Violation: The ONC knowingly presented two separate
19 certifications. The one provided to Illinois, does not meet the standard set out by
the US Constitution. (Article II, sec I)
20
2.6 Tricky Tricky: It is reported to the petitioner, and deserves investigation
21 by tlle Grand Jury, that the State of Hawaii used the ONC certification to back the
22 statement below, claiming Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen.
23 Regardless, how can we examine the veracity of this statement without disclosure
of qualifying facts and documents? .
24
25
26
I'age 43 -EMERGENCY MOTION 1'0 APPEAR IlEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION 1'0 SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
11,e liberties oft' people lIel'l!.r were or I!Iler will be secure, wizen the transactions o/their rulers m~J' be cOilcealed
from rllem. Parrlck Hellry
• •
2.7 Fraud: This petitioner alleges this is circular reasoning at best and such
unverifiable public statements designed to influence the public's view of the topic
2 is a fraudulent use of the power of the office and demands investigation.
3 2.8 What Authority: By what'authority does Dr. Fukino claim the right to
verify eligibility in the state of Hawaii and in the Several States?
4
In Illinois, the State of Hawaii lacks standing or authority to declare Mr, Obama
5 as eligible for anything. The Director of Health in Hawaii, Dr. Chiyome Fukino's,
6 lacks any authority in Illinois. This is especially grievous, should anyone argue
we take her word for it, when she has never sworn any allegiances to We The
7 Peoples of Illinois, or our Constitution and she refuses to provide proofl
8 Grievously Deficient and Fraudulent: The petitioner believes the Illinois form
from the ONC is grievously deficient as it deliberately and willfully holds back
9 from certifying Mr. Obama as constitutionally eligible, thus prejudicing her
10 ballot.
II 2.9 Potential Excuse: The petitioner is told one reason for the two different
certificates is because Hawaii has specific language the other states lack on what
12 must be in their form. Thus, through Hawaii's statute, a higher measure of
accountability is required.
13
14 This begs the question, why two different certifications to the same
constitutionally mandated requirement? Only through the investigative power of
15 the Grand Jury can this be determined.
16 3.0 Massive Voter Fraud: Nowhere on the Illinois form does the ONC
certify for the general election ballot, that Mr. Obama is constitutionally or legally
17
eligible! The petitioner believes the consequence as have played out in this
18 historical theatre is massive voter fraud.
19 3.1 Exigent Circumstances: The petitioner passionately argues, probable

cause questions create exigent circumstances about the veracity of the very
20 certification for ballot placement in Illinois, and demand answers! Why did the
21
ONC use two fonns, declaring different levels of certification for the same office?
22 3.2 Due Process Breach: Regardless, the petitioner argues both forms are
entirely inadequate as proof that Mr. Obama is eligible, because there is no
23 standard from which to judge eligibility.
24 3.3 DEFICIENT and a Due Process Breach: The petitioner directly
25 challenges this ONC Certification on constitutional grounds that it fails to meet
the 'must and shall' constitutional test for eligibility. What meaning did her ballot
26
I'age 44 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
TlJe libertie.s (if Q people 1I1!~'er were or ever will he secure, when Ille transactiolls of,IIeir rulers may be cmteealed
frolll tllellL Patrick Henry
• •
have when, not only did no one verify Mr. Obama's eligibility, but no one swore
he was eligible, only 'duly nominated. '
2
3.4 Conspiracy to Commit Fraud: The dual oaths on the Official
3 Certification of Nomination form indicate an organized decision to obstruct the
voters in their right to determine candidate qualifications! This demands
4 investigation by the Grand Jury!
5 4.0 Republican Certification Form: The petitioner understands from
6 Internet research sources, that the RepUblican National Committee used one basic
form for all states and it clearly states McCain is eligible under the USA
7 Constitution. (Exhibit 17)
8 5.0 But is he? That technically has not been determined. In fact some
controversy exists as to Mr. McCain's eligibility.
9
10 5.1 More Duplicity and Conspiracy: Perhaps stranger than fiction, the
attached Non-binding Senate Resolution 511, incredibly co-sponsored by Barack
II Obama, Claire McCaskill, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton and James Webb, was
placed before the Senate resolving Natural Born Status upon Mr. McCain. The
12 reason for this is Mr. McCain was born in Panama while his father was stationed
there. One quality of a natural born citizen is they are born on US soil.
13
14 Likely a contest over Mr. McCain's eligibility would have been launched had he
prevailed in the election.
15
Mr. McCain's natural born citizenship status or lack there-of, is simpler to
16 ascertain because when questioned, he provided public proof to the citizens and
their elected officials, which was then publically debated. There is some question
17
of Mr. McCain's eligibility based on the distinction of being born on the USA
18 Base in Panama or in a hospital off base. Thus, some controversy remains as to
whether he qualifies as a natural born citizen.
19
Mr. Obama clearly is aware of the conflicts relating to his claim as a natural born
20 citizen and for his own greed and gain; he has deliberately frustrated the public's
21
right to ascertain his eligibility.
22 6.0 Chicago Connections: www.factcheck.org
23 6.1 Probable Cause: Mr. Obama's campaign released a copy of his birth
certificate to Fact Check, (www.FactCheck.org) owned by the Annenberg
24 Foundation, an organization for which Mr. Obama used to represent in his
25 capacity as a lawyer. Fact Check wrote a supposedly objective story verifying
they have seen the highly sought after document.
26
Page 45 - EMERGENCV MOTION TO APPEAR IlEFORJ> THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The lihertles Ofu people never were or I!l'er will he secure, when Ihe Iral1sactlO1JS of their rulers may be concealed
Imm tltf!t1L Patrick lIenry
• •
Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center o~ the
University of Pennsylvania (http://www.factcheck.orglaboutl
2
The Annenberg Foundation, funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
3 (http://www.allnellbergfoulldation.org/usr doc/Retrospective.pdf at page 8;
http://www.anncllbergillstitute.org/challenge/sites/chica!!o.html)
4
Sen. Obama served on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
5
(footnote sources cited:
6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago Annenberg Challenge)
7 6.2 Particulars of the Con: This is a slight of hand that does not constitute
public proof when the public is denied access to the document or any information
8 related to Mr. Obama's birth particulars, save for secondhand reports from
interested parties that cannot be veri fied.
9
10 63 Fact Check: Who hired them? Further, FactCheck is not authorized to

verify eligibility or to be We The People's gatekeeper on eligibility for any
II office.(EXHIBIT 18 The Trulh aboul Obama's Birth Certificale)
12 Why not simply release the information to the public? Why is it filtered through
biased political affiliates and/or former employers?
13
14 Chicago Connection: Fact Check reports they have the birth certificate in
Chicago, Illinois.
15
7.0 Define Natural Born Citizen: This is a 'First Impression' issue requiring
16 interpretation of the USA Constitution and the Founding Fathers intention.
17
7.1 How does the electorate get the answers: In the case of the DNC
18 Certification, the burden is on the signer, Nancy Pelosi, to prove and/or explain
her affirmation. Yet the electorate lacks standing to get an answer. Constitutional
19 lawyers with experience in elections know this!
20 7.2 Deficient ONe Instructions: The petitioner has read the entire packets
21 for the DNC and State Democratic Candidacy and saw no place where eligibility
verification is required. (DELEGATE SELECTION RULES FOR TIlE 2008 DEMOCRATIC
22 NATIONAL CONVENTION and RULES OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Both are available if needed)
7.3 Administrative Burden: The burden is upon election arbitrators to

24 provide the petitioner with a constitutionally verified ballot. It is probable Ihat a
contest surrounding the definition of natural born citizen would have ensued
25 regardless of who was elected.
26
The.libertie.s ofa people never were or ever will be secure, wilen tile tran.factions o/Iheir rulers may be concealed
Irmn them. Patrick lIellry .
• " .
So how can anyone have faith in the General ballot from 2008? How can one
judge the players on a ballot when neither candidate is unquestionably a natural
2
born citizen?
3
7.5 Ironically: To those that say ... "Yes, but the contestants surely will reveal
4 the flaws of their opponents." This assumption directly conflicts with the a priori
right of voters to have a ballot with constitutionally qualified participants. Still, in
5 this case, both contestants had self interest in avoiding the issue! The natural
6 enemy assertion completely lacks veracity!
7 7.6 Exigent Circumstances: Our Republic is in grave danger and this is a

constitutional crisis and EMERGENCY, with exigent circumstances!
8
8.0 M olive: Mr. Obarna has significant motive and much to gain in
9 withholding his birth infornmtion, strategically as a slight ofhand to prevent the
10 substantive question of his eligibility from being addressed: What is a natural
born citizen? "
II
8.1 (MANIPULATION CRIME) Mr. Obama used his knowledge of the
12 election systems to frustrate the public's right to know.
13
9.00 The Tea Party Express: The petitioner, citizen journalist blogger
14 Chalice Jackson, Founder of Patriot's Heart Network, traveled for 7 days with the
Tea Party Express. The petitioner spoke to significant crowds at two to three
15 stops a day. On stage she asked the crowd. "how many of you know that there is
a question about Mr. Obama's birth certificate?" The crowd would jeer loudly.
16 To the follow up query, "how many think we have the right to know if our
President is constitutionally qualified," the crowd would roar louder and for a
17
longer time, expressing the depth of their emotions (ie outrage and anger) over the
18 situation. The public knows! This video of an American at a town hall meeting
very much reflects the sentiment I observed this summer from Houston to
19 Orlando. (see CD)
20 10.0 The Continental Congress, 2009: Perhaps unknown to this Court and
the State's Attorney, from November 11_22 nd• 2009, at Pheasant Run Inn in St.
21
Charles III inois, approximately 150 elected delegates conveneil the third
22 Continental Congress; the last two being from our Founding Father's times, 1774
and 1775.
23
These delegates were elected from state",~de elections to which three delegates
24 were elected from each state (with one or Mo exceptions). The Continental
25 Congress, like the one from 1774 and 1775, were called specifically to address
grievances with the Federal Government. The substance of the Congress was 9
26
Page 47 -EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The libenies ofa people 1U!l'er were or eller will be secure, wilen the tro/lsactiolls o/llleir rulers may he cOllcealed
from them. Patrick Hell,)'
• •
formal Petitions for Redress which had been drafted in years past, and delivered
to the US Congress, at least in 2008 and 2009. These petitions have about 150,000
2 signatures. This group is not aligned with a political party and the formal Petitions
for Redress process has been taking place through multiple Administrations. This
3 petitioner was an embedded journalist during 8 of those II days.
4 It was a fascinating to observe everyday people, passionate about their country,

gather together for eleven days intensely debating the US Constitution, and what
5 they perceive as an out of control Federal government. The motto is 'Restore not
6 Amend the Constitution'. The end result is a series of statements called "The
Articles of Freedom." The Articles of Freedom are in the final stages before
7 publication. They were passed through the votes of the delegates.
8 Really! Just 2 months ago, about 150 passionate elected delegates stayed for 11
days together in a Congress reminiscent of our forefathers. This Congress had
9 meetings running from early morning until late into the night, every night.
10 Incredible!
II The Continental Congress had a special subcommittee called the Eligibility Sub
Committee. The petitioner, as journalist, was invited to observe that committee as
12 it deliberated the issues. This subcommittee was one of the largest, with 20 some
members. They met many nights past midnight investigating and debating the
13
eligibility issue specifically as it related to Mr. Obama, but more importantly as it
14 relates to the Founding Fathers and National Security. The 13th Article of
Freedom was drafted by the Eligibility Subcommittee, and adopted at the
15 Continental Congress 2009 and is attached. (Exhibit 19 13 th Article of Freedom,
CC2009)
16
This information belongs included as part of the public record, as representing the
17 will of a large collection of Americans, who in exercising their First Amendment
18 Rights, duly elected delegates to represent them.
19 IX. Secondary Procedural Questions

20 1.0 The Grand Jury: The petitioners humbly assert that the Grand Jury is the
correct venue for redress in this situation.
21
22 .The Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338,343 (1974), said this: "The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in
Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for
centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial
24 persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against
arbitrary and oppressive government action. In this country the Founders thought
25
the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth
26
PETITION ,IND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
1111!.liberties of" people /leller were or elJer will be secure, wllell/he trallsactions Q/tlleir rulers may be cOllcealed
from them. Patrick Hell1}'
• •
Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by
"a presenlment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Cf. Costello v United States, 350
U.S. 359, 361, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury's historical functions survive to
2
his day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether
3 there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protections
of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzbury v. Hayes, 408
4 U.S. 665, 686-687 (! 972)."
5 Thus the grand jury has two purposes, says Justice Powell: deciding whether a
6 crime has been committed and protecting the citizen from the government.
7 It gets better! In United States v William, 504 U.S. 36 at 47 (1992), Justice

Antonin Scalia, delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court:
8
"[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, " Hannah v Larche, 363
9 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurther, J., concurring in results), the grand jury is
10 mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not
been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first
II three Articles. It "'is a constitutional fixture in its own right. '" United States c.
Chanen, 549 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.. App. D.
12 c58, 70, n. 54, 487 f.2d 700, 712, n.54(1973)), cert denied, 434 U.S> 835 (1977)
13
Scalia also says the grand jury "is an institution separate from the courts, over
14 whose functioning the courts do not preside." In the same place, Scalia says this
" ... In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the
15 institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the
Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218
16 (1960): Hale v. Henkel, 210 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-
32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates in the courthouse and
17
under the judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch
18 has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in
the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive
19 one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office.
See United States v. Calendra, 414 U.S. 338,343 (1974); Fed.Rule
20 Crim.Proc.6(a). [504 U.S.36,481"
21
Notice! According to the Supreme Court, the role of the judge is to assemble the
22 grand jurors and swear them in. That's all! The court does not directly preside
over it. The Grand Jury works "as a kind of buffer between the government and
the people." The Grand Jury protects We The People in its role to oversee the
government. It does this by investigating the government, by rooting out
24 government corruption.
25
26
Page 49 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OJ( A
The liberties {if (l people never were or ever will be secure, w/Jell the Iron,me/iolls oftlreir ruters mm' be concealed
from them. PllIrick lIellry .
• •
1.1 Dual Roles: Besides all of the above, the petitioner argues that the
Common Law Act (5ILCS SOlI) (from ch.l, par.801) empowers the usage of the
grand jury as an investigative role in this instance.
2
3 While it is true, the ministerial relationship between the Grand Jury in bringing
forth 'true bills' at the request of the State's Attorney is duly empowered and is
4 the most common usage of the McHenry County Grand Jury. The petitioner
argues Common Law usage of the Grand Jury as an investigative body over
5 government, barring statues mandating otherwise and through the Common Law
6 Act, isjustified.
7 This is why the grand jury is the correct remedy for the petitioners. Exhibits about
historical Illinois Grand Jury are included in the 'evidence' section.
8
1.2 Sitting Grand Jury: Here come the petitioners, specifically petitioning
9 the 'sitting Grand Jury', assuming that no one but they knew what date the
10 original petition would be filed, thus bel ieving that the sitting grand jury could not
be accused, from any perspective, to be corrupted. This truly is a matter that came
II to them in the course of their roles.
12 1.3 Special Grand Jury: While the preferred remedy is to meet with the
sitting grand jury, the petitioners understand the scope of this investigation may
13
require a Special Grand Jury.
14
1.4 Statewide Grand Jury Act: The petitioners believe that the Statewide
15 Grand Jury Act, as currently written, is not authorized in this matter. (725 ILCS
215/1)
16
1.5 Prays to Provide Testimony: The petitioner has knowledge of the causes
17
and perpetrators creating her loss, and she is competent to provide testimony and
18 wishes to do so.
19 This petitioner along with various members of Patriot's Heart Network can testify
to fraud in relation to the 2008 primary and general elections, especially as relates
20 to the sitting President and reaching into the highest levels of the Democratic
21 party.
22 This petitioner and various members of Patriot's Heart Network, especially those
who reside in McHenry County, can testify to the vulnerabilities in the election
23 system that endangers the veracity of their vote in the current election which has
just begun.
24
25 1.6 Compelling Interest: The petitioner humbly asserts the standard she must
show is that she is a reliable witness, with personal knowledge to a crime that
26
Puge so - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENR Y COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASlDE AND MOTtON FOR' EXCEPTtON:
Tile lihertie.f ofa people /lever were or ever will he .recure, wiJellllle transactions o/tiJeir rulers may be eoucea/ed
from IlIem. Patrie'" Hell'),
• •
occurred in election matters in McHenry County, where she resides and where the
crime against her occurred.
2
The purpose of the Grand Jury is to investigate and to ask the questions that reach
3 deeper.
4 1.6 Proper Request: This petition is not a frivolous, angry, or malicious

attempt to use the sitting grand jury as a tool of one neighbor in pursuit of
5 another. The petitioner asserts this is a serious petition relating to We The People
6 and the government in place to administer our Republic, especially as relates to
fraud in the elections.
7
1.8 Massive Voter Fraud: An unconstitutional ballot is fraud. Delivered to
8 the populace, it bright lines to become massive fraud.
9
2.0 Criminal Investigation: This petitioner seeks to testify before the Sitting
10 Grand Jury, and is agreeable to modify the remedy with consultation of the Court
and the State's Attorney. The petitioner seeks to work cooperatively with the
II State's Attorney and the Court.
12 3.0 Standing not required: When there is a criminal investigation, there is no

standing. If someone can testify based on personal knowledge that a crime has
13
occurred, standing is not required.
14
Criminal Law: There is no standing in criminal law. All are welcome to testify
15 who are competent, it is the We The People to the State for action.
16 This motion represents the petitioner'S effort to persuade the Court of the valid
issues and to demonstrate the events that led to her being aggrieved with
17
unconstitutional and fraudulent ballots. .
18
4.0 Compelling Interest: The petitioner is personally grieved from her
19 fraudulent ballots, and has been personally harmed, and wishes to testimony to the
same. The petitioner prays the court realizes just how much she had to sacrifice
20 in order to come before the Court, the States Attorney and the Sitting Grand Jury,
and seeks to testify to this, personally.
21
22 Personal harassment and intimidation
Loss of income
23 Restrictions on freedom of speech
Loss of business resources
24 Loss of faith in my government
25 Related family hardships
Loss of reputation
26
Page 51-EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The liberties ofa people never were or i!l'er will be secure, when the transaclion.'i oftheir rulers maJ' he concellied
from t/rem. Patrick Helll'J'
• •
There is no other place for redress for this issue.
2
4.1 The Monolith: This petitioner prays for protection afforded witnesses
3 before the Grand Jury, especially as relates to election matters.
4 Here is the petitioner, severally handicapped by circumstances of her life, up

against a monolithic govemment, seeking simply to present to the Judge, to the
5 State's Attorney, and to the Grand Jury, her evidence such that according to the
6 true emergency that this is, a remedy can be found.
7 5.0 The McHenry County Court: The court has a well established
philosophy to allow resources of the court to be available to pro se litigants and in
8 general to the citizens of McHenry County. Ample evidence of this is seen:
9 In the outstanding law library that is staffed with fantastic professionals, and
10 their priority placed on accessibility, even to allow unfettered access to
WestLaw. (Ihankyou McHenry County!)
II
The KISS principle (keep it simple stupid), is a program designed to
12 l1!ainstream information to help pro se litigants work within a very
complicated court system. The petitioner tried to KISS this document. .. ©
13
14 A County Clerk's office which is responsive to residents, and through timely

and clear assistance, guides them through a complicated election system.
15
A State's Attorney's office which is responsive to McHenry County residents
16 especially as relates to civil and criminal matters that fall within the county.
17
A Circuit Court of Judges, philosophically, who nurture pro se litigant's rights
18 while still protecting the integrity of the legal process!
19 So is this: This petitioner is a citizen at home, calling for justice and relieffrom a
corrupt and fraudulent election process that unequally administers elections, and
20 seeking remedy for the grievous theft of her vote. Likewise, for the various
21
members of Patriot'S Heart Network, all seeking to ascertain how the fraud
happened and who seek answers to the most basic question: Is this a
22 constitutional government or not?
23 6.0 Motives: Using quirks in the election system and in privacy protections to
keep from the public the very information the offender is (more-or-Iess) sworn to
24 have, is probable canse to raise questions about motives and fraud.
25
26
I'ngc 52 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JUR Y. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIOE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
rhe liberties II! (I people m!~er were or e~ler will be seCUre. wile" tI,e trallsaCliollS o!tlteir rulers nJay be cOllcealed
from them. PlI1rick Hellry
• •
7.0 Probable Cause: Petitioner believes she has laid out sufficient prima
fascia evidence that probable cause questions demand investigation about Mr.
2 Obama's eligibility; such that an investigation should immediately begin to
ascertain facts of the matter and appropriate criminal indictments to follow.
3
8.0 Suggested Documents to Request: This is a summary of information the
4 petitioners feel needs to be ascertained by the Grand Jury
5
• Long form Birth Certificate
6 • Place of birth, including birth particulars such as: hospital, doctor,
witness
7 • Passport information: Did Mr. Obama travel in the age of majority on
a foreign passport?
8
9 A. To testify to provide evidence that no Official in the State of Illinois
verified Obama's Eligibility status.
10
B. To provide evidence that the Democratic Party did not certify
JI constitutional eligibility in lllinois.
12 C. To provide evidence that Mr. Obama, was fully knowledgeable of election
13 law in Illinois.
Exhibit relating to election contest State Senate
14 Exhibit relating to election in US Senate
15 D. Probable Cause: Fully aware of the question regarding his credentials,

and clearly contrary to the obligation he assumed when he signed the
16
Statement of Candidacy, Mr. Obama purposefully conceals documents
17 establishing constitutional eligibility. Through the extensive resources of
the executive and judicial branch, Mr. Obama intentionally fails to
18 respond to the citizens' demands to prove citizenship.
19 E. Ascertain Mr. Obama's definition of "Legally Qualified" to hold such

office.
20
21 F. To the petitioner's knowledge, the only known eye witness and oral
testimony relating to Obama's actual birth event is from his Kenyan
22 Grandmother. In an audio interview, Grandma Sarah Obama, Obama's
paternal grandmother who resides in Kenya, spoke overseas in a phone
23 interview about Obama's birth. In a widely reported, Multi.language and
24 confusing exchange, she apparently spoke about being present when Mr.
Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Within the same conversation, this
25 statement was then corrected by other family members in attendance.
26
I'age 53 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
I'I;TrnON AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
The lihenies ofa people ne,'eT were or ever will he secure, when tile Iransac#ons offheir rulers ml~JI be concealed
from them. P"tric:k Henry
• •
Mombasa is widely suspected as being the place of birth for Mr. Obama.
2 Admittedly, this interview is far from conclusive; however it creates doubt
and raises questions which could be easily answered. (Please see Evidence
3 file)
4 G. To view Mr, Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate and/or the document
mentioned in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he writes:
5
"I discoven::d this article, lblded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when
6 I was in high school,"
7 The questions this passage brings up are as follows:

8 The time period referenced in this passage is the mid 70's. The birth
9 certificate he finds is not the one issued from Hawaii, as computerized
COLB's were not issued back in the mid 70's. Where is this birth
10 certificate?
II Therefore, the two different versions posted on the Fight the Smears and
FactCheck web-sites are not the one described here. This passage clearly
12 suggests that Mr. Obama has a long form birth certificate.
13
H. We do not know the specifics ofObama's birth to ascertain by which
14 method he obtained his Hawaiian birth certificate.
15 IN 1961, there are 5 ways that a COLB (Certificate of Live Birth) can be
obtained in Hawaii. Not all of them require birth in Hawaii. The attached
16 exhibit was written by Stephen Pidgeon, constitutional lawyer from
17 Washington State. It was entered as part of Patriot's Heart Network's
pleading before the US District Court, Chief Judge Lamberth. Judge
18 Lamberth did not rule on the merits, finding the plaintiffs lacked
jurisdiction in the Federal Court. The infonnation is included here for its
19 value as reliable statement to the various ways birth certificates can be
obtained in Hawaii during the period in question. (See EXHIBIT 20· Pidgeon)
20
21
Kenyan Newspaper archived from 2004, openly declares Mr, Obama as
Kenyan born. (EXHIBIT21
22 http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/he
adlines/news26060403.htm )
23
I. There is question to whether Obama, of majority age, used status as
24 'foreign student" to attend and receive financial aid for his college cost,
raising question of dual citizenship and thus allegiances. Information
25
26
Tire liberties ofa people never were or eve,. will be secure, whelf the transactions o/llteir rulers ltUIy be cOllcealed
from thenL Palrick Henry .
• •
about Mr. Obama's college records may be required. Did Mr. Obama
attend college as a foreign student with a claim to foreign citizenship?
2
J. Did Obama legally file and sign the Federal Registration for the Draft as
3 required to hold Federal positions Proof of Selective Service Registration
(It is widely discussed that Mr. Obama did not register during the
4 eligibility period) (Please see the evidence file)
5 During his 7 September 2008 interview with George Stephanopoulos
on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said the
following:
6
"I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high
7 schoo~.And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose
parents I.;ere in the military. There are a lot of Army, military
8 bases there.
"And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling

9 and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated
in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in
10 an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an
option that I ever decided to pursue. 1/
1I
Obama did graduate from high school in Hawaii in 1979, but he
could not have registered for Selective Service then. Nobody
12 could. In 1975, President Gerald Ford terminated the Military
Selective Service Act. It was not reinstated until July 1980. That
13 is one year after Obama graduated from high school. In July 1980,
Obama was no longer living in Hawaii. He was living in Los
14 Angeles.
http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?/topic/920l-barack-obarna-
lies-about-registering-for selective-service/
15
Mr. Obama was in college on September 4, 1980 when he supposedly
16
registered for the draft in Hawaii, he was in college in Los Angeles.
(Exhibit in Evidence Files)
17
18 K. There have been two testimonies regarding which hospital Mr. Obama
was born in. The hospitals cannot release the information without Mr.
19 Obama's consent. He will not provide consent. There is no official tale,
either in public record or antidotal tale, describing the particulars of
20 Obama's birth such as attending physician, or ~~tnesses to the birth.
(Exhibit in Evidence Files)
21
L. Proof of Barack Obama's official name change from Barry Soetoro.
22
Barack Obama was adopted by his step-father. There are questions as to
23 whether or not Mr. Obama is concealing citizenship information related to
his identity as Barry Soetoro. (Exhibit 22 Dbama Where Have all his Records
24 Gone? WND Article)
25 M. Kenyan officials openly claim Kenyan Birth (Exhibit on CD in Evidence Files)

26
('uge 55 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE TIlE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
(,ETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTtON: .
The.liherties ofa people /lever were or ever will be secure, when fhe trallsactions o/their rulers may be concealed
fmm them. Patrick Henry
• •
N. To receive answers at what level other politicians knew of this Fraud
2
Exhibit 14: Hawaiian Certification form
Exhibit 13: Illinois Certification Form
3 Exhibit 17: Republican Certification Form
4
O. To provide evidence regarding the procedural processes of elections in
5 Illinois, such that they may, as guided by their knowledge, make
"Presentation" to the appropriate government officials and agencies, to
6 potential vulnerabilities and remedies in the current election code.
7
8.1 Evidence Packet: The petitioner has a packet of additional evidence to
8 present to the State's Attorney, and the Judge, but they are not itemized in the
pleadings here. The petitioner has been actively working with the State's Attorney
9 regarding this matter and will continue to do so.
10
9.0 Public Policy Declaration: This petitioner believes this section
11
specifically empowers and holds the petitioner civically accountable to seek
12 redress when she feels the Constitution is at risk, especially as the McHenry
County Grand Jury appears as the only redress to her grievances with the
13 government.
14 (735 ILCS 110/5)

Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of
the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be
15 the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional
rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate
16 freely in the process of government must be encouraged and
safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions,
17 claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are
vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government. the
making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of
18 representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of
this State must provide the utmost protection for the free exercise
19 of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government
participation.
20
10.0 Grand Jury Presentments: Separate from the function the Grand Jury
21 has with the State's Attorney, the Grand Jury can conduct investigations and
make presentments. The petitioner prays the Honorable Judge will concur that
22
the second statute empowers the Circuit Court Judge to act accordingly.
23
705 ILCS 305/18) (from Ch. 78, par. 18)
..."You, as foreman of this inquest, do solemnly swear (or affirm,
24 as the case may be), that you will diligently inquire into and true
presentment make of all such matters and things as shall be given you
25 in charge, or shall otherwise come to your knowledge, touching the
present service; you shall present no person through malice, hatred
26
Page 56 - BMERGENCY MOTION TO APPBAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The liberties ofa people "ever were or ever will he secure, when 'he transacliOll$ oftlle;r rlilers may he cOllceaied
/mm 'hem. PllIrick Henry
• •
or ill-will; nor shall you leave any unpresented through fear, favor
or affection, or for any fee or reward, or for any hope or promise
thereof; but in all of your presentments, yo.u shall present the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the
2 best of your skill and understanding; so help you God."
And the following oath or affirmation shall be administered to
3 the other jurors, to-wit:
"The same oath that A :S, your foreman, has just taken before you,
4 on his part you and each of you shall well and truly keep and observe
on your respective parts: so help you God."
(Source: R.S. 1874, p. 630.)
5
6 (705 ILCS 305/19) (from Ch. 78, par. 19)
Sec. 19. No grand jury shall make presentments of their own
7 knowledge, upon the information of a less number than 2 of their
own body, unless the juror giving the information is previously
sworn as a witness, in which event, if the evidence is deemed
8 sufficient, an indictment may be found thereon in like manner as
upon the evidence of any other witness who may not be a member of
9 the jury. The judge of ,the circuit court may order a special
venire to be issued for a grand jury at any time when he is of
10 the opinion that public justice requires it. The order for such
venire shall be entered on the records of the court by the clerk
thereof; and the clerk shall forthwith issue such venire under
II his signature and the seal of the court, and deliver the same co
the sheriff, who shall execute the same by summoning, in the same
12 manner now provided or that may hereafter be provided by law for
summoning jurors, 16 persons, qualified by law, to constitute a
13 grand jury. Such venire shall state the day on which such persons
shall appear before the court.
(Source: P.A. 85-690. J
14 http://''''w\v.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActlD= 1860&ChapAct=705 %
15 26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B305%2F&ChapterID=50&ChapterName=C
OURTS&ActName=Jury+Act.
16
17 10.1 Investigator: In seeking to testify before the McHenry County Grand Jury,
the petitioner does not seek the role of "Prosecutor". The petitioner readily
18 concedes to the Honorable State's Attorney, there is no cause that she is aware of
19 that would prevent the State's Attorney from his elected role as Prosecutor. The
petitioner concedes it was not her intent to hold that role or to separate the State's
20 Attorney from holding it. Further, the statues require a lawyer's license to be
labeled as "Prosecutor" The petitioner has no legal training and is unqualified for
21 the role of Prosecutor.
22
The petitioner believes this passage refers to a separate role rightly titled
23 "Investigator". As the court can rightfully define the duties of "Investigator" this
petitioner seeks solely to bring forth infonnation to the Grand Jury, including
24 making recommendations to areas for investigation. The petitioner does not seek
a role of "Investigator" as "Law Enforcer" and therefore does not need credentials
25 as a Law Enforcement professional. She simply seeks to be appointed
26
I'ETJTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Ti,e liberties {Jf 11 people never were or ever will be secure, when the transactions Of their rulers may be cOlJcealed
from them. Putrid HelllY
• •
"Investigator" as an expert in the matter, available to offer that expertise to the
Grand Jury and the Prosecutor as they investigate the matter at hand.
2
In addition, the petitioner seeks to testify about her experience in this matter.
3 (725 ILCS 5/112-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 112-5)
Sec. 112-5. Duties of others. (b) The court may appoint an
4 investigator or investigators on petition showing good cause for same
and signed by the foreman and 8 other grand jurors. The duties and
5 tenure of appointment of such investigator or investigators shall be
determined by the court.
(Source: P.A. 85-690.)
6
7 10.2 Empowerments of the Grand Jury
8 • 389 (5}{6) Grand Jury investigations must be given the broadest

scope possible, consistent with constitutional limitations.
9 (People v. dorr (1970), 47 Il1.2d 458,462,25,N.E.2d 601.)
• It is the publics' interest to maintain the breadth of the

10 grand jury's power so that it may ferret out criminal
activities. (people v. Florendo (1983), 95 III 2d 155, 158, 69
II ill.Dec.65,447 N.E.2d 282.)
12 • Some showing of individualized suspicion as well as relevance

must be made by grand jury before physical evidence of
noninvasive nature is demanded of a witness; such
13 individualized suspicion may be accomplished through affidavit
by state's attorney (S.H.A. Const.Art.l&6)
14
15 X. Emergency Petition and Exigent Circumstances:
16 1.0 National Security: Our national security is at risk if we have an

unconstitutional Executive Branch. There can be no greater emergency. We The
17 People deserve an immediate answer to this question of eligibility.
18
Question erodes the authority of the Executive Office and our Republic.
19
1.1 The head of our beloved Constitutional Republic is unverified as
20 constitutionally required: Public word of this valid pleading will make the news
and when it does, our nation is endangered in so many ways.
21
1.2 Priority: Election Contests are duly regarded as priority in the Courts and
22 thusly the petitioner prays the Court will give this the highest priority before the
court. The petitioner prays the court will recognize this petition has Illinois
23
security at its core and thus is of exigent circumstances.
24
2.0 2009 Current Election and Administrative Wisdoms: In regards to
25 ongoing elections, Katherine Schultz briefly referenced an election contest she
26
Tile liberties ofa people never were or ever will be secure, wizen tIJe transactions Oftheir rulers ma)' be cOJJcealed
[rom tlzem. Patrick Henry
• •
had recently addressed. Mrs. Schultz's view, administratively, is that when ballot
placement questions come up, while still under objection, it is wiser to place the
2 candidate on the ballot for later legal challenges, then to keep the candidate off.
3 The petitioner would agree, administratively that is a valid thinking process;

however in protecting the rights of the voters, it falls short because the barrier of
4 contesting an election is extreme.
5 2.1 Current Election: In relation to the election that has just begun, the
6 petitioner argues she, and thus all voters in the contest, have a right to know that
each person on the ballot is constitutionally eligible. The petitioner believes that
7 at this late hour, with its investigative and subpoena power, the McHenry County
Grand Jury, can secure election contest by asking each participant to verify
8 citizenship status. It is not the intention of the petitioner to disrupt the election
process, only to secure that the contestants are constitutionally eligible.
9
10 The petitioners believe that the election underway right now has contestants
placed on the ballot through the same deficient form, and thus argues all of the
II contestants should be constitutionally verified. Contestants should be required to
verify constitutional eligibility immediately, or ASAP.
12
10.0 2009: 4 Illinois Supreme Court Justices are up for re-election. This
13
naturally complicates the remedies to this matter.
14
During any recount or hearing presided over by d Circuit Judge,
pursuant to this Section the Supreme Court 5.1a11 retain jurisdiction
15 over the contest, and may issue procedural orders or interim rulings
regarding the recount Or hearing, either upon motion of a party or
16 upon its own motion.
(Source: P.A. 86873.) (10 ILCS 5/23 1.8a) (from Ch. 46, par. 23
17 1.8a)
18 The petitioners believe that this issue will be complicated. It involves state and
federal constitutional issues of a past and current election; the current election
19 having 4 of the 7 Justices up for re-election.
20 (10 ILCS 5/23-1.8a) (from Ch. 46, par. 23-1.8a)

Sec. 23-1.8a. Election contest - Statewide - Procedures
21 for recount and initial hearing. In all cases for which the
Supreme Court finds it appropriate that there be conducted a
22 recount or partial recount of ballots cast in any election
jurisdiction, or a hearing regarding the conduct of the
23 election within any election jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
shall, in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Judicial
24 Circuit in which each such election jurisdiction is located,
aSSign a Circuit Judge of that Judicial circuit to preside
25 over the recount or hearing. If more than one election
jurisdiction within a single Judicial circuit is subject to
26
Page 59 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCi-IENRY COUNTY GRAND JUR Y. OR A
Tile Iiht!rties ofa petlple never were or #!l'tr will be seCllre, when tlte transactions of/heir rulers may be concealed
/ralll them. Patrick lIenry
• •
recount or hearing, the Supreme Court may assign a different
Circuit Judge to preside over the recount or hearing for each
such election jurisdiction.
2
3 (10 ILCS 5/23 1.130) (from Ch. 46, par. 231.130)

Sec. 23 1.13a. If any of the powers or duties to be exercised or
4 performed by the Supreme Court under Sections 23 l.la through 23
1.12a may not constitutionally be exercised or performed by the
Supreme Court by reason of jurisdictional limitations, then Sections
5 23 1.1a through 23 1.12a shall nonetheless continue to govern
contests of elections for elected officers provided for in Article V
6 of the Constitution, and in such event the Supreme Court shall,
pursuant to its general administrative and supervisory powers, assign
7 to a circuit court those adjudicatory powers and duties with respect
to such a contest as may not be exercised or performed by the Supreme
Court, subject to appropriate judicial review.
8 (Source: P.A. 89 5, eff. 1 1 96.)
9
The petitioners understand this to be an 'exigent circumstance" with remedy in
10 the judicial system. Humbly, the petitioners assert this case must begin where it is
and that it is before the correct court, and that the Supreme Court, once aware of
II this complaint, and as needed, will authorize the 22n bench the full authority to
act.
12
I'
"'x . Secrecy of Grand Jury Witnesses:
14 Secrecy of witnesses before a Grand Jury is a long standing tradition in McHenry
County at the state and federal level.
15
1.0 Confidentiality Request: The petitioner seeks similar confidentiality
16 protections while she is working with this process. The petitioner asks for the
17 Court to allow her to be known only as Chalice Jackson, Founder of Patriot's
Heart Network. Additionally, she seeks for the court to conceal certain aspects of
18 her petition which are personal to her, and as otherwise deemed necessary by the
court.
19
1.1 State Board of Election Procedure: Daniel Webb's website supports the
20 petitioner in her request for confidentiality. In speaking about reporting election
21 irregularities, it says:
22 "So that the public is encouraged to report irregularities, the names of the complainants shall be kept
con fiden ti aI." http://www.electiolls.S1ate.il.uslAboli ttheBoard/1 nvesti gat jonsD jv.aspx
23
That any court action will bring political repercussion is undisputed. It already
24 has. Pressure from all sides will come to bear, as a spotlight focuses on the issue
and those that bring the issue forth.
25
26
Page 60 - EMERGENCY MOTlON TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION ANI) MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tile libertie.~ ofa peoplf! lIever were or eWf will be secure, whelJ the Iram.acliOils o/their rulers may be cOllceuled
from IheltL Patrick Hem),
• •
1.2 Not Political: A powerful portion of this spotlight will not be from those
who proffer the petitioners same viewpoint. None-the-Iess, petitioner swears
2 before almighty God and Christ her savior, despite the political realities and her
strong political beliefs, this is a constitutional question, not a political question.
3
1.3 Truly Never: The public exposure that comes from trying to bring forth
4 an election contest is incredible. It is nearly an impermissible barrier as one
considers the implications on family, career, finances, and personal life. Frankly,
5 the petitioner would never have endured the hardships she experienced to pursue
6 this election fraud, ifit were not such an incredible national EMERGENCY to not
know if the President of the United States of America is constitutionally eligible.
7
2.0 Personal Circumstances: Petitioner has experienced personal and
8 professional harm by the publication of her name in the NW Herald. Articles
with her internet name and her natural name appeared 3 times.
9
10 2.1 Head Hunting: Petitioner is an Executive Search Professional by trade.

Currently unemployed and seeking employment, the posting of her natural name
11 in the public realm impacts petitioner as employers in her field routinely perform
internet searches on candidates before inviting them to an interview. Generally,
12 public controversy and the employment field are not happy companions, thus
overall, it has the immediate impact of restricting or prejudicing the petitioner's
13
options as she seeks employment to support herself and her children.
14
2.2 One Impact: To conceal the connection between the petitioner's personal
15 volunteer activities as a citizen journalist, her professional life, and her desire to
provide highly controversial testimony to the Grand Jury, she had to conceal her
16. "Linked In" profile immediately following the December 71h date.
17
Linkedln.com, in the recruiting industry, is first stop for checking on applicants
18 for ajob, It is used to network and research for professional purposes. It is an
essential tool to the petitioner's business as a recruiter.
19
The petitioner has significant investment in her professional online profile now
20 sitting unavailable to her. With over a million connections (I" tb 3,d degree), she
suffers from loss when her profile is not available. Were it not for Mr, Obama's
21
deceptions, the petitioner would not suffer this loss.
22
3.0 Malicious Mischief: The petitioner is concerned for her safety and
23 privacy. There are some who purposefully seek to cause her harm and to disrupt
her while she seeks remedy to her grievance.
24
25 3.1 Political Hacks: Petitioner learned from a Patriot's Heart volunteer, right
after her name was published in the NW Herald, that her private information was
26
Page 61 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY, OR A
11Jt! liberties ufa pe(~ple "el-'eT were or e~'l!r will be secure, when tile transactions o/t/leir ru/ers may be concealed
from them. PlIf,iI.:k Henr),
• •
sent out to a large community specifically dedicated to following, and in many
cases creating mischief, to "Birthers," as they call their targets. This group was
2 purposefully posting information in their community about her professional
Linked!n profile and personal Facebook profile in-order to call attention to her
3 background for their further uses, and to "reveal to all" who Chalice Jackson is,
and as a natural act for them as they pursue their mischief making at the expense
4 of 'birfers'. (Under Politijab exhibits)
5
3.2 Politijab.com: Politijab is an organization, less than a year old, which has
6 an Internet forum as its public base of communication. This forum has a public
section and one for members only. The members' only section is where threads
7 to the birther posts are accessed. The purpose of this community is primarily to
counter what they label as the "Birther" or "Birfer" community. Since inception,
8 they go out to other internet groups where birther communicate together to wreck
havoc amongst these communities. Arguably, some engage in public debate on
9
issues they are passionate about. Additionally, some purposefully with
10 organization and with bravado seek to dismantle and destroy those they call
Birthers along with their respective communities.
II
Politijab has some 970 some members, with a core group of 100 or so, that post
12 frequently. Incredibly, I am told by community members that the initial leaders of
this community are lawyers with close Democratic Party affiliations. Their
13
community, in less than a year, has posted over 100,000 posts, the vast majority
14 related to flaming those who are dedicated to the constitutional eligibility issue.
Some of the threads have 20,000 or more posts following one 'birther' activist or
15 another.
16 Upon learning they were posting her personal name, as a means of self protection,
17
the petitioner became a member of that community and learned they had over 500
posts about her. 14 days later, that number was over a 1800. This group, seeing
18 Chalice as a new member, did welcome her; kinda·sorta.
19 Bloodied bait in a pool of sharks: For a 'birfer' in this community of people

dedicated to stopping the birfer movement, (they self confess themselves as
20 obsessed with birfers), her presence is akin to being bloodied bait in a pool of
21 sharks. With blood in the water, they slash a'nd flail for food, attacking and
critiquing her every word; degrading her answers, her views, and her religious
22 faith. Thus, while a member, the petitioner considers she is mere food for their
fodder and is primarily there to protect herself and her business interests.
23
Accordingly, to protect Patriot's Heart Network and for her personal name, it was
24
a defensive move that compelled her join the community.
25
26
Pusc 62 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PETITION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION POR EXCEPTION: .
The liberties (if« people "ever were Of ever will be .w!cure, when lfle tr(lIlsactions o/Ilreir rulers may be C(}JlceaJed
from 'hem. Patriel.: Henry
• •
Decisions on how to handle such a group are not as simple as the petitioner would
prefer! The petitioner is not naiVe about freedom of speech issues, nor abhorrent
2 to public discourse about eligibility topics. Indeed, she welcomes it. However in
this case, there are a few individuals who purposefully seek to disrupt as part of
,
J their conspiracy together. One such individual does so with particular menacing
mirth. (Le. OreatOrey, see the evidence file for reference). The petitioner discusses this
4 here to illustrate the harm caused to her from publicity related to her testimony.
5 The petitioner believes she should be free to get her questions answered without
6 political hacks shifting the issue from her questions to harnling her, personally
and professionally.
7
This community creates mischief against those involved in the "Birfer
8 community." Ample evidence can be seen, should anyone wish to investigate.
9
Evidence: I present a copy of a forum thread referring to how Politijab members
10 purposefully exhorted their own praises for helping to destroy Phil Berg's online
community, while exhorting members to preferred 'next steps'. Phil Berg is a
11 lawyer targeting the eligibility issue. There are about 10,000 posts related to him.
Justin is one of two founders of Politijab. (Located in the evidence file)
12
Exhibit: A copy of a post from Foggy, the second founder; referring to a lawyer I
13
have worked with, Stephen Pidgeon. Mr. Pidgeon, a lawyer who represented
14 Patriot's Heart Network, is a highly regarded constitutional lawyer from
Washington State. Mr. Pidgeon posted a letter to Glenn Beck asking him to bring
15 forth the facts about the eligibility issue. (Under Politijab in evidence file) Foggy
apparently was not impressed. This type of hateful speech from the leader of the
16 community indicates the level of decorum in this forum.
17
3,3 These and Others: Naturally, this petitioner has concerns about this
18 group and about others unknown to her that will be upset with decisions related to
her testimony and thus seek to cause her harm.
19
3.4 Chat'arrassment: Immediately following the story in the NW Herald,
20 Politijab members conspire together to purposefully appear in Patriot's Heart
21 Network public chat rooms to create mischief, and further complicate the
petitioner's ability to conduct her own life, regardless to her desire to testilY
22 before the Grand Jury about election fraud.
By way of brief explanation, Patriot's Heart Network, a volunteer organization

produces about 11,2 hour shows a week. Patriot's Heart has several websites and
24 two chat rooms. Patriot's Heart Network mission is dedicated to restoring the US
25 Constitution.
26
Puge 63 -I,MERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
The liberties ofa people "ever wert! or e~'er will he !iI!CUre. when tlte transactiolls o/their rulers maJ' be cOJlcealed
frmn them. PlIIric/.; IlImr)'
• •
Social Networking Site: www.PHNMmedia.net
2 Main Site: Ivww.PHNMedia.com
Radio: wv-.w.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsheart
3
3.5 Stranger Danger: Immediately following her appearance in court and
4 proceeding for at least 2 weeks afterwards, the petitioner noticed highly unusual
behavior around her private residence.
5
Cars were driving up and down the petitioner's quiet semi-rural home address,
repeatedly turning around in front of her house and driving back and forth again
7 and again.
8 The petitioner has resided on a comer lot for over 12 years and has never
witnessed similar behavior around her home before.
9
10 3.6 The Barrington Hills Police: In mid December, 2009, just following her
appearance before the Court presenting the original petition, the petitioner
II contacted the Barrington Hills Police, speaking to Detective Ruffin, to alert them
to concerns about her safety and the unusual behavior witnessed around her home
12 since public information about her petition was released.
13
Not wishing to be a drain on village resources, petitioner sought guidance from
14 the Barrington Hills Police on when to call about suspicious activity around her
home.
15
During this meeting, reported to Det. Ruffin, was a conversation in a Patriot's
16 Heart Network chat room where the petitioner is the Host of "The Chalice Show".
Immediately following the posting of the petitioner's natural name on line, a few
17
chat visitors posted her natural name, the town she lives in, and made direct
18 reference they were looking up her private residence to locate her whereabouts,
publically discussing street addresses, etc
19
These were not friendly or known chatters, but ones wishing to create a feeling of
20 vulnerability for petitioner. The petitioner has since identified these chatters as
21 coming from the Politijab community. (Exhibits in the evidence file)
22 There were three chatters posting about this together, suggesting organization at
some level to disrupt petitioner's enjoyment of Patriot's Heart Network.
23
It is well known in the Patriot's Heart chat room that the petitioner is very private
24 of her home life, and this is demonstrated by posted and by public knowledge that
25 Chalice Jackson is an Internet Blogger Identity and not her natural name.
26
Puge 64 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEfORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile liberties Of (1 people IIt!l'er Weft! or ever will be secure, when tile trallsflctions (yllud, ",Iers may be c(lnceale{/
from them. Patrick /fellry
• •
Prior to the filing on December 7'h, 2008, there was no public record of the
connection between Sharon Meroni and the internet identity of Chalice Jackson.
(Evidence file, introduce Chalice)
2
3 Prior to this particular chat, no one had ever used her natural name in chat.
4 Standard decorum, protecting privacy, and fully accepted as norm in the Internet
Blogging world, is that natural names can be replaced with a 'screen name' or
5 'handle'.
6
Private infonnation about home lives is generally not brought into conversation in
7 public chat rooms. And never before in Patriot's Heart Network chat rooms.
8 The petitioner felt threatened enough after this exchange to infornl the police
during her contact with Detective Ruffin in December.
9
The petitioner sought advice from the police on how to handle this type of
10
situation, where she feels intimidated and threatened especially while going
11 through this process.
12 Besides the information already posted, police awareness was the goal of the
conversation. This was the second time the petitioner has discussed her concerns
13 with the Barrington Hills Police, having met in the late summer with Chief of
14 Police Michael Murphy.
15 3.7 Village President: On the same day as the police, the petitioner contacted
the Barrington Hills Village President, Robert Abboud, to discuss her concerns
16 about her safety, privacy, and related concerns orthe potential impact her petition
may have on her quality of life and on their small semi-rural community,
17 especially while seeking to testifY before the Grand Jury about campaign fraud.
18
3.8 Breaking News: While the petitioner was involved in writing this
19 petition, on 1/04/09 11 :50 A.M., a door knock, brought her from the task at hand.
Reported to the police as described below:
20
"A stranger, his head fully wrapped in a blue ski hat showing no hair,
21 jeans and a jacket stood at the door attempting to come inside my home
22 allegedly to discuss purchase of food products. As he was blocked from
entering, he proceeded to say he wished to sell us meat. "
23
"Being a vegetarian of 30 years, I said, I don't eat meat and was not
24 interested. He proceeded to persist and when again denied, unbelievably,
said I was a liar and that I really do eat meat! To which I shut the door. I
25
contacted the police."
26
Paso 6S - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile Iiherlie.f ola people ne~ler wltre or I!l'er will be secure, when tile trllll.~actio"j" o/tlleir rulers may he cOlleen/eli
from them. Patrick lIelll)'
• •
"Officer Caputo responded. I reported there were two men in the van.
2 Officer Caputo confirmed these two, whoever they are, did not have
permission to door to door solicit in Barrington Hills. They are unknown
3 to the police.
4 This is unusual behavior for a door to door salesmen. I have lived in

Barrington Hills much of my life and rarely do door to door solicitors
5 arrive (maybe once every 3 or 4 years, and mostly only college kids ... We
6 rarely get Girls Scout cookies sales here!), and never have I seen it on a
frigid (0 degree) winter day. Additionally, there is a no trespassing sign at
7 the end of my driveway."
8 Also in the category of never happening before, immediately following

this van's depamlre, and included as part of the report, Petitioner found
9
her mail freshly thrown in the snow bank alongside her driveway, 80 ft
10 from the mailbox.
II Harassment or a happenstance event? "Your Honor, this is unknown.

Regardless, it upset me to the point of tears, disrupting my ability to work
12 on this petition. It also scared me. Ijust don't understand why I must
endure fear, indignities and harassments simply for seeking an answer to
13
this election issue.
14
YOllr Honor, from my heart, this is what makes the current process
15 impermissible!"
16 The name and number on the white van, as reported by the police were
fiilse. [was too scared to go outside in the snow after them to gel the
17
license number. The police reported they searched the area and could not
18 [ocate this vehicle. Officer Caputo said he agreed it was atypical behavior
for this area and consequentially arranged an extra watch on my house."
19 (II :53 am 114/10 case #10-106) "
20 3.9 Twitter Stream: Because of the incidents mentioned in this section
21 related to secrecy and malicious mischief, the petitioner posted the following
series of "Tweets" to her Twitter account. (Evidence File: A Twitter Stream in
22 EXHIBIT) The petitioner had observed fresh attacks against her and was
concerned. Theses specific tweets were an attempt to get certain culprits from
23 Politijab, who this petitioner is told are lawyers, to stop harassing her. The move
was successful. Only a few instances chat 'arrassmenl incidents have come up
24 since that posting was made.
25
26
The liherties ofa people never were or e~'er wi/I be secure, wlllm tile IransaCliolJ.'i ofllle;r rulerS may be cOllcealed
from tllem. Palri<:k Hem,),
• •
Chat'arrassment is the practice of going into a chat room purposefully to cause
distress to the occupants. Since I posted the Tweets, save for 2 or 3 characters,
2 the chat'arrassment has subsided.
3 3.10 Ci\'ic Duty: The petitioner should not be harmed simply for perfomling
what she perceives as her civic duty, as authorized and required in the Illinois
4 Constitution. (Section 23 Bill of Rights) Petitioner feels unduly endangered,
hamled and prejudiced against simply because questions she raises are highly
5 controversial election related questions.
6
Crimes:
7 This petitioner asserts that the investigation needs to focus on Illinois criminal
violations as listed below.
8
Federal crimes are likely involved as well, but this is a county grand jury and the
9 petitioner believes she needs to stay focused on the Illinois Criminal Codes.
10
There are also civil offences which could be brought to the attention of the Grand
11 Jury, once sufficient cause is established.
12 1.0 Tampering with Public Records: There are likely multiple parties
involved, including Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and other individuals who will
13
be revealed in the investigation.
14
(720 ILCS 5/32 81 (from Ch. 38, par. 32 81
Sec. 32 8. Tampering with public records.
15 A person who knowingly and without lawful authority alters,
destroys, defaces, removes or conceals any public record commits a
16 Class 4 felony. (Source: P. A. 77 2638.1
17 2.0 Official Misconduct: Officials at the DNC and in the State Democratic
Party and other officials who tailed to act.
18
(720 ILCS 5/33 31 (from Ch. 38, par. 33 31
19 Sec. 33 3. Official Misconduct. A public officer or employee or
special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official
20 capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he commits any of
the following acts:
21 (a) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any
mandatory duty as required by law; or
(b) Knowingly performs an act which he knows he is
22 forbidden by law to perform; or
(c) With intent to obtain a personal advantage for himself or
23 another, he performs an act in excess of his lawful authority; or
(d) Solicits or knowingly accepts for the performance of any
24 act a fee or reward which he knows is not authorized by law.
A public officer or employee or special government agent convicted of

25 violating any provis10n of this Section forfeits his office or
26
""gc 67 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEI'ORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
HIt! liberties of tr people m!l-'er were or ever will be secure, wilen lire Iransactiolls oftlleir rulers ma~' be ('Ollcea/ed
from Ihem. Patrick Hem)' .
• •
employment or position as a special government agent. In addition, he
commits a Class 3 felony.
For purposes of this Section, "special government agent" has the
meaning ascribed to it in subsection (1) of Section 4A 101 of the
2 Illinois Governmental Ethics Act. (Source: P.A. 94 338, eff. 1 1 06.)
3
3.0 Barratry: In the process of the public deception, Mr. Obama has sent his
4 supporters to mock and belittle those seeking to have him confirm his eligibility.
Two videos are on the attached disk, showing Mr. Gibbs, the White House Press
5 Secretary belittling the question, the questioner and lying about what Mr. Obama
has actually produced. Barratry has promoted the strife and contention between
6 the petitioners and other organizations. (Politijab)
7 (720 ILCS 5/32 11) Sec. 32 11. Barratry. If a person wickedly and
willfully excites and stirs up actions or quarrels between the people
8 of this State with a view to promote strife and contention, he or she
is guilty of the petty offense of common barratry; and if he or she
9 is an attorney at law, he or she shall be suspended from the practice
of his or her profession, for any time not exceeding 6 months.
(Source: P.A. 89234, eff. 1 1 96.)
10
11 3.1 Video Evidence: (Included in the evidence file)

Mr. Glibb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BWkjbO blk Mr. Gibbs
12 mocks the eligibility question
13 http://www.youtube.com!walch?\=m cdHLetml Mr. Gibbs mocks the
14. eligibility question, 2
15 1 t.O Subornation of Perjury: Who participate in the conspiracy to conceal the

information?
16
(720 ILCS 5/32 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 32 3) Sec. 32 3. Subornation
17 of perjury.
(a) A person commits subornation of perjury when he procures or
induces another to make a statement in violation of Section 32 2
18 which the person knows to be false.
(b) Sentence.
19 Subornation of perjury is a Class 4 felony. (Source: P. A. 71
2638. )
20 5.0 Perjury and Falsity: The question of the ONe certification is one that
needs to be resolved. Also, while Mr. Obama has claimed he is transparent, he
21 hides the real facts of his birth while directing us himself and through his
22 supporters to an insufficient document online.
(720 ILCS 5/32 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 32 2) Sec. 322. Perjury.
23 (a) person commits perjury when, under oath or affinnation,. in
A
a proceeding or in any other matter where by law such oath or
24 affirmation is required, he makes a false statement, material to the
issue or point in question, which he does not believe to be true.
(b) Proof of Falsity.
25
26
Page 6g - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR IlEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tlte libert;e.f (if Q people nel'er were or ever will he secure, when Ihe Iransacliolls iJ/thelr rulers rna)' be concealed
front Ihem. Palrick Henry
• •
An indictment or information for perjury alleging that the
offender t under oath, has made contradictory statements l material to
the issue or point in question, in the same or in different
proceedings, where such oath or affirmation is required, need not
2 specify which statement is false. At the trial, the prosecution need
not establish which statement is false.
3 (c) Admission of Falsity.
Where the contradictory statements are made in the same
4 continuous trial, an admission by the offender in that same
continuous trial of the falsity of a contradictory statement shall
bar prosecution therefor under any provisions of this Code.
5 (d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under subsection
(a) of this Section if he is a peace officer who uses a false or
6 fictitious name in the enforcement of the criminal laws, and such use
is approved in writing as provided in Section 10 1 of "The Liquor
7 Control Act of 1934", as amended, Section 5 of "An Act in relation to
the use of an assumed name in the conduct or transaction of business
in this State", approved July 17, 1941, as amended, or Section 2605
8 200 of the Department of State Police Law (20 ILCS 2605/2605 2001.
However, this exemption shall not apply to "testimony in judicial
9 proceedings where the identity of the peace officer is material to
the is suet and he is ordered by the court to disclose his identity.
10 (e) Sentence. Perjury is a Class 3 felony. (Source: P.A. 91239,
eff. 1100.1
II
12 5.1 For false swearing on the Statement of Candidacy: Mr. Obama knows
there is a controversy over his candidacy and knew this before he signed the
13 Statement of Candidacy.
14 (10 ILCS 5/29 101 (from Ch. 46, par. 29 10)

Sec. 29 10. Perjury. (a) Any person who makes a false statement,
material to the issue or point in question, which he does not believe
15 to be true, in any affidavit, certificate or sworn oral declaration
required by any provision of this Code shall be guilty of a Class 3
16 felony.
(b) Any person who is convicted of violating this Section shall
17 be ineligible for public employment for a period of 5 years
immediately following the completion of his sentence. For the purpose
of this subsection, "public employment" shall mean any elected or
18 apPOinted office created by the Constitution or laws of this State,
or any ordinance of a unit of local goverrunent. "Public employment"
19 shall also include any position as an employee of the State of
Illinois, or a unit of local government or school district. (Source:
20 P.A. 83 1097. I
21 6.0 Obstructing Justice: For purposely posting a deficient birth certificate

and refusing to allow for the release of information required to prove his
22 eligibility to be in office. In this instance, 62 cases and counting to hide
something that is only a problem if hidden, unless there is obstruction of justice
23 involved.
24
(720 ILCS 5/31 41 (from Ch. 38, par. 31 41
Sec. 31 4. Obstructing justice.
25
26
Page 69- EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHI;NRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PlmTION AND MOTiON TO SET ASIDE AND MOTiON FOR EXCEPTION:
Thl! liberties ofa pellp/e never wel'e (}r ever wi/I he secure, wlrell the ll'aJlsae/iOltS of /lreir rulers ma)' be cOflcealed
fTilm /lreJlt Patrick Helll'),
• •
A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the
. apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, be
knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(al Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence,
2 plants false evidence, furnishes false information: or
(b) Induces a witness baving knowledge material to the subject at
3 i5SU~ to leave the State or conceal himself; or
(c) possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he
4 leaves the state or conceals himself.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Obstructing justice is a Class 4 felony, except
5 as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection (Source:
P.A. 90363, eff. 1198.)
6
7.0 Offenses Affecting Governmental Functions
7
(720 ILCS 5/Tit. III Pt. E heading)
8 PART E. OFFENSES AFFECTING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
(720 ILCS 5/Art. 30 heading)
9
7.1 Treason and Related Offenses: This petitioner has the sworn affidavit of
10 6 tanner military officers charging Mr. Obama with Treason. (The affidavit are
attached in the Evidence book)
II
ARTICLE 30. TREASON AND RELATED OFFENSES
12 (720 ILCS 5/30 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 30 1)
Sec. 30 1. Treason. (a) A person owing alle9iance to this State
13 commits treason "'hen he or she knowingly:
(1) Levies war against this State; or
(2) Adheres to the enemies of this State, giving them aid or
14 comfort.
(b) No person may be convicted of trea~on except on the testimony
15 of 2 witnesses to the same overt act, or on his confession in open
court.
16 (e) Sentence. Treason is a Class X felony for which an offender
may be sentenced to death under Section 5 5 3 of the Unified Code of
Corrections.
17 (Source: P.A. 80 1099.)
18
8.0 Misprision of Treason: Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and any other
19 otlicials who through obstruction of justice, conspired to keep the public from this
honest debate
20 (720 ILCS 5/30 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 30 2)
Sec. 30 2. Misprision of treason.
Ca) A person owing allegiance to this State commits mispr~s~on of
21 treason when he conceals or withholds his knowledge that another has
committed treason against this State.
22 (b) Sentence.
Misprision of treason is a Class 4 felony. (Source! P. A. 77
23 2638.) (720 ILCS 5/30 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 30 3)
24 9.0 Advocating Overthrow of Government: Purposefully obstructing justice

to conceal required information related to eligibility t~ serve in any office, is an
25 attempt to overthrow the Illinois and US Constitution, and thus the government.
26
Poge 70 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
PET)T(ON AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPT(ON:
The liberties 0111 people never were or ever will be secure, "'hen tlte transactiolls oftheir rulers nwy be ~olJceoleti
fmm '''em. PlIIrick Hellry
• •
This includes the officials at Fact Check and other outlets that purposefully
participated.
2 Sec. 30 3. Advocating overthrow of Government.
A person who advocates, or with knowledge of its contents
3 knowingly publishes, sells or distributes any document which
advocates or with knowledge of its purpose, knowingly becomes a
4 member of any organization which advocates the overthrow or
reformation of the existing form of government of this State by
violence or unlawful means corrunits a Class 3 felony. (Source: P. A.
5 77 2639.)
6
10.0 Failure to Comply with an Election Authority: Through the Court's
7 authority and by request of the Grand Jury, this law provides a basis to compel
officials to comply with the investigation.
8
(10 ILCS 5/29 11) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 11)
9 Sec. 29 11. Failure to comply with order of election authority.
Any person who knowingly fails or refuses to comply with any lawful
order of an election authority issued by the election authority in
10 the performance of the duties of the election authority, shall be
guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (Source: P. A. 78 887.)
11
(10 ILCS 5/29 12) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 12)
12 (Text of Section before amendment by P.A. 96 832)
Sec. 29 12. Disregard of Election Code. Any person who knowingly
(a) does any act prohibited by or declared unlawful by, or (b) fails
13 to do any act required by, this Code, shall, unless a different
punishment is prescribed by this Code, be guilty of a Class A
14 misdemeanor. (Source: P.A. 76887.)
15 (Text of Section after amendment by P.A. 96 832)

Sec. 29 12. Disregard of Election Code. Except with respect to
Article 9 of this Code, any person who knowingly (a) does any act
16 prohibited by or declared unlawful by, or (b) fails to do any act
required by, this Code, shall, unless a different punishment is
17 prescribed by this Code, be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (Source:
P.A. 96 932, eff. 1 1 11.)
18
11.0 Attempt, Solicitation and Conspiracy:
19
(10 ILCS 5/29 13) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 13)
20 Sec. 29 13. Attempt, solicitation and conspiracy. Each violation
of this Code shall be an offense within the meaning of Section 2 12
21 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, as amended, so that the
inchoate offenses of solicitation, conspiracy and attempt, and the
punishment therefor, as provided in such Criminal Code shall apply to
22 solicitation, conspiracy and attempt to violate the provisions of
this Code. (Source: P. A. 78 887.)
23
12.0 Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Liahility: The petitioner
24
passionately positions that Mr. Obama and cohorts purposefully caused for the
25 deprivation of her constitutional rights. The petitioner fervently prays for redress
for this grievous crime agains( her natural rights, privileges, and immunities.
26
PETIT(ON AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION:
Tile liberties of a people never were or ever will be secure, when tile transactions oftlleir rulers may be cO/lcealed
Irmll them. PllIrlck Hellry
J
• •
(10 ILCS 5/29 17) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 17)
Sec. 2917. Deprivation of Constitutional Rights Liability). Any
2 person who subjects, or causes to be subjected, a citizen of the
State of Illinois or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
the deprivation of any right.s, privileges, or immunities secured by
3 the Constitution or laws of the United states or of the State of
Illinois, relating to registration to vote, the conduct of elections,
4 voting, or the nomination or election of candidates for public or
political party office, shall be liable to the party injured or any
5 person affected, in any action or proceeding for redress. (Source:
P.A. 791363.)
6
13.0 Conspiracy to Prevent Vote: For failing to certify Mr. Obama as legally
7 qualified: Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Baraek Obama and others.
8 (10 ILCS 5/29 18) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 18)

Sec. 29 lB. Conspiracy to prevent vote Liability). If 2 or more
persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, threat,
9 deception, forgery or bribery any person from registering to vote, or
preventing any person lawfully entitled to vote from voting, or
10 preventing any person from supporting or opposing, in a legal manner,
the nomination or election of any person for public or political
11 party office, or a proposition voted upon at any election, or to
injure any person or such person's property on account of such vote,
support or advocacy, and if one or more persons so conspiring do,
12 attempt or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of
such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property
13 or deprived of having or exercising any right, privilege or immunity
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State
14 of Illinois relating to the conduct of elections, voting, or the
nomination or election of candidates for public or political pa·rty
office, all persons engaged in such conspiracy shall be liable to the
15 party injured or any person affected, in any action or proceeding for
redress. (Source: P.A. 79 1363.)
16
14.0 False Information Liability:
17
(10 ILCS 5/29 19) (from Ch. 46, par. 29 19)
18 Sec. 2919. False information liability). Whoever knowingly or
willfully gives false information as to his name, address, or period
19 of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing
his eligibility to register to vote, or conspires with another
20 individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to
vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to payor accepts payment
either for registration to vote or for voting shall be liable to the
21 party injured or any other person affected, in an action or
proceeding for redress. (Source: P.A. 79 1363.)
22
?~I Responses to the States Attorney:
-~
I
24 The petitioner fen'ently prayers that she has met the standard for the State's
Attorney and the Court in providing details about her allegations, now found in this
25 earlier sections of this petition. The petitioner apologizes for not including the
26
Page 72 - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JUR Y. OR A
PETIT)ON AND MOTION TO SET ASlDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
The tibertie.v of a people never were or ever will be secure, wizen tile transactions oflheir rulers may be concealed
ffl)m them. Patrick Heury
• •
details in the original petition and prays that this additional information wiII help
assist all parties in understanding the true nature of this emergency.
2
In addition, the petitioner responds specifically to points raised by the State's
3 Attorney:
4 1.0 Special Prosecutor: The petitioner does not seek a role as Special Prosecutor.
(Please reference Section II. Procedural #10.1)
5
6 2.0 Details Included: The petitioner prays she has shown the details of how the
voter fraud occllrred in Illinois. There is an additional evidence packet which will be
7 given to the State's Attorney and the Judge.
8 3.0 Shortfalls Remedied: Here comes the petitioner responding to the States
Attorney by stating that she hopes to have remedied any shortfalls in her approaches
9 to speak with the Grand Jury through this thorough response, complete with evidence.
10 By way of brief explanation the petitioner felt this situation to be such an emergency
that she reached out in whatever means she believed were lawfully available to her.
11
Further, the petitioner seeks the State's Attorney support in unveiling the facts of this
12 voter fraud.
IXI Conclusions:
14
The petitioners argued: All laws must be brought in line with the constitutional
15 requirements of fair, equal and uniform elections.
16 The petitioners argued: The current code has severe constitutional flaws and must
be set aside, amended and/or both.
17
18 The petitioners argued: To be afforded the right to access to the election process,
one mLlst first be a citizen. The verification of citizenship is the only way to assure
19 fair, equal, and uniform elections.
20 The petitioners argued: Mr. Obama has failed to meet the standard of public
transparency such that significant questions remain, suggesting conspiracy and
21
other crimes to defraud the public of the rightful debate over his qualifications.
22
The petitioners argued: Others conspired with Mr. Obama for their own gain, to
23 obscure the truth of eligibility
24 The petitioners argued: That HlPAA laws serve to allow crafty politicians such as
25 Mr. Obama to be uncontestable while he commits high crimes against our
Republic, obscuring required information to ascertain eligibility to serve.
26
PETJTJON AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR EXCEPTION: .
Tile IiheNie.'I ola people III!I'er were or ea'er will be secure, whell/he transae/iolls o/rheir rulers may he cOllcealed
from tl,enL Palrick Henry
• •
The petitioners argued: The current election taking place has unverified
2 candidates on the ballot, thus it is up to the luck of the draw that the ballot is
constitutional.
3
The petitioners argued: That participants in the election process, voters and
4 contestants, must have verified citizenship status to be afforded the rights of
access to the election and it's process.
5
6 The petitioners argued: That such verification is within the means of the
American government and can be administered so as not to interfere with access
7 rights to Americans. Thus, once citizenship is ascertained, registration is instantly
simplified and will ultimately make registration a uniform process.
8
The petitioners argued: The current election process has serious due process
9 violations.
10
The petitioners argued: That it is unreasonable for the state and federal
11 government to certifY as eligible a candidate without a definition for Natural Born
Citizen
12
The petitioners argued: The definition of natural born citizen was well known to
13
the Founding Fathers and will likely require a First Impression decision from the
14 US Supreme Court.
15 The petitioners argued: The grand jury has the power to quickly ascertain the facts
of this matter.
16
The petitioners argued: That this case has exigent circumstances, or is an
17
emergency.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The liberties ofa people lJeverwere or eller will he secure, when tIre transactions Of their rulers mt{l' be concealed
IflJm litem. Patrick Hellry
• •
X Prayer For Relief:
I
2 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows:
3 Motion to appear before the Grand Jury and to amend the original Prayers for
relief:
4
I. That this Petitioner be pennitted to testifY before the McHenry County
5 Grand Jury, as is duly and legally in session, to present evidence as described in
6 this petition.
7 2. That the petitioner be allowed to confer with the State's Attorney__and the
Judge and then, accordingly, adjust the remedies. The petitioner seeks this
8 ,because the remedies will be impacted by the Grand Jury remedy and testimony.
9 3. That the petitioner be granted "Confidential Status" as afforded for those
10 reporting election issues, and as afforded those who testify before a Grand Jury.
II
4. That the petitioner be referred to as Chalice Jackson, her Internet identity,
12 while working through the judicial system.
13
5. That the Judge seal as much of this petition as she sees fit, The petitioner
14 prays the Judge will specifically seal the section labeled" Section XI: Secrecy of
15 Grand Jury Witnesses such that personal information about the petitioner is not
released to the public.
16
6. That this petition be treated as any election contests and given priority in
17 the courts such that it is handled as exigent circumstances.
18
7. Petitioner prays the Court and the Grand Jury will understand she has no
19
legal training but is eager and completely dedicated to overcome any
20 shortcomings this petition may have.
21
8. That the Grand Jury award such other relief in law and equity as they
22 deem proper and as held forth in the US and Illinois Constitutions.
23
24
25
26
"age 7S - EMERGENCY MOTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE MCHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY. OR A
Tile Iiber1ie.~ ofa people never were or ever will be secure, wile" the transactions o/tlreir rulers may be cOllcealed
from ,IIeltL PllIrick Hellr),

MERONI V McHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY (09mr399) - 09 - Amended Filing: Motion To Set Aside and Motion For Exception (Jan. 20, 2010)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MERONI V McHENRY COUNTY GRAND JURY (09mr399) - 09 - Amended Filing: Motion To Set Aside and Motion For Exception (Jan. 20, 2010)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

• •

Illinois board of elections

12 Now here comes Petitioner, appearing pro se as an individual, as a member of the

24 I, me, my and mine; expressing.

4 Why is it important to recognize so~'ereign will as an action? Sovereign will in a

16 To have integrity within the contestant pools, all must be equal.

20 Incredibly, current statutes require verification and public disclosure from

3 3.0 Verification of Eligibility \"s. Certification of Ballot Placement: To

15 Oppppsssss ..... Who is that?

16 5.1 Registration Processes: Do voters have verified registrations such that

12 Substantive Conclusion: We must, to preserve the Republic, have integrity

5 6.1 Substantial Public Interest: The petitioner states that there is no

16 Due Process: Administrators of elections cannot do their job without direction of

3 What then, if he proves to be ineligible, as this petitioner asserts?

7 Mr. Obama's location of birth is unproven.

23 6.7 HIPAA: In discussing HIPAA, later, the petitioner prays to show

23 2) What documents are required ofa candidate to prove constitutional eligibility to be on

4) What statement or oath is required of candidates swearing eligibility?

9 S.l Qualifications: All contestants are required to be US citizens. To the

18 Grievous Injustice: On so many levels, it is hard to comprehend the implications

I) What documents are required of a candidate to prove constitutional eligibility to be on the

13 Where is 'Shall be eligible'? This statute, with the purpose to administer

22 It is a deficiency of this statute that it specifies as required for 'apparent

25 8.6 Severe Deficiency: No public record is required to prove constitutional

3 We are not talking signatures on a petition with procedures in statutes specifYing

6 9.5 Substantive Assertion: Constitutional eligibility is not measured by

20 10. HIPAA and Hawaii Privacy Rights: Recent changes in HIPAA

3 10.3 Election Consequences: Elections result in We The People hiring a

11 10.5 The Hawaiian Connection: A vague interpretative statement by a

201 I. The Culprits!

17 2.0 Apparent Conformity

12 3.0 Ministerial Roles: Apparent conformity prejudices the election towards a

18 North V Hinkle adds insight here too, when the 2

Thus, as we read the Code t the candidates whose names are

6 The obligation remains upon the signer of the Statement of Candidacy.

12 (715 ILCS 5/3) (from Ch. 100, par. 3)

19 7.0 Ground for Objections: [fthere is no public posting of proof of

25 o Or of her right to challenge these contestants.

18 3) Are you aware if any local Newspapers posteQ the information of

11 7.11 Who'd have thought? It is natural to assume, understanding human

12 Unreasonable: It is unreasonable to expect the citizen to object to something

19 In addition, the petitioners argue that confonnity to constitutional eligibility

221 The Other Culprit: The Statement of Candidacy Form:

7 1.3 Subjective Oath: Statement of Candidacy is subjective to applicant's

16 1.7 Remedy: The petitioners argue that meanings on fonns certifying a

19 2.0 The Statement of Candidacy is Severely Deficient: The presumption is

8 2.3 Deficient: This statement, through Mr. Obama's brazenness, is uncovered

7 So Much for Transparency: Instead, obfuscating, Mr. Obama hides behind

12 2.18 Conclusion: Lack of Verification: lfno one challenges the candidate's

6 SECTION 1. VOTING QUALIFICATIONS

Non-citizens voting destroys We The People's ballot by changing the contest

1.0 Grievous Injustice: The General Assembly has failed to meet

7 2.0 General and Uniform:

8 S~CTION 4. ~L~CTION LAWS

12 Deficient and Unconstitutional- Due Process Violations: Petitioner asserts

23 Thus to be "free and equal" administrated "uniformly," citizenship must be

11 Prima Fascia: In the vast majority of cases, it is much easier to ascenain

17 1.3 Substantive Point: Unreasonable Deficiency: With the Court's

22 3.0 Deficiency Requiring Remedy: Essentially, Presidential and Vice

4.0 EMERGENCY: Circular reasoning at its best! This is a constitutional

That is the perfect con ofMr. Obama.

6.0 DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!!!!

Official Certification of Nomination: