<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">We can do tomorrow evening. Maybe like 7PM? I’m flexible on time…<br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Feb 26, 2022, at 12:14 PM, adam balling <adamballing@hotmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div>Would you be available to Zoom tomorrow evening? Later in the week? Thank you for the offer! It’s a very unfamiliar process & your guidance is immensely appreciated!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I had also wondered about the validation database from a couple years ago; in the LP Illinois conference call, someone suggested it may have the drawback of being less up to date, & I have no sense of if/how/when it could be updated.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you,</div>
<div>Adam</div>
<br>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Donny Henry <vicechair@lpillinois.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 24, 2022 10:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> executivedirector@lpillinois.org <executivedirector@lpillinois.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> treasurer@lpillinois.org <treasurer@lpillinois.org>; LPIL-BOD@lists.lpillinois.org <LPIL-BOD@lists.lpillinois.org>; Jim Humay <jhumay@gmail.com>; bsizelo@yahoo.com <bsizelo@yahoo.com>; Adam Balling <adamballing@hotmail.com>; jasonrossdecker@gmail.com
<jasonrossdecker@gmail.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [LPIL - Board of Directors] LP IL v Cook County Clerk - Ruling pending</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Having gone through an in-depth petition challenge in 2020, I can be available for a Zoom meeting to give you an overview. It’s important that you validate signatures and know it may require hiring an attorney. The Peoria Election Commission
would not allow me to defend our candidates signatures because I was not a lawyer.<br>
<br>
On the validation note: Russ/Steve- is it possible that Lex’s brother’s software could be populated with current voter data soon? Cook County is too large to Ctrl+F the data and tbh Peoria’s spreadsheet is awfully large as well.<br>
<br>
-Donny<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On Feb 24, 2022, at 8:23 AM, executivedirector--- via Lpil-bod <lpil-bod@lists.lpillinois.org> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> For us in 2020, it was a gambit and it paid off. In 2022, it's a different story. Though we are stronger now than we were in 2020, we still will need help. Having no experience with defending petitions against challenges, is there a resource that walks us
through the process? Are there resources, if needed, that we can utilize to defend petitions?<br>
> <br>
>> On 2022-02-23 20:01, treasurer--- via Lpil-bod wrote:<br>
>> From our attorney, Andrew Finko. There is a lot to cover here but the<br>
>> cliff notes version is that Judge Gettlemen is appears to be inclined<br>
>> to rule in our favor. Issue is that the Deputy States Attorney asked<br>
>> for more time for a brief to make some bs up describe how ILCS 7-2<br>
>> makes us not qualified as an "Established" party. That is due on<br>
>> February 25. Our response is due on February 28. Ruling will be<br>
>> handed down on March 4.<br>
>> In the mean time, he says to expect the Clerk to be very aggressive<br>
>> against us on petitions when we turn them in. He recommends having<br>
>> 10x the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot for<br>
>> countywide races. Her henchman, Jim Nally, has been messing with SEI<br>
>> forms so please note. "[They] have been consistent about cutting off<br>
>> the rest of the SEI, and only submitting to portion of the SEI which<br>
>> contains the foregoing info only, and not submitting the answers to<br>
>> questions. The answers to questions do NOT need to be submitted. The<br>
>> new form has the Receipt separate on the first page of the packet -<br>
>> and that's the only part Nally would submit, so he's revised the form.<br>
>> Suggest that the LPI similarly submit only the Receipt portion of the<br>
>> (new) SEI form - attached."<br>
>> Russ Clark<br>
>> From Andrew Finko to Russ Clark<br>
>> The hearing lasted a bit over an hour, and I had a couple other<br>
>> matters set this afternoon, sorry for delay in sending this email.<br>
>> First topic was Green Party motion to intervene - and (of course) the<br>
>> Clerk objected, and requested time to file a response. Ruling TBD.<br>
>> Green Party to file an amended motion with proposed complaint by 2/25,<br>
>> Clerk file response by 3/9 and reply by 3/14.<br>
>> Second topic was our motion for prelim injunction. Judge Gettlemen<br>
>> started out by summarizing his understanding/position, which was<br>
>> basically our position. He commented that Section 10-2 defined 5% and<br>
>> that the Election Code generally, and that Sec. 7-2 and 7-4 confirmed<br>
>> that the LPI was authorized to nomination Commissioners and<br>
>> committeepersons within Cook County specifically. He noted that<br>
>> Section 10-1 expressly prohibited an established party from nominating<br>
>> its candidates under Article 10. He said exactly what I intended to<br>
>> say.<br>
>> Judge Gettleman was totally on board with our arguments - his only<br>
>> criticism is that the motion was not for declaratory judgment but only<br>
>> prelim injunction so he expressed concern over the relief that we<br>
>> requested. He actually commented about what I wrote - that he was<br>
>> surprised the Clerk did not at all address the applicability of<br>
>> Article 7 of the Election Code. I summarized the constitutional law,<br>
>> that there's strong first and fourteenth amendment rights, and the<br>
>> Clerk's position was well-defined, she refused to change her stance.<br>
>> Judge Gettleman during the hour argument, also brought up Colleen<br>
>> Gleason's email specifically saying that LPI was established for only<br>
>> county-wide county officer positions, but not established for all<br>
>> other listed offices on the ballot.<br>
>> In response, Jessica Scheller said, outright that Article 7 did not<br>
>> apply. Her logic was totally off base when she argued that Article 7<br>
>> applied only to municipal elections, and LPI did not attain<br>
>> established party status or run candidates at the April 2021 election.<br>
>> She's been an attorney since 2004 so should know better than to make<br>
>> stuff up. I pointed out that 10 ILCS 5/7-1 defined applicability of<br>
>> Art. 7, including nomination of partisan candidates for county<br>
>> elections. Jessica Scheller then embarked upon utter BS backpeddling,<br>
>> saying that the first sentence in Sec. 7-1(a) that said "unless<br>
>> otherwise prohibited in this Article . . . " meant that Art 7 did not<br>
>> apply and that Sec. 10-2 was the only part of Election Code<br>
>> applicable. I pointed out that Sec. 7-1(b) actually defined the<br>
>> elections that were not governed by Article 7 (the exception<br>
>> referenced in 7-1(a)). She then tried to argue that the word<br>
>> "Article" meant the Election Code . . . but Judge Gettleman was quick<br>
>> to note the use of Article as referring to the section/chapter, rather<br>
>> than the entire Code. I could not believe my ears - actually was<br>
>> shocked to hear what a licensed attorney was saying to a federal court<br>
>> judge - nothing less than total lies and BS.<br>
>> Anyway, Jim Nally was on the line, but did not speak up.<br>
>> At the end of the hour, State's Attorney asked for a sur-reply to<br>
>> address the applicability of Article 7 and interplay with Section<br>
>> 10-2. I objected, but Judge Gettleman said (more than once during<br>
>> hearing too) that Election Code was confusing, not easily understood,<br>
>> so allowed the further briefing (by Friday) and allowed me the last<br>
>> word (by Monday).<br>
>> Hearing continued to Friday March 4, 2022 at 11:30 AM before Judge<br>
>> Gettleman.<br>
>> Separately, I can also order the transcript if you wish, but that's<br>
>> about $250 or so based on ballpark estimate from court reporter. It<br>
>> would be needed for an appeal, and could provide additional detail<br>
>> about the hearing today. Let me know if you're OK with the additional<br>
>> cost - if we prevail, I could ask for reimbursement from the Clerk.<br>
>> In addition, if we prevail, I would also ask the Clerk for payment of<br>
>> my hourly attorney fees, and reimburse to the LPI the amounts that<br>
>> were paid to me initially to get started.<br>
>> I requested to order the transcript and will pay for this from ballot<br>
>> access funds. We will see what reimbursement we get from Cook County<br>
>> Clerk.<br>
>> I asked Andrew:<br>
>> Too bad we didn't go for declaratory judgement. It sounds like we<br>
>> would get it. Is there a possibility we could ask for it? Our<br>
>> countywide slate petitioning is going well so we should pass the<br>
>> signature requirements. Two of the three plaintiffs also have enough<br>
>> signatures to clear our calculated 47 valid signatures. Our<br>
>> candidates are doing the work so this would just be icing on the cake<br>
>> for them. If we got a declaratory judgement, would we be able to<br>
>> slate for Cook County Board seats without petitioning?.<br>
>> We did request a declaratory judgment - it's Count I of the Complaint.<br>
>> However, at this juncture, the judge isn't ruling upon that request,<br>
>> since it's only a preliminary injunction request. However, we needed<br>
>> to address that argument, as likelihood of success on the merits is<br>
>> one element we need to establish to obtain a preliminary injunction<br>
>> (along with a direct conflict between the parties, monetary damages<br>
>> could not adequately compensate, urgent need for relief, etc.).<br>
>> Also, there's procedural rules that preclude the judge from deciding<br>
>> the complaint right now. Defendant/Clerk has time to file a motion to<br>
>> dismiss the complaint or an answer (until 2/24). Thereafter, we can<br>
>> file a FRCP Rule 56 "motion for summary judgment," or possibly, a FRCP<br>
>> Rule 12 "motion for judgment on the pleadings" depending upon how the<br>
>> Clerk responds. That's next. I made sure that the summons was<br>
>> personally served, rather than sending a waiver of service request,<br>
>> that would then have allowed +60 days to respond to the complaint.<br>
>> When personally served, the time to respond is +20 days from service<br>
>> on 2/4/2022. Of course, the Clerk could ask for additional time, but<br>
>> that's up to the Judge to decide.<br>
>> At present, the preliminary injunction asks for ballot placement of<br>
>> only the three commissioner candidates directly on the ballot, due to<br>
>> denial of recognition/signature requirements from Clerk. Rest of<br>
>> slate for countywide offices will need to file its nomination papers,<br>
>> since that wasn't included in the requested relief. And, I'm not sure<br>
>> Judge Gettleman has the confidence of Judge Pallmeyer to directly<br>
>> place candidates upon the ballot, that's a big request.<br>
>> For signatures, I would suggest obtaining AT LEAST 10 times the<br>
>> minimum - and you should expect to get multiple challenges<br>
>> nonetheless. For purposes of filing, ALL LPI candidates should<br>
>> (strongly recommended) file on the LAST DAY to file, March 14, 2022<br>
>> rather than March 7, 2022. Extra week to gather signatures, plus,<br>
>> there is NO advantage to filing on March 7, 2022 - with only one or<br>
>> two candidates for each office, there's no lottery for first position,<br>
>> and really, first or second doesn't matter if there's only two<br>
>> candidates. The reason to file last day is to prevent the machine<br>
>> from having an extra week to review signatures and then create<br>
>> objections - and you can bet Jim Nally will be orchestrating those<br>
>> objections.<br>
>> As for the MWRD, it was created within Cook County, and the boundaries<br>
>> of the MWRD have not changed or been remapped, so that's not a problem<br>
>> from my point of view - it's the same (internal) boundaries within<br>
>> Cook County. And its commissioners are elected countywide, not by<br>
>> district. So again, no change based on redistricting. LPI should<br>
>> similarly be authorized to run candidates for MWRD based upon Nov.<br>
>> 2020 electoral success.<br>
>> If we prevail upon the preliminary injunction, then it's smooth<br>
>> sailing going forward - a judgment on the complaint, and possibly, the<br>
>> Clerk might even agree to entry of a consent judgment to save money on<br>
>> attorney fees. That's not likely right now, but if Judge Gettleman<br>
>> grants motion for preliminary injunction then maybe (to minimize<br>
>> exposure to attorney fees).<br>
>> If the LPI is recognized as established by the court for all offices,<br>
>> then the LPI would need to have candidates ready for township<br>
>> committeepersons - and suggest that you solicit names now, and prepare<br>
>> to file nomination papers. Township Committeepersons (and Ward<br>
>> Committeepersons in Chicago) would then vote to fill vacancies from<br>
>> the primary election and file nomination papers later - and remember<br>
>> that's also a signature gathering endeavor, have to gather as many<br>
>> signatures as would've been required for primary election, but during<br>
>> the summer (after primary election results are certified).<br>
>> Do you have statements of candidacy and statements of economic<br>
>> interests for all candidates? The SEI form must be the Cook County<br>
>> Clerk's template/form, and filed with the Clerk's office. The Receipt<br>
>> is the portion with the name, address, office sought typed in, and the<br>
>> round stamp or seal of the Clerk in the box. Jim Nally (and Jaconetty)<br>
>> have been consistent about cutting off the rest of the SEI, and only<br>
>> submitting to portion of the SEI which contains the foregoing info<br>
>> only, and not submitting the answers to questions. The answers to<br>
>> questions do NOT need to be submitted. The new form has the Receipt<br>
>> separate on the first page of the packet - and that's the only part<br>
>> Nally would submit, so he's revised the form. Suggest that the LPI<br>
>> similarly submit only the Receipt portion of the (new) SEI form -<br>
>> attached.<br>
>> Also, must be bound with two hole (or three ring) punched hole/binding<br>
>> system, or wire/string. Pages numbered at the bottom consecutively.<br>
>> -------------------------<br>
>> [1]<br>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
>> <a href="http://www.avast.com">www.avast.com</a> [1]<br>
>> Links:<br>
>> ------<br>
>> [1] <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
> -- <br>
> Lpil-bod mailing list<br>
> Lpil-bod@lists.lpillinois.org<br>
> <a href="http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpil-bod">http://lpmail.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpil-bod</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>