Bonnie Speaks Out...

from Bonnie:

I have my voters card and voting record in Bolingbrook for 15 years.  Jesse White, my plates and DL state I am from Bolingbrook.  My mail gets delivered here.  I paid property taxes and utilities here.  I participate in local functions, sent my kid to school here, assist local families in need, and shop locally despite the high sales tax.  I tell people I am a proud Bolingbrook resident.  I never gave up my residency.  So if I am not a resident, who is? 

Who strips someone of their residency and right to vote, or run for office for taking a vacation from here?  Oh ya, Mr. Claar does if their name is Bonnie Kurowski Alicea.  By the way Mr. Claar, can I please have my 2002-2010 property taxes back, since I am not a resident?   Please make the check out to my Forest address.  I will be there to sign for it... Even though you told the residents I don't "reside" here. 

PS. Can you please write me a certified letter to Mr. Jesse White explaining my predicament.  He wants to know where to register both Bothwell and Forest now that this is not a resident location of Bolingbrook for my license and plates.  He is not sure what this makes me a resident of...  can we call it Bonnie land of low- to- no taxation?

Sincerely,

Bonnie Alicea -
32 year resident who is 35 years old...
Population of Bolingbrook "0"

Timeline for residency

Timeline for Bonnie’s Residency

With Florida

A.       April 2009 Bonnie runs for Mayor as 8 year resident on Bothwell and 32 years total.

B.       December 2009, Bonnie leaves to Florida. 

C.       March, Bonnie returns from Florida.

D.      April 5, 2010 election one year cycle begins for residency

E.       Bonnie is seen publically at special events throughout April to December.

F.       Bonnie sells home in June

G.     Bonnie moves Driver’s License to Forest in June.

H.      Bonnie files a change of address from Bothwell to Forest in September in time to vote in the November election.

I.        Bonnie’s residency is questioned in December.

Without Florida (law)

(See ILCS, 65 5/3, Pope vs. Board of Elections ruling and Fielding vs. Casualty ruling)

b.      Bonnie’s DL, registration, and voters cards have ALWAYS been registered in Bolingbrook and nowhere else in 8 years.

c.       Bonnie is a taxpayer for her property bill in 2010.

a.        Bonnie is an 8 year resident.

Bonnie's Residency

Electoral boards are suppose to be fair and unbiased in a court of law.  So we started by researching the actual law regarding residency.

65 ILCS 5/3 states "A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election or appointment."

This means the date in question to establish a residency is April 5, 2010 to April 5, 2011.  The question to her residency is "was she a legal resident on April 5, 2010."

However, due to poorly written election laws, no where in the law does it state what constitutes residency.  It does not state you have to have a place to lay your head.  It does not state you have to have a drivers license, plates, or even a voters card.  Since there is no law, it cannot be proved someone is not a resident, unless they do not have an address that they can register to be a voter and receive mail.

So unless Bonnie did not have an actual residence, she should have won this case in a fair court of law.

Another well used law in IL for elections is the Pope vs. Board of election commissioners 370 iii.  This states "Where a person leaves his residence and goes to another place, even if it be another state, with an intention to return to his former abode, or with only a conditional intention of acquiring a new residence, he does not lose his former residence so long as his intention remains unconditional.

If we took this previous law into consideration, Bonnie took a temporary leave to Florida and returned.  She left to another state with the intention to return to her former abode and acquire a new residence, therefore she did not lose her former residence.

When asked if she had her license, plates, and voting rights registered in Florida, she responded that no, they were registered to her Bolingbrook address.  This showed that she had every intention of returning. Her home was insured, taxes being paid, and people watching over her home in her absence.  She never rented out her home. She never abandoned her home.  She temporarily left for an extended work trip of 12 weeks...  She is a traveling consultant, isn't she?  She maintained her residency.

Therefore, she still qualified to be on the ballot, since she never lost her former residence and was in fact an 8 year resident on Bothwell Lane.

Her drivers license, according to our MVR report that she authorized today, shows that she registered her drivers license in June, right after the sale of her Bolingbrook home.  Her move across town does not bar her from running for office, as they are both Bolingbrook addresses. 

Her plate registration was current as a Bolingbrook resident and Jesse White certified she was a resident.

Election documents state that she never lost her residency and she is listed as residing in Bolingbrook for many years. 

So the Secretary of State's opinion, the Election officials, and the taxes she paid for her property do not qualify her to be a resident according to Bolingbrook Mayor Roger Claar.  So what does make a resident to him?  Someone that donates to his campaign?

Remember, she does not even need these to prove residency, yet she supplied it anyhow.

She did not deny the fact she was in Florida for three months over the winter.  According to Fielding V Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, "residence" is not synonymous with "domicile", through the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more that one residence."

Therefore, your main residence is established by where you pay taxes, register your vehicles, and vote.  I know that this decision of the board will infuriate many people who own second homes or take vacations, as the board basically stated that these individuals lose their residency when they do so... despite the laws you see above.

So why would Mr. Claar, Ms. Swinkunas, or Ms. Penning think it is okay to ignore the laws as stated above, and use a court document to remove Bonnie?  Fear...

Bonnie asked the board for anyone to prove there is a law that establishes "Court documents establish residency".  No one on the board or even the other attorney had a response.  This is no surprise, as NO Documents qualify residency.  (See info on the law above). 

Even if Bonnie had filed a lawsuit against Bolingbrook, Fielding vs. Casualty clearly states someone can have more that one residence.  If any illegal immigrant could file a lawsuit and establish residency, we would be in serous trouble with immigration laws.

Furthermore, to rule someone off a ballot for residency based on a document that does not establish residency is very biased and unfounded by any law. 

If Bonnie had a residence to send mail and register to vote, she was a resident.  On April 5, 2010, Bonnie was a homeowner of 8 years on Bothwell Lane.  In June she sold her home and transferred her mail and drivers license to Forest.  She was and has always been a Bolingbrook resident.

Since Mr. Claar, Ms. Swankunas, and Ms. Penning did not abide by IL election laws and failed to offer a decision based on fact, but meer feeling, it will be no wonder this will get hard publicity. 

This is the second year in a row that they have not allowed Bonnie ballot access.  They have used the same attorney to remove her.  They have publically called her a contributor to a stoke victims death that sent her to a temporary residence to protect her threatened family.  It makes me wonder if they did this on purpose to run her out of town so that they could launch this objection this year. 

I liked her statement when Carol Penning asked her if she still wanted to own a home in Bolingbrook with the high taxes, and Bonnie replied "I can do something about that".  Penning replied, "I am sure you could".  Isn't this why they ultimatly want her to be removed?

Mr. Claar also publically took the opportunity to criticize her over the lawsuit that was filed, calling it frivilous and that Bonnie cost the taxpayers $27, 000.00.  At which point Bonnie retorted, "Let's set the record straight, I did not cost the tax payers money, Mr. Lawler did by publically calling me responsible for Ms. Bielawski's death.  In turn, people tried to break into my house, threatened my family and caused me to leave." 

Ya, I think that backfired on him.  I am sure Claar does not wish for people to find out he caused her so much trouble and grief and she pointed out how "wrong this statement was" of them.

Her final statement to her objection was that she was a proud resident of 32 years, she would like to be on the ballot, so the residents have a choice.

This is one tough, witty, and smart lady.  She conducted herself well, was clearly spoken and educated with the laws.  She used some humor, was honest and forthcoming, and very humble despite the fact that the fix was in before the hearing.

Now, if the court would have recessed to discuss their decision then maybe they would have realized they booted her off the ballot with no law to support them.  Maybe they would have made a different choice.  However, since the court was pre-determined and personal grudges present with the board, ad none of them removed themselves due to conflict of interest, there is not much hope for any qualified or good candidate to run or they will be booted off as well. 

We hope Bonnie appeals and wins, like Rham Emanuel did.  He was placed on a ballot with the words... "Having a place to sleep is not a touchstone of continued residence."  Therefore qualifying him to run for election with nowhere to even call home... So federal judges know there is no proof to kick someone off a ballot for residency.  Roger must be better trained then those judges... or maybe just more pompous...

Quigley Better Watch Out!

I took the time today to review Mr. Quigleys petitions on http://www.thenumbercruncher-bolingbrook.com/.  I see where the objector could file an appeal.  I went through each piece of evidence and could see that Mr. Quigley did NOT have enough valid signatures.  No wonder they stacked the board to their favor.  I believe the appeal time is fast approaching....

Disabled Vet asks for court assistance and is denied

Yesterday and today, a disabled veteran asked the electoral boards for assistance due to poor hearing.  He was denied by Mr. Mike Evans and Mr. Claar.  They conducted the hearings even though he could not hear properly. 

I can see this going to court.  I am not just talking appeals...

Kangaroo Court Bounces Bonnie off Ballot

Although Bonnie presented all proper forms of ID establishing residency, the board still removed her from the ballot.  They removed her without ANY law recognized evidence.  Yes, that is right, there was NO law recognized evidence to support the claim that Bonnie was not here.  They claimed a lawsuit was filed elsewhere.  Bonnie asked for the law that states a lawsuit declares residency.  They could not produce the law.  Other then that, they had absolutely nothing.  Bonnie supplied more than enough evidence to support her claim, when in fact all she had to do was state verbally that she was a resident.  That is all the proof required by law.  But we don't follow the law in Bolingbrook when Bonnie tries to get ballot access.  Plus, I cannot wait to tell all the illegal immigrants to go file a court lawsuit and you will gain residency in Bolingbrook!

Bonnie presented a current and valid drivers license.  A current and valid voters card.  A current and valid state registration for her vehicle.  She paid her annual mortgage taxes, voted in the election, supplied her work contract, and that still was not enough to be a resident.

So we can officially say that the population of Bolingbrook is NOT 72,000 residents, but just "0".  If the proof she supplied above was not proof of residency, what is???

Well according to the law, there is no proof to establish residency except physical presence.  Emanuel made it on the ballot today on the final decision stating "having a place to sleep is not a touchstone of continued residence."  He did not even have a place to sleep, yet made it on the ballot.

Bonnie, who has a Bolingbrook home to sleep in, all the docs to prove residency, and has been a public figure during the time frame in question of April 5, 2010 to current, was not allowed ballot access.

Just another Kangaroo court...

Well, we hope Bonnie takes this to Will County where she will defiantly win her case.  At that point in time, we would like to get a statement from Mr. Roger Claar about why he did not follow the law when voting on residency and booted her off the ballot.  I would like to personally know what is so scary to Mr. Claar about Bonnie that he is so afraid to let her on the ballot and rig an unfair electoral board process to keep her off. 

A bouncing we will go...365U Kangaroo Court Engineered by Kavanagh to Insure a Perverted Outcome of the 365U School Board Candidate Hearings

Kangaroo Courts are typically set up because of fear.  So why is one set up for the hearing of Objector vs. Steve Quigley (School Board Chair)? 

Did they have to go through such extremes to keep their power hold intact?  Did they realize that Quigley did not have enough qualified signatures?  Now who will pay the price when it has to go to Will County courts because Richard Kavanagh rigged the board before the board even heard the objections?

Steve Quigley has 6 valid signatures out of a minimum 50 needed.  How will they get him out of this dilemma?  This will be the hottest topic in town for the next few months other than Mr. Kavanagh supporting the objection against Bonnie Alicea running for office...AGAIN.

So the truth be told, the forming of the electoral board violated the constitutional rights of our elected officials, Ronnie Bull and Jim Curran.  They were voted by the people, for the people to uphold their civic duty according to the law of elections for forming of electoral boards.  Kavanagh passed them up disregarding the law like it did not matter, and spit them out to rot...  We voted them in to do their job but Kavanagh does not care about our votes and what the parents of the 365U school children actually want.

Furthermore, this stomps on the constitutional rights of the candidates running for office.  They deserve a fair election.  This violates that statement.  This is not a fair election.  Ballot placement is very important in winning the election.  Why should people that did not meet the requirements by law, be allowed to run? 

This has now opened VVSD 365U and the tax payers to approximately 6 or more lawsuits.  We believe it was Kavanagh that caused the last lawsuit due to a Kangaroo Court in the Village when Bonnie ran and was kicked off the ballot.

When this goes to Will County, who will represent Steve Quigley?

This rings a bell all to familiar.  Below is a link to an article that demonstrates that Kavanagh has established a pattern of ignoring the will of the people...  See you tomorrow at the hearing!

Will County GOP Chief Repeatedly 'Doesn't Care' About the Bolingbrook or Other Will County Voters

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2010/03/will-county-gop-chief-doesnt-care-about-the-voters.html-

By Warner Todd Huston

So, thanks to a decision in the 1970s the Republican voters of Illinois are not allowed to vote for their representatives on the GOP State Central Committee (although Ill. Democrat voters DO have that right). The folks that fill the body that guides the agenda and creates and applies to rules of the state party are appointed to their important seats by the elected GOP committeemen throughout the state. Why is that a problem? Let's look at Will County to answer that question.
On March 7 I wrote about how the Will County GOP Chairman, Dick Kavanagh engineered the defeat of Central Committee candidate Cory Singer. As it happened big cheese Kavanagh didn't like Singer and wanted his own, handpicked choice to fill the Will County seat on the GOP State Central Committee.
Kavanagh had a major stumbling block to his desire to put his choice, Bobbie Peterson, back on the board. It was this little thing we call "votes." You see, Cory Singer had about 9,000 of them while Kavanagh's buddy Peterson only had 4,000.
So, to get his way, Kavanagh simply decided to steal the election by voting himself for all the committeemen of Will County that didn't show up to the Party Convention. Presto Chango, Peterson won the "election" to the State Central Committee.
When asked about his illicit finagling of the "vote" so that his own choice won over the choice of those actually voting, Kavanagh was unapologetic. "I don't care," Kavanagh said.
Kavanagh said he has "no regrets" for essentially fixing the election for his hand picked candidate.
This is why we desperately need SB600 to pass so that these arrogant, undemocratic, and decidedly un-American power mongers can again be shown that they are actually responsible to the voters.

Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2010/03/will-county-gop-chief-doesnt-care-about-the-voters.html#ixzz19vUiCADb

Venegas... who is he?

Leo Venegas is the newest school board member.  He was placed on the board when Dave Carlson recently stepped down.  His association with the current board members landed him the position over more qualified candidates including  a Principle, a mother, and an attorney.  His qualifications were not as high, but it is all about being a Claar crony in this town.  In lieu of this, this is the first election he is actually running and he made the same errors as the other two being objected to.  It appears they do things in trio!  This is the objection being heard on Monday at 2 p.m. with the kangaroo court:

1.      According to the 2011 Election Guide, “The top portion (heading) of the nominating petition pages which include information relative to the election, the candidate, the office and political party, as applicable, must be completed prior to the circulation of the petition sheet. Mr. Venega’s has deliberately left off the portion that states (50 or more) signatures on the heading.  He has done this on all sheets, which void’s all the sheets leaving “0” required signatures.  This is less then the “50” needed to be on the ballot.

2.     The minimum number of votes to get on the ballot is “50”.  He does not meet the signature requirements for the below reasons as well.

a.     Some voters are not registered voters

b.    Some names cannot be verified due to illegible address.

c.     Some signatures are invalid by means of “not their signature”, or “printed instead of signed”.

d.    A registered voter must sign the petition in his own person. He may not sign for someone else, such as another member of his or her own family. [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]The law states that “ No signature shall be valid or be counted in considering the validity or sufficiency of such petition unless the requirements of this Section are complied with”.Therefore, both signatures must be struck. (See sheet detail below.)

e.     Under the same law it states [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]”At the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a circulator's statement, signed by a person 18 years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States; stating the street address or rural route number, as the case may be, as well as the county, city, village or town, and state; certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are genuine; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly registered voters under Articles 4, 5 or 6 of the Code of the political subdivision or district for which the candidate or candidates shall be nominated, and certifying that their respective residences are correctly stated therein. Such statement shall be sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths in this State.”  Since the signature gatherer allowed persons to write in other voters names, this would void the oath that the signature gatherer made and void the entire sheet of signatures.

This would mean that pages 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, 8, 9 would be voided, leaving only 17 valid signatures of the 50 required signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. 

Because of the two stated reasons above, I believe that Mr. Leonel Venega’s name should not be placed on the ballot.

Gougis runs for school board but does he qualify?

Rick Gougis was placed on the board when Debbie Bielawski passed away last July.  Many residents cried foul, as he is a Roger crony who got the position even after much more qualified people stepped forward.

This year he has to run for an actual election, and win, to keep his seat.

His objection is being heard on Monday, January 2.  The objection states:

1. According to the 2011 Election Guide, “The top portion (heading) of the nominating petition pages which include information relative to the election, the candidate, the office and political party, as applicable, must be completed prior to the circulation of the petition sheet. Mr. Gougis has deliberately left off the portion that states (50 or more) signatures on the heading.  He has done this on all sheets, which void’s all the sheets leaving “0” required signatures.  This is less then the “50” needed to be on the ballot.

2.     The minimum number of votes to get on the ballot is “50”.  He does not meet the signature requirements for the below reasons:

a.     Some voters are not registered voters.

b.    Some names cannot be verified due to illegible address.

c.     Some signatures are invalid by means of “not their signature”, or “printed instead of signed”.

d.    A registered voter must sign the petition in his own person. He may not sign for someone else, such as another member of his or her own family. [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]The law states that “ No signature shall be valid or be counted in considering the validity or sufficiency of such petition unless the requirements of this Section are complied with”.Therefore, both signatures must be struck. (See sheet detail below.)

e.     A petition circulator must witness all signatures on each sheet he circulates and signs as circulator. [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4] Therefore, if he allowed someone to write in multiple names, the validity of the affidavit is compromised.  See “f”.

f.     Under the same law it states [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]”At the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a circulator's statement, signed by a person 18 years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States; stating the street address or rural route number, as the case may be, as well as the county, city, village or town, and state; certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are genuine; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly registered voters under Articles 4, 5 or 6 of the Code of the political subdivision or district for which the candidate or candidates shall be nominated, and certifying that their respective residences are correctly stated therein. Such statement shall be sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths in this State.”  Since the signature gatherer allowed persons to write in other voters names, this would void the oath that the signature gatherer made and void the entire sheet of signatures.

This would mean that pages 2, 4, 5, 10, 11would be completely struck from submission.

3.     Page 1, 2,3,7, and 8 of Mr. Gougis nominations clearly show he gathered signatures from visiting public property and Village employees.  IL law states(50 ILCS 135/10) (from Ch. 85, par. 7610)     Sec. 10. Political rights protected.
    (b) No employee of a unit of local government or school district may (i) use his or her official position of employment to coerce or inhibit others in the free exercise of their political rights or (ii) engage in political activities while at work or on duty.
(Source: P.A. 87‑385.)

(50 ILCS 135/5) (from Ch. 85, par. 7605)
    Sec. 5. Definition; political rights. "Political rights" include, without limitation, the following political activities: to petition, to make public speeches, to campaign for or against political candidates, to speak out on questions of public policy, to distribute political literature, to make campaign contributions, and to seek public office.
(Source: P.A. 87‑385.)

4.     Sheet 3 has no notary stamp.  This sheet needs to be struck

If following the laws of elections and state laws, sheets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 would be struck from #2 and #3 reasons.  All would be struck for #1 reason.  Even if #1 is ignored, there are still only 23 valid signatures, falling short of the 50 to be placed on the ballot.  Because of the four stated reasons above, I believe that Mr. Gougis name should not be placed on the ballot.

If he cannot follow the laws, why is he running for an office?

Objections to Steve Quigley Petitions

Steve Quigley, chair of the 365U school board just raised our property taxes in December... again.

He is also under fire for not abiding by election law when filing his petitions for office.  Mr. Quigley turned in only 90 signatures.  Minimum is 50.  The election is April 5, 2011.  His objector's statement lists specifics:

1.      The minimum number of signatures to gain ballot access for the school board election in Bolingbrook for April 5, 2011 is 50.  (See sheet detail below). Steven Quigley does not meet this requirement for 5 reasons:

a.     Some voters are not registered voters

b.    Some names cannot be verified due to illegible address.

c.     Some signatures are invalid by means of “not their signature”, or “printed instead of signed”.

d.    A registered voter must sign the petition in his own person. He may not sign for someone else, such as another member of his or her own family. [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]The law states that “ No signature shall be valid or be counted in considering the validity or sufficiency of such petition unless the requirements of this Section are complied with”.Therefore, both signatures must be struck. (See sheet detail below.)

e.     Under the same law it states [10 ILCS 5/7-10, 10-4]”At the bottom of each sheet of such petition shall be added a circulator's statement, signed by a person 18 years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States; stating the street address or rural route number, as the case may be, as well as the county, city, village or town, and state; certifying that the signatures on that sheet of the petition were signed in his or her presence; certifying that the signatures are genuine; and certifying that to the best of his knowledge and belief the persons so signing were at the time of signing the petition duly registered voters under Articles 4, 5 or 6 of the Code of the political subdivision or district for which the candidate or candidates shall be nominated, and certifying that their respective residences are correctly stated therein. Such statement shall be sworn to before some officer authorized to administer oaths in this State.”  Since the signature gatherer allowed persons to write in other voters names, this would void the oath that the signature gatherer made and void the entire sheet of signatures.

This would mean that pages 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 would be voided, leaving only 6 valid signatures of the 50 required signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. 

This objection clearly states that Quigley was not abiding by the law when he had his petitions signed.  His objection hearing is on Monday Jan. 3 at 2 p.m..  He already has a Kangaroo court in his favor. 

As a resident, what do you think about Quigley being allowed on the ballot?  What do you feel about the type of person you see above being the one setting the 365U budgets and repeatedly raising our property taxes?