BEFORE THE DULY CONSTITUTED ELECTORAL BOARD FOR THE HEARING

AND PASSING UPON OF OBJECTIONS TO THE NOMINATION PAPERS OF

CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO THE OFFICE TO BE VOTED UPON AT
THE MARCH 20, 2018, PRIMARY ELECTION

IN THE MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS OF: )

)
SHANA EAST AND DAVID TEMKIN, )
)
Petitioner(s)-Objector(s), )
) No. 2017-COEB-CC-10
)
ANDREA RAILA, )
)
Respondent-Candidate. )

HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

Procedural History

This matter first came before this hearing officer on December 19, 2017, at 9:15 a.m.

at which time objectors and candidate appeared through counsel, objectors through Mr.

Andrew Finko, Esq., and the candidate through Mr. Frank Avila, Esq. Each side duly filed

their appearances.

Throughout this matter additional counsel would file additional appearances on behalf

of each side, including Michael Dorf, Esq., for objectors, and Randy Crumpton, Esq., and

Pericles Abbasi, Esq. for the candidate, but the initially stated counsel would act as lead for

each side throughout this matter.

The candidate’s nomination papers seek nomination on the Democratic primary ballot

for the office of Cook County Assessor, to be voted upon in the March 20, 2018, General

Primary Election.

The candidate filed 23,357 signatures on 2,454 petition pages within her nomination

papers for an office requiring a minimum of 8,236 valid signatures.

 The objection raised numerous issues:

a. a line by line petition signer sheet objection, incorporating an appendix

recapitulation sheet as an attachment;

b. incorrect/deficient circulator residence addresses within the circulator’s

affidavits;

c. circulators that did not properly appear before a notary to execute their

circulator affidavit;

d. Notary omissions regarding missing signatures, seals, jurats and forgeries of

notary signatures;

e. That specified circulators set forth in the circulator affidavits did not, in fact,

circulate the sheet;

f. Pagination missing;

g. Pagination out of order; and

h. Circulator and notary objections through which a pattern of fraud was alleged.

The objection further alleged, as an overarching objection, that the candidate herself

engaged in a specific, concerted pattern of fraud in the gathering of these signatures,

including not only being an active participate in the above referenced misconduct, as the

candidate and campaign director, but also as a notary and as a circulator.

Further, objector alleged the candidate’s methodology of engaging in a mass mailing

to the public at large, as well as use of email and social media to send out the candidate’s

nomination petition signature sheets en masse, coupled with the candidate’s subsequent

conduct upon receipt of deficiently executed/completed sheets that were mailed back was

such that the candidate’s conduct, regardless of the ultimate signature count, required the
2
striking and dismissal of the candidate’s entire nomination papers.

In particular, the objection alleged that the candidate, upon receipt of incomplete

petition sheets mailed back to the campaign office from her mass mailing, would thereafter

“fix” any deficient sheets by modifying and/or adding to these sheets in a number of ways.

The objection alleged that if a petition sheet was mailed back in some variation of

being without a signed and notarized circulator’s affidavit, the candidate would cause these

deficient sheets, if unsigned, to be signed by someone else (other than by the person who

mailed them in) and thereafter notarized, and/or have sheets notarized in absentia that were

mailed in with the circulator’s affidavit signed but un-notarized, and that the candidate would

also send partially filled sheets back out on the street with other circulators to fill up the

remaining lines and thereafter have these re-circulated sheets signed and/or notarized by this

successor circulator, if there were also any circulator deficiencies contained on these sheets.

At this initial hearing the parties were informed of the briefing schedule for hearing

on any preliminary motion. Candidate’s counsel indicated candidate’s intent to file two

motions, specifically a motion to recuse the Hon. David Orr and a motion to strike objector’s

petition, each of which were duly filed.

At this initial hearing the hearing officer also accepted into evidence, without

objection, the candidate’s nomination papers, objectors’ objection, the Call of the Board, and

the appearances as Exhibits A, B, C and D, respectively.

Before the initial hearing adjourned the hearing officer also issued a Record

Examination Directive.

Candidate filed a timely motion to recuse the Cook County Clerk, the Hon. David

Orr, as well as a motion to strike objector’s petition. Candidate’s motion regarding the
3
County Clerk also requested that County Clerk employees not be used in any Rule 6 record

examination but rather, strictly City of Chicago employees.

This recusal motion was rendered moot in large part in that the Hon. David Orr

voluntarily recused himself, and this matter proceeded forward with the Cook County

Electoral Board comprised of the Cook County State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx, or her designee,

and Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dorothy Brown, or her designee. However,

candidate’s request to only employ City of Chicago electoral board employees in any Rule 6

record examination was granted.

Subsequent to the County Clerk’s recusal each side specifically consented to keeping

the matter before this hearing officer.

In reference to candidate’s motion to strike, in order to gauge the nature of the

proposed evidentiary “good faith” hearing, the hearing officer required a December 23, 2017,

exchange of proposed witnesses and exhibits IF an evidentiary hearing was deemed

appropriate.

In response candidate listed some 20 witnesses candidate sought to call; objector

responded with a general denial that any such hearing was warranted.

Candidate’s motion to strike objector’s petition was briefed and argued on December

26, 2018, at Noon.

In sum, candidate’s motion alleged the objection must be dismissed in that it was

brought in bad faith, not predicated upon any reasonable inquiry or investigation of facts,

was factually deficient and contradictory such as to deny the candidate proper notice and the

ability to defend, and was a ‘shot-gun’ objection that required a good faith evidentiary

hearing on this issue.

4
 Candidate’s motion also asserted a constitutional challenge directed to the number of

signatures required for this office as excessive and violative of certain civil rights and voting

rights acts.

Objectors’ response was in the nature of a denial, asserting appropriate inquiry, notice

to the candidate, and good faith. Each side argued orally along similar lines.

Prior to oral argument, based upon the briefs, the hearing officer denied candidate’s

request for a “good faith” evidentiary hearing. After entertaining oral argument a t the

December 26, 2017, hearing, the hearing officer denied the balance of the candidate’s

motion, and again denied, after candidate’s renewed request, the need for any ‘good faith’

evidentiary hearing, in that it was the hearing officer’s opinion that the objection fairly and

properly put the candidate on notice of what the candidate was being called to defend,

appeared facially to be based upon a good faith inquiry as to the various claims against the

validity of the candidate’s nomination papers, listing as it did a line by line recap sheet

appendix, as well as two additional appendices that allege specific notaries and circulators

against whom Electoral Code misconduct is alleged. The oral argument also clarified that the

candidate, in essence, sought to argue the merits of the objection through these 20 witnesses,

which was premature at this juncture.

This hearing officer also notes in passing that candidate’s motion pointed out

occasional lapses in accuracy in the objection and its appendices as requiring its dismissal

while in the same writing seeking to excuse as de minimus somewhat more problematic

deficiencies in the nomination papers.

In regards to the candidate’s constitutional challenge to the size of the minimum

signature requirement, this hearing officer denied this portion of the motion as being beyond
5
the jurisdictional authority of this Board to consider.

Section 10–10 of the Election Code limits the scope of an election board's inquiry with

respect to nominating papers to ascertaining whether those papers comply with the governing

provisions of the Election Code. See Delgado v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill.2d

481, 485, 309 Ill.Dec. 820, 865 N.E.2d 183 (2007); Kozel v. State Board of Elections, 126 Ill.2d

58, 68, 127 Ill.Dec. 714, 533 N.E.2d 796 (1988); Nader v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 354

Ill.App.3d 335, 340, 289 Ill.Dec. 348, 819 N.E.2d 1148 (2004). Administrative agencies such as

the electoral board have no authority to declare statutes unconstitutional or even to question their

validity. Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 2d 398, 411, 948 N.E.2d 580, 588 (2011)

At the time the December 26, 2017, hearing concluded, the record examination had

yet to commence, and the matter was set down for further proceedings on January 3, 2018,

and both sides were urged to start gathering evidence and to move for subpoenas as they

deemed appropriate so as to set a firm hearing schedule as soon as practicable.

Objector moved, in filings of December 24, 2017, and January 5, 2018, for the

issuance of some 73 subpoenas directed at individuals, a bank, the candidate’s campaign, and

governmental agencies, seeing live witness testimony and documents.

Candidate did not file any objection to either of these subpoena requests under Rule

8A, nor did candidate ever seek the issuance of any subpoenas.

On January 3, 2018, the matter reconvened and both sides appeared. At that time the

hearing officer posed certain questions to objector’s counsel regarding objector’s December

24, 2017, subpoena requests. Despite having failed to file a Rule 8A objection to objector’s

December 24, 2017, subpoena requests, candidate’s counsel was permitted argument

regarding these requests.

6
 Objector’s subpoena requests, as modified, were the subject of a separate

recommendation of this hearing officer so will not be detailed herein. As modified, the Board

granted and issued these subpoenas on or about January 8, 2018.

By January 3, 2018, the Rule 6 record exam had started (as of December 29, 2017),

with both sides properly notified and participating, and was only approximately 20%

completed.

Given the status and pacing of the Rule 6 record examination the matter was

continued to January 10, 2018, with both sides instructed to be prepared at that time to set

down firm cut-offs regarding document and witness exchanges and to set the final hearing

date(s).

On January 10, 2018, the matter reconvened and both sides appeared. At this juncture

the Rule 6, record examination was approximately 65% completed. Cut-offs for document

exchanges, witness list exchanges, and both interim and final reports and opinions as to

either party’s possible handwriting experts was set down, culminating in a January 23, 2018,

start to an evidentiary hearing on all outstanding matters.

The discovery exchange schedule, as set, required both sides to disclose all heretofore

known exhibits and witnesses by January 13, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., with objector to disclose the

opinions and interim reports of any handwriting expert, if any, with supporting documents

(excluding petition sheets) by that time; January 17, 2018, objector to disclose any final

opinions and reports of any handwriting expert, if any, with supporting documentation, with

both sides to further disclose any additional documents and witnesses gathered up to that

point; and January 20, 2018, by 5:00 p.m. the candidate to disclose any final expert opinions

and report with supporting documents.

7
 On January 12, 2018, as the Rule 6 record examination neared completion, objectors

sought a 24 hour extension of time for filing any Rule 8 motion, citing the extreme size of

the review required. Candidate opposed objectors’ request. No extension was granted.

On January 13, 2018, at approximately 12:34 p.m. the Rule 6 record examination was

completed. Each side filed Rule 8 Motions, with candidate granted a short extension of

approximately 30 minutes in which to do so.

Objectors’ Rule 8 Motion sought to proceed on all remaining circulator, notary, and

pattern of fraud objections, as well as seeking to present evidence to controvert in excess of

4,000 line by line signature calls that went against objectors.

Candidate’s Rule 8 Motion sought to present evidence to controvert in excess of

6,500 line by line signature calls that went against the candidate.

Objectors’ Rule 8 Motion also raised issues in regards to a perceived difference

between an interim record exam report and the final report regarding some two pages in

difference, a concern subsequently joined by the candidate; upon inquiry the hearing officer

determined to his satisfaction that the interim report contained a basic counting error that had

been corrected prior to the issuance of the final Rule 6 examination report and had not

affected the total.

In regards to the Rule 6 Final Examination Results, the results were marked as

Exhibit E, and after being accepted into evidenced, are set forth as follows:

Signatures Required: 8,236

Total Pages: 2,454
Total Signatures Filed by the Candidate: 23,357
Total Objections: 13,225
Total Objections Ruled On: 13,225
Total Remaining to be Ruled On: 0

8
Total Objections Sustained: 9,219
Total Objections Overruled: 4,006
Findings Preserved For Review (Candidate): 9,666
Findings Preserved For Review (Objector): 14,720
Total Valid Signatures: 14,138
Total Unchallenged Signatures: 10,132

5,902 valid signatures above the 8,236 signature minimum required.

On January 19, 2018, in anticipation of the upcoming Rule 8 evidentiary hearing,

given that the candidate was up significantly and the number of potential witnesses at issue

in objector’s case during the hearing, as a matter of judicial efficiency and so as to provide an

orderly process during this hearing, this hearing officer entered an order requiring objector’s

side to submit a memorandum by 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, setting forth a memorandum of

proceedings within which objector was expected to proceed. A similar order was entered as

to the candidate.

Objector filed a timely response which largely conformed with the requested

information. The candidate elected not to file anything, taking the position that they had no

burden to prove anything and at that point they still could not anticipate objectors’ case

sufficiently to file such a document.

Objectors rested their case on the morning of January 31, 2018. Candidate moved for

a directed finding at the close of objector’s case. This hearing officer finding objector had

produced credible evidence that would tend to prove objector’s allegations, candidate’s

motion was denied. Candidate proceeded to put on a rebuttal case, which concluded on the

afternoon of February 1, 2018.

9
 Rule 8 Hearing

On January 23, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. this matter reconvened for hearing on the parties

Rule 8 Motions, and both sides appeared through counsel. The hearing would continue every

day (save Sunday, January 28, 2018) until the close of proofs on the afternoon of February 1,

2018.

On January 26, 2018, both sides were requested to supply a memorandum of law

setting forth their position regarding “Pattern of Fraud”. Each complied. Candidate also filed

a memorandum setting forth candidate’s position regarding alleged deficiencies in objector’s

affidavits.

With the candidate up so many signatures objectors essentially conceded, without

formally doing so, that their case rested upon proving significant notary and circulator fraud

under their pattern of fraud argument such as to be entitled to the striking of whole circulator

and notary sets of signature pages sufficient to bring the candidate below the required

minimum.

As an initial matter it should be noted the framework within which this candidate

chose to acquire her 23,357 petition signers. It is not in dispute, and several witnesses,

specifically including the candidate, testified that the candidate sought petition sheet signers

through six distinct methods:

a. An initial email ‘blast’ to known or expected supporters sourced from the

candidate’s personal email list, some 200 or so, each email exhorting the

recipient to gather signatures, each containing a copy of a petition sheet as an

attachment, and included ‘instructions’ on circulating;

b. An initial mail campaign, mailed to somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000

10
 persons garnered from the candidate’s personal mailing list, each mailer

containing a couple pages of campaign literature, urging the recipient to gather

signatures and included ‘instructions’ on circulating, a copy of a petition sheet,

and a self-addressed envelope (unstamped), with the return address being the

candidate’s campaign office, 747 North LaSalle Street, Suite 600, Chicago,

Illinois 60654; [See Obj. Ex. 93]

c. A 280,000 person mailer directed to addresses throughout Cook County from a

mailing list the candidate purchased and which was organized, printed,

compiled and mailed by a direct mailing company, a mailer which contained

the same information, petition sheet and return envelope as the candidate’s

personal mailer; [See Obj. Ex. 93]

d. Use of social media, including Facebook and LinkedIn, within which the

candidate included a downloadable petition sheet and similar instructions as

contained in the two mailers and email ‘blast’; [See Obj. Ex. 121, 122]

e. Campaign volunteers gathering petition signers at various high traffic

locations (versus door to door);

f. Paid circulators gathering petition signers at various high traffic locations

(versus door to door).

The candidate confirmed in her testimony that the only instructions transmitted to

these outside ‘circulators’ that received petition sheets through the email, mailers, and/or

social media were in the form as set forth on the second page of Objectors’ Exhibit 93

(excepting any reference to an envelope if by email or social media), as follows:

“Volunteers and I are circulating petitions to collect signatures

11
 required to put my name on the March 2018 Democratic Primary
ballot. Please help with the enclosed petition:

• Our deadline is November 26, 2017.

• Anyone who is registered as a voter in Cook County, Illinois and
its 132 municipalities may sign the petition.
• Return the petition with 1 or 2 signatures or 10! Use the enclosed
self-addressed envelope.
• Petitions MUST be notarized. We can notarize your petition at
our campaign office: Taxpayers to Elect Andrea Raila 747 N
LaSalle Suite 600, Chicago 312-640-2436”

[See Obj. Ex. 93]

It is within this framework of the candidate’s circulation methodology that additional

evidence was taken.

Notarial Errors and Omissions:

Objectors raised several objections related to a combination of notarial errors and

omissions (other than fraud), including missing jurats, incomplete jurats, missing notary

stamps and missing dates. Given the length of this recommendation the specific sheets and a

detailed description of these allegations is omitted. Suffice it to say, this group of objections

should be overruled, in that each of the error and omissions set forth, upon examination by

this hearing officer, was technical in nature and did not invalid the petition sheets to which

they relate. Young v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 90 CO 20 (Circuit Court of

Cook County, Illinois January 12, 1999); Sistrunk v. Tillman, 91 EB ALD 155 (CBEC,

January 8, 1991); Sanders v. Bradley, 03 EB ALD 156 (CBEC, January 24, 2003).

It is the recommendation of the hearing officer that this group of objections be

overruled.

12
Pagination:

Objector raised two separate pagination objections; Sheets out of order, wherein

Sheets 1601 to 1640 were located between Sheets 1700 and 1701, Sheets 1081 to 1087 were

located between Sheets 1094 and 1095, and Sheet 2455 was located between Sheets 2450

and 2451.

Unnumbered sheet located between Sheet 1000 and 1001.

The consecutive page numbering of the petition sheets is a mandatory requirement

under the Election Code. El-Aboudi v. Thompson, 293 Ill.App.3d 191 (2nd Dist. 1997)

However, this mandatory provision can be satisfied where substantial compliance with a

mandatory requirement is evidenced. Madison v. Sims, 6 Ill. App. 3d 795, 798, 286 N.E.2d

592, 594 (1st Dist. 1972)

The pagination requirement, while mandatory, in this instance was substantially

complied with, especially given the size of the nomination papers and that the pages were

located a short distance away and did not, of themselves, engender any confusion or fraud on

the process. Williams v. Butler, 35 Ill. App. 3d 532, 535, 341 N.E.2d 394, 397 (4th Dist. 1976);

See also, King v. Justice Party, 284 Ill. App. 3d 886, 672 N.E.2d 900 (1st Dist. 1996).

This hearing officer recommends this portion of the objection be overruled. As to the

unnumbered page(s), this hearing officer inquired of board personnel as to the procedure

employed with unnumbered pages. The data input system does not accept unnumbered pages, so

no unnumbered pages were uploaded nor the signatures checked or counted.

However, as a legal matter it is the recommendation of the hearing officer that the extra

page(s), unnumbered, between 1000 and 1001, while not otherwise affecting the petition, will be

deemed struck and not counted towards the total.

13
Circulator Residency Objection:

Objector challenged the residency of 23 circulators as set forth on Appendix B to the

objection.

Objector called a Mr. Matthew Hale, an investigator employed by Illinois

Investigative Solutions since 2008, to testify as to efforts to locate the various circulators and

identify whether these individuals resided at the addresses listed in the various petition

sheets.

Mr. Hale testified that he received a list with some 13 names, of which he was able to

gather information as to 9. Of these 9, objector withdrew 2 from consideration during the

course of his testimony, and it turned out another 1, while not formally withdrawn, had been

investigated at an incorrect address “1600 S. Trumbull” versus “16005 Trumbull”.

Mr. Hale’s investigative efforts commenced in mid-January, 2018.

Using the list objectors supplied, Mr. Hale first conducted an electronic inquiry

focused on ‘hits’ that would link the targeted individual with the targeted address. At times

he would get a ‘hit’ with the targeted name at the targeted address but superseded by newer,

other addresses, but did not inquire, search nor identify whether the targeted individual might

be found to reside at this other indicated address and thereby confirm they reside at an

address other than the targeted address.

Mr. Hale would generate reports from databases that, in several instances, identified

persons with similar names at the targeted address, as well as identifying the fact that some

addresses consisted of larger multi-unit properties with potentially large and changing

residents, and acknowledged that a person could reside at a location with a friend, relative or

significant other, for example, without showing up on an electronic search.

14
 Mr. Hale visited several, albeit not all, of the targeted locations, and could only at best

determine that in each instance the individual wasn’t present at the time of his visits, in one

instance had moved out “over a month ago” without any further elaboration from the

information provider, and one instance had a bad address that was nowhere near where the

circulator’s affidavit stated.

When crossed, Mr. Hale acknowledged that he could not state that a person didn’t live

at these addresses merely because he didn’t find that person living there at any given time.

One challenged circulator, however, Ben Rush, gave an address of 17922 Gothard

Street, Huntington Beach, California, which objector’s exhibits, including photos and a

zoning map, evidenced was nothing more than an automotive repair shop. However, the

affidavit of non-service on objector’s subpoena to Mr. Rush included a statement by the

repair shop property owner, a Mr. Pickell, that Mr. Rush would use the parking lot to park

his RV within which Mr. Rush was living, leaving open the possibility that this person did

reside as indicated, if only in a transient fashion.

Objector also put into evidence the actual search reports generated by Mr. Hale,

several “affidavits of non-service” related to objectors’ efforts to serve subpoenas, and

certified copies of voter registration cards from various dates for the “Hale” researched

circulators and as well as for other circulators Mr. Hale did not research. These documents

did little to nothing to expand upon or buttress objector’s claim regarding the lack of

residency of the targeted circulators.

The various exhibits pertaining to this circulator residency issue were marked Obj.

#72, 74, 74a through 89-2, 101-115 and accepted into evidence, with the investigative reports

accepted into evidence over candidate’s objection.

15
 The requirement that a circulator supply a current accurate address in the circulator’s

affidavit is done for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the electoral process by

providing the electoral board with ready access to him or her. Cunningham v. Schaeflein,

2012 Il App (1st) 120529, ¶ 25-28; Sakonyi v. Lindsay, 261 Ill.App.3d 821, 826, 634 N.E.2d

444, 447 (5th District 1994).

Mr. Hale was credible and forthright, and did not attempt to embellish or overstate his

information. However, in seeking to prove these circulators did not reside at the stated

residence(s), objectors’ evidence on this objection fell short.

There was little to no evidence affirmatively proving that during the time of

circulation (late October through December 4, 2017) that these individual did not, in fact,

live where they stated in the circulator’s affidavit.

While it is not necessary to evidence that a circulator actually does reside somewhere

other than the stated location, such evidence could be persuasive by exclusion. In this

instance, at best, objector evidenced that as of mid-January, 2018, when this investigator

searched, these circulators could not be found at the stated addresses.

Furthermore, while the certified voter registration cards entered into evidence set

forth addresses different than that contained in the circulator’s affidavits, such evidence,

standing alone (as was the case with most of the challenged circulators) is insufficient to

establish that the circulators do not reside at the address set forth in their circulator’s

affidavit. See e.g. Hines v. Davis, 11 EB ALD 099, CBEC, January 7, 2011.

This hearing officer also notes that another investigator for objectors, a Jiles

McCloud, had in fact located at least one of the challenged circulators Mr. Hale could not

find, at the residence address set forth in the circulator’s affidavit, specifically a Douglas
16
Martin.

It is the recommendation of this hearing officer that objector’s objection regarding

circulator residency, specifically including portions of objection paragraphs 5(b), 11 and 12

be overruled.

Pattern of Fraud Objection:

The balance of the case, on both sides, would focus on the objectors’ Pattern of Fraud

allegation. Objector would call 16 witnesses to the stand and introduce almost 100

documents into evidence. Candidate would call 10 witnesses and introduce over 50

documents and a short video clip into evidence, this latter exhibit which candidate provided

in a thumb drive format.

Law

An objector must prove a pattern of fraud allegation by clear and convincing

evidence. Fallis v. Seo, 15 COEB MWRD 08 (COEB January 19, 2015)

The phrase “clear and convincing evidence” means that degree of proof greater than a

preponderance of the evidence but not quite as high as the evidence necessary for a criminal

conviction. Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213, 647 N.E.2d 273, 276 (1995); Board of

Trustees of Univ. of Illinois v. Illinois Educ. Labor Relations Board, 2015 IL App (4th)

140557, ¶ 36, 27 N.E.3d 623, 630

At this hearing officer’s request, each side filed brief memorandums setting forth their

legal position on pattern of fraud cases and more importantly, what ultimate result might

obtain when and if a pattern of fraud is found.

Objector cited Fortas v. Dixon, 122 Ill.App.3d 697 (1st 1984), Huskey v. Municipal

Officers Electoral Board, 156 Ill.App.3d 201 (1st Dist. 1988) and Canter v. Cook County
17
Officers Electoral Board, 170 Ill.App.3d 364 (1st 1988) for the proposition that when a

circulator’s or notary’s fraud, false swearing, and disregard for the mandatory requirements

of the Election Code is proven, all the sheets circulated or notarized by that person must be

stricken.

Objectors’ also cited Harmon v. Town of Cicero Municipal Officers Electoral Board,

371 Ill.App.3d 111, 864 N.E.2d 9966 (1st Dist. 2007) for the proposition that if evidence is

shown of petition sheets containing in excess of 50% or more invalid signatures, a pattern of

fraud must be found and the circulator’s sheets struck.

As to notarial fraud, in addition to the foregoing, objector cites Cunningham v.

Schaeflein, 2012 Il App (1st) 120529 for the prospect that all sheets notarized by a notary

must be struck and disregarded if it is proven that the notary notarized sheets where the

circulator did not, in fact, appear and be sworn.

The candidate asserted that Harmon was modified, if not completely overruled, by

Crossman v. Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago, 2012 Il.App.(1st)

120291 ¶13, wherein the Court stated that no such mandatory striking was required even

where in excess of 50% false signatures was found; rather, such a decision should be decided

on a case by case basis in the exercise of the Board’s discretion, with the candidate further

citing Fallis v. Seo, 15 COEB MWRD 08 (COEB January 19, 2015) in support. Candidate

also cited In Re Petition for the Removal of Frank Bower, 242 N.E.2d 252 (1968) and several

additional Chicago Board of Election cases for the proposition that guilty intent or guilty

knowledge on the part of the notary and/or circulator must be evidenced in order to prove the

patter of fraud.

Each side, to a certain extent, is correct in their legal reasoning.

18
 On a circulator by circulator basis, and notary by notary basis, objector is correct that

if a pattern of fraud is proven as to that circulator or notary, an appropriate remedy is the

striking of all such sheets circulated or notarized by that individual.

However, the candidate is equally correct in arguing that when the pattern of fraud is

predicated on fraudulent petition signer signatures as the basis, there is no per se

disqualification of a circulator or a particular sheet if greater than 50% of the signatures are

found deficient, and that evidence of guilty intent or knowledge must be proven, and that

even where the candidate herself is proven to have engaged in a pattern of fraud and all the

sheets she may have circulated and notarized are struck, if at the end of the day the candidate

still has sufficient signatures over the minimum required, the Board must, by law, certify the

candidate’s name on the ballot.

This hearing officer also recognizes that hazy memories, some discrepancies and

some apparent conflicts in testimony, standing alone, do not on their own establish fraud or a

pattern of fraud under the totality of the circumstances. Moreno v. Delgado, 08 EB SS 01

(CBEC, December 17, 2007).

The candidate’s position is also in accord with the decision by the Court in Mitchell v.

Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 399 Ill. App. 3d 18, 924 N.E.2d 585 (1st Dist. 2010),

(cited in Seo) which held that an Electoral Board's decision is constrained by the statutory

authority granted it to strictly determine if the candidate’s nomination papers are legally

sufficient after all objections have been heard and determined, and that the proper remedy in

light of the misconduct and irregularities in the petitions was to strike those petitions tainted

by the improper notarizations, over and above those objections previously sustained. If at the

end of the day the candidate still had sufficient signatures over the minimum, the candidate’s
19
name must appear on the ballot.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Mitchell Court expressly approved the Board’s

interpretation and application of the holdings in several cases, including Fortas v. Dixon, 122

Ill.App.3d 697, 462 N.E.2d 615 (1984); Huskey v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 156

Ill.App.3d 201, 509 N.E.2d 555 (1987); and Canter v. Cook County Officers Electoral

Board, 170 Ill.App.3d 364, 120 Ill.Dec. 388, 523 N.E.2d 1299 (1988), all cited by the

objectors in the case sub judice.

The Mitchell Court further held that the Board's determinations and choice of remedy

in the case under consideration in Mitchell was fully in accord with the aforecited cases, with

the Board ultimately putting the candidate’s name on the ballot even though the candidate

herself engaged in a pattern of fraud wherein all her personally circulated sheets and sheets

the candidate participated in as part of a false swearing before a notary scheme were struck.

Mitchell v. Cook County Officers Electoral Bd., 399 Ill. App. 3d 18, 23, 924 N.E.2d 585, 590

(1st Dist. 2010)

In sum, objector in a pattern of fraud claim has two hurdles that must be overcome to

prevail.

First, in order to strike the sheets notarized or circulated by any particular person, the

objector must prove by clear and convincing evidence a pattern of fraud existed as to each

such circulator and/or notary challenged.

Second, as to those circulators and notaries determined to have committed said fraud,

the appropriate remedy is the striking of the sheets they were involved in, with the

candidate’s nomination papers surviving or falling based on the final total of valid signatures.

In this matter, objectors had a week to perform a herculean task to assemble an

20
objection against an overwhelmingly large nomination petition. Much like Hercules and the

Augean Stables, these objectors did just that, and put together a solid case.

As to the first issue, objector has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

candidate, Andrea Raila, as well as several of her inner circle circulators and notaries,

engaged in a concerted, intentional pattern of fraud, both as to circulation, as well as notarial

acts.

The fraud included the intentional signing of circulator’s affidavits by persons other

than the actual circulator on petition sheets which were mailed in unsigned. The notarizing of

mailed in petition sheets that came in with the circulator portion signed but un-notarized,

wherein the notary stamp and signature was placed outside the presence of and without the

person of the actually circulator present and sworn, and the passing out, re-circulation, and

subsequent completion of the circulator affidavits, as needed, by subsequent circulators of

partially completed petition sheets sent in by these “mail in” circulators.

Testimony and Documentary Evidence

Objector’s evidence is broken down into four general categories: a) investigators

employed to gather the affidavits, who testified as to the circumstances related to the

affidavits and their execution; b) documentary evidence in the nature of affidavits; c)

witnesses who worked on behalf of the candidate’s campaign; and d) witnesses that were

outside the campaign but had evidence of improper acts by the campaign.

In regard to the affidavits objectors sought to introduce into evidence, the candidate

filed a memorandum seeking to bar their admittance. Four different versions of form

affidavits were carried by objectors’ investigator/notary teams that visited a number of

suspected problematic ‘mail-in circulators’, pre-printed with blanks for the affiant to modify
21
or add to them as the affiant saw fit. These are attached to candidate’s memorandum as

Exhibits A through D.

Candidate’s position is that, in each version, factual gaps exist to such an extent that

they require impermissible speculative leaps to reach the conclusion objectors’ seek to prove.

In oral argument, candidate went further, alleging that at the time the objects drafted these

variations, objectors had no proof of what was being drafted, ergo these affidavits are

nothing but speculation.

To the first point, objector is correct as to “the circulator who signed at the bottom

was not the person who handed me the petition sheet” form of affidavits, set forth in

candidate’s memo as Exhibits C and D. It is well understood that a circulator does not have

to physically present the petition sheets to a signer, the only requirement is that the petition

signer does so in the presence of the circulator. Ramirez v. Andrade, 372 Ill.App.3d 68, 865

N.E.2d 508 (1st Dist. 2007); Moscardini v. County Officers Electoral Bd. of Du Page County,

224 Ill. App. 3d 1059, 1063, 590 N.E.2d 84, 87 (2nd Dist. 1992); Vaitys v. Board of Election

Commissioners, 96 CO 43 (Cir. Ct. Cook County, March 1, 1996);

Objectors’ affidavits, versions Exhibits C and D, leave precisely that factual gap

which do not exclude the very real possibility that the signer was within sight of the

circulator, and as such they were signed “in the presence of the circulator”. As set forth in

more detail below, objectors fail to prove the point advanced.

The same gap cannot be said for the two other versions of the affidavits, attached as

Exhibits A and B to candidate’s memorandum.

Each of these versions of the affidavits speak to turning over petition sheets where the

circulator signed but, as handed over, they were not notarized. Version A was employed
22
with volunteers or hired circulators of the campaign. Version B was used for the “mail-in”

circulators who received the petition sheets through the candidate’s mass mailing strategy.

In each case every affiant clearly states, in pertinent part (with some variations

between the two versions), that while they did sign the circulator affidavit, when they signed

no notary was present, no one asked for an ID, they never met or talked with any notary, the

petition sheets were mailed back to the campaign un-notarized, and the first time they saw a

notary signature and stamp on the sheet was when they were presented with the petitions as

attached to the proposed affidavit. The majority of these affidavits also assert that petition

signer signatures were added to these sheets after they were signed by these circulators and

mailed back.

There are no leaps of speculation required to find as fact that these sheets were not

signed by the circulator in the presence of a notary, in violation of the Election Code.

As to candidate’s overarching argument that these affidavits are nothing but

speculation, the candidate reaches too far. It is fair to say that as drafted objectors no doubt

speculated (or estimated) as to what they expected (or hoped) the affiant would assert, but the

same cannot be said as to the affiant themselves; these individuals read the affidavits,

oftentimes filled in additional information in the blanks, initialed them, modified them and/or

struck portions out, and ultimately these documents were sworn to and adopted by these

affiants in front of a notary and signed under penalty of perjury. In short, the affidavits as

drafted by objectors may have been speculative, but as executed by the affiants they were

statements of fact made by the affiants under oath.

Objectors called Mr. John Baker, an investigator who met with the affiants set forth in

Objector’s Exhibits #9 and #10, both of which were admitted into evidence. The affiants
23
were Shana Harris and Shirley Golladay. Affiants were voters who signed the candidate’s

petition sheets, then signed these affidavits which objector advanced to evidence that the

circulator was the candidate, versus the named circulator, an African American woman

named Guana Stamps.

Mr. Baker testified credibly as to his interactions with these two individuals, their

understanding of the content of the affidavits, and that they readily identified the picture of

the person set out on the affidavits (the candidate) as the person presenting the petition sheet

to the voter, furthermore, that affiants executed the affidavits willingly, without threat,

coercion, or receiving anything of value.

However, a review of these affidavits evidences that they failed to prove the matter

sought to be proved, in that, while they clearly identify the person who presented the petition

sheets to the signers as the candidate, they do not, in any fashion, rule out whether the named

circulator was present and saw them sign. In fact, Ms. Stamps could have been standing at

the candidate’s elbow while these people signed and every literal word of the affidavit would

be true. No objection based on these affidavits can be sustained.

The same result obtains for objectors’ Exhibit #2 and 9, also accepted into evidence,

for the same reasons.

Objector’s Exhibits #3-5 are affidavits that were also accepted into evidence. A Ms.

Joy Williams, an investigator for objectors (and no relation to affiant) testified to her two

visits to the Williams residence to gain the execution of these affidavits. She was

straightforward and credible in her testimony that no coercion, threat or offer of financial

gain was offered to either affiant to gain their cooperation and execution. However, she

could not explain the contradictions between these affidavits beyond that there was obviously
24
some mix-up or confusion in the process.

Affidavit #3, executed by a Byron Williams, asserts he received a petition sheet in the

mail, circulated the petition sheet (1388) and mailed it back un-notarized (which was

subsequently notarized by Corrine John, a Raila campaign notary), yet objectors’ Exhibits #4

and #5, executed by the same Byron Williams and S’Earl Williams (his wife) also assert that

a young black man presented the same petition sheet (1388) for their signatures on lines 1

and 2, with lines 3-10 filled in later. There was sufficient confusion and contradiction

between these affidavits, one to the other, which Ms. Joy Williams could not adequately

explain such that they are deemed deficient to prove either that this sheet was fraudulent

notarized or that it was sent out to be re-circulated. This conflict requires a finding that

objectors did not meet their burden as to Ms. Corrine John as a notary or any circulator as to

this sheet 1388.

Turning to the testimony brought out on the stand by objectors’ from their

investigators and notaries, specifically Mr. Jiles McCloud, Mr. John Baker, Ms. Joy Williams

and Ms. Loren Welsh, each of these individuals testified at some length in this matter. Mr.

McCloud, Mr. Baker and Ms. Williams were each investigators for objector, each teamed up

with a notary, who traveled around to interview and gain the execution of notarized affidavits

that have been used in this case. Ms. Welsh is one of objectors’ travelling notaries who was

teamed up with various investigators (including with Mr. McCloud, in reference to Mr.

Douglas Martin) to work on the same tasks.

Each of these individuals faced detailed and pointed cross examination as to the

circumstances of their interactions with these several affiants. Their testimony was clear,

measured, and credible. There is no indication from any of these witnesses of any
25
dissembling or evasion, nor did any of them give any indication that any threats, coercion or

inducements were employed by any group to gain any affiant’s execution of an affidavit.

Their credibility was enhanced in the few instances where they could not remember a

specific detail. Even if that detail may have been favorable to their side’s position, they

would admit to an inability to recall. Their testimony as to how they conducted themselves

also mirrored the testimony of a disinterested third party, given days later, who also received

a visit from objectors’ investigator/notary teams, Dr. Zucco, PhD, which is discussed in

detail elsewhere in this recommendation. In summary, in evaluating the testimony of these

investigative teams of objector and their interactions with affiants, this hearing officer

believes that no overt coercion, pressure or offer of gain was applied to any affiant to gain

their cooperation and that the affidavits, as tendered, were provided of the affiants’ free will.

Parenthetically, objectors also entered into evidence Obj. Ex. #70, an affidavit of a

Trisha J. Benson, another investigator team member, who provided a written statement as to

the general procedure employed by her when interviewing voter/signers or circulators in the

course of her investigation. This statement is in accord with their testimony and that of Dr.

Zucco.

The above determination regarding these investigative teams was made with the

testimony of candidate’s witness, Ms. Jammie Brokenborough, in mind. Ms. Brokenborough,

in relevant part to this issue, testified that Mr. McCloud appeared unannounced at her home

with another individual in an effort to interview her and that Mr. McCloud flashed a badge

and claimed to work for the “Board of Elections”. Ms. Brokenborough did not allege that he

made any threats however, and the witness further testified that in subsequent text messages

between them Mr. McCloud actually denied having made such an assertion, leaving this
26
allegation somewhat unclear. Furthermore, after a few exchanges between them, wherein

Ms. Brokenborough made it clear she did not intend to cooperate, Mr. McCloud ceased

contacting her.

Objectors Exhibits #6-8 and #11 were affidavits accepted into evidence that claimed,

in each case, that the affiant’s signature on the specified page and line number, attached to

the affidavit, was a forgery. This hearing office reviewed each sheet and line against the

affiant’s signature on the affidavit and it is the opinion of this hearing officer that the

allegation is not proven that the signature on the petition is not valid.

Objector introduced a number of additional affidavits, specifically including Obj. Ex.

#12-69, wherein the affiants, (save for Obj. Ex. #62, 63, 64 and 65, discussed separately

below) each asserted, often with handwritten changes, annotations, additions and deletions to

the affidavits, all determined by the hearing officer, based on the investigator’s testimony, to

have been made in the affiant’s hands, that the affiants had mailed in their petition sheets

back to the campaign, (in each case the petition sheet was attached to the affidavit) wherein

the further allegation was a combination of one or more of the following:

a. the petition sheet was mailed in with both the circulator affidavit section and

notary section blank and unsigned but the sheet, as attached to the affidavit, was

thereafter signed by someone other than the ‘mail-in’ circulator and notarized

outside the presence of and without any knowledge of, the ‘mail-in’ circulator;

(Obj. Ex.# 13, 17, 21, 22, 25, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,

49, 50, 51 and 52)

i. Circulators Implicated by (a) affidavits:

1. Eldridge Anderson (2 different sheets referenced by affidavits)

27
 2. Paul Pusateri
3. Byron Raila
4. Paula Blanski (2 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
5. Andrea Raila
6. Douglas Martin (5 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
7. Selma Mehicevic (2 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
8. Angelica Duran
9. Susan Donahue

b. the petition sheet was mailed in with the circulator section filled out and

signed, but not notarized, but the sheet, as attached to the affidavit, was

thereafter notarized outside the presence of and without any knowledge of, the

‘mail-in’ circulator; (Obj. Ex. # 15, 18, 20, 24, 30, 31, 34, 38, 48, 53, 54, 55,

56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66 and 67)

i. Notaries Implicated by (b) affidavits:

1. Jenny Zuninga
2. Andrea Raila (7 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
3. Byron Raila (2 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
4. Barbara Larsen
5. Theodora Anguelova
6. Jane Kienstra (2 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
7. Paul Pusateri (4 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
8. Tammy Miller-Watson (5 different sheets referenced by affidavits)
9. Gustavo Ocampo
10. Shandra Dean

c. the petition sheet was mailed in with both the circulator affidavit section and

notary section properly signed and executed but the sheet, as attached to the

affidavit, had additional signatures added to the sheets after they were sent in,

typically sent in with 1, 2, or 3 signatures, with additional signatures added

outside the presence of and without any knowledge of, the ‘mail-in’ circulator;

(Obj. Ex. 12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 68 and 69)

i. Sheets implicated by (c) affidavits: 217, 260, 918, 964, 1265,

28
 1315, 1317, 1469 and 1770.

Several of the affiants set out in paragraphs a) and b) above also asserted that

additional signatures were added to the sheet after being sent in, i.e., re-circulated. (See Obj.

Ex.# 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30-53, 58, and 59) (Sheets Implicated: 20, 50, 102,

138, 295,508, 590, 606, 647, 686, 741, 743, 781, 899, 954, 958, 1094,1162, 1180, 1358,

1359,1434, 1441, 1468, 1760, 1769,1835 and 2091.

The allegations contained in these affidavits are also supported by other

circumstantial evidence which, cumulatively, gives them persuasive weight. The hearing

officer went through each original petition sheet referenced in these affidavits. Each petition

sheet was “tri-folded”, which would be the case had these petition sheets been mailed out to

these individuals and mailed back, as claimed in the affidavits. To be clear, the candidate and

others on behalf of candidate testified that tri-folded petition sheets were not only used in all

mailers, but printing overruns of these tri-folds, not being used in the mailers, were also

circulated on the street along with flat sheets. The point, however, is that the hearing

officer’s review of the original petition sheets evidenced that in every case the affidavit of a

“mail-in” circulator was associated with a tri-folded petition sheet.

Furthermore, in the vast majority of these affidavits, wherein there is alleged a re-

circulation effort, the initial 1, 2 or 3 signatures, as the case may be, would in various

combinations either/and/or also originate in a collar suburb, be in the nature of a

husband/wife/other family member signing, oftentimes be in a completely different ink, a

different color ink or in a different width or saturation of ink and pen than the remaining

signatures alleged to have been added, would be from a completely different location of

significant distance away, (several northwest suburban 1-2 signature pages found themselves
29
finished off on lines 3-10 on the far south side by a circulator, Douglas Martin, who lived at

119th Street in Chicago) wherein the remaining signatures on those pages, be it 3-10 or 4-10

would all be relatively local, one to the next. These additional facts, while not dispositive, are

viewed as corroborative of the assertions being made in these affidavits.

In regards to Mr. Douglas Martin, objectors also presented affidavits #62 and #63,

executed on December 6, 2017, by one of the candidate’s main paid circulators, Douglas

Martin. Affidavit #62 set forth some 121 sheet numbers of petition sheets, each of which

were signed by Mr. Martin as a circulator. Within affidavit #62 Mr. Martin swore under oath

he signed as circulator but handed these sheets off to an individual named “D’Nice Wee-

Wee” [sic] without ever appearing before a notary, and Affidavit #63, wherein Mr. Martin

re-iterated the same petition page numbers and averred in the affidavit that despite the fact

that he had signed as a circulator, in fact, all the sheets were circulated by four other

individuals (set forth by hand on a blank contained in the affidavit) and merely collected by

Mr. Martin, that Mr. Martin was not present when the petition signers signed the petition

sheets, did not see them sign, and didn’t even know when they were signed. (Obj. Ex. #62,

63) These affidavits attached all of the petition sheets set forth in the affidavits as part of the

affidavits.

The sheets at issue in Obj. Ex. #62 and #63 are: 102, 116, 119, 121, 124, 126, 166,

167, 172, 176, 187, 196, 200, 222, 228, 230, 239, 247, 317, 320, 324, 327, 328, 365, 368,

373, 680, 742, 801, 854, 861, 878, 890, 894, 895, 956, 976, 996, 1101, 1115, 1119, 1137,

1140, 1162, 1166, 1171, 1173, 1175, 1190, 1192, 1243, 1271, 1272, 1277, 1279, 1290,

1294, 1301, 1306, 1311, 1313, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1364, 1370, 1378, 1379, 1380,

1402, 1405, 1406, 1416, 1433, 1447, 1448, 1458, 1461, 1468, 1470, 1472, 1475, 1498, 1490,
30
1627, 1630, 1711, 1716, 1721, 1726, 1731, 1733, 1736, 1744, 1748, 1761, 1768, 1773, 1780,

1789, 1812, 1855, 1856, 1864, 1873, 1885, 1887, 1899, 1961, 2040, 2060, 2067, 2080, 2099,

2100, 2122, 2301, 2313, 2315.

The notaries at issue in reference to Obj. Ex. #63 are: Andrea Raila (16 Sheets); Jane

Kienstra (21 Sheets); Martha Bulmer (21 Sheets); Byron Raila (15 Sheets); Tammy Miller-

Watson (34 Sheets); Paul Pusateri (5 Sheets); and Xiao Fei Wang (9 Sheets). It is undisputed

on the record that each of these individuals either worked directly for the campaign or with

Raila and Associates, the candidate’s former employer, on the 7th floor of the same building

where the campaign office is located.

Mr. Jiles McCloud presented the affidavits (Obj. Ex. #62 and #63) to Mr. Martin. He

was accompanied by Ms. Lauren Welsh. Mr. McCloud testified credibly as to how Mr.

Martin was a paid circulator in this same election for the Fritz Kaegi campaign earlier in

October but had been terminated for low quality, suspect petition sheet circulation efforts and

that Mr. McCloud was involved in this termination decision.

In her testimony, the candidate confirmed that Mr. Martin showed up at her campaign

after being fired from the Kaegi campaign.

Mr. McCloud testified forthrightly as to how these affidavits were presented to Mr.

Martin, that they were fully reviewed and discussed, no threats of any sort were made, nor

was anything of value offered, and that Mr. Martin personally inserted the handwritten

sections in the affidavits and executed them voluntarily.

Ms. Lauren Welsh also testified in a very credible fashion how she accompanied Mr.

McCloud to meet with Mr. Martin, she witnessed Mr. Martin review each affidavit, discuss

them with Mr. McCloud, watched as he filled in all the handwritten information except for
31
the date, and watched him sign each affidavit, after which Ms. Welsh, upon reviewing his ID

notarized each signature.

Discussed in more detail below, Dr. Carole Zucco, PhD., a ‘mail-in’ circulator called

to the stand, testified to a visit to her home in Wilmette, Illinois by a similar

investigator/notary team of objectors, and her testimony regarding the discussions had and

the conduct expressed by this investigator/notary team was fully consistent with the

testimony of Mr. McCloud and Ms. Welsh regarding interaction with potential affiants, as

well as the investigation procedure set forth in the affidavit of another investigator of

objectors, Ms. Trisha J. Benson. (See Obj. Ex. #70).

Objectors’ Douglas Martin affidavits were turned over to the candidate on January 17,

2018, pursuant to the scheduling order entered by the hearing officer.

In rebuttal on this Douglas Martin issue, the candidate introduced into evidence

Candidate’s Exhibit #10, a counter-affidavit executed by Douglas Martin on January 18,

2018 and disclosed on January 20, 2018. This January 18, 2018, affidavit asserted that Mr.

Martin properly appeared before each notary and executed the circulator’s affidavit. In this

counter-affidavit Mr. Martin also stated that when he signed the prior two affidavits he did

not understand what he was signing at the time and was under duress. Candidate’s Ex. #10

suffered from a number of problems which caused the hearing officer to view it as having

little evidentiary weight. While Mr. Martin asserted he did, in fact properly circulate all the

petition sheets referenced as being attached to the January 18, 2018, affidavit, in fact no such

petition sheets were attached to the affidavit, nor were the sheet numbers set out in the

affidavit. The claimed duress was not described in any fashion. Objectors’ original affidavits,

#62 & 63, without the petition sheets attached, were attached to the counter-affidavit.
32
Another deficiency in this counter-affidavit (Can. Ex.#10) is that paragraph 6 of this counter-

affidavit references an attached picture of Mr. Jiles McCloud, yet the attached picture was an

Illinois state identification card for Mr. Martin himself.

The candidate, to refute affiant Martin’s claim that he had not appeared before a

notary on these sheets, also introduced a 15 second video, viewed through a phone, marked

and accepted into evidence as Can. Ex. #11, within which the hearing officer could not make

out any clear images but which candidate asserted depicted Mr. Martin in the campaign

office sitting with the candidate, April Williams, and a third notary, Jane Kienstra on

December 3, 2017. Given the dates of the various notarizations of these Douglas Martin

petition sheets which predated this December 3, 2017, video, it was of questionable

evidentiary value.

The hearing officer, in weighing these two competing documents, finds that the later

affidavit, without more, did nothing to overcome or diminish the impact of these initial two

declarations and supporting testimony of the two witnesses, McCloud and Welsh. There

wasn’t any designation of what sheets the affiant was referencing in Can. Ex.#10, nor any

facts advanced that would describe the affiant’s review nor circumstances of execution of the

prior two affidavits, particularly as it related to any duress allegedly experienced. It failed to

actually identify Mr. McCloud, never even mentioned Ms. Welsh, and actually had a picture

of the affiant himself being attested to by the affiant as being the person of Mr. McCloud. It

also internally begs the question how, if Mr. Martin did not understand the first two

affidavits, he could reasonably be expected to understand the import of the third affidavit

refuting the prior two, particularly when this latest affidavit did not have the actual petition

sheets attached. Given the several irregularities found, the evidence tended to show it far
33
more likely that Mr. Martin had failed to review Can. Ex. #10.

Objector entered Obj. Ex. #64 into evidence, this being the affidavit of Carl Blair, a

circulator for the candidate of sheets 610, 623, 1077, 1080, 1543. Within this affidavit Mr.

Blair asserts under oath that he was a paid circulator hired by “Derrick”, that he circulated

the aforestated sheets, he signed the circulator’s affidavit outside the presence of any notary,

never presented himself or I.D. to any notary to notarize the sheets, instead turning in the

signed but un-notarized sheets to Derrick, and the first time he saw that the sheets were

notarized was in reference to the signing of Obj. Ex. #64. The notary implicated by this

affidavit is Gustavo Ocampo.

Objector also placed in evidence Obj. Ex. #65, the affidavit of Niki Brown, a

circulator of the candidate, who swore under oath in that document that while she did

circulate sheets 1143, 1476, 1928, 1968, and 2076, she signed these sheets and handed them

in un-notarized to someone named Andreana or “Andrienne”. This assertion implicates Ms.

Brown, as circulator, and Ms. Tameka Melton and Ms. Shandris Dean as the notaries that

signed off on the sheets.

Objector also called Ms. Niki Brown to the stand, and in direct, albeit adverse,

testimony, Ms. Brown, a paid circulator for the candidate, acknowledged that she signed Obj.

Ex. #65, but denied that she had written anything else within the body of the affidavit other

than her signature, and in particular regarding inserting the sheet numbers and the words

Andreana or “Andrienne” in the blank spaces, and denied remembering being presented with

copies of the underlying petition sheets. The witness vacillated between confirming whether

she did or did not actually turn the sheets over to someone named Andreana or “Andrienne”,

and also acknowledged it could have been someone named Andrea.

34
 Under cross by the candidate the witness asserted she properly execute the

circulator’s affidavit at a currency exchange. The witness was defensive while responding to

objectors’ re-direct questions regarding the act of notarization at the currency exchange and

had considerable difficulty remembering or articulating any details other than steadfastly

asserting to the event itself.

Niki Brown’s live witness testimony is deemed not to be credible. Leaving aside her

demeanor and manner while testifying, the most cursory review of the handwriting on sheets

1143, 1476, 1928, 1968, and 2076 evidences that the handwriting in the circulator’s affidavit

on each sheet is strikingly similar, almost identical, to the words and letters contained in Obj.

Ex. #65, if not the numbers, such that this hearing officer found her testimony, in all

probability outright false, at a minimum lacked credibility regarding her alleged unfamiliarity

with the facts contained in the affidavit such that the affidavit, over her testimony, should be

believed.

These affidavits were compiled from a diverse group of people located throughout

Cook County, including otherwise disinterested third parties, campaign volunteers, and paid

circulators. This hearing officer deems objector’s affidavits, in combination with supporting

testimony and circumstantial facts, to be detailed, credible and entitled to significant weight.

In defense against this evidence the candidate as well as her two key campaign

staffers, Ms. April Williams-Luster and Tammy Miller-Watson, as well as select notaries and

circulators provided generic testimony in the nature of “I/we did everything properly” and

“I/we wouldn’t do that, it would be illegal”. Yet when pressed to identify specific facts that

could explain or otherwise contradict the facts as alleged in these affidavits, no such

evidence was ever elicited, and none of the witness’ had any specific memory of these
35
events. Each of these witnesses, and in particular the candidate, specifically admitted they

possessed no facts that could controvert the facts set forth in these affidavits.

Generic testimony of this nature, merely alleging in broad brush terms the correctness

of the witness’ actions, is insufficient to controvert specific assertions of fact contained in an

affidavit. Schwartz v. Kinney, 2016 IL App (3d) 160021, ¶ 18.

This hearing officer notes that the testimony of the candidate and her witness’ on

this issue was further undercut by repeated admissions by the candidate, her witnesses as

well as her counsel, conceding through much of the case that the acts, as asserted by these

witnesses and documentary evidence, did, in fact, take place, but sought exculpation by

repeated assertions that “mistakes were made” and it was “possible things weren’t done

right”. As the objectors’ evidence mounted these protestations grew.

It seems axiomatic that on one hand you can’t consistently testify you did things

correctly and then admit in almost the same breath that you didn’t. The contortionist nature

of this testimonial exercise was difficult to attempt, and the demeanor of the candidate’s

witnesses clearly evidenced the strain these mental gymnastics had upon them.

Despite the candidate’s efforts to excuse these actions as nothing more than “a couple

of mistakes”, the evidence in this case proves by a clear and convincing level that these

actions by the enumerated notaries and circulators was not inadvertent, or accidental, and

certainly not an isolated few, but rather, an intentional, systemic and calculated pattern of

fraud.

Objector called Ms. Silvia Ravelo-Castro to the stand. In sum, this witness, a notary

for petition sheet 296, testified that she was the office manager in a labor law office, and that

she distinctly remembers when she notarized the signature of the circulator of the sheet, Ms.
36
Rosalee Swanson, a co-worker. She testified that there were only 5 signatures on it at the

time the circulator’s signature was notarized and then placed in the mail and mailed back to

the candidate’s campaign office, all of the signers being employees of the law office within

which the circulator and notary both worked. The signers on lines 6 through 9 were

completely unknown to the notary and she had no idea how those names were placed on the

petition sheet after it was mailed in. This witness testified credibly and was believable.

Objector called Mr. Jeffrey Shure to the stand, who testified that he had been a

business client of the candidate for some 20 years, he circulated sheet 549, which he got in

the mail, that he personally brought it back to the candidate either on Thanksgiving or the

day before and signed and had his circulator affidavit notarized in person. When challenged

by objector’s counsel, Mr. Shure denied have said anything contradictory to his testimony

while waiting in the hallway in the time period immediately prior to giving his testimony.

Immediately upon the end of Mr. Shure’s testimony objector’s counsel placed his

own assistant, Ms. Meghan Murphy, on the stand to testify in opposition to Mr. Shure’s

testimony. Ms. Murphy, a graduate student paid by the Kaegi campaign to act as Mr. Finko,

Esq.’s assistant in this case, testified that immediately prior to his taking the stand, Ms.

Murphy engaged Mr. Shure in a conversation about his circulation of sheet 549, and in that

conversation Mr. Shure informed Ms. Murphy that he mailed in his petition sheet to the

campaign and he had no idea how or when the notary stamp and signature was placed on the

sheet. Furthermore, that Mr. Shure was clear and exact in his statements to her.

Objectors would also call Ms. Guana Stamps, one of the candidate’s paid circulator.

This individual was obstreperous even before she was put on the stand, storming into the

hearing room and spewing a string of obscenities at the hearing officer and parties, rupturing
37
the proceedings while another witness was on the stand and requiring the taking of Ms.

Stamps out of turn in order to restore a modicum of civility to the proceedings.

Adverse inquiry by objector’s counsel elicited that the candidate had been a circulator

for various campaigns for more than 30 years. In reference to the current candidate, the

witness listed her circulator address as 3307 West LeMoyne, Chicago, Illinois. Objector

presented the witness with several pieces of documentary information, including Obj. Ex.

#88 and 88-A, both accepted into evidence, each being a voter registration card from

different dates, and each listing the candidate’s address as other than 3307 West LeMoyne,

including a voter registration card dated December 17, 2017, which lists the candidate’s

address as 204 Hill Street (Obj. Ex. #88-A) and 1360 North Sedgewick (Obj. Ex. 88). In

response the witness brandished an Illinois driver’s license that was issued on January 4,

2018, listing the witnesses’ address as 3307 West LeMoyne.

The objectors thereafter sought to inquire about Ms. Stamps’ circulation efforts, and

specifically focused on sheet 949, a sheet Ms. Stamps signed as circulator and which was

notarized by the candidate, Andrea Raila. Ms. Stamps explained that she circulated petitions

with a team that she would watch have people sign and she would collect the petition sheets

and sign the circulator’s affidavit. When pressed on her activities in that manner, Ms. Stamps

got belligerent, refusing to provide the names of anyone in her team, finally providing only

the first name of one person “Eddie”, and flatly refusing to provide his last name or any other

names. After explaining that she received all her sheets flat, not tri-folded, and becoming

increasingly agitated, the witness cursed, stood up, and stormed off the witness chair and out

of the hearing room.

Objector called Andre Maples, a circulator of some 7-10 petition sheets of this
38
candidate. Testimony was elicited as to certain discrepancies between the address contained

in the circulator’s address and various pieces of identification carried by Mr. Maples,

specifically including a recent state ID, issued October, 2017, listing Mr. Maples’ address as

2715 West Harrison, Chicago, Illinois, an address the witness claimed was an old address

from “years ago”. However, one piece of identification, a voter’s identification card,

matched the circulation address of 4250 West North Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. On cross,

candidate’s counsel elicited testimony that Mr. Maples had been living at the North Avenue

address for some eight years, that Mr. Maples was served the subpoena in this matter at that

address, and that he properly appeared before a notary to sign each of his circulator

affidavits. Objector had Exhibit 94, Andre Maples State ID (redacted) and Voter Registration

Card entered into evidence.

Objector thereafter immediately called as a rebuttal witness a Ms. Alexandrea Navedo

who stated that she was standing around watching the proceedings and waiting to get tasked

with something in reference to the Kaegi campaign and struck up a conversation with Mr.

Maples within which Mr. Maples allegedly stated he would never wait around to get his

sheets notarized, he would just drop off his petition sheets at the campaign office to be

notarized and that the Raila campaign had never paid him for circulating and owed him

money.

Objectors failed to meet their burden in regards to any residence address claim as to

Mr. Maples or Ms. Stamps.

Objector put Ms. Jennifer Zuniga, branch manager of By-Line Bank, 455 N. Wells

Street, Chicago, Illinois on the stand. Ms. Zuniga testified that on November 28, 2017, Ms.

Andrea Raila came into the bank for purposes of notarizing a stack of petition sheets the
39
candidate stated she had circulated. This was the only time Ms. Zuniga participated in such

an event, and it stood out in Ms. Zuniga’s mind because she had never done such

notarizations before or since. She had met Ms. Raila one time before, that being some time

previously in order to add a signatory to the campaign account.

Ms. Zuniga stated she took Ms. Raila’s ID, then proceeded to sign and stamp sheets in

an assembly line fashion as they were passed over from Ms. Raila. Ms. Zuniga stated that

initially she watched Ms. Raila as she wrote on the petition sheets, and believed that Ms.

Raila was filling out the various parts in the circulator affidavit as well as signing the

affidavit, however, she was more focused on her own signing and stamping, only noticing

that Ms. Raila was still writing and assumed she was signing each sheet before passing them

over.

Presented with some 22 petition sheets, all bearing her signature and stamp, Ms.

Zuniga acknowledged that they were genuine notarizations of hers, and when confronted

with some 6 sheets wherein the circulators were variously Mr. Willie Murray, Ms. Lyn

Wolfson, Mr. Randall Drueck and three for Mr. Byron Raila, Ms. Zuniga admitted that no

other person accompanied Ms. Raila into the bank lobby that she saw, and that she must

have inadvertently notarized these other persons sheets without realizing it. She was definite

that all these sheets were passed to her on a counter in the bank lobby by Ms. Raila. There

was no mention of any clipboard being employed. This witness testified credibly and

forthrightly, and evidenced contrition and embarrassment over her omissions in her actions.

There is no contention by either side that Mr. Willie Murray, Ms. Lyn Wolfson, Mr.

Randall Drueck or Mr. Byron Raila appeared before Ms. Zuniga to sign their circulator

affidavits under oath, so each of these sheets, #72, 73, 698 (Byron Raila) 214 (Lyn Wolfson);
40
216 (Randall Druek) and 686 (Willie Murray) are struck on these grounds, if not on other

grounds set forth elsewhere.

The objectors called Dr. Carole Zucco, PhD to the stand. This witness had already

executed an affidavit on behalf of objectors, entered into evidence as Objectors Ex. #58

(Sheet 781). Dr. Zucco testified as to her political involvement in a quite satisfied way

stating it went all the way back to protests of the Vietnam War, and that she was a long time

member of the New Trier Democratic Organization, and had regularly circulated candidate

petitions over the years. When presented with Objector’s Exhibit #93, the Raila mailer, the

witness acknowledged receiving one in the mail. The witness stated that she signed the

petition sheet herself, went over to her neighbors, signed a husband and wife up on lines 2

and 3, signed the circulator’s affidavit and sent it in un-notarized. The witness reiterated that

lines 4 through 10 were definitely blank when mailed in, and that it was mailed back un-

notarized.

The witness stated that two young people came to her door in January, 2018, to

discuss sheet 781, and she was shocked, and in her words, felt “betrayed”, not only to see

that lines 4-9 had been filled in after she mailed it in with only three signatures, but also that

her signature was purportedly notarized on November 25, 2017.

Dr. Zucco testified that such a notary event would have been an impossibility, in that

her son, living in Florida, had suffered a stroke, and she had flown down to Florida on

November 21, 2017, returning to the Chicago area on November 28, 2018. Dr. Zucco also

produced a Chase Bank credit card statement for review by the hearing officer, which

confirmed that Dr. Zucco had purchased a flight from O’Hare to Miami International and

back for the dates Dr. Zucco testified.

41
 Dr. Zucco’s petition page 781 was notarized by the candidate, Andrea Raila.

Dr. Zucco further confirmed that the statements contained in the affidavit, Obj. Ex.

#58, were hers and accurate, as well as taking ownership for all the handwritten edits and

changes in the affidavit.

Dr. Zucco also corroborated, in all respects, the statements by objector’s investigators

and notaries as to how they approached potential affiants. These individuals came to her

home unannounced, discussed the matter with her, presented her with a pre-printed, blank

affidavit that factually fit the situation she had described, allowed her time to review it and

make changes to it as she saw fit, and read it out loud to her before she signed it, after which

she presented them with her ID and a notary notarized her signature.

Dr. Zucco also testified that the campaign had mailed her a letter saying the candidate

was being challenged and it was accompanied by some type of affidavit stating that the

signature on the petition sheet was hers, without enclosing a copy of the petition sheet with

the affidavit. Dr. Zucco took this affidavit to her bank to be notarized and the bank told her

they couldn’t notarize a document like that, which the witness testified made her so upset she

tore up the correspondence and called the campaign office, which urged her to just sign it

and send it in, which she did not do. Dr. Zucco’s testimony was credible in all respects, and

her demeanor wavered between disappointed and indignant.

After Dr. Zucco came off the stand the candidate, through counsel, stipulated on the

record that the circulator did not appear before the notary and that lines 4-9 were obtained by

someone other than the stated circulator, but in the same breath argued that it was all

inadvertent.

Objectors, having called Byron Raila to the stand, inquired as to his role in the
42
campaign. He was normally employed by Raila and Associates part time as a property tax

analyst, and helped on the campaign as a volunteer. Andrea Raila was his aunt. He had been

a notary for approximately 3 years, and notarized only for the campaign and the law office.

He had access to the campaign office at his discretion and had the access code to the keypad

lock. Campaign meeting were held in the conference room, where he confirmed that several

bins were set up to take petition sheets, although he never saw anyone take any petition

sheets out of the bins and doesn’t remember seeing anyone ever dropping off petition sheets,

and he never personally touched the bins. If he had an unfinished petition sheet he would put

it in the office or take it home with him, and except for 1 or 2 times would bring unfinished

sheets home with him in a tote bag, but sometimes he would leave them in the conference

room.

Byron Raila testified he did not circulate in any suburb other than Evanston, but could

not remember specifics of any sheets he circulated, but denied ever completing a sheet

started by someone else or signing a sheet completed by someone else.

Byron Raila had no memory of notarizing sheet 1434 (Obj. Ex. #20) or sheet 958

(Obj. Ex. #38). In reference to sheet 72, 73, and 698 (Zuniga Notarized Sheets) Mr. Raila

testified that he remembered circulating them and believed he got them notarized at a

currency exchange. He doesn’t recall ever giving sheets to Andrea Raila that weren’t already

notarized and never travelled anywhere with her to get sheets notarized.

Testifying in cross, Mr. Raila stated that if he had taken a partially started sheet and

filled it out, such an act would be inadvertent on his part and that he would never

intentionally take the sheets of other people. The witness also stated that it was possible he

may have occasionally pre-signed his circulator affidavit.

43
 His circulation efforts were generally in the central Chicago/downtown area around

the Merchandise Mart, Wicker Park Library, or at the AMC Movie Theater in Evanston

Byron Raila testified that Paul Pusetari, a notary used by the campaign, was a full

time employee of Raila and Associates.

Objectors inquired of Ms. Connie Anderson, a Raila campaign volunteer, regarding

her circulation and notary efforts in regards to the campaign. The witness attested to

appropriate notary and circulation activities, that she would circulate at large events, such as

Bears games, and had little to no memory as to how various signatures were collected or

came to be on her sheets, and that she was rarely in the conference room, having no

involvement with stamping, mailing or sorting mail. The witness was credible and pleasant.

Objectors called Corrine John to the stand, who testified that she was an

administrative assistant employed by Raila and Associates, operated mainly as a notary for

the campaign, testifying, at first, to having circulated only one sheet. (Sheet 1025) When

presented with three more sheets she purportedly signed as circulator, (920, 1160 and 1876)

the witness evidenced clear surprise, and reiterated more than once that while the signatures

were clearly hers, she had absolutely no memory of having circulated any more than the

single sheet.

The witness testified she would typically notarize on the round table or a kitchen

counter located in the open area nearest the front door, may have notarized once in a while in

the conference room, but it had piles of petition sheets on it. In reference to Sheet 1388, (Obj.

Ex. #3-5), the witness had no memory of Byron Williams, the circulator who’s signature she

notarized, and would only speak in vague generalities as to her notarial activities on behalf of

the campaign.
44
 Objector’s inquiry of the candidate, Andrea Raila, interrupted over several days to

take other witnesses out of turn, and once because the candidate simply refused to return to

the stand after lunch claiming a prior engagement for an endorsement session, took hours,

and went into minute detail, often into tangential areas. However, what did sift out in the

candidate’s testimony was that this campaign started later than the candidate would have

liked.

Andrea Raila testified that she got into the race late, with only 7 weeks to go, and

knew she had to make up ground. She testified as to the means and methods of this

candidate’s circulation drive taking place through mailers, email, social media, as well as

volunteer and paid circulators, as detailed above. The campaign office was located at 747

North LaSalle, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60654, and that the general configuration had an

open area immediately inside the office door which contained a round table with, chairs

around it, an office immediately to one side (occupied by someone for other purposes), as

well as a conference room which had a locking door with a conference table and chairs and

locking filing cabinets within.

There was testimony that indicated another office or discrete area somewhere in the

suite which containing computer desks and computers in the nature of a media or data center.

The inside of the conference room would be where incomplete mailed in sheets, e.g.

circulator signed but not notarized or neither circulator signed nor notarized would be sorted

into six metal bins labeled North, South, East, West, City of Chicago, with the sixth bin

holding fully completed sheets. Finished petition sheets, ready for inclusion in the final

nomination petition, would be compiled into a stack then locked up in a filing cabinet in the

conference room.
45
 The candidate as well as her campaign manager each testified that access to this room

was limited, almost exclusively to the candidate, Andrea Raila, her campaign manager, April

Luster-Williams, her assistant campaign manager, Tammy Miller-Watson, and to a lesser

extent, the candidate’s nephew, Byron Raila. The candidate insisted repeatedly that

unfinished, un-notarized, or sheets unsigned by the circulator would not leave the conference

room.

The conference room was locked up nightly and the key either carried on the person

of the candidate or her campaign manager or secreted against a metal computer table leg

using a magnetic key holder. While volunteers might be present and capable of removing

sheets, the candidate deemed this unlikely.

The candidate, at the beginning, was resolute in her testimony that the petition sheets

and bins, kept in the conference room, were under strict control, with the candidate or her

campaign manager or assistant manager on the premises at all times.

The candidate testified to a notarization process wherein she would ask for

identification, match it to the name being signed, witness and notarize the signature of the

circulator, denying that any notarization would be done to a previously signed petition sheet.

Ms. Raila admitted knowing Doug Martin, believed he was a good circulator, and actually

circulated with him on 2 to 3 occasions.

Ms. Raila testified that the campaign’s use of the above stated means to gather

signatures, specifically the mass mailing and social media, engendered significant problems

with incomplete and partially completed circulator affidavits, such that the aforestated “bin”

system was employed in order to attempt to sort out the incomplete petition sheets so as to

allow the circulators to be tracked down and get the petition sheets completed.
46
 The candidate testified that these deficient mailed in petitions were sorted by region,

as well as by “signed by circulator-notarized”; “signed by circulator-not notarized”; and “not

signed by circulator-not notarized”. While the candidate (as well as her campaign manager

and assistant campaign manager) testified that the efforts to track down “mail-in” circulators

halted after some 10-20 attempts (the numbers varied by witness) as being a poor use of

campaign resources, the candidate’s testimony, as well as that of her campaign manager and

assistant campaign manager made it clear that the sorting of these deficient mailed in petition

sheets continued throughout the campaign. The candidate also denied that Douglas Martin

was utilized in any attempt to find these circulators and gain the appropriate signatures on

them.

The candidate also testified that as to the mailed in, fully completed petition sheets,

signed and notarized, nothing was done to check whether these sheets were properly

circulated or notarized.

The candidate also testified that a core of notaries, mostly from her campaign or the

Raila and Associates Law Offices, located one floor above the campaign office, supplied

most of the notarial functions, although circulators were also told they could find notaries in

currency exchanges and banks. The candidate had worked for the Law firm for a number of

years before resigning in 2017.

Objector’s counsel repeatedly pressed the candidate throughout her testimony, as well

as doing likewise to her campaign manager and assistant campaign manager, seeking to elicit

testimony that the campaign was run recklessly, that access to these unfinished mailed in

sheets was available and easy to access by almost any volunteer or visitor. The candidate, as

well as Ms. April Luster-Williams, her campaign manager, and Ms. Tammy Miller-Watson,
47
her assistant campaign manager, each testified repeatedly that access to these incomplete

sheets could only go through them, and that while it was possible sheets got taken out of

these bins without their knowledge or authority, it was highly unlikely. The only reason a

sheet would be taken out of the bins was if someone was able to take the sheet to the listed

circulator to have it properly notarized with a circulator present.

Ms. Raila evinced a significantly heightened level of nervousness upon being

questioned with sheets referenced in the circulator /notary misconduct affidavits, specifically

sheet 1180 (Obj. Ex. #18), signed by Jessica Moreno and her husband in blue ink, from

Hoffman Estates wherein the affiant asserted it was sent in signed by her as circulator but un-

notarized, and that lines 3-10 were added after being mailed in. This sheet was notarized by

Ms. Raila, who had no memory of it nor could the candidate refute the claimed series of

events.

When the candidate was questioned about appearing at By-Line Bank on November

28, 2017, to have a group of her petition sheets notarized, Ms. Raila remembered going there

to have Ms. Zuniga, the bank manager, notarize numerous sheets the candidate circulated.

When confronted by objector’s counsel with the fact that several sheets of other

circulators were presented by the candidate to Ms. Zuniga for notarization, including sheets

for Mr. Willie Murray (Obj. Ex. #15)(Sheet 686), Ms. Lyn Wolfson (Sheet 214), Mr. Randall

Drueck (Sheet 216) and three for her nephew, Mr. Byron Raila (Sheets 72, 73, 698), each,

per Ms. Zuniga’s testimony (set out above) notarized by Ms. Zuniga in the mistaken belief

they were all signed in the notary’s presence by Ms. Raila, the candidate had no answer as to

how these incomplete sheets came into her possession, nor did she have any memory or

knowledge as to who Lyn Wolfson was, nor Willie Murray, had never circulated with these
48
people, and could not explain how these two incomplete sheets had made it out of the bins

located in the conference room into her possession. The candidate also could not answer how

two different dates, November 28 and 29, the 29th in a different hand, had been inserted.

Becoming increasingly evasive, the candidate went into disjointed narratives about

how she had met Ms. Zuniga at the bank some three times during the circulation period, yet

prior to this line of questioning had acknowledged that this notarization event was separated

by at least a week from the next visit, with the one prior to this notarization event being

approximately a month prior, and done solely to add the campaign manager to the campaign

bank account.

The candidate acknowledged that she could not identify anyone who was with her at

the time, including her nephew, although days later, on cross by her own counsel, the witness

would assert the possibility that her nephew or campaign manager may have been waiting in

a car.

The candidate admitted that she had reviewed Mr. Murray’s affidavit (Obj. Ex. 15)

prior to giving her testimony, and had no information that would refute the claim in the

affidavit that the sheet had been mailed into the campaign office. The candidate throughout

this line of questioning was increasingly non-responsive and at times had to be questioned

repeatedly in order to receive a relatively direct answer.

At this juncture, the hearing broke for lunch. Upon reconvening, as stated above, the

candidate failed to appear and take the witness stand, with her counsel claiming she had a

prior engagement for an endorsement session.

The candidate, upon retaking the stand on January 30, days later, in response to

objector’s continued questions regarding these “Zuniga sheets”, asserted for the first time
49
that she signed these sheets in front of Ms. Zuniga on a clip board, that she didn’t notice her

nephew’s sheets were on her clipboard, but at times would hold onto sheets for other

circulators working with her for later, did not believe she ever had any petition sheets in her

possession that were signed by other circulators but not notarized, and reiterated that she

didn’t believe she had any other circulator’s signed sheets with her when she met with Ms.

Zuniga.

The witness acknowledged that she knew of no facts to refute Mr. Murray’s affidavit

that he had mailed the sheets in with the circulator signed but un-notarized or that additional

signatures had been added to the sheet after Mr. Murray mailed it back, nor did she possess

any facts to counter Ms. Zuniga’s testimony that Ms. Zuniga only notarized campaign

petition sheets that one time, on November 28, 2017. The candidate also acknowledged that

Randall Drueck was not with her when she appeared at By-Line Bank on November 28,

2017.

Objector proceeded thereafter to inquire of the candidate in regards to several more

sheets connected to mail-in affiants, all notarized by the candidate, Andrea Raila, wherein the

assertion was:

a. sheet mailed in signed and not notarized;

i. Obj. Ex. #56 (Sheet 1900);

ii. Obj. Ex #59 (Sheet 899);
iii. Obj. Ex. #34 (Sheet 743);
iv. Obj. Ex. #48 (Sheet 741);
v. Obj. Ex. #61 (Sheet 776)
and

b. sheet mailed in unsigned and un-notarized;

i. Obj. Ex. #41 and 42, (Sheet 1094) (Eldridge Anderson – circulator)

50
 Ms. Raila possessed no facts and could not disagree with the assertions in any of these

affidavits that these sheets were mailed in as claimed, nor did she have any explanation how

she notarized them, nor could the candidate explain how sheet 793, mailed in by Ms. Patricia

Barnes with only two petition signatures on it, that of Ms. Barnes and her husband, both of

Skokie, Illinois, now contained signers on all 10 lines from Chicago and Evanston; or how

sheet 1094, mailed in by William Johnson and Greta Jones, husband and wife signers on

lines 1 and 2, residing in the far northwest suburb of Palatine, Illinois, now contained

signatures on lines 3-10, all from the far south side, with the circulator affidavit executed by

Eldridge Anderson; or how sheet 741, wherein Robert and Jeanette Bach, husband and wife,

were the only signers, also from a far northwest suburb, Schaumburg, Illinois, now contained

8 more signatures from Chicago and Evanston that were not there when mailed in.

The only explanation offered by the candidate was that these sheets inexplicably may

have possibly ended up back on the street somehow. No explanation of any sort was made as

to how the candidate could have notarized any of them.

The candidate was thereafter questioned by her counsel in cross. Employing leading

questions throughout this friendly ‘cross’, the candidate asserted that she did not

intentionally commit any improper notarization or circulation activity, and that it may have

been the hectic pace of the campaign that caused mistakes. The candidate acknowledged that

she may have possibly grabbed sheets and completed them by mistake and unintentionally, in

that she had personally notarized approximately 197 sheets, in her estimation.

Upon conclusion of the day on January 30, 2018, with the candidate still on the

witness stand, given several delays occasioned previously by the candidate’s side in starting

on time, returning from lunch and breaks on time, candidate’s side was specifically
51
instructed on the record to be ready to go at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2018, or objector would

be instructed to call his next witness.

At 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2018, the case was called. Neither candidate nor any of

her three attorneys of record appeared. The matter went off the record and efforts were made

to locate candidate’s counsel. The candidate showed up at approximately 10:05 a.m.

asserting that her counsel would appear within 15 minutes.

At 10:30 a.m., the matter was again recalled, and Pericles Abassi, Esq., one of

candidate’s counsel, appeared. Objectors renewed their motion from 9:45 a.m., again asking

for entry of default and for attorney fees and costs for the delay. The motion was denied and

the case proceeded. Candidate was excused from the witness stand and objector was directed

to proceed on his case. The candidate’s testimony was oftentimes evasive and not credible.

Because of these repeated and unwarranted delays the candidate herself was barred

from providing any more testimony in that the hearing officer found the most recent delay,

coupled with her walking off the stand and refusing to return on a previous hearing date,

repeated delays and late arrivals, were deemed dilatory and abusive to the conduct of an

orderly hearing and prejudicial to the rights of the other party.

Objector proceeded to place certain documents into evidence, including Obj. Ex. 124,

a set of Jammie Brokenborough petitions, Obj. Ex. # 125, Illinois Notary Public Handbook,

and Obj. Ex. #126, a blank voters registration application.

Objector, at that juncture, sought leave to have his forensic handwriting expert, Ms.

Diane Marsh, testify regarding some 260 signature calls of the Rule 6 Record Examination.

A prior ruling of the hearing examiner had barred objectors’ expert because of objectors’

non-disclosure of her opinions. Objectors’ request was again denied. This hearing officer
52
also notes for the record that objector’s exhibits #68 and 69, affidavits similar to those in

groups (a)-(c) above, were also barred earlier in the case because of late disclosure.

At approximately 10:45, objectors rested their case.

Candidate in rebuttal sought to call Ms. Catherine “Trina” Janes to the stand.

Objectors objected to this witness as not being disclosed pursuant to the trial schedule. The

objection was sustained and the witness barred. This hearing officer is unaware of any

objection directed to Ms. Janes.

Candidate next attempted to call Mr. Douglas Martin to the stand. Objectors objected

as this witness was not disclosed on candidate’s witness list. Candidate’s response was that

their disclosure included a catch all assertion that they reserved the right to call any witness

on objector’s list.

Candidate’s position was rejected by the hearing officer, as was the candidate’s other

catch all disclosure of “any and all circulators” as witnesses. The hearing officer also noted

that the objectors never called Mr. Martin to the stand and there were differing allegations by

the parties that Mr. Martin refused to make himself available and/or left even though he was

under a subpoena. Mr. Douglas Martin was barred from testifying.

At 11:25 a.m., lead counsel for candidate appeared. Candidate next sought to call

Guana Stamps, the witness who had walked off the witness stand in objector’s case.

Objector’s objected to the prejudice of allowing this witness to testify in the candidate’s case

when she had walked out in the middle of objector’s direct examination, and the hearing

officer barred this witness on those grounds.

Candidate called Martha Bulmer, a notary otherwise employed by Paula Raila &

Associates who volunteered on the candidate’s campaign after work hours and on week-
53
ends. The witness didn’t recall ever meeting Doug Martin. She remembered always seeing

the candidate sign as circulator before Ms. Bulmer notarized her signature, always asking for

her ID before doing so. She never saw piles of petitions, nor was she involved with the

campaign mail, and never walked the streets with circulators.

Ms. Bulmer stated she did all of her notarizing for the campaign at the campaign

office, that everyone appeared before her to sign and that if she notarized anything for

Douglas Martin as well as anyone else she would have gotten an ID. When shown Can. Ex.

#11, she could not confirm whether the dark skinned bald man in the video is Douglas

Martin. Ms. Bulmer had no specific memory of notarizing any specific sheet shown to her.

Candidate called Ashish Sen to the stand, who testified he circulated approximately 5

sheets for the candidate, by himself, and believes one of the candidate’s relatives notarized

his petition sheets at the campaign office. The witness used petition sheets he printed off of a

Raila email ‘blast’. The hearing officer notes after a review of the objection that this

individual is not a challenged circulator.

Candidate called Perry Krilis to the stand, who testified he performed general security

work for the campaign office to make the staffers more comfortable, he was a “bouncer” in is

own words, and he had circulated some 10-12 sheets for the candidate. These sheets were

notarized in the office save for one that was notarized by the candidate at her home. He was

the individual that downloaded the video in Can. Ex. #11, requesting it from the management

company. He downloaded 4-6 videos, each approximately 2.5 minutes long and could have

gotten more. He could not identify Douglas Martin from the video. The hearing officer notes

after a review of the objection that this individual is not a challenged circulator.

Candidate called Lawrence Svoboda to the stand, who testified he circulate 6-7 sheets
54
on her behalf, all in his tavern on Broadway, all were circulated in his presence, never just

left the petition sheet on the bar. Andrea Raila would come in, take his ID, notarize his

signature and take his completed petition sheets away. One time a man came, notarized and

took two sheets back with him. All notarizations took place in the tavern, and the sheets

never left his possession until they were signed, notarized and picked up.

Tammy Miller-Watson, called by the candidate, testified that she and her husband,

Thomas, got involved in the campaign in October, 2017. Starting as general office help, Ms.

Miller-Watson would be named deputy campaign manager prior to the time the nomination

papers were filed. She worked full time during the week, sometimes on week-ends.

Ms. Miller-Watson did not circulate any petitions initially, working on sorting mail, putting

petitions in stacks that needed to be finished, but had no memory of sorting by region or by

reason of petition sheet deficiencies, but does remember putting unfinished petitions in

various bins, finished sheets in a specific other bin.

One of her duties was to notarize petition sheets, and she did not have anyone ask her

to notarize a sheet without the circulator present. She does not remember anyone being given

any partially finished sheet to be completed.

The witness did not participate in any strategy sessions and doesn’t know of any mail

in campaign. She circulated only after being named deputy campaign manager, and

circulated in South Holland, Flossmore and Homewood, doesn’t recall ever circulating in

Buffalo Grove or LaGrange, but did circulate on weekends and at various events.

The witness was asked regarding her notarization of Obj. Ex. #60 (Sheet 366), Obj.

Ex. #58 (Sheet 781), and Obj. Ex. #66 (Sheet 1448, 502, 900), each of which asserted in

affidavits that they were mailed in with a signed circulator affidavit un-notarized which
55
would find the witnesses notarization signature and stamp affixed.

The witness had no memory of any of these circulators or the notarization events,

could not an explanation as to how she could have notarized any of these mailed in petition

sheets without the circulator appearing and presenting an ID, but admitted that she knew of

no facts that could controvert the allegations in the affidavits.

Jammie Brokenborough, called by the candidate, testified that as a paid circulator of

the candidate’s campaign she would circulate as part of Guana Stamps ‘crew’ and Guana

would give her petition sheets to circulate. She would circulate with two others in Guana’s

crew but did not know their names, and the petition sheets, approximately 20 sheets a day as

a group, would be notarized at the campaign office. The candidate or Ms. Miller-Watson

would usually notarize, and she always signed in front of a notary and the notary always

signed in front of her. She could not remember any specific notarization event or facts ther

than the foregoing generalities.

Candidate called Mr. Nicholas Galloway to the stand, who asserted he circulated for

the candidate, downloaded sheets from the website or email, personally had 9-10 sheets

circulated in his neighborhood, and only presented himself one time to a notary at the

campaign office to notarize all his sheets at once where he presented his ID and signed in

front of the notary.

Ms. April Williams-Luster, candidate’s campaign manager, was called to the stand

and testified that while she had experience in prior campaigns, she had never participated in a

mail in system before. One of her responsibilities was making sure the circulators had

sufficient petition sheets but was not involved with the printers or mailer efforts. No sheets

circulated by the witness were ever notarized at By-Line Bank. Other duties included
56
scheduling and attending events and the coordination of the candidate’s schedule. When

petition sheets came in make sure the y were correct, kept a rough count, got notarizations

organized, spoke with circulators and potential circulators and was involved with opening

and sorting mailed in petition sheets.

Ms. April Williams-Luster confirmed in specific detail that the conference room and

all the petition sheets were under tight control, locked up nightly, and that except for rare

instances (and never alone) no one but the candidate, the witness, Ms. Tammy Miller-Watson

or Mr. Byron Raila were permitted in the conference room. In point of fact, the witness could

not remember anyone else ever within the conference room.

Contrary to what Ms. Miller-Watson testified, this witness asserted that Tammy

Miller-Watson also helped with counting signatures on petition sheets as they came in the

mail.

As stated by the candidate, Ms. Williams-Luster testified that if petitions were mailed

in complete, they went in one bin, if had something incomplete, they went in one of several

bins in the conference room.

Only 15-20 sheets were ever taken out of the bins to be brought to the proper

circulator to be completed. This testimony mirrored that of the candidate, as did her

testimony that these incomplete petition sheets would nonetheless be sorted out throughout

the campaign.

Ms. Williams-Luster does not recall giving incomplete sheets to Doug Martin or

Eldridge Anderson to complete or handing mailed in sheet to circulators to finish. Near the

end of the petition drive, however, the witness testified to a certain level of desperation in the

campaign in stating that at that point the campaign was accepting any petitions they could
57
get. The witness herself would circulate at sports games, the Bears, and fundraising events.

After being handed a stack of petition sheets which she circulated, the witness could

only remember names on 6 out of 29 sheets presented, and on 20 of the remaining 23 sheets,

the witness could not affirmatively state if they were mailed in sheets that she signed, but

affirmatively stated that she always personally appeared in front of a notary to sign her

circulator’s affidavit.

The witness was taken through certain alleged problems which Ms. Miller-Watson

committed as a notary, and admitted that possibly mistakes were made; tellingly, the witness

acknowledged in response to objectors’ pointed inquiry that if names were added to petition

sheets that had been mailed in partially filled/already started that such activity could only

have been intentional.

Candidate called Ms. Marjorie Fritz-Birch, who testified that she acted as one of the

circulators, circulated some 40 sheets at “L” stops, fundraisers and sporting events, such as

Bears games, and stated in general terms that she only circulated and signed her own sheets.

While she had only visited the campaign office a couple of times, it appeared organized and

well-run. On at least one occasion she noted that Ms. Raila’s nephew and Ms. Jane Kienstra

(both notaries) were filling in circulator affidavits in the office. During the course of her

testimony the witness was shown several sheets within which she had circulated and signed

as such, and save for a couple of signatures could not recognize any of the signatures nor

remember where, specifically she circulated any of the specified sheets.

Candidate called Ms. June Paula Roderick, who testified to knowing the candidate for

approximately 20 years and having circulated some 6-8 pages for he candidate. A long time

Democratic Party volunteer on campaigns going back to Mayor Harold Washington’s

58
campaign, she clearly remembered where she circulated for this candidate, how she

circulated, the people she caused to sign on the sheets, as well as the location and persons

notarizing her sheets. The hearing officer notes that this witness, as with several of the

candidate’s witnesses, was not challenged by the objector.

At this juncture candidate sought to put into evidence a series of affidavits, marked

Can. Ex. #12-39. Can. Ex. #22, 37, 38 and 39 were not allowed in because of non-disclosure

within the cut-off; #30 and #35 not admitted because they were offered merely to clarify the

address of a circulator’s affidavit and with that not even being challenged they had no

relevancy. Can. #36 was the affidavit of Ms. Guana Stamps, it was not admitted for the

reasons set forth above regarding her testimony.

Candidate’s #34 sought to buttress the residency of a circulator named Andrea Dean.

Candidate’s exhibits #29 and 31 were affidavits by Ms. Jane Kienstra and the

candidate, respectively, seeking to explain a failure by each of them to apply their notary

stamp to a single page.

Candidate’s Exhibits #12-28, 32, 33, were headed “Statements of Verification.”

These sworn statements consisted of three lines, followed by a notarial section. The

first sentence stated:

“1. I [BLANK] circulated a petition(s) for Andrea Raila for Cook County

Assessor; and

2. I reside at [BLANK], the address that appeared on the petition(s); and

3. The petition(s) was/were signed and notarized before a qualified notary

public.”

A 1-109 verification statement was then followed by a notarial section for a notary to
59
seal and sign.

No petition sheets were attached nor were any such sheets referenced nor notaries by

name, just the generic statements set forth above, which is in accord with the document Dr.

Zucco testified she received in the mail from the campaign. While these documents were

admitted into evidence, this hearing officer found no real evidentiary value to them for two

reasons. First, they are bereft of any type of detail upon which any reliability can be assessed

or judged. However, second, and perhaps more importantly, they are executed by individuals

who are not being challenged by the objector.

Candidate next sought to call her handwriting expert, Mr. Warren Spencer, to

rehabilitate certain handwriting decisions adverse to the candidate which were made during

the Rule 6 Examination. Candidate’s handwriting expert’s report was marked as Can. Ex.#12

and accepted into evidence. Mr. Spencer’s curriculum vitae was marked as Can. Ex.#40 and

accepted into evidence.

Objectors objected to any testimony beyond that which was turned over pursuant to

the scheduling order. Mr. Spencer’s report stated he reviewed 90 signatures out of which it

was his opinion he would overturn 32 decisions of the board personnel. Candidate argued

this report was only a sample check and that the expert would expand upon that number by a

review of all the signatures. There was nothing in the report that said it was a sample or spot

check. The hearing officer restricted the candidate to testimony and other evidence only as it

related to those 90 signatures.

Mr. Spencer testified that he randomly picked the 90 signature calls out of 400

signatures of the board personnel that were presented to him by Mr. Byron Raila. He

acknowledged that he did not know how Mr. Raila chose those 400 signatures and
60
acknowledged that it could be a biased pool out of which he randomized his 90.

Mr. Spencer gave his general opinion as to the basis for his signature comparisons

and his conclusions as to 32 signatures, agreed with the board personnel on 9 signatures, and

said the rest were subject to reasonable interpretation and he could not be definitive. He did

not record nor attach to his report which sheet and line numbers these 32 signatures could be

found, nor could he recite the from memory. Given the lack of knowledge of the underlying

sample and the lack of specificity as to which signatures were at issue, it is the hearing

officer’s recommendation that no Rule 6 calls of the board personnel be changed as a result

of this testimony.

The candidate had no other witnesses ready at this juncture and requested a

continuance of an hour or so for another witness to appear. The witness proffered would have

been tangential, at best. Also, candidate’s side had been cautioned to have witnesses ready to

go, and had occasioned enough delay throughout this matter such that no further delays were

warranted. This request was denied.

Candidate rested her rebuttal case on February 1, 2018, and both sides gave closing

arguments on February 5, 2018.

Conclusion

It is worth noting, as an initial observation, that a candidate, in filing nomination

papers, as well as her Statement of Candidacy, is certifying under oath that the petition sheets

contained therein have been gathered in conformity with the Election Code. Implicit in any

set of nomination papers is a candidate’s assurance that some oversight, supervision and

control is exercised by the campaign over the petition gathering effort.

The candidate here, in casting out over 280,000 nomination petitions ‘on the wind’,
61
and thousands more ‘in the blind’ through social media and email blasts, has no capacity to

make such a claim. The candidate by her own words received thousands of petition sheets

back through the mail. Even assuming they were facially valid, circulator’s affidavit fully

filled out and notarized, etc. when received, this candidate has precisely zero knowledge, and

cannot truthfully attest, as to whether the petition sheet was properly circulated, the circulator

that signed ever even presented the petitions to the signer, or actually properly appeared and

was sworn to the oath in front of a notary.

Such methodology truly calls into question the validity of the candidate’s Statement

of Candidacy that she is a qualified candidate for this office. Although no such allegation

was set forth in the objection, it could well be argued the candidate’s Statement of Candidacy

was false.

This candidate entered the race with only 7 weeks in the nomination period. Needing

to hit the ground running, the candidate sent this mailer out with legally deficient instructions

that virtually guaranteed the chaos that the candidate and others testified to. Thousands of

sheets came back in the mail with some sort of legal deficiency, circulator signature with no

notary, or both missing.

Faced with these thousands, the candidate sorted them for people to hunt down the

circulators. The candidate, her campaign manger and assistant campaign manager all testified

that this stopped after 10-20 attempts. Yet sorting of these petitions continued unabated even

after that halted, because as the evidence proved the candidate had no intention of letting

those petition sheets go to waste.

The candidate, her campaign staffers, and even a few third-party witnesses testified at

length that these mailed in petition sheets were under solid campaign control. Adamant that
62
no partially finished petition sheet could have gotten out of that conference room.

Yet except for generic denials, closely followed by not very credible testimony that

“maybe a few got out”, the candidate had no answer to the sea of statements evidencing this

systemic fraud that could only have happened with her active and intentional involvement.

Another point in the hearing of note, candidate’s counsel made the very logical

argument, in regards to the Zuniga notarizations of those several sheets for circulators not

present, that why would the candidate have passed these other circulator’s sheets to Ms.

Zuniga to notarize at the bank when the candidate, being a notary, could do it at any time?

He was completely correct.

The problem is, the candidate DID have those sheets in her possession out of the

conference room, miles away, including several mailed in sheets, with all the circulator

affidavits signed but unnotarized. This was exactly the situation that the candidate and others

in her campaign testified never ever happened. Furthermore, the candidate stated that she,

personally, never tried to go and get any defective mail-in sheets fixed/notarized. There was

no earthly reason, whatsoever, for the candidate to be travelling around with ‘mailed-in’

sheets except that she was going to notarize them outside the presence of the circulator.

These were sheets of papers, not a cage of mice that somehow escaped. As April

Williams-Luster stated, the only way additional signatures could be placed on a sheet that

was already started by someone else and kept in the conference room would have been by an

intentional act. Exactly right. The same obtains to the notarization of sheets where the

circulator is obviously not there as well as sheets that were sent back out on the street

partially done to be completed. None of that can be an accident, especially to the extent it

was uncovered here, remembering that objectors only had 7 days to accomplish a rather
63
monumental undertaking.

The candidate and her inner core of circulators and notaries, Tammy Miller-Watson

Byron Raila, Jane Kienstra, Paul Pusateri undertook to salvage these sheets by fraudulently

notarizing them, signing as circulators, and passing them out to be completed if only partially

filled. They also accepted stacks of petitions sent in by their street circulators, in particular

Doug Martin, and notarized them without the circulator appearing.

Speed was important. Time was short. As Ms. Luster-Williams said “near the end

we’d take just about anything.”

It is true, as candidate states, that there is a fundamental constitutional right to ballot

access that should not be lightly denied. But this right does not extend any right to any

candidate to fraudulently obtain that access.

The testimony and documentary evidence, as well as a review of the petitions

themselves, evidenced that the vast majority of the petition sheet notarizations that were

fraudulently applied were performed by the candidate, her nephew, Tammy Miller-Watson,

and several individuals employed by Raila & Associates, a law firm the candidate used to

work for, located on the 7th floor, notaries that would come down to the 6th floor after hours

and on week-ends, including Jane Kienstra, Martha Bulmer, Paul Pusetari, Shantis Dean,

and Xiao Fei Wang.

The evidence of fraudulent circulation was equally clear. Affiant after affiant, as well

as live testimony, asserting they sent their petition sheets in with 1, 2, 3 signatures on it,

signed, unsigned, notarized, unnotarized, only to be confronted with the knowledge that the

candidate, or her nephew, or one of the other false circulators, had not only added signatures

to it, but often signed the circulator’s affidavit of one of these mailed-in petition sheets.
64
 The candidate’s rebuttal testimony alternated between individuals that had nothing to

do with the matter at issue interspersed with people that were involved in the fraud testifying

to generic, vague generalities of appropriate conduct. Then as the evidence against the

candidate mounted, her tactic changed, and she attempted to brush aside all this evidence of

systemic fraudulent conduct with the umbrella statement that “mistakes were made”. The

candidate’s position lacks credence and believability.

The factual situation here is not, as argued by candidate, akin to the pattern of fraud

found in the “holy trinity” of pattern of fraud cases, Fortas v. Dixon, 122 Ill.App.3d 697 (1st

Dist. 1984), Husky v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 156 Ill.App.3d 201 (1st Dist. 1988)

and Canter v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 170 Ill.App.3d 364 (1st Dist. 1988)

wherein the Courts were concerned with forged petition sheets in various permutations,

where one takes a look at percentages of bad signatures, round tabled signatures, forgeries,

etc. against the total as a metric against which to measure the wrongdoing such that the

candidate’s “percentage” argument fails.

Rather, in this case it is the false notarization, false circulating, re-circulating, that the

fraud lies. Having found the fraud in the circulating and notarizing, however, the same result

obtains and is more than appropriate in this case. Where I have found the evidence has

proved the individual engaged in a pattern of fraud I recommend striking all the sheets

circulated or notarized. As to individual sheets that were otherwise correct as to notary and

circulator, but the evidence proves they have been sent back out to be re-circulated, those are

noted with the name of the ‘mail-in’ circulator and the sheet number, and the

recommendation as to those individual sheets is that the sheets be struck. As to Ms. Zuniga, I

recommend all the sheets of the circulators that did not appear before her be struck.
65
 This was a long recommendation, but given the amount of evidence it was deemed

prudent to go into detail. As stated above, to succeed in their objection objectors had two

hurdles, first to prove the pattern of fraud and second, assuming it is proved, there must be

sufficient signatures removed and held invalid such as to bring the candidate below the

minimum signature requirement. It was not until the early hours of February 5, 2018, that

this hearing officer did the rough math to answer the second question.

This hearing officer makes the following finding of fact. The evidence has proved by

clear and convincing evidence that the following notaries engaged in an intentional pattern of

fraud: Xiao Fei Wang, Andrea Raila, Byron Raila, Jane Kienstra, Paul Pusateri, Octavio

Ocampo, Shantis Dean, Temeka Melton, Martha Bulmer and Tammy Miller-Watson.

Objector’s objection should be sustained on this issue.

This hearing officer makes the following finding of fact. The evidence has proved by

clear and convincing evidence that the following circulators engaged in an intentional pattern

of fraud: Eldridge Anderson, Paul Pusateri, Andrea Raila, Doug Martin, Selma Mehecevic,

Angelica Duran, Susan Donahue, Carl Blair, Nikki Brown, Paula Blanski, Byron Raila and

Aaron McNeil. Objector’s objection should be sustained on this issue.

Attached to this recommendation as Exhibit A is a chart setting forth this hearing

officer’s recommendations as to signatures that should be struck and removed from the

candidate’s totals based upon the above findings of fact.

The first column has each notary that this hearing officer has determined has engaged

in a pattern of intentional, fraudulent notarization, with the second column setting out

signatures at issue and still counted in the candidate’s favor after the Rule 6 examination. For

tabulation purposes Ms. Jenny Zuniga is in that column strictly as to those sheets the
66
candidate Andrea Raila passed her for which the actual circulator was not present. There is

no finding that Ms. Zuniga engaged in a pattern of fraud.

The third column combines the names of two groups of circulators. The upper group,

without sheet numbers after their names, are the group of circulators the evidence has proved

have engaged in a pattern of fraud. The lower group of circulators with the sheet number

after their name have presented evidence that their sheets were sent back out on the street to

be re-circulated. The fourth column lists the signatures at issue and still counted in the

candidate’s favor after the Rule 6 examination.

The fifth (and last) column of numbers in the charge are the signatures of the

circulators that should be deducted if the Board accepts the hearing officer’s

recommendation and strikes both the notaries and the circulators. This fifth column reflects

the fact that some of these circulators, in fact most of the fraudulent circulators, were

notarized by the fraudulent notaries, and the numbers in the fifth and final column prevents

double counting for circulators that were notarized by a struck notary.

There is no finding that the single sheet circulators with the sheet numbers after their

names have engaged in a pattern of fraud, but they are in the column for tabulating purposes.

Their individual sheets should be struck, with the signature count impacted in the next

column as well.

The hearing officer recommends the Board sustain the objector’s pattern of fraud

allegation against this candidate and, given the number of signatures recommended to be

struck, 8,471 (7,833 + 638 = 8,471) find the candidate’s nomination papers invalid and

deficient and that the candidate’s name, Andrea Raila, not appear on the ballot.

The hearing officer recommends to the Board that it accept the above findings,
67
decisions and recommendations of the hearing officer in the above matter, sustain the

objector’s objection, and insofar as this specific objection relates, deem the candidate’s

nomination papers deficient in law and fact, further hold that the candidate’s name, Andrea

Raila, not appear on the ballot for nomination as Democratic candidate for the office of Cook

County Assessor, to be voted upon in the March 20, 2018, General Primary Election, in

Cook County, Illinois.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher J. Agrella, Esq.

Hearing Officer

68
 Exhibit A to Recommendation
East and Temkin v. Raila 17 COEB CC10

Notaries Signature Circulator Signatures Signatures

Removed Removed Remove
Because of Strictly as After
Notary Circulators First
Misconduct Without Removing
Removing Notaries
Notaries
Jenny Zuniga 38 Eldridge Anderson 137 23
Xiao Fei Wang 430 Paul Pusateri 123 0
Andrea Raila 1517 Andrea Raila 462 268
Byron Raila 1287 Doug Martin 730 0
Jane Kienstra 1052 Selma Mehecevic 263 49
Paul Pusateri 762 Angelica Duran 38 0
Octavio Ocampo 40 Susan Donahue 32 0
Shantis Dean 389 Carl Blair 24 0
Temeka Melton 173 Nikki Brown 37 0
Martha Bulmer 708 Paula Blanski 614 40
Tammy Miller-Watson 1,437 Byron Raila 309 55
Aaron McNeil 31 32
Castro 296 8 8
Segat 1441 7 7
Brauer 1469 9 9
Hazelton 217 8 8
Sokol 260 7 7
Butterly 20 6 6
Brown 622 3 3
MacNeil 918 3 3
Pietrzak 964 10 10
Bressler 1265 10 10
A. White 1315 8 8
Haben 1317 9 9
Blumenthal 1770 8 8
Hazelton 217 10 10
Zucco 781 9 9
Murray 868 5 5
Haben 1317 10 10
A. White 1315 9 9
Gould 1265 10 10
Blumenthal 1770 9 9
Jaliawala 899 10 10
S. MacNeil 918 3 3
Total 7,833 2,971 638