ANDY MARTIN: Sangamon County Judge Peter C Cavanaugh accused of political bias, corruption

Illinois corruption-fighter Andy Martin has filed a petition with the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois accusing politically-appointed Judge Peter C Cavanaugh of being biased and linked to the same corrupt elements in the Republican Party that Martin is trying to defeat. Martin is preparing to open a new blog exposing judicial corruption in Illinois’ capital city. “Illinois government is marinated in corruption and conflicts of interest,” Martin says. “Political patronage, nepotism, and cash-and-carry justice in the executive branch, courts and legislature are a disgrace, but explain Illinois’ decline to Third World status.”


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

IN CHANCERY
CASE NO. 2010-CH-786

ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONNA HEFFERNAN,
ANDREW HEFFERNAN,
JOHN FOGARTY, JR.,
SHARON ANN MERONI,
ROBERT SHERMAN,
PAT BRADY,
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
MARK KIRK,
BRIEN SHEAHAN,
PHILIP KRASNY,
JOHN DOE, JANE ROE,
BARBARA B. GOODMAN,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE FOR CAUSE

Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for substitution of judge for cause and states:
1. Legal authority
a. This motion is filed pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63 (A)(3)(4) and (C)(1); the U. S. Constitution, applicable to federal candidates, Caperton v. A. T. Massey, 556 U. S. ____, 129 S. Ct. 2252 and § 735 ILCS 5/2-1001 (a)(3).
2. Factual basis for recusal
a. I am a Republican insurgent who is now fighting corruption in the Republican Party as an anti-“Republican machine” candidate. Sangamon County is a hotbed of Republican Party corruption and double-dealing, known as “Combine” politics.
b. I appeared before Judge Cavanaugh on July 23, 2010 and was treated as rudely and unprofessionally as I have ever been treated in almost any court in decades.
c. Local lawyer Terry Corrigan had filed papers on July 22nd, but made no effort to serve me despite the fact he was appearing in court the next day. Despite my complete lack of notice, Judge Cavanaugh proceeded to address Corrigan’s issues without giving me any opportunity to prepare a detailed response.
d. Although the record or tape thereof will reflect that I could not have been more respectful to Judge Cavanaugh, he could not have appeared more prejudiced or hostile. If my memory serves me correctly, he told me how things were done “in Illinois.” He effectively chastised me for exposing corruption in the Republican Party because I used sharp language to describe obviously corrupt practices of “Republican lawyers” (defendants Fogarty and Sheahan herein) before the State Board of Elections.
e. Mr. Corrigan’s papers were insulting and incompetent in the extreme. Judge Cavanaugh made no effort to admonish Corrigan to conduct himself professionally. Even when I cited the law to the Court in my Memorandum of Law, Corrigan had no idea what he was doing and relied on rejected legal theories to confuse the record. Corrigan’s personal attacks were beneath the dignity of the Court. I will avoid the temptation to further characterize Corrigan’s unseemly behavior.
f. Judge Cavanaugh was completely one-sided, tolerating abusive conduct by a local lawyer and expressing unmitigated hostility for a corruption-fighting Republican reformer.
g. Even though I had calendared a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, Judge Cavanaugh refused to address my motion and told me to “do what I had to do” or words to that effect. In over forty years in Illinois courts, I have never once known a circuit judge to refuse to allow the filing of an amended complaint when a lawsuit is dismissed without notice to the Plaintiff. Judge Cavanaugh’s lack of judicial demeanor and courtesy were startling.
h. Judge Cavanaugh allowed a complete buffoon, atheist Robert Sherman, to make a joke of the proceedings by bragging of Sherman’s ties to Combine Governor Pat Quinn and to brandish Sherman’s “pen” from the Governor, none of which had any relevance to the res gestae. Sherman was not admonished or limited in any way as Sherman blabbered on.
3. Subsequent due diligence
a. Before filing this motion I performed additional due diligence to document my claims of bias and lack of judicial demeanor on the part of Judge Cavanaugh.
b. I learned that Judge Cavanaugh has made political contributions to my opposing party factions and candidates, the Sangamon County Republican Party which I am working to reform, see attached excerpts.
c. Judge Cavanaugh was a patronage appointment of someone to the circuit bench, and is now running unopposed for election as a Republican. Based on my 45 years of political experience in this state, and long familiarity with Sangamon County politics, I find an unopposed minority party judicial candidate to be highly suspicious.
d. The local newspaper has commented on Judge Cavanaugh’s actions in a controversial judicial corruption case which the paper characterized as part of the “deep perception in this community of cronyism and favoritism…”, see attached.
e. Although nonpartisan candidates are allowed to appear before partisan groups, Judge Cavanaugh’s relationship to the Sangamon County Republican Network (see attached) appears to be more extensive than a mere appearance.
4. Conclusions
a. I do not believe any “reasonable person” who observed the July 23rd hearing would have believed anything but that Judge Cavanaugh was biased against me.
b. I believe there is overwhelming cause to request Judge Cavanaugh’s immediate substitution.
c. Because this is an election case and there are time constrains on the State Board of Elections as well as the Plaintiff, Judge Cavanaugh should be substituted out immediately.
DATED: July 29, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
NATIONAL LITIGATION CENTER
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com (text only)

Additional courtesy copy requested to:
ANDY MARTIN
REGIONAL LITIGATION SUPPORT
30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723

SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL

Additional e-mail address available
upon request

VERIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such maters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.

ANDY MARTIN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify I have served, the defendants either at the fax numbers or email addresses known for them (primarily email addresses; fax numbers are only used when there is no email address):

Donna/Andrew Heffernan: 3931 Scoville Ave., Stickney, IL 60402
John Fogarty: fax (773) 681-7147
Sharon Meroni: One Surrey Lane, Barrington Hills, IL 60010
Robert Sherman: 778 Stonebridge Lane, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
State Board of Elections: (217) 782-5959; (312) 814-6485
Mark Kirk: fax (847) 559-2940
Philip Krasny: fax (State Board of Elections)
Brien Sheahan: fax (630) (866) 796-5676
Barbara Goodman: fax (224 330-1356
Terry Corrigan, Esq. fax (217) 524-5091

on July 29, 2010

ANDY MARTIN

Expert witness says the Illinois State Board of Elections violates federal law
Andy Martin’s independent expert witness in an emergency court hearing scheduled for July 23rd at 8:45 A.M. in Sangamon County Circuit Court says the Illinois State Board of Elections is violating both federal and state laws



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

IN CHANCERY
CASE NO. 2010 CH 786

ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONNA HEFFERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF RUSS STEWART


Russ Stewart, being first duly sworn, states and deposes as follows:
1. I am a practicing attorney in Park Ridge, Illinois. I was admitted to the Illinois Supreme Court in 1979.
2. My practice as an attorney has involved active representation of candidates under the Illinois Election Code.
3. I am not counsel of record to Andy Martin in either this lawsuit or before the State Board of Elections (“the Board”). Mr. Martin contacted my office and asked me to review the facts and circumstances of his candidacy, and to express my own independent expert opinion concerning his experience before the State Board.
3. Notice. Illinois law expressly mandates that the State Board send copies of objections to candidate petitions to a candidate by “registered mail or receipted personal delivery.” § 10 ILCS 5/10-8 (B). Mr. Martin advised me he was never served with any objections by the Board which comply with the statute. Mr. Martin advised me he has made some inquiry and that other candidates subject to Objections were also not served pursuant to 10-8 (B). It appears that the Board’s complete failure to comply with 10-8 (B) is a jurisdictional defect in the State Board’s proceedings, rendering them null and void, see Graham v. State Officers Electoral Board, 269 Ill.App.3rd 609, 646 N.E.2d 1357 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1995).
4. Board’s lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Martin was under no obligation to appear before the Board or to file an appearance unless and until he was properly served with the statutory process contemplated in the Election Code. The Board apparently adopted “rules” on July 6th which seek to shift the burden of subsequent notice to candidates, and to exculpate the Board from its statutory responsibilities. There is no way the Board can engage in such notice-shifting or statutory revision. Such actions are themselves null and void as being ultra vires to the Board's statutory authority. When the statute mandates a particular from of notice by the Board, that notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the Board’s authority to act.
5. Due Process violation. The Board’s failure to comply with the statute renders the objection proceedings against Mr. Martin a nullity. Moreover, because Mr. Martin is a candidate for federal office, the defect in the proceedings appears to be a clear and unequivocal federal constitutional violation. The right to run for office is a substantial constitutional right; it may not be abridged by procedures and proceedings that fail to satisfy the constitutional imperative of reasonable notice. Lack of notice by the state agency is by definition is unreasonable.
6. The real party in interest. There has been great controversy over the years concerning “Objections” which are filed against candidates when the “Objector" is a stand-in for the real party in interest whose identity is concealed by legal counsel. At least in the case of a candidate for federal office, the identity of the individual or organization employing counsel for an objection, and the relationship between the “Objector” and his “Counsel,” should be subject to full disclosure and searching inquiry as a matter of federal law.
7. The decision by an anonymous person or organization to hire an attorney, and to then seek a “conduit” or proxy objector to conceal the identify of the real sponsor of the Objection is clearly an expenditure intended to influence the outcome of a federal election, by rendering nugatory the nominating petitions of a federal candidate. As such, federal law mandates full disclosure of such activity. The identities of the individuals who are engaging in such concerted activity before the Board are subject to full disclosure during the objection process. Although, pursuant to the U. S. Constitution, states conduct the actual elections and voting for federal candidates, state procedures concerning candidates for federal office are subject at all times to the strict scrutiny of the U. S. Constitution and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
7. The U. S. Constitution and federal election statutes do not appear to tolerate state election practices which permit “proxy” or “conduit” litigation in which undisclosed principals hire and employ proxies to act as “fronts” for their anti-candidate activity. The question is a closer one for candidates for local and state office.
8. It is undisputed that the Board mailed Mr. Martin a regular first class “notice” on June 30th, for a hearing to be held on July 6th. There is no way such a mailing could constitute “reasonable” notice under the U. S. Constitution. Mail can frequently or easily take a week to be delivered in the Chicago area. Monday, July 5th was a federal holiday. The fact that the legislature may have established “unreasonable” constitutional time frames for the Board to proceed goes to the constitutionality of the state’s statutory scheme for regulating and conducting elections, not to a candidate’s constitutional right to receive reasonable notice. I do not believe as a practicing attorney that a “notice” mailed in Springfield on June 30th for a hearing to be held on the morning of July 6th with a federal holiday on July 5th was constitutionally reasonable notice. It would not be accepted in any court of this state as adequate notice due to the intervening federal holiday. Mr. Martin was deprived of notice and the proceedings on July 6th were null and void. Ironically, the board failed to give Mr. Martin any notice despite the fact that the Board’s own rules contemplate mail or faxed communication with candidates after service of the initial statutory process mandated by the Election Code. No notice was given to Mr. Martin by fax or email. The Board’s procedures failed to meet the standards required by the Due Process Clause of the U. S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
9. Subject to my schedule, I would be available to testify by telephone, and would testify as set forth hereinabove, as to the issues sub judice.
Dated: July 22, 2010

/s/
Russ Stewart
805 W. Touhy Avenue
Park Ridge, IL 60068
Tel. (847) 692-3350
Fax (847) 825-1969

Appeared personally before me Russell Stewart and, being first duly sworn, stated the foregoing affidavit is true and correct on personal knowledge where indicated and on information and belief where indicated.

DATED: July 22, 2020

/s/NOTARY PUBLIC