ANDY MARTIN lawsuit sends Republican leaders a strong message

In Part II, Andy Martin says: “Some of my Republican friends are upset that I keep fighting Mark Kirk. But Illinois Republican Party leaders are contemptuously corrupt. Republicans, unlike Illinois Democrats, do not even get to vote for their state committeemen. Republican Party bosses select party bosses. As long as we knuckle under to military imposters such as Kirk, we will keep getting creeps like Kirk foisted on voters by sleazy leaders such as Pat Brady. We have to defeat Kirk to send Republican “fixers” a strong message: no more crappy, corrupt, crooked, morally depraved candidates like Mark Kirk.”

[Note: The following is two documents combined into one.]

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

IN CHANCERY
CASE NO. 2009 CH 658

ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL STEELE, et al.,

Defendants.

VERIFIED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff asks this Court to issue either a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction on an emergency basis barring the Illinois Department of Agriculture (“Agriculture”)/Illinois State fair (“ISF”) or persons acting under Agriculture/ISF from interfering with Plaintiff’s protests at the Director’s Lawn (outside the gate thereto) at the Illinois State Fair on August 19, 2010.
1. Factual allegations
The facts governing each of these issues are set forth in the accompanying Verified First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff previously attempted to negotiate with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, but has never been unable to reach a written agreement as to the terms and conditions for Plaintiff’s use of the Illinois State Fair Premises (“ISF”) for “Republican Day” at the entrance to the Director’s Lawn
2. Legal standards
A. The legal standards governing a TRO pr preliminary injunction are straightforward, see Wilson v. Hinsdale Elementary, 349 Ill.App.3rd 243, 810 N.E.2d 637, 642 (Court Appeals, 2d Dist. 2004).
3. Argument
A. Plaintiff is not seeking unrestricted access to the State Fair. He is seeking access on a specific day which the ISF has designated as “Republican Day.” Thus, the ISF itself has allowed and invited Republicans to attend. The essence of political parties going back to Jeffersonian days is that parties have factions, and opponents, and protests.
B. Plaintiff represents mainstream Republicans as well
as Reformers in Illinois politics of both political parties and no political party; the defendants represent “Combine” Republicans. The term “Combine” was coined to describe Republicans-cum-Democrats who exercise dictatorial political powers over Illinois government on a continuing basis, all of which power is lubricated with corruption, self-interest and political duplicity.
C. The TRO claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the ISF, a state agency, is going to specifically host a “Republican Day,” then it must make reasonable accommodations for conflicting factions in the Republican Party as well as Republican Party opponents such as Plaintiff.
D. The ISF claims it has established a "protest area" at a great distance from the Director's Lawn, while “paying” Republicans will be allowed to meet at the Director’s Lawn. Protests which are far removed from the area of actual conflict are not protests at all; they are meaningless and hollow gestures which reflect unconstitutional abridgement of political speech.
E. Chief Judge Kelly implicitly rejected the State
Fair’s approach in an in chambers conference/hearing in August, 2009.
F. Plaintiff has been able to resolve much more complex protest issues with the Chicago Police Department, without the need to ever file a lawsuit. Chicago’s streets and sidewalks are crowded and congested. But the CPD was able to accommodate Plaintiff. The ISF is sticking rigidly to vague rules which seek to render Plaintiff’s protest nugatory.
G. Similarly, one faction of the Republican Day crowd has already been granted use of sound amplification. Plaintiff only seeks to use his own sound amplification at a reasonable level (this condition was waived as part of an amicable settlement in 2009). The “rules” of the ISF are vague and offer unfettered discretion on the ISF to control "sound devices." A grant of unfettered discretion to a state official is unconstitutional. Once again, the ISF is taking a wooden approach to resolving what should have been resolved without a lawsuit.
4. The legal criteria for relief
A. “Certain and Clearly Ascertainable Right”
The defendants themselves have designated a special day as Republican Day. They have invited Republicans or others to protest, and then sought to render protest meaningless. Do they suggest there is only “one” Republican voice or only Democratic Party opposition to Republicans? Or a monolithic party? That is obviously an unreasonable belief under any circumstances. Having invited “Republicans,” the ISF has to accommodate all Republicans and Republican opponents.
B. “Inadequate remedy at law”
There is no adequate remedy for denial of First Amendment Rights, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-374, 96 S. Ct. 2673 (1976).
C. Irreparable injury
The issue of irreparable injury given that Plaintiff is a candidate for federal office and seeks to demonstrate on only one day, billed as “Republican Day” by the ISF itself, in the area of the Republican congregation at the Director’s law, cannot seriously be questioned, Cooper v. Rockford Newspapers, 50 Ill.App. 3rd 250, 365 N.E.2d 746, 750 (Court of Appeals, 2d Dist 1995) citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-374, 96 S. Ct. 2673 (1976).
D. “Likelihood of success”
With all due respect, Plaintiff has an excellent Lakewood of succeeding on his claims that (1) the ISF has vague and unconstitutional standards for political speech on specific days when the ISF itself invites political speech by scheduling a “Republican Day” and a separate ”Democratic Day,” Elrod.
5. Conclusion
Most respectfully, the Court is asked to issue a TRO
preliminary injunction preserving the right of Plaintiff and his supporters to protect at the Director’s Lawn on Republican Day, August 19, 2010.
Dated: August 11, 2010
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 matters the undersigned certified as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.


ANDY MARTIN

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
VERIFIED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff files this Memorandum of Law in support of his verified Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction directed at the defendants and more particularly the Illinois State fair (“ISF”). The issues concerning the legal requirements for issuance of the TRO itself were presented in the Motion. This Memorandum will address Constitutional matters relating to the substance of the lawsuit.
1. Factual allegations
The facts governing each of the applicable TRO issues are set forth in the accompanying First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff adds the following documentation by way of amplification.
A. “Republican Day” is a generic day for all Republicans, not one particular faction or organization, to convene at the ISF. The ISF welcomes “Republicans” on a nonspecific basis. Obviously, Republican assemblages draw protests and opponents.
B. As a result of an untoward incident in Chicago, Plaintiff contacted the Department of Agriculture (“Agriculture”) in 2009 and asked for permission to stage a Republican protest at the ISF in August 2009. That request was denied and resulted in a court proceeding and fracas at the 2009 State Fair as set forth in the First Amended Complaint.
C. In the past Plaintiff has tried to negotiate or settle with Agriculture to no avail. This lawsuit became unavoidably necessary in 2009, and is essential again in 2010 to address virtually the same issues as 2009.
2. Legal standards
A. This Court has jurisdiction to hear a First Amendment claim, Blount v. Stroud, 232 Ill.2d 302, 904 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ill. 2009); Board v. Board, 231 Ill.2d 184, 897 N.E.2d 756, 766 (Ill. 2008).
B. In order to comply with the First Amendment, the State is required to have “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards,” Forsyth County v. Nationalist, 505 U.S. 123, 132-133, 112 S. Ct. 2395 (1992).
C. In assessing whether a regulatory restriction is constitutional, the Illinois courts apply a standard of review encompassing “persons of common intelligence.” Smith v. Normal, 238 Ill.App.3rd 944, 605 N.E.2d 727, 735 (Ill.App. 4th Dist. 1992). A regulation must be “explicit enough to serve as a guide to those who must comply with it,” Ardt v. Department, 154 Ill.2d 138, 607 N.E.2d 1226, 1235 (Ill. 1992).
D. Although Assistant Attorney General Terrence Corrigan likes to “play dumb,” and files frivolous defenses as a matter of course, for which he is facing sanctions in a related lawsuit, this lawsuit seeks only prospective injunctive relief against the state actors, and neither sovereign immunity nor “state” status bars such prospective injunctive relief.
E. Plaintiff seeks money damages against only one state employee for her personally unlawful activity in 2009.
3. Argument
A. Plaintiff’s original purpose in contacting Agriculture in 2009 was to comply with the Constitution, not violate the Constitution. Agriculture was totally uncooperative. The ISF’s procedures and practices impose such burdensome procedures on Plaintiff that staging a spontaneous demonstration becomes all but impossible and, as Plaintiff’s 2009 incident in the First Amended Complaint reflects, the ISF tries to use the Illinois State Police as a proto-fascist speech-suppression mafia.
B. A regulatory scheme which effectively silences dissent through delay and complexity of permissive licensing violates the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
C. In this case, despite the fact that Agriculture issues a generic invitation to “Republicans” to attend “Republican Day,” the Agency has made acceptance of the invitation by Republican opponents or independent Republicans overly burdensome, to the point of seemingly silencing any meaningful opposition demonstration. Plaintiff is a reasonable person; the rules and procedures, and wooden response of Agriculture, are not. What is a political party, or an outdoor political rally, if not one which is noisy and a little verbally rambunctious?
CONCLUSION
Most respectfully, the Court is asked to recognize the constitutional infirmities in Agriculture’s rules and response, and to enter a TRO or preliminary injunction directing that Plaintiff and his supporters be allowed to demonstrate at the entrance to the Director’s Lawn, as well as to use reasonable sound amplification, so as to be in close proximity with his opposition.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify I have served:

tcorrigan@atg.state.il.us,
fogartyjr@gmail.com,
bsheahan@sheahanlaw.com,
info@kirkforsenate.com,
heffernanandy@yahoo.com,
info@ilgop.org,

on August 11, 2010

ANDY MARTIN

ANDY MARTIN sues to block Mark Kirk “dirty tricks” at Illinois State Fair

Illinois corruption fighter Andy Martin has filed suit in Sangamon County Circuit Court to prevent military imposter Mark Kirk and his “dirty tricksters” from harassing Martin when Martin protests at the Illinois State Fair on Republican Day, August 19th. Martin refiled a lawsuit that he originally filed in 2009, in which a circuit judge ruled Martin had a right to protest at the gate to the Director’s Lawn of the State Fair, where Republicans were meeting. Martin is seeking an emergency court hearing. This is Part One of a two-part release. Part Two will be Martin’s request for an injunction. Martin, who has been an adjunct professor of law, is known as one of America’s most skilled and aggressive civil rights and constitutional law litigators.

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

IN CHANCERY
CASE NO. 2009 CH 658

ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL STEELE,
REINCE PRIEBUS,
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE,
PAT BRADY,
CURT CONRAD,
JOE WEISS,
BRIEN SHEAHAN,
JOHN FOGARTY, JR.
ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN
PARTY
THOMAS E. JENNINGS,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE,
MARGARET L. VAN DIJK,
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE,
MARK KIRK,

Defendants.

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONEY DAMAGES

COUNT ONE

[42 U. S.C. § 1983 CLAIM]

1. Jurisdiction and venue
a. This Court has federal civil rights jurisdiction of the federal § 1983 claims (Counts One-Three) pursuant to established law, see e.g. Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill.2d 359, 799 N.E.2d 273, 289 (Ill. 2003); Blount v. Stroud, 232 Ill.2d 302, 904 N.E.2d 1, 17 (Ill. 2009); Board of Education v. Board of Education, 231 Ill.2d 184, 897 N.E.2d 756, 766 (Ill. 2008). This Court has general common law jurisdiction of the remaining aspects of the controversy (Count Four).
b. Substantially all of the operative activity of the defendants concerning the facts of this lawsuit was and is centered in Sangamon County.
2. The parties
a. Plaintiff Andy Martin (“Plaintiff”) is an Illinois Reform Party candidate for United States Senator. He is a world-respected Internet publisher and columnist, see e.g. www.ContrarianCommentary.com. Martin is Illinois’ most durable and independent corruption fighter (see www.AndyMartin.com) and has helped send corrupt politicians and judges to jail.
b. Defendant Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the de facto senior decision-making authority on the RNC’s Voter Vault (“VV”).
c. Reince Priebus is the General Counsel to the RNC and a senior legal authority to Steele.
d. Defendant Republican National Committee is the national organization comprised of representatives from each of the fifty states, including Illinois, which owns the VV and ultimately controls access.
e. Defendant Pat Brady is the Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party (“IRP”). Brady has made himself Plaintiff’s antagonist by seeking to use and abuse his control over the IRP and its funds to harass Plaintiff and to promote the activity of military imposter Mark Kirk. Brady, Kirk and the IRP use stooges such as Brien Sheahan, John Fogarty, Jr., Kimberly Vertoli and others to manipulate and control pliable members of the IRP.
f. Defendants Curt Conrad and Joe Weiss are employees of the IRP.
g. Defendant Illinois Republican Party is an organization created pursuant to the Illinois Election Code and comprised of indirectly elected “committeemen” from each of Illinois’ congressional districts. The election procedure for the IRP committeemen is created pursuant to state law.
h. Defendant Thomas E. Jennings is the Director of the Illinois State Fair (“ISF”), which is operated by defendant Illinois Department of Agriculture, an Illinois state government agency. Defendant Margaret L. van Dijk is the General Counsel for the Department of Agriculture. (If Plaintiff on information and belief has the name of the Agriculture attorney wrong, he will substitute the right name after discovery.) Van Dijk is sued in her personal/individual capacity for her constitutional torts; the Department is sued in its official capacity.
i. Defendant Mark Kirk is a campaign opponent of Plaintiff and is engaged in an active civil, and possibly criminal, conspiracy with defendants Steele, Priebus, Brady, Conrad, Weiss, Kimberly Vertoli and others to conceal Kirk’s military fraud and other fraudulent activity.
j. The Illinois State Police (“ISP”) is a police agency of the State and was involved in a fracas with the Plaintiff at the ISF in 2009. This is an official capacity claim against the ISP seeking prospective injunctive relief to ensure the ISP does not again become involved in the defendants’ machinations against Plaintiff.
k. Defendants Brien Sheahan and John Fogarty, Jr. are “election lawyers” and are paid by the IRP as hereinbelow stated.
3. Factual allegations
a. The State Fair “Republican Day” Controversy
A. The ISF promotes a “Republican Day” at the ISF. In 2010 Republican Day is August 19th.
B. Plaintiff is now an anti-corruption Illinois Reform Party candidate for the U. S. Senate; nevertheless, Plaintiff and his supporters wish to picket and demonstrate against the IRP’s activity on August 19th at the ISF at the entrance to the Director’s Lawn, as he did with court approval in 2009.
C. John Fogarty, Jr. and Brien Sheahan are “election lawyers,” a species of Illinois resident that engages in fraudulent political activity in violation of federal election laws. Sheahan is also General Counsel to the IRP and receives a regular pay check for that activity. Sheahan was involved in a “adulterous sex scandal” and was recently rejected for nomination as a Republican candidate. Fogarty and Sheahan have worked tirelessly to frustrate and undermine Plaintiff’s 2009-2010 and current 2010 campaigns. Both are defendants in a related lawsuit.
D. The ISF states that it recognizes the need to exercise constitutional freedoms, but then adopts rules and procedures that render constitutional freedoms meaningless.
E. Plaintiff seeks to demonstrate at the entrance to the Director’s Lawn on August 19, 2010, not in some remote location of the fairgrounds.
F. If past practices are any guide, the ISF seeks to quarantine Plaintiff and his supporters in an area which is remote from the Director’s Lawn, thereby rendering his protest meaningless.
G. The ISF restricts “Broadcasting Devices,” but imposes no standards on the allowance of audio amplification for the IRP itself or TV camera and radio recording devices. Thus, there is a double standard for the IRP and protesters. Plaintiff has two megaphones that he wishes to use. He has no idea if they meet criteria, or if written criteria exist at all, for the approval of devices. In effect, while claiming to recognize “protest,” the ISF renders protest virtually impossible through vague or nonexistent standards and coerced “demonstration” in remote areas having no connection to the targets of the actual protests.
H. In August, 2009 Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit; Judge Graves was unavailable to hear the matter so a hearing was convened before Chief Judge Patrick Kelley in chambers.
I. Present in chambers were Chief Judge Kelley, Plaintiff, an Assistant Attorney General (not Terrence Corrigan) and, Plaintiff believes (though he is not absolutely certain), attorney van Dijk.
J. Judge Kelley could not have been more professional, judicial, cordial and accommodating. The judge brokered a settlement agreement which called for Plaintiff to be able to demonstrate at the gate of the Director’s Lawn. In exchange for being at the gate, Plaintiff surrendered a request to use a loudspeaker. Judge Kelly’s intervention converted an adversarial situation into a proverbial “win-win” resolution where all counsel present appeared to leave the courthouse satisfied. Unfortunately, the good feelings generated by Judge Kelley did not survive the defendants’ behavior the next day.
K. As agreed by the parties before Judge Kelly, Plaintiff took up his position at the gate to the Director’s Lawn. Lacking a megaphone (surrendered as part of the agreement) and using only Plaintiff’s natural voice Plaintiff exhorted Republicans to reject Mark Kirk and support Plaintiff as the true Republican (in 2010 that would become the true anti-corruption Illinois Reform Party candidate).
L. Plaintiff was attacked at his gate position by Brien Sheahan, John Fogarty, Jr. and van Dijk (plaintiff is not sure where van Dijk physically appears in the process but she was certainly at the gate to the Director’s Lawn).
M. Fogarty, van Dijk and Sheahan called the ISP, who had not been present in court, and falsely alleged that Plaintiff was violating the law and that there was no agreement for Plaintiff's presence at the gate to the Director’s Lawn. Plaintiff was surrounded by a falange of ISP officers and taken into de facto custody. Being surrounded he could not leave. He was left with the firm impression he was under arrest.
N. Eventually the ISP allowed Plaintiff to call this Court and a second court hearing was arranged before Chief Judge Kelley, who reaffirmed his understanding of the agreement of the previous day that Plaintiff could demonstrate at the gate to the Director’s Lawn.
O. In the meantime, Plaintiff had been harassed, terrorized, disrupted and forced to abandon his protest location due to the need to return to this Court.
P. All of the harassment and abuse directed at Plaintiff was in flagrant violation of the agreement reached on the previous day by all of the offending parties or their counsel. In over forty years of litigation, Plaintiff has never experienced a situation where officers of a court made representations to a judge and then ignored those representations and lied to police officers about those representations on the very next day.
b. The Voter Vault Controversy
A. The RNC has created the Voter Vault (“VV”) as a powerful election tool.
B. On or about July 30, 2009 Plaintiff’s representative sought access to the VV.
C. On August 5, 2009 Plaintiff sent defendant Conrad a formal request for VV access.
D. Defendant Weiss sent Plaintiff a form to complete and Plaintiff completed the form and submitted it to the indicated fax number.
E. Plaintiff heard nothing from the defendants, and on August 11, 2009 defendant Conrad said he would "not be pressured into providing VV access.” VV access, of course, is time-sensitive. Conrad wanted to delay Plaintiff’s access indefinitely.
F. On August 11, 2009, in light of Conrad’s intransigence, Plaintiff wrote to defendants Steele and Priebus seeking access. These defendants never responded and were acting in concert and conspiracy with Andrew McKenna, Patrick Brady, and others who were and are subservient to McKenna and Brady.
G. Defendant Kirk was given access to the VV, thereby conferring a very valuable, exclusive “contribution” to Kirk’s campaign in violation of federal election laws. McKenna sought to make full VV access available to Kirk, but not to Plaintiff, to assist Kirk because of the hostility of Republican Party voters to Kirk’s extreme liberalism and support for gun control, infanticide and higher taxes through the Obama administration’s “cap and trade” statute.
H. Throughout the 2010 primary election process the defendants obstructed Plaintiff’s meaningful access to the VV and used the VV as a device to rig the primary in Kirk’s favor.
4. Legal claim
a. The actions of the defendants in seeking to have Plaintiff arrested at the ISF and in making false allegations of criminal activity against Plaintiff to the ISP were unlawful and unconstitutional.
b. The Court has broad equitable powers to fashion equitable remedies involving prospective injunctive relief against the state defendants protecting the right of Plaintiff and his supporters to protest at the gate to the Director’s Lawn on August 19, 2010.
c. The actions of the IRP, Sheahan, Fogarty and van Dijk violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and were intended to disrupt his First Amendment activity after said defendants or their counsel had agreed to Plaintiff’s protest activity and location in the hearing before Chief Judge Kelley. The defendants’ activity was part of the lifestyle and political modus operandi of Mark Kirk who uses stooges such as Kimberly Vertoli, Pat Brady and others to abuse and harass opponents and to convey false impressions to the media, public and, in the case of the ISF, to law enforcement officials. Sheahan and Fogarty were acting as Kirk's de facto agents at the ISF.
5. Demand for judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks money damages against the private (i.e. Illinois, non-state defendants except van Dijk) as the Court or a jury may impose for the 2009 fracas but for no less than $10 million.
b. Plaintiff seeks any and all declaratory and prospective injunctive relief to which he may be entitled against all defendants as to August 19, 2010.
COUNT TWO
[CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. The Illinois Republican Party State Central Committee, also known as the IRP, is created and regulated under Illinois State law but is still a private organization.
b. In 2009, the IRP, Fogarty, Sheahan and van Dijk disregarded their agreement by counsel before Judge Kelley and used the ISP to harass and threaten plaintiff with arrest.
c. Plaintiff is entitled to money damages against the private Illinois-based defendants as well as van Dijk.
COUNT THREE
[FIRST AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. The ISF’s restrictions on sound devices violate the First Amendment. Likewise the ISF’s restrictions on locations where protesters may gather, which would normally be in the same vicinity as their opponents but which the ISF seeks to relegate to remote areas, render the First Amendment rights of the plaintiff on Illinois state property meaningless.
b. Plaintiff and his supporters seek to demonstrate in the vicinity of the Director’s Lawn using megaphones and asks the Court to strike down the ISF’s restrictions on peaceful protests as overly broad and vague.
5. Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief striking down the ISF’s restrictions on the location of speech, and the manner in which speech may be communicated (through “devices”). In the alternative, Plaintiff asks that Judge Kelley’s informal ruling of August 2009 be extended to August 2010 and that Plaintiff and his supporters be allowed to demonstrate at the gate to the Director’s Lawn on August 19, 2010.
COUNT FOUR
[PRIMA FACIE TORT]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. Illinois courts have adopted the concept of prima facie tort, see Pendleton v. Time, Inc., 339 Ill.App. 188, 89 N.E.2d 435 (Ill.App. 1st Dist. 1949) as originally recognized in Advance Music v. American Tobacco, 183 Misc. 855, 51 N.Y.S. 692, aff’d 296 N.Y. 79, 70 N.E.2d 401 (N.Y.).
b. The Republican Party defendants’ ongoing activity is a classic case of prima face tort, because their VV activity would otherwise be legal and is characterized by a desire to retaliate against, and gratuitously injure and destroy plaintiff because of his honesty, integrity and reform political activity. At least since Watergate scandal, “dirty tricks” have been viewed as an unacceptable part of political activity.
c. The Republican Party-related defendants (not state employees or state actors) violated Plaintiff’s right and access to the VV in an attempt to destroy his candidacy against the military imposter Mark Kirk.
d. Plaintiff seeks money damages against the Republican Party-related defendants.
5. Demand for Judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks the same relief as sought in Count One.
DATED: August 11, 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 matters the undersigned certified as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.



ANDY MARTIN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify I have served this Amended Complaint by email as follows:

tcorrigan@atg.state.il.us,
fogartyjr@gmail.com,
bsheahan@sheahanlaw.com,
info@kirkforsenate.com,
heffernanandy@yahoo.com,
info@ilgop.org,

on August 11, 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

ANDY MARTIN: Illinois election official quits in growing scandal

Philip Krasny, an appointee of the Illinois State Board of Elections, quit Tuesday after Andy Martin lodged corruption charges against Krasny and announced he would be adding Krasny’s name to a pending Sangamon County civil rights lawsuit. Martin was in the process of preparing a letter to Krasny when Andy received an email from Krasny announcing that Krasny had quit. Martin finished his letter and sent it to Krasny and the other conspirators.

Martin is seeking to reform the State Board of Elections so that the Board will no longer tolerate or allow corrupt lawyers to file “objections” on behalf of straw parties who in reality are acting as stand-ins for secret individuals who actually finance the lawyers’ actions. “There is no way fraudulent practices and procedures can comply with the U. S. Constriction,” Martin charges. “Dirty politics chases clean candidates out of the process.” A Sangamon County circuit judge has scheduled an emergency hearing on Martin’s lawsuit for Friday, July 23rd.

Adding another layer of mystery to the proceedings, using Andy’s clandestine background he observed that Finko, who refuses to disclose an address, had typed Finko’s own secret zip code, 60622, as Andy’s own. Someone corrected Finko’s label. Whodunit? Andy has the envelope.

ANDY MARTIN
“The name you can trust”
Illinois Reform Party for U. S. Senator/2010
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-ANDY
Toll-free fax (866) 707-ANDY
Web site: http://www.AndyforUSSenator.com
E-mail: AndyforUSSenator@aol.com

Please donate:

www.AndyforUSSenator.com

Blogs:

www.AndyforUSSenator.blogspot.com
www.AndyforUSSenator.wordpress.com
www.IllinoisHighSpeedTrains.com

Andy Martin’s anti-Kirk blogs:

www.DefeatMarkKirk.blogspot.com
www.MarkKirk.us

July 20, 2010

Philip Krasny, Esq.
State Board of Elections
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 14-100
Chicago, Illinois
via fax:
(312) 814-6485
(217) 782-5959
(312) 345-9860
via email:
philipkrasny@yahoo.com

Re: State Board of Elections proceedings

Dear Mr. Krasny:

We Episcopalians have an old saying that you should “be careful what pray for; your prayers might get answered.” For the past week opposing counsel Andrew Finko has been noting that my promise to respond to him on July 13th has not been fulfilled.

Mr. Finko’s prayers have now been answered. I am responding to him, and to you. My response does not paint a pretty picture of Finko’s behavior, or yours. In forty-one years as a lawyer, I have never seen a bunch of people make a bigger mess of a case.[1]

Due to his solipsism, Mr. Finko appears to believe that my life revolves around his machinations. That is obviously not the case. Although this letter is directed to you for obvious reasons, this letter also constitutes my response to Finko.

I suggest you pay serious attention to the constitutional violations that have been directed against me as a part of a criminal conspiracy to deny me the right to run for United States Senator.

1. Addressing you

While the facts and circumstances place us in an adversarial position, I wish to show you the utmost respect as a representative of the State Board. In my salutation I referred to you as “Mr.” If I should be addressing you by some other salutation please advise me and I will respect your request.

Unlike Mr. Finko, who engages in the juvenile behavior of using misleading and invented names for me, I do not play those games.

2. Recusal

As documented below, you engaged in what appears to have been a vile ex parte hearing on July 6th. As such, you are a witness, in both state and federal court, to what took place then. I assume there was no record of the proceedings. If there was a record, kindly furnish me with a copy immediately.

Because you engaged in an ex parte proceeding compromising your impartiality, because you are a witness to the facts and events of the ex parte proceeding, and because you will become a defendant on Wednesday in my pending civil rights lawsuit, I urge you to voluntarily recuse yourself from the proceedings.

I would also request a disclosure from you of your prior relationship with the State Board including any prior employment relationship with the board.


3. Illinois/Federal constitutional law on Due Process

As my memorandum of law which will be filed tomorrow will reflect, the Illinois Supreme Court interprets federal constitutional law as requiring a standard of “reasonableness.”

The undisputed and documented record reflects the totally unreasonable behavior directed against me by the Board and other participants.

In addition, while the state conducts elections, as a candidate for federal office I am entitled to the full protection of the U.S. Constitution. I am not a candidate for state or local office, where federal constitutional rights may not be as extensive.

4. The facts concerning the “objections” to my candidacy

Illinois law presumes that in the absence of a valid and properly filed objection, a candidate’s filings are legally presumed to be sufficient. I am entitled to avail myself of the benefits of that legal presumption because no valid objections have been filed to my candidacy.

a. Three “objections” against me were apparently tendered to the Board close to the close of business on June 28th.

b. The Board did not mail out its “notice” to me until the afternoon of Wednesday, June 30th.

c. There was no reasonable way to expect or believe that a letter mailed in Springfield on Wednesday would be delivered before Tuesday, July 6th with a federal holiday weekend intervening.

d. Andrew Finko mailed me a certified letter on July 14th, also a Wednesday. That did not arrive until the following Monday. (More on Finko’s letter later).

e. Andrew Finko never served me with his objection. Finko claims to have filed a purported “motion for summary judgment” on July 6th, and he failed to serve that as well. I received a “reply” to Finko’s ex parte motion yesterday. Obviously, in the absence of service of the original documents, Finko’s reply to himself says more about his state of mind than it does about the state of his objections or legal competence

f. I was never served with a copy of the objections filed by John Fogarty and Brien Sheahan.

g. It is axiomatic that service of documents is one of the bedrock principles of our legal system, both administrative and judicial. The fact that attorneys and pro se parties were submitting ex parte documents to the Board, and you made no effort to direct them to serve me, is outrageous.

h. On July 13th, you directed Fogarty to serve me with a “notice.” He did so on July 20th (today). Why did it take Fogarty a week to comply with your directions? Ask him. Fogarty also served a copy of his “objection” with his “notice.” Thus, out of three objections submitted to the Board on June 28th, I received only one, and that was today, on July 20th, over three weeks later.

i. On July 13th, in yet another ex parte action, you directed Finko to serve me with “notice.” Although Finko sent me a certified letter, see attached Exhibit A, he did not include either his original objection or his purported motion with his “notice.”[2] What is more significant is that Finko's letter was mailed in Chicago on July 14th, and did not reach my building until July 19th.

I would ask that you direct Mr. Finko to serve me with the front and back of his certified mail receipt (green card). In any event, if a letter mailed in Chicago took from Wednesday to Monday to be delivered, my claim that it was unreasonable for the Board to mail a letter in Springfield on a Wednesday and during a federal holiday and to expect immediate delivery is confirmed. Mr. Finko’s letter inadvertently solidified my lack-of-notice claim.

j. Mr. Finko refuses to provide a street address where he may be served both with Board matters and my civil rights lawsuit. In forty-one years, I have never seen a case where a practicing attorney refused to provide an actual street address for service. There is something seriously wrong with Mr. Finko, as the totality of his aberrant behavior confirms. I note that Finko mailed his letter in the 60622 zone where he has had a listed address. I can assure you Mr. Finko is within an eyelash of a federal civil RICO mail fraud claim though his legerdemain.

k. Neither you nor the Board staff have made any efforts to notify me directly. Instead, and despite the fact I furnished a web site to the Board with extensive contact information, you told Mr. Finko to be the go-between despite the fact he was submitting ex parte documents to the Board. I believe that was a constitutional violation of my right to notice from the forum.

l. Sharon Meroni has never served me with her objection.

5. The Sangamon County lawsuit

On June 30th I filed a Sangamon County federal civil rights lawsuit against the Objectors, their attorneys and the Board. Tomorrow I will be adding you and Brien Sheahan as defendants. I may add other defendants. Finko and Fogarty and Fogarty’s clients have tried to frustrate service of process. That is unprofessional activity when committed by an officer of the Illinois Supreme Court.

I am sure the Sangamon County judge will be concerned by such unprofessional behavior by offices of the court. Mr. Fogarty has already established a notorious record of unprofessional behavior in Sangamon County. I will serve you with a copy of my amended complaint naming you as a party.

6. Proceedings before the Board

The ex parte proceedings before the Board have obviously been a sham and mockery of Due Process. Therefore, on Friday I will be filing in Springfield a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441 of the Board proceedings to the U. S. District Court. After extensive review of the applicable law I am convinced I have a right, as a federal candidate, to remove the Board's proceedings to federal court. There will not be any Board proceedings unless and until the case is remanded, and I expect the federal court to retain the case, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446 (d).

7. Possible future board proceedings

I have launched a public interest “war” against the fraudulent proceedings conducted by the Board involving bogus “objections” which are solicited by “election lawyers” who act and are paid by undisclosed principals, and who use straw objectors such as Heffernan as proxies for the hidden interests which are orchestrating the Board proceedings.

In my opinion, no tribunal can receive public respect when lawyers are engaging in fraud on the tribunal by failing to disclose (i) who is paying the attorneys filing claims and (ii) who is soliciting the “objectors.” The Board has abdicated its independent constitutional duty to ensure that the Board's processes are not being used and abused surreptitiously. In almost all cases filed with the Board, the objectors are nothing more than stand-ins for the lawyers and their secret clients.

In the latest “objection” period, three sets of individuals (Meroni, Fogarty and Finko) filed indiscriminate objections against every candidate who filed to run against the established parties. The Federal Constitution is violated when ballot access procedures are misused to indiscriminately attack every candidate who files for office.

I believe the Board’s toleration of these tactics through failure to direct full disclosure, and the Board’s failure to allow either extensive pre-hearing discovery, or to adopt disclosure rules for attorneys practicing before the board to file affidavits concerning the source of their legal fees and any solicitation activity involving “clients,” makes the Board into a sham agency which is used by unscrupulous attorneys to harass candidates and to perpetrate a fraud on every Illinoisan.

In any future Board proceedings I will expect to be afforded extensive pre-hearing discovery so that I may depose all of the “Objectors” and their attorneys about their relationships concerning fees, solicitation, etc.

I have been fighting official corruption in Illinois for almost half a century. I am getting stronger, not weaker, and I have more energy, not less, for the battle to save Illinois from crooked lawyers and corrupt politicians. The State of Illinois is dying. I will do my best to save it.

8. Independent expert witness

I am in the process of seeking to retain an independent expert witness who may consult and offer expert opinions on the Due Process violations that have been directed against me by the Board and the sham objectors. I will serve you with a copy of any affidavit that becomes available.

9. A safe harbor offer

In order to bring the bogus objections against me to a rapid close, I am offering a safe harbor to any attorney or other defendant in the Sangamon County lawsuit. Anyone who voluntarily withdraws an objection before the Board before noon on Thursday, July 22nd will be dismissed as a defendant on July 23rd and will be able to go forward without any further claim of liability.

Any defendants who remain in the lawsuit after July 22nd will be subjected to the full panoply of criminal and civil law liability. I will promptly be placing liens on their real estate to ensure payment of judgments rendered against them.

Addendum:

After this letter was drafted and while it was being prepared for emailing, I received an e-mail from you voluntarily recusing yourself. Your recusal does not remove you as party defendant in the amended complaint. Because you conducted a secret hearing with the other defendants on July 6th, you remain a critical link in the chain of constitutional violations being orchestrated by Finko, Fogarty and Meroni.

What is interesting about your resignation today is that when you wanted to notify me of your resignation you found a way to do so. But, prior to today, you had never made any attempt to afford me any notice of your actions. Likewise, after acting in secret prior to today, when the Board in Springfield wanted to notify me today, they found a way to do so. These two communications today prove my point.

You should have your attorney contact me if you wish to avail yourself of the safe harbor offer in this letter.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

AM:sp

W/encl. Exhibit A
[1] I am a Juris Doctor graduate of the University of Illinois. I am not a member of the Illinois bar. Therefore, I am a lawyer, but not an attorney.
[2] Adding yet another layer of mystery to Finko’s shenanigans, he originally typed my zip code as “60622” on his envelope (apparently Finko’s own secret zip code that he inserted unconsciously). Someone then crossed 60622 out and inserted the inked-in number. Is this a whodunit, or what? That is why depositions of the objectors and their lawyers is so essential to getting at the full truth behind the Finko-Fogarty scams.

ANDY MARTIN: Crooked lawyer threatens to sue Andy for defamation

Andrew Finko, the evasive “election lawyer” who works out of a post office box and has no office to call his own, has threatened Andy Martin with a defamation lawsuit. Martin says that unlike Finko, Martin has a public office address; Andy won’t hide from Finko’s court papers.

And, in the continuing comedy of the sleazy Illinois Republican Party, John Fogarty, the “lawyer” with no name on his office, now has “clients” who are trying to evade Martin’s private detectives, after suing Andy in the first place! There was a fracas at the Heffernan house Monday when fatass Donna Heffernan tried to evade service of legal papers, and Donna’s son ended up having to take the legal documents for his mom and dad. The Heffernans had filed an election lawsuit against Andy, “represented” by Fogarty.

Andy Martin has been fighting corruption in Illinois politics for over forty years; he keeps fighting, and the crooks keep coming.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin blows the whistle on Illinois’ corrupt “election lawyers”

John Fogarty’s stooges try to lock the door on Andy's private detective; service of process becomes a family affair for Fogarty’s Heffernans
ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Andy Martin exposes Andrew Finko as the “lawyer in a post office box”

Martin says John Fogarty’s legal circus continues as his “clients” the Heffernans get the willies after launching a suit against Andy; the Heffernans are now trying to evade Andy’s court papers

Andy asks “What are these bogus ‘clients’ going to do when we place liens on their homes and property later in the week?”

Andrew Finko threatens Andy Martin with a defamation lawsuit; Martin says, “Sue me”

(CHICAGO)(July 20, 2010) Andrew Finko used to work at one of the nation’s largest law firms, Schiff Hardin [http://www.schiffhardin.com/]. Finko doesn’t work there any more. Today he works out of a post office box.

Efforts by my private detectives to find an office for Finko have been fruitless. He appears to use his parents’ home as his mailing and residence address. He has no listed home of his own. What happened to Finko? Was he a crook? Incompetent? Nervous breakdown? Or couldn’t Finko hack the ‘big firm’ practice? We’ll investigate and report the facts to you.

The litigation circus of Finko and his similarly corrupt and incompetent fellow traveler John Fogarty continues. Fogarty is supervised by DuPage County sex fiend attorney Brien Sheahan, who was preaching that “old time religion” to DuPage voters while he was fornicating with another candidate on the ballot. Sheahan is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, which is why sleazy chairman Pat Brady keeps Fogarty and Sheahan on the team. Brady is as corrupt as they are.

Fogarty has an “office” in a building where his name is not even on the door, and no one answers the door. Criminals call that a “mail drop.” Fogarty can’t be much of a lawyer if he can’t afford to have his name listed in the lobby’s building directory or his own office door. Maybe that’s why Fogarty has gotten his latest bogus "clients" in trouble.

My detectives were out serving Fogarty’s “clients” Monday night. Donna Heffernan tried to block her door to avoid service of process. That’s unlawful. Fogarty’s clients, the Heffernans, are so confident of their claims against me that they are afraid to be served with my legal papers. Donna’s son walked in just as the fracas with his mama was unfolding, and baby Heffernan got himself served as his mother’s agent.

What a disgrace the Heffernans are to the Republican Party. They have filed dozens of attacks against candidates through their sleazy “lawyer” Fogarty. Republicans must not be too confident about winning the election in November if they are working so hard to throw their opponents off the ballot. Well fatass Donna Heffernan and her hubby Andy have now been served. Next comes a lien on their house.

One by one we are hunting and tracking down Fogarty’s and Finko’s clients and serving them with legal process.

Which leads us to Andrew Finko, who is due in Sangamon County Circuit Court this Friday. We’ll have someone there ready to serve him with process when he shows his face. Finko’s client also faces a process server when he shows up in court. Finko is not a Republican. Rather he has attacked dozens of candidates as a stooge for Obamacrats.

I don’t know why Finko is no longer at Schiff Hardin, his former law firm, but I know why I would have fired Finko if he worked for me. He is incompetent and is an embarrassment to any client. He served me with a “reply to his motion” Monday that would be a disgrace to any legitimate law firm. And he “replied” to his own motion without ever serving me with the original. Nice trick, that. Finko appears to think if you work out of a post office box the laws of processional propriety don’t apply to you. Well they do. Finko the Fink didn’t realize he was actually helping my lawsuit when he filed his malicious material with a stooge at the State Board of Elections.

Maybe you wonder why Illinois government is in the toilet, and slowly being flushed down the sewers into the Gulf of Mexico. Illinois is a failed state, and becoming a third world state, because of the corrupt politics that controls the state government and tries to prevent people from running for office.

Florida doesn’t have any “election lawyers.” Florida doesn’t have any petition challenges or fraudulent “objectors. Why? Candidates in Florida simply pay a filing fee and file a statement of candidacy and that’s that. No “hearings,” no fraudulent fatasses like the Heffernans, no straw men, no nuttin'. You pay your fee and run for office. Compare and contrast how easy it is to run for office in Florida with how difficult it is to become a candidate in Illinois.

The State Board of Elections is controlled by the two major parties (there is no minor party or genuine independent representative on the Board) and the state’s greasy "election lawyers" work overtime to discourage good folk from being candidates:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/
ct-oped-0720-byrne-20100720,0,4166606.column

In closing, let me ask you, dear reader, a simple question. Would you hire John Fogarty to represent you? He has an “office” without his name on the door, without a secretary, and without his name on the lobby’s building directory. Nobody would hire such a jackleg lawyer, except the Illinois Republican Party.

As for Andrew Finko? He used to be near the mountaintop. At a major Chicago law firm. Today he works out of a post office box. I am sure people are not lining up at Finko’s post office box to hire him either. Maybe that’s why Finko may rely on mom and dad to handle his mail. Maybe his mom even takes his messages. Who knows?

In a way, Finko’s sad decline from big law firm to post office box is mirrored by Illinois’ decline, from a great state to a bankrupt entity in which even the police are not safe in the streets any more. Over the weekend a cop on the brink of retirement was gunned down by gangbangers. It reminds me of Cabrini Green in the 1970’s. I was there. I remember officers Severin and Rizzato who lost their lives under Daley’s father.

I am running to change Illinois, to clean up the corruption. The Finkos and Fogartys and Shehans and Bradys of Illinois politics are trying hard to stop me. They are the best endorsement of my independence and integrity. My campaign is already a winner. The more disinfectant we spray on Finko and Fogarty, on the Heffernans and Shermans, and on loopy Sharon Meroni, the more people know why Illinois is going down the drain.

I am not really fighting for myself. I am fighting for every citizen who is fed up with the political sleaze in Illinois, and the thieves who maintain themselves in power by denying democracy to Illinois voters. Please join me and support the cause of disinfecting the Fogartys and Finkos and the political puppet masters hiding behind the failed lawyers who are an embarrassment to honest attorneys.

P.S. Andrew Finko has now threatened to sue me for defamation. My answer to Finko: “sue me.” I have an office address. And, unlike Finko, I won’t hide when Finko sends someone to serve me with legal papers. I will welcome my day in court.

-------------------------------------
ABOUT ANDY: Andy Martin is the legendary New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He promotes his best-selling book, “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” and his Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Martin has been a leading corruption fighter in Illinois for over forty years. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com
Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” http://www.contrariancommentary.com/. He comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of investigative and overseas experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

UPDATES: www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSAwww.facebook.com/AndyMartin Andy's columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com.
contrariancommentary.typepad.com[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in this story on our blogs; find our latest edition there.]

MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com © Copyright by Andy Martin 2010