Andy Martin news conference demands that the Chicago Tribune fire Rick Pearson; a court hearing is set

Pearson, whom Andy calls a “potential highway killer.” Andy has written about Rick Pearson’s bizarre and abusive behavior, and sometimes called Pearson’s demeanor similar to that of a child abuser. “I was mistaken,” Andy says. “And I apologize. Pearson’s ‘character’ and his creepy behavior are due to his alcoholism. Pearson’s biased journalism is also infected by his alcoholism. The idea that alcoholics simply ‘blow off’ or ignore their alcoholism when they are in the workplace is not born out by the evidence. More importantly, Pearson’s offense - driving the wrong way down a one-way street - is potentially one of the most dangerous examples of alcoholic endangerment. Because Pearson was acting within the scope of his employment, the Tribune Company is liable for and is an enabler of Pearson’s alcoholism. It is time for Chicago media management to take alcoholism seriously and to stop coddling drunken reporters and writers,” Andy will state at his news conference later today. A court hearing is scheduled Thursday June 6th at 2:00 P.M. in Martin v. Pearson, Room 2302 of the Daley Center.

NEWS FROM:




ContrarianCommentary.com

“The Internet Powerhouse”

Andy Martin, J. D.

adjunct professor of law

executive editor

America’s most respected

independent author/investigator



“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”



you can call Andy:

NH (603) 518-7310

NTL (866) 706-2639



you can email Andy:

andynewhampshire@aol.com



you can write Andy by

faxing (866) 214-3210



Blogs/web sites (partial):

ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com

ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com



To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:



Announcement of Chicago news conference



Attention national and Chicago daybook/assignment editors



Andy Martin says that the Chicago Tribune newspaper is legally liable for the drunk driving of its employee Rick Pearson



Andy is asking Sangamon County authorities to ensure there is no obstruction of justice in prosecuting Pearson for driving the wrong way down a one-way street



Andy says Pearson has shown longstanding evidence of alcoholic impairment



Andy says the media in Chicago have been much too tolerant and much too complacent about alcoholic reporters such as Mike Royko and Neil Steinberg



(CHICAGO) (June 4, 2013) Corruption-fighter Andy Martin will hold a news conference today, Tuesday, June 4th, to announce: [1] he is demanding that the Chicago Tribune fire drunken reporter Rick Pearson; [2] he is initially asking Sangamon County authorities to investigate why a prior DUI arrest of Pearson’s was not prosecuted and [3] there is a court hearing scheduled in Martin v. Pearson at the Daley Center on June 6th at 2:00 P.M., Courtroom 2302.



Andy will also issue a partial apology to Pearson based on the demonstrated evidence of Pearson’s longstanding alcoholism.



“The Chicago Tribune is responsible for putting a potential killer on Illinois highways,” Andy will charge later today. “Rick Pearson, who has a longstanding alcoholism problem, has been allowed to drive on Illinois’ streets and highways while officially acting for the Chicago Tribune.



“I first experienced Rick Pearson’s bizarre behavior exactly a decade ago, when he sent me an irrational email. Over the following years I referred to Pearson as someone with the demeanor or mien of a ‘molester.’ For that I now apologize. I realize Pearson has a longstanding alcoholism problem and that is the source of his creepy appearance and behavior.



“The Chicago Tribune has ignored and enabled Pearson’s alcoholism and put Pearson on the state’s highways as a potential - and perhaps inevitable - killer. Today I formally demand that the Chicago Tribune fire killer-in-waiting Rick Pearson.



“I am also asking that Sangamon County officials open an investigation into why an officer claimed the Fifth Amendment in another Pearson prosecution. Do they think Sangamon County is the IRS, where public employees claim the Fifth Amendment? If we do not get proper answers I will follow up with a request to the U. S. Attorney to investigate whether Sangamon County officials or The Tribune Company or others, engaged in obstruction of justice to protect Pearson from prosecution. I will not allow a cover-up of Pearson’s current criminal behavior in Springfield (link below).



“May 31st Pearson was driving the wrong way down a one-way street and was arrested for DUI. Alcoholics who drive the wrong way on streets and highways are perhaps the most dangerous form of vehicular killers.



“Because Pearson was acting within the scope of his employment while present in Springfield, the ‘bankrupt’ Chicago Tribune was legally responsible for Pearson’s criminal behavior. If Pearson has killed or maimed someone, Tribune owners would have been fully liable. Have Tribune attorneys considered these facts?



“For decades Chicago media have treated serious alcoholism as a joke. I often saw Mike Royko drunken and incoherent. Neil Steinberg wrote a book about his alcoholic exploits (link below). Alcoholics are public enemies. They kill on public streets and highways. Alcoholism is not a joke. Because the Chicago Tribune knowingly placed an alcoholic on Illinois streets and highways the Tribune created a clear and present danger of vehicular homicide. How would they report the story if Pearson killed someone?



“It is also true that when an employer ignores and enables alcoholism, the employee becomes emboldened to keep drinking. If you keep drinking, eventually and almost inevitably you will have a serious automobile incident.



“I always thought Pearson’s creepy demeanor was due to a potential molester’s profile. I was mistaken. Pearson’s bizarre behavior, and most likely his biased and malignant journalism, is due to his alcohol problems. Alcoholism is not something you can partition off. An alcoholic sees life and sees the world through a different vision. Pearson’s biased reporting, and his reputed bribe-taking from Republican ‘Combine’ operatives, all are natural permutations of his alcoholism.



“In order to retain its remaining credibility as a media enterprise, the Chicago Tribune has no alternative but to immediately fire Rick Pearson. There is no place in the modern employment world, and particularly no place in the media employment world, for malignant alcoholics such as Mike Royko, Neil Steinberg and Rick Pearson. Alcohol kills, and alcoholics are potential killers every time they get behind the steering wheel of any vehicle,” Andy will charge later today.



The Circuit Court of Cook County has set a Thursday, June 6th 2:00 P.M. hearing in Courtroom 2302 of the Daley Center in Martin v. Pearson. The matter was previously scheduled but Andy is going to ask the court for permission to file an amended complaint adding Pearson’s alcoholism and alcohol-fueled rage against Andy to the list of charges against Pearson and the Tribune Company.



----------------------

June 4, 2013 CHICAGO NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:



WHO:



American corruption-fighter and Internet Powerhouse/Conservative blogger Andy Martin



WHAT:



Andy Martin demands that the Chicago Tribune fire Rick Pearson



WHERE:



Sidewalk news conference, SE corner of Huron and Wabash,

Chicago (weather permitting; otherwise indoors)



WHEN:



Tuesday, June 4, 2013, 6:00 P.M.



----------------------



MEDIA CONTACT: (312) 440-4124; CELL (917) 664-9329; E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com



----------------------



LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-31/business/

chi-tribune-reporter-arrested-20130531_1_springfield-

police-officer-sangamon-county-jail-suspicion



http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/20468994-418/chicago-

tribune-political-reporter-charged-with-dui-in-springfield.html



http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/

June-2008/The-Last-Round/



--------------------------

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2013 – All Rights Reserved

--------------------------

ANDY MARTIN: Sangamon County judge sets hearing in Mark Kirk lawsuit

Andy Martin seeks to demonstrate against Mark Kirk on Republican Day, August 19th, 2010 at the Illinois State Fair. A Sangamon County judge has set a hearing on Martin’s lawsuit seeking to continue a prior court order allowing him to demonstrate against Kirk in 2009.

Internet powerhouse Andy Martin set to appear in Sangamon County Circuit Court in Mark Kirk “dirty tricks” lawsuit

ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

A Sangamon County Circuit Judge will conduct a hearing Monday, August 16th on Andy Martin’s request to demonstrate against Mark Kirk at Republican Day, August 19th at the Director’s Lawn of the Illinois State Fair.

Martin won a similar order in 2009, prohibiting Republican Party “dirty tricks”

(CHICAGO)(August 13, 2010) A Sangamon County Circuit Judge has set a hearing Monday, August 16th on Andy Martin’s lawsuit against Mark Kirk and the Illinois State Fair seeking ongoing permission to demonstrate against Kirk at Republican Day on August 19th.

“We are asking the circuit judge to continue the order entered by the prior circuit judge in the case, allowing me to demonstrate in 2009,” Martin says.

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.

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, August 16, 2010, at 9:30 A.M., I will appear before the Honorable Leslie Graves, sitting in Courtroom 5D, at the Sangamon County Complex, 200 S. Ninth Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701, and present the accompanying motions:
1. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) as previously served on you, to permit plaintiff and his supporters to demonstrate at the entrance to the Director’s Lawn on Republican Day, August 19, 2010;
2. Motion for Leave to File Verified First Amended Complaint.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Dated: August 12, 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify I have served this Notice of Hearing by email on counsel for the defendants and defendants as follows:

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

on August 12, 2010

ANDY MARTIN

----------------

COMING SATURDAY: Andy analyzes and contextualizes Mark Kirk’s homosexuality, “The Tragic Case of Kimberly Vertolli”

--------------------------------------
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,” 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

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

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