My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, August 11, 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.]


CASE NO. 2009 CH 658







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

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.



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?
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,
P. O. Box 1851
New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: (text only)

Additional courtesy copy requested to:

30 E. Huron Street, Suite 4406
Chicago, IL 60611-4723


Additional e-mail address available
upon request


I certify I have served:,,,,,,

on August 11, 2010


Labels: , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home