My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

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.


CASE NO. 2009 CH 658








[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. Martin is Illinois’ most durable and independent corruption fighter (see 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.
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.
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.
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,

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


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.



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

on August 11, 2010


Labels: , , , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home