Full text of Illinois lawsuit seeking to open Republican National Committee’s “Voter Vault”

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,
ANDY MCKENNA,
CURT CONRAD,
JOE WEISS,
ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN
PARTY
THOMAS E. JENNINGS,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE,
MARK KIRK,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COUNT ONE

[EQUITABLE CLAIM]

1. Jurisdiction and venue
a. This court has general common law jurisdiction of the controversy.
b. Substantially all of the operative activity of the defendants concerning the facts of this lawsuit is centered in Sangamon County.
2. The parties
a. Plaintiff Andy Martin (“Plaintiff”) is a candidate for United States Senator. He is a world-respected Internet publisher and columnist, see e.g. ContrarianCommentary.com. Martin is Illinois’ most durable and independent corruption fighter (see http://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 Andy McKenna is the Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party (“IRP”). For the past six (6) years McKenna has made himself an antagonist of Plaintiff by seeking to use and abuse his control over the IRP to harass Plaintiff. McKenna uses stooges such as Tolbert Chisum 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.
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, McKenna, Conrad and Weiss.
3. Factual allegations
a. The Voter Vault Controversy
A. The RNC has created the VV as a powerful election tool (see, e.g. Appendix pp. 1-6).
B. On or about July 30, 2009 Plaintiff’s representative sought access to the VV. (App. P. 9)
C. On August 5, 2009 Plaintiff sent defendant Conrad a formal request for VV access (App. Pp. 7-8).
D. Defendant Weiss sent Plaintiff a form to complete and Plaintiff completed the form and submitted it to the indicated fax number (App. 10-11).
E. Plaintiff heard nothing from the defendants, and on August 11,2009 defendant Conrad said he would “not be
pressured into providing VV access.” (App. 12). VV access, of course, is time-sensitive. Conrad wants 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 have not responded and are acting in concert and conspiracy with McKenna, Patrick Brady, and others who are subservient to McKenna.
G. Defendant Kirk is being given access to the VV, thereby conferring a very valuable, exclusive “contribution” to Kirk’s campaign in violation of federal election laws. McKenna seeks to make VV 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.
b. The “Republican Day” Controversy
A. The ISF promotes a “Republican Day” the ISF.
B. Plaintiff was invited to participate in planning for the ISF and, as requested, sent a representative. (App. P. 16).
C. When Plaintiff’s representative appeared at the ISF on August 13th, Plaintiff has been advised by his representative that defendant Conrad said that Conrad was under orders to refuse to deal with Plaintiff or his representatives. In effect, Conrad invited Plaintiff and his supporters to perform a meaningless and burdensome act by driving to Springfield only to be insulted and turned away.
D. Conrad and McKenna are seeking to illegally use IRP funds to promote Kirk as the party’s candidate, when most Illinois Republicans despise Kirk and want nothing to do with him.
c. The “Illinois State fair” controversy
A. The ISF states that it recognizes the need to exercise constitutional freedom (App. p. 17) but then goes around and renders constitutional freedoms meaningless.
B. Plaintiff seeks to demonstrate in the vicinity of the IRP activity near the Governor’s Lawn, not in some remote location.
C. The ISF seeks to quarantine Plaintiff and his supporters in an area which is remote from the Governor’s Lawn, thereby rendering his protest meaningless.
D. The ISF restricts “Broadcasting Devices,” (App. P. 18) but imposes no standards on the allowance of audio amplification. 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.
4. Legal claim
a. The actions of the defendants are inequitable.
b. The Court has broad equitable powers to fashion equitable remedies directing the defendants to provide VV access to Plaintiff as well as barring secret support for Kirk.
5. Demand for judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks money damages as the Court or a jury may impose.
b. Plaintiff seeks any and all declaratory and equitable relief to which he may be entitled.
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 State Central Committee, also known as the IRP, is created under Illinois State law and is thereby a de facto state actor.
b. McKenna is using the IRP to contribute money indirectly to Kirk through behind-the-scenes assistance which is available to Kirk but not to Plaintiff.
c. McKenna’s conduct and Kirk’s conduct amounts to a conspiracy to violate the Illinois and United States Constitutions, and to rig a primary election with clandestine financial and operational support.
COUNT THREE
[FIRST AMENDMENT]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. The ISF’s restrictions on devices violate the First Amendment. Likewise the ISF’s restrictions on locations where protesters may gather, which are normally 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 seeks to demonstrate in the vicinity of the Governor’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”).
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 defendants’ ongoing activity is a classic case of prima face tort, because their 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.
5. Demand for Judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks the same relief as sought in Count One.
DATED: August 13, 2009
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

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: