Monday, October 19, 2009

“Man in the room” calls Mike Ditka a “liar”

Mike Ditka continues to generate controversy over his U. S. Senate “endorsement” scandal. U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin publishes extracts from a blog attacking Ditka as a “liar.” Martin says that Pat Hughes’ supporters are like “rival street gangs” that have unfairly maligned Ditka.

Ditka, Hughes supporters engaged in “battle of the blogs”

Anonymous Hughes operative calls Ditka a “liar”

Republican for U. S. Senator

“He works for all
the People of Illinois”
Suite 4406
30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
(866) 706-2639


Hughes backer uses “L” word to describe Mile Ditka’s actions

(CHICAGO)(October 19, 2009) Republican U. S. Senate candidate and insurgent “Internet Powerhouse” Andy Martin became the center of a new round of continuing controversy in the Mike Ditka/Patrick Hughes “Endorsementgate” scandal over the weekend as critics and supporters of Pat Hughes battled among themselves over what Ditka said and didn’t say in “Endorsementgate.”

An anonymous Hughes operative openly called Mike Ditka a liar.

“I was not ‘in the room,’” Andy Martin stated, “but a Hughes supporter who claims he was ‘in the room’ is calling Mike Ditka a liar. The ‘L’ word is now out there, thrown at Mike Ditka by Pat Hughes’ supporters. Who are these anonymous chumbolones? As a U. S. Senate candidate, all I did was basic fact checking; I looked for the truth. But I apparently opened the door for all of Pat Hughes’ ‘creepy crawlies’ to scamper out of their caves.

“Like rival street gangs, Hughes own supporters are battling among themselves over what Mike Ditka said. The attacks on Ditka, as well as the defenses, are now increasingly being played out in the blogosphere.

“What no one disputes is that Pat Hughes is an incompetent candidate who had no business running for the U. S. Senate. Hughes managed to take a beloved Chicago institution, Mike Ditka, and drag him into the mud. The latest accusations against Ditka are sad, and reflect the growing desperation of Hughes’ diehard supporters.

“Rather than put my own spin on Hughes’ supporters, I will just let them speak for themselves. Below I reproduce their own blog comments. Bottom line: Pat Hughes should be ashamed of himself, and his supporters,” Martin said. “Please note: none of the following comments or posts are by me or anyone associated by me. Here are Hughes’ own ‘supporters’ in their own words:”

He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned is claiming that Mike Ditka did not endorse Pat Hughes. Seems to have some quotes posted re: same.

Truth or Dare?

Posted by: ? Friday, October 16, 2009 at 08:58 PM

Dear ?,

Actually, He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned is correct. As much as that pains me to say it.

I personally spoke with Ditka's business manager yesterday to warn him of He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned's plan to picket Ditka's restaurant. Ditka's manager claimed that Mike did not endorse Hughes but merely agreed with two points Hughes made.

By the way, I could here Mike in the background going off about this and I can tell you that he does not like our little disliked friend "He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned".

Posted by: Inside Information Friday, October 16, 2009 at 09:48 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Inside Info. I was a little surprised by the "endorsement".

I like Mike. Tak?

Posted by: ? Friday, October 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM

So we are actually dealing with FACTS in these posts - several things:

Paul Caprio has not worked for Hughes or the Hughes campaign since September 30, 2009.

Paul Caprio has not been paid by Hughes or the Hughes Campaign since September 30, 2009.

At the July meeting in Willowbrook Paul Caprio was not working for or paid by Hughes or the Hughes campaign. Further, Paul Caprio's relationship and assistance with STOP-IT had ended several months prior.

Morever, Mike Ditka DID ENDORSE PATRICK HUGHES--unlike anyone on this post, I was actually in the room. Mike Ditka said (as emphatically as possible) that he supports Patrick Hughes, that he will do everything in his power to assist Pat Hughes in his bid for the US Senate, encouraged everyone in attendance to support Pat Hughes (with both money and whatever other support they were able to give). No amount of lies and conjecture can take away from what actually happened - the truth.

People should stop speculating on this blog (and elsewhere) about matters which they have no personal knowledge or credible information. Its damaging to people affected, damaging to our hope to get a true conservative into the US Senate and, in most cases, defamatory.

Posted by: Conservative. Friday, October 16, 2009 at 10:29 PM

I would like to see unity around Hughes too.

But a big Hughes problem is Caprio doing goofy things like this. How about getting more endorsements than a piddly 6 (counting Caprio himself), before calling on others to drop out. This is just embarrassing and it's why Hughes is having a tougher time making the case that he's THE guy.

This is the problem with many self-appointed conservative "leaders." They like to spend time on this kind of wheel spinning and "look at me" self promotion, instead of doing real work that might elect some conservative candidates.

Posted by: Reality check Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Once we see the FEC campaign financials through September 30th filings for the U.S. senate race posted on the FEC website (hopefully by the end of the weekend), we will then know who among the declared Republican candidates who should drop out.

Posted by: The Oncoming Storm Friday, October 16, 2009 at 11:43 PM


Mike Ditka was right there at the other end of the phone when I had the discussion with his manager. Your accusation that I do not have personal knowledge or credible information which is defamatory is far from correct. I would never make a comment like I did unless it was directly quoted to me by the party involved.

Please understand, I am not saying you were not in the room with Mike Ditka when he said what he said, but don't go running off at the mouth and accuse me of telling lies. I only supplied information about what Mike and his manager said to me when I tried to warn them about an idiot that was going to picket Mike's establishment.

You can accuse them of lying if you want, but take your false accusations against me and stick them in your shady side.

Posted by: Inside Information Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 07:54 AM
Readers of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, say the book is still the only gold standard and practical handbook on Barack Obama's unfitness for the presidency. Buy it.Book orders: or Immediate shipment from or signed copies (delayed for signing) from the publisher are available.
URGENT APPEAL: The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama raises money to oppose President Barack Obama's radical agenda and also to support Please give generously. Our ability to fight and defeat Barack Obama's political agenda is directly dependent on the generosity of every American. "The Committee of One Million to Defeat Barack Obama has no bundlers, no fat cats and no illegal contributions. Obama is opposed to almost everything America stands for," says Executive Director Andy Martin. "But while Obama has raised a billion dollar slush fund, his opponents lack sufficient resources. Americans can either contribute now, or pay later. If we do not succeed, Obama will."
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. He has over forty years of broadcasting background in radio and television and is the dean of Illinois media and communications. He is currently promoting his best-selling book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask and producing the new Internet movie "Obama: The Hawai'i years." Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of Martin comments on regional, national and world events with more than four decades of 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.
UPDATES: Andy's columns are also posted at; [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 or CELL (917) 664-9329 (cell not always on)E-MAIL: © Copyright by Andy Martin 2009.


Chicago Bob said...


Gubernatorial candidate threatens to sue Ohio lawyer who questions his residency
By R. L. Nave

By most accounts, Andy Martin has an uphill fight if he hopes to become the Republican Party’s nominee for senator. But even if he somehow manages to win his party’s nod and the general election, he may not be eligible to hold office, according to an Ohio lawyer. On Dec. 29, Canton, Ohio-based attorney Craig T. Conley asked the Illinois State Board of Elections to determine whether Martin actually is a resident of the state of Illinois. Conley says he made the request after trying to serve Martin with legal documents at what he presumed was Martin’s residential address, in downtown Chicago. His certified letter was returned “unclaimed” on Dec. 16, bearing a sticker that reads: “New address is PO Box 1851 New York, NY 10150-1851.” An Internet search of the address leads to a Web site for a group called First Responders for Military Families, which lists Martin as its executive director. The state Constitution dictates that a person must live in Illinois for at least three years before his or her election to be eligible to hold the office of governor. Though Conley missed the deadline to file a formal objection to Martin’s petition to place his name on March’s primary ballot, he has asked Attorney General Lisa Madigan to investigate Martin for fraud for soliciting campaign contributions. Conley’s argument: Martin should know that he does not meet the residency requirements and can’t legally become governor in 2006. Asked about Conley’s objection, Martin responded by e-mail, calling the question “asinine and unprofessional.” He added, “We are preparing to file a lawsuit against the crackpot who wrote to the State Board of Elections.” Martin’s threat of a lawsuit, though news to Conley, wasn’t at all surprising to him. He and Martin are suing each other in Ohio. In addition, Martin has filed hundreds of lawsuits over the past three decades in Connecticut, New York, Florida, and Illinois. In January 2000, the Florida Supreme Court called Martin, whose real name is Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, one the state’s “most active, as well as abusive” litigants for filing nearly 30 petitions in courts there in the Sunshine State. “Everybody’s a ‘crackpot,’ ” Conley says in response to Martin’s threat, “and everything is a ‘conspiracy’ — usually headed by Jews.” Over the years, many courts have commented on Martin’s anti-Semitism. In 1982, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Martin used legal pleadings to “launch vicious attacks upon persons of Jewish heritage.” “This guy’s not on the same planet as us,” Conley says.

Chicago Bob said...

Vexatious litigant

Martin has been labeled a vexatious litigant by numerous federal and state courts. As early as 1982, Edward Weinfeld, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York, observed that he had a tendency to file "a substantial number of lawsuits of a vexatious, frivolous and scandalous nature."[4] In 1993,

In 1983, Jose Cabranes, a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, issued a sweeping injunction barring Martin or anyone acting "at his behest, at his direction or instigation, or in concert with him" from filing any new action or proceeding in any federal or state court without first seeking permission from the court in which he wished to file that action or proceeding.[7] In his ruling, Cabranes noted that Martin had a tendency to file legal actions with "persistence, viciousness, and general disregard for decency and logic." According to Cabranes, Martin's practice was to file "an incessant stream of frivolous or meritless motions, demands, letters to the court and other documents," as well as "vexatious lawsuits" against anyone who dared cross him. Many of these filings were anti-Semitic in nature. On appeal by Martin, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals limited the scope of the injunction to federal courts, but stated that the federal courts were constitutionally obligated to protect themselves and the administration of justice from vexatious litigants.[8]

Since then, Martin has continued his pattern of filing legal action almost unabated. It is estimated that he has filed thousands of proceedings over the years. For example, in 1993 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that his mother was acting in concert with him by filing a federal civil rights action against several Florida state officials. The court noted similar wording in the suit filed by Martin's mother and a petition filed by Martin itself. In throwing out the suit, the 11th Circuit called Martin "a notoriously vexatious and vindictive litigator who has long abused the American legal system."[7] Most recently, a libel and invasion of privacy suit against Media Matters and its founder, David Brock, was thrown out as a violation of the injunction.[9]

Martin has also been sanctioned at the state level as well. For example, he is banned from seeking indigent status in Florida courts due to his history of filing abusive petitions.[10]

Wolverine said...

We're glad to see that you are using our blog as your main source of information now. It shows that you really do not have the ability to do your own research.

Actually, if you rely on IR for all your information, people might be able to take you more seriously.

info said...

Monday, October 19, 2009

The 2010 U.S. Senate race in Illinois is now a dead heat between the top Democratic and Republican contenders.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds Republican hopeful Mark Kirk tied with Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias 41% to 41%. Only four percent (4%) would choose another candidate, while 13% remain undecided.

In mid-August, Kirk held a modest 41% to 38% over Giannoulias.

Women in Illinois prefer the Democrat by a 43% to 38% margin, while men choose Kirk 45% to 39%.

Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer Kirk by more than two-to-one - 52% to 23%.

Giannoulias is considered the favorite in the February 2 Democratic Primary to win the nomination for the seat once held by Barack Obama. Roland Burris, the Democrat named to the seat by since-impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich following Obama’s election as president, has been embroiled in controversy ever since and has announced he will not seek election to a full six-year term.

Kirk, the most prominent Illinois Republican in the race at this time, is now serving his fifth two-year term as the U.S. congressman representing the northern suburbs of Chicago. He is on course at this time to get the GOP Senate nomination despite unhappiness from some conservatives in his party. Still, Kirk faces an uphill climb in a state that has been running Democratic in statewide races for some time now.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

But Giannoulias hasn't wrapped up the race on his side of the fence yet, and the race is heating up between Kirk and another possible Democratic contender. Kirk's lead over Cheryle Jackson, a former top aide to Blagojevich, is now down to four points - 43% to 39%. Kirk led Jackson by 17 points in August. Only four percent (4%) now say they would vote for another candidate given that match-up, and 13% are undecided.

Once again, unaffiliated voters in Illinois pick Kirk over Jackson by a substantial 52% to 19% margin.

Kirk also leads another Democratic hopeful, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, 43% to 33%. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided on this match-up, while another eight percent (8%) favor a different candidate.

Eighteen percent (18%) of Illinois voters have a very favorable opinion of Kirk, while eight percent (8%) regard him very unfavorably. Giannoulias is viewed very favorably by 17% and very unfavorably by 14%. These numbers are up slightly for both candidates from August. Roughly one-out-of-five voters don't know enough about either man to venture even a soft opinion about him.

Jackson is regarded very favorably by 14% and very unfavorably by 16%, virtually unchanged from August. In her case, 30% have no opinion. As for Hoffman, his very favorables total five percent (5%) while his very unfavorables are 10%. Nearly half of Illinois voters (48%) have no opinion of him.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.

The vast majority of Illinois voters (89%) believe their state’s politicians have no done enough to clean up politics after the Blagojevich scandal. Only six percent (6%) say they have done enough.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of Illinois voters somewhat or strongly approve of President Obama’s job performance so far, showing little change from August. Forty-four percent (44%) disapprove of the job their former senator is doing in the White House. Obama’s approval ratings in Illinois are well ahead of those found on the national level in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking poll.

We will release new numbers on the 2010 governor race in Illinois later this week.