ANDY MARTIN asks Appellate Court to put his name on the ballot

Illinois corruption-fighter Andy Martin, whose brawling style of pursuing Chicago gangster politicians and judges fits snugly in the Illinois milieu, has asked the Illinois Appellate Court in Chicago to place his name on the November 2nd ballot. Martin says Illinois politics is hopelessly corrupt, from the father daughter “crime family” of Lisa and Michael Madigan, to crooks in the Illinois Republican Party. Martin says that machine politicians in both parties want to deprive voters of meaningful choices in November. Martin says Mark Kirk is unfit to hold office.

NO: 1-10-2726


IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
__________________________________________________

ANDY MARTIN,

Appellant,

vs.

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS, et al.,

Appellees.
__________________________________________________




EMERGENCY MOTION TO EITHER ORDER THE PLACEMENT OF
APPELLANT’S NAME ON THE BALLOT PENDENTE LITE OR TO SUSPEND
THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS

Pursuant to Local Rule 6 Appellant moves this Honorable Court to order the placement of his name on the General Election ballot, pendente lite or, in the alternative, to direct the State of Illinois and its subdivisions to suspend the printing and distribution of ballots.
I.
THE FACTS APPLICABLE TO THIS MOTION
A. Who is the Appellant?
The Appellant has been fighting corruption in Illinois politics for forty-four years, since he was a law student at the University of Illinois College of Law. He first gained some notoriety in 1968 when he exposed that Secretary of State Paul Powell was collecting bribes; Powell died shortly thereafter and left behind shoeboxes stuffed with cash.
It is axiomatic that someone who has devoted his entire .professional life to fighting corruption is highly unpopular in both the political and judicial spheres of Illinois.[1] And appellant is unpopular, precisely because he seeks to protect and vindicate constitutional rights and oppose the corrupt practices which are so prevalent in this state.
Nevertheless, it is precisely because Appellant is willing to fight for the Constitution that this Court should afford him some measure of respect.
B. What is the State’s strategy?
The Attorney General told the circuit judge that the state wanted new hearings before the State Board of Elections if the Appellant prevailed in court. In other words, the state wants hearings after the election is over concerning whether a candidate is qualified to run in already-conducted election. The political machine of Michael Madigan and his daughter Lisa Madigan is just as corrupt and odious as the political machine of Pat Brady and the Illinois Republican Party who are acting against Appellant.
The current “joke” in the media is that Madigan has chosen his own Republican to run against. See attached Chicago Tribune story. What the author John Kass leaves out is that the Republican Party is chiding Madigan to draw attention from its own corrupt shenanigans against Appellant and other candidates before the State Board, employing straw men, conduits and illegal payments under federal law.
Can it get any worse? Should appellant be ridiculed for trying to clean up the Illinois cesspool one campaign for office and one election at a time?
C. The Emergency

Every two years Illinois courts conduct “election litigation” while votes are being cast in the very election where the courts are reviewing the qualifications of candidates. This year is no different. The attached articles confirm that (i) votes are being cast and ballots are being distributed while Appellant and other new political parties are fighting to be on the ballot; and (ii) in an ultimate paean to absurdity, election officials hope that citizens will not cast votes because of the unsettled state of the ballot.
D. The Illinois judicial system as an institution is
delegitimized when it participates in the electoral charades and sham election litigation involving straw men, conduits and perjured testimony that have become a hallmark of the election process in Illinois

When a court allows itself to be a part of a charade, the court suffers as an institution. Citizens believe that Illinois politics are corrupt. To the extent that the courts participate in a corrupt process the courts ultimately and eventually lose legitimacy as impartial arbiters of constitutional rights and procedures.
There is no rational reason why Illinois should be unlike other states, almost all of which manage to avoid electoral litigation altogether by prohibiting straw men/conduit “objectors” and endless proceedings over ballot access, and which (ii) manage to resolve ballot issues before the ballots are printed and distributed, not after.
The current system of conducting Illinois elections serves the interests of corrupt public officials and corrupt political parties. Ipso facto, the system violates the U.S. Constitution as applied to candidates for federal office.
II.
LEGAL BASIS TO GRANT RELIEF
A. The Court has authority to award relief pendente lite

The Court has the authority to issue orders which protect the rights of the Appellant while the Court considers the unusual constitutional issues presented. And, after placing Appellant on the ballot pendente lite, the Court can always remove him nunc pro tunc if it later finds he should not prevail. But voters will be allowed to “cast their votes” on Appellant’s candidacy “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”
B. The Court owes a higher duty to federal candidates
State courts are presumed to be competent to adjudicate federal constitutional rights and enjoy concurrent jurisdiction, Taflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458, 110 S. Ct. 792 (1990).
Regrettably, federal courts have held that state and local candidates are entitled to less procedural and substantive protection in electoral disputes than candidates for federal office. But there is a principled constitutional basis for that distinction.
Federal candidates are created by the U. S. Constitution; their candidacies are supervised by federal election officials at the Federal Election Commission and U. S. Senate; state officials play a limited, ministerial role as to candidacies and even ballot procedures must conform to the higher standards of the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Thus the Court has a basis to order the placement of Appellant’s name on the ballot.
The Court certainly reserves the right to rule adversely to the Appellant a later date, but the Court will no longer be conducting serious constitutional litigation under the hydraulic pressure of voters who are literally voting in the election where Appellant is a candidate.
Ironically, if this Court were to take a strong stand against present practices and issue a favorable interim ruling in Appellant’s favor, the General Assembly might in the future amend the election laws to afford judges a more rational period of time to resolve election disputes before ballots are printed and voters start voting. The current system is “broken.”
This is the classic case in which to order relief because the decision of the circuit court is objectively illogical and absurd: the court ruled that despite a very explicit and detailed statutorily-mandated procedure for service of process created by the Election Code, the fact that the respondent State Board of Elections failed to serve the Appellant was irrelevant and meaningless. The Appellant was deemed to be “aware” of the proceedings because he fled a lawsuit protesting the lack of proper statutory-mandated service!
Nothing could be more calculated to make the Illinois courts look ridiculous than a ruling in which protesting you have not been served suspends the need for actual service of process.
As long as the Courts act in a supine manner and pretend to ignore the reality of what is going on, the charade will continue.
DATED: September 23, 2010
Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

PRINCIPAL ADDRESS FOR
SERVICE OF NOTICES:
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 (not principal
address for service) 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 the parties as set forth in the Notice of Filing on September 23, 2010

ANDY MARTIN
[1] The Illinois State Senate once passed a resolution condemning State Senator (later U. S. Senator) Paul Simon for authoring an article calling his body a corrupt institution. Prophets are indeed without honor in Illinois politics.

ANDY MARTIN asks Appellate Court to block Republican vote fraud

Andy Martin exposed in greater detail Tuesday how Pat Brady, Brien Sheahan and John Fogarty, jr. are committing criminal violations of federal law by using Andrew Heffernan as a stooge to conduct harassing litigation against political opponents. Martin asked the Illinois Appellate Court in Chicago to block further vote fraud efforts by Brady, Sheahan and Fogarty.



IN THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT

Docket Number: 10-2726

ANDY MARTIN,

Appellant,

vs.

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS, et al.,

Appellees.


MOTION TO PRECLUDE REPUBLICAN PARTY ATTORNEYS
FROM PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT WITHOUT A BONA FIDE CLIENT

Illinois’ election laws are a virtual temple of corruption and accommodation to corrupt machine politics. Everything that can be done to deny democracy to the people of this state can be found in the Election Code.
One of the particular banes of democracy in Illinois is election "objectors” who are not objectors at all but merely shills/fronts/stooges for “election lawyers” who are surreptitiously paid by both political parties to hamstring their opponents with lawsuits.
While Illinois may be free to encourage corrupt practices as to state elections, Illinois is only an agent for the federal government when it conducts elections for federal office. Appellant is a legally qualified candidate for federal office (see attached). Legal status as a candidate is conferred by federal law, not by state election statutes.
Andrew Heffernan is a Republican Party shill. The Heffernan name pops up in court as a proxy used by Republican State Chairman Pat Brady (a former federal lawyer who should know better himself), Brien Sheahan ("General Counsel" for the Illinois Republican Party), and John Fogarty, Jr., a Republican factotum. Heffernan is a “party” to this litigation in “name only.”
On September 20th the ultimate absurdity and fraud of the Republican Party was exposed in circuit court.
Mr. Sheahan appeared and claimed he had “not been served” with the circuit court proceedings. The reason Sheahan had not been served was because the Election Code mandates service on the objector, not the attorney. Circuit court review is treated as an independent level of litigation.
In other words, Sheahan confessed he was not communicating with his “client” but that he was nevertheless there to “represent” someone who is not even remotely his bona fide client.
The terms of a bona fide attorney/client relationship are well known to this Court. They involve, at a minimum, client meetings, payment of fees, a written retainer agreement and appearances in court. On information and belief Heffernan satisfies none of these criteria.
Given that Heffernan did not authorize his attorney to appear in court on September 20th, and that Heffernan himself defaulted and did not appear, Appellant asks this Court to declare that Heffernan is not a party on appeal and that Sheahan and Fogarty may not further represent straw parties with whom they do not enjoy a documented bona fide attorney/client relationship.
There is a further criminal dimension to this controversy. Federal courts have been somewhat lax with their supervision of state elections for state offices. But elections for federal office are conducted under federal, not state, law even though the mechanics are conducted by the several states.
Federal law requires full disclosure, and bars both surreptitious receipts and expenditures by candidates or persons supporting or opposing federal candidates. What Messrs. Heffernan, Brady, Sheahan and Fogarty have been doing appears to amount to federal criminal activity, because it is designed to defraud both the State Board of Elections and the Illinois state courts as to who is really importuning, promoting and maintaining election litigation, see United States v. Mariani, 212 F.Supp.2d 361, 373-379 (M.D. Pa. 2002).
No court should tolerate lying and misrepresentation by officers of the Court concerning the true nature of who is paying counsel fees and who is trumping up lawsuits. Proxy parties are unlawful unless full disclosure is made to the tribunal.
It is regrettable that this is the first instance and first intermediate appellate court in Illinois that has now been asked to put an end to proxy litigation being orchestrated and paid for by the Illinois Republican Party (or by the Democratic party for that matter). But, better late than never, the issue is now sub judice.
Most respectfully, this Court is asked to enter an order awarding both Appellant and the appearance of justice in the judicial system appropriate relief.

DATED: September 21, 2010
Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN
PRINCIPAL ADDRESS FOR
SERVICE OF NOTICES:

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 (not principal address for service) 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 the parties as set forth in the Notice of Filing on September 21, 2010
ANDY MARTIN