Monday, December 28, 2009
IL GOP Chairman Statement Regarding Andy Martin Accusations
"The Illinois Republican Party disavows the statements made today by Mr. Andrew Martin in his statewide radio advertisements. His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party. Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican Candidate by the Illinois Republican Party."
Pat Brady, Illinois Republican Party Chairman
In addition, it has been brought to our attention that Mr. Martin’s sources are now denying any such statements or allegations.
According to Raymond True, a leader of the Republican Party in Lake County:
"Mr. Martin did not contact me in any way before making his announcement. The comments attributed to me are completely false. I request through the media that Andy Martin cease and desist from making any additional statements that are incorrectly attributed to me."
This is another motion filed by Montgomery County, Maryland in a lawsuit which Martin had filed.
If you are one of the lucky ones to be slapped with an Andy Martin lawsuit, please read on and discover the simplest way to defend yourself against this unethical litigator.
The following motion is all you need to quickly put an end to any of his frivolous lawsuits.
Monday, November 16, 2009
An important ‘fyi' for voters regarding perennial candidate Andy Martin
Posted: November 12, 2009
By John Biver
Martin had been described by state psychiatrists as having a "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character."
-- From the Wikipedia entry on Andy Martin
I read this in Dave Diersen's email this morning:
"Is Champion News' John Biver exaggerating Patrick Hughes' campaign cash?"
Along with it was a link to a website by perennial candidate Andy Martin.
I did speak with downstate radio talk show host Scott Doody the other day but I said no such thing. I have never spoken to Pat Hughes or any members of his campaign team about how much money he was raising or how much he planned on raising.
To read more about Andy Martin for the purpose of understanding how he processes information, I'd refer readers to this Wikipedia entry:
Andy Martin (U.S. politician)
One of the quintessential Martin quotes is this one from the New York Times:
In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did."
For entertainment purposes only, click here and here to watch videos of Andy Martin in action.
Post Script: This afternoon I had another good conversation with Scott Doody, who reiterated what I already knew - poor Andy Martin got it wrong.
John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.
Also, here's an entertaining video of what another reader put together on Martin's big conference this past Spring: "watch video"
Sunday, October 18, 2009
795 F.2d 9
In re Anthony R. MARTIN-TRIGONA.
Nos. 85-5023, 85-5024, 85-5025, 86-5010, 86-5003, 86-5009,
86-7091, 85-5063, 85-5077, 86-5004, 86-5007,
86-5015, 86-5018, 86-5022, 86-5023,
86-8015, 86- 5024, 86-5025,
86-5026, 86-5017, 86-5014.
Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, pro se.
Before us are various motions and petitions submitted by Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, pro se, seeking, inter alia, leave to appeal various orders entered in his bankruptcy proceeding, reinstatement of appeals that have been dismissed, or other relief. We generally dispose of such motions by unpublished order, but on this occasion we issue a published opinion discussing his conduct and the consequences thereof in the future.
Martin-Trigona's propensity for generally meritless, usually vexatious and often scurrilous resort to legal processes has been documented in our prior decisions. See, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1256-57 & Appendix C (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, ---
The injunction has been effective in preventing Martin-Trigona from using legal processes to harass "anyone who so much as crosses his path in the federal courts."
The burden imposed by Martin-Trigona on this court is clear. His submissions are so multitudinous and complex that the clerk's office must assign administrative responsibility for Martin-Trigona's filings to one person. No other litigant in this court requires such special consideration. In addition, motions law clerks must analyze each of his motions. This is no easy task. Martin-Trigona's motions rarely cite relevant legal authority or state the facts clearly or directly. Further, in his motions for leave to appeal, he often attaches only the first page of the district court order appealed from. This failure to submit adequate supporting papers further increases the burden on the court. The hours spent by the staff of this court on Martin-Trigona filings are roughly the equivalent of the work of one full-time employee. Even so, this does not include the considerable time spent by the judges and their staffs after the matters are referred to them.
The motions pending before us illustrate the frivolous nature of typical Martin-Trigona submissions. For instance, in Docket No. 86-5004 Martin-Trigona seeks leave to appeal from an order awarding attorney's fees to the bankruptcy estate in connection with an action by the trustee to clear title to certain property in the estate. In his motion for leave, Martin-Trigona characterizes the award as one made directly to the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, and claims that such an award cannot be made without notice to all creditors, as required by 11 U.S.C. Sec. 330 (Supp. II 1984). The record reveals, however, that the fees were awarded not to the attorney, but to the estate--the exact relief Martin-Trigona has requested. The appeal for which leave is sought is thus utterly frivolous. We deny the motion for leave to appeal.
Similarly, in Docket No. 86-5009 Martin-Trigona seeks leave to appeal the district court's denial of his motion requesting removal of the bankruptcy trustee for fraudulent misrepresentations to the court, and requesting that substantial sanctions be levied against both the trustee and his attorney. The essence of Martin-Trigona's claim, set forth in papers captioned "Motion for Leave to Appeal Bizarre Order," is that the trustee and his attorney misrepresented the fact that an initial meeting of creditors had taken place on
The other motions, Docket Nos. 85-5023, 85-5024, 85-5025, 86-5010, 86-5003, 86-7091, 85-5063, 85-5077, 86-5007, 86-5015, 86-5018, 86-5022, 86-5023, 86-8015, 86-5024, 86-5025, 86-5026, 86-5017, 86-5014, are also frivolous and are denied.
Because our injunction has not prevented Martin-Trigona from burdening this court with frivolous proceedings, we believe it necessary once again to exercise our inherent power to protect our jurisdiction from such vexatious conduct. See In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d at 1261. Rule 38, Fed.R.App.P. and Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P. authorize the assessment of damages in favor of an opposing party for the filing of frivolous appeals or pleadings. As a consequence of the injunction, virtually all of Martin-Trigona's frivolous motions are unopposed before us, and thus these rules may not apply. However, our power to defend our ability to carry out our constitutional functions in no way depends upon the rights of private parties to relief. 737 F.2d at 1261. No litigant has the right to monopolize judicial resources and thus indirectly to obstruct other litigants asserting good faith claims. Absent the power to deter tactics like those employed by Martin-Trigona, a small number of litigants could paralyze this court. Our role here is thus not that of a dispute settler but that of an independent branch of government protecting its jurisdiction.
In future cases, therefore, we will impose monetary sanctions on Martin-Trigona if he files frivolous papers or proceedings. Once such a sanction is levied, the clerk shall accept no further papers from Martin-Trigona, who does not have in forma pauperis status in this court, until that monetary obligation is satisfied. See, e.g., Johl v. Johl, 788 F.2d 75 (2d Cir.1986) (per curiam); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 766 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam). This is the only way to make the sanction effective and protect the processes of this court from abuse. Schiff, 766 F.2d at 62.
Martin-Trigona has pointed out that the injunction in this court has never been made permanent. We now order that this be done.
Motions denied. Permanent injunction is to be entered.
It is so Ordered.
Friday, October 16, 2009
DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Date: 1011412009 3:08 P.m'
That ANDY MARTIN appear in person before this Court on 11/9/2009 at 1:30 p.m' and show cause, if any he or she may have, why he or she should not be found in contempt of this Court's Order of 8/24/2009, and why other relief should not be granted as necessary, provided that a copy of the Petition for Contempt and this Order shall be served on or before 11/6/2009.
RESPONDANT HAS CONTACTED THE PETITIONER ON 09/30/2009 AT WORK EMAIL
RESPONDANT CONTINUES TO MAKE CONTACT
Service shall be made in the following manner:
__ Regular Mail
__ Certified Mail, return receipt requested
_X_ Law enforcement officer, sheriff or constable
__ other _______________________________
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED
PC/PO8 (Rev. 1212004) Page 1 of 2
TO THE PERSON ALLEGED TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND FOR WHOM JAIL HAS BEEN REQUESTED:
1. lt is alleged that you have disobeyed a court order, are in contempt of court, and should go to jail until you obey the Court's order.
2. you have the right to have a lawyer. lf you already have a lawyer, you should consult the lawyer at once. lf you do not now have a lawyer, please note:
(a) A lawyer can be helpful to You by:
(1) explaining the allegations against you;
(2) helping you determine and present any defense to those allegations;
(3) explaining to you the possible outcomes; and
(4) helping you at the hearing.
(b) Even if you do not plan to contest that you are in contempt of court, a lawyer can be helpful.
PC/POB (Rev. 1212004)
provide a lawyer for you. You must contact the Public Defender at least 10 business days before the date of the hearing. The court clerk will tell you how to contact the Public Defender or you may look in a telephone directory.
(d) lf you want a lawyer but you cannot get one and the Public Defender will not provide one for you, contact the court clerk as soon as possible.
(e) DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DATE OF YOUR HEARING TO GET A LAWYER. lf you do not have a lawyer before the hearing date, the court may find that you have waived your right to a lawyer, and the hearing may be held with you unrepresented by a lawyer.
3. IF YOU DO NOT APPEAR FOR THE HEARING, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO ARREST.
Any reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities should be requested by contacting the court prior to the hearing date.
PC/DV8 (Rev. '1212004) Page2 of 2
Friday, October 9, 2009
He constantly tries...yes TRIES to sue people or businesses with no success. He has been found guilty on several occassions of various law violations against others. One example is the following videos. Andy Martin Goes To Jail and Andy Martin Attacks News Crew.
Look at his latest campaign ad Andy Martin Ad.
We the people will never put a nut in office like Andy Martin.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Martin has been declared to have mental issues making him not worthy of being admitted to the Illinois bar association. he wasn't admitted but should be committed.
He is a danger to society and himself. It's a matter of time before he really hurts someone or possibly kills someone based on his mental state.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
His conspiracy theory of Obama Operatives runs deep into his mind with this one. Please keep in mind that this man is running for a senate seat in Illinois. The lawsuit below reads exactly as he submitted it to the courts.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
CASE NO. 09 CH 737
WASHINGTON POST COMPANY,
DANIEL MORSE, SCOTT SHIRLEY,
D/B/A/ ADR PRODUCTIONS,
A/K/A JOHN BORLAZA,
JOHN J. MCCARTHY,
JOHN DOE AGENT OF MARK and/or
KIRK BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
WILLIAM G. SIMMONS,
EUGENE WOLFE, CHERYL MCCALLY,
The 1972 Watergate Conspiracy began as a “third-rate burglary,” and culminated in a national scandal exposed by the Washington Post. This lawsuit arises out of a mini-Watergate scandal, in which a small—time huckster and extortionist, Scott Shirley, has combined with Plaintiff’s political opposition to harass Plaintiff’s professional and political activity using Maryland judges as adjuncts to the criminal conspiracy. At this time, the full dimensions and all of the identities of the co-conspirators are unknown. In due course, they will be exposed. This time, rather than exposing the conspiracy, the Washington Post appears to be part of the political machinations to violate the law.
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 is targeted at and “purposefully directed” against the Plaintiff in Illinois. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction.
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 Washington Post Company and its employee Daniel Morse are involved in some fashion with defendant Scott Shirley, as well as possibly other Kirk/Obama-related defendants, in a civil conspiracy directed at Plaintiff in Illinois.
c. Defendant Scott Shirley, d/b/a ADR Productions, is involved in both a civil and criminal conspiracy to harass and obstruct Plaintiff’s professional and political activity, as set forth in this Complaint.
d. Google, Inc. is the owner of YouTube and has been broadcasting Shirley's bogus attack ad, using Plaintiff’s pirated intellectual property on the Internet.
e. John Gilchrist, a/k/a John Borlaza, is a person whose full role in the matters sub judice is still not clear.
f. Montgomery County, Maryland is a defendant based on the failure of the county to protect Plaintiff’s right to file a consumer complaint without fear of harassment from the corrupt governmental structure of the county.
g. John J. McCarthy is the State Attorney of Montgomery County, and has refused to investigate the violations of Plaintiff’s rights by Shirley and others.
h. John Doe agent of Mark Kirk, and/or Barack Hussein Obama, is a person or persons unknown whose identity will be revealed during the course of this lawsuit.
i. William G. Simmons, Eugene Wolfe and Cheryl McCally are “chumbolone” members of the district court in Montgomery County who have been aiding and abetting Shirley in his extortion and harassment scheme against the Plaintiff.
3. Factual allegations
a. The Washington Conference involving Barack Obama
A. Plaintiff organized an April 3-4, 2009 Washington, DC conference concerning Barack Obama and his missing birth certificate [see www.NationalConferenceonObama.blogspot.com].
B. At some point Plaintiff was contacted by defendant John Gilchrist/John Borlaza (hereinafter “Gilchrist/Borlaza”) who asked if Plaintiff had made arrangements to tape his conference.
C. Gilchrist/Borlaza offered to pay to tape Plaintiff’s conference. While Plaintiff does not remember all of the details of the contacts with Gilchrist/Borlaza, it was agreed between Plaintiff and Gilchrist/Borlaza that Gilchrist/Borlaza would find someone to tape Plaintiff's conference and assume the cost of said taping, but that the conference and the product of the conference belonged to Plaintiff.
D. At no time did Gilchrist/Borlaza claim to own either Plaintiff’s intellectual property (the conference) or the evidence of that property (the tapes).
E. Gilchrist/Borlaza apparently hired defendant Scott Shirley (“Shirley”) to tape the conference. Plaintiff met Shirley at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC and Shirley could not have been more cordial and cooperative.
F. After the conference ended, and while final editing was being discussed, Shirley prepared a “trailer” or prevue from Plaintiff's copyrighted material. In fact, as set forth in Exhibit A, Plaintiff said the following to Shirley: “Could you please add the copyright sign and notice copyright by Andy Martin 2009 on the trailer...John and I agreed that I would hold the copyright rights to the material. The same notice should go on any and all of the segments we post on the net.” (Exhibit A).
G. Shirley replied “Andy, Here’s the link for the video with changes (Donate to…and © copyright…).(Exhibit A).
H. The ownership of the copyright for Plaintiff’s materials is not in dispute.
b. The Conference editing process and new work
A. Shirley’s “trailer,” which he is now misusing in violation of his contractual responsibilities, was an excellent piece of work.
B. Plaintiff spoke with Shirley on the phone about editing a Hawai’i film that he was producing in May, and Shirley unhesitatingly agreed. Plaintiff had no reason to suspect Shirley was a crook, crackpot or double agent for Kirk/Obama.
C. Gilchrist/Borlaza asked Plaintiff to edit the Conference tapes and Shirley sent Plaintiff the approximately two hours of tapes to edit. Plaintiff did so and returned his copies to Shirley.
D. On May 15th, Plaintiff e-mailed Shirley and said “I have two tapes from Honolulu…” (Exhibit B)
E. Shirley replied “You may send the tapes however you see fit…I will look for them. I hope your trip was a successful one. (Exhibit B, 2 pages).
F. On May 20, 2009 Plaintiff e-mailed Shirley(Exhibit C, 2 pages) “Hi Scott—Is it possible you can make a copy and send the [Hawai’i] originals back to me…Re: April, Washington, DC conference—do you have a rough date when you can finish editing?...I want to give you all the time you need to do a good creative job…”
G. Shirley replied (Exhibit C), “I will make copies as soon as my computer is freed up…The first project should be done next week if everything goes well. I’m sorry for the delay…I have no problem with the added work…With regards to the Hawai’i project...”
H. Shirley and Plaintiff had previously spoken and Plaintiff had agreed to bear any cost overruns.
I. In July, 2009, Shirley said the “first project” was nearly completed and would be ready “next week.”
J. Shirley never completed any project, never made any copies and never rendered any bill to Plaintiff.
K. Plaintiff became increasingly concerned, and eventually increasingly suspicious, as Shirley became unreachable, refusing to respond to phone calls or e-mails.
c. Scott Shirley begins acting bizarrely
A. At no time was Plaintiff ever in the State of Maryland, and the only communication Plaintiff had with Shirley related to his non-performance of a contract and Plaintiff’s desire to seek the return of his property.
B. When Shirley did not return phone calls or respond to e-mails concerning the missing tapes, Plaintiff eventually complained to Montgomery County Maryland (Exhibit D) and the Greater Washington Better Business Bureau (“BBB”)(Exhibit E).
C. Shirley responded to Plaintiff’s complaints with a bizarre and delusional letter, Exhibit F, and the filing of a bogus “peace bond” claim predicated on Plaintiff’s BBB/Montgomery County consumer complaints.
d. Maryland judges enter the picture
A. No reasonable person could listen to Shirley’s claims without realizing that he was seeking to create a controversy to escape his contractual obligations and to resell Plaintiff’s property for a higher price to corrupt representatives of Mark Kirk and/or Barack Hussein Obama.
B. Shirley’s own “complaint” to the defendants admitted he was responding to Plaintiff’s complaint to the BBB (Exhibit E).
C. In his detailed multiple responses to the BBB Shirley never made any claim that he had ever been threatened in any way by Plaintiff.
D. Shirley knew what he was doing when he went shopping for judges in the highly partisan Democratic Party-dominated Maryland judiciary.
E. The defendants then began demanding that Plaintiff suspend his campaign for the U. S. Senate, fly to Washington and attend a kangaroo count session involving accusations by someone whose claims were facially delusional, and appear before one of the corrupt defendants (McCally). McCally, Wolfe and Simmons have since played musical chairs with the controversy.
F. Shirley, through his new sponsors and behind-the-scene political influence from Democrats, was using Maryland’s Democratic judges to politically harass Plaintiff and to attempt to interrupt his Senate campaign with fraudulent proceedings in the Maryland courts.
e. The Washington Post enters the fray
A. On August 25, 2009 Plaintiff received a call from defendant Dan Morse (“Morse”), a Washington Post employee in Rockville, Maryland. While Plaintiff does not recollect Morse’s original call completely, he remembers Morse suggesting Morse had been in the courthouse and stumbled over Plaintiff’s case. Morse gave no indication he had interviewed Shirley, received documents from him or done any research involving Plaintiff.
B. Not knowing that Morse and Shirley had been conspiring by e-mail and otherwise (presumably in person), Plaintiff initially furnished Morse with approximately 90 pages of documents.
C. Morse then recorded a phone call with Plaintiff which ran for over an hour.
D. Rather than being interested in Shirley’s machinations, Morse was interested in defendant Brosemer, whom Morse claimed had told Morse that Plaintiff attacked him (Brosemer). Brosemer’s claim was utterly fictitious, and part of the aftermath of Brosemer’s firing by Scripps-Howard Broadcasting after he attacked Plaintiff at WPTV-TV 13 years ago.
E. Brosemer’s claims to Morse were false and defamatory.
F. After Plaintiff complained to Morse’s editors, Morse called Plaintiff a third time; Morse said he had initially received an e-mail from Shirley a week earlier, as well as some of the same documents that Plaintiff later faxed in good faith.
G. Throughout the lengthy taped conversation(s), Morse was obsessed with peripheral events in Plaintiff’s life going back almost 40, 35 and 25 years, none of which bore the remotest relationship to Shirley’s conspiratorial activity. There was no way Morse’s questions would have fitted in any “news hole” of the Washington Post allocated to the Maryland suburbs.
H. Either knowingly or unknowingly, wittingly or unwittingly, Morse was acting in concert and conspiracy with Shirley, and acting in furtherance of the Kirk/Obama scheme to politically harass Plaintiff’s campaign for the U. S. Senate.
I. Given the opportunity to deny or clarify or explain Morse’s conspiratorial, fraudulent and bizarre “research” spanning decades in Plaintiff’s life, the Washington Post has remained mute and through silence essentially admitted that Morse was acting as a political saboteur and not as a bona fide reporter for the Post.
f. The true purpose of Shirley’s conspiracy is revealed
A. Shortly after coconspirator William Simmons entered yet another bogus order in furtherance of the civil rights conspiracy, Shirley’s missing trailer surfaced on the Internet as an attack video against Plaintiff’s campaign for the U. S. Senate:
B. Shirley used Plaintiff’s property, which Shirley and his coconspirators had stolen from Plaintiff, to attack Plaintiff’s U. S. Senate candidacy.
C. Shirley’s farce in Montgomery County courts had been and continues to be a charade to use Maryland judges as part of Shirley’s political conspiracy to harass and attack plaintiff, initially with bogus legal proceedings and, when that approach failed, with attack ads which were based on the theft and misuse of Plaintiff’s intellectual property.
D. Shirley, who had initially appeared to be an honest businessman performing a helpful service for Plaintiff’s conference, has completed the transformation to crook and political smear artist.
E. Shirley refuses to return Plaintiff’s tapes while continuing to misuse them himself.
F. It is not yet clear with whom Shirley is acting in concert, but his associations will be revealed in due course. Most likely, Shirley has sold himself to agents of defendant Mark Kirk or Barack Hussein Obama, acting individually or in conjunction with Kirk who is Obama’s “favorite Republican.”
G. Gilchrist/Borlaza has disappeared from the scene and may himself have been an Obama operative.
4. Legal claim
a. Shirley is holding Plaintiff’s original tapes and refuses to return them to Plaintiff.
b. On information and belief, no one else claims any copyright or ownership of the tapes.
c. Despite the fact that Shirley makes no claim to ownership of Plaintiff’s tapes, and appears to be a crooked businessman, Shirley has been able to file his perjurious claims with Maryland authorities and enlist the notoriously compromised Maryland judiciary in his Democratic Party/Kirk/Obama dirty tricks campaign against Plaintiff.
d. Plaintiff seeks an order directing Shirley and anyone else with possession of any of Plaintiff’s tapes or copies thereof, which includes the third parties to whom Shirley has given the harassment material, to return the tapes to Plaintiff.
5. Demand for judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks money damages as the Court or a jury may impose, as follows:
A. Money damages from Shirley in the amount of $25,000;
B. Money damages from Brosemer in the amount of $25,000, as well as a finding that Brosemer’s claims were defamatory and without any basis in fact.
b. Plaintiff seeks any and all declaratory and equitable relief to which he may be entitled from all of the defendants, jointly and severally, known and currently unknown (“John Doe agent of Mark Kirk and/or Barack Hussein Obama”).
[§§ 1983-1985 CIVIL RIGHTS CONSPIRACY]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. Federal law protects the right of persons to seek public office, see e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(1)(A).
b. Shirley, who appears to have begun his relationship with Plaintiff acting as an honest local businessman, has morphed into a political crook who is working to corrupt the local judiciary in Maryland and Google, Inc. (YouTube), all as part of someone’s plans to disrupt Plaintiff’s campaign for the U. S. Senate. The dirty tricksters are most likely Kirk’s and/or Obama’s supporters.
c. The actions of the defendants constitute a classic civil rights conspiracy, using bogus legal proceedings and other activity to corrupt local Democratic Party officials in order to harass a federal candidate of the Republican Party, all “under color of” state law.
5. Demand for judgment
Plaintiff seeks any and all relief to which he may be entitled under Count One, not to exceed $70,000 in aggregate money damages.
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. Shirley has converted Plaintiff’s intellectual property and directly or indirectly through agents is using Plaintiff’s property to attack Plaintiff on the Internet:
b. Shirley’s conduct and that of his coconspirators constitutes the common law tort of conversion.
5. Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Illinois common law of conversion, as well as the relief in Count One not to exceed $70,000 in aggregate money damages.
[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 represents the quintessential type of political dirty tricks using judges and corrupt public officials that are universally condemned by American society.
5. Demand for Judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks the same relief as sought in Count One.
[BREACH OF CONTRACT/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY]
1-3. Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ 1-3 of Count One and further pleads:
4. Legal claim
a. Throughout the controversy which Shirley has manufactured, Shirley has claimed he only had a “contract” with Gilchrist/Borlaza.
b. In point of fact, District of Columbia law follows traditional third-party beneficiary contract law, Western Union v. Massman Construction, 402 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Dc App. 1979).
c. Although Gilchrest/Borlaza was paying for the work, he did not claim any interest in either the intellectual property or the evidence of the intellectual property (the tapes) that was being created by the Plaintiff.
d. Shirley has constantly cooked up imaginary defenses having no basis in law to frustrate Plaintiff’s contractual ownership rights in the original tapes, all in violation of the three-party contract agreed to between the parties.
e. Plaintiff has a right as a beneficiary to seek possession of his tapes.
5. Demand for Judgment
a. Plaintiff seeks the same relief as sought in Count One.
DATED: August 27, 2009
Motions Filed In This Lawsuit
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sources tell us that on September 16, 2009, Martin contacted the "Petitioner" of the peace order requesting work from the petitioner. Terms of the peace order require Martin to have no contact "In person, by telephone, in writing, or by any other means." Under those terms, Martin is in contempt of the peace order.
Now, the real question seems to be, is there a willingness of the courts to expedite Martin to Maryland for such a violation? The answer may be yes. It seems Martin has filed suite against three judges in that court and the states attorney for Montgomery County. He claims they are conspiring with Obama operatives against his 2010 Illinois senate campaign by originally ordering a final peace order against him in the first place (you can view Martin's suite at http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/09/andy-martins-lawsuit-against-washington.html). Would they like to meet the man who claims they are involved in some sort of Obama scheme against him? Maybe.
The bottom line seems to be this; Martin loves to file frivolous lawsuits against anything that moves. This time, it seems a legitimate court order was brought against him and he is now in violation of that order. He should be held accountable for his actions and brought before the court to answer to his actions. Will he learn his lesson? Probably not.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Now You Know!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Andy Martin Attacks News Crew
Andy Martin in Contempt of Court
I would not want him as my candidate.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Andy Martin Has Lost
Another Battle in His Claim
to "National Conference Tapes"
It didn't take long for the Montgomery County, Maryland Office of Consumer Protection to determine that Illinois Senate candidate, Andy Martin, is up to his old tricks filing frivolous claims which he obviously had no right to file in the first place.
In the case which Mr. Martin claimed that Maryland business owner, Scott Shirley of ADR Productions had stolen the tapes where the company had filmed Martin during his so-called "National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate and College Records", the complaint was dismissed as having no merit to constitute fraud. Martin had claimed fraud by Shirley and demanded that the tapes, which are the property of ADR Productions, be given to Martin for free. Martin claimed to have been a customer of the production company but it was determined that he actually had never been a customer. "We never had a contract with Mr. Martin and we never had offer and acceptance of any money. The real fraud is Mr. Martin lying about being our customer, which he had claimed, to Consumer Protection and the Better Business Bureau." Shirley stated.
It seems Martin continues to be on the short end of the stick as his conspiracy theory flames seem to be burning out. It was one week ago today that ADR Productions had won a victory in court when they granted a final protection order against Martin for harassment. I'd say it's a 0 and 2 count with only one more strike 'til your out Mr. Martin.
Shirley says he will be glad to offer a sync license for use of the footage contained in the tapes. He estimates that the total cost for the full three hours of tape would run in the area of $10,000. He has also considered just destroying them due to the content contained within the tapes.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mr. Martin has fabricated the story of the so-called "Stolen Tapes" The tapes which he refers to are NOT and have NEVER been his property.
ADR Productions was hired by an individual from another state back in March 2009 to film what was titled "National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate and College Records". The conference turned out to be Mr. Martin talking before 4-6 people in a hotel room in Washington, DC. He outlined his conspiracy theory on President Obama and the State of Hawaii. He announced a boycott of Hawaii and it was over.
Mr. Martin was not a part of the contract between ADR Productions and the client. After ADR Productions fulfilled the contract obligations with the client, Mr. Martin requested that the video footage be edited further to his likings. ADR Production refused to contract with Mr. Martin to work on his project.
Now, keep in mind that the production company owns "Intellectual Property Rights" to anything they film and the original contract was not with Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin would not take a hint when his calls and e-mails kept going unanswered by ADR. He then started threatening the company with frivolous lawsuits and complaints with the BBB and Consumer Protection. He claims he is the owner of the tapes in question. ADR Productions had no choice but to send a registered letter to Mr. Martin asking him to leave them alone. The owner of the company then had to file a "Peace Order" against Mr. Martin. This is when it got crazy.
Mr. Martin was so upset that he was refused services and issued a peace order that he went off the deep end with a concocted story about how he owned this video footage and it was stolen by the owner of ADR. He claims that the owner of ADR Productions, it’s client, the judge who issued the protective order and the Washington Post, (for covering the story), are all Obama Operatives and now Mark Kirk Operatives working to destroy his run at the Illinois senate in 2010. This reads like a Robert Ludlum book.
This is strictly Mr. Martins way of drawing attention to himself in a time where he is feeling neglected by the world around him. Don’t forget, only 4-6 people showed up to hear his so-called “National Conference”. I would feel neglected too.
The bottom line…Martin has proven he is not playing with all 52 cards in the deck. The tapes are just ramblings of a “mad man” and the tapes belong to the production company which has a great reputation among it’s customers and the Washington Metropolitan area. It was just unfortunate that ADR Productions got involved in the project from the start.
This story really is not as sensational as Mr. Martin would like it to be. I do believe the readers of this information are smart enough to figure out fact from fiction among all of Mr. Martin’s writings and ramblings.
God Bless America.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
As we know, the loss in court makes Mr. Martin very upset. He was actually stupid enough to criticize the court prior to the hearing. Would you expect less from a man who has had an unfavorable psychiatric evaluation?
Mr. Martin actually believes that Mr. Shirley, Montgomery County and Judge McCally, who issued the original order, have conspired with President Obama and what Mr. Martin calls "Obama Operatives" to destroy his dreamed up run for senate in Illinois. Guess what Andy? You have been running since 1976 and you have NEVER won. You couldn't win class clown if you tried.
The good news is Mr. Martin did not get locked up so we won't have to worry about him walking around naked and staging hunger strikes like he did the last time he was locked up. Ewwww, the vision I just got.
As you have probably guessed, Andy wants to sue everyone involved including the guy that empties the trash at night in the courthouse. They are all "Obama Operatives". Yeah right. I'm sure the people of Maryland are really concerned about his candidacy so much that they are spying on him and reporting back to President Obama on a shoephone or shortwave radio watch.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Martin can sound eliquent when his listeners are drunk. But seriously, drunks have better things to do, don't they? Just check out this video we came across of Mr. Martin at his so-called National Conference on Barack Obama's Missing Birth Certificate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLq0rP4QXWE, then decide how well he speaks.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The sad part about Mr. Martin is the fact that he actually believes his stories are true. He ends up wasting a great deal of our State and Federal resources on his demented ideas and law suits. In 12 days Martin will go before the Judge which he made the following statement about "Judge McCally is either professionally incompetent as a judge, in that she signs serious court orders which are facially bogus, or she is a political hatchet operator who is acting in concert and conspiracy with Shirley and his Obama-related operatives. No sensible judge would act the way she did." We will keep you updated on how this turns out.
You have to feel bad for a man who is slowly spinning down the toilet bowl.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
"Dear General Holder and SAC Grant:
I believe my campaign for the U. S. Senate has become the target of criminal activity by supporters of President Barack Obama. That is not to say Mr. Obama himself is aware of the activity of his agents or supporters.
In order to alert you to the dirty tricks operation which is being conducted against me, and the latest acts of harassment and intimidation, I am formally filing a complaint with your offices and asking than an investigation be initiated. The actions of Judge Cheryl McCally appear outrageous. She issued a “peace order” because I filed a complaint against a dishonest business with the better business bureau. Judge McCally’s behavior is suspect.
Maryland state courts have no personal jurisdiction over me. I have not set foot in the state in decades.
The U. S. Attorney General, of course, is a political associate and appointee of the president. Therefore because the following facts invoke memories of Watergate-style dirty tricks, I wanted the highest levels of the Department of Justice to be alerted to what was transpiring at the lower reaches of President Obama’s political apparatus.
1. The applicable criminal law
Title 18, § 245 (b) “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of lawor interferes with, or attempts to inure, intimidate or interfere with- (1) (A) campaigning as a candidate for elective office��
2. Background facts – 2008
During the recently-concluded presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s campaign leaders determined that my activity posed a threat to his election. Obama supporters accused me of being at the center of a “vast right-wing conspiracy and I probably cost Obama millions of votes by relentlessly publicizing the facts, or rather the missing facts and false facts, about his past.
My book “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” generated great controversy and my writing because the basis for books by other authors as well.
The Obama campaign then began a campaign of harassment and intimidation. In particular, Robert Gibbs appeared on Fox News to smear me with false accusations of racism based on a judicial proceeding which was over a quarter of a century old and which had no relationship to the 2008 presidential campaign.
In addition, I believe that Obama supporters also published a false “biography” of me on a web site. We are planning litigation to determine who was behind the bogus biography.
I have continued to actively oppose President Obama’s policies, as well as continued to shed light on his birth origins and links to organized crime figures in Chicago.
3. Current facts related to this criminal complaint
a. In April, I convened a conference at the Capitol Hilton in Washington, DC on Barack Obama’s missing birth certificate and educational records. The conference has a separate blog:
b. Prior to the conference I was contacted by a person who identifies himself as John Borlaza, but who apparently is fact John Gilchrist B/G, 3305 Peoria Avenue, Beggs, OK 74421. B/G asked if anyone was going to tape the conference. I said no and authorized Mr. Borlaza/Gilchrest to look for a taping service at his expense. B/G located Scott Shirley of ADR Productions in Rockville.
c. It was understood at all times, as the documents confirm, that I was the copyright owner of the conference material. Mr. B/G was making payment, but I was the intended third party beneficiary of the agreement for payment between Shirley and B/G.
d. I met Mr. Shirley at my conference and his firm taped the two days of proceedings. Our interaction could not have been more pleasant. Mr. Shirley noted that he was one of the “few people” who could have taped the sessions, because his sympathies were (I’m not sure exactly what words he used) neutral to conservative.
e. After the conference ended, Mr. Shirley prepared a “trailer” or prevue of the conference, indicating that more of the conference was coming. The trailer was a very creative work and I was favorably impressed. Mr. Shirley has since removed this trailer from the Internet. Approximately 3,000 persons viewed the trailer. Mr. Shirley clearly identified me as the copyright owner in his material. (If someone sees this letter and has downloaded the trailer from the YouTube video, perhaps they will provide a copy of the trailer to me, and I will provide it Holder and Grant.)
f. Mr. Shirley and Mr. Borlaza asked me to provide “edits” of the conference so the final version of the meetings could be prepared for posting on the Internet. Mr. Shirley sent me a watermarked copy of the original materials; I prepared the edits and sent them to him at the beginning of May.
g. Because I was impressed with Mr. Shirley’s creativity in preparing the trailer, I asked him if he would be interested in editing a video movie which we were gong to shoot in Hawai’i. Mr. Shirley said he was interested and I should send my tapes to him, which I did on my return from Hawai’i in mid-May. (The Hawai’i tapes were returned at the end of July after my complaints.)
h. I heard nothing further from Shirley for a month, so I sent him an e-mail, to which he did not respond. I also called him in mid-June, asking about his progress on both projects. He told me he would be done with the Hawai’i project in “about a week and I said “fine He said he would then complete the Washington conference and I asked him to do so as soon as possible. Once again, our conversation could not have been more pleasant, and I had no reason to suspect Shirley was engaged in a conspiracy seeking to defeat my copyright rights.
i. During July the “Obama birth certificate” issue exploded in the nation’s media, and Mr. Shirley was still silent. I did not hear from him about either the Hawai’i or Washington projects. I began to contact him by phone and e-mail because his fax machine does not work. Mr. Shirley did not respond.
j. When Mr. Shirley refused to respond, I filed complaints with the Washington, DC Better Business Bureau, as well as the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection (see enclosed).
k. In response, Mr. Shirley replied to the BBB (as of today I have not yet seen a response to the Montgomery County complaint) and said he was willing to sell me the original tapes. I responded to the BBB, and also contacted Mr. Shirley.
l. On Friday, August 7th I received a bizarre Express Mail communication from Shirley telling me not to contact him and attacking me because of my criticism of the president. Mr. Shirley or someone behind him was seeking to convert a simple business transaction into a political dispute. Unfortunately, I apparently neglected to file this letter when I left town, but I will provide it to you when I get back to my principal office. The letter was bizarre.
It became apparent to me that Mr. Shirley was no longer engaged in a simple commercial transaction, but had joined forces with Obama agents to misappropriate my copyrighted material. He is actively obstructing my use of the conference records in interstate commerce and as part of my political campaign.
m. Saturday, August 8th at about 4:15 P.M. a Cook
County Deputy Sheriff appeared at my door, forced her way in, and served me with a Maryland Court order signed by Judge Cheryl Ann McCally. A copy of Judge McCally’s bizarre documents accompany this letter. Shirley committed a criminal act in the Maryland courts when he falsely attested that he claimed he was in “reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death (See attached). This was a perjurious claim, since other than threatening Mr. Shirley with legal process, I have never threatened him personally in any manner.
n. What is interesting is that in his detailed
reply to the BBB, Mr. Shirley never mentioned any threats from me, and certainly no threats amounting to a “reasonable fear of serious injury or death He concocted these claims for Judge McCally. This perjurious claim was concocted in order to procure the issuance of a bogus court order from Judge McCally, and to harass and intimidate me and disrupt my campaign for the U. S. Senate. I have had to put my campaign on hold while I respond to McCally’s bogus order.
o. I will be filing a civil lawsuit against McCally, Montgomery County, Shirley and Gilchrist, as well as Obama’s “John Does” who are now manipulating Shirley. Shirley is acting in a manner that reflects he is obviously being manipulated or controlled by unidentified persons. Either they went to Shirley to buy my tapes to obstruct my copyright, or he went out trying to resell my tapes to Obama sources. Either explanation constitutes criminal interference with my intellectual property. I do not know who is involved.
Outrageously, Judge McCally gave me two business days to disrupt my campaign, leave Chicago and appear in her court. This is intentional harassment by a judge whose impartiality and integrity are now subject to serious question.
p. Mr. Borlaza/Gilchrist made clear at all times that I was the owner of the copyright and, ultimately, of the tapes which contained my copyrighted material. I have not heard from B/G for a couple of months. He appears to be an increasingly suspicious presence and may in fact be an Obama operative or supporter. I don’t know.
q. Judge McCally ordered me to suspend my
campaign, leave Chicago and appear in her courtroom with two days notice. This is a significant interference with my campaign. Judge McCally is either professionally incompetent as a judge, in that she signs serious court orders which are facially bogus, or she is a political hatchet operator who is acting in concert and conspiracy with Shirley and his Obama-related operatives. No sensible judge would act the way she did.
r. Because Mr. Shirley’s accusations were patently false and perjurious, he committed a criminal act in the Montgomery County District Court. I am contacting the prosecutor’s office to proffer charges.
4. Request for federal criminal investigation
a. Barrack Obama and is supporters are not going to be allowed to use the federal and state judicial machinery as part his plan to harass his political opponents, either directly or indirectly through the use of fronts such as Shirley.
The idea that Obama operatives have conspired to essentially take control of a person such as Mr. Shirley, and to seek to obstruct my access to my intellectual property, all of which related to Obama’s missing birth certificate, is as close to a Watergate-style conspiracy as I have seen in a long time.
I bear the president no ill will, but I am a political opponent who is a candidate for his former senate seat. The idea that he is taking people like Shirley and using them to harass me with perjurious accusations is a federal criminal matter.
As I indicated at the beginning of this letter, Obama himself may be unaware of the actions of his operatives. But he is responsible for their conduct. This latest episode comes as a part of a continuing pattern of dirty tricks by Obama’s associates directed against me personally, and my professional and political activity.
I therefore ask that you open a criminal investigation, and appoint either the Northern District of Illinois or District of Maryland to conduct a criminal investigation of Shirley, Judge McCally and their associates.
I also ask to be called before one of the grand juries sitting in one of those districts to testify about the facts of this episode.
Please feel free to contact me for further information as it becomes available.
You make the call as to how sane Mr. Martin is.
Any internet check on Mr. Martin leads right back to his mental status as a crack-pot who wants the spotlight put on himself but it never turns out to reflect on him in a positive manner. You don't have to be smarter than a 5th grader to figure this out!
Do yourself a favor and avoid feeding into his sick demented mind which only feeds his mental illness as demonstrated in his actions over the past 30+ years.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Look for the next blog on how Andy tries to bring down a small business because they did not want to do business with him. Who Would?