Andy Martin's (a.k.a. Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona) Dirty Tricks Do Not Fool Federal Courts 2/19/2010

 Andy Martin, a.k.a. Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona will stop at nothing to abuse the United States court system.  In one of his most recent lawsuits filed in September 2009, Martin made some of the most bizarre claims against the Washington Post News and on of it's reporters, Google, three Maryland Judges, an entire Maryland County Government, a small video production company called ADR Productions and several individual citizens of Maryland, Oklahoma and Florida. (see lawsuit at Martin Lawsuit).

Martin then went on with his futile attempt at another run for office in the United States Senate race for the State of Illinois while many of the defendants named in his lawsuit worked on presenting motions for dismissal based on several laws which fully supported their position.  Martin spent so much time concentrating on making outrageous radio ads and claims against one of his opponents and not caring about or respecting the court system and the rules which these courts have put in place, that he never responded to the court or the motions filed against his lawsuit.  The courts even offered him additional time to respond and in an almost arrogant manner, he refused to respond to the olive branch offered him.

After the Honorable Judge Jeanne E. Scott granted the motions for dismissal due to Martin's lack of response to the motions, Martin claims to have never received any notice from the courts.  He claims the Court sent the notices to the wrong address at his Chicago office and they sould have been sent to his New York office.  He even goes as far as to claim that the Chicago mail is a month behind in delivery.  This claim by Martin (link Martin's Motion to Vacate) is clearly one of his "Dirty Tricks" to try and scam the courts again.  All motions have been posted on both Justia.com at http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/illinois/ilcdce/3:2009cv03295/47891/ and on the Court's "Pacer" system site (read Judge Scott's opinion below or at link Opinion).  Further investigation shows that three of the defendants in this case clearly mailed certificates of service to both Martin's Chicago address and his New York address making his claims all that much more bogus.

It's nice to see that the rantings of a lunatic madman who files more frivolous lawsuits than flies in a slaughter house are dismissed by one of our most sacred institutions in the United States, our Court Systems.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

ANDY MARTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 09-3295

)

WASHINGTON POST CO., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

JEANNE E. SCOTT, U.S. District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Andy Martin’s

Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal and to Extend Time for Responses (d/e

15) (Motion to Vacate), and Motion to Clarify Notice in This Lawsuit (d/e

14) (Motion to Clarify). The Court interprets the Motion to Clarify as a

notice to the Court that future correspondence, including notices and

orders, should be sent to the Martin’s post office box in New York, New

York, listed on the Motion to Clarify. The Court allows this request and

directs the Clerk to change the address to which correspondence will be sent

to the New York post office box. The Motion to Clarify is denied to the

extent that he seeks any other relief.

Dockets.Justia.com

2

The Motion to Vacate states that Martin seeks relief from this Court’s

Text Order entered February 10, 2010 (Dismissal Text Order) pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. The Dismissal Text Order dismissed

Martin’s claims against Defendants Daniel Morse, Scott Shirley, John

Gilchrist, and Montgomery County, Maryland. A Rule 59 motion is not

appropriate at this time because there has been no final judgment entered.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Dismissal Text Order was an interlocutory order.

Martin has alleged claims against several other Defendants that have not yet

been resolved. Notice of Removal (d/e 1), attached Complaint; see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b). Relief under Rule 59, therefore, is not appropriate.

The Court, however, may reconsider any interlocutory order at any

time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court, therefore, interprets the Motion to

Vacate as a motion to reconsider the Dismissal Text Order. Motions for

reconsideration, “serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law

or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit

Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). Martin

has failed to demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact and has failed to

present any newly discovered evidence that merits reconsideration.

Martin filed this action in Sangamon County, Illinois, Circuit Court.

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 2 of 7

3

Complaint, at 1. Defendant Morse removed this action to this Court.

Notice of Removal. From December 18, 2009, to December 21, 2009,

Defendants Morse, Shirley, and Montgomery County, Maryland, filed

Motions to Dismiss on various grounds (d/e 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12). Martin was

obligated to respond to the Motions within fourteen days of service. If he

did not do so, he was deemed to have no objection to the Motions. Local

Rule 7.1(B)(2). Martin did not respond within the required fourteen days.

This Court then specifically directed Martin to respond to these Motions by

January 18, 2010, or the Court would deem that he had no objection to the

Motions, and the Court would rule on the Motions without further notice

to the parties. Text Order entered January 8, 2010. Martin did not

respond by January 18, 2010.

Defendant Gilchrist also filed a pro se request to dismiss the case

against him. The Clerk erroneously docketed the request as an answer

rather than a motion to dismiss. The Court directed the Clerk to docket

Gilchrist’s motion correctly as a motion to dismiss and send a copy to

Martin, and the Court directed Martin to respond by February 8, 2010.

Text Order entered January 21, 2010. The Clerk then correctly docketed

Gilcrhist’s motion (d/e 13) and sent a copy to Martin. Martin did not

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 3 of 7

4

respond to Gilchrist’s Motion to Dismiss, or to any of the Motions to

Dismiss filed by any of these parties.

On February 10, 2010, this Court entered the Dismissal Text Order

dismissing the claims against these Defendants. The dismissal was proper.

Martin failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), and so, was deemed to

have no objection to any of these Motions. This Court then gave Martin

additional time to respond, but he simply failed to act. The Court sees no

basis to reconsider given his failure to comply with the Local Rules or the

orders of this Court. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion.

Martin complains that he did not receive any notices or orders from

this Court. Martin listed on his Complaint his address as a post office box

in New York, New York, and he also listed an additional address in Chicago,

Illinois. Notice of Removal (d/e 1), attached Complaint, at 17. Martin,

however, listed only his Chicago, Illinois, address on the Summons to be

served on the Defendants. Notice of Removal, attached Summons. Martin

was required to place his correct address on the Summons. Illinois Supreme

Court Rule 101(a). The Chicago address, therefore, was an appropriate

address for notices in this case. The Clerk of this Court properly sent

notices to the addresses listed on the Summons. There was no error.

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 4 of 7

1Local Rule 5.6 became effective on January 20, 2010. Emergency Order

Adopting Local Rules, entered January 20, 2010. Before that date, this Court’s

Administrative Procedures required pro se plaintiffs to seek leave of court to participate

in the electronic filing system. Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and

Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil Cases (Revised October 22,

2007), § I.B.2.

5

Martin complains that he requested notice by facsimile transmission

or email, but none was provided. The Complaint states under the signature

block in all capitals and bold print, “SERVICE OF NOTICES IS

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL.” Complaint, at 17.

This Court, however, only provides electronic notice through this Court’s

CM/ECF electronic filing system. A pro se plaintiff must secure leave of

court to participate in the electronic filing system. Local Rule 5.6.1 Martin

did not file a motion for leave to participate in the electronic filing system.

He, therefore, was not entitled to receive notice from this Court by

electronic means. Martin is proceeding pro se, and so, is responsible to

review and comply with this Court’s rules and procedures. He did not

receive electronic notice because he failed to comply with those rules and

procedures. In the future, he should review these matters more carefully.

There was no error.

Martin claims that the docket sheet for this case on the public PACER

system contains nothing after December 21, 2009, so he could not have

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 5 of 7

6

received notice from that source. He attaches to the Motion to Vacate a

printout from PACER dated February 15, 2010. Motion to Vacate, Exhibit

D, PACER Docket Sheet. The attached PACER Docket Sheet only shows

entries from the date of removal, November 10, 2009, to December 21,

2009. The Clerk’s computer technical staff has reviewed the docket sheet

on PACER and determined that all of the docket entries in this case are

available on PACER, including those entered after December 21, 2009.

Martin could have produced the PACER Docket Sheet attached to the

Motion to Vacate by placing date restrictions in his PACER search request

to limit the request to entries between November 10, 2009, and December

21, 2009. The PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt (Transaction

Receipt) would have stated whether Martin erroneously placed date

restrictions in his request. Unfortunately, Martin did not include the full

Transaction Receipt with Exhibit D, so the Court cannot ascertain whether

he made this specific error, or some other error, when he viewed the Court’s

docket on PACER. Again, Martin is proceeding pro se, and so, is

responsible to learn how to use PACER correctly. In the future, Martin

should review the correct procedures for using PACER if he wishes to secure

complete information through this source. Again, however, he has

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 6 of 7

presented no error of law or fact, or newly discovered evidence that merits

reconsideration. The Court sees no basis for reconsidering the Dismissal

Text Order. Martin’s request is denied.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin’s Motion to Vacate Order of

Dismissal and to Extend Time for Responses (d/e 15) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify Notice in This Lawsuit (d/e 14) is ALLOWED

in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk is directed to change Martin’s

mailing address for notices, orders, and other correspondence regarding this

case to: Andy Martin, P.O. Box 1851, New York, New York 10150-1851.

The Motion to Clarify is otherwise denied.

IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.

ENTER: February 19, 2010

FOR THE COURT:

s/ Jeanne E. Scott

JEANNE E. SCOTT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3:09-cv-03295-JES-CHE # 16 Page 7 of 7

Andy Martin's (aka Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona) Lawsuit Against Washington Post is Dismissed by Judge.

Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 2/10/2010 dismissed a $225,000 lawsuit filed by Andy Martin against the Washington Post and several other defendants for Martin's failure to abide with a previous injunction requiring Martin to list all his previous history of litigation when filing any lawsuits.  The order reads:

TEXT ORDER: The following Motions are ALLOWED: Combined Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Defendant Daniel Morse to Dismiss this Action for Plaintiff's Violation of Injunction Order Requiring Plaintiff to Disclose His Pro Se Litigation History (d/e 3); Defendant Daniel Morse's Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and to Defer Briefing on this Motion (d/e 4); Motion to Quash Service of Summons and to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (d/e 7); Combined Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Defendant Montgomery County to Dismiss this Action for Plaintiff's Violation of Injunction Order Requiring Plaintiff to Disclose His Pro Se Litigation History (d/e 9); Defendant Montgomery County's Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and to Defer Briefing on this Motion (d/e 10); Defendant Scott Shirley's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (d/e 12); and Defendant John Gilchrist's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (d/e 13). This Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to these Motions; however, he has not done so, and so, he is deemed to have no opposition to the Motions. Text Order entered January 8, 2010; Text Order entered January 21, 2010; Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). All claims against Defendants Daniel Morse and Montgomery County, Maryland, are dismissed with prejudice. All claims against Defendants Scott Shirley and John Gilchrist are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants Morse, Montgomery County, Maryland, Shirley, and Gilchrist are dismissed from this action. The Motion of Defendant Daniel Morse for Order Granting Leave to David P. Sanders and Wade R. Thomson to Appear Pro Hac Vice (d/e 5) is denied as moot. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 2/10/2010. (CC, ilcd) (Entered: February 10, 2010).

 The lawsuit may be seen in it's entirety in our September 22, 2009 posting at Another Frivolous Lawsuit Filed by Andy Martin.

All orders pertaining to Martin's lawsuite may be seen at Justia News

Martin now faces several lawsuits against him in this case for defamation of character for his frivolous claims.

Earlier this month Martin failed to secure the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Illinois after receiving only 5% of the votes in the February 2, 2010 primary.

Another Frivolous Lawsuit by Andy Martin.

In an Illinois lawsuit submitted in September 2009, Martin details his accusations against Maryland residents and authorities.

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
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

IN CHANCERY
CASE NO. 09 CH 737

ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WASHINGTON POST COMPANY,
DANIEL MORSE, SCOTT SHIRLEY,
D/B/A/ ADR PRODUCTIONS,
GOOGLE, INC.,
JOHN GILCHRIST,
A/K/A JOHN BORLAZA,
JIM BROSEMER,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
MARYLAND,
JOHN J. MCCARTHY,
JOHN DOE AGENT OF MARK and/or
KIRK BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
WILLIAM G. SIMMONS,
EUGENE WOLFE, CHERYL MCCALLY,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Introduction

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.
COUNT ONE

[OWNERSHIP 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 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLq0rP4QXWE.
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”).
COUNT TWO
[§§ 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.
COUNT THREE
[CONVERSION]
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLq0rP4QXWE.
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.
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 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.
COUNT FIVE
[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
Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

Motions Filed In This Lawsuit

Andy Martin In Contempt of Peace Order 2009?

Is it possible that Andy Martin has violated the Maryland peace order issued against him on August 24, 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.

Andy Martin...There Is No "Stolen Tape" Conspiracy!

ANDY MARTIN COMPLETELY FABRICATES STORY TO PUT HIMSELF IN THE SPOTLIGHT...

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.