Illinois Republican Party Disavows Statements Made by Mr. Andy Martin

http://andymartin-conspiracytheory.blogspot.com/

IL GOP Chairman Statement Regarding Andy Martin Accusations
12/28/2009

"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."

How To Stop an Andy Martin Lawsuit (part 2)

http://andymartin-conspiracytheory.blogspot.com/

This is another motion filed by Montgomery County, Maryland in a lawsuit which Martin had filed.

How to Stop an Andy Martin Lawsuit

http://andymartin-conspiracytheory.blogspot.com/

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.

John Biver of Champion News on Andy Martin

http://andymartin-conspiracytheory.blogspot.com/

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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."

Enough said.



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"

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Decision Against Andy Martin

The Following Is A Decision Reached By The United States Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit In New York With Reference To Andy Martin's Frivolous Lawsuits.

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.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 1986, and April 16, 1986.
Decided July 9, 1986.

Anthony R. Martin-Trigona, pro se.

Before MANSFIELD, PIERCE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

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.

2

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, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 807, 88 L.Ed.2d 782 (1986). In June, 1984, we affirmed the power of the district court to enjoin him from bringing a variety of actions without leave of court and also issued an injunction governing appeals to this court.1 Id. at 1264. Under the latter injunction, Martin-Trigona must move for leave to take an appeal within twenty days of the notice of appeal, and must indicate the grounds supporting his motion. Id. If a motion for leave is not filed within twenty days of the notice, the appeal is dismissed. Id. Leave to appeal is granted if we conclude that Martin-Trigona has standing to appeal, that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal, and that the appeal has colorable merit. These restrictions were entered pursuant to our inherent power to protect our jurisdiction from conduct that threatens our ability to carry out Article III functions. Id. at 1261-62.

3

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." Id. at 1263. However, it has been only partially effective in preventing Martin-Trigona from overburdening this court with frivolous filings and from diverting scarce judicial resources away from litigants with good faith federal claims. Since June 18, 1984, the date of our opinion concerning the injunction, Martin-Trigona has filed over 100 appeals or petitions for appellate relief in this court. In 15 cases no leave of court was required. In 67 cases in which leave of court was required, 35 were dismissed for failure to seek leave, leave was denied in 26, and leave was granted in 6. Twenty-one matters in which leave of court is required are disposed of by this opinion.

4

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.

5

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.

6

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 December 13, 1982. Martin-Trigona claims he had no notice of this meeting, and submitted with the motion a recent letter from the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court stating that a meeting scheduled for that date actually never took place. The record reveals, however, that creditors did not attend a scheduled meeting because Martin-Trigona had announced beforehand that he would not attend. The inconsistency between the trustee's position and the Bankruptcy Clerk's position is whether one characterizes the events by saying "No meeting was held," or by saying "A meeting was held but no one came." Martin-Trigona himself is the only party guilty of misrepresentations to the court--his claim that he had no notice of the December 13, 1982 meeting is contradicted by a letter the trustee has submitted as part of his opposition papers to the motion before us. In that letter, dated November 30, 1982 and addressed to the Bankruptcy Judge, Martin-Trigona acknowledges receipt of notice of the December meeting and states his intention not to attend. Exhibit A, Opposition to "Motion for Leave to Appeal Bizarre Order." The motion for leave to appeal in No. 86-5009 is thus also utterly frivolous and is denied.

7

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.

8

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. Id. at 1261.

9

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.

10

Martin-Trigona has pointed out that the injunction in this court has never been made permanent. We now order that this be done.

11

Motions denied. Permanent injunction is to be entered.

12

It is so Ordered.

Andy Martin Is in Contempt Of 2009 Court Order

DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

27 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20850

*0601 sPO 14762009*

Case No. 0601 SPO1 4762009
Date: 1011412009 3:08 P.m'

SCOTT ALAN SHIRLEY vs ANDY MARTIN

SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for contempt in this matter, it is ORDERED:

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.

The conduct alleged to have been committed in violation of the court order is as follows:
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

Why Is Andy Martin Useless?

Well, basically he does not work, he's a bigot who thinks that the white man is the only man who should exist and he is mentally unstable. He honestly believes he could win as senator of Illinois in 2010. His baggage leads us all to a different conclusion.

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.