Corruption fighter Andy Martin sets hearing in Illinois GOP “Rigged Convention” lawsuit

Andy Martin fights efforts by corrupt Illinois “Combine” to steal Republican Party. Martin says efforts by billionaire McKenna family to corrupt Illinois Republican Party must be stopped.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

ANDY MARTIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 2008 CH 1859
vs. )
)
RAY LAHOOD, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: Ray LaHood, by fax (309)671-7309
Brian Sheahan, by fax (312) 782-0943
Lee Roupas, by fax (708) 349-1627
Eloise Gerson, by mail 910 Lake Shore Dr., Chicago 60611
Deb Detmers, by fax (618) 344-4215
Dan Venturi, by fax (847) 680-6682
Jason Heffley, by fax (312) 201-0181

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, I shall appear before the Hon. Judge Bonnie Wheaton, or any other Judge sitting in her stead, in the DuPage County Courthouse, Room 2007, 505 N. County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL and then and there present the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO.

I certify that I served this notice by fax or mail as above indicated to each person to whom it is directed on May 28, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
Suite 4406
30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com (text only)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUPAGE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

ANDY MARTIN,)
)
Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO. 2008 CH 1859
vs. )
)
RAY LAHOOD, et al., )
)
Defendants.)

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TRO

Plaintiff moves the Court for a Preliminary Injunction as herein below set forth or, in the alternative, a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). A proposed Preliminary Injunction/TRO order is being submitted with this Motion.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TRO

I.
THE STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/TRO
The standards for a preliminary injunction/TRO are clear in the Second District: (1) clear right or interest needing protection; (2) no adequate remedy at law; (3) irreparable harm; (4) reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, The Agency v. Grove, 362 Ill.App.3rd 206, 839 N.E.2d 606, 613 (Ill.App. 2d. Dist. 2005). “The party need establish only a prima facie case that there is a fair question as to the existence of the right claimed and the need for protection.” Id. See also County of DuPage v. Gavrilos, 359 Ill.App.3rd 629, 834 N.E.2d 643, 649 (Ill.App. 2d Dist. 2005).
II.
THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM AND NEED FOR RELIEF
1. The State Convention requirement
In McCaster v. Greenwood, 328 Ill.App.3rd 643, 766 N.E.2d 666, (Ill.App. 5th Dist. 2002) the Fifth District Court carefully analyzed Article 7 of the Election Code and stated at pp. 669-671:
Article 7 is a comprehensive legislative attempt to regulate the course and conduct of primary elections..A plain reading of this section reveals that Article 7 is intended to govern all primary election procedures involving party candidates for public office and party candidates for party offices…A review of Article 7 reveals a legislative intent to provide a comprehensive set of rules to regulate primary election from initial petitions for nomination through postelection contests…..Section 7-63 does not exclude election contests involving precinct committeemen from its purview. Nor is there any indication that the legislature intended to do so.

Contained within Article 7 is the mandated requirement for a State convention. Once again, the legislature set forth detailed rules and procedures for the convening and conduct of the state conventions. The “State convention” requirement is the area of law giving rise to this lawsuit.
The defendants are attempting to conduct a “secret” state convention, in which the names of delegates are concealed from candidates for National Committeeman, and in which the entire convention is controlled by secret committees whose membership is also concealed from party members. In addition, defendants have tried to (1) illegally select delegates to the state convention in violation of the procedures specified by state law and have (ii) sought to impose restriction and limitations on the appointment of convention delegates that are not found in the statute.
The defendants have a long and documented history of seeking to corrupt party election procedures to render state laws meaningless and nugatory as they seek to perpetuate their control, as part of their participation in a “Combine” that corrupts party politics in Illinois.
Most, respectfully, the Court is asked to enforce state law against the defendants.
a. Concealment of delegates names/contact information
How can someone campaign for the office of National Committeeman if the names, address and contact information for the delegates who will be voting has been concealed? The secrecy placed on delegate information by the defendants has become a matter of statewide concern and frustration, see attached articles/e-mail in Group Exhibit A (5 pages). Thus, Plaintiff’s right to run for National Committeeman has been rendered a nullity by the defendants concealing the names of delegates, committee members and chairs of the committees, so they may manipulate and control the selection of a candidate who will “win” the rigged “election” at the “convention.”
b. Refusal to confirm candidate status
Although the Plaintiff is an announced candidate, there is no list of candidates, no information about what access candidates will be given to the convention, and not even any confirmation that Plaintiff is a candidate. The state Republican Party is being run as an extension of the bipartisan corrupt “Combine,” and even the most rudimentary standards of fairness are ignored by the defendants and their handlers.
c. Bogus residency requirements in large counties
Article 7 is clear that when the legislature intended to impose residency requirements, the legislature knew how to impose residency requirements, see e.g. 10 ILCS 5/7-8 (a):
The Chairman shall be a registered voter in this State…
[T]he person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a resident of the congressional district…
[T]he State central committee…shall be composed of members elected or appointed from the several congressional districts…
The person appointed to fill the vacancy shall be a resident of the congressional district…
Despite the fact that the legislature chose not to enact any residency requirements for convention delegates, the defendants have sought to impose their own bogus residency requirements to limit ward committeeman and township committeemen from appointing delegates of their choice and to leave vast areas of the City of Chicago unrepresented, thereby creating an embarrassing racially discriminatory and divisive “plantation” which is held in limbo by the defendants.
None of these nefarious practices are authorized by Article 7. The only language even remotely relating to convention delegates is that delegates shall “be members of the delegation to the State convention from such county.”
Defendants, such as defendant Gerson, selected delegates in secret without any notice, and chose political cronies of the defendants themselves, thereby seeking to rig the convention process and to prevent the ward and township committeemen from appointing independent delegates to the State convention. The Court should invalidate delegates chosen in this surreptitious and unlawfully restrictive manner and reopen the delegate selection process to all residents of any county.
d. Illegal selection of other county delegates
Article 7-9 is clear that “The county convention of each political party shall choose delegates to the State convention of its party;…” But the defendants and others acting in concert with them have largely ignored this requirement, and failed to appoint State convention delegates at the county conventions. The court is asked to invalidate the selection of any delegates not chosen in conformity with state law.
e. The secret convention committees and goon squads
As Group Exhibit A makes clear, participants and candidates have no way of knowing who is a member of a committee and who is a chair of a committee. In other words, the defendants are seeking to conduct a secret convention, in which they will spring their crony candidate for National Committeeman on the convention as “endorsed” by the secret committees and members of said committees. This process violates Article 7.
f. The secret votes and failure to conduct roll call
voting at the convention.

At the last State convention, the defendants sought to impose their will by using secret voting and armed guards to control and intimidate delegates and participants. The use of armed goons to control and intimidate delegates, and the use of “committee” endorsements to avoid roll call votes by actual delegates are part of an ongoing pattern of seeking to conduct a secret election, leaving behind no records that can be reviewed and challenged in a subsequent judicial proceeding.
g. The legislature imposed reasonable procedures
Political party “doctrines” are largely immune from judicial supervision. But when, as here, the legislature has enacted comprehensive procedures, and specified that “each convention may perform all other functions inherent to such political organization, and not inconsistent with this Article,” the party is bound by state law. Period.

III.
THE DEFENDANTS’ LONG HISTORY OF CORRUPT AND
CONSPIRATORIAL CONDUCT TO DEFEAT DEMOCRACY IN ILLINOIS

The defendants have a long history of corrupting the processes of the Republican Party. For example, in 2004, when Plaintiff was not a participant, the defendants used goon squads to control convention participants. “Voice” voting was used to negate any record of actual voting.
In the most recent general primary, Plaintiff was prevented by defendant Heffley from participating in an open party function in DuPage County because Plaintiff had criticized the chairman of the party and his hangers-on.
Plaintiff has a long history of fighting political corruption in this state; the defendants find that history a threat to their own ongoing criminal schemes.
In December, 2007, Chairman Andrew McKenna sprang a surprise “endorsement” vote on the state committee without notice to anyone and without any hearing. The “endorsement” vote was not authorized by the party’s rules and was thus illegal. Moreover, defendant Heffley and his coconspirators illegally used tens of thousands of dollars of party funds—in criminal and civil violation of state and federal election laws—to support Plaintiff’s primary opponent and to illegally defeat Plaintiff.
Unless and until a judge steps in and imposes Article 7 of the Election Code on the defendants the corrupt shenanigans of the defendants will continue unimpeded.
Plaintiff has proffered a proposed order for injunctive relief.

Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
Suite 4406
30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com (text only)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served this notice by fax or mail as indicated below to each person to whom it is directed on May 28, 2008:

Ray LaHood, by fax (309)671-7309; Brian Sheahan, by fax (312) 782-0943; Lee Roupas, by fax (708) 349-1627; Eloise Gerson, by mail 910 Lake Shore Dr., Chicago 60611; Deb Detmers, by fax (618) 344-4215; Dan Venturi, by fax (847) 680-6682; Jason Heffley, by fax (312) 201-0181.

ANDY MARTIN