THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPERIOR COURT
Docket Number: 217-2018-CV-00474
Andy Martin
v.
Neil Levesque,
Andrew Smith,
Wayne McDonald,
Alan Glassman,
Rob Kasper,
Citizens for
Responsible Energy Solutions,
James Dozier,
iHeart Media,
Jack Heath,
Joe McQuaid,
Kevin Landrigan,
Union Leader Corp.,
John DiStaso
Hearst Properties,
Inc.
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
MONEY DAMAGES AND OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Introduction
1. Over sixty years ago the novel “Peyton Place” scandalized New
Hampshire as a state driven by bigotry, ignorance, pettiness, corruption and
backstabbing. Granite State residents were scandalized, embarrassed and took a
dislike to having the truth of their squalid social behavior shoved in their
faces.
2. This lawsuit explains why New Hampshire has become the Peyton Place
of American politics, and how the arrogance, corruption, bigotry, ignorance,
bias and malignancy of the media establishment rotten leadership in the Republican
party have essentially enslaved Republican voters and made them into permanent
losers. The lawsuit is documented with their public statements and prior
history of the defendants themselves; they cannot escape judgment by expressing
surprise or outage at the plaintiff’s disclosures for all of them are factually
based.
COUNT ONE
[Polling fraud - New Hampshire
declaratory judgment and common law fraud]
I.
Limitations
Although the factual allegations against all defendants are presented
in this Count, the substantive legal accusations are limited primarily to defendants University New
Hampshire UNH and
STA, particularly the Union Leader and WMUR.
II.
Jurisdiction and
venue
1. The Court has general common law jurisdiction to hear all of the
claims presented in this civil action under the New Hampshire
2. Venue is proper in Merrimack County Merrimack County
3. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
II.
Factual allegations
Note: Although New Hampshire
1. The Plaintiff
A. Plaintiff is a legally qualified candidate for U.S. Representative
from New Hampshire, District 1. Plaintiff has decades of extensive public and
political experience (www.AndyMartin.com,
www.AndyMartin2018.com). As required by federal law, Plaintiff has registered
with the Federal Election Commission and filed with the New Hampshire Secretary
of State for the September, 2018 primary election.
B. Plaintiff has been featured on a segment on the CBS Television
Network. He appeared in what many political observers considered the most
controversial cable TV program of the 2008 presidential election, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjQhnDEGSk.
He has repeatedly “debated” in the nation’s third largest television
market on the ABC affiliate, WLS -TV.
At the peak of the 2008 presidential election, Plaintiff was featured
on the front page of the New York Times as one of the world’s most important
stories in the world during that period, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/nyregion/02rooms.html.
C. Plaintiff’s seriousness as a political actor and his national
experience and presence cannot seriously be questioned. The defendants’
relentless efforts to denigrate and literally erase Plaintiff’s
political status are an embarrassment to the citizens of New Hampshire
D. Plaintiff learned of a “debate” being conducted by the Republican State
E. Plaintiff contacted Wayne McDonald, Exhibit B, who as of the early
afternoon of August 10 has refused to reply. McDonald, Exhibit A, promised “qualifications”
by August 8th but as of the early afternoon of August 10 when this Complaint
was prepared none have appeared.
2. The defendants
A. Polling fraud
a. Plaintiff has been active in Republican politics for almost a
decade. In 2016, the UNH “Granite State Survey Center
b. Exhibit C is clear that while UNH polled on nine (9) Democratic candidates, they
polled on only two (2) Republican candidates and eliminated Plaintiff’s name
entirely.
c. It would be impossible to claim that all of the nine Democrats were
more serious or substantial candidates than Plaintiff but, Soviet-era style,
Plaintiff was simply “erased” and rendered nonexistent in the Republican
candidate polling.
d. The gross imbalance between Democrats polled, and the Republicans,
shows that UNH was clearly interested in promoting the
Democratic Party, not achieving balance in a state that is almost evenly
divided between Republicans and Democrats. UNH is a public, taxpayer-supported
institution but it has become known and despised as a fulcrum of extreme
left-wing activity; the latest biased polling activity confirms doubts about
the academic ingenuity of UNH .
e. St. Anselm’s, which claims to operate an “Institute of Politics Chicago New Hampshire
f. STA is not taxpayer supported, but it is a tax-exempt, taxpayer
encouraged institution and it rapidly catching up to UNH in arrogance and corruption with its own
biased polling methodology.
B. Debate fraud by iHeart Media, WMUR and Union Leader
a. iHeart Media, Jack Heath and New England College New Hampshire
b. In 2016, WMUR and the Union leader engaged in blatant debate fraud.
To defeat Plaintiff by erasing his candidacy, WMUR/UL promoted a “fake candidate,”
Jim Lawrence. C. Lawrence
claimed to be a “small businessman,” but his business had been dissolved by the
State of New
Hampshire Lawrence Lawrence Lawrence
d. After Lawrence was successfully used to rig the 2016 primary, WMUR
and the Union Leader disclosed that Lawrence
e. WMUR and UL have now announced they are apparently planning a
reprise of their 2016 debate fraud, with a new round of “debates.”
f. The only candidate who has had a significant impact on the 2018 primary
has been Plaintiff. After the media/defendants did nothing, Plaintiff successfully
negotiated with the New Hampshire Attorney General a Right to Know (“RTK ”) release of damaging documents involving candidate
Andy Sanborn (those fact-based damaging disclosures from the Attorney General
are still continuing). WMUR jumped on Plaintiff’s RTK agreement and claimed that release of the RTK documents was WMUR’s own accomplishment,
refusing to credit plaintiff for proceeding where the media had embarrassingly
failed to investigate. The Sanborn disclosures created a major storm and are
still reverberating with new document releases planned before August 17.
g. Likewise, WMUR and UL have
been promoting Eddie Edwards as a legitimate candidate, and doing nothing to
investigate Edwards’ background. Once again, Plaintiff began an investigation
and again using the RTK law obtained the release of documents
disclosing that Edwards had profited from bogus claims of racial
discrimination. Once again WMUR claimed the RTK release was its own effort, when that was
contrary to the facts.
h. It is bizarre that while WMUR and UL refuse to acknowledge that
Plaintiff is a candidate, they have no hesitation to steal Plaintiff’s work
product and claim it as their own. Defendant John DiStaso desperately tries to employ
subterfuges such as “major candidates” to exclude Plaintiff. But DiStaso’s
“major candidates” have major deficiencies and are slowly destroying each
other. One “major candidate” simply quit. i. Plaintiff continues to investigate,
and will be collecting tens of thousands of pages of documents on Edwards, which
WMUR and the UL will no doubt appropriate and claim as their own if they find
anything of value in Plaintiff’s prospecting.
C. Republican Party debate fraud/violation of bylaws
a. The Republican
State
b. On or about August 6 the Republican Party announced that it was
sponsoring a “debate” with “partners.” Although “qualifications” were promised
by August 8, as of the afternoon of August 10 when this Complaint was prepared,
less than one week before the event, none have been promulgated.
c. It is apodictic that being excluded from a party-sponsored debate is
highly injurious to a candidate.
d. Plaintiff has relied on the Defendants’ neutrality bylaws as a basis
to support the party, most recently by purchasing $250 of tickets to a State
Party-sponsored event (Spring to Victory Dinner).
e. Common sense suggests that supporters of plaintiff’s primary opponents
are using and misusing the State Committee’s assets and resources to damage
Plaintiff’s candidacy and to endorse and support the candidacy of their own
candidates, all in violation of the state party’s bylaws.
f. The defendant State
Bylaws must be respected and enforced, both by organizations themselves
and, if necessary, by courts, see e.g. Wesson v. Nashua Police, 103 N.H.
104, 165 A.2d 585, 586-587 (N.H. 1960).
g. The State Committee defendants take an oath to serve as officers of
the state party, and to obey and uphold the bylaws of the party barring
preferential treatment for some candidates in contested primary elections.
h. That the GOP defendants’ behavior is tawdry and corrupt can be seen
from the identical congressional primary activity in the Democratic Party. The Democrats
have eleven (11) candidates running in the same congressional primary and treat
all of them with respect. The Democrats have conducted approximately thirty
opportunities for their candidates, without charging admission fees or
demanding payments, see https://www.concordmonitor.com/First-district-democrats-debate-in-Laconia-19375274?
i. Republicans are left with five (5) candidates but are seeking to
promote only two candidates, while erasing the remaining candidates from
party-sponsored activities and public consciousness.
j. Therefore, in establishing the “reasonableness” or
“unreasonableness” of the defendants’ behavior to satisfy various standards,
there is a clear dichotomy between the conduct of the Democratic Party and the
scandalous corruption and abuse of power by the Republican Party leadership
which the Court can consider and juxtapose as relevant.
k. The Republicans have now recruited iHeart Media, Jack Heath, a local
entertainer, and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions to help provide
cover for and aid and abet in their latest debate fraud.
IV.
Legal Claim
1. The Defendants are violating Plaintiff’s statutory and New Hampshire
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays that the Court award the following
relief:
1. Emergency injunctive relief including a TRO barring the defendants from (i) conducting
rigged polls or (ii) using the GOP’s State Committee’s money or
auspices/endorsement to orchestrate unlawful debates in violation of party
bylaws and from which legitimate candidates are excluded.
2. Damages from each defendant in the amount of $50,000.
3. Reservation of jurisdiction to award additional relief if the
defendants violate the Court’s rulings and/or persist with their unlawful and defamatory
course of conduct.
4. For such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete
justice to Plaintiff, including additional money damages.
COUNT TWO
[Defamation by implication under New Hampshire
[All defendants]
I.
Limitations
This count is directed at all defendants.
II-III .
Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:
IV.
Legal Claim
1. New
Hampshire
2. By deliberately and consciously excluding Plaintiff from their
purported “debates,” and pretending Plaintiff does not exist as a candidate, defendants
intend to and have defamed Plaintiff by implication, by suggesting he is not a
legally-qualified or recognized Republican candidate who should be
participating in a party-sponsored or media-sponsored debates.
3. Defendants are constitutionally entitled to their own opinions,
on their editorial pages or broadcast comments (or poll commentary). But they
are not entitled to their own “facts,” erasing legitimate candidates to
deceive the voting public through the use of bogus “polls” and “news” reports
which erase Plaintiff as a candidate for office. Defendant Landrigan,
apparently on the orders of Defendant McQuaid, refuses to acknowledge
Plaintiff’s status as a congressional candidate although he publishes “fluff”
pieces about candidates for lesser office (e.g. Cormier, August 8).
V.
Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.
COUNT THREE
[Violation of Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RSA ch.
358-A]
[All defendants]
I.
Limitations
This count is directed at all defendants.
II-III .
Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:
IV.
Legal Claim
1. Numerous defendants are engaged in commercial, profit-making
activity. Others, such as UNH and
St Anselm, seek to attract paying students to the “Survey Center Institute
of Politics New Hampshire
2. Because the Republican Party defendants control political activity
within the party, they are adjuncts to and potential financial beneficiaries of
their own decisions. For example, one of the primary candidates in Plaintiff’s
election is a saloonkeeper who receives regular patronage from party functions.
3. The Republican Party defendants hold themselves out as impartial in
primary elections and feature bylaws on their web site to manifest their
self-imposed restriction on their own political powers and discretion, see https://www.nh.gop/bylaws
4. While the Republican Party defendants are apparently under no
statutory mandate to restrict their endorsement authority, they have
voluntarily chosen to do so because it is “good business.” The appearance of
primary neutrality promotes party fundraising. Contributors are led to believe
they are giving to an organization that does not favor or endorse one primary
candidate over another and is merely fighting the opposing political party.
5. All of the defendants’ actual behavior is extremely deceptive and
meets the “rascality” test of New Hampshire ACAS
v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381, 923 A.2d
1076, 1094 (N.H. 2007).
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.
COUNT FOUR
[Civil conspiracy]
[All defendants]
I.
Limitations
This Count is directed at all defendants.
II-III .
Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:
IV.
Legal Claim
1. New Hampshire recognizes the law of civil conspiracies, e.g. Appeal
of Armaganian, see e.g. 147 N.H. 158, 784 A.2d 1185 (N.H. 2001). This
lawsuit arises in response to a series of civil conspiracies, all motivated by
an intent to rig the 2018 primary election and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.
2. Having taken an oath to use their party offices to remain neutral in
primary elections, the Republican Party defendants have come together in a
civil conspiracy to benefit some candidates, by spending party funds to
showcase them in a “debate” and other activity, while seeking to demean other
candidates such as Plaintiff by refusing to permit them to participate in a
party-sponsored activity.
3. The media defendants are conducting sham “debates” using bogus,
unelectable Republican candidates as Manchurian Candidates to defraud
Republican primary voters into supporting unelectable candidates and, after the
primary election, reelecting Democrats to office in 2018.
4. The university and college are doing what UNH has always done and what STA has started
doing, conducting bogus biased “polls” which favor the Democratic Party and
seek to erase Plaintiff as a legitimate candidate in the Republican primary. With
Soviet era contempt for reality, both polls simply erased Plaintiff’s presence
from their polls. Whether this was done at the behest of paying clients or
simply out of their own internal arrogance and corruption will be ascertained
through discovery.
5. Plaintiff has been and is being damaged by the civil conspiracies
organized and orchestrated by the defendants, which is only one in a continuing
series of concerted efforts by the defendants and other coconspirators to
violate their responsibilities to their voters, contributors, viewers, listeners
and New Hampshire citizens.
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in Count One.
COUNT FIVE
[Breach of Fiduciary Duty]
[Only NH GOP defendants, iHeart Media and
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions]
I.
Limitations
This Count is directed at the Republican Party-affiliated defendants as
well as their “partners,” iHeart Media, Jack Heath and Citizens for Responsible
Energy Solutions who are aiding and abetting in the civil conspiracy and fraud
of the GOP officials.
II-III .
Plaintiff repeats and realleges ¶¶ II-III of Count One and further pleads:
IV.
Legal Claim
1. The GOP defendants assumed a fiduciary duty to the New Hampshire Republican
State
2. While seeking to promote party probity in public, the defendants have
been scheming in private to violate their oaths of office and to violate their
fiduciary duties under their organization’s bylaws not to endorse or favor
candidates in primary elections.
3. Candidates are induced to
participate in party primaries, and to spend substantial sums on party events, on
the basis that the party under its bylaws will remain neutral and not favor one
candidate over another in primary elections.
4. The defendants, by their open and notorious behavior to expend party
funds through GOP Treasurer Rob Kasper, and by advertising and promoting bogus
“debates” on their web site on behalf of some primary candidates, while preventing
other candidates from participating on an equal basis with their opponents in
those party-sponsored events, egregiously violated their fiduciary duties to
their party organizations.
5. While a French king is reputed to have said, “L'etat, c’est moi,” (I
am the state), the defendants are not the party and are merely temporary
holders of party offices who must serve in conformity with their obligations to
the ongoing political organization whose finances are closely supervised by New
Hampshire law and public officials, see generally RSA Ch. 664, Sumner, supra.
6. The defendants are not “free agents” who may do as they choose; they
are fiduciaries of their party organization and party finances and may not
violate their duties to their party organization as set forth in detail in party
bylaws by sponsoring a debate or other activity for some but not all of the
candidates.
7. Although the GOP defendants announced a week ago that they would
announce “qualifications” on August 8, as of the afternoon of August 10 when
this Complaint was prepared, no “qualifications” had been posted as promised.
8. iHeart Media, Jack Heath, Citizens for
Responsible Energy Solutions and James Dozier have acted, combined and
conspired in a civil conspiracy with the State Committee defendants, in
violation of the GOP defendants’ fiduciary duties, to conduct a fraudulent
“debate” from which plaintiff is apparently being excluded.
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same relief as in
Count One.
DATED: August 10, 2018
Respectfully submitted
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Law
Pro Se
Principal address for service of Pleadings:
Andy Martin
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Fax (866) 214-3210
E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com
(text only)
SERVICE OF NOTICES IS RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED BY FAX OR E-MAIL
Local address for service of additional
courtesy copies (but not primary service)
(if desired, not required):
No comments:
Post a Comment