More McHenry County Blog

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT


ANDY MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
Du Page Case No. 06-CH 108
vs.
Second District No. ______
MIKE SKARR, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIAL OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

1. Basis of Emergency
Plaintiff has been unlawfully excluded from a “debate” which is being conducted by the various private defendants and broadcast statewide by WBBM-TV later today, January 25th. This Court has stated that “The goal of avoiding protracted litigation is achieved by the use of a TRO…” Bradford v. Wynstone, 355 Ill.App.3rd 736, 823 N.E.2d 1166 (2d. Dist. 2005).
While plaintiff-appellant can still seek damages and has been given leave to replead, the value of presenting his candidacy vis a vis his opponents will be destroyed forever. Therefore, a legitimate emergency exists.
2. Factual issues or disputes
Somewhat unusually, there are no factual issues in this appeal. The defendants admitted to all of the facts contained in plaintiff’s Circuit Court motion and filed no counter-affidavits. Defendants basically claim a right to do what they wish without ay restraints of any sort from anyone. It should be pointed out there are two separate sets of defendants: [1] CBS Broadcasting is one set of defendants; [2] All of the non-broadcast private defendants constitute a second, separate and legally distinct set of defendants.
The defendants have admitted that, contrary to federal law (which was erroneously relied on by the Circuit Judge), the defendants used no impartial or independent criteria to exclude plaintiff from the debate (or to include his opponents). The action of the defendants was admittedly arbitrary, capricious and lacking any foundation in criteria or standards which defendants applied, because they adopted none and applied none by their own admission.
3. Legal arguments
a. Plaintiff presented uncontested legal claims concerning civil rights violations by the private defendants, as well as an uncontested affidavit. The nonprofit, tax-exempt institutions are basically using tax-exempt facilities to foster the candidacy of plaintiff’s opponents, and to damage his candidacy. The Circuit Judge ignored the civil rights claims and did not address them.
b. Virtually all of the parties appeared directly or indirectly (see accompanying appearances), so all of the parties were subject to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
c. CBS claimed that federal law preempted debate arguments concerning broadcast licensees. Rather cunningly, CBS ignored the fact that plaintiff had made the same point in his own Affidavit, clearly excluding federal issues from the litigation.
CBS filed an ex parte volume of supporting materials, which plaintiff has not yet seen, approximately ten (10) inches thick which it refuses to serve on the plaintiff while serving it on the court and perhaps others. Plaintiff has not seen the contents of the ex parte volume.
Even if CBS’s arguments were true concerning CBS, those claims would not affect plaintiff’s claims against the non-CBS parties who have no connection with the FCC and are entirely private entities in Illinois. The Circuit Court erred in considering the defendants’ claims as a group when they are obviously separate and distinct.
d. Plaintiff is submitting his complaint, moving papers, defendants’ appearances and a copy of the Circuit Court order. The CBS filing is not being submitted because even if CBS were correct in its claims that only a Washington, DC government agency can hear this dispute—not an untypical claim by a New York-based conglomerate—CBS’s arguments are an insult to the intelligence and utterly frivolous as regards the private Illinois defendants.
4. Relief requested
Most respectfully, plaintiff-appellant would ask that this Court attempt to convene a judge or judges of this Court to hear an emergency appeal before the debate takes place later today or, in the alternative, that this Court take other appropriate relief.

Respectfully submitted,


ANDY MARTIN
Suite 1210
10 E. Ontario Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel. (312) 440-4124
Fax (312) 440-4125
E-mail: andymart20@aol.com


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify I have served opposing parties and counsel as follows:
Mike Skarr, Naperville Area Chamber, Laura Crawford, Illinois State Chamber, North Central College, by fax to Richard J. Tarulis, Esq. (630) 355-7843;

Todd Maisch, Douglas Whitley, by fax to (217) 522-5518;

Harold R. Wilde, by fax to (630) 637-5457;

Fox Valley Publications by fax to (630) 416-5163;

Carol Fowler, by fax to (312) 202-3878 and (212) 975-4214;

CBS Broadcasting, by fax to Bradley Nahrstadt, Esq., Williams, Montgomery & John, (312) 630-8527;

National Federation, by mail to CT Corporation System, 208 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604-1101.


ANDY MARTIN