ANDY MARTIN /2020
Republican for U. S. Senator
New Hampshire
www.AndyMartin.com
www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
Headquarters:
E-mail: AndyforUSSenator@aol.com
P.O.
Box 742
Manchester,
NH 03105-0742
Cellphone:
(347) 960-9593
Fax
(866) 214-3210
Blogs:
www.AndyMartin2020.blogspot.com
www.AndyMartin2020.wordpress.com
---
For immediate
release:
August
28, 2020
Dear
Granite Stater:
Today
I filed suit in the Superior Court against the University of New Hampshire (“UNH”)
and St. Anselm College for conducting fraudulent polls and seeking to deceive
the People of New Hampshire. WMUR-TV, owned by the Hearst Family and controlled
by liberals from New York, is the instigator and organizer of this criminal
behavior by our local institutions.
Both
UNH and St. Anselm were given an advance opportunity to avoid a lawsuit, and chose
to stonewall the citizens of our state and be sued for fraud. That tells you
they have something to hide; they know they are acting illegally. In the law,
we draw an “adverse inference” when
people prefer to be sued rather than come clean about their misconduct and
avoid court.
St.
Anselm, in particular, as a Catholic college, is presumably held to higher
standards of conduct. The state’s toxic political culture has corrupted a
religious institution.
UNH
has increasingly become a disgrace as a state university. UNH hosts a Chinese Communist
Party “Confucius Institute.” The school
has now adopted Chinese communist policies and media standards. Our tax dollars
are being dumped in an educational sewer in Dover. That situation cannot long continue.
What I
have endured is detailed, fact by fact, in the dry, legal language of the
lawsuit. But the real victims are New Hampshire voters. They are being fed
rigged “polls” designed by leftist agitators at UNH and St. Anselm’s. Instead
of robust debates with actual opponents and qualified candidates, WMUR is promoting
“fights” that are fixed in advance with pre-programmed losers designed to
reelect the incumbent senator. Democracy is being raped, right out in public.
Other
candidates, in the Second Congressional District, are receiving the same abuse
as I am. Two years ago, WMUR hosted eleven (11!) Democrats in a debate. Now
they are trying to limit Republicans to two (2!) candidates. Who controls the
policies of that station? Democrats.
In
closing, the behavior of these individuals and institutions tarnishes the image
of New Hampshire. A state and its media leaders that conduct themselves with
such contempt for its citizens and Constitution cannot be trusted any longer
with its “First In The Nation” primary status. The latest misbehavior by Steve
Schwartz and his media manipulators at the Hearst Corporation in New York, who
corrupt New Hampshire’s Constitution and elections through rigged polls and fixed
debates, sounds the death knell for FITN status.
Institutions
survive and deserve public support because they pay homage to the highest
ideals of their citizens. The same institutions fail when they allow themselves
to be corrupted and show contempt for the people they serve. Democracy dies through
repeated violations of election decency.
I
continue to fight for the People of New Hampshire in court and at the ballot
box. I can’t promise you that we will win, but I do promise that the nation
will take notice and send the crooks who are corrupting our state elections a
strong message: No More FITN. They will pay a high price for their perfidiousness.
I hope
you agree.
Andy
Martin
P. S.
Emailed versions of this letter will have attached a copy of the lawsuit and
court receipt.
---
Please
feel free to forward and/or post this email
---
LINKS
TO THIS STORY: (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined
portion):
ANDY
MARTIN - A BRIEF BIO:
Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire-based muckraker,
author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host,
broadcaster and media critic. With over fifty (50) years of background in radio
and television and with decades of intelligence, investigative and analytical experience
in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics,
foreign policy, military and intelligence matters. For a full bio, go to: www.AndyMartin.com. See also
www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American
politics and courts for over fifty years and is executive director of the National
Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com.
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of
Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City
University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind the Mask”
[www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years”
[www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the
“Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at www.contrariancommentary.wordpress.com and
www.ContrarianCommentary.com.
Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire
over 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives
around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading
corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.
UPDATES:
www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin
Andy’s
opinion columns are posted at ContrarianCommentary.com, ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
and ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
[NOTE:
We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest
version on our blogs and don’t hesitate to let us know if you find an error.]
----------
To
become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andyforussenator@aol.com
and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line
© Copyright by Andy
Martin 2020 – All Rights Reserved
Case Number:
219-2020-CV-00252
THE STATE OF
STRAFFORD, SS
SUPERIOR COURT
Andy Martin
v.
Steve Schwartz,
William R. Hearst,
III,
Hearst Television,
Inc.,
Adam Sexton,
John DiStaso,
University of New
Hampshire,
James W. Dean, Jr.
Andrew E. Smith,
Joseph A. Favazza,
Mark Cooper, OSB,
St. Anselm College,
Neil Levesque.
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
MONEY DAMAGES AND
OTHER RELIEF
COUNT ONE
[New Hampshire Right to Know Law]
Names and addresses of the
Parties
1. Name and address of
Petitioner/Plaintiff
For service of pleadings:
Andy Martin
National Litigation Center
2. Names and addresses of Respondents/Defendants (boldface)
The University of New Hampshire
James W. Dean,
Mr. Andrew Smith
Agent for service of process:
Ronald F. Rogers, Esq.
General Counsel
25 Concord Road
Lee, NH 03861
Steve Schwartz,
William R. Hearst, III,
Hearst Television, Inc.,
Adam Sexton,
John DiStaso,
300 W. 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
Joseph A. Favazza,
Mark Cooper, OSB,
St. Anselm College,
Neil Levesque
100 St. Anselm Drive
Manchester, NH 03102
I.
Limitations
Each Count is related to a
different set of defendants as set forth herein. All of the defendants are,
however, related to the ongoing civil conspiracy being conducted by all defendants.
Count One is directed at the University
of New Hampshire-related defendants.
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 Constitution and Statutes.
2. Venue is proper in Strafford
County due to the presence of the University of New Hampshire-related defendants’
and the statewide impact of the defendants’ civil conspiracy.
3. Plaintiff demands a jury
trial.
III.
Factual allegations
Note: Although New Hampshire is
a “notice pleading jurisdiction,” Porter v. Manchester, 151 N.H. 30, 43,
849 A.2d 103 (N.H. 2004), Plaintiff provides considerable factual detail
because he is seeking emergency injunctive relief.
1. The Plaintiff
A. Plaintiff is a legally
qualified candidate for U.S. Senator from New Hampshire for the 2020 Republican
Party primary election. Plaintiff has decades of extensive public and political
experience (www.AndyMartin.com, www.AndyMartin2020.com). As required by federal
law, Plaintiff has registered with the Federal Election Commission.
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.
Plaintiff 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, who are
stuck squarely within the parameters of being manipulated and controlled by
what President Trump calls “fake news” media of the Hearst Family.
D. Plaintiff learned of a
“debate” being conducted by some of the defendants in September, 2020.
Defendants have acted, combined and conspired to exclude Plaintiff from that
debate.
2. The defendants
A. Hearst-related defendants
Defendants Schwartz, Hearst,
Hearst Television, Inc., Adam Sexton and John DiStaso are related to the Hearst
Corporation, which effectively owns, manages and controls the only TV station
in New Hampshire, WMUR-TV, a local monopoly.
B. University of New Hampshire
defendants
Defendants University of New
Hampshire, Dean and Smith are associated with a taxpayer-funded, public
state university.
C. St. Anselm-related defendants
Defendants Favazza, Cooper, St. Anselm
and Levesque are related to St. Anselm College. It is not clear whether Favazza
or Cooper is the final decision-making authority to preclude college fraud and manipulation.
St. Anselm College is a Benedictine facility and thus, presumably, answerable
to higher standards of Catholic morality.
3. Right-to-Know Law related
facts
A. New Hampshire’s Right to Know
Law (“RTK”) is so critical to the state that the legal principles embodied by
RTK are embodied in the state’s Constitution, Bill of Rights Art. 8.
B. Plaintiff submitted an RTK
request to defendant Smith three (3) weeks ago. Smith denied that he had done any
polling on Plaintiff’s primary opponents. In point of fact, Smith had conducted
three (3) polls surveying public opinion on two of Plaintiff’s primary
opponents.
C. Plaintiff contacted defendant
Dean and pointed out Smith’s latest fraud. Plaintiff received an email
indicating the matter was being reviewed. As of August 27th, no RTK compliance
has been received, to cover-up the fact that Plaintiff’s name was excluded from
Smith’s poll in order to erase his candidacy from the public consciousness.
D. New Hampshire law mandates that
this lawsuit be expedited, N.H. Stat. 91-A:7.
4. “Right to Run”-law related
facts
A. New Hampshire’s Constitution
contains an explicit, fundamental right to run for office, Bill of Rights, Art.
11.
B. The actions of the defendants
have disrupted and delayed Plaintiff’s constitutional right, and were intended
to do so, in order to erase and “cancel” Plaintiff as a candidate for voter
consideration.
C. Both the independent and
concerted action of the defendants violates Plaintiff’s constitutional right
under the New Hampshire Constitution.
5. Fake polling by UNH and
St. Anselm
A. UNH is operated as an extension
of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. What the NHDP wants, it gets.
B. In 2018, Smith was polling on
eleven (11) Democrats but only two Republicans, in order to exclude
Plaintiff’s name.
C. In 2020, Smith has only
polled on two Republicans, to again exclude Plaintiff’s name from voter consideration.
D. This Court can and must draw
an adverse inference from UNH’s constant erasure of Plaintiff’s name from UNH
polls, and UNH’s refusal to produce a single sheet of paper in response to
Plaintiff’s RTK requests.
E. In 2020, St. Anselm conducted
at least two (2) “polls” concerning Plaintiff’s election. The original poll,
sometime in January (?) was used as a pretext to exclude Plaintiff from a St.
Anselm event in March.
F. St. Anselm conducted a “poll”
in August 2020 and again apparently excluded Plaintiff’s name as an option,
again with the intent to defraud the public and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.
G. When the public hears the term
“poll,” it assumes that such polls are conducted in a neutral and detached manner,
and not intended to be directed at harming one of the actual candidates in the election.
Both UNH and St. Anselm have actively schemed to defraud the public, at various
times in conjunction with WMUR and the Union Leader newspaper.
6. Fake News reporting by WMUR
A. WMUR has repeatedly reported
that there were “two Republicans” running for the U. S. Senate, thereby
intentionally spreading the false fact that Plaintiff is neither a Republican nor
a candidate. WMUR is actively supporting two of Plaintiff’s opponent with
access to the station’s web site, and apparently scheming to conduct a two-candidate
“debate.” See, as an example, the daily diet of the latest fake news: https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-primary-source-bolduc-says-he-doesnt-trust-senate-gop-primary-rival-messner/33812724,
by a self-styled “most experienced political writer in the state.”
B. WMUR is actively and intentionally
acting to violate FCC requirements that station-sponsored debates only be conducted
based on neutral criteria. By definition, if a candidate’s name is excluded from
the poll, that poll cannot a valid poll as concerns the excluded candidate.
WMUR repeated and notoriously engages in illegal activity to inure and harass Plaintiff’s
candidacy.
IV.
Legal Claim
1. The actions of Smith, Dean
and UNH have egregiously and intentionally violated New Hampshire’s Right to
Know Act.
2. The refusal by the UNH defendants
to comply was an effort to harass, burden and disrupt Plaintiff’s candidacy,
and to cover-up that taxpayer money was being used to subsidize polls from the
incumbent Democrat and Plaintiff’s primary opponents.
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays that the Court
award the following
relief:
1. Plaintiff asks that the Court
enter an emergency order directing UNH to comply with his RTK requests and
suspending the primary election until after UNH complies.
2. Plaintiff asks that the court
issue a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction barring WMUR from
conducting a “debate” until it has furnished to this Court evidence of
compliance with federal law.
3. Plaintiff asks that the Court
enjoin UNH and St. Anselm from conducting “polls” from which Plaintiff’s name
is excluded.
4. Plaintiff asks for money
damages as the defendants and the evidence may require, as well as any
additional declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to do complete
justice between the parties.
5. Plaintiff asks this Court to
reserve jurisdiction to award additional relief if the defendants should
violate the Court’s rulings and/or persist with their defamatory course of
conduct.
6. Plaintiff asks this Court for
such other relief as may be necessary and proper to do complete justice to
Plaintiff, including additional substantial money damages for the Defendants’
unlawful activity if this matter does not come to trial before the scheduled
debate in September, 2020.
COUNT TWO
[Violation of New Hampshire Constitutional Right to Run
for Office – Bill of Rights Art. 11)]
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. The New Hampshire
Constitution creates an individual “right to run” for office and that right is
a “fundamental” right, Akins v. State,
154 N.H. 67, 904 A.2d 702 (N.H.
2006).
2. The defendants’ individual and
concerted activity to disrupt and delay Plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional right
to run under the New Hampshire Constitution violates the Constitution and continues
to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional right.
V.
Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same
relief as in Count One.
Count Three
[Civil Conspiracy under New
Hampshire Common Law]
[Applicable to 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.
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 2020 primary election
and damage Plaintiff’s candidacy.
2. WMUR/Union Leader, in conjunction
and conspiracy with St. Anselm, are attempting to conduct a sham “debate” showcasing
Plaintiff’s opponents and seeking to convey the impression that Plaintiff’s
campaign does not exist.
3. Plaintiff’s primary opponents
who are being promoted by the defendants include (1) a candidate with a drunk
driving arrest and who is under current investigation for felony fraud in
Colorado and (2) a candidate with a noticeable cognitive impairment. The
efforts to promote rogue’s gallery-style candidates are an effort to direct
state, taxpayer-funded sources to the reelection of incumbent Jeanne Shaheen. Plaintiff
is being denigrated and erased precisely because he would be a serious opponent
for Shaheen.
4. The university and college
are doing what UNH has always done and what St. Anselm 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.
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.
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same
relief as in Count One.
Count Four
[Defamation by implication under
New Hampshire law]
[Applicable to 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 law recognizes
defamation by implication.
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, see e.g. Michaelis v. CBS, 119 F.3d 697, 701-702 (8th
Cir. 1997). “Evidence of an intent to avoid the truth…[is] also sufficient to satisfy
the more demanding New York Times standard…” Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton,
491 U.S. 657, 693, 109 S.Ct. 2078 (1989) and constitutes “actual malice,” Stokes
v. CBS, 25 F.Supp.2d 992, 1004 (D. Minn. 1998). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
current claims are soundly grounded in applicable law.
V.
Demand for Judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same
relief as in Count One.
COUNT FIVE
[Violation of Consumer
Protection Act (CPA), RSA ch. 358-A]
[Applicable to 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” and “Institute
of Politics” without alerting potential students to the blatant fraud in their
operations. Money is at the root of what they do. Politics is big business in
New Hampshire. It is also part of a massive nationwide political industry which
services candidates and allows individuals to leverage profit-making
opportunities from election cycle to election cycle.
2. When viewers/readers see or
hear the term “poll” they are conditioned to believe that an independent, scientific
survey has been made of all of the candidates in an election. In 2018, UNH “polled”
on eleven (11) Democrats but only two (2) Republicans, with the
explicit intent to exclude Plaintiff from UNH’s polls. In other words, the defendants’
polls, at UNH and St. Anselm, are falsely represented to be “polls” when they
are not polls at all but rather actions curated to eliminate and erase Plaintiff’s
candidacy from public awareness.
3. Prior to filing this lawsuit,
Plaintiff gave St. Anselm an opportunity to avoid being named as a defendant by
providing any exculpatory evidence. St. Anselm did not respond. The Court can
and should draw an adverse inference from both the UNH and St. Anselm operations
because of their refusals to comply with applicable law (UNH) or common sense
(St. Anselm).
4. The defendants’ behavior is
extremely deceptive and meets the “rascality” test of New Hampshire’s Consumer
Protection Act. Public awareness of defendants’ actions, demeaning and seeking
to destroy Plaintiff’s candidacy, would cause any reasonable person to believe
that the defendants are bald-faced liars and phonies. The defendants’ behavior
is therefore unlawful under the rascality test, ACAS v. Hobert, 155 N.H. 381, 923 A.2d 1076, 1094 (N.H.
2007). They are exactly what President Trump calls them, “fake news.”
V.
Demand for judgment
Plaintiff prays for the same
relief as in Count One.
DATED: August 26, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Law
Pro Se
