Martin v Kimball Complaint

8/7/2019 Martin v Kimball Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/martin-v-kimball-complaint 1/34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OFN.H.

FILED

201! MAR 21 A S : 2

ANDY MARTIN,

P l a i n t i f f ,

v s .

JACK KIMBALL,

JENNIFER HORN,

CHRISTINE BARATTA,

TEMPLE BETH JACOB,

ROBIN NAFSHI,WILLIAM M. GARDNER,

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC . ,

"GAMALIEL." a/k/a/ "JOHN DOE'

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONEY DAMAGES

Preliminary Statement

Plaintiff has devoted a substantial part of his

professional life to exposing and opposing fraud and corruption

in the American judicial system and legal profession, both

locally in Chicago and Illinois, and nationally in Washington.

For his successful efforts to expose corruption, Plaintiff

has usually been relentlessly vilified by attorneys, law firms

and federal and state judges. Judges and attorneys have falsely

accused Plaintiff of "anti-Semitism" as one part of their

demonization campaign to undermine Plaintiff's anti-corruption

investigations.

Case 1:11-cv-00129-PB Document 1-1 Filed 03/21/11 Page 1 of 34



2

Preparing this complaint has not been an easy venture. To

rebut the lies, more lies and big lies of the defendants herein,

Plaintiff had had to dig into judicial and political archives.

In addition, the legal system does not favor claims by

public officials who are the target of disinformation or smear

campaigns. Nevertheless, after a due and diligent search of the

applicable law in this district and this circuit. Plaintiff

respectfully submits that this complaint meets the test required

to call for a trial by jury on the issues submitted for

resolution.

Plaintiff's due diligence into applicable law began with

the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Smith, 472

U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 2787 (1985) in which the court held that

there is no immunity to smear public officials with lies.

Plaintiff also visited Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107, 206

A.2d 239 (NH 1964), Wentworth-Douglas v. Young & Novis,

F.Supp.2d (Slip op. 2/4/11 D.N.H. 2011), Levesque v.

Doocy, 560 F.3rd 82 91st Cir. 2009), Howard v. Antilla, 294

F.3rd 244 91st Cir. 2002), and Harte-Hanks v. Connaughton, 491

U. S. 657, 109 S. Ct. 2678 (1989), as part of his research in

preparing this lawsuit.




3

COUNT ONE

[42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3)]

1. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND JURY DEMAND

A. This Court had both "Federal Question" (28 U.S. C.

§ 1331), "Civil Rights" jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1343) and

"Diversity" jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332); the amount in

controversy, exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $75,000.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois and all

defendants except Wikimedia and Gamaliel are citizens of New

Hampshire. Wikimedia is a citizen of California and on

information and belief Gamaliel is a citizen of Florida.

B. Venue is proper in the District of New Hampshire.

C. Plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all factual

issues triable to a jury.

D. Plaintiff is indisputably a public figure and must

meet the heightened test for "false light" claims against the

defendants. Plaintiff is not, however, required to meet a

heightened test to proffer his federal civil rights claims

against the defendants.




4

2. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1

A. The Parties

a. Plaintiff Andy Martin is a nationally known

Illinois corruption-fighter with a record of public integrity

spanning parts of six decades and both national and local anti-

corruption activity. Plaintiff is best known as the founding

father of the anti-Obama "Birther" movement.

b. Defendant Jack Kimball is the Chairman of the

New Hampshire republican Party. Kimball, in concert, conspiracy

and combination with defendants Horn and Baratta has sought to

prevent any New Hampshire Republicans from listening to

Plaintiff or judging for themselves Plaintiff's qualifications

as a presidential candidate. Kimball and his associates are

conducting an ongoing smear campaign against Plaintiff.

c. Defendant Jennifer Horn is an associate,

"adviser" and co-conspirator of Kimball. Horn, at the apparent

behest of Kimball, also engaged in her own vicious smear

campaign against Plaintiff, going on a local radio station to

attack Plaintiff for criticizing Barack Obama--the very same

actions that are engaged in by other, competing, presidential

candidates.

1In order to support the factual allegations of this Complaint,

Plaintiff attaches considerable detail in the way of supporting

documentation. However, rather than bind the evidentiary

material to the Complaint itself. Plaintiff has submitted

exhibits to the Complaint as part of a separately bound

Appendix. The Appendix is incorporated by reference in the

allegations of the Complaint itself.




5

d. Defendant Christine Baratta is an agent,

coconspirator and employee of Kimball and helped Kimball

disseminate his false accusations and allegations against

Plaintiff to media and other individuals.

e. Although Defendant Temple Beth Jacob is named

as a defendant herein with the greatest reluctance, this

religious organization has served as a political base or been

used as a headquarters and smear operation of defendant Nafshi

and her actions on behalf of Barack Obama and his supporters.

f. Defendant Robin Nafshi is a "radical lesbian

rabbi" who threatened Nazi storm trooper-style attacks on

Plaintiff's speech in Deering, New Hampshire as a way of

furthering the agenda of Barack Obama to demonize Plaintiff and

to harass Plaintiff's political activity. It appears Nafshi was

acting at the behest of Obama operatives.

g. Defendant William Gardner is the Secretary of

State of the State of New Hampshire. Gardner is joined solely in

his official capacity as Secretary and no allegations of

misconduct are proffered against Gardner who is by all

appearances an exemplary public servant.

h. Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, inc. is a tax-

exempt organization that operates in part as an unlawful

facilitator of Barack Obama's dirty tricks operation.

i. Defendant "Gamaliel," a/k/a/ John Doe is

associated with Wikimedia. Gamaliel is a Democratic Party/Barack




6

Obama operative (see Exhibit A) and controls access to the lies

and distortions disseminated by Obama through Wikimedia about

Plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff as a Young Law Student, civil rightsadvocate and Corruption Fighter

a. While he was still a young law student at the

University of Illinois College of Law, Plaintiff assisted

reporters at the Chicago Daily News who were exposing two

corrupt Illinois Supreme Court justices. Justices Klingbiel and

Solfisburg were forced to resign from the Court. Prior to

receiving his Juris Doctor diploma, Plaintiff was told by the U

of I College of Law's Librarian, D. Dean Willard, that the

Supreme Court was going to retaliate against Plaintiff for his

corruption-fighting activity and his role in the Klingbiel-

Solfisburg bank stock scandal.

b. After Plaintiff passed the bar examination the

Illinois Supreme Court used its local appointees in Champaign

County to launch a smear-and-harassment campaign against

Plaintiff, initiating a three year "investigation" of Plaintiff,

who was then 24 years old. Among the Supreme Court's dirty

tricks was to attempt to have Plaintiff, who had received an

Honorable Discharge, redrafted as part of the continuing

strategy to delay his admission to the bar. The Supreme Court

then created one of the great "lies" of judicial history when it

souaht to Dortrav a 60—second draft interview as a




7

"psychological evaluation" of plaintiff who has never to this

day been evaluated by any psychologist at any time in his life.

c. Plaintiff nevertheless continued his anti-

corruption activities, launching the "civil RICO" revolution by

targeting corrupt Chicago politicians with RICO allegations and

laying the foundation for Operation Greylord, an independent

federal prosecution that sent judges, lawyers and court

officials to federal prison. (See www.AndyMartin.com for a

detailed biography.)

d. In 1980, corrupt Illinois judges launched yet

another round of attacks on plaintiff, proffering false charges

and denying him legal counsel in what was later admitted to be a

sham federal trial. It was during the period of this sham

federal litigation in Illinois that Plaintiff encountered the

bankruptcy thieves who operated in Connecticut.

C. The Bankruptcy Ring in Connecticut

a. Although Plaintiff had not lived in

Connecticut since 1963, he found himself in Chicago while

bankruptcy crooks in Connecticut seized his New Haven radio

station (a scene right out of modern Chavez-ruled Venezuela or

Soviet-era Cold War satellite nations).

b. In a 1978 interview (i.e. prior to the 1980

shenanigans in Illinois), Plaintiff had met with Peter Dorsey.

Dorsey later became a U. S. District Judge. Dorsey characterized

the local bankruptcy bench and bar with total contempt as "Ali


http://www.andymartin.com/

http://www.andymartin.com/



8

Baba and the forty thieves.2" There were no Arab members of the

bankruptcy bench or bar.

c. For the past three quarters of a century,

since William 0. Douglas (later Justice Douglas of the U. S.

Supreme Court) attacked the Bankruptcy Ring in 1937, bankruptcy

fraud and the collective action of bankruptcy court operators

has been a known factor.3 A major target of the Bankruptcy Reform

Act of 1978 was in fact the "Bankruptcy Ring," (see Exhibit B). 4

d. The Connecticut Bankruptcy Ring, led by

Bankruptcy Judges Shiff and Krechevsky, and Bankruptcy court

thieves Irving Perlmutter, Daniel Meister, Richard Coan and

Richard Belford, seized plaintiff's property and sought to steal

his assets while he was kept away from Connecticut by Krechevsky

and other corrupt Connecticut federal officials including

coconspirator Alan Nevas.

, e. In reality. Plaintiff was the victim of two

independent but eventually interrelated criminal schemes,

initially by organized crime elements within the judicial system

in Chicago, and later by the Connecticut Bankruptcy Ring which

sought to profit from the attacks against Plaintiff in Illinois

by looting his property in Connecticut.

2Plaintiff's interview with private attorney Peter Dorsey before

Dorsey became a judge.3 See Report on the Study and Investigation... William 0. Douglas,

U.S. G.P.O. (1937) .4 H. Rept. 95-595 at pp. 95-96 (Exhibit B). See also In Re

Philadelphia Mortgage Trust, 930 F.2d 306, 309 (3rd Cir. 1991).




9

f. It was during this turbulent period that

Plaintiff drafted the unfortunate pleadings that have become

legendary because of the ceaseless efforts at propagandaization

by Plaintiff's political and judicial enemies. Casting about for

a legal theory to attack the Bankruptcy Ring, plaintiff drafted

a "religious discrimination" lawsuit containing controversial

pleading allegations having no connection to any personal

beliefs or episodes in Plaintiff's personal history prior to the

bankruptcy imbroglio.

g. If Plaintiff had had the benefit of the

insight of Shaare Tefila v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615, 107 S. Ct. 2019

(1987) in 1983, his complaint against the Ring would have been

considerably more muted. Nevertheless working with what he had,

Plaintiff attempted to plead a religious discrimination case.

h. Ironically and sadly, due to a long history

of bigotry and anti-Semitism in the judicial system, the term

"Bankruptcy Ring" came to have ethnic overtones; bankruptcy was

one of the few areas where victims of anti-Semitism could

practice law.

D. "Cocaine Cabranes" and "The Lawsuit"

a. Plaintiff's unfortunate lawsuit ended up on

the calendar of U. S. District Judge Jose "Cocaine" Cabranes.

Until he was removed sub silento by the Second Circuit, Judge

Cabranes manifested an obsession with Plaintiff. After Cabranes

attacked Plaintiff, Plaintiff responded by investigating




10

Cabranes and Cabranes' disturbed personal life. Plaintiff

incurred Cabranes' ire by exposing the judge as a drug addict

and crook.

b. To underscore the absurd and extreme level of

corruption directed at Plaintiff by Cabranes' sympathizers on

the Second Circuit, circuit judges made light of the fact that

Cabranes' personal divorce lawyer was appearing as counsel in

Plaintiff's own litigation. How could Cabranes be neutral and

detached in hearing arguments proffered against Plaintiff by

Cabranes' own personal attorney?

c. The firestorm triggered by the combination of

Plaintiff's incendiary allegations and Cabranes' cocaine abuse

led to a major and continuing miscarriage of justice in the

Connecticut federal court. Plaintiff's political enemies have

been trying to profit from that unfortunate situation for the

past third of a century.

d. Had the Shaare Tefila opinion been available

to Plaintiff when he drafted his controversial Complaint, his

allegations would have been more muted and succinct.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff's controversial 1983 Complaint was still

an obscure document when it was originally filed. The Complaint

would have remained an obscure document if Cabranes and his

associates on the Second Circuit had not taken the extraordinary

step of publishing the lawsuit in permanent law books. In

decades of reading federal case law, Plaintiff cannot recollect




11

a similar complaint being so gratuitously circulated by federal

judges through verbatim publication in a court opinion.

e. At the core of the original controversy, and

central to this lawsuit almost thirty years later, is the role

of "judicial privilege" and the role pleadings play in the

judicial process.

f. Claims filed in a lawsuit are covered by an

absolute privilege because pleaders often make arguments to

extend or modify legal principles, or allege matters where all

the facts are unknown (which is why we have pre-trial

discovery). It is basic that an attorney or pleader does not

ratify as his own personal beliefs every claim submitted in a

pleading. Pleadings are an attempt to provide a statement of the

case that presents a plausible controversy. Ultimately, the

legal claim (religious discrimination) articulated by Plaintiff

in 1983 was endorsed in the unrelated decision of Shaare Tefila.

For the purposes of alleging civil rights violations or

conspiracies, "racial" categorizations that existed in the

Nineteenth Century were the appropriate measure.

g. It is axiomatic that merely because an

advocate seeks to create a legal dispute in no way attributes

the pleadings to the advocate's personal life or beliefs. In

fact. Plaintiff grew up in a philo-Semitic household and he was

tutored on the Holocaust at a time when other boys were studying

baseball, at the feet of noted scholar and Holocaust refugee




12

Sigmund Neumann of Wesleyan University. Plaintiff had no more

desire to create a "holy war" in 1983 than he does in 2011; the

firestorm was entirely created by Cocaine Cabranes' exaggerated

and irrational reaction to what should have been seen and

disposed of as an unfortunately excessively colorful pro se

complaint and nothing more.

h. Adding to the absurd criminality and

harassment orchestrated by Judge Cabranes, Plaintiff's

attorneys, who were acting pro bono, were advised by another

federal judge that Cabranes was scheming to have them arrested

to intimidate and discourage the lawyers from representing

Plaintiff. Obviously, a federal judge who is scheming to arrest

attorneys that are representing a client in good faith is under

the influence of de facto insanity, in Cabranes' instance most

likely due to his apparent cocaine dependency.

i. Plaintiff continues to believe that Cabranes

is an evil actor. No doubt Cabranes and his colleagues return

the favor. Both sides (Plaintiff and Cabranes and his

associates) inflicted appalling injuries on each other without

any need to do so. The unfortunate series of episodes was

triggered solely by Cabranes' unprovoked attacks on Plaintiff

and Cabranes' support for the activity of the local Bankruptcy

Ring.

j. Although Judge Cabranes sought to demonize




13

Plaintiff, even the Chicago federal bench is not bereft of

honest and honorable judges who respect and support Plaintiff's

corruption-fighting efforts. Some of them refused to join in the

judicial attacks on Plaintiff. Judge James Parsons (see Exhibit

C) who was the "dean" of African-American federal judges in

Chicago, expressed on the record his highest respect and regard

for Plaintiff s corruption-fighting activity and personal

integrity. What is never disclosed by the media or plaintiff's

opponents is that Plaintiff enjoyed and continues to enjoy

considerable respect because he sacrificed his personal career

to the cause of ridding the judicial system of crooks and petty

tyrants.

E. Prior Perlmutter litigation

a. The bogus bankruptcy litigation initiated by

Plaintiff's political and judicial adversaries went on for over

a decade in Connecticut. During this period Irving Perlmutter

also sought to smear Plaintiff at the Federal Election

Commission by—no surprise-alleging Plaintiff was anti-Semitic.5

b. While Plaintiff obviously cannot litigate

every false accusation of anti-Semitism, he does so in this 2011

5 The existence of a bogus campaign committee allegedly created

by Plaintiff but no doubt created by Plaintiff's adversaries to

smear him, has been the topic of sworn testimony by Plaintiff in

a 1996 lawsuit in which Plaintiff denied, under oath and cross-

examination, any links to the alleged committee or sundry

activity. Nevertheless, the canard of the bogus campaign

committee continues to live because it serves the malignant

interests of Plaintiff's political adversaries to perpetuate the




14

lawsuit to show that the actions of Kimball, Horn and Baratta

are objectively false, malicious and outrageous.

F. The 2008 Presidential Campaign

a. Because he is able to draw on worldwide

sources of information. Plaintiff was intrigued in 2004 by the

so-called "Kenyan-American" politician who was being promoted by

the Illinois Democratic Party. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Barack

Obama was to have a transformative impact on Plaintiff's life.

b. Plaintiff wrote his first article in 2004,

exposing Obama's familial and religious claims to largely be a

sham. Obama did not come from a "poor family in Kenya." In

reality, Obama's putative his father was the scion of a wealthy

and well-educated family. Obama's putative Kenyan family was

Muslim. Indeed, Obama's putative father had been buried in a

Muslim ceremony.

c. Since 2004, the pro-Obama media from the New

York Times to lesser lights on the Internet have sought to

portray Obama's religious heritage, as researched and presented

by Plaintiff, as mere "rumors." Obama's religious history is not

a "rumor." It is an objective fact that Obama was raised for

several years in a Muslim family in Indonesia and that all of

his Kenyan "relatives" were either Muslims or former Muslims.

There is also considerable circumstantial evidence that Obama

played a "Muslim card" in securing admission to Occidental

Colleae and possibly other universities.




15

d. Plaintiff wrote the first story questioning

whether Obama met the heightened constitutional standard of

being a "Natural Born Citizen." Plaintiff is universally

credited with creating the "Birther" phenomenon which continues

to expand and propagate seven years after Plaintiff first

exposed Obama as a poseur. Mainstream media have been flummoxed

by the way ordinary Americans continue to doubt Obama's origins

and loyalties; media have tabbed these Americans as "Birthers."

While the number of persons holding Birther views cannot be

established with precision, based on "liberal" polls it is safe

to predict that over 100 million Americans harbor some form of

doubts about Obama's origins, loyalties and religion.

e. Plaintiff was apparently the first person to

predict on national (cable) television that Obama would pursue a

"socialist" agenda in the White House. The "socialist"

allegation has since become a pervasive trope of Republican

Party activists.

f. Plaintiff does not know when precisely the

bogus Wikimedia "biography" of Plaintiff was fabricated at the

instigation of Obama operatives, and placed on the Internet by

Obama supporters at Wikimedia. On information and belief the

bogus biography of Plaintiff surfaced some time in 2007-2008.

g. On Monday October 6, 2008, Plaintiff "came

under strong attack from liberals on Monday" (see Exhibit D)

after appearincr on a Sundav evenina edition of the Fox News




16

program "Hannity's America." Liberals accused Hannity of

"building his show" around Plaintiff's anti-Obama research and

allegations.

h. It is clear from the initial New York Times

article at the inception of the Fox News controversy (Exhibit D)

that Plaintiff denied both general anti-Semitic views and

specifically denied any anti-Semitic activity. Kimball & Co.

have never disclosed these denials in disseminating their lies

about Plaintiff.

i. Despite massive investigative efforts by both

Obama dirty tricksters and the New York Times, no one has ever

found anything in the way of anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic

activity on the part of Plaintiff. The canard that Plaintiff is

an anti-Semite rests solely on the 1983 lawsuit 28 years ago and

the bogus campaign committee apparently created by persons

associated with the Bankruptcy Ring.

j. It is critical to "start at the beginning" and

focus on Exhibit D for two reasons: First, it is clear that

"liberals" were politically attacking Plaintiff. The first New

York Times story candidly makes that admission. "Liberals" in

October, 2008 meant the Obama campaign team and its "mud

merchants." Second, Plaintiff has denied the malicious

allegations made against him from their inception.

Parenthetically, Plaintiff s accusations in the Hannity program




17

all proved to be true once Obama gained control of the White

House.

k. Although Plaintiff has been falsely accused of

many things in his long life, "whispering" is perhaps one of the

most absurd accusations. Chicago Public Radio has called

Plaintiff a "boisterous Internet activist." Nevertheless,

obviously egged on by the Obama dirty tricks operation at the

highest levels of Obama's presidential campaign team, the New

York Times attempted to manufacture an aura of mystery about

Plaintiff s anti-Obama activity, this time on the front page of

the New York Times, alleging that Plaintiff had been

"whispering" about Obama, see Exhibit E. The Times elevated

Plaintiff from a "secondary character" to a major target of

Obama's smear operators in the closing days of the 2008

presidential election.

1. That Republican Party operatives considered

Plaintiff to be a credible source can be gleaned from the fact

that Plaintiff s "Hannity" comments found their way into

"robocalls" against Obama, see Exhibit F. Once again the New

York Times tried to misrepresent the truth by falsely reporting

and suggesting that Plaintiff had a "history of anti-Semitic

statements" when Plaintiff s only involvement with allegations

of bigotry had come in a privileged legal pleading, see Exhibit

F, almost thirty years ago. The Times was relentlessly trying to

mislead its audience and smear the nascent Birther movement.




18

m. Obama was trying to use false accusations of

accusations of anti-Semitism against Plaintiff to demonize not

only Plaintiff personally but also the entire, growing "Birther

movement." Obama's smear attacks were orchestrated and

coordinated at the highest levels of the Obama campaign, see

Exhibit G.

n. Obama continues to smear Plaintiff as part of

the ongoing dirty tricks operation connected to Obama's expected

2012 reelection campaign. When Plaintiff conducted an "Obama

Conference" in Washington, DC in 2009, Obama operatives

subsequently managed to steal the tape of the conference and

unlawfully used excerpts from Plaintiff's tape to attack him on

the Internet. It never ends.

o. In due course the unlawful and incestuous

relationship between Obama operatives and the tax-exempt

Wikimedia/Wikipedia operation also came to light. "Wikimedia" is

really two separate operations. Part of Wikipedia, issued by

Wikimedia, provides generally objective information about

noncontroversial topics and allows "editing" of that information

as a ruse to instill public confidence. Wikipedia also has a

second, and more sinister, political dirty tricks operation that

is controlled behind-the-scenes by die-hard Obama protagonists

such as defendant "Gamaliel" and his supervisors. These

operatives protect Obama from objective discussion on Wikipedia

^nd demoni7p and smear Obama' s ODDonents such as Plaintiff




19

o. Plaintiff's supporters have tried to edit

Wikipedia to insert balanced factual information, but Gamaliel

and his pro-Obama superiors have prevented any discussion or

correction of the facts involving plaintiff. Instead, Wikimedia

is an anti-truth, anti-fact and pro-Obama smear operation which

is unlawfully taxpayer-subsidized.

p. Wikimedia attempts to undermine Plaintiff by

recruiting Republican dupes such as Kimball, Horn and Baratta to

do the liberals' dirty work.

G. The presidential announcement and Contoocook Valley

a. Plaintiff has deep family roots in New

Hampshire. His mother was born in Manchester and graduated from

Central High and the University of New Hampshire. His

grandparents immigrated to New Hampshire where they owned a

small business in Manchester. They are buried in Manchester,

creating an eternal link to the city. Plaintiff's grandmother

was the founder of one of Manchester's Greek Orthodox churches.

Plaintiff spent many childhood summers at Hampton Beach.

b. As a result of the Christmas blizzard of 2010

Plaintiff decided to announce his presidential candidacy in

Concord, New Hampshire, see Exhibit H. The Los Angeles Times

made due mention of the announcement.6

6 With all due respect. Plaintiff is not a self-proclaimed

"king." The "regal" appellation was provided by liberal




20

c. After Plaintiff announced his candidacy,

Plaintiff was contacted by JP Marzullo of the Contoocook Valley

Republicans. They arranged for Plaintiff to speak before

Marzullo's group on February 21, 2011 ("President's Day").

d. Plaintiff's speech was scheduled for a public

space, the Deering Town Hall. Marzullo and Plaintiff made

extensive preparations for Plaintiff's visit. During these

preparations Plaintiff and Marzullo discussed Obama's obsession

with smearing Plaintiff and undermining the Birther movement.

e. Plaintiff mentioned the 2008 New York Times

article to Marzullo. Plaintiff views the New York Times' focus

on him as an endorsement of the fact that Plaintiff was having a

major impact on the 2008 presidential election "below the radar"

of the liberal media's awareness, much as Plaintiff in 2011 is

again influencing the 2012 presidential primaries. Why,

otherwise, would Times editors have featured Plaintiff on Page

One of the Times on October 13, 2008?

f. The front page of the Times is reserved for

the world's most important personages and events.7

7Each day the editors of the New York Times assemble at 4:00

P.M. to determine the most important news in the world.

Obviously, on October 12, 2008 Plaintiff was among the top

stories in the world, see Exhibits E and I. Obama and the Times

were desperate to stamp out the Birther movement by demonizing

the founding father. The effort failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/nyreqion/02rooms.html






21

H. Kimball, Horn and Baratta trigger a circus

a. Some time on February 18, 2011 defendant

Nafshi contacted JP Marzullo and told him she was planning to

enter the Deering Town Hall to stage a demonstration and disrupt

Plaintiffs speech.

b. Marzullo advised Plaintiff by telephone of

Nafshi's threats. Plaintiff told Marzullo that if there was a

potential threat to public order Plaintiff would be happy to

cancel the speech. Plaintiff had no desire to endanger anyone or

embarrass the party. Marzullo said "no," he was not intimidated

by Nafshi. Marzullo wanted the event to go forward as planned

and scheduled. Marzullo said he planned to alert the 2-person

Deering Town Police force to avoid any unpleasantness and to

ensure that Nafshi's protest remained outdoors.

c. Plaintiff promptly issued a news release on

the 18th welcoming Nafshi and her people to demonstrate outside

the Town Hall. Plaintiff has never spoken to Marzullo since

their friendly phone call on February 18th.

d. Nafshi apparently threatened Kimball, who

turned to Horn and Baratta for advice. Both Horn and Baratta are

totally unqualified to deal with political demonstrations. Horn

believes she is a talk radio "shock jock" and apparently

measures her effectiveness by the stridency of her right-wing

rhetoric. Baratta has "production" experience but no major

market political experience.




22

e. The Saturday, February 19th Concord Monitor

quoted Nafshi saying she had employed the email resources of

Temple Beth Jacob to organize her political demonstration

against Plaintiff. Nafshi's use of the resources of a tax-exempt

religious organization to orchestrate a political demonstration

was a clear violation of federal law.

f. Kimball, Horn and Baratta issued a statement

later on February 19th falsely accusing Plaintiff of "anti-

Semitic statements" and "virulent, anti-Semitic views" (see

Exhibit J) without disclosing either the age of the claims on

which these accusations were based or Plaintiff's denials.

g. Nowhere did Kimball & Co disclose that these

claims were sourced on a single thirty year-old lawsuit or that

Plaintiff had denied any such views. Kimball accused Plaintiff

of "hate" (Exhibit J) even though it is obvious that a victim of

crime, as Plaintiff was in 1983, would fight back vehemently

against his attackers. There is no "hate" in self-defense. At no

time has Plaintiff ever expressed any "hate."

h. Kimball's attacks were a complete fabrication

because (i) they sought to attribute current views to Plaintiff

and they failed to disclose that Kimball was making his claims

based on a thirty year-old lawsuit that had been filed because

Plaintiff was the victim, not perpetrator, of a crime. Kimball

"fully rejected Mr. Martin's statement," again without

disclosing Kimball was "rejecting" a "statement" that was nearly




23

thirty years old in a privileged legal pleading, not any

"statement" ever made or authored by Plaintiff outside a

courthouse.

i. In sum and substance, Kimball, who has

virtually no political or media experience, fell into a trap set

by Nafshi on behalf of Barack Obama. At no time did Kimball,

Horn or Baratta make any effort to contact Plaintiff.

j. Kimball, Horn and Baratta also prepared a

statement for Marzullo to issue denouncing Plaintiff. On

information and belief Marzullo had no role in preparing or

issuing the denunciation.

I. Kimball's climate of fear and intimidation; the

Presidential Campaign - competitive and

now unbalanced

a. Running for office is a federally protected

activity, 18 U.S.C. § 245.

b. Kimball and his associates are preventing

Plaintiff from competing against his primary opponents and

violating Plaintiff's federally protected rights.

J. Kimball's continuing harassment

a. Kimball and his confederates are continuing

to try to prevent Plaintiff from speaking to New Hampshire

Republican groups under threat of retaliation or harassment from

Kimball and his thugs to any group or committee allows Plaintiff

to speak.




24

b. Kimball's original February 19th attack on

Plaintiff (Exhibit J) has now been moved to a leading position

on Kimball's misused and abused www.NHGOP.org web site as a

continuing front-page attack on Plaintiff, see Exhibit K.

c. Ironically, it was Kimball's own inner circle

that engaged in anti-Semitic tactics. Kimball used someone with

intimate knowledge of Kimball's behind-the-scenes machinations,

Silas de Goute, to threaten Plaintiff with ethnic attorneys as a

"no expense" defense, see Exhibit L. Kimball's use of the

ethnicity of his potential counsel in this lawsuit was crudely

anti-Semitic, although Kimball may be too ignorant to perceive

real anti-Semitism when he himself engages in such inappropriate

behavior.

K. Wikimedia adds fuel to the fire

a. "Gamaliel" and his supervisors continue to

spin their web of deception and disinformation against

Plaintiff. Although Gamaliel lists Plaintiff as a presidential

candidate, the Wikipedia list of presidential candidates does

not. Obviously, the political controllers at Wikipedia have

selective information agendas.

b. Wikipedia continues to target innocent

Internet users with the fraudulent claim that its articles are

neutral and that facts can be edited/inserted to remove

imbalances or inaccuracies. That is simply not the case with


http://www.nhgop.org/

http://www.nhgop.org/



25

"locked" Wikipedia articles such as those involving Obama or

Plaintiff.

L. New Hampshire law violates the U. S. Constitution

a. Because defendants Kimball, Horn and Baratta

have attacked Plaintiff and sought to silence his campaign, they

have forced Plaintiff to seek to eliminate New Hampshire's

"first-in-the-nation presidential primary." See NH Statutes §

653:9, Exhibit M.

b. Obviously, Plaintiff would prefer to

participate in a New Hampshire primary that is conducted on a

fair and level playing field. But no candidate can afford to

allow an "election" in which he is a candidate to be conducted

by people who have excluded him from meaningful participation in

the electoral process.

c. Kimball, Horn and Baratta's tactics make

an honest New Hampshire primary impossible at this time.

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to declare the primary

unconstitutional so that other states may compete for a first-

in-the-nation presidential primary that is a genuinely fair and

free election.

d. New Hampshire state law appears to violate the

Commerce Clause. Section 653:9 seeks to prevent any other state

from conducting an election and creates an endless merry-go-

ground in which defendant Gardner is compelled to relentlessly

leapfrocr everv other state.




26

e. It is axiomatic that the first primary has

conferred a substantial Interstate Commerce advantage on New

Hampshire in the past.

f. Defendant Gardner, who is sued solely in his

official capacity, is compelled by statute to create an

Interstate Commerce advantage for his state at the expense of

forty-nine other states. As such Section 653:9 violates the

Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause as well as possibly

other provisions of the U. S. Constitution.

M. Plaintiff as the "good friend"

of a pro-Israel activist

a. One of Plaintiff's closest friends died

recently. During his lifetime, Plaintiff's friend gave millions

of dollars to persons and organizations in the State of Israel.

Plaintiff's friend read the New York Times smears against

Plaintiff, and rejected them. A thirty year-old lawsuit was no

basis to make current allegations of anti-Semitism or a

"history" of anti-Semitism.

b. Plaintiff's friend left approximately $50

million to pro-Israel charities and referred to Plaintiff in his

will as a "good friend" with a bequest. Would someone who knew

Plaintiff well and left $50 million to pro-Israel charities have

referred to Plaintiff as a "good friend" or left Plaintiff a

bequest if the testator believed there was any basis to the

allegations of anti-Semitism?




27

3. LEGAL CLAIM

A. Federal law protects political activity, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1985 (3), 18 U.S.C. § 245 (and see 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (a) for

this Court's empowerment to blend these federal laws as well as

New Hampshire common law to protect Plaintiff s rights as a

presidential candidate).

B. In her radio appearance denouncing Plaintiff Horn

went so far as to suggest that Plaintiff could be silenced

because he had incurred the ire of Obama and Obama's supporters

(!) •

C. Plaintiff was scheduled to speak on February 21st

in a public building, to a meeting that was open to the public,

when he was silenced by Kimball, Horn and Baratta and their

confederates-in-arms on the basis of Nafshi's false claims and

misrepresentations.

D. It is difficult to conceive of a more irrational or

egregious abuse of free speech or overreaching by a political

party official, particularly in New Hampshire, a state with a

robust history of free speech and open debate.

E. One of the underlying lies of the controversy

giving rise to this lawsuit is the way inexperienced and

seemingly incompetent Republican Party "leaders" have been used

and manipulated by extreme elements of the Obama Democratic

Party to attack one of Obama's most effective critics

(Plaintiff). Kimball, Horn and Baratta have been smearing




28

Plaintiff by regurgitating liberal attacks and falsely seeking

to portray Plaintiff as someone who harbors inappropriate views

based on a stale, thirty year-old lawsuit, when it is clear from

Exhibit L that it is Kimball's own inner circle that manifests

anti-Semitism.

4. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT

A. Plaintiff demands all equitable and legal relief to

which he may be entitled after a jury trial, including any

preliminary and permanent injunctive relief which may be

necessary.

B. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment that the

defendants individually and collectively have violated

Plaintiff's constitutional and common law rights, including but

not limited to a declaratory judgment that (i) the use of

thirty-old lawsuits to impute current or active views to an

individual is per se misleading and that (ii) claims made in

legal pleadings are privileged precisely because they may not be

used to attribute personal beliefs to an individual or his or

her counsel.

C. Plaintiff demands money damages against each

individual defendant except defendant Gardner in the amount of

$100,000.00.




29

COUNT TWO

[42 U.S.C. § 1981]

Plaintiff repeats and realleges as similarly numbered

paragraphs of this Count, M 1-2 of Count One, and further

alleges:

3. LEGAL CLAIM

A. Section 1981 (c) protects Plaintiff against

nongovernmental harassment by the defendants.

B. In violation of § 1981 (a),(c) Plaintiff is being

denied the same rights as other presidential candidates in New

Hampshire to campaign for office and seek employment.

C. Defendants' warped scheme (in which many

incompetent Republicans such as Kimball, Horn and Baratta are

Democratic Party dupes) is designed to ensure the reelection

Barack Obama.

D. In the case of Kimball, Horn and Baratta these

defendants are energized by their own incompetence, ignorance

and misplaced self-righteousness. They are abusing the offices

or informal advisory roles they hold in the New Hampshire

Republican Party.

E. Kimball, who campaigned as an advocate for an open

party, had decided to muzzle Plaintiff as Kimball's first

official controversy.

V




30

F. New Hampshire Republicans have a history of open,

vigorous and occasionally raucous presidential primary

elections.

G. The idea that Obama's New Hampshire activists and

supporters now enjoy a "heckler's veto" over Republican Party

presidential activity is an embarrassment to every New Hampshire

Republican.





necessary.









her counsel.



^inn nnn nn




31

COUNT THREE

[INVASION OF PRIVACY - FALSE LIGHT]


paragraphs of this Count, M 1-2 of Count One, and further

alleges:

3. LEGAL CLAIM

A. All of the defendants except Gardner have sought to

portray Plaintiff in a false light as a current anti-Semite and

person who holdj; "hate" views.

B. These lies are published with actual knowledge and

notice of their falsity, and with reckless disregard for the

truth in order to interfere with Plaintiff s federally-protected

activity under 18 U.S.C. §245.

C. Defendant "Gamaliel" is an admitted Democratic

Party operative and supporter of Barack Obama, see Exhibit A.

How can any rational person support or endorse allowing an Obama

supporter to "edit" or "control" a supposedly "impartial"

profile of Obama's biggest Republican Party critic? The utter

absurdity, arrogance and total corruption of

Wikimedia/Wikipedia' s scam is crystallized by Exhibit A and

Gamaliel's efforts to smear and destroy Plaintiff's good name.

D. The sheer stupidity of Kimball's, Horn's and

Baratta's attacks on Plaintiff, all based on the transparently

malignant allegations of Obama and his fellow travelers, also

lay bare that New Hampshire Republicans made a grave mistake




32

when they placed Kimball in control of the Republican Party.

Kimball is not ready for "any" time, let alone "prime time."

E. People such as Kimball, Horn and Baratta who throw

mud sometimes get mud back. As this lawsuit was being prepared,

Plaintiff received an anonymous smear against defendant Baratta:

The same Christine Baratta that was on AFDC cash welfare for a decade in Lowell 1989-1997. How didshe get this job? doesn't she work for a guy who rails against welfare?http://www.concordmonitor.com/users/quvfawkes603

E. Kimball, Horn and Baratta ignored the fact that

once they tried to destroy Plaintiff, their own enemies would

inevitably come to the aid of the Plaintiff by trying to destroy

Kimball, Horn and Baratta. While it is demonstrably not the

purpose of a civil action to "dish dirt" about the defendants,

once defendants attacked Plaintiff on the basis of thirty year-

old accusations it was/is inevitable that Kimball, Horn and

Baratta would find their own lives placed under a similar thirty

year-old microscope.





necessary.



Plaintiffs constitutional and common law rights, including but



http://www.concordmonitor.com/users/quvfawkes603

http://www.concordmonitor.com/users/quvfawkes603



33





her counsel.



$100,000.00.

COUNT FOUR

[COMMERCE CLAUSE/42 U.S.C. § 1988 (A)]


paragraphs of this Count, if 1-2 of Count One, and further

alleges:

3. LEGAL CLAIM

A. Section 653:9 of New Hampshire law violates the

Commerce Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

B. Section 653:9 of New Hampshire law seeks to confer,

as a matter of law, a competitive advantage on New Hampshire

against all other states. The law violates federalism.

C. Section 653:9 is unconstitutional.







34


necessary.






individual is per se misleading; that (ii) claims made in legal

pleadings are privileged precisely because they may not be used

to attribute personal beliefs to an individual or his or her

counsel and that (iii) § 653:9 is unconstitutional.



$100,000.00.

DATED: March 16, 2011

Respectf ulJ -STrBfrd-tted,

ANDY MARTIN

NATIONAL LITIGATION CENTER

P. 0. Box 1851

New York, NY 10150-1851

Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639

Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639

E-mail: AndyMart20@aol com (text only)


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Martin v Kimball Complaint