U.S. political parties, especially smaller parties, seem prone to fierce intra-party disputes. Ballot Access News is fundamentally a blog about election law as it relates to minor parties and independent candidates. BAN also carries news about the activities of minor parties and independent presidential candidates, especially news related to their attempts to get on ballots. Readers of blogs about this subject are, of course, also interested in intra-party disputes. Sometimes a blog item at this cite is a venue for people on both sides of an intra-party dispute to use the comments section to get their viewpoint across. That is fine. Unfortunately, some of the comments on the Reform Party posting of June 23 became so heated, allegations were made by some posters, that other posters had committed libel. Therefore, the June 23 blog entry about the Reform Party has been deleted. If people wish to make new comments about the internal disputes in the Reform Party, attached to this blog item, they are welcome, but please moderate any comments you make to be respectful of all individuals. UPDATE: no individual asked me to delete the original post and all the comments. Instead, one individual asked me to delete two particular comments. The idea to delete the entire original post and all the comments was mine alone.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Charles Foster, Retract or Disavow the False Defamatory assertions made under the name, or by, Charles Foster
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:17:07 -0700
From: John Blare
Reply-To: jblare@earthlink.net
Organization: jblare@earthlink.net
To: Charles Foster
CC: Richard Winger , Skip Foley
re: Charles Foster, Retract or Disavow the False Defamatory assertions made under the name, or by, Charles Foster
Mr. Charles Foster,
The written assertions attributed to you (message #45 and #72 full date citation below), with respect to myself, as posted under your name, Charles Foster, to
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/06/23/reform-party-national-convention/#comments,
and published by Richard Winger are extremely serious, defamatory, false, scandalous, libelous and a cause
of great, immediate, and continuing harm to myself and the RPUSA.
The cited assertions are false. They are lies. They are damn lies .. sir.
A) Retract and apologize immediately on the same Richard Winger site, Ballot Access News, to me directly, to all other recipients of any similar communication from or due to your representations, and disclose to me immediately all other locations, persons, recipients, you have made similar defamatory false communications to, orally in writing or otherwise.
B) If these defamatory false claims have not been communicated from or by you, Charles Foster, disavow the Richard Winger published postings #45 and #72 as posted under your name, Charles Foster.
Failure to act within 12 hours will serve as confirmation the cited
content is from Charles Foster , TX, formerly of RPUSA.
——-
Message date citations:
#45 Charles Foster Says: July 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
#72 Charles Foster Says: July 4th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
——-
Respectfully,
John Blare
RPUSA Secretary
cc: RPUSA National Committee
Richard Winger: P.O. Box 470296, San Francisco, CA 94147, richardwinger@yahoo.com
Skip Foley
Charles Foster: Abilene, Tx 79603, zap88@sbcglobal.net
“U.S. political parties, especially smaller parties, seem prone to fierce intra-party disputes.”
Truer words were never written.
Wow do you think John Blare is taking this too far? lol
nut case
Thank you, Richard! Everyone should be civil and polite in comments made!
Wow, how very interesting, I cast my vote with Messer Jonathan in his description of Messer Blare. I suppose now Messer Blare will now have to have the Retraction Announcement itself removed.
After his have Messer Jones commit numerous attacks against a certain person, attacks which included his wife and person, Messer Blare finally decides to get the entire Thread removed. I had actually thought of such a complaint myself, but toward Messer Blare’s pigeon for personal and libel attacks which injected a man’s wife as well.
Perhaps we should discuss this more Messer Blare, I recall you doing these same tatics in California back in 1998 and 1999 which is why a great many of us left.
Given everything I have read,on this web blog and on other politico sites, Messer Blare has no cause to claim any harm to the Reform Party. Given that he has joined, or is now aligned with the Independence Party of America, a separate National Political Party, he can make no claims on behalf of the Reform Party.
Further, since the Reform Party is under Court Ordered Receivership, only that person, the Receiver, may make any legal Claims or assertions in the name or on behalf of the Reform Party.
Mr. Blare is merely suffering from a simple case “I cannot take what I dish out”.
PS: Messer Blare, before you write a lengthy reply with legal verbage, I am quite abit older and spent many years with barristers.
On another note, please take official note, my hubby, Alex Englemann, is not Messer Martin, and I too remember Messer Blare from the late 1990’s, interesting he is still up to his old antics.
I had posted the below message on the “other” thread in response to a comment that one of the individuals entitled to receive the Call had not. In order to ensure that he is aware of how to contact me directly for a copy of the Call, I have reposted my response here:
My name is Kay Crews, and I am the Receiver appointed by Judge Ginsberg in the Texas Court Case. I do not wish to, and will not be, drawn into the ongoing discussion on this website; however, Mr. Jones was kind enough to let me know of Mr. Foley’s difficulty in receiving the Call the 2008 Convention to be held July 18-20, 2008, in Dallas.
I wanted to let each reader know that due diligence was used to send the Call to each State Party Organization. Mr. Foley was sent a copy of the Call on June 13, 2008, at 10:31 pm. The email address used was the same address that appears for him on his website (linked to his name in the original thread). The copy of the Call included downloadable copies of the Call, the form to use to submit the names of delegates, and the copy of the Constitution revision that will be taken up at the Convention.
If he, or anyone else, would like copies of those documents, they can be obtained by writing me at kay(dot)crews(at)gmail(dot)com.
Questions about the upcoming Convention may be addressed to me at the same location.
Warm regards to each of you.
Unfortunately, members of the LP, who are also militant athiests, have taken to bashing christianity and religion on Third Party Watch.
I know there are some in every party, but the posts here (scroll down), is no different then skinhead bloggers shooting off their mouths at minorities-
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/07/04/why-ed-noonan-is-just-plain-wrong-about-the-aip
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I have so appreciated your work against the evil two party establishment! I have sent you hard bound books, articles and every thing but money! [Food lines any one?]
When you have mailed me BAN I never ever failed to relay them to another ‘good home’!
Plz tell me that this ‘disappearing act’ with the almost ninty responses to the travils of the so called reform movement was not done on my behalf. Let any one say any thing about me. I believe in the first amendment!
Just let me respond to the lies, and then after a lengthy fact filled index sniped at with a short [and wimpy and whishy] snarkie reply, I’ll respond again.
Look at it this way —-the original posting generated interest in an area that the corporate media slights every day and night!
The truth, the truth, the truth….
Zogby: Barr at 6% nationwide
July 6th, 2008 by Jason Pye
A new Zogby poll shows Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr at 6% nationwide with healthy numbers among independent voters:
Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents.
Please donate so we can reach 10% and get in the debates at http://www.bobbarr2008.com
Anything written or printed that is the truth is not libel.
Contrary to Mr. Englemann’s statements my comment quoting Mr Martin stating that his wife is Native American is not libel.
My comments quoting a news article concerning Mr. Martins efforts as Administrator to the Tule River Tribal Nation to license a Casino on a forty acre parcel in Porterville is not libel
To accuse Mr. Englemann of being Mr. Martin is not libel. I did that because the information Mr.Englemann has written concerning me likely came from Mr. Martin as Mr. Englemann does not know me. I have already apologised if he is not Mr. Martin.
My Statements concerning contributions made to the Obama Campaign have been confirmed by Mr. Martin stating he contributed to Nader as well.
Some of Mr Englemann’s comments as a pigeon for Mr. Martin are libelous some are just gossip.
I only speak for myself!
Ken Jones
Cody, not every LP member is a “militant atheist”, so your statement is in error.
As a Democrat — who supports the electoral reform initiatives (check out my web page) — allow me to make a few personal opinions. I only speak for myself.
(1) The Reform Party will never be taken as remotely serious — from the general populace much less other N.M.P.S. unless it can reorganize itself into one transparent political organization that can have a common platform and philosophy and not be easily hijacked by far-left or far-right wing factions (unless the party really wants to go down that road).
I had some communications with Reform Party members in 2000 and watched the convention(s) unfold on C-SPAN. The party really hurt the electoral reform movement along with the role of third parties in general. Opponents to election law reform or who express a deep rooted prejudice against third parties almost always — in my experience — invoke the Reform Party, its public divisions and candidates.
(2) Intra party fighting happens in both major and minor parties. The major difference is that the conflicts that happen within a major party often stay within the party, often at the local or regional level and having things like ballot access, debate inclusion, etc. makes it possible to rally the troops, if you will.
The nature of the Constitutional-legal process when it comes to elections, means that many N.M.P.S (non-major party supporters) have (in my experience) little experience in holding elected office, make persuasive speeches to the general public, engage in effective public relations skills or running an organization.
Again, I believe that a large part of the problem is simply how election/constitutional law had developed with regards to NMPS. When you have to struggle to get your party/candidate on the ballot, into the debates, get decent media coverage, etc. these things that I often finding lacking with NMPS are probably going to have a low priority.
You are probably going to see lots of ‘celebrity’ candidates who are either personally wealthy, or a notable entertainer or a retired politician going through some sort of political midlife crisis. These people want to make noise, help their ego and maybe lay the groundwork for a book deal.
They tend not to be interested in election law reform, long term party building, etc. Again, this is only my opinion from personal dealings.
Sometimes a blog item at this cite is a venue for people on both sides of an intra-party dispute to use the comments section to get their viewpoint across. That is fine.
In addition to the possibility that such dialog will turn into mortal combat, as in shown in the deleted thread, I’m also bothered when discussion of a party’s internal affairs crowds out discussion of the ballot access issue. That doesn’t happen too often either, but here is one example.
To ETJB;
If your last dealings with RP were before 2002, you don’t know anything about RP sufficient to make the comments you’ve put forth.
Furthermore, “ETJB”: You stated that you only speak for yourself. That is certainly a very good thing becuase we do not even know who you are – since you do not use a real name.
Kenneth Jones: Libel, smilbel. If everyone just used common decency and politeness in the way that he or she treated other people, we would not even have to have these discussions about keeping civil in our debates.
Tisk, Tisk, Messer Jones is an excellent student of the Goebbles School of Propaganda, he thinks that if he repeats the same lie over and over, people will eventually believe him.
On the previous Thread I challenged Messer Jones to prove his allagations, he continues to ring the bell of Messer Martin supporting Senator Obama and has stated that Messer Martin has even contributed to Senator Obama. Unlike Messer Jones, I asked Messer Martin to confirm this and I did a search of public records. Like always, Messer Jones is blowing smoke and quite possibly inhaling it as well.
Messer Martin states that he has never made any financial contributions to Senator Obama and has endorsed Messer Ralph Nader, and public records regarding campaign finance verify this. Messer Martin stated that he contributed the Messer Ralph Nader, a review of public records confirms this. Aditionally, Messer Jones continues to quote a newspaper article about Messer Martin and his professional career, but he does not tell readers that in that same newspaper, Messer Martin authored a Op-Ed Editorial endorsing none other than Ralph Nader.
So there you have it. Messer Martin as both publically endorsed Messer Nader in public via a Editorial in the Press and has contributed a handsome amount to Messer Nader’s campaign. There is not a single public statement by Messer Matin endorsing Senator Obama nor is there reporting of a single shilling contributed by Messer Martin to Senator Obama.
Now on the other hand, what Messer Jones has not revealed is that the bloke whose water he carries, Messer Frank MacKay has held discussions with Senator John McCain about his State Independence Party endorsing, Yes, I dare say the candidate of the Republican Party. By the way, anyone wishing to confirm this may find that news story on none other than Ballor Access News.
Messer Jones makes attacks against Messer Martin for “obama connections” that are not real, yet his boy MacKay is looking to cut a deal with McCain. I dare say Messer Jones, your boat just doesnt float. P.S. Messer Jones and Blare, please hang up your coat on this “libal” rubish. You claim tobe stakeholdres in a political party, the Threads on this Blog Post is a Political Opinion exercise. There is no libal here, just your inability to take what you dish up.
Have you cried to your mum yet?
Greetings all:
I found it very odd that in his update, the publisher of these Threads indicated that the prior Reform Party Convention Thread was removed at the request or demand of a single individual. This I feel demonstrates some character flaws on the part of that person who dare attempts to edit free speech when something uncomfortable is said.
I would like to challenge all who posted to disclose if it was they who made that demand and explain why?. I sent a e-mail to Messer Martin as he was baring the brunt of Messer Jones attacks and thought he might have made this call. His reply is below, he says he made no such request.
rodney@********.com to me
Mr. Englemann:
I made no request to Richard Winger to remove any comment. While I found the comments distasteful and the fact that my wife was even brought up was more a testiment to Mr Jones lack of character. His other comments just demonstrated he was proud of his ignorance. These are not reasons to end free speech however.
I would find it interesting however as to know who did make the request. I would assume it was someone who complained about their character when in reality they have none.
If you find out who did, please let me know.
Rodney Martin
Chairman
Subject: RPUSA v. Defendants – NY Supreme Court Order 28 May 2008
Enjoining and Restraining KAY ALLISON CREWS, CHARLES FOSTER, DAVID
COLLISON, JANICE MILLER, RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR, MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON,
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY, and those acting in concert with or on their
behalf et.al. – Case # 08-020742
Attached is the 28 May 2008 signed NY Supreme Court Order ENJOINING and
RESTRAINING Defendants KAY ALLISON CREWS, CHARLES FOSTER, DAVID
COLLISON, JANICE MILLER, RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR, MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON,
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY, John and Jane Does 1-10, their agents, servants,
employees, Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email
hosts (including email distributors) and all persons acting in concert
with or on their behalf individually or collectively,
AS to claims to represent the RPUSA (Reform Party USA or variant
name), holding RPUSA meetings or conventions, conducting RPUSA
business, claims that anyone other than Frank MacKay is RPUSA Chairman,
use of the RPUSA name or logo, interfering or encumbering the proper
business of the RPUSA National Committee (Frank MacKay Chair) and its
proper Officers Frank MacKay Chair and John Blare Secretary.
As a convenience, a text version of the enjoining language is below with
the full signed order attached (pdf) or available if additional
retransmission is required.
The NY Supreme Court Order of 28 May 2008 was heard on 18 June 2008 and
the Order enjoining and restraining Defendants and those working in
concert with, or on behalf of them, remains in uninterrupted full force
in all respects.
Enjoined and restrained violations, documented and emailed, will be
considered at the proper time.
All recipients of this communication, by direct or indirect receipt, are
so advised including recipients as may occur through redistribution of
this email directly or by 3rd parties.
The RPUSA National Committee on 15 June 2008 adopted the following
unanimously:
”
The RPUSA National Committee directs the placement and distribution of a
warning to all interested parties that any event in Dallas TX under
title of RPUSA is a rump Convention and has been enjoined and is null
and void in the eyes of the RPUSA. The RPUSA is deeply concerned and
distressed for any personal expenditures made in this matter.
Discount Airline reservations and room reservations are most often not
refundable. Such expediters however are not the responsibility of the RPUSA..
”
==================================
==================================
28 May 2008 NY Supreme Court Order Case # 08-020742, Riverhead NY
==================================
==================================
”
P R E S E N T :
HON. ______________JOSEPH C. PASTORESSA _______________
J.S.C.
——————————————————————x
FRANK MacKAY, RPUSA CHAIRMAN and
REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES Index No. Case # 08-020742
OF AMERICA, and INDEPENDENCE PARTY OF
NEW YORK
Plaintiffs,
-against- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
KAY ALLISON CREWS,
CHARLES FOSTER,
DAVID COLLISON,
JANICE MILLER,
RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR,
MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON,
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY,
John and Jane Does 1-10
Defendants.
——————————————————————-x
Upon reading and filing of the annexed affidavit of FRANK MacKAY,
Chairman of REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , sworn to May
28, 2008, the verified complaint being simultaneously served herewith
and the exhibits annexed hereto,
Let the above defendants (hereafter “Defendantsâ€) or anyone acting on
their behalf or in concert with them, separately or collectively, or
their attorneys show cause at an IAS Part to be assigned by this Court
at the Courthouse located at One Court Street, Riverhead, New York on
June __16____, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel(s)
may be heard, why a preliminary injunction should not be granted
pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311 enjoining above Defendants, or anyone
acting on their behalf or in concert with them separately or
collectively, including their agents, servants, employees, Internet web
hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email hosts (including email
distributors) pending the hearing and determination of this action, from
holding out as representative(s) of REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (hereafter also abbreviated as “Partyâ€, or “RPUSAâ€, and
referring inclusively to any similar name variant which could likely be
taken to refer to the national Reform Party) or holding anyone other
than Frank MacKay out as Party Chairman (including claims of office
vacancy) or using the name or logo of the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (“Party†including variants) in any manner or acting
on behalf of said Party including without limitation calling or holding
conventions, meetings or otherwise conducting business under the Party
name or collecting any funds using the name or logo of said Party, and
in the meantime, it is
ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this motion for a
preliminary injunction, the Defendants, their agents, servants,
employees, Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email
hosts (including email distributors) and all persons acting in concert
with or on their behalf individually or collectively be and hereby are
temporarily enjoined and restrained from holding anyone out as Party
Chairman other than Frank MacKay, holding out anyone as representative
or agent of the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Partyâ€
including variants) or using the name or logo of the REFORM PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Party†including variants) in any manner or
acting on behalf of said Party including without limitation calling or
holding conventions, meetings or otherwise conducting business under the
Party name or collecting or soliciting any funds using the name or logo
of said Party, or issuing statements using the name or logo of said
Party, and it is further,
ORDERED, that sufficient reason appearing therefore, the Party including
without limitation, the Party’s National Committee Frank MacKay
Chairman, John Blare Secretary and the Party’s proper officers Frank
MacKay Chairman and John Blare Secretary, may and shall continue to be
conduct proper business unencumbered and without interference from
Defendants their agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in
concert with or on their behalf (individually or collectively), and it
is further,
ORDERED, that sufficient reason appearing therefore, let service of a
copy of this Order, and the papers upon which it was granted, upon
Defendants by overnight mail and regular mail on or before June __ 7
___, 2008, be deemed good and sufficient service; and that Defendant’s
papers in opposition to this application, if any, shall be served on the
attorneys for plaintiff for delivery to them at least 72 hours prior
to the return date or as otherwise agreed by the attorneys for the
respective parties hereto.
E N T E R
____________JOSEPH C. PASTORESSA_____________
J.S.C.
Granted May 28 2008
“
Subject: INJUNCTION – RPUSA v. Defendants – NY Supreme Court Injunction
Order 17 July 2008 Enjoining and Restraining KAY ALLISON CREWS, CHARLES
FOSTER, DAVID COLLISON, JANICE MILLER, RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR, MATTHEW
(MATT) JOHNSON BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY, and those acting in concert with
or on their behalf et.al. – Case # 08-020742
Attached is the 17 July 2008 signed NY Supreme Court INJUNCTION
MEMORANDUM, DECISION and ORDER
ENJOINING and RESTRAINING Defendants KAY ALLISON CREWS, CHARLES FOSTER,
DAVID COLLISON, JANICE MILLER, RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR, MATTHEW (MATT)
JOHNSON, BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY, John and Jane Does 1-10, their agents,
servants, employees, Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and
Internet email hosts (including email distributors) and all persons
acting in concert with or on their behalf individually or collectively,
AS to claims to represent the RPUSA (Reform Party USA or variant
name), holding RPUSA meetings or conventions, conducting RPUSA
business, claims that anyone other than Frank MacKay is RPUSA Chairman,
use of the RPUSA name or logo, interfering or encumbering the proper
business of the RPUSA National Committee (Frank MacKay Chair) and its
proper Officers Frank MacKay Chair and John Blare Secretary.
The NY Court (case #08-020742) issued a full preliminary injunction
continuing WITHOUT interruption the prior restraining order of 28 May
2008 in ALL its terms and for the duration of this case.
As a convenience, a text version of the injunctive language of 17 July
2008 is below with the full signed order attached (pdf) or available if
additional retransmission is required.
The original NY Supreme Court Restraining Order of 28 May 2008 (also
attached) was heard for resolution on 18 June 2008 and was continued to
16 July 2008 and was resolved on 17 July 2008. The Court found the RPUSA
request for relief to be meritorious and has therefore affirmed the
enjoining and restraining of Defendants and those working in concert
with, or on behalf of them, in uninterrupted full force since commencing
with the original 28 May 2008 Order.
Enjoined and restrained violations, documented and emailed, will be
considered at the proper time.
All recipients of this communication, by direct or indirect receipt, are
so advised, including recipients as may occur through redistribution of
this email directly or by 3rd parties.
The RPUSA National Committee on 15 June 2008 adopted the following
unanimously:
”
The RPUSA National Committee directs the placement and distribution of a
warning to all interested parties that any event in Dallas TX under
title of RPUSA is a rump Convention and has been enjoined and is null
and void in the eyes of the RPUSA. The RPUSA is deeply concerned and
distressed for any personal expenditures made in this matter.
Discount Airline reservations and room reservations are most often not
refundable. Such expediters however are not the responsibility of the RPUSA..
”
==================================
==================================
17 May 2008 NY Supreme Court Order Case # 08-020742, Riverhead NY
==================================
==================================
”
Index No.: 08-020742
Submit Date: 7/16/2008
MTN. Seq. #001
P R E S E N T : Motion Date: 7/17/2008
HON. _GARY J. WEBER __
Justice
MEMORANDUM
DECISION and
ORDER
———————————————————-x
FRANK MacKAY, RPUSA CHAIRMAN and
REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, and INDEPENDENCE PARTY OF
NEW YORK,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
KAY ALLISON CREWS,
CHARLES FOSTER,
DAVID COLLISON,
JANICE MILLER,
RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR,
MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON,
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY,
John and Jane Does 1-10,
Defendants.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Phillips, Weiner & Quinn
(addresses omitted in this text version)
DEFENDANTS PRO SE, NOT APPEARING
(addresses omitted in this text version)
KAY ALLISON CREWS
CHARLES FOSTER
DAVID COLLISON
RODNEY MARTIN
JANICE MILLER
RUBEN HERNANDEZ, JR.
MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY
———————————————————-x
This is an application by the Petitioners, Frank MacKay as Chairman of
the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the REFORM PARTY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the INDEPENDENCE PARTY OF NEW YORK
(hereinafter collectively referred to a “MacKay”), for an order against
Kay Allison Crews, Charles Foster, David Collison, Janice Miller, Ruben
Hernandez, Jr., Matthew (Matt) Johnson, Beverly (Bev) Kennedy, and John
and Jane Does 1-10, pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311 enjoining the
Defendants, or anyone actin on their behalf or in concert with them
separately or collectively, including their agents, servants, employees,
Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email host
(including e-mail distributors) pending the hearing and determination of
this action, from holding out as representative(s) of the REFORM PARTY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (hereafter also abbreviated as “Party,”
or “RPUSA,” and referring inclusively to any similar name variant which
could likely be taken to refer to then national Reform Party) of
holding anyone other than Frank MacKay out as Party Chairman (including
claims of office vacancy) or using the name or logo of the REFORM PARTY
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Party” including variants) in any
manner or acting on behalf of said Party including without limitation
calling or holding conventions, meetings or otherwise conducting
business under the Party name or collecting any funds using the name or
logo of Parry, and also enjoining their agents, servants, employees,
Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email hosts
(including email distributors) and all persons acting in concert with or
on their behalf individually or collectively from holding anyone out as
Party Chairman other than Frank MacKay, holding out anyone as
representative or agent of the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (“Party” including variants) or using the name or logo of the
REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Party” including
variants) in any manner or acting on behalf of said Party including
without limitation calling or holding conventions, meetings or otherwise
conducting business under the Party name or collecting or soliciting
any funds using the name or logo of said Party, or issuing statements
using the name or logo of said Party.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 28, 2008, the Honorable Joseph C. Pasotessa, a Justice of this
Court made and entered an Order which essentially granted the relief
requested by MacKay in the form of a temporary restraining order (CPLR
6313[a]).
The question now before the Court is whether or not the temporary
restraining order should be converted into a preliminary injunction
(CPLR 6301).
DECISION
The original order to show cause was returnable on June 16, 2008 but,
through various adjournments, appeared on the calendar of this Court on
July 16, 2008.
The Court has read the moving papers and finds that MacKay has
established a factual record so that “it appears that the defendant
threatens or is about to do, or is doing or procuring or suffering to be
done, an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights respecting the
subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual,
or in any actin where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled
to a judgment restraining the defendant from the commission or
continuance of an act, which, if committed or continued during the
pendency of the action, would produce injury to the plaintiff.” (CPLR
6301).
MacKay has submitted an affidavit of service dated May 29, 2008 which,
on its face at least complies with the Order of Justice Pastoressa above
cited in terms of service of process (CPLR 6316[b]).
Clearly, MacKay will be irretrievably harmed if the defendants are
permitted, in effect, to hijack the political parties and entities
concerned which appear, on these papers at least, to be in the
legitimate domain of MacKay, not the defendants.
ORDER
The temporary restraining order imposed by Justice Pastoressa under the
date of May 28, 2008, is in all respects continued, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Order of Justice Pastoressa be and the same is
continues as a preliminary injunction until the termination of these
proceedings; and it is further
ORDERED, that the petitioners may at any time make application to the
Court for a final judgment; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Petitioner may make application to the Court for such
incidental relief as may be necessary to effectively carry out the Order
of Justice Pastoressa and/or the instant order; and it is further
ORDERED, that the instant order and memorandum decision shall
constitute the Order of the Court.
DATED: JULY 17, 2008 HON. GARY J. WEBER, J.S.C.
”
==================================
==================================
28 May 2008 NY Supreme Court Order Case # 08-020742, Riverhead NY
==================================
==================================
”
P R E S E N T :
HON. ______________JOSEPH C. PASTORESSA _______________
J.S.C.
———————————————————-x
FRANK MacKAY, RPUSA CHAIRMAN and
REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES Index No. Case # 08-020742
OF AMERICA, and INDEPENDENCE PARTY OF
NEW YORK
Plaintiffs,
-against- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
KAY ALLISON CREWS,
CHARLES FOSTER,
DAVID COLLISON,
JANICE MILLER,
RUBEN HERNANDEZ JR,
MATTHEW (MATT) JOHNSON,
BEVERLY (BEV) KENNEDY,
John and Jane Does 1-10
Defendants.
———————————————————-x
Upon reading and filing of the annexed affidavit of FRANK MacKAY,
Chairman of REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , sworn to May
28, 2008, the verified complaint being simultaneously served herewith
and the exhibits annexed hereto,
Let the above defendants (hereafter “Defendantsâ€) or anyone acting on
their behalf or in concert with them, separately or collectively, or
their attorneys show cause at an IAS Part to be assigned by this Court
at the Courthouse located at One Court Street, Riverhead, New York on
June __16____, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel(s)
may be heard, why a preliminary injunction should not be granted
pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311 enjoining above Defendants, or anyone
acting on their behalf or in concert with them separately or
collectively, including their agents, servants, employees, Internet web
hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email hosts (including email
distributors) pending the hearing and determination of this action, from
holding out as representative(s) of REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA (hereafter also abbreviated as “Partyâ€, or “RPUSAâ€, and
referring inclusively to any similar name variant which could likely be
taken to refer to the national Reform Party) or holding anyone other
than Frank MacKay out as Party Chairman (including claims of office
vacancy) or using the name or logo of the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (“Party†including variants) in any manner or acting
on behalf of said Party including without limitation calling or holding
conventions, meetings or otherwise conducting business under the Party
name or collecting any funds using the name or logo of said Party, and
in the meantime, it is
ORDERED, that pending the hearing and determination of this motion for a
preliminary injunction, the Defendants, their agents, servants,
employees, Internet web hosts, Internet domain hosts, and Internet email
hosts (including email distributors) and all persons acting in concert
with or on their behalf individually or collectively be and hereby are
temporarily enjoined and restrained from holding anyone out as Party
Chairman other than Frank MacKay, holding out anyone as representative
or agent of the REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Partyâ€
including variants) or using the name or logo of the REFORM PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (“Party†including variants) in any manner or
acting on behalf of said Party including without limitation calling or
holding conventions, meetings or otherwise conducting business under the
Party name or collecting or soliciting any funds using the name or logo
of said Party, or issuing statements using the name or logo of said
Party, and it is further,
ORDERED, that sufficient reason appearing therefore, the Party including
without limitation, the Party’s National Committee Frank MacKay
Chairman, John Blare Secretary and the Party’s proper officers Frank
MacKay Chairman and John Blare Secretary, may and shall continue to be
conduct proper business unencumbered and without interference from
Defendants their agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in
concert with or on their behalf (individually or collectively), and it
is further,
ORDERED, that sufficient reason appearing therefore, let service of a
copy of this Order, and the papers upon which it was granted, upon
Defendants by overnight mail and regular mail on or before June __ 7
___, 2008, be deemed good and sufficient service; and that Defendant’s
papers in opposition to this application, if any, shall be served on the
attorneys for plaintiff for delivery to them at least 72 hours prior
to the return date or as otherwise agreed by the attorneys for the
respective parties hereto.
E N T E R
____________JOSEPH C. PASTORESSA_____________
J.S.C.
Granted May 28 2008
It appears that Kay Allison Crews and all her agents find themselves in a dilemma
long-arm stat·ute (plural long-arm stat·utes)
noun
Definition:
law permitting interstate jurisdiction: a provision in law that allows a state to exercise jurisdiction over somebody living in another state
Over the years, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial interpretations and legislative enactments. In the landmark 1945 case International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court greatly expanded the constitutional boundaries of personal jurisdiction, well beyond its traditional physical presence basis. Following International Shoe, states in the United States enacted so-called long-arm statutes, by which courts in a state can exercise jurisdiction over a party located outside the state, if the party has sufficient contacts within the state
Personal jurisdiction problems are acute in cases involving business transactions conducted across state lines, where the defendant may not have set foot in the other state, but still conducted affairs with the other state’s residents through correspondence, the shipment of goods, or indirect agents.
Personal jurisdiction based on state long-arm statutes–that is, jurisdiction not based on presence within the state–is divided, for constitutional analysis purposes, into two categories: general and specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction exists when an out-of-state party has extensive, systematic and continuous dealings with the state in which the court sits. When a court has general jurisdiction over a party, the court has personal jurisdiction over any dispute involving the party. Thus, a court’s general jurisdiction power is equivalent to its power based on presence within the state
a court’s specific jurisdiction power over a party, when the party does not have systematic and continuous contacts with the state, is specific to cases that have a substantial connection to the party’s in-state activity.
Ken Jones