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

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 “Defendants”) 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 “Party”, or “RPUSA”, 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 (“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, 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

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 “Defendants”) 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 “Party”, or “RPUSA”, 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 (“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, 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

“

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

(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.