Home General Dallas Reform Party Meeting
formats

Dallas Reform Party Meeting

Published on July 20, 2008, by in General.

The Reform Party meeting of July 18-19 in Dallas nominated Ted Weill of Tylertown, Mississippi for president, and Frank E. McEnulty of Long Beach, California, for vice-president. McEnulty has already been running as the presidential nominee of the New American Independent Party. He is already on the ballot in Colorado. However, when he addressed the convention, he said that he would withdraw as a presidential candidate and hoped to be the vice-presidential nominee for the Reform Party. The presidential vote was: Weill 25, McEnulty 3. McEnulty was then chosen for vice-president by acclamation. UPDATE: his post below indicates that although he was withdrawing as a contender for the Reform Party presidential nomination, he still is the presidential candidate of the New American Independent Party.

Officers chosen are: David Collison of Houston, Texas, chair; Rodney Martin of Yuma, Arizona, vice-chair; Janelle Skinner-Weill, secretary; Beverly Kennedy, treasurer.

51 Responses

  1. Phil Sawyer

    Thank you once again, Richard, for the clarity and information!

  2. Mr. Anon

    Wait, McEnulty can withdraw from the ballot in Colorado and be replaced by Weill? or just withdraw and be removed?

    With the Florida party walking out, good luck to Weill in getting on the ballot there.

  3. Arthur DiBianca

    How many state ballots are these nominees expected to be on this year?

  4. Mr. Anon

    Fun Ted Weill notes

    Donated $1000 to Ralph Nader in 2008
    Donated $8800 to Lyndon LaRouche PAC in the last year
    Donated $16700 to Lyndon LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche PAC from 2003 until now

  5. Alex Englemann

    May I inquire as to whom Messer Weill is and his affiliation with LaRouche?

    Is the Reform Party now a LaRouche Entity? Messer Anon indicates some very clear ties between Messer Weill and LaRouche. Why would Messer Weill be a Presidential candidate while making these large tenders to LaRouche who has had considerable legal troubles?

    Also, did former Chair Martin attend the Convention? I see he is elected Vice Chair?, was this some sort of compromise? This all seems very odd??

  6. Jack

    Weill also gave a lot of money and other support in the past to the Lenora Fulani operation, this was the first I ever heard of his LaRouche connnections. I think the guy is just a rich old crank who I believe is also legally blind. So will he be on any ballots? My God what a bloody bitter end the Reform Party is intent upon!!!

    But no, it is not a LaRouche entity now, if you know anything about LaRouche you know he won’t ever have a front man, its all about him and his paranoid schizophrenic monomania. It was hillarious that he got behind Hillary, who knows what his line will be if he even lives to 2012!

  7. Alex Englemann

    FURTHER CLARIFICATION:

    I just placed a call to former Chairman Martin. he told me he did not attend the Dallas Convention. He was not aware of this Messer Weill’s nomination and was made aware of his Vice Chair “election” after the fact.

    Messer Martin informs me he has great issues with LaRouche. I seriously doubt that Messer Martin will remain a Reform Officer as I think he is all ver sick of nonsense.

  8. If a camel is a horse constructed by a committee……

  9. Mr. Anon

    Here’s a link to a page of Ted Weill’s donations.

    So either Weill has some sort of like for LaRouche, or he needs to cancel his credit cards so that LaRouchePAC doesn’t suck $200 out of him every few weeks.

  10. Phil Sawyer

    Jack Says:
    July 20th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
    … [snip] … My God what a bloody bitter end the Reform Party is intent upon!!! … [snip] …

    Phil Sawyer responds:

    The “end” will probably look more like what happened to the Natural Law Party in 2004 – minus a guru telling them to call it quits. If the moderate-to-right faction of the Reform Party of California wants to play it out smartly, they will form a Reform Caucus and join up with the American Independent Party of California – with the goal of taking control in 2012. If the moderate-to-left faction wants to play it smartly also, they will all come over and join us in the Peace and Freedom Party of California!

  11. Marvin G Clark

    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 “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

  12. I wonder what judge JOSEPH C. PASTORESSA would have said if mcKay had mentioned the fact that this meeting called in dallas was already under the direction of a court order supposedly to take care of the problem of the leadership (or lack there of) in the Reform Party.

    I wasn’t aware that a supreme court, regional or other level judge would jump into another court jurisdiction when there was an active court case already in progress. I’m betting they would have denied the injunction and therefore avoid stepping on the toes of another judge during the performance of his/her duties.

    Skip
    Maine

  13. Did Ralph Nader not seek the nomination?

  14. rodney@rodneymartin.com
    RPUSA addresses
    340 East 32nd St.,
    Suite 112,
    Yuma, Arizona 85364.
    Rodney Martin
    http://www.reformpartyusa.us
    1279 W. Henderson, Suite 171
    Porterville, Ca 93257-1454
    559-310-6412

  15. Bob Marston

    Phil Sawyer writes: “moderate-to-right faction, moderate-to-left faction”

    ????? Admittedly I’ve been out of the loop for a while on these guys but from I remember in 1996 there were two factions of the Reform Party. The first can be described as the Ross perot Personality Cult, or simply the Perotistas. This group’s political philosophy revolved around two points. The first is “Throw the Bums Out”. This is a common theme among “Populists” which was the way Perot like to portray himself. The other item that got the Perotistas juices flowing was Anti-NAFTAism. While that was a common value they had with the Left the Perotistas could hardly be considered Leftist on the remainder of their view points. In the Mid 90s the Perotistas dabbled with New Alliance but once Perot picked up on Fulani’s MO of worming into an organization and then taking it over they got the boot. The second faction of the Reform Party can be termed the Nativists. This group sprang from the contempt that accompanied the passage of NAFTA. Ultra-Nationalist in ideology it was very easy for Pat Buchanan to adapt his brand of Xenophobia and take over this group. It became clear in Mid 2000 that Buchanan would win the Reform Party nomination if Perot din’t run. Perot made it perfectly clear that he would never run again. In a last ditch attempt to maintain a hold on the party some of Perot’s people approached Nader and asked him if he would run on their line. Nader said that Buchanan worked to hard to be denied the opportunity and turned them down. That event signaled of the Reform Party. It continued to function because the FEC Money from Perot’s 2 presidential runs was still flowing in. And as usual in these types of situations where there is an organization without leadership and absent a sense of direction every lunatic and crackpot comes crawling out of the woodwork.

    These types of events beg one and only one question.

    Hasn’t the carcus been picked clean yet ?

  16. Bev Kennedy

    The Reform Party’s nomination of Weill-McEnulty for this year’s presidential election is not the “end” of the national Reform Party, by any stretch of imagination. Both men are united in the goal of rebuilding the Reform Party.

    There was no “name” candidate seeking the Reform Party’s presidential nomination this year, so Mr. Weill stepped up to the plate. Mr. Weill and Mr. McEnulty both addressed the convention as candidates for the presidential nomination. Mr. McEnulty said, in his address, that he and Ted Weill had talked and that he would be happy to be Mr. Weill’s running mate.

    I see these two gentlemen teaming up to rebuild the Reform Party as a positive move for the future.

    Bev

  17. Bev Kennedy

    No, Ralph Nader did not seek, and would not even accept, the Reform Party’s nomination this year. I know from Mr. Nader’s attorney that the decision was a direct result of John Blare’s threat to sue all those who attended the court ordered convention.

    Mr. Nader said he could not take the chance of being knocked off ballots. I have no difficulty understanding that position, even though John Blare’s threat has no chance of succeeding. Even if John Blare et al would file a frivolous lawsuit it would still take time and funds to get it dismissed.

    Bev

  18. Laine

    Too bad Nader did not attempt to seek the Reform nomination. I say this because even if it was a risk to be faced with lawsuits, he has no other way it seems to make the ballot in Florida. The Ecology Party of Florida seems to support him but they can’t give him a ballot line unless they have a national convention and affliate parties in other states.

  19. Eric Prindle

    “Messer” is not and has never been an honorific title for an adult male.

  20. I recall that, at a 2004 meeting in Texas, the Reform Party faction headed by Shawn O’Hara (of Hattiesburg, Mississippi) endorsed Ralph Nader for president.

    Since then, O’Hara has run several times for office in Mississippi as a Democrat, promising, among other things, snow cone stands for rest stops.

    QUESTION: Exactly when did Shawn O’Hara leave the Reform Party?

  21. Beverly’s reporting is wrong. I am still running for President in those states in which the REform Party does not have ballot access, which is most of them.

    I agreed to run as Mr. Weill’s running mate in furtherance of my attempt to reach out to more independents to build a much stronger party for going forward.

    My Presidential Campaign is still alive and more active than ever.

  22. No Soft Money

    The word is that Alan Keyes would have accepted the Reform Party nomination, but instead they nominated the Larouche supporter because he pays the legal bills. The party is now a play toy for him and those members that want to play lawyer.

  23. Bev Kennedy

    No Soft Money — the Reform Party is not a rabid right-to-life party. Alan Keyes is a rabid right-to-lifer. The the Reform Party and Alan Keyes are not compatabile.

    Bev

  24. Mr. Anon

    And Keyes couldn’t even win the nod of a rabid pro-lifer party either.

  25. “Beverly’s reporting is wrong” —–how can one tell? She says one thing, does an other, and retells it in a third manner!

    A national chair whom is merely a ‘Texans are never wrong’ Charlie Foster puppet; a vice chair whom did not even seek the job or even make the pilgrimage to DFW; a secretary from the middle of Nebraska [and the middle of nowhere in the Corn Husker state!] whom is reliably unreliable on communicating with the out side world [and keeping her promises to Don Lake and Tish Firmiss!]; and a former national treasurer whose first order of business is to shred her previous snafus from the same position!

    To the rear, harch!

    Any bets on the accurateness of future meetings and teleconferences? Let the curtain fall, let the last one out of the room make sure the lights are all out!

  26. TheTrueReformist

    Beverly,
    Surely you do not believe that Frank’s intent is to build the Reform Party. He has admitted that he is still running for President in all of the other States except for the 3 you have for Ted with Ballot Access. Stop talking for a change and listen to what the people around you are telling you. I have no doubt you will feel the need to debate this even after Frank’s admission at the conference and on line 21 of this thread.

    Alex- Martin was notified right after he was elected to Vice Chair and he accepted.

  27. 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 “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

  28. “If the [Perot 20% in P1992] reform movement does not serve a use ful purpose, it deserves to whither and die!” – Recent post

    Westcott responds:

    The Reform Party USA is neither withering nor dying. In fact, the Reform Party USA is alive and functioning very well as a result of a combination of reorganization, sensible restructuring, healthy alliances. and determined and competent leadership. (The United States’ government please take note.)

    What the RPUSA has shed, by way of legal judgmental decisions (see above court order post), is the repugnant selfishness and vindictive subjectiveness of a few disgustingly abhorrent disruptive individuals.

    I knew some of these individuals, although I do not proudly admit to being briefly influenced by accepting their witches brew concoction of lies and deception, laced by their despicable egocentricity and intentionally devious fragmentation procedures. One cannot avoid conjuring the image of a “mirror, mirror on the wall” analogy for comparative analysis to what these people have attempted to do to the Reform Party USA in order to temporarily satisfy their nymphomania for self-deceptive, fleetingly-satisfying political power. Only in unsound minds can there be found historically equivalent political operations and methodology. And only in the Congress of the United States can there be found a comparative formula for loathsome personal influence and advancement.

    Never once in my experience with these individuals was the subject of national importance even discussed regarding the issues that continue to demolish our nation. Not once! Bickering was, and continues to be, their repetitive theme. Disgraceful. Revolting. And most certainly, as proved to date, unsuccessful.

    Please heed my plea, fellow reformers, fellow patriots, fellow American taxpayers, my fellow Americans: Mend this divisiveness. Cast the lot of disruption aside. Join with us in (re)building a truly necessary formidable American political organization. One that focuses on the essentialness of correcting the wrongful course our nation is embarked upon. Disregard and discard the unprincipled and nonproductive insanity that threatens to further erode the valiant and admirable, and necessary original purpose for creating the Reform Party. We must question and resist the ulterior motives of the cabal of a few. This is not all about individuality. We do not need any more disgusting politicians and their paid-for minions to disrupt our worthy mission. We need unity. We need statesmanship. We need leadership. After all, the very future of our nation is at stake.

    I recognize Mr. Frank MacKay as chairman of the real, still standing, still rebuilding Reform Party USA. The 30-person Dallas “convention” is a bad joke.

    Very truly yours,

    Bruce Westcott

    “Do You Want The Truth?”

  29. Alex Englemann

    How very intersesting it is to read Messer Westcott’s post on this Thread. He recognizes Messer MacKay, I assume as long as Messer Westcott receives shillings for his pockets from Messer MacKay, he has little choice. Messeer Westcott is not really relavant as the Court will recognize the even ts at the Dallas Convention.

    As to Messer Westcott, is this not the same individual whom Messer MacKay issued a Press Statement announcing Messer Westcott as the Nevada State Chairman of his Reform Party? Is this not the same Messer Westcott who served and was jut recently released from State accomodations for firearm and violence charges? If Messer Westcott is the caliber, no pun intended, of the likes of MacKay, then whatever happened at the Dallas Convention is superior to Mackay and his brownshirts.

    Messer Westcott by the way says that MacKay is “rebuilding” the Reform Party, is that before, after or during his tenure as National Chairman of another National Political Party he claims to also be National Chairman of, Independence party of America? If he is Chair of both, which takes priority in a dispute of issues or candidates?

    Just what has MacKay done to rebuild? he has never attended a Court hearing as the “Chairman” of the Reform Party, he has sent his “lil ones”, Blare and Bambey to make fools of themselves. Do you know why Messer MacKay has never appeared in a Court? he may have to answer questions about the under table financial transactions he has engaged in in his attempted take over of the Reform Party, questions like who he paid to who, we know he gave Messer John Bambey a $500.00 check and those funds have not been disclosed.

    That gang of thug’s gig is up. The Judge will Certify the Dallas Convention and that will be it. No more MacKay, No more Blare, and no more lining pockets. By the way, is everyone aware that Messer MacKay carries a “Love Me Portfolio” with him to his various meetings. It is a Portfolio of newspaper clippings and articles about him and such. This bloke needs therapy if he needs self assurance this way.

    By the way, Messer Westcott, can you vote as a result of those convictions.

    Cheers

  30. Matt J

    Bruce,

    I don’t know why you are including me in your stupid lawsuits, but please stop. I have nothing to do with the Weill convention and any of the various Reform Party factions. Your stupid lawsuits and circular firing squads have killed the party, already. So how about worrying about your state.

    Matt Johnson

  31. Matt Shoot From the Lip Johnson: And the California reformers had nothing significant to do with the historic SUCCESSFUL 2003 Governor Gray Davis Recall! In spite of Citizens For A Better Veterans Home’s December 2002 protests of Davis and my being the only Californian to be the kick off speaker at all three state wide Dump Gray Davis rallies! I also ran around the state in my little white ‘peek up’, often sleeping in the back!

    You’ll end up in court less often if you do not manufacture your flights of fancy and once you do fabricate the facts, you keep the story line straight [if untrue].

    Amazing: you deride the corporate press and then use the establishment mouth pieces as your informational guide[s]! Just amazing!

    [How’s the new teaching position going? Don’t leave any marks on the students. Parents eventually get angry!]

  32. I would like to respond to the many emails that I have been getting from New American Independent Party members and other interested folk.

    People have been wondering if the New American Independent Party will now be working with the Reform Party since our nominated Presidential candidate has accepted the VP slot with the Reform Party.

    The simple answer to that is NO. The New American Independent Party has no interest and will have no interest in working with any faction of the Reform Party. The NAIP views the Reform Party and it’s many twisted factions as a tumor, infecting everything it touches. The NAIP will not allow the nutcases at the Reform party to infect our new party.

    I am sure that the Reform party has some very good and decent rank and file members. However, we feel that we cannot trust any of the Reform Party leadership from any and all factions.

    I will have more information to bring all of you in the coming days concerning this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Thompson
    National Chairman
    New American Independent Party

  33. TheTrueReformist

    Michael:
    My question to you is: Then why is your Presidential Nominee, seeking the VP slot in Ted Weil’s campaign and why did he come to the Reform Party seeking our nomination at all? Personally, your views are too liberal for those of us who do have good organized SPO’s. We are not and will not be seeking affiliation with the NAIP and neither Frank or Ted will get our ballot access in Florida. Over my dead body!!!!!

  34. True Reformist,

    You should ask Frank McEnulty that question not me. The NAIP is still trying to figure out what happened.

    Such a move does not help the NAIP, it only hurts us. The NAIP is a new party and we didn’t expect to get on many ballots this year. But, the ballots that we thought we had the best chance of reaching were Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi. Basically, Frank took away his chance at leading a ticket in those states for a VP role in a party that is dying. And this move also took away the NAIP’s best chance at getting on state ballots.

    The NAIP hoped to get on some ballots this year in an effort to build our party towards a more powerful 2012 campaign. We have no choice but to try to gain ballot access and run our own ticket, (a NAIP ticket) in Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

  35. Matt J

    Michael,

    If you really want to learn from the Reform Party, then just worry about building a strong party in your state. If you can’t build a strong one in your state, what would make you think you could build a national party?

    Having a contact in 50 states is not being a political party. Do you know how difficult it is to get someone elected to partisan office at the county level? Now we want to talk national? All serious parties need to be built at the state level.

  36. Matt,

    Thanks for the advice. We are indeed working to build at the local and state level. Most of our work has been focused locally and most of our gains have been produced by our efforts at the local level in a hand full of states.

    Our 2008 Presidential efforts are designed to be a learning experience for the party and our members.

  37. Kenneth Jones

    The call to the Dallas meeting is defective in that the call was not made by the Chairman of the RPUSA nor was he asked to make the call.

    The call to a Convention in Dallas Texas on July 18, 2008 issued by Kay Crews is also defective in not clarifying who could participate.

    Could a group of voters from another party be credentialed for the Dallas meeting and potentially take over the party or would they be required to be registered as a Reform Party member in a SPO that qualified to participate? Logic would indicate that they would need to be registered as a Reform Party member somewhere.

    Arizona may have been affiliated with the RPUSA in 2003 however Rodney Martin was not a member of the RPAZ at that time. Currently Rodney Martin is expelled from the RPUSA. Last I heard he was registered as a Democrat.

    It has been reported that Rodney Martin did not attend this meeting; yet Rodney Martin was listed as being elected Vice Chairman.

    Questions that need to be answered are did he supposedly qualify to be elected under the 2003 Constitution and rules? Did Rodney Martin supposedly qualify be elected under the current Constitution and rules? Did Rodney Martin accept the nomination before he was elected?

    The True Reformer stated that Nebraska, Oregon, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey was represented. Did RPRI and RPPA attend this meeting; conflicting information needs to be brought forward?

    From information reported here; how can we conclude that all the delegates were properly credentialed as delegates from the states supposedly represented at the Dallas meeting?

    Ken Jones

  38. Alex Englemann

    Oh yes Messer Jones lets do chat about chaps in other political parties.

    Let’s especially chat about Messer Frank MacKay, whom you state is Chairman of the Indpependence Party of America and the Reform Party. Which political Party is he registered? Is he registered in both? This is not legal, so please provide an answer to your own question.

    By the way, Messer Martin is a registered member of the Reform Party, I requested and was sent a copy of his registration. Your poppycock is getting old. Have you ever come “straight” regarding your pornography involvement?

  39. Oh come, Ken’s middle name is

    “Making it up as I go along” !!!!!

  40. Kenneth Jones

    Alex Englemartin

    How would you know anything about me unless you heard it from someone blowing wind? Perhaps Mr. Martin told you how he tried to engage me to perform in a porn flick he was producing for the customers of the casino’s he represents.

    Of course I was confused about what he was talking about so i created this satire to entertain his customers. Someone blowing this kind of wind must enjoy giving bj’s. WHAT! This is not a documentary is it?

    I wonder how long the Editor of this blog will allow this type of slander to continue on these pages. To allow this type of dialog will turn this newsletter into a rag, if it hasn’t done so already.

    Don what do you think is this a perfect example of my middle name?

  41. Alex Englemann

    Why actually Messer Jones, I understand it was a upstanding gentleman from Nevada, who was recently released from State accomodation and who your group just recognized as a distiguished official in your so called “party group”, whom you arranged a website that resulted in pornography as has been reported to me, not by Messer Martin, but by others.

    Now, will you be so kind as to answer your own question as to people being in other political parties and as it relates to one Messer Frank MacKay. I do see as the debate gets rather close to the facts, you are again whinning “slander” and other such poppycock so as to avoid a full accounting.

    I also ask you to disclose how much remuneration you and others in your group have received from Messer MacKay since he greased Messer Bambey’s pocket with a $500 check at the “undisclosed location” i.e. secret telephone convention in Sacramento, Ca = (Messer Bambey’s Rental Facility)??

    I would also ask why Messer MacKay, if he was any caliber of leader at all has failed to appear at any Court appearance, and instead left it to Messer Blare and Bambey and othrs to make utter fools of themselves. Is this leadership, for him to stay safely in his fuhrer bunker of NY so as to avoid being asked tough questions in courts, especially questions about financial irregularities?

    I dare say Messer Jones you and your ilk will continue to march to Messer MacKay’s Twilight of the Gods. Now that the Dallas Convention has been held, the only Wagner Act left for you and Messer Blare is Seigfried’s Funeral March to mark the end of your political joke.

  42. The Earth is the center of the solar system!

    The Earth is the center of the solar system!

    The Earth is the center of the solar system!

  43. Thomas

    Messer is not a title for a singular man, as was mentioned by someone here, but it does work in the plural …. unless someone wants to educate me about how this is Louisiana Cajun French for Monsieur.

    I don’t really have any other business here, except I can say I attended the Reform Party of Virginia convention back when Buchanan was going to be the nominee. The hall filled up with various oddballs (and some normal folk too) who like Pat for different reasons. I had made a contact with the RPVa and considered joining, but it always seemed to me she was screening me, asking me a lot of questions about what I think without telling me much back. Given this attitude and the fact she had not been a member terribly long but was already an activist, I thought maybe she was a Fulani-ite. I guess she could have been in some other faction too, but in short I was a little creeped out.

    Oh well, it is a shame screwballs are magnetically drawn to minor parties.

    But for the love of God, how did some of you ‘moderates’ who didn’t approve of Buchanan think you could build an energetic party around minor political reforms? Nobody is going to work his ass off taking off work to spend full days campaigning to approve a voter recall initiative. People will sacrifice to work for nationalism or for socialism or for libertarianism, and even somewhat moderate versions of these, but not for the balanced budget amendment!

  44. Alex Englemann

    Messer Thomas:

    Thank you for aknowledging you cajun roots and perhaps a lack of formal education. Threads on Blogs are often a great opportunity for those with limited intellectual background to show off what they dont know they dont know or to show off great quotes from wilipedia, which declares space aliens as responsible for all mankinds advancements.

    Some 65+ years ago when I and mhy Mrs. attended our formal schooling in the UK, my Professors refrerred to me as Messer Englemann. This same Professor, a professor of the Classics wrote letters and alsoways addressed them to Messer Englemann, or Messer….

    Other Professors and other professionals addressed individuals the same way. At my advanced age I do not now intend to change nor do I belive you are qualified to correct my fine Professors. The fact that today society has given up on formality in favor of slag and use of words that do not mean what they were originally intended is a sad state and is a tesiment of people today.

    I choose not to, I have my classic books, others have poppycock reality Television programs which are as far from reality as Pluto, but it allows them to wish they could be like those sorry chaps on the tely.

    If Americans were as worried and concerned and spent as much time on their democracy as they do educating themselves about Paris Hilton and other pathetic so called “stars”, we may just have a real democracy. More Americans know who plays on sports teams then who their elected representatives are. We do not have lousey politicians, we have lousy Americans, the politician are a reflection of America and the people’s priorities.

    get off your bloddy asses Americans.

    And by the way, I have been an American Citizen since 1951 and have never missed voting in an election since that time. That means in 57 years I have 100% partcipation.

    Cheers

  45. jdvbf

    The only thing that Ted Weill seems to have done is donate to other candidates! Lame-o presidential candidate! Especially considering the candidates that the Libertarian Party were able to acquire in years past…

  46. It was hard to find anything about Ted Weill, but I did find some great info about Frank McEnulty at procon.org. Check out http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/frankmcenulty.htm

    They have statements from him on dozens of issues including immigration, gun control, medical marijuana, abortion, and plenty more.

  47. Sandy Madison

    Mr. Englemann,

    I’ve known Ted Weill for about 4 years. Before then, I knew he contributed to Reform and to Mr. Perot’s campaigns, as well as several other political efforts. When I got the chance, I asked Mr. Weill why he contributed to so many varied efforts. He’s answer was plain with no elaboration. “I like to see what they do with the money.”

    I know first hand his contributions carry no request for favor. This is a very unusual. Few give with no strings attached. Therefore, my opinion of his generosity is based on his unique opportunity to gift others with the opportunity uniquely American. Political free speech. Because he has never demanded a guaranteed result, who he gives to might amuse me, but never causes me to question his intent.

    I’m honored to support this gentleman for President. I’m realistic about his chances. Ted has been a leader in Reform since the start. He’s never left and never failed in his resolve to make Reform the best alternative to the entrenched two party system. I want to one day point to Mr. Weill’s candidacy and tell the tale of how this dedicated man kept Reform viable even when others deserted the principled effort set to put governing back into the hands of those governed.

    Make no mistake, Mr. Weill will chance giving his money but he won’t chance Reform being used unduly. Unlike 2004, when he withdrew his bid for the nomination to favor Mr. Nader, he held his assumptive support for nomination when a stranger entered the 2008 Convention.

    Frank McEnulty’s statements read well. His speech was excellent. Then, interestingly, Mr. Weill took an unexpected iniative. Politely, with political wisdom, guts and the clout he merits, he put forth a proposal for all to witness. He asked Mr. McEnulty to forego the contest and accept his desire to chose him as VP, and requested Mr. McEnulty help build Reform.

    Frank McEnulty paused briefly. I could see the wheels turning and knew this was a test of his ego, wit and strength of purpose. His face revealed surprise and thought, but no shock or resistance. He agreed. Reform now has a ticket with two candidates of character dedicated to building Reform.

    I also look forward to telling the tale of how Reform grew by taking no short cuts in building a strong foundation by adhering to what political parties are by law. How it was, that each State organized to gain the ballot line according to that State’s law and respectfully met with other Reform Party delegations.

    Moreover, I’m proud now we do not seek celebrity for promotions sake as faithfully as we resist pandering. We provide an avenue for free speech and welcome the debate of new ideas as strongly as we support the principles which made our nation great. We measure candidates by their character. We do what Perot best described as finding the eagles one at a time because it is not their nature to flock.

    Ted is an eagle. I’m one two, albeit, I must admit I’m less likely then he to not be irritated when others with the opportunity of easily gained ballot access fail to demonstrate loyalty to the long term political course necessary to build Reform across the nation. Staying the course requires we support those who support Reform.

    The slogan “Vote Reform if you want Reform” will ring shallow if those dedicated to Reform do not support Reform.

    Ted supports Reform candidates where ever they run. He gave to the Florida Reform Party’s candidate. So, did I. And, for the same reason. I want to see what they do with the money. Hopefully it will be more than bite the hand that feeds them.

  48. jake

    Sandy, that was a great read. I was there too and while I didn’t know of the exact detail I did know of the basic idea of what happened.

    I have to disagree on one statement though. Frank McEnulty, and I voted for him for president, is not registered to the Reform Party. We need to look at the youth involved with the party that is registered Reform. Dave Collison, Jim Brown, etc.. (hehe that would probably include me). What I am saying is that Mr. McEnulty is a good man, an excellent public speaker, and someone if given 20-30 ballot lines could make a splash at least bigger then Baldwin has(excluding he gets the endorsement by Paul).

    I would love to see McEnulty change his registration and become part of the Reform Party of California. Run in 2010 or 2012 at local offices, and then come back in 2016 with a bang. He is the right person for the job, but he needs a website, youtube page, myspace, facebook, and an actual campaign. Frank comes off to me as a guy who could do 3-4 speaking events a day. He is more straight faced then McKinney. Less religious zelic then Baldwin. The truth is he isn’t elected official or a known activist/lawyer that Barr or Nader are.

    What I am trying to say is Frank McEnulty needs to run for Congress. I will say right now I will work for free on that campaign. Then come back in 2016 and we, the reform party, can run with 20-35 states on a budget of 3-5 million.

    The Reform Party isn’t dead at all, but it is time we rid ourselves of this national goal without building up a local goal. Florida, Kansas, and other states are there but that doesn’t mean they should sit out… they should be helping out the states that are not there yet. Washington, Oregon, etc.

  49. Sandy Madison

    Thank you, Jake.

    It does appear few citizens realize how a national party does not exist but for the few hours of a convention.

    All political parties reside in their States. I blame the soft money days when the GOP and the DNC use to send out a member card to promote the vote and fund-raise.

    I’m fond of saying how every American knows when to leave the house and how to conduct themselves on Halloween night but don’t have a clue what to do on a Precinct Meeting night.

    A project which has been long on the burner is David Collison’s party DIY website. I’ll bet ya he might be willing to launch the whole of it with some encouragement and possibly some assistance promoting it.

  50. Sandy Madison

    PS. I forgot to say how much I agree with you about Frank McEnulty.

  51. Markus

    Personally, I wish the RPUSA had approached Tom Laughlin, aka “Billy Jack” about running for President. He is a great man, and would make a great President. I was proud to cast my first vote for him in 1992.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus