Home General Federal Court in New York Issues Ruling in Internal Reform Party Dispute
formats

Federal Court in New York Issues Ruling in Internal Reform Party Dispute

Published on December 16, 2009, by in General.

On December 16, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Bianco, a Bush, Jr., appointee, issued an opinion in MacKay v Crews, eastern district, 09-cv-2218. He ruled that the 2008 national convention of the Reform Party in Texas was a valid convention. Therefore, the national officers elected at that convention are the rightful holders of the party’s trademarks and logos. Those officers are: chair David Collison, vice-chair Rodney Martin, secretary Janelle Skinner-Weill, and treasurer Beverly Kennedy. The decision, which is already printed, is 19 pages.

18 Responses

  1. clyzro

    Does this mean we’ll see the end of all this bickering? I’d like to see a rebirth for this party.

  2. clyzro: December 16th, 2009 “Does this mean we’ll see the end of all this bickering? I’d like to see a rebirth for this party.”

    Don Lake: Oh pleeeeease! Rodney Martin is still banned from the California Secretary of State via the Israel First Fascist Zionist John Blare. Janelle Skinner – Weill is under going widow hood. Bev Kennedy is still the wicked witch of the Lone Star State.

    There is only one reason to bring the deform/ reform movement back and that is ballot access. And centrist, populist groups blew that with the neglect of the abandoned Natural Law Party in 2004!

    If the deform/ reform party, some of the most corrupt, despicable folks I have had the misery to know, is not serving the populace then it does not deserve to exist!

  3. clyzro:

    I believe it means the end of the bulk of it.

    With any party (major or minor) there will be internal disputes. See the highly televised one that took place between the Democratic presidential candidates last election cycle.

    I can guarantee that a stable, growing, and outward focused Reform Party is my number one goal. I think Don Lake and Richard Winger will agree that if it ain’t about ballot access, it ain’t really a party.

    David Collison
    Chairman 2008-2012

  4. Finally!
    Now they can runa viable 2012 campaign!
    RPUSA!

  5. Buckeye Kned

    Sounds like a bunch of kids (big kids) fighting over toys and EGOS. What a waste of treasury and time, fighting over a party that is effectively DOA in 49 states. And I used to be a contributor and supporter. This fragmentation is not helping the liberty movement. Trying to deal with 50 states and a moving target on ballot access is NOT easy. Best find a party that has some national organization already and in a majority of states and IS NOT one of the two parties from the 19th century.

  6. Buckeye Kned;
    Thank MacKay’s faction for wasting time etc.
    Whatever the case, the RPUSA will be back.
    It will take time…but it can be done.

  7. Don Lake: “Buckeye Kned” [aka an ally or even alter ego of Virginia “John Birch Society” Brooks ???????] is correct!

    # Dennis Says:
    December 17th, 2009: Now they can run a viable 2012 campaign! —— Lake: with all the hurt feelings, and in my case, wallets, and only a hand full of states in [ballot access] play ?????? The reform/ deform movement does not DESERVE to survive! *sarcasm* Thx Blare, Bambey, Coffey and Sharpe – Giesler ……..

  8. Buckeye Kned

    I’m no alter ego or ally. Just a new member of the LP, after years of wasting my time with the GOP. But, it was ROSS PEROT that helped me “see the light” of fiscal responsibility.

  9. Janelle Skinner-Weill must be related to Ted Weill. In 2008, Ted got a few hundred votes as the Reform presidential nominee in Mississippi.

    #8: The deficit spending/national debt that Perot talked so much about in the 1990s was a fraction of today’s spending orgy. I guess the reason we don’t hear from Perot now is that he no longer has presidential ambitions.

  10. Is there any indication as to whether this ruling will be appealed?

  11. Buckeye Kned,

    How do you think the LP, in it’s present state, stacks up against the LP of a decade ago? True, it’s a party that expresses hard line fiscal libertarian positions. But I don’t think the party has made honest efforts to articulate a social libertarian message over the last several years. As I understand it, traditionally, libertarianism is about advocating a clear right for citizens to pursue whatever lifestyle choices they see fit, short of infringing on freedom of other individuals. However, I get the sense (particularly in light of the LP’s most recent presidential ticket) that the party has been overrun by officers who, at most, acquiesce in facing this view. If the social position of the lp in 2004 was that “the government must not influence a citizen’s lifestyle”, the lp in 2008 seemed to be saying “the goverment must not influence a citizen’s lifestyle, however, privately, their peers should encourage them to behave in a manner which accepts and/or responds to a Religious Conservative tradition and it’s hallmarks”. If this is the case, I’ll take an active RP with it’s current platform over the LP. I’d rather have a party with moderate fiscal views and no social views than a party with libertarian fiscal views and conservative social views cloaked in libertarianism.

  12. BuckeyeKned

    # 11 Go to a meeting or a national or state convention and find out is my answer. The LP seems to be “big tent” to me. I know people from the GBLT community and those from the more conservative right, as members of the LP. Maximum Liberty and Minimum Government or Fiscally Responsible and Socially Tolerant are what I see and hear all the time. I have only been in party for 5 years. Difference? I see the party as much more pragmatic and articulate now than it was when I joined. Good mix of three factions: pragmatic, philsophy, and radicals. But, the pragmatic group seems to be growing leaps and bounds with younger people coming into the LP. That is my take on it.
    Demographic changes and future is not good for the GOP if they continue to swing hard right on social and middle on spending. Want a hard right social third party, that would be the Constitution Party/Taxpayer Union Party. My views again.

  13. Steve Rankin,

    Ted got only a few hundred votes primarily because:

    -The prior legal issues compromised our ballot access in many states.

    -The court case pushed the convention to the last possible minute.

    -In some states where we had ballot access, the defendants in the Texas suit managed to prevent him from appearing on the ballot.

    Mr. Weill knew this at the time. His primary intention in running was to preserve the ballot line and do the best that could be done under the circumstances. Likewise, we knew we had a serious handicap since the nomination could not occur until July, a decision was not rendered until late August, and that left practically no campaign time.

    With the viable disputes handled, we will be aggressively pursuing regaining ballot access. The LP is not the only minor party that has been benefiting from an influx of younger activists.

    I do not see the LP as a competitor, rather as a partner in opposing the two entrenched parties. There are enough ideological differences between the LP and the RP that we do not step on each other’s electoral toes (much). I welcome their success as much as ours.

    David Collison
    RPUSA Chairman
    2008-2012

  14. Northern Exposure

    Drive a stake though the Deform Party heart before the abomination arises! What a pathetic waste of time, resources and common sense. There is no longer any need or popular desire for this Deform Party monster.

  15. BuckeyeKned

    The “liberty portion” of the pie is small enough, and it is getting cut up into smaller pieces for the CP, LP, and now the RP !!! And what happens if the Tea Parties create a party. All we do is dilute the message and make it nearly impossible to win. Yes, I used the word “WIN”. 1% to 5 % of the vote doesn’t cut it. 35 – 40% of the vote and one has a chance to win in a tight three-way race.

    It is all a group can do to keep up with ballot access laws and other state requirements for a party. Starting a new or revising an old party is NOT easy in todays’ world and it takes a lot of dedicated professionals in each state to pull it off.

    Believe me, I know, here in Ohio. http://www.lpo.org

  16. When I interviewed Mr. Weill, he made it clear that he was only running to preserve his party. He knew he couldn’t run a viable campaign in the two weeks he was given. That being said, had he not passed away, I think he would have put up a viable campaign in 2012, as he had told me he hoped to. From interviewing him, I got the impression he was a very feisty individual, who was completely fed up with special interests.

    BuckeyeKned; MORE VOICES MORE CHOICES! Third parties exist to be viable alternatives, and to push the major parties to address issues they would otherwise ignore (ie Perot and the economy in 1992). There is no way all third parties would ever unite, and that alright: Hagelin had hoped to form a “coalition” of third parties. That’s not a viable idea. Too many differences between them, and they need to retain ballot access.

  17. BuckeyeKned

    Dennis, SOME of those third parties COULD merge. Moving the major two parties from the 19th century is not the only option. HOw about winning some races? Have we been beat down so much that we don’t know what that means? Good golly, Jesse Ventura proved that a alternative candidate can win a race for Governor. You need a good organization and good finances.

  18. Joe Thomas

    Talk about merging with the other third parties is a waste of time,they are not interested in doing such a thing. I should know. I was a local contact for the Green Party 6 years ago. If flakes like Don Lake hate the Reform Party so much they are welcome to leave anytime they want to,and they can take John Blare and his merry band of morons with them. The Reform Party is moving forward and we do not have time for backbiting just for the sake of backbiting. The Reform Party is right along with the american people on issues like Trade and immigration. What is good for the american people is good for the Reform Party,and vice versa. Has the Reform Party seen better days? Absolutely. Has this country seen better days? Absolutely. I do not plan on giving up on either one. Pacific Regional Chairman, Joe Thomas

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>