There are a handful of others who claim to represent the RPUSA, and the purpose of this post is to explain the legal basis why there is no question who the legitimate officers are.
A brief timeline:
-In 2005, two competing Conventions were held in Yuma Arizona and Tampa Florida.
-The "Tampa Officers" attempted to resolve the issue through a trademark rights suit in Florida Federal Court. Unfortunately, the court ruled the 2005 Tampa Convention was invalidated. The basis for the decision was that the call to the Tampa Convention was issued by the National Secretary instead of by then Chairman Shawn O'Hara. The court did not rule on whether the Yuma Convention was valid, nor did it resolve who the valid officers then were.
-In response to this loss, the Reform Parties of Texas, Michigan, and Florida filed suit in Dallas District Court in 2007 claiming that the Yuma Convention in 2005 also was invalid because not all state parties were invited. If true, this would invalidate all officers, changes to platforms, and changes to rules that occurred after the 2004 Convention. This would leave the RPUSA with no valid officers as well.
-After months of hearings by representatives of the RPUSA (then-Chairman Rodney Martin and Mr. John Blare primarily) and the state parties, the judge agreed that it was was likely the 2005 Yuma Convention was invalid. See the order here:
http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/Order%20R ... lified.pdf
As a result, the judge placed a temporary injunction in place against the RPUSA, and issued the order appointing a licensed Parliamentarian to act as a Receiver. That Parliamentarian was ordered by the judge to call, credential, and report the results of a National Convention. The judge ordered the Convention to be held in Dallas July 18-20, 2008 for the purpose of electing officers to resolve the leadership issue once and for all.
-As a result of the testimony at the trial, Chairman Rodney Martin determined that the state parties were correct and the Yuma Convention was invalid. He began cooperating with the judge and the state parties, and was removed from office by the other defendants (the Yuma Officers) and was replaced by Mr. Frank MacKay.
-The RPUSA, led by Mr. Frank MacKay, then attempted to stop the judge's order by filing suit in New York against members of the State Parties involved, as well as against the court-appointed receiver, and threatened action against the hotel which was to host the Dallas Convention. Frankly, it is amazing that any attorney would believe suing an officer of the court (the Receiver) to prevent them carrying out a court order is legitimate, but they found one that would do so. In response, the Dallas judge called an immediate hearing and threatened sanctions against any individual who interfered with the Dallas Convention occurring.
-The Dallas Convention was held, with attendance consistent with recent conventions. The Constitution and Rules listed on this site was approved, and the officers listed on the http://www.rpusa.info website were elected.
-The defendants in the Dallas Case (Mr. Blare et al), seeing the results, decided not to appear for the scheduled court date, and the judge found that the 2005 Yuma Convention was indeed invalid, determined the matter of leadership settled by the 2008 Dallas Convention, ordered all property turned over to David Collison as Chairman, and issued a permanent injunction against Mr. John Blare and those acting in concert with him.
http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/RPUSA_Aug ... gement.pdf
At this time, Mr. Blare and his associates, which include members of the National Independence Party, continue to pursue the case in New York, seeking to invalidate the Dallas orders and final judgment by doing so.
However, there is significant case law that indicates the Dallas judgment is the final word on the matter. Assuming that the New York court has jurisdiction over the current officers of the RPUSA, according to numerous rulings of the United States Supreme Court, the New York court simply has no power over the matter being contested, which is the the Reform Party-associated property (its name, domain names, etc).
In Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118 (1909), the United States Supreme Court was clear as to situations such as this:
"We think the law of this Court is well established to be that jurisdiction over the property was acquired by the state court when the receiver was appointed, the judicial process served, and the receiver duly qualified, although the state receiver had not taken actual possession of the property. This principle was recognized in Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake Street Electric Ry. Co., 177 U. S. 59, in which this Court said: ‘The possession of the res vests the court which has first acquired jurisdiction with the power to hear and determine all controversies relating thereto, and, for the time being, disables other courts of coordinate jurisdiction from exercising like power. This rule is essential to the orderly administration of justice, and to prevent unseemly conflicts between courts whose jurisdiction embraces the same subjects and persons.’"
This is an oft-repeated and long-established fundamental legal doctrine, that applies here. Judicial process was properly served on all defendants in the Dallas suit. The Texas court appointed a receiver on April 11, 2008. The receiver was duly qualified. The Texas court had undeniable jurisdiction. Therefore, the permanent injunction issued by the Texas District Court and the constructive trust imposed by it on the Defendants are orders of the sole court which could exercise power over the Reform Party USA.
Again, copies of Dallas orders can be found:
Order appointing Receiver:
http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/Order%20R ... lified.pdf
Final Judgment against John Blare et al.
http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/RPUSA_Aug ... gement.pdf
At this point, while case law is clearly in our favor, it is likely the New York case will drag on for some time before we can place the above argument before the court.