skip navigation
Here's how you know US flag signifying that this is a United States Federal Government website

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.


Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Reform Party of the United States v. John Hagelin; Reform Party of the United States v. Gerald M. Moan


On September 15, 2000, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, South District, enjoined John Hagelin and his agents from representing Dr. Hagelin and Nat Goldhaber to the public as the Reform Party (the Party) Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees. The court found that the votes taken first to remove Gerald Moan as the Chair of the Party and to nominate James Mangia to that position, and subsequently to nominate John Hagelin as the Party's Presidential candidate, violated the requirements of the Party's constitution. The court further found that Patrick J. Buchanan and Ezola Foster were the properly nominated candidates of the Reform Party.

The court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Dr. Hagelin and his agents from:

  • Soliciting donations on behalf of the Party, either from party members or from the general public;
  • Distributing press releases or making any communications on behalf of the Party;
  • Operating a web site on behalf of the Party;
  • Making expenditures on behalf of the Party;
  • Undertaking any effort or committing any act to promote John Hagelin and Nat Goldhaber as the official candidates of the Reform Party; and
  • Using the name of the "Reform Party of the United States" or any of the Party's logos.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia had previously dismissed a similar complaint filed by the Party against Dr. Hagelin and Sue Harris DeBauche. That court found that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction.

Source:   FEC RecordNovember 2000