Interview: CP Vice-Chairman Randy Stufflebeam Talks About CP Baltimore Meeting, CCTUC and More

Randy Stufflebeam is currently the National Vice-Chairman of the Constitution Party, a position he’s held since April 2012. He resides in southern Illinois.  He was the CP candidate for Illinois Governor in 2006, in which he received 19,020 votes (0.55%). This is the largest write-in vote total in Illinois history. He is also the vice chairman of the Constitution Party of Illinois and is a former Marine.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

     Going into the April 20th national committee meeting in Baltimore, how did you feel? Where you optimistic that it would be a successful meeting?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    That’s an interesting question. Interesting in that I am almost always a glass half full kind of person. Did I feel that the meeting was going to be successful, that depends on what you mean by successful. Frank Fluckiger, the National Chairman is a details oriented kind of person and I had every confidence that the objectives/agenda that he set for the meeting would be achieved, and pretty much by the clock that is set. In that regard I had no doubt about the meeting being successful.

    The number one thing we have to do within the Constitution Party across the nation is raise money. This is an area where my optimism hasn’t been so high. HOWEVER, I am much encouraged in our prospects as we have what I perceive to be tremendous leadership in raising money through Peter Gemma. Peter was involved in the Ron Paul endeavors and has helped the Republican Party raise a lot of money in the past and he is now fully on board with the Constitution Party. He has presented some short term and long term goals that once implemented, I believe, will put the Party on the path of financial recovery.

    Overall, I would have to say that the meeting was very successful, not so much in terms as to what was specifically accomplished at the meeting, but in terms of getting the party to begin heading in the right direction and get us on a solid financial foundation to put us in the condition of winning elections throughout this nation.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Now according to an article I wrote for IPR, 3 major events transpired. The first of which, was the disbanding of Young Constitutionalists. Why do you think YC was not successful? Also, when Joshua Fauver arrived for Saturday’s meeting, he claimed he wasn’t informed about the votes on the matters that took place before he first walked in, until some time later- why wasn’t he informed at all, do you suppose?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    Before going into the separate issues of the Young Constitutionalists and the Clarion Call to Unite Committee let me specifically address Mr. Fauver’s position of not being informed of the votes concerning these matters of which he has an interest.

    Both of the resolutions that dealt with these matters were first dealt with by the Executive Committee on Friday night and were passed without dissent. HOWEVER, all resolutions that are passed by the executive committee MUST BE presented to the National Committee and voted on before they can be considered passed by the party. Both resolutions were presented to the National Committee and they were both passed without dissent.

    While the titles of the specific resolutions that were to be considered by the National Committee were not listed on the agenda, the agenda had specific time for dealing with resolutions and I believe that time was listed on the agenda as being Saturday, @ 8:45am. It is my understanding that Mr. Fauver decided to sleep in during the time of discussion for any resolutions that might be presented to National Committee. Mr. Fauver was registered for the National Committee meeting and had paid his registration, however, he did not pay the State Committeeman dues and was not listed by the state of Louisiana as an official committeeman/representative of his state and therefore did not have any voting rights at the committee meeting. Still, I have been assured that had Mr. Fauver been present, he would have been afforded the opportunity to speak on behalf of either resolution.

    Had I even had the time to recognize Mr. Fauver’s absence that morning, I might have thought he lost interest in the meeting and was possibly already on a flight home. Be that as it may, I was running the sound system for the meeting and had no time to take specific notice as to whether or not Mr. Fauver was present and informed of information that he has a specific interest in. As far as I knew, he was there.

    Let me state unequivocally that there was NO DEVIOUS attempt to withhold information from Mr. Fauver. The fact that Mr. Fauver was absent from probably the most important part of the meeting (which was on the agenda, the resolutions report @ 8:45) of which he was registered (and paid good money), means that the majority of the responsibility rests on his shoulders, not mine, nor the chairman’s responsibility to ensure he is where he should be when he has an interest in what is taking place at the meeting.

    YOUNG CONSTITUTIONALISTS

    In the issue of the “Young Constitutionalists” the language of disbandment is inaccurate.

    According the motion that was made during the fall, 2012 National Committee Meeting that was held in St. Louis, there was a condition that organizational bylaws for the Young Constitutionalists would be presented to the next national committee meeting which meet on April 20. The Young Constitutionalist leadership failed to meet this obligation and therefore made the resolution that was made in the fall “null & void.”

    The National Committee passed a resolution (without dissent) on Saturday morning which stated:

    “In as much as the bylaws and documents were not submitted as a condition of the original resolution to reestablish the Young Constitutionalist, as an official arm of the Constitution Party, the resolution is null and void.”

    I will accept the blame for the Young Constitutionalists not having been successful. I admit that because my attention has been directed towards other endeavors within the party, both nationally and within my own state that I did not give the Young Constitutionalists the attention that it deserved. I will correct that deficiency.

    The bottom line was that the Young Constitutionalists were responsible for not fulfilling its obligations and the national party was simply holding the Young Constitutionalists accountable which was supposed to be the official arm of the party.

    That’s not to say that this can’t be done at the fall meeting of the National Committee, but it will be an entirely new effort to reestablish the Young Constitutionalists and with the water that has been under the bridge on this past effort, we’ll definitely be prepared with documentation prior to the meeting.

    NOW, I can personally say that Mr. Fauver was completely aware of what was happening with the Young Constitutionalists as I personally talked with him Friday night about it.

    CLARION CALL TO UNITE COMMITTEE

    In the issue of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCUC) I don’t think that I need to rehash the issue dealing with Mr. Fauver’s lack of being informed about the resolution that was passed.

    I will say that I was present for both the Executive Committee discussion and the National Committee discussion and never once was Mr. Fauver’s name brought up as him being there as an official representative of the CCUC. As I stated above, I personally discussed the situation with the Young Constitutionalists on Friday night following the executive committee to let him know that the issue of the Young Constitutionalists will be brought before the National Committee meeting in the morning (Saturday). Never once did it enter my mind that Mr. Fauver was there as an official representative of the CCUC, otherwise I would have let him know about the resolution about the CCUC at the same time I talked with him about the Young Constitutionalists.

    Before I provide the specific resolution that was passed by the National Committee, I have heard nothing but positive statements about and respect for the Chairman of CCUC, Cody Quirk and Vice-Chairman Joshua Fauver.

    In both of the discussions (the Executive and National Committee) regarding the CCUC issue, never once was there a deriding comment made about either of these gentle, neither do I believe that during the discussions their names were even brought up; the discussions revolved, almost exclusively, around the advantages and disadvantages of affiliating with the other organizations.

    The resolution that was passed concerning the Clarion Call to United Committee states:

    “The National Committee is taking a position that it is not in our best interest to become involved with the Clarion Call to Unite Committee or affiliate with this organization.”

    There are two extremely notable “cons” in dealing with this particular issue:

    1) The Clarion Call to Unite Committee is proposing that the Constitution Party dissolve its organization (as well as all the others) so as to create a completely new organization, where a new platform and bylaws would be drawn up and new leadership elections would take place.

    2) Two of the organizations were involved in a major rift where they had issues with the official Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee of the party that was elected and decided to support one of their own. To my knowledge, neither party’s leadership has ever made an attempt at reconciliation.

    There is an example of another state party affiliate deciding to support a presidential candidate of its own. They disaffiliated to do so. They have since made reconciliation and have been brought back into the party as an official affiliate. There’s no reason why either of the two that disaffiliated shouldn’t have sought reconciliation with the Constitution Party. Instead, they are more than happy to see the Constitution Party dissolved and then merge together to elect new leadership. This seems more like a hostile takeover than a longing to reconcile the differences and merge with the Constitution Party so that together we can be stronger and start winning elections.

    AGAIN, the Constitution Party has extended NO ILL WILL towards anyone associated with the Young Constitutionalists nor the Clarion Call to United Committee. I expect to see great things come from these young men. I know that Joshua Fauver has announced his run for office and I will do all that I can to help and support him in his endeavor.

    It is my opinion that the Constitution Party leadership has acted correctly in both issues. The Constitution Party stands ready to unite with ALL fellow Constitutionalists. HOWEVER, we do not see dissolving the organization for political expediency to be the best idea. As I have said on numerous occasions, “I believe the Constitution Party is the last great political hope for these United States of America!” Yes, I know we have issues! Yes, I know we need money! Yes, I know with more people in the party we would be stronger! Yes, I know that it is an uphill battle in cliff proportions! BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY HAS THE FOUNDATION AND THE PLATFORM AND THE LEAERSHIP TO START WINNING BATTLES AND GETTING CANDIDATES ELECTED.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Do you think that, if more members of the Constitution Party were present at the National Committee meeting in Baltimore, Md, the votes on the matters relating to Joshua, the YC organization, and the CCTUC would have still been unanimous?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    Regarding the Young Constitutionalists… NO. That was mine and Joshua’s fault.

    Regarding the CCUC… Who knows? Especially if there had been members not only registered, but paid committeeman dues. If he would have been there as a committeemen, I would expect that it would not have been unanimous.

    By the way, I would not use the word “unanimous”. Both resolutions were passed “Without Dissent” no roll call vote was taken and therefore unanimity can not be established. There might have been someone who abstained from voting and if there was an abstention, it would not have been unanimous. Does that make sense?

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. this is my last question on CCTUC. The 4 points of it are that the party that’s joining must be pro-life, favor constitutional government, support non-interventionist foreign policy and withdrawal from the UN, and support for tariffs and American jobs from outsourcing and foreign competition. Did CP members at the meeting know of these 4 planks of the CCTUC, and in your opinion does it really matter?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    This is a simple question to answer.

    1) Those points are a matter of fact in the Constitution Party’s platform.

    2) While those (and others) criteria would absolutely have to be met to affiliate with the Constitution Party, they were not at issue. What was at issue is two things, primarily:

    A) The past actions of a couple of the other organizations and the destructive affect that they had on the Constitution Party.

    Dissolving the Constitution Party’s leadership and platform is NOT in the best interest of the Constitution Party (neither do I believe it to be in the best interest of our country, because of affect),

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    I forgot about this one: least one person alleged on IPR that Quirk’s and Fauver’s association with the Robby Wells 2016 campaign was the primary reason for the rejection of what they were advocating for. Do these statements bear any credence?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    I do believe that Robby Wells was mentioned as supporting the CCUC during the Executive Committee meeting discussion, I do NOT think it was mentioned during the National Committee meeting.

    And while I’m certain that was a factor, I don’t believe it was the main factor.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Darrell Castle announced at the meeting that he’s exploring running for the CP presidential nomination in 2016. If you feel comfortable, what’s your opinion on this? Also, what are your plans for the CP’s future – and what is your outlook on how the CP will be carrying on, including growth, candidate recruitment, youth, etc?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    I THINK IT’S GREAT ! ! ! If I had my way, I’d have at least 4 candidates officially announcing their candidacy for the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination.

    That’s why I held the only Constitution Party Presidential Debates by conference call.

    Plans for the future?

    Current plans are to focus on state and local races. I am working to recruit a full sleight of state-wide candidates here in Illinois, I already have a Gubernatorial and an Attorney General Candidate.

    Nationally? I’m looking to recruit more presidential candidates. It will generate more interest in the party.

    I believe within the next year GROWTH WILL BE PHENOMINAL!! Given the complete dissatisfaction of the two major parties and the defection that we are already beginning to see.

    Youth? ABSOLUTELY. I will be working on those “Young Constitutionalist” bylaws.

    As the song says, “The future’s so bright, I’ve got to wear shades!”

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Oh, BTW.. do you think Robby Wells will seek the CP nod in 2016? He’s currently an independent

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    Let me be clear about something.

    I am the National Vice-Chairman. It is my job to gain ballot access for our party and our candidates. IT IS NOT TO SUPPORT ANY PARTICULAR CANDIDATE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. It would be a conflict of interest to do so. My job is to make it as fair as possible for every candidate seeking our nomination. That’s why I held the debates last year that I did.

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    Robby Wells seeking the CP nomination?

    I think he should and the longer he waits the harder it will be for him to get the nomination, especially considering there are other people already talking about it.

  • Do you know or feel comfortable disclosing the other people?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    In terms of “real” candidates, currently, Darrell Castle is the only one exploring the possibility. There always someone nobody knows who wants to put their name in the hat as well.

    But that doesn’t mean some “big name” candidate won’t come seeking our nomination within the next couple of years.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Randy, thanks so much for your time!! I REALLY appreciate it. Is there anything you think we missed that you would like to add?

  • Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam

    I think that’s good for now. I look forward to seeing your “report.”

    It’ll be fun to see what the response will be.

40 thoughts on “Interview: CP Vice-Chairman Randy Stufflebeam Talks About CP Baltimore Meeting, CCTUC and More

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I got this in my inbox today:

    Dear Chris:

    I received an email advising me that you were planning on interviewing Joshua Fauver and Cody Quirk on your radio show this evening. In view of that, I felt it only fair to you to share with you what I know regarding the situation. Below is a letter which Joshua sent to Peter Vidrine, CP State Chair of LA and my responses to him. I also read some of the comments on IPR, and feel that Trent Hill had a pretty good grasp on what really happened. Joshuah was sent a copy of my response to Peter. I hope what I have written will be of value to you in your interview.

    I feel that both Cody and Joshua are well meaning, but neither of them is aware that they are being manipulated by the leadership of the AIP in CA. Many of the CP leaders clearly see the manipulation going on in full force and simply felt (from past experience) that we needed to steer clear of becoming entangled in still another situation that would end baldy for us.

    I hope this note and the letter below will help you sort out things and put them in proper perspective. I was honestly impressed with Trent Hill’s incite into what is really going on.

    Sincerely,

    Frank Fluckiger

  2. Jeremy C. Young

    First, Krzysztof, thanks so much for providing this wonderful and balanced coverage of an important debate within the CP and the Constitutionalist movement. This is the sort of thing that makes IPR great reading!

    First of all, I’m of two minds on Randy’s comments about the requirement that the CP disband in order to merge with the other tiny parties. First of all, I’m obviously in agreement with him — it is ridiculous to suggest that the CP formally disband as a prerequisite for merging with the other parties. I didn’t realize that was part of the CCTUC requirements (hopefully Randy’s wrong, and it isn’t). On the other hand, I don’t really see the problem with having some sort of joint elections with the other parties — probably at the next CP national convention, rather than an irregularly-scheduled election that would violate everybody’s bylaws. The idea that this would amount to a “takeover” of the CP by the tiny parties is pretty silly. Those tiny parties are TINY. The CP has many more members and delegates and would swamp them in every vote. In fact, I can see a good solution being the CP letting somebody like Markham Robinson win a term as CP National Secretary in exchange for the merger, merely as a courtesy — because Robinson and the others clearly won’t be able to win a single office any other way.

  3. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    From CCTUC Facebook group:

    Randy Constitutional Evangelist Stufflebeam My response to the misinformation:

    Disclaimer: I will NOT be talking about the content or the Constitution Party’s position or response to any of the resolutions that were passed. I will only be addressing only be addressing the peripheral issues surrounding the conduct of the interested principles as are being discussed in this thread.

    So as to make sure all my response is posted as so as to not overwhelm people with a single post and so as to allow comments to be made towards the various responses, will be posting my response in 4 parts.

    PART 1 of 4 – Informing Mr. Fauver of the resolutions

    FIRST (and foremost), the fact is that I DID TALK TO MR. FAUVER following the Executive Committee Meeting. There are MANY people who can verify that I DID in fact sit down and talk with Mr. Fauver. In fact, the gentleman that Mr. Fauver was talking with when I interrupted them to take Mr. Fauver off to the side and speak with him can attest to the fact that this did in fact occur.

    Now, only Mr. Fauver can attest to the content of that discussion. HOWEVER, the only thing that I discussed with Mr. Fauver was the Executive Committees resolution regarding the Young Constitutionalists. Mr. Fauver expressed to me that he was not surprised and saw it coming when he had read the minutes from the Fall National Committee Meeting and recognized that we had failed in presenting the bylaws and other documents to this National Committee Meeting as a part of the condition of the Official Creation of the Young Constitutionalists.

    HOWEVER, it did NOT, for a moment, occur to me that I needed to address the CCTUC resolution with Mr. Fauver. It was NOT on my radar (or in my thinking, what-so-ever) that while I was talking with him about the Young Constitutionalists, that he was also there to be the official representative of the CCTUC.

    There are two VERY important points to be made here:

    #1 – You would think that someone who spent the time and especially the money to register for the National Committee Meeting as an official representative (in the capacity of Vice-Chairman) of the CCTUC would have made mention of that fact to someone, especially in the course of the conversation that I was having with him regarding the Executive Committee’s resolution regarding the Young Constitutionalists. HOWEVER, he NEVER made mention of the CCTUC during our conversation.

    Believe me, if he had, I would have been more than happy to discuss the issue with him, just as I had done with Mr. Quirk when he called me about why the National Committee passed the resolution that it had.

    #2 – It was clearly marked on the AGENDA that at 8:45am, the resolutions would be dealt with:

    “8:45 am | Resolutions Report Cindy Redburn – Preliminary Report and Procedures”

    Given Mr. Fauver’s lack of political experience, he may not have realized that if there were ever going to be some official action taken by the Constitution Party, it would be during the time period listed on the agenda dealing with resolutions.

    This was probably the most important part (even with the CCTUC discussion and resolution aside) of the meeting – THE PASSING OF RESOLUTIONS (which just happens to be how the party conducts business, by the way); everything else is just FYI.

    What is most perplexing to me, personally, is that I AM THE ONE WHO RECOMMENDED HIM FOR THE YOUNG CONSTITUTIONALIST’S CHAIRMAN against some of the objections of others and yet he continues to allow the MISinformation to be perpetrated about our conversation.

    I’m sad and VERY disappointed in Mr. Fauver that he has not had the character and the integrity to correct the misinformation about the fact that he and I did have a conversation Friday night about the Young Constitutionalists and that I did in fact tell him that the party would be dealing with that issue in the morning.
    4 godz. temu · Lubi? to! · 1

  4. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    PART 2 of 4 – Insinuation of wrong doing by the party. (By Randy Stufflebeam)

    Contrary to insinuations made (especially by those who NOT in attendance to the meetings) there was absolutely NO attempt to keep things a secret. Please note the following four points:

    1) ALL RESOLUTIONS (including the CCTUC resolution) WERE PASSED IN A PUBLIC FORUM, DURING A TIME CLEARLY MARKED ON THE AGENDA TO DO SO.

    2) None of the resolutions that were passed (by the National Committee) were done in “executive session.”

    3) NO ONE (that I know of) looked around to see if Joshua Fauver was present and not finding him so, thought to themselves, “Now would be a good time to deal with CCTUC issue.” I can at least attest to the fact that NO ONE said, “Hey Joshua Fauver, the CCTUC Vice-Chairman is absent, let’s pass the CCTUC resolution and he’ll never know and won’t have the opportunity to speak to it.” NO ONE!!

    4) Had Mr. Fauver been present, though NOT a in the official capacity as committeeman of the state that he is from, he would have been afforded the opportunity to speak to the issue, just as others were on other issues. NOTE: While he would have been afforded the opportunity to speak, he would not have been permitted to vote on the issue, since he was not a national committeeman.

  5. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    PART 3 of 4 – Mr. Fauver’s Absence (By Randy Stufflebeam)

    I’m going to deal with Mr. Fauver’s absence during what I believe he would deem the single most important event of the weekend.

    #1 – While I’m sure it was mentioned, I have no idea why Mr. Fauver would not be present during the entire National Committee Meeting that was slated to go from 8am until 5pm, and let me state that neither do I care. As the saying goes, “Excuses are like butts (actually another word is used, but for the sake of keeping this post family friendly…), everyone has one and they all stink.”

    Working on only a few hours sleep the night before and even less the night before that, I was in the conference room until at least 2 AM. I was back in the room at 7:30 so as to set up the sound and make sure it was ready to cover the Chairman and the other speakers of the day. So I don’t care what his excuse is for not being present for a portion of the National Committee Meeting, it was his responsibility to be there, not mine.

    To further make the point, if it were me and let’s just say that there was an emergency that came up that prevented me from being present; given how important of an issue for the reason for my being there was, I would have found someone to notify me of any issues being brought up that directly impacted the reason for me being there. It’s called being responsible.

    Apparently, as Vice-Chairman of the CCTUC, Mr. Fauver’s presence at the National Committee was to be an official representative of the CCTUC. The fact is that if this is the case, he failed being that representative regardless of his excuses for not being present.

    If I were the president of a corporation that had an interest in what was being done in the interested organization and sent a representative of the corporation to represent the corporation’s interest at that organization’s meeting and that representative failed to show up at the meeting and was left out of the discussion, for what-ever reason could be contrived, that representative would no longer exist within the corporation.

    FURTHER, I did not personally take note to Mr. Fauver’s presence or the lack thereof at the meeting; my attention was totally distracted by providing sound resources for both the Executive Committee Meeting and the National Committee Meeting. HOWEVER, had I noted that Mr. Fauver was absent from the meeting, I might have thought that he decided not to show up for the National Committee Meeting and was on a flight home. It is not my job, nor is it the job of the Chairman of the party to babysit each person who may or may not have an interest in the Constitution Party’s business. That rests solely on the interested party’s shoulders.

  6. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    PART 4 of 4 – Suumary (By Randy Stufflbeam)

    In summary, I will say this:

    “I TOLD MR. FAUVER (Friday night, following the Executive Committee Meeting) FOLLOWING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN THE MORNING REGARDING THE YOUNG CONSTITUTIONALISTS.”

    That alone should have been enough of an impetuous to be present for the entire National Committee Meeting.

    I will say further: “THERE WAS NOTHING DEVIOUS OR INAPPROPRIATE IN THE WAY THAT CONSTITUTION PARTY CONDUCTED ITS MEETING IN PASSING THE TWO RESOLUTIONS OF CONCERN HERE.”

    The bottom line is this: YOU DON’T LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PARTY – SHOW UP IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND ACTUALLY BE PRESENT DURING THE ENTIRE MEETING TO HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

    I am extremely OFFENDED by those who did not feel it important enough to be present during the passing of resolutions to insinuate that the party (especially the party’s leadership) acted on these resolutions in a devious and unprincipled manner. NEXT TIME SHOW UP FOR THE ENTIRE MEETING!! Then you might have some footing to make your accusations.

  7. Jeremy C. Young

    I’m also curious as to whether the CP has any intention of actually acquiring California ballot status through its new state affiliate. My understanding is that it’s virtually impossible; Seidenberg and Robinson are annoying, but they pretty much have the CP over a barrel on this one.

  8. Trent Hill

    Jeremy—no. Any real effort would cost millions and likely fail. They have to get the AIP back in order to get ballot status.

  9. Cody Quirk

    I guess I’ll repost some of Joshua’s response here before I respond on my own to Randy’s comments here…

  10. Cody Quirk

    Joshua Fauver: “I’m not going to make this personal as you have chosen to do Randy. But I will say this, as far as your claim about misinformation, I never claimed I was ignorant over the matter of the Young Constitutionalists, in fact I said in my interview with Chris ” I knew the topic was going to be discussed. Randy Stufflebeam had a discussion about it Friday night. There were stipulations in the resolution passed in St. Louis that we had not noticed to be totally honest. We failed to meet those stipulations.” That is all I’m going to say on this matter.”

  11. Cody Quirk

    J.F.: “Again, please refer to this quote from the interview I had with Chris Lesiak. ” I knew the topic was going to be discussed. Randy Stufflebeam had a discussion about it Friday night. There were stipulations in the resolution passed in St. Louis that we had not noticed to be totally honest. We failed to meet those stipulations.” I did not pretend not to know that the Constitution Party was going to be dealing with the Young Constitutionalists.”

  12. Cody Quirk

    Here is my response to Randy from the CCTUC facebook group: “Well it looks like this has turned into a ‘he-said, she-said’ fight. Obviously I wasn’t there, so I can’t comment on the specifics of Randy’s story with Josh’s story. However, that said, let’s hypothetically say that Randy’s story is correct and Josh’s story isn’t, if there was no conspiracy or hidden intention to throw Josh under the bus and to reject the sincere overtures of the CCTUC, then in that scenario, what happened in Baltimore was a complete lack of clarity in communication & coordination with how the meeting itself was publicly addressed, and because of this complete lack of clarity, along with how the officers and members of the CP also failed to quickly address or even respond to the fallout from the Baltimore meeting in order to prevent a complete fight like this from happening in the first place, or at least to put a quick stop on it before it got out of hand and damaged the public’s perception of the CP. But instead, there was no response from the leaders of the CP until the outcry over how the meeting was already fanning out across the internet and nearly everyone in the world of third party politics were reading about what happened to Josh. That said, and sticking with the hypothesis that Randy is right and Josh is wrong; the way the CP conducts its meetings and general business is not only archaic and unproductive, but ridiculous, and its obvious now that, excluding the bylaws and national platform, the CP needs to royally reform itself and make some serious changes in order to catch up to the technical and social functions of the 21st century, and this kind of reform cannot wait until 2016 at all.”

  13. Cody Quirk

    Long & detailed response from me to Randy on the CCTUC facebook page:

    “The second thing, while Randy is certainly right that, if you don’t like how your own political party goes about things, then you don’t just complain about it- you attend the meetings and work to change those things within your party; that’s how to do it; I remember there were a few things I wanted to change with my state affiliate and, as frustrating as it was at times, after a few state meetings and talking extensively to members and leaders of my party, I finally got those changes implemented at a state convention a few years ago, so while implementing change doesn’t happen overnight, if you stick with it and persist, eventually it’ll happen.
    However that said, with the way the CP conducts itself, its actually quite difficult and sometimes frustrating in implementing better changes in the CP and its bylaws, especially with how bull-headed and resistant some in the CP are in seeing any kind of changes made; it even took many years to add language in the bylaws that would allow for the Exec. & National Committees to meet via electronically, for example.
    And also, unlike for people like Randy, and many of the leaders and devout members of the CP who are either retired, or are financially stable enough to travel nationally to the meetings often- others don’t have the same luxuries of money and time to attend, especially if one has school, work, family, or any handicaps that may prevent them from traveling. On my end, I work a job that’s 8.25$ an hour, go to school part-time, and also pay 250$ in child support; I pretty much don’t have enough for a plane ticket even to Sacramento, CA. And I also don’t have many friends that would loan me the hundreds of dollars it costs for a ticket say all the way in Baltimore. My Party’s Executive Director, Janine Hansen, actually works in our state legislature, unpaid, and nearly 80 hours a week at times! She manages by staying in a apartment in Carson that is owned by a friend, and has other friends that donate groceries and gas money so she could travel back and forth from Carson to her home in Elko, and with her husband getting laid off from his job recently, she’s struggling so much that she couldn’t afford a ticket to Baltimore, and also has to deal with writing about, or reporting on various legislative bills constantly. And with the majority of the state officers of the Nevada IAP either on a fixed income, out of work, or low-income (especially with our crappy state economy), barely anyone could afford to travel to Baltimore, or to most of the National Committee meetings which are constantly held in either the East or midwest and barely ever out here in the West.
    So I think you better back off on your statement about people that don’t show up to the national meetings, Mr. Stufflebeam, especially when the 100$ that it cost each person to attend and be able to vote in those meetings actually is a big chunk out of some people’s paychecks. And if the CP has ever consider ed making it easier for CP’ers to attend or participate in the national meetings more often- then such changes must be implemented in the party as soon as possible, especially if it might save the CP money, with how it’s finances are still in the red.”

  14. Cody Quirk

    From this interview with Mr. Stufflebeam, I’m going to specifically answer these two false points he made about the CCTUC, which demonstrates the complete misinform that the CP has about this organization-

    “The Clarion Call to Unite Committee is proposing that the Constitution Party dissolve its organization (as well as all the others) so as to create a completely new organization, where a new platform and bylaws would be drawn up and new leadership elections would take place.”

    If that is based off of rumor, or the interpretation of the various statements made by me, and others of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee, then that is false, and it looks like the CCTUC will be officially addressing this matter on its website soon…
    As for here, first off- the CCTUC DOES NOT CALL FOR THE DISBANDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY!
    Does it call for a merger of the parties together? Yes it does, but that doesn’t mean all of the parties that it is in negotiation with, must disband in order to meet the goal of having a sole, unified party, and even those parties that do disband, will do so in a considerate matter and by consent of the will of the members of that party itself.
    So in unifying the parties together, if course it will only be done with the democratic consent of all of these parties each.
    As for the CP, will it have to alter itself radically (except for its beliefs and principles that are in its platform) in order to adjust to becoming part of a unified constitutionalist party? Yes, yet only by the consent of its membership.

    Does the CCTUC require the CP to disband and cease to exist?
    NOOO!

    It’s sad that, despite how the CCTUC has tried to reach out to the CP, to send invitations to all their national leaders (which it did) and was also open and considerate to them about its agenda and goal, as well as willing to answer any questions or alleviate any reservations they had, yet they still jumped to conclusions and passed that resolution (and whether the procedure in passing that resolution was fair or accurate is indeed open to question at this moment).

    * * *

    “Two of the organizations were involved in a major rift where they had issues with the official Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee of the party that was elected and decided to support one of their own. To my knowledge, neither party’s leadership has ever made an attempt at reconciliation.”

    He is referring to the California AIP and America’s Party. which indeed came from those in the CP that supported Alan Keyes for the nomination back in 2008 and bolted when Chuck Baldwin got the nod instead. However, that was nearly 5 years ago and many, many factors have changed since then, which the CP should have considered first before jumping the gun.
    For one, one of the main architects for the AIP bolting from the CP and fueling the animosity was Edward Noonan, the former AIP State Chair whose term in office was one of the worst in the AIP’s history, yet who later left the AIP and is certainly no longer a factor in that party. I also know that back then, I butted heads ferociously with the leaders of these parties for quite some time as well.
    Yet that was years ago and now, Obama got another term, our Second Amendment rights are under attack like never before, as is our constitutional freedoms and our moral values…
    So, which America ever closer to becoming a Dictatorship, can the CP afford to maintain its pissing contest with the leaders of these two parties when they both have much to offer the CP, and have been willing to talk about merging the parties together, as well as how they contributed positively to the dialogue and cooperation at our meeting on April 13th- without any contention or strife with the leaders of the other parties who were in attendance (especially with Janine Hansen serving as the representative for the CP at this meeting)?
    So, if the leaders of these two parties are willing to bury the hatchet and work together with the CP and others to the point of finally unifying the parties together- then where’s the logic in remaining apart and always thinking these two parties have it out for the CP?

    And second off, Randy is wrong that there wasn’t a previous attempt at reconciliation with the AIP (though then again, he probably didn’t know about it)…
    After the 2008 elections, I did engage in private dialogue with Robinson and Seidenberg in trying to bring back the AIP to the CP, however, I was the only one talking to them and notified only a few CP’ers about my efforts, since I was first trying to see where things went.
    These private negotiations almost seceded, except that a former member of their party got an award from the CP for her years of service in the CP itself, and due to the fact that at the time the leaders of the AIP were at serious odds with her- they rejected returning back to the CP right when they were considering it, and so the negotiations ended then.
    Yet it was worth a shot at the time.

  15. Cody Quirk

    Though they could have accomplished that earlier, and in a peaceful manner, without having to resort to political cloak & dagger with Seidenberg and Robinson perhaps, if Don Grundmann wasn’t at the helm, for starters.

  16. Rod Stern

    CQ

    Sorry, but I think Seidenberg and friends are playing you. They did the same thing when they had Virgil Goode fly out and meet with them to get their endorsement, then unanimously endorsed Hoefling. And, I have been told, on other occasions. They make themselves sound conciliatory and open to reconciliation, only to pull back when push comes to shove. They can only do this so many times before people come to the conclusion that they aren’t honest.

    What Seidenberg and friends really think of the CP is demonstrated by his continuing to mess with the 300 or whatever it is CP voters in California, as if they were some kind of threat to their half-million AIP voters. Seidenberg even admits (and goads) that the California CP can’rt get ballot access, yet he still spends time undercutting and messing with this tiny party.

  17. Peter Gemma

    Whoa! Kid, if you want to be a “reporter,” ya can’t play with someone’s words or meanings.

    This is inaccurate:
    “2 people, including National Committee member Peter Gemma, alleged on IPR that Quirk’s and Fauver’s association with the Robby Wells 2016 campaign was the primary reason for the rejection of what they were advocating for.”

    This is what I’ve written that includes the words Robby and Wells:
    1. “Look, the kid was the wrong guy for the wrong job – at the wrong time in his life. He had 4+ months to get the organization’s basic paperwork in order but didn’t. He has a number of other things on his plate ranging from CCTUC to Robby Wells to being a student. When I was his age I thought I could collect titles and slay dragons – geez was I ever wrong. Joshua shouldn’t view this as anything more than a simple life lesson: don’t over-reach. Now he has the freedom to pursue his other political passions … and that’s a good thing. He has talent and ambition that can be focused on what he believes in.”
    2. “Why would the CP want to deal with the cads and nut cases who run the California American Independent Party, and Tom Hoefling of Alan Keyes fame? And then there’s the fledgling Independent American Party who, as they talk unity, are right now trying to get ballot access in Utah – in direct competition with the CP. Add to the mix Robby Wells, and the brew is something no dedicated, knowledgeable third party advocate would get near.”

    See the problem here? The words, or inference, that Robby Wells was the primary reason for the YC/Joshua Fauver thing can’t be used.

  18. Rod Stern

    I believe at some other point you did not quote here you actually did say it was NOT the primary reason.

  19. Randall C. Stufflebeam

    “The CCTUC DOES NOT CALL FOR THE DISBANDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY!”

    FIRST: I have never used the term “Disband,” I have used the term “dissolve.” There are slightly different connotations and you should really look up the word “dissolve” as it specifically applies in the corporate world and look at corporations who were dissolved to merge with other companies. This is EXACTLY what is being called for in the Clarion Call to United Committee.

    SECOND: Mr. Quirk, you talk out both sides of your mouth. First you say that that you are not calling for “the disbandment of the Constitution Party,” then just a mere couple of sentences later you say: “As for the CP, will it have to alter itself radically (except for its beliefs and principles that are in its platform) in order to adjust to becoming part of a unified constitutionalist party? Yes, yet only by the consent of its membership.”

    Dissolving the Constitution Party is exactly what you are calling for it to do when you make the statement that in order for there to be a “unified constitutionalist party” the Constitution Party must “alter itself radically.” What’s interesting is that you try to make it sound more palatable by adding, “yet only by the consent of its membership.”

    Your suggestion is for the Constitution Party Leadership to agree to a National Convention for the purpose of merging with the other organizations and electing new leadership for the new organization (which may or may not retain the name “Constitution Party”), adopting new bylaws, and adopting a new, streamlined platform.

    And while I don’t know that I necessarily agree with Mr. Fluckiger’s assessment that those organizations (specifically, the AIP) are manipulating you, since it was you who went after them to merge them with the Constitution Party, they are certainly taking advantage of the situation.

    OF COURSE, they could be talked into a merger with the Constitution Party where they have the opportunity to depose the current leadership and write new bylaws and a new platform. OF COURSE, the would be quite amenable to that. This would be a golden opportunity for them.

    NOW please tell me, how, other than having the possible ballot access that California has to offer that it makes any kind of good sense to present the opportunity of national leaders to those who were party to a major destructive force within the Constitution Party. In fact, what’s interesting is that the AIP has had its own disaffiliation shortly after the 2008 presidential elections when Mr. Hoefling created the “AMERICA’S Independent Party” vice using the California’s name the “AMERICAN Independent Party.” What’s even more interesting is that Alan Keyes (probably to his credit) is NO LONGER associated with either of those groups.

    FURTHER: as Mr. Lesiak recognized on his show, “The Lesiak Report,” there is a major platform issue that would have to be resolved regarding foreign relations, which was the major dividing issue between Alan Keyes and the Constitution Party and was the cause for his rejection as the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination and his subsequent leaving the party (which incidentally, he nor Mr. Hoefling ever joined) and taking the California Party with them.

    And this is the type of leadership that the Constitution Party is to capitulate and allow to possibly become the national leadership of the new merged party?

    Mr. Quirk, I admire your tenacity and you have demonstrated great leadership skill in developing the CCTUC and your accomplishments in bringing the various organizations together that you have.

    HOWEVER, while I believe that ultimately you have the best of intentions, you are not living in the world of reality if you think this merger is a great idea for the Constitution Party and ultimately this nation, just merely for the political expediency of gaining a significant voting block.

  20. Rod Stern

    Mr. Stufflebeam @25 makes sense, and I do believe the AIP crew is playing games, as I’ve already explained several times why.

  21. Cody Quirk

    2. “Why would the CP want to deal with the cads and nut cases who run the California American Independent Party, and Tom Hoefling of Alan Keyes fame? And then there’s the fledgling Independent American Party who, as they talk unity, are right now trying to get ballot access in Utah – in direct competition with the CP. Add to the mix Robby Wells, and the brew is something no dedicated, knowledgeable third party advocate would get near.”

    Two words: BALLOT ACCESS.

    And in California especially, there’s no way you can get the CP on the ballot there unless you had Bill Gates funding your efforts to do so.

  22. Cody Quirk

    “FIRST: I have never used the term “Disband,” I have used the term “dissolve.” There are slightly different connotations and you should really look up the word “dissolve” as it specifically applies in the corporate world and look at corporations who were dissolved to merge with other companies. This is EXACTLY what is being called for in the Clarion Call to United Committee.”

    According to your interpretation, oh and its Clarion Call To ‘Unite’ Committee.

    “SECOND: Mr. Quirk, you talk out both sides of your mouth.”

    Talking is a very important part of communication, or effectively getting your ideas out to the general public, or even trying to clarify something or explain how something happened-

    Something that you guys failed to do until it was a raging inferno on IPR.

    “First you say that that you are not calling for “the disbandment of the Constitution Party,” then just a mere couple of sentences later you say: “As for the CP, will it have to alter itself radically (except for its beliefs and principles that are in its platform) in order to adjust to becoming part of a unified constitutionalist party? Yes, yet only by the consent of its membership.” Dissolving the Constitution Party is exactly what you are calling for it to do when you make the statement that in order for there to be a “unified constitutionalist party””

    Nice spin, you know, ‘dissolving’ & ‘radically changing’ are apples and oranges here. Besides, I know you’ve told me over the phone that there are a few things in the CP that should be changed. And for me, that’s a understatement; there’s a LOT that needs to be changed with the CP- since the way it is, and runs itself now, really is a joke. (and plenty in the CP agree on that, even if they think the CCTUC is the boogeyman).

    Though if some here think that these changes I speak of are to alter our stances or beliefs, then you can be rest assured that the answer to that is an absolute ‘NO’.
    In fact if we were to attempt that, then you would most certainly see the other parties break off negotiations with us and leave the discussion table.

    “the Constitution Party must “alter itself radically.” What’s interesting is that you try to make it sound more palatable by adding, “yet only by the consent of its membership.””

    Well DER! Of course we cannot implement change without the consent of the membership of the party. I think that’s more then obvious, and you would agree on that too.

    “Your suggestion is for the Constitution Party Leadership to agree to a National Convention for the purpose of merging with the other organizations and electing new leadership for the new organization (which may or may not retain the name “Constitution Party”), adopting new bylaws, and adopting a new, streamlined platform.”

    Uh huh, so? If members of the CP aren’t comfortable with changing a sentence in the bylaws, or even to correct a misspelling in a party document, then I have to wonder why such people are even involved with the Party, or in politics in the first place.

    It’s common sense in politics that while principles and beliefs can stay the same, everything else cannot; we live in a constantly changing world and that’s the nature of things.

    “And while I don’t know that I necessarily agree with Mr. Fluckiger’s assessment that those organizations (specifically, the AIP) are manipulating you, since it was you who went after them to merge them with the Constitution Party, they are certainly taking advantage of the situation.”

    Ok, but in what way? And I doubt them commenting on here is really ‘taking advantage’ of the situation.

    “OF COURSE, they could be talked into a merger with the Constitution Party where they have the opportunity to depose the current leadership and write new bylaws and a new platform. OF COURSE, the would be quite amenable to that. This would be a golden opportunity for them.”

    Well, unlike the Constitution Party, the CCTUC wants to be fair and considerate to the other parties- say maybe they would consider joining, or merging with the CP, but only if you guys be willing to consider making some of their party leaders leaders in the CP- just like you did when Jon Barrie jumped over from the National IAP into the CP.
    Honestly, having a absolutionist “my way or the highway” doesn’t work in politics- in fact it’s actually quite counterproductive.

    “NOW please tell me, how, other than having the possible ballot access that California has to offer that it makes any kind of good sense to present the opportunity of national leaders to those who were party to a major destructive force within the Constitution Party. In fact, what’s interesting is that the AIP has had its own disaffiliation shortly after the 2008 presidential elections when Mr. Hoefling created the “AMERICA’S Independent Party” vice using the California’s name the “AMERICAN Independent Party.””

    Yeah, I didn’t agree with that either, and on the California’s side, it was Ed Noonan that was leading the charge on that front, and he’s no longer with the AIP.
    But again, its been nearly 5 years and yet the AIP and also Tom Hoefling’s Party are willing to talk merger with us- and with our nation falling ever quicker into the black pit of socialism, do you think we can afford to stay divided and bickering amongst each other? Can we afford to keeping fighting among one another while Obama and the two-party system rips up the Constitution even further and does away with our liberties more so then ever before?
    We can’t afford to keep up the years & decades of division with these parties, especially since many of them are ready to bury the hatchet and unify. But if you guys want to keep up the pissing contests and treating other constitutionalists as if they’re GOP’ers, then indirectly, you will contribute to the downfall of this once great nation because you couldn’t work out your differences and fight together to turn things around in time.

    “What’s even more interesting is that Alan Keyes (probably to his credit) is NO LONGER associated with either of those groups.”

    Yeah, well he’s a poor excuse of a candidate. Oh well. But then again, Michael Peroutka is no longer associated with the CP- never mind the damage the he and his associates caused in the party.

    “FURTHER: as Mr. Lesiak recognized on his show, “The Lesiak Report,” there is a major platform issue that would have to be resolved regarding foreign relations, which was the major dividing issue between Alan Keyes and the Constitution Party and was the cause for his rejection as the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination and his subsequent leaving the party (which incidentally, he nor Mr. Hoefling ever joined) and taking the California Party with them.”

    I addressed that already, and the AIP and Tom Hoefling’s Party are willing to work that matter out with us. I myself am a fervent Isolationist and big time supporter of UN withdraw, yet, as I said before, our nation is too far into that pit for us to still be squabbling and aloof; if they’re willing to work with us and also come to an agreement on that matter, then its quite simpleton in the political sense to reject working with, or talking to them.

    “And this is the type of leadership that the Constitution Party is to capitulate and allow to possibly become the national leadership of the new merged party?”

    Capitulate? Again with the paranoia talk- this is the exact mistrust and suspicion that’s what’s not only keeping us from unifying and finally making that foray into major office, but also from restoring our Constitutional Republic.
    In fact, I think for the CP to remain aloof and refuse friendship or dialogue with the other parties unless they bow to the CP’s demands and must jump through a bunch of hoops for the CP in order to be worthy to join- doesn’t just smack of pettiness, but of outright selfishness as well.

    “Mr. Quirk, I admire your tenacity and you have demonstrated great leadership skill in developing the CCTUC and your accomplishments in bringing the various organizations together that you have.”

    Thank you, I actually think you’ve done an alright job as the National Vice-Chairman, minus how things went down at Baltimore.
    You certainly would have made a better National Chair then Mr. Fluckiger, IMO, since he has dropped the ball on a few matters with the Party, which includes refusing to allow any State Chairman or National Officer of the CP to have a copy of the current national bylaws, minus him and the Nat. Secretary.
    That kind of ludicrous secrecy is quite damaging to the CP.

    “HOWEVER, while I believe that ultimately you have the best of intentions, you are not living in the world of reality if you think this merger is a great idea for the Constitution Party and ultimately this nation, just merely for the political expediency of gaining a significant voting block.”

    Really, because I’m thinking the same exact thing about you and the active members of the CP.
    Never mind we were open with you about our intentions and invited you to our meetings; you rejected us, and despite being willing to have you engage in dialogue with leaders of the other parties, especially the AIP, in order to diminish or end the animosity, and show you that these other parties are not ‘typhoid marys’- you still rejected our message, to the point that after the failure to respond immediately to me and Josh’s protests over how things went down at Baltimore- you finally responded in a divisive manner that actually, for me, alone- despite being a member of this party for many, many years, and having also contributed much of my efforts to growing and contributing to this party’s success- if that’s what you call it -has made me finally have serious doubts on whether I want to actually try to present our message again in Denver, and to continue being a member of the CP itself.

    Seriously, after all the drama and strife that has riddled the CP throughout many years- I really cannot put up with this anymore, and so I’m going to have to do some serious mediation on this matter.

  23. John Macy

    Clearly California ballot access is a big deal, but the AIP gang can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith. Just because they act friendly to you it does not mean anything.

  24. Mark Seidenberg

    John Macy

    You state “the AIP gang can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith”.

    Please be advised that the American Independent Party of California is a qualified
    political party, it is not a gang. You write like
    the attorney’s of Jim King who asseverated the
    the AIP was a “gang” in court. Mr. King lost in
    three courts cases in two counties in
    California.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  25. Mark Seidenberg

    John Macy

    When I negotiate, I always negotiate in good faith.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  26. Don Grundmann

    John Macy – If I may receive your e-mail address at STOPtheIRS@hotmail.com I can send you an e-mail which I sent today to the State Chairmen of the CP describing, among many other things, how Mark Seidenberg ” negotiates in good faith.”

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. The last legally elected Chairman of the AIP

  27. John Macy

    No thanks. Post it here, for all to see. Seidenberg should be exposed publicly, not via email, and I’ve heard about you allegedly harassing people over email. If true those emails should be posted for all to see as well, but I’d rather not take chances, besides the fact that it really should be public anyway.

  28. Mark Seidenberg

    John Macy

    In post # 37 to you of April 30, 2013. Dr. Don
    Grundmann states to you that he is the “last
    legally elected Chairman of the AIP.” This is a lie. Don Grundmann was never elected Chairman of the American Independent Party.

    It is my current intention to use the disinformational posting of Dr. Don Grundmann
    for his trial.

    FYI, Dr. Don Grundmann was last on the AIP
    State Central Committee on September 2, 2008.
    Therefore, he could not have been elected to anything.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
    Vice Chairman, American Independent Party of
    California

  29. John Macy

    Both you and Grundmann should be locked in a small windowless room and have the keys thrown out.

Leave a Reply