Joshua Fauver Writes to LA CP Chair Peter Vidrine About CP Meeting in Balitmore: National Chairman Frank Fluckiger Responds

Peter Vidrine is the chairman of the Constitution Party of Louisiana. Joshua Fauver is the vice-chair. Fauver is also the vice-chairman of the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC). I got the following email from National Chairman Frank Fluckiger today: 

Dear Chris:
I   received an email advising me that you were planning on interviewing Joshuah 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

Dear Peter:

I was copied on the email that Joshua Fauver sent you and felt it wise to respond to it. I just wanted to take some time to think things through more carefully before doing so.  You will find my response in “All CAPS”.  Randy Stufflebeam will also most likely want to respond to your email in his words.

Dear Mr, Vidrine,

I write to you today to voice my concern regarding a resolution passed at the National Spring meeting in Baltimore.

As you are well aware, I have worked with Cody Quirk of Nevada since the end of November to help see the goals of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee come to fruition.  The resolution in question was posted on the Independent Political Report today, (April 23, 2013).  The resolution says it was not “in the best interests of the CP to join or have any ties to the Clarion Call to Unite Committee” effort and “not being affiliated with or supportive of the CCTUC.”

My concern with this resolution stems from the following reasons:

1)    I was not in the room at the time the resolution was passed.  Normally, I would not have been concerned, but, this resolution was not on the itinerary given to me, and it was known by both Mr. Fluckiger and Mr. Stufflebeam that I was a supporter of the efforts of the Clarion Call To Unite Committee.  It is disconcerting that the national committee decided to propose and pass this resolution while the one known supporter of the CCTUC was not in the room to debate the matter, especially after it was left off of the itinerary.

AS TRENT HILL OF IPR POINTED OUT, THE DETAIL OF RESOLUTIONS ARE GENERALLY NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA DUE TO LACK OF SPACE, BUT THE RESOLUTIONS REPORT WAS ON THE AGENDA AND WAS SCHEDULED FOR 8:45 AM. WE WERE ON A VERY TIGHT SCHEDULE AND FOLLOWED IT VERY CLOSELY.

JOSHUAH HAD THE SAME AGENDA THAT ALL OTHER MEMBERS HAD.  WHAT HE FAILED TO MENTION IS THAT HE SLEPT IN AND MISSED THAT FIRST HOUR OR SO OF THE MEETING. HAD HE BEEN IN ATTENDANCE HE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND ALLOWED TO SPEAK ALTHOUGH I AM CERTAIN IT WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE.  IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE FLOOR WAS OPENED TO DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE RESOLUTION, THAT I REALIZED THAT JOSHUAH WAS NOT IN THE ROOM. HE OPENLY ADMITTED IN HIS BLOG ON IPR THAT HE HAD SLEPT IN.

2)    After this resolution was passed, (apparently unanimously) I was not informed. No one bothered to let me know that this resolution, which put an end to my efforts of several months, has been passed. I find this just as alarming as I do the fact that this resolution was passed in my absence.

IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT JOSHUAH WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE VOTE.  (BUT ON FURTHER THOUGHT I AM NOT SURE THAT WAS THE CASE, SINCE IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY AT LEAST ONE OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE THAT THEY DID SPEAK TO HIM REGARDING THE VOTE.)  I WAS TOTALLY OCCUPIED WITH CONDUCTING THE MEETING.  SINCE RANDY WAS OVER THE COLLEGE GROUP I ASSUMED THAT RANDY WOULD HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM, BUT APPARENTLY I WAS WRONG IN THAT ASSESSMENT.

3)    Thirdly, and most unsettling, is the fact that the resolution was passed. Cody and I have worked hard to unify a group of third parties that are all similar in nature.
All of the parties that we have reached out to and brought on board with our efforts agree on the following principles:

1)    The principle of liberty and constitutionally limited government.

2)    That life is precious and must be protected, and that the rights of the unborn must be protected.

3)    That marriage is a sacred union and exists between one man and one woman.

THE CP IS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE ABOVE THREE ITEMS, BUT OUR DECISION TO NOT AFFILIATE WITH THE GROUP WAS FOR TOTALLY OTHER REASONS AMONG WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING:

1) I COMMUNICATED WITH CODY QUIRK UP FRONT THAT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PARTY I WOULD NEED THE CONSENT OF THE CP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BEFORE I COULD SPEAK ON THE PARTY’S BEHALF REGARDING THE PARTY’S AFFILIATION WITH CCTUC. I FURTHER SAID THAT A DECISION WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL OUR MEETING IN BALTIMORE.

2) IN THE INTERIM, SEVERAL ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN IN BLOGS BY BOTH JOSHUAH AND CODY THAT REFLECTED VERY NEGATIVELY ON THE PARTY.  THOUGH I AM SURE THEY MEANT WELL, THOSE ARTICLES WERE VIEWED AS VERY OFFENSIVE BY MANY OF THE CP STATE AND NATIONAL LEADERS. SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY CCTUC AND WERE INDUCED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PARTY WAS IN ACCORD WITH THEIR EFFORTS WHEN SUCH WAS NEVER IMPLIED BY THE LEADERSHIP.   FURTHER MORE, SOME OF THE ARTICLES IMPLIED THAT MANY OF THE CP LEADERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORT, BUT AFTER THE VOTE AT THE BALTIMORE MEETING ONE IS LEFT TO QUESTION THAT ASSERTION

3) APPARENTLY THERE WAS A PHONE CONFERENCE HELD ON APRIL 13TH AMONG THE CCTUC MEMBERS AND IT WAS IMPLIED THAT THE CP WAS OFFICIALLY REPRESENTED AT THAT MEETING.  THERE MAY HAVE SOME CP MEMBERS ON THAT CALL, BUT NONE OF THEM WERE REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP AS THAT DECISION WOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL THE 20TH. SURELY BOTH CODY AND JOSHUAH WERE AWARE OF THAT.

4) ALL OF THE ABOVE INCIDENTS DID NOT HELP THE CAUSE OF THE CCTUC IN THE EYES OF MANY PARTY MEMBERS, BUT THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT REALLY A CONSIDERATION IN THE VOTE TAKEN AT THE BALTIMORE MEETING SINCE I THINK MOST OF THE MEMBERS FELT BOTH JOSHUAH AND CODY MEANT WELL IN THEIR ENDEAVORS.

5) AMONG THE OVERRIDING REASONS THAT THE CP LEADERSHIP DID NOT WISH TO AFFILIATE WITH THE CCTUC GROUP ARE AS FOLLOWS:

a) IT APPEARED FROM EARLY ON THAT ROBBY WELLS WAS USING THE CCTUC FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES AND MANY CP LEADERS WERE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.  FURTHERMORE, THE CP HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN OTHER SUCH UNDERTAKINGS AT CONSIDERABLE PERSONAL EXPENSE, ONLY TO EXPERIENCE NOTHING COME TO FRUITION IN THE END.

b) MANY OF THE OTHER PARTY LEADERS WHO WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE CCTUC GROUP WERE PEOPLE WITH WHOM THE CP HAS HAD UNFORTUNATE BAD EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST AND SIMPLY DID NOT WISH TO BECOME INVOLVED IN ANOTHER EFFORT THAT WE FELT WOULD ULTIMATELY NOT BE PRODUCTIVE.  IN PARTICULAR THE AIP OF CALIFORNIA HAD ON AT LEAST TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS LEAD THE CP LEADERS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH US, ONLY TO GIVE US THE SHAFT IN THE END. WE SIMPLY WANTED TO AVOID THAT SITUATION IN THE FUTURE AND FOR THAT REASON OFFICIALLY ORGANIZED THE CP IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

c) THE CP EITHER HAS BALLOT POSITION OR ACTIVE ORGANIZATIONS IN MANY OF THE SAME STATES AS THE OTHER PARTIES HAVE ORGANIZATIONS AND SO IT SEEMED COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO WORK WITH PARTIES IN OTHER STATES WHO WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR BALLOT POSITION.  THE CP LEADERSHIP SIMPLY FEELS THAT TO BE A VIABLE PARTY WE MUST HAVE THE SAME NAME IN AS MANY STATES AS POSSIBLE.  IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. FOR EXAMPLE THE CP IS WELL ORGANIZED AND STRONG IN UTAH, SO ONE WONDERS WHY THE IAP IS CURRENTLY WORKING TO GET BALLOT POSITION IN THAT STATE.

d) DURING THE COURSE OF THE PAST MONTHS I WAS  THE INADVERTENT RECIPIENT OF EMAILS (THAT I AM CERTAIN WERE NOT INTENDED FOR ME).  FROM THOSE I LEARNED THAT SOME OF THE MOTIVES OF THE CCTUC WERE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE GOALS OF THE CONSTITUTION PARTY. I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT I WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO ACCIDENTALLY RECEIVED THOSE.  THIS OF COURSE MADE US A BIT SUSPECT.

e) THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION WAS THAT FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW IT JUST DID NOT SEEM WISE FOR US TO AFFILIATE WITH THE GROUP. THE CONS FAR OUT WEIGHED THE POTENTIAL PROS.  THE CP CURRENTLY HAS BALLOT POSITION IN 14 STATES AND WE PLAN TO BE ON THE BALLOT IN AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT STATES BY 2014.  WE ARE LIMITED IN OUR RESOURCES AND FELT WE JUST NEEDED TO KEEP FOCUS ON OUR LONG RANGE GOALS FOR 2014 AND 2016. FOR MANY OF THE CP LEADERS IT SEEMED THAT JOINING THE GROUP WOULD SIMPLY BE PUTTING THE CP IN A POSITION WHERE THE TAIL WAS WAGGING THE DOG AND THAT WAS NOT A SITUATION WE WANTED TO FIND OURSELVES IN.

IN SUMMARY MY FEELINGS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON IN HIS VIEW OF HOW THE US SHOULD DEAL WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.  HE WAS AN ADVOCATE OF BEING A FRIEND TO ALL, BUT ENTANGLING OUR NATION WITH NONE.  HISTORY HAS PROVEN THAT TO BE A MOST WISE PHILOSOPHY.

BOTH CODY AND JOSHUAH ARE YOUNG MEN WITH HOPEFULLY BRIGHT FUTURES BEFORE THEM, AND I WISH THEM WELL, BUT THIS IS ONE ENDEAVOR IN WHICH THEIR PATH AND THAT OF THE CP DIVERGE. I FEEL SOMEWHAT CERTAIN THAT HAD THEY EXPERIENCED THE SAME THINGS WITH THE LEADERS OF SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS THAT THE CP HAS, THEIR VIEWS WOULD VERY LIKELY BE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE.

SINCERELY,

FRANK FLUCKIGER

4)Not only that, but some of these parties (America’s Party and the American Independent Party) are former affiliates of the Constitution Party, and others such as the Independent Green Party of Virginia are longtime friends of the party that as recently as 2012 have aided in getting our candidates on the ballot. It is no secret to the Constitution Party leadership that these parties, as well as the others involved in these efforts, have expressed genuine concern for our nation and expressed their belief that after the debacle of 2012 that, we as parties of similar beliefs, principles, and convictions can accomplish more by working with one another. I cannot think of any legitimate reason why the Constitution Party would adopt a resolution claiming that it would not support nor affiliate itself with such an effort. The only reason I can think of for the party to turn down ballot access in California, as well as Virginia, as well as a couple hundred thousand new registered voters is that the leadership of this party is more concerned with keeping their current positions than with expanding this party and the movement.

I think it would be in our best Mr. Vidrine, if we reconsider our affiliation with the National Constitution Party. Perhaps it is not in our best interest to be affiliated with this party. We must consider what is best for the Constitution Party of Louisiana.

Sincerely,

Joshua Fauver

28 thoughts on “Joshua Fauver Writes to LA CP Chair Peter Vidrine About CP Meeting in Balitmore: National Chairman Frank Fluckiger Responds

  1. Reed E

    Okay, lets look at how strong the Louisiana Constitution Party is. It has a grand total of less than 200 members and it has stayed at less than 200 for years. You need at least 1,000 registered voters for ballot access in Louisiana. The LA CP is less than 20% of the way there and hasn’t had more than 200 in its history as far as I know. As of April 4, it only had 11o registered voters. Many of those are inactive. Losing the LA CP has no meaning when you also consider that any presidential candidates can get on the LA ballot with a fee and list of electors.

  2. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @3

    If you could add spaces between the “sincerely x” and the rest of the article, that’d be great. And if you could break up those huge paragraphs, where the numbers and letters are, that’d be great! Thanks so much!

    I’ve had this problem before- of not being able to space everything out the way it should be. No idea why…

  3. Rod Stern

    Given the additional information I did not have earlier, I am more favorably disposed to actions of the CP meeting in these regards.

  4. Mark Seidenberg

    Joshua Fauver,

    The current requirement to get ballot access in California is 103.004 electors. The Constitution
    Party is at just over 300 electors. The California
    Secrtary of State recognizes Dr. Don Grundmann’
    not N. Johnson as the leader of that Political Body.

    I expect the requirement number will be going up
    by the end of 2014, so the CP will not be on the
    ballot in 2016 either with Don Grundmann in control there will be very little reason to believe
    that the Constituion Party will be on the ballot.

    If you become the Youth Director of the CP of LA,
    I will introduce you to the Youth Director of the
    AIP in California, who’s father in the S of A to the
    AIP of California.

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

  5. Cody Quirk

    First off, we are NOT being manipulated by Markham Robinson, Mark Seidenberg, or the National IAP, or by any other political party, group, or individual(s)!

    What next- the CCTUC conspired to fake the moon landings?!

    I started the CCTUC on my own (by myself), yet it later brought many people and supporters of the CP and the other parties on board.

    I started talking to the other parties, on my own, and was successful in breaking down many barriers and mistrust among them, including the National IAP, and the AIP, for one.
    Joshua began helping me later on, and has greatly helped bridge a lot of gaps between the parties.

    But even when talking to the leaders of the AIP, I did so on my own terms, without being forced to make any concessions or compromises, except for our meeting that we had on the 13th, when we were working on our resolution that would set forth the foundation for bringing the parties together…
    Yet at that time, we were doing likewise with the representatives of the other parties in attendance!

    Oh, and I was the one that was moderating the meeting- not Markham Robinson or Mark Seidenberg, in fact Mr. Seidenberg was not in attendance at the meeting on the 13th at all, due to prior commitments.

    It’s really sad how uninformed and quick to odd conclusions Mr. Fluckiger is; now that our National Chairman wants to stir the hornet’s nest further instead of attempting to smooth things over and trying to straighten things out with me and Josh.

    Never mind that the previous CCTUC banner included the CP logo, and the logos of the other parties in it, in which Mr. Fluckiger kindly asked us to remove the CP logo from our banner- and in compliance and respect -we did just that, along with the logos of the other parties as well, in consideration.

    Never mind that we tried to be fair to everyone and reached out to the national leadership of the CP- how we invited Frank, Randy, and the other national and regional leaders to our meeting, and specifically stated in the guidelines for our meeting on the 13th, that the representatives of the CP will not be officially voting to endorse our crafted resolution since it could only be done through the national committee of the CP during a meeting, yet we still allowed them to offer suggestions on rewording the first draft of the resolution (That I wrote ON MY OWN, WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANYONE, which I emailed to each leader/representatives of the parties before the meeting on the 13th), which the CP representative (Janine Hansen, (the only CP leader that accepted our invitation and attended our meeting)) did, and in which we added into the resolution itself, and which unfortunately couldn’t be completely reworded/edited because of the lack of time, and therefore agreed to finish completing the resolution on May 11th and perhaps afterwards submit it to the nat. committee of the CP for it to vote to endorse, or reject, at the next meeting in Denver this fall.

    In fact, you know what? Maybe me and Josh were influenced to bend over backwards, compromise with, and allow ourselves to be guided by a particular political party in our efforts with the CCTUC and reaching out to the other parties…

    OUR OWN PARTY.

    However, that influence is certainly subsiding as of now.

  6. Rod Stern

    “First off, we are NOT being manipulated by Markham Robinson, Mark Seidenberg, ”

    See that’s the thing about being manipulated…if it’s effective, you don’t realize it’s happening. As for why I think it is happening, I just posted that on another thread, so I don’t want to repeat myself this second. Maybe later.

  7. Trent Hill

    Rod @12 nails it. Cody, we don’t doubt you’re “in charge”. But the AIP guys ARE manipulating the situation, there is no way they are genuine.

  8. Cody Quirk

    Well then, if you can find clear evidence that they are inconspicuously manipulating this situation, then I owe you a Pepsi.

  9. Trent Hill

    I’m from Louisiana, I wouldn’t drink Pepsi if you stuffed a pack of saltine crackers in my mouth and made me chew.

    Coke. You’ll owe me a coke. But I never claimed to have proof.

  10. Mark Seidenberg

    Trent Hill

    You state in post # 13, that “the AIP guys ARE
    manipulating the situation”.

    Please explain what you mean here?

    I thought Frank Fluckiger was in charge. Yet Dr.
    Don Grundmann has the California Secretary of
    State believing that he is the Chairman of the
    CP in California and not Nathan Johnson.

    Gary Odom should weigh in on this. Because he
    has some idea how the e;ection division operates.
    On September 3, 2010 the CPC registration was,
    at 72, but February 10, 2013 the registration was
    up to 304 California Electors.

    In California to become ballot qualifieed currently stands at 103,004 California Electors in the CPC party. Those numbers will be going up after November, 2014. I expect way up.

    Frank Fluckkiger controls what the CP is doing
    in California. I do not understand why he is
    letting Dr. Don Grundmann act as the First
    Chairman of CPC and not helping Nathan Johnson take control of his office.

    William Lussenheide place Dr. Grundmann in control of the CPC

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg.

    .

  11. Rod Stern

    Once again:

    1) See what they did to Virgil Goode, made him fly out there to seek their endorsement and then voted unanimously for Hoefling. I am sure Goode would not have flown out there unless they had manipulated him to believe they were really interested in reconciliation.

    2) Seidenberg is still, as of this morning, messing with the tiny California Constitution Party, even though his AIP has more than a thousand times as many registered voters, and even though the California CP is nowhere even remotely close to being able to get ballot access, which he gloats about. This guy wants reconciliation, you say?

    3) Gemma, Stufflebeam, Fluckiger etc. have all said there were top level discussions of reconciliation where they got tricked into believing the AIP guys were serious but then realized they were getting played, so it’s been a recurring pattern.

  12. Rod Stern

    Correction, as of just now, not just this morning; see comment immediately above mine which went up as I was typing.

    I’ll take the coke; hold the cola.

  13. Mark Seidenberg

    Rod Stern at post 27.

    You stated that “Seidenberg is still, as of this morning, messing with the tiny California Constitution Party”.

    I have nothing to do with the California Constitution Party.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

  14. Mark Seidenberg

    Rod Stern at Post # 17

    You stated that Virgil Goode flew. He did nothing of the sort. He drove from Reno, NV
    and Stopped in Sacramento, CA on the way to
    an event that Larry Breazeale was putting on
    for him.

    Mr. Goode was very gracious at that Sacramento,
    CA meeting. He even released is one delegate, so
    he could make the endorsement of Mr. Tom Hoefling unanimous for POTUS.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

  15. Rod Stern

    I don’t care if he flew, drove or arrived in a hovercraft and landed with a jet pack. Point being he came out there to kiss your ring and it was a setup. Of course he released his delegate, what would have been the point in not doing so?

  16. Mark Seidenberg

    Rod Stern at post 22/

    You said “what would the point in not” releasing
    his delegate. His delegates second choice was
    Tom Hoefling. It could of helped Ed Noonan!

    Mr. Goode did not come to Sacramento, CA to
    “kiss [my] ring”, he was backed by Dr. Don Grundmann, he was behind the eight ball when
    he arrived because of Dr. Grundmann backing
    him.

    I invited Mr. Goode over the stong objections of
    Ed Noonan at that time. I was the Chairman of AIP and gave Mr. Goode a forum. That was all I
    did.

    When I was in Kansas City at the head of the
    delegation, I did not invoke unit rule, as Grundmann what on the first ballot. I have
    admit if I did the vote would not have been
    for Dr. Baldwin.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

  17. Pingback: CCTUC: Unfortunate announcement on negotiations with the National Constitution Party | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  18. Mike McDonald

    “You said “what would the point in not” releasing
    his delegate. His delegates second choice was
    Tom Hoefling. It could of (sic) helped Ed Noonan!”

    Why would Goode care if the delegate was backing Hoefling or Noonan? From his perspective if he didn’t get their nomination it was a waste of time.

  19. Pingback: As an Independent American · Hammer of Truth

  20. Pingback: Cody Quirk: As an Independent American | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

Leave a Reply