Friday, May 10, 2019

Trouble in the Constitution Party: Fallout From Milwaukee; CP Midwest Regional Chair - 'Travesty in South Dakota'

by Cody Quirk

In another forwarded email from the State Chair of the Constitution Party of Virginia, John Bloom -Constitution Party Midwest Regional Chair Randy Stufflebeam composed a series of videos that discuss the CP's 'fiasco' in South Dakota, of which he wanted to present in a talk at the CP's recent National Committee meeting in Milwaukee, but was unable to. So as a backup he emailed this brief presentation with a series of video url links to members of the CP's National Committee, and others... 

Travesty in South Dakota

"Dear Constitution Party Leader and/or National Committee Member,

"My name is Randy Stufflebeam. I am the Constitution Party Midwestern Regional Chairman.

"The reason that I am writing to you is that I have created a video series that I’ve entitled, “Travesty in South Dakota” It deals with the circumstances which caused the Constitution Party of South Dakota to lose their hard-earned ballot access in October of last year, 2018.

"This video series in primarily intended for those who will be attending the Spring Constitution Party National Committee Meeting that is scheduled to commence the weekend of May 3rd.

"There is a total of 7 videos in this series and I STRONLY encourage you to at least check out the Introduction (which is about 8 minutes) and the Opening Statement (which is just a little over 15 minutes).  Those two videos should be enough to let you know how important it is for you to see the other 5 videos.  You can click on the links below.

1 – Introduction

2 - Opening Statement

3 - Heir to the Chair

4 - CP Leaders’ Testimony

5 - Stacey Faction Testimony

6 - Michael Gunn Interview

7 - Closing Statement

"As mentioned throughout the video series, I have a website where you can download the supported documentation and audio clips

Disclaimer – the statements and opinions that are expressed in this video series are solely those of the person making them and do not necessarily reflect those of the Constitution Party and/or its membership and officers.  Only the Constitution Party Constitution, Bylaws, and Platform can be the official representation of the Constitution Party’s positions.

"If you have any questions, please contact me

"It is my strong desire that what is contained within the videos will help you to understand what happened in South Dakota and the actions that must take place at the National Committee meeting.

"May God bless you as we work together to restore IntegrityLiberty and Prosperity (the Constitution Party’s Three Pillars”) here in the country we love and fight for.

Your humble servant,
Randy Stufflebeam"


FWW said...

"Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not." Isaiah 6:9.

"I have seen this people, and indeed, they are a stiff-necked people." Deuteronomy 9:13.

FWW said...

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:20.

NewFederalist said...

Quoting scripture is usually a sure loser in debate.

Cody Quirk said...

Floyd is not on the losing side of this matter at all.

John - CP MO said...

Actually Floyd was on the losing side of a previous dispute. He made multiple demands (a number of which would violate the rights of other states and state laws). His demands were rejected and he now has sour grapes.

As to this issue... Besides the fact that these video's by Randy are very one sided, Randy wrongly claimed (in his second video) that he was "coming to us as the Regional Chair". But that is clearly false. The party had not yet reached a decision on the issue, and therefore the Midwest Region had not reached a decision, and therefore Randy could not possibly come to us "as the regional chair" and present a case for why one side should be recognized over the other side.

Randy did not provide all of the information and the Credentials Committee, after hearing all of the presented evidence, came to the unanimous decision that neither faction presented an unbroken chain of custody.

The National Committee specifically did not revoke Affiliate Status for SD, but concluded that neither side had demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody for the SD party. As this is actually an internal matter for SD, it was suggested/recommended that both factions get together and work out their differences. They were given the opportunity to re-present their case at the 2019 fall meeting.

Joe Murphy said...

Honestly, none of this should be this confusing...this is why people leave politics

FWW said...

*therefore Randy could not possibly come to us "as the regional chair"

John CPMO is full of it.

Look, Mr. Stufflebeam was ELECTED as Midwestern States Area Chairman in 2016 in Salt Lake. ELECTED. And he still serves in that capacity. The national website carries Stufflebeam at this very moment as we speak:

Mid-Western States Regional Chairman
Chairman: Randy Stufflebeam

Here Blazek...Pull your head out. You'd be amazed at the beauty of fresh air and daylight.

FWW said...

*Actually Floyd was on the losing side of a previous dispute.

So says Blazek.

Actually, CP-Idaho was asked by several members of the national CP executive committee what it would take to keep Idaho affiliate.

We laid out 10 conditions of reform before any discussion of could be possible. I will relist them...previous attempt to do so on Amer. 3rd Party Report was booted?]

Given that Blazek of CP-Missouri alleges (apparently based upon hearsay alone) "violations" of state law in these conditions (sent in response to a request by national executive committee members), I respectfully ask that the American 3rd Party Report webmaster retain the above links to the reform conditions sought by CP-Idaho.

Bottom line, the national CP has refused to reform.

Show me

John - CP MO said...

Interestingly, in the "published" version of Randy's resignation (which was announced and published before the event happened [and which still has not happened]), Randy acknowledges that he does "not entirely disagree" with the decision by the NC to "not recognize either faction" of the SD dispute.

That admission suggests that the videos that he did were flawed and did not contain 'all' of the information that needed to be considered.

Additionally, John Bloom is not exactly an unbiased neutral party. He is angry that the national CP spent money to help NC get on the ballot but didn't help VA. He has been ranting about that for quite a while, and he "jumps on the wagon" of any internal dispute - and uses that to push his own agenda.

For all of the blog posts that claim SD, VA, MT and IL have disaffiliated, I am unaware of anyone at the national level who has received any "official / formal" notification of those events.

Either that group of individuals believes in conducting 'official business' via Facebook and Blog posts, or they are putting the cart before the horse and announcing things that have not yet happened (as was done with Randy's resignation in another post on this thirdpartyforum that has since been deleted)

FWW said...

Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs...aka John CPMO.

He disingenuously continues (even after Toto pulled back the curtain) to pretend that the "Great and Powerful National CP" has not been exposed.

Come on. The gig is up. But unfortunately, O.Z.P.I.N.H.E.A.D. doesn't have the I.Q. equal to ambient temperature inside a walk-in cooler. For example:

"Randy acknowledges that he does "not entirely disagree" with the decision by the NC to "not recognize either faction" of the SD dispute," says Blazek, and he then concludes "That admission suggests that the videos that he did were flawed..."

Blazek habitually uses these sorts of logical fallacies (in this case an association fallacy) as his "go-to" rhetorical device to deceive. Remarkably, he does that even after Toto pulled back his toga and exposed the gentleman's...insignificance.

The fallacy is easily demonstrable. But just to confuse "the" OZ, CP-Idaho too does "not entirely disagree" with a decision not to credential the South Dakota delegates...with some caveats of course.

Careful, Blazek. Don't have a seizure just because you've pricked your inflated codpiece.

NewFederalist said...

This site is becoming the Constitution Party's laundromat! More dirty laundry here than probably anyone cares about.

John - CP MO said...


If you put half the energy you use to attack your opponents, into actual constructive dialog, imagine what you could accomplish.

As to my significance, I never claimed I had any.
Are you implying that you are significant?

As to you agreeing with the National Committee not to recognize either faction of the SD dispute, welcome aboard. Does siding with me discredit you? Interesting question..

As to Randy's videos - he clearly articulated that one side "should be chosen" over the other side. Given that the "now deleted" resignation announcement agreed that he didn't disagree with the decision to not recognize either side.. then his conclusion is at odds with his video - and thus my conclusion that his video must have been flawed.

Make of that what you will Floyd.

As you are not engaging in a serious debate there really isn't any point in further addressing your slurs and snarky responses.

Be well.

John - CP MO said...

NewFederalist - yep. That observation has been made elsewhere as well.

Those who are dissatisfied and want to take over the party so they can implement a Libertarian platform, have concluded that destroying and maligning the party is their best option for taking over.

How they believe they can then 'erase' all of the bad publicity and in-fighting that they have now made 'permanent' on the internet baffles me.
That they somehow believe that all of their negative posts wouldn't then be used against their reformed party - is also baffling.

FWW said...

*As to you agreeing with the National Committee not to recognize either faction of the SD dispute, welcome aboard.

You are a pompous lackey.

I merely acknowledge Robert's Rules provides a default, at [17]. I do not ENTIRELY disagree with the decision. I see what was abused to justify it.

"If there is a case of contest between two sets of delegates and there is serious doubt as to which is entitled to recognition, the committee should omit both from the list and report the fact of the contest."

But the question is, was that justifiable? First, who's to know? The national CP has buried the report.

Evidence? Well you tell me, Blazek. You admitted that you finagled credentials on Montana! Even though you had several "serious" doubts about it, and even though Montana withheld its proxy! That is tantamount to admitting a corrupted process!

Your admission is within the record on American Third party Report. I called you on it. Yet, national CP refuses accountability.

Where is the published credentials report, Blazek?

WHY are you hiding it?

Who was counted as "legitimate"?

Was Idaho counted? A simple question, yes or no?

If so, WHO was counted, and under what authority?

Here's what happened at Milwaukee (as I view it).

1. National CP used "serious doubt" to force a Mack truck through. Why?

2. National CP needed a quorum. It would otherwise have to admit defeat. It had an incentive (called a "motive" at trial, Blazek) to obtain the quorum.

3. Worse, because it is facing lawsuits, national CP needed the Hubbel faction. Why?

4. Because any admission that the Stacey faction was indeed legitimate essentially would admit no contest in pending South Dakota litigation.

5. Because the Stacey faction HAD done their homework, they held proof of claim; therefore that was ignored by national CP.

6. Once more the "integrity" party manufactured results. Milwaukee is a testament. National CP will bastardize anything necessary to keep the cult elite in power.

Now, as to "serious doubt," here's where Mr. Stufflebeam's videos are valuable. Clearly no "serious" doubt should have existed based on the presentation of evidence...assuming the process was objective. But, of course, it wasn't.

You admitted, Blazek, that you credentialed the absent Montana delegation over your own "doubts". You admitted Montana withheld its proxy....but you counted it anyway! Do you realize you may have placed yourself in legal jeopardy? No, of course you don't. You're not that bright.

By denying national committee voting rights to South Dakota's delegation, now the State of South Dakota has standing. My opinon? You're a freaking moron. I tell you that to save your ass. Do with THAT what you will.

That the national CP chose not to do that, indicates what is their modus operandi...cover up, lie and initiate ad hominum attacks against those who stand to it.

To conclude, I'll turn your post, Blazek. Imagine. Imagine if you spent all the energy you do to cover up national CP's wrongs, what you could accomplish.

NewFederalist said...

As I have said here and elsewhere before I see no utility in founding another minor political party. If as has been stated above a group of dissidents within the CP want to take it over an make the platform more libertarian then why not just join the LP and start a Constitutional Caucus? The LP has been around longer; has much better ballot access and is far better known in the media. This whole exercise makes no sense to me. BTW, for what it's worth I am a member of the LP. I joined in 1974 and left in 1985. I recently rejoined and am a registered Libertarian. I voted for Castle last time out. I would have voted for Baldwin in '08 but he wasn't on the ballot in my state. I have voted for many CP nominees for state and local office over the years. I think it's time BOTH the CP and the LP stop being minor league affiliates of the GOP and work together on issues they agree on and stop the erosion of liberty that continues regardless of who controls Congress of the White House. All this Hatfields and McCoys BS is just plain stupid. Like has been said in Revolutionary times we hang together or we'll surely hang separately.

FWW said...

*...we hang together or we'll surely hang separately

So what you're really saying is just ignore corruption, because the ends justify the means? "Our" corrupt political party is "better" than all those other corrupt political parties? Is that it?

No thanks. Besides, I've been around awhile. And I gotta admit, the only time I see you come out of the worm wood you've bored into is when one of the national CP groupies is getting his hat handed to him.

In those instances, you always seem come out requesting the "coddling" of the corrupt rather than accountability. Personally, you sound like Rodney King on that score.

Your problem, not mine.

As emphatically as I can ask it: Has the national CP orchestrated a deliberate violation of law knowingly to concoct a bogus quorum, as well as to votes to a state delegation?

To me, that looks like what happened.

Therefore, I am not "together with THAT all. As to Hatfield or McCoy I could give a damn less about either of them.

But I will say that if national CP hangs for it, then the country has been done a massive favor. For surely the theocracy the national CP spews is dangerous to a free People. Their Salem Witch Trials and Fundamentalist Inquisitions are more malevolent than what's in place now.

If they breech the Law in minor things, then why should anyone trust them in major?

FWW said...

edit: * as well as to DENY votes to a state delegation?

FWW said...

And another edit of a transposed number above.

* Robert's Rules provides a default, at [17]...

Should read [71]

NewFederalist said...

Well, well, well... I don't know who you think I am but I suspect you have me confused with someone else. I am definitely an outsider to the CP. My only comment is regardless of WHY a minor party implodes the desire to form yet another one is just all about ego and NOT about trying to really work for political change. The landscape is littered with defunct minor parties. Unless there is a lot of support and even more cash to start a new party from scratch it is just not worth the effort. I think a Constitutional Caucus within an existing party that has significant overlap in viewpoints just makes more economic sense.

FWW said...

* I think a Constitutional Caucus within an existing party that has significant overlap in viewpoints just makes more economic sense.

** So what you're really saying is just ignore corruption, because the ends justify the means?

In any case, I disagree with your premise, i.e.

*As I have said here and elsewhere before I see no utility in founding another minor political party.

Utility does indeed exist. A new minor party (presuming it is efficiently structured and operated) that has broken away from what is a corrupted larger political organization can leverage its assets.

This is particularly true in any brokered confederation. So, it does have value. And at times, depending on the demand market strength, it can command a much higher value in terms of platform plank insertions, local down ballots, and so forth.

I submit (here ignoring the obvious principles involved) that...

A new, albeit smaller, regional party will have more influence than it could ever hope to have if it stays within an abusive national organization which refuses to reform, which refuses to acknowledge its own corruptions of process, which has not for 26 years running accomplished anything tangible, which substitutes non-actionable "resolutions" for the difficult work of providing detailed legislative counter proposals, and a party in which the various state affiliates and the rank and file registered voters have no real voice.

Utility can indeed be gotten...and I say this as a Free Market proponent in the political arena. That's the problem with the national CP. They are NOT advocates of a Free Market in political process. It is an upside down construction, which is inherently unstable.

NewFederalist said...

I never said anything about "ignoring corruption". I am merely saying the best way to rebut that perceived corruption is to beat those you believe to be corrupt in the political arena. I maintain the best chance for that is within an existing party that has lots of ballot access and is not so large that it cannot be influenced (like the GOP) by an influx of new members. That's it. I take no position on who is "right" and who is "wrong" in the intraparty dispute.

FWW said...

*not so large that it cannot be influenced (like the GOP) by an influx of new members.

How do you come up with that? If anything you have that backwards.

It is the GOP that is so large that it cannot be influenced by an influx of new members. That's what's wrong with it.

On the other hand, a "minor" party is so small, that it could quite easily be influenced by an influx of new members. The mess with South Dakota's CP shows that.

I'm a fair guy. If I can see how you got from point A to point B, even though I may not agree with you, I'm fine with that. I don't see how you got to the statement you made.

NewFederalist said...

Well geez... let me make it crystal clear. The LP is a lot smaller than the GOP. Most people I have met over the years in the LP are fairly open to discussion and debate. The GOP is totally controlled by people that NEITHER the LP nor the USTP/CP would want to associate with or even have a get together with for a beer. There are lots of Democrats I would think having a beer with would be a hoot. That said, an influx of constitutionalists into the LP would have a FAR greater impact than joining the Republicans who don't care much about the Constitution. I would except Rand Paul and Justin Amash and perhaps a few others from that broad generalization but I hope you get my drift. There is a lot of room in the LP for people of good will and good conscience who hold dear the principles of constitutionalism and even federalism. That is my only point. You will do what you will but that is my $0.02 worth.

FWW said...

Well, geez. I still don't get how you got to where you got.

While yeah, you say: *There is a lot of room in the LP for people of good will and good conscience...

and, * an influx of constitutionalists into the LP would have a FAR greater impact...

Maybe, but that's not what I've seen over the years, not on IPR or AM3PR. Seen some nasty stuff on that score from the LP. I don't see the room, as you style it.

I admit that "room" is relative. I'm from Idaho. Things get cramped on 640 acres, and intolerable on 80. Matter of perspective perhaps.