Thursday, May 9, 2019

*Updated 5/12/19* National Constitution Party Implodes Due To Corruption At The Top: Western Area Chairman Resigns From National CP



by J.R.Myers

Due to the unchecked corruption at the top, the National Constitution Party is now in a freefall. The recent National Committee Meeting in Milwaukee saw a continuation of the fraudulent proxy vote system and a falsification of the numbers to achieve a quorum. None of the business conducted in Milwaukee was legal!  

Many of the states counted as affiliates haven't had an official statewide business meeting or convention in years. Therefore, their officers and NCMs terms of office have LONG AGO expired.  It's kind of like the Democrats counting the votes of the dead...I'll call out Washington, Florida, Oklahoma, Iowa and New York on those counts!  Several states had their proxies counted for a quorum, yet had no representatives from the states present. I will call out Massachusetts, Florida and Washington on that count!  

Altogether, I believe the following states lack a viable, functioning CP. They are Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Washington, Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, New York, and Iowa. I may have missed a couple. Illinois was able to document their legitimacy.  Show me the proof, and I’ll remove your states too, if that’s the case.

I have resigned as CP Western Area Chairman over this debacle. Several states have (ID, SD, VA), or are in the process of disaffiliation. Several state officers and NCMs have, or are in the process of resigning from the National CP. 

Discussions and plans are underway to form a new national entity. This is an exciting time, as a new national constitutionalist/centrist/libertarian party emerges on the scene. Stay tuned!


25 comments:

Cody Quirk said...

If so, then unlike 2006-2007; I do not believe the National CP will have the funds nor the manpower to be able to replace those state affiliates that leave, imo.

NewFederalist said...

If the folks that are leaving the USTP/CP are "contitutionalist/libertarian" as the post author suggests why form a new party? Wouldn't it make more sense to align with the Libertarian Party? Even though there will be some differences of opinion joining an already existing party with lots of ballot access and plenty of room for more activists and candidates would seem to me a far more effective course.

Joe Murphy said...

So, what is actually happening? what states? what people? who is replacing them and with what?

John Bloom, CPV Chairman said...

CP of ID left last year, CPof SD just disassociated and others like the MT CP and CPV. We are looking to build another Political Party void of any corruption and Republican influence and Control.

John Bloom said...

NewFederalists I am looking into working with the Libertarian Party of Virginia and if they can get Justin Amash to run for President in 2020 that would unite us.

Unknown said...

My two cents. Good Morning
I am Jim Buterbaugh with the Montana arm of this adventure. Obviously, since we are just starting to expand, I am new with the party. Tim and J.R. recruited me last weekend at the first of what is going to be annual meetings for elections and whatever. I took on the roll of representing the Montana Arm when needed.
I got involved a couple years back with the Veterans Party. I would still be there, except they would not take a stand on any issues. Then they ran a candidate for president. That was enough for me. Running a candidate without a stance on policies. That was enough for me.
Here's my point. Why run a candidate for president when you know you that the only difference you will make is to take votes away from what is left of the barely conservative party? Like a business, we need to start from the ground up. Local elections. Elections we can have a chance of winning and make a difference in. Build a reputation. To jump in at the top does nothing.

Joe Murphy said...

Thanks for the info....i watched some of Randy Stufflebeams video, but not all of it...keep us up to date

Kelsie Chitty said...

Idk. I'm pretty new to the party. (Voted Castle for President) I just don't see a lot of life coming from the party. Websites go dead, FB and other social media pages are slow, and then Alaska has it's own set of challenges with communication and following. I'm feeling kinda phased out. Corruption certainly doesn't help.

NewFederalist said...

John Bloom- from what I read Rep. Amash is looking very seriously at seeking the LP nomination. He has teased the idea in Reason interviews repeatedly. Depending on the outcome of the Ohio/Michigan appeal on gerrymandering congressional districts to the USSC, he may be redrawn out of Congress by 2020 anyway. I have mixed emotions about his becoming the Libertarian nominee unless he changes parties first and provides the LP with its first Member of Congress. I don't believe the LP can continue to be a minor league affiliate of the GOP. Four ex-Republican office holders in a row at the top of the ticket? Not a good signal to send to the voters IMHO.

John - CP MO said...

J.R. Myers,

I'm truly sorry to have to explain this to you in such a public setting.

However, it is the setting you chose, so it is what you have given me to utilize.

I hope we agree that A quorum is a achieved when a majority of state affiliates are represented (either by physical attendance or by submitting an attendance proxy).

What you seem to be missing is the fact that the more "affiliate states" that are recognized, the higher the number of required proxies or attendees in order to reach the required 51% of state affiliates.

The fewer "member states" that are recognized, the fewer the number of required proxies or attendees.

In order to absolutely assure that a quorum was indisputably established, the Executive Committee counted "every possible" member state. In so doing, the EC set the bar for a quorum far higher than it might otherwise have been.

For example, Montana "was counted" as a member state, even though your state has not been re-credentialed in several years. This effectively increased the number of attendees in order to achieve quorum.

After including 'every possible state' in the list of state-affiliates, the required quorum threshold was calculated as a majority of that number.

The result was, the National Committee reached a quorum by counting states "in attendance" and did not even need to count proxies that had been sent in.

To do as you are suggesting, would have greatly "reduced" the threshold for quorum and would have resulted in a far higher % of attendance than using the method they did.

By calculating it the way they did, they ensured there could not be any legitimate contesting of the quorum.

By calculating it your way, they would have left the door open for someone, such as yourself, to say "oh sure they didn't count some of the affiliates so they could lower the threshold and achieve a quorum."

In fact, they DID reach a quorum, and they did it the hard way.. both making sure to include every possible state affiliate (raising the required attendance) and by achieving quorum by states physically attending and without needing any of the attendance proxies.

And, again, I see that you insist on referring to "attendance proxies" as "voting proxies". The National Committee does NOT allow for voting proxies. Only National Committee members "physically in attendance" are permitted to cast any votes, and they can only cast one vote each. NO VOTES can be cast by anyone on behalf of anyone else.

It is a shame that you don't include the fact that your small group attempted to disrupt the National Committee Meeting by withholding your proxies and calling for a boycott of the meeting. Your boycott failed. A quorum was achieved.

Shame on you for your suggestion that there was any falsification of attendance.

You dishonor yourself, sir.

Cynthia L Redburn said...

As the Constitution Party Secretary, I can attest that the quorum was achieved without one proxy vote submitted by the aforementioned states. Contrary to Mr. Myers' opinion and inaccurate statements the party is not in a "free fall". The party continues to increase in registered voters daily and we are making strides in states where the leadership is committed to the mission of the party.

It is not the wise who form their opinions after only hearing one opinion - ref Proverbs 18:17.

J.R.Myers said...

How the party hacks continue to lie!!! Montana was most recently credentialed in 2018! THis credentialing would have carried into 2019, except we chose not to pay tp play in 2019. Get YOUR facts straight. Also, several states, such as WA, which have no legitimately elected or appointed NCMs or statewide officers, as they haven't had a convention in several years and are moribund as a state party. Stop deceiving yourselves.

FWW said...

*I can attest that the quorum was achieved without one proxy vote submitted...

Mrs. Redburn's statement is incompetent and immaterial. It goes without saying that NO proxy votes were submitted! Proxy ballots are banned. So, she must intend some sort of gallows humor. That, or does not understand the nature of proxies.

The question is whether or not the withheld (secret) credentials list of state "representatives" was proper. That list should be published as a matter of public record.

The Constitution of the Constitution Party under Article II is quite clear...democratic procedures must be provided. That obviously also includes "representatives" to National Committee.

For example, "Joe Blow" may be a resident of Idaho. But that surely does not translate into Joe being a "representative" of CP-Idaho. Documents?

FWW said...

*The party continues to increase in registered voters daily.

According to Mrs. Redburn.

But, the national CP website (under ballot access) continues to include Idaho as a state affiliate, when CP-Idaho certainly is not. The national CP evidently includes CP-Idaho's registered voters in their totals. And, includes unaffiliated CP-Oregon as well.

How the national CP intends to count South Dakota, is anybody's guess. As is Virginia, Montana...

J.R.Myers said...

...and Alaska, which has more registered CP voters than California!

John - CP MO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John - CP MO said...

JR,

You said "How the party hacks continue to lie!!! Montana was most recently credentialed in 2018! "

I think it is interesting how you use a double standard and tell half truths.

The National Committee did NOT vote to accept Montana as a state affiliate in 2018.

And, by your own claims, your state status should have 'expired' before 2018.
If your state affiliate status was "expired" then Montana would not have been able to simply and informally "present credentials".
Your state would have had to undergo a full credentials process.

You renounce TN (for example) as a legitimate state affiliate, yet you accept an simplified "re-credential" process for your own state.

So, by your own standards, YOU were part of a corrupt process to keep Montana as a state affiliate without having it go through a formal credential investigation/process for all of the "new" party officers.

Why was it okay for you to short cut the process for your state when it suits you, yet not for other states when it doesn't suit you?

Even your blog title is misleading.

You are writing the article/blog, yet you refer to yourself as "Western Area Chairman Resigns". When people realize you are writing the article and sensationalizing the headline, it becomes clear that this is more "sour grapes" than anything else.

Anyway, do the math JR. If you eliminate all of the states you believe fell "out of affiliate status" then the quorum requirement is much lower and we had an overwhelming majority of affiliates in physical attendance.

Your attempt to disrupt operations by withholding proxies failed.
There was no coverup. There was no corruption. Your group is not at large as you thought. Accept it and move on.

And I sincerely applaud your goal to start a new national party. I truly wish you the very best.

George Phillies said...

Justin Amash would be a fine candidate for a hypothetical new Federalist Party, should one appear. However, he really is not a Libertarian as reasonably understood. For example, he is "Pro-Life" rather than "Pro-Choice". The Libertarian and Constitution Parties are so far apart on the issues (read their platforms) that "Constitutionalist-Libertarian"" does not make sense as an idea.

NewFederalist said...

But the hypothetical new Federalist Party won't have jack shit for ballot status. If Rep. Amash wants to find his way into political oblivion the LP is definitely the way to go. Do you think enough delegates can be persuaded NOT to go with him? How about Bumper Hornberger? He is "Pro-Life" as well? How does the "Pro-Death" position square with NAP exactly?

J.R.Myers said...

Johnny B. - Rapid attack dog(no offense to canines) Unrepentant sycophant! The truth is not in you...

Cody Quirk said...

Excuse me George, but the LP's stance on Abortion is quite middle ground and inclusive these days -instead of being 'Pro-Choice' on level Bay-Area Democrat.

Cody Quirk said...

... I wonder if John is going to also attack Randy Stufflebeam too? He left just like you did.

http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/05/trouble-in-constitution-party-randy.html

John - CP MO said...

Cody Quirk said "I wonder if John is going to also attack Randy Stufflebeam too? He left just like you did."

http://www.american3rdpartyreport.com/2019/05/trouble-in-constitution-party-randy.html

Well, except that Randy hasn't resigned.

JR posted that before the event actually happened.

Randy may, or may not resign, but the fact that JR was in such a haste to press the issue (possibly to force Randy to actually resign?) should tell you something.

The fact that I pointed out that 'nobody' has received any such resignation, and the Facebook page and group admins remain the same as last week.... was immediately followed by that announcement being 'deleted'... tells me quite a bit.

John - CP MO said...

Cody Quirk said...

"Excuse me George, but the LP's stance on Abortion is quite middle ground and inclusive these days -instead of being 'Pro-Choice' on level Bay-Area Democrat."


Cody, I beg to differ. The Libertarian platform plank on abortion is absolutely not 'middle ground'. Their platform plank on abortion violates multiple other statements in their own platform:


"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world"

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives"

"People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others"

"Individuals are inherently free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make."

"No individual, group, or government may rightly initiate force against any other individual, group.."

"1.9 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression."



And then they completely negate all of the above with:

"1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."

Life begins at conception. That is a scientific fact. Everything necessary is present at that point. And, any argument that claims the 'life' is not fully developed until some time later is flawed and often contradicted by other views and claims.

For example, the female body is not fully developed until puberty. Should abortion be okay for females until they reach puberty? The mail brain does not develop full cognitive reasoning until it is around 25 years old. Should abortion of males be okay until they are 25 yrs old?

The LP platform claims to support 'right to life' ... except in the case of an unborn baby. That is a pretty huge contradiction and is certainly not 'middle ground'.

The only context I can see that would make the Libertarian plan on abortion 'middle ground' would be if someone were suggesting 'mandatory abortions' in opposition to those suggesting 'no abortions'. Then, allowing choice would be middle ground.

Furthermore, our Declaration of Independence clearly enumerates three specific rights, the right to life being listed first (and presumably of the greatest significance).

Where does the Libertarian Party Platform acknowledge the baby's right to 5th amendment due-process prior to having its life forfeit because the mother doesn't want stretch marks? (And before you scoff .. that would be a valid reason for an abortion under the Libertarian Platform)

Grant said...

I really had hopes of the CP taking off, but seeing the conflicting reports, I just can't see it being very successful as it could be. At one point, the CP had 400,000 registered voters until AIP disaffiliated. I have heard the Minnesota Party is having issues and is basically non-existent, South Dakota is gone, Montana is gone (before it had a chance to shine), Virginia is gone, Idaho is gone, and Oregon is now affiliated with IAP. With JR out of the picture as Western chair, I really can't see a viable future with this party.