On May 4, U.S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, a Bush Sr. appointee, upheld the action of the California Secretary of State relative to the Independent Party. The Secretary of State has refused to tally the number of voters registered in the Independent Party, on the grounds that no matter what the tally might show, such a party would be illegal. The reason is that voters would be confused if a party named the Independent Party were allowed to exist.
The decision does not mention the evidence presented in the case that eleven other states have had Independent Parties on the ballot in recent years, except to say that this evidence will be excluded.
The Secretary of State presented no evidence that confusion would exist if the Independent Party were allowed to exist. The decision seems to acknowledge that there is no clear evidence that confusion would result, because it says voters “might” be confused. Judge Shubb said “the court cannot conceive” of any facts that would cause him to change his mind, so he dismissed the case. Thanks to Markham Robinson for the link.
He misquoted the California Constitution. There is nothing about “qualified” party in the California Constitution.
A voter’s party preference is not derivative of a party’s qualified status; but rather a party’s qualified status is derivative of a sufficient number of voters having expressed a preference for that party. California’s qualification system (for presidential elections) is unworkable without a voter being able to express a preference for a party that is not qualified.
What is the difference between Kamala Harris’s party preference which she expressed on her affidavit of voter registration and that on Don Grundmann’s party preference which she expressed on her affidavit of voter registration? There is NO qualitative difference.
Yet on the ballot, Kamala Harris is permitted to in effect say, “I have adopted the following state-approved political preference for the Democratic Party”, but Don Grundmann is in effect required to say “I have refused to adopt a state-approved political preference” California is engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint regulation.
The judge would have you believe that it OK because Don Grundmann could express his preference freely if he demonstrated 57,000 other voters shared his viewpoint.
But the 1st Amendment is not needed to protect popular speech. It is to protect unpopular speech.
While the State of California might adopt regulations that would permit recognition of political parties, it is not obligated to do so. In Washington, they use a system where a candidate discloses their political preference when they file as a candidate.
Alex Padilla, and his predecessors as SOS, along the county voter registrars have through dereliction permitted 10s of thousands of voters to become entrapped in a never-never land where they may not be recognized as qualified party, but must change their voter preference. In some cases, voter registrars have actively encouraged voters to register as “Independent”.
The obvious solution is for the SOS to contact all “Independent” voters and let them determine a new name for their party. Once a new name is chosen, the voters would be contacted again and asked whether they wanted to register under the new name; register under a different party, qualified or not; or become No Party Preference. Anything as long as it were not “Independent”.
Jim… The issue stems from the fact that there is already a party in Cali called the “American Independent Party”. The argument is that since there is already a party qualified with the primary word in the party name being “Independent”, then qualifying another party solely called the “Independent Party” would be confusing to voters.
But the evidence shows that three times before, California has allowed two parties to be on the ballot simultaneously even though both of them shared a common word in their names (1896 National Democratic and Democratic; 1912 Socialist and Socialist Labor; 2014 Americans Elect and American Independent.
All the case law is favorable to the Independent Party on this matter, including a decision from Oregon that both the Freedom Socialist and the Socialist Parties could be on; a Minnesota decision saying both the Reform Party and the Minnesota Reform Party could be on; a Mississippi decision saying both the Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party could be on; a Pennsylvania decision saying both the Socialist Labor and Socialist Workers Parties could be on.
Jim Riley,
Dr. Don Grundmann, who was a member of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party,
until the end of September 2, 2008, as had an interesting range of claimed party offices that were false.
Dr. Don Grundmann served on the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party starting back
in 2002. We have no records showing him being on the State Central Committee prior to 2002. On September 3, 2006, Dr. Don Grundmann, gave up a six year term as a delegate to the AIP convention to take elected office as a National Committeeman of the American Independent Party (with only a two year term) ending at the close of September 2, 2008.
During my term as Vice Chairman of the American Independent Party of California (which ran from September 3, 2006), Don Grundmann claims he was elected Vice Chairman on three different dates in
June, 2008. All of that being false. Therefore, he go the handle as “three dates Don”.
Dr. Don Grundmann then in 2010, began claiming he was the Chairman of “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY”.
This was an effort to confuse the electors in California. There was no “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY” other than false claims of Dr. Don Grundmann.
Then Dr. Don Grundmann forms a political body named the “CONSTITUTION PARTY OF CALIFORNIA” with his mother. Don Grundmann claims he was elected it Chairperson and his mother was elected it Vice Chairperson.
On October 11, 2014, the “Constitution Party” of California has a meeting if Fresno, CA with a very
small attendance. At the meeting a new political body is formed. With the designation of the “Independent Party”. It “elects” Charles M. Deemer, State Chairman (who was the Treasurer and National
Committeeman of the “Constitution Party”) and the mother of Gary Odom as the Secretary – Treasurer of
the so-called “Independent Party” (while she was register elector of the “American Independent Party of
California”). Gary Odom was an elected chairman of the “Constitution Party of California” a political
body.
Then on February 24, 2015, when Gary Odom mom was still register elector of the “American Independent
Party of California”, Mr. Charles M. Deemer, submits to the California Secretary of State formation
documents of the political body designated “Independent Party”. The SOS rejects the body because its
name would confuse the electorate, because that name “Independent Party” was part of the name “American
Independent Party”.
All Mr. Deemer needs to do is change the name of the political body. However, one should determine how many of the California Electors (which is near 120.000) giving a party preference of ‘Other: “Independent” Party’ on registrations on or after October 11, 2014. Those electors should be contacted
to see if they want to be included in a political body of a new name, other than “Independent Party”.
Now is the time for William Lussenheide, Dr. Don Grundmann, Charles M. Deemer, Gary Odom, and the mothers of Grundmann & Odom to move on an not appeal this lawsuit. These lawsuits started in 2008
when Jim King sued the Secretary of State Debra Bowen. As of January 5, 2016, the Constitution Party
of California had 338 electors up from 325 of the prior year. They need to get nearly 57,000 electors
by July 11, 2016 to be ballot qualified.
If they did not designate the name “Independent Party” on October 11, 2014 and registered electors during the last 1 1/2 years they could have received the .33 of one percent to be ballot qualified.
Richard Winger, please post if William “Bill” Lussenheide will appeal this lawsuit to the 9th Circuit.
Also please post a link to the 17 page document of May 4, 2016 from the Court.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
the decision is already linked.
I see the case of PATRIDGE v. DEVOTO (1905) which was a ruling of the California Supreme Court at
148 Ca 167, 82 P 775, should be controlling here. The court said the the use of the “Independent
Republican Party” and “Independent Democratic Party” should not be allowed because those names “will
mislead the heedless, indifferent or uninformed”.
“Independent Party” if one looks at the registration forms for other parties has near 120,000 electors.
It has no party structure until the meeting on October 11, 2014 at Fresno, CA.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
The last time I visited with Marilyn Stevens (Gary Odom’s mother) was on April 23, 2007 in Chukchansi Casino. Marilyn Stevens who is the elected Secretary – Treasure of the entity designated “Independent
Party” needs to come up with a new name. That needs to be soon, because the deadline is July 11, 2016.
Patridge v DeVoto is not relevant because the Independent Democratic Party and the Independent Republican Party did not have any candidates. The Union Labor Party candidates created those two parties so that they could cross-endorse the Union Labor Party ticket. California allowed fusion back then.
Any MORON judges with the same names on the same MORON court ???
I think the Ninth Circuit has two judges with the surname “Smith”.
Richard Winger,
Yet it was not until April 2015, that Dr. Don Grundmann, left the American Independent Party of California as to his registration. He was out of all offices in the AIP after September 2, 2008. I can not see much of a difference in the “Union Labor Party” with the “Independent Democratic Party” and the “Independent Republican Party”, than I see between the political body “Constitution Party” and the “Independent Party”.
Richard, I freely acknowledge that the Secretary of State’s lawyer presented no compelling evidence of confusion of “Independent Party” with “American Independent Party” although the Judge did recognize at least a possibility sue sponte (on his own accord) of confusion over the party name, he firmly asserted the confusion of a CANDIDATE LABEL of “Independent” with the CANDIDATE’s affiliation with an “Independent Party” should one be allowed to come into existence.
The Judge rightly heaped contempt (especially in his oral remarks) on the notion of a party with no ideology or in his words of registrants and candidates entirely independent of each other with no shared convictions or platform.
As to tabulating those confused voters who filled in the blanks with a party affiliation indicating a state of mind (independent) or who indicated a non-existent party or political body called “Independent Party” let me stipulate that they are in number well over the threshold of the registration count required for an “Independent Party” to instantly become a “qualified party” capable of having a Presidential ballot line in the General Election & having all candidates who volunteer to affiliate with the “Independent Party” with the label “Independent” next to their name.
Markham Robinson, Chairman of the American Independent Party Of These United States, whose one and only State affiliate is the AIP of California
Guess California CP’ers will just have to stick with the ‘Constitution Party’ label.
If Deemer & Stevens come up with a new name there problem has gone away, They can become the Political
Body that William “Bill” Lussenheide of Sun City, CA want to control.
The big question is what will William “Bill” Lussenheide do next. I recall in June, 2008 he seconded the idea of Dr. Don Grundmann of affiliating the “American Independent Party” with the “Constitution Party” at a cabal in Los Angeles, while he was a registered Republican.
One week later Dr. Don Grundmann shows up as a delegate to the AIP Convention in Sacramento, CA, circa July, 2008. Then following September 2, 2008, Dr. Don Grundmann ended his office status with the American Independent Party of California.
Richard,
I want to explain why “Independent Party” is so easily confused with “American Independent Party.” The most important word in any party name is the one immediately before “Party.” That is the primary distinguisher between such names. We share it with the “Independent Party” name but NOT with the Independent California Party, whose prime distinguisher is “California.” Moreover “Independent Party” not only shares TWO words with us, “independent” and “Party” and hence the last 2 words of our THREE word name, but our name “American Independent Party” INCLUDES the ENTIRE name “Independent Party.”
Neither the SOS nor the AIP objects to sharing a single word, such as “Party” or even 2 words if one of them is “Party” with another party. There is a slight possibility of confusion incurred thereby, but not an overwhelming one even in the case of a new political body.
All of the examples of “Independent” in other party name or even “Independent Party” are irrelevant to the AIP’s concerns, but the INCLUSION of the name of another party in our name definitely is.
Moreover as the Judge observed, the word “independent” has not only common generic meaning, but a special one for voters & a slightly different one for candidates. The unaffiliated meaning for candidates AND voters conflicts with the very idea of party, so if “Independent” is to be included in a party name, it is best if such a name is qualified by another name.
Markham Robinson, Executive Committee Chairman of the CA AIP
@Richard Winger,
The decision is not dependent on possible confusion between “Independent Party” and “American Independent Party”. It is the confusion between a possible presidential candidacy independent of party nomination; and the presidential nominee of an Independent Party.
Note on Page 2 of the decision his mischaracterization of the California Constitution.
It is BAD PUBLIC POLICY to permit use of “Independent” for any candidacy that is based on affiliation with a party.
In 1994, the Utah general election ballot had the Independent American Party on the ballot, the Independent Party on the ballot, and the American Party on the ballot. There was no confusion. Also there were the Republican and Democratic and Libertarian Parties.
If a Minnesota court ruled that “Reform Party” and “Minnesota Reform Party” could both be on the ballot in 2000, and that didn’t cause any confusion, why are you so worried? Isn’t the truth that the AIP barely exists in California? This year there is only one member of the AIP running for legislature, and zero for Congress. In 2014 there was only one member of the AIP running for legislature, and zero for Congress. Your presidential nominee in 2012 was only on the ballot in 3 states: California, Florida, and Colorado. He didn’t complete one petition in 2012 because those 3 states didn’t require any. Your presidential nominee in 2008 also didn’t petition in any state and was on in only those 3 states. But I thank you for your comments.
Richard & Jim,
We still have the fact that about 120,000 California Electors has written on the Other: party space
“Independent” and not NPP. Most did it before, October 11, 2014. I do not know how many electors
that stated “Independent” on or after October 11, 2014 or on or after February 24, 2015, even know who
Charles M. Deemer or M. Stevens organizing the “Independent Party”. We do know that there are 338 electors in the “Constitution Party of California”.
@Mark Seidenberg,
Your past interaction with Don Grundmann is irrelevant to the issue.
Don Grundmann is a candidate for US Senator. Kamala Harris is a candidate for US Senator. The State of California must be totally neutral in this contest.
They paid the same filing fee, and filed a petition with the same minimum number of signatures. They were subject to the same random alphabet, and will appear in different ballot position throughout the assembly districts.
They both will have their current occupation or position appear on the ballot.
They both were able to control the form of their name on the ballot. Both chose to use a middle initial, Don used a shortened form of “Donald”. I don’t know whether “Kamala” is a shortened form of a another name.
Kamala Harris was permitted to express her personal political beliefs. Don Grundmann was NOT permitted to express his personal political beliefs.
The State of California is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. The State does not have to permit candidates to have a personal political expression appear on the ballot, but once they do, they must administer it equally. They can place restrictions on the length of the name. They might restrict use of certain words.
But what the State of California is doing is the same as if Alex Padilla wrote to Don Grundmann saying:
Dear Dr. Grundmann,
Your political beliefs are not popular enough to permit the voters of California to be exposed to or have knowledge of them. Therefore you must use a party designation that might lead voters to infer you are some bumpkin who has no political beliefs.
Sincerely, Alex Padilla
Richard,
It is generally difficult to start up a party as the Constitution Party of California which in several years one supposes of effort has only attained 338 electors expressing a preference for it in their voter registration application. The Constitution Party has never gotten above 500 voters registered with it in their history as a political body. The national Constitution Party is a relatively well-known national “third” or “minor” party so the California political body of the same name has an advantage of a relatively well-known brand. But it has gone nowhere, because of its lack of appeal to California Voters or the incompetence of its efforts.
Now it appwears that you and your Constitution Party buddies have come up with a truly brilliant short cut that spares you all the effort of attracting registrants to a body with known views. Instead, you lot have cynically exploited voter confusion which is guaranteed to be 100% when they filled in “Independent” as their party affiliation, which either means no party or was not the name of any political body, even an aspiring one until very recently.Why would “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” suddenly be able to get about 120,000 registrants when they couldn’t even get 500 before? The obvious answer is that THEY DIDN’T GET THEM, they just dishonestly exploited a real 100% confusion, not the much lesser probability of AIP registrant confusion, which is much much less than the Sanders Campaign alleges in the series of hit pieces it has had done in the LA Times.
Dear Markham, if we are going through the entire history, we should mention that in 2008, then-Secretary of State Debra Bowen made a very unjust move when she recognized your faction of the AIP instead of the faction of the AIP that considered itself the CAlifornia state affiliate of the Constitution Party.
Both meetings forwarded documents to the Secretary of State, naming a presidential candidate. Your meeting has fewer than 10 members of the AIP state central committee. The other meeting, which nominated Chuck Baldwin, had approximately 50 members of the AIP state central committee. Secretary Bowen chose to recognize the tiny minority instead of the larger group.
And I know Mark Seidenberg would say that your meeting was “legal” because it was held in Sacramento, whereas the other meeting was held elsewhere. But way back in 1989 the US Supreme Court invalidated the California state law that told parties they had to have their state convention in Sacramento, something Mark Seidenberg will not pay any attention to.
The 2008 decision was unjust, and the injustice continues to this day, because the code section for the AIP in the California election law says members of the state central committee are the party’s nomineees for public office and the appointees of those nominees. And California doesn’t have party nominees any more, except for president. So the officers of the AIP can never be displaced. The party is a dictatorship of a handful of people and their power can never be challenged. If California had a good Secretary of State, that Secretary of State might have brought this problem to the attention of the legislature, and suggested a fix.
Richard Winger,
The numbers at the 2008 State Central Committee were not the numbers you claimed. Officials for the Secretary of State were at that meeting in July, 2008. I was the Chairman of the 2008 State Central
Committee meeting.
The California Election Code section 7609 requites “A person is not eligible for appointment to the committee if he or she is not registered as affiliated with this party at the time of his or her appointment.”
William “Bill” Lussinheide was a registered Republican. At the cabal in Los Angeles he seconded the
resolution of Dr. Don Grundmann of affiliation of the AIP with the Constitution Party. Richard, what
Supreme Court Case are you talking about? The law is clear to me. AIP shall hold the Convention and
State Central Committee organization meetings in Sacramento County. In July, 2008 these meetings were
held at the headquarters of the California Secretary of State. Deemer, & Lussinheide held there cabal
in Los Angeles. The last time I checked the City of Los Angeles is not part of Sacramento County.
The 2008 decisions (2 in number were just). The following lawsuits in 2009, 2010, & 2011 were also
just, because these courts did the correct thing and rejected the “gang who does not shoot straight”.
Now in 2016, a court in Sacramento did the correct thing and ended these 8 years of litigation with
King and Lussinheide.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Jim Riley,
Dr. Don Grundmann is relevant to the issues. It was at a meeting of the “Constitution Party of California” on October 11, 2014 that the “Independent Party” name was designated. Charles M. Deemer
noted the California Secretary of State of that designation on February 24, 2015. Dr. Don Grundmann
claims to be the “First Chairman” of the “Constitution Party of California”. His mother claims to be
the Vice Chairperson of the “Constitution Party of California”. Gary Odom also claims to be a Chairman
of the “Constitution Party of California, while his mother claims to be the Secretary – Treasurer of the
“Independent Party”. William “Bill” Lussenheide want the “Independent Party” on the ballot. They all
lost.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party
\
@Markham Robinson, Cody Quirk, Richard Winger, or Mark Seidenberg,
Do any of you believe that it is necessary for the Constitution Party to have 60,000 registrants before the Secretary of State can make a determination whether the party “directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets the overthrow by any unlawful means of, or that directly or indirectly carries on, advocates, teaches, justifies, aids, or abets a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition or treason against, the government of the United States or of this state.”?
Do any of you think that the word “Constitution” is obscene?
Do any of you think that because Kamala Harris says that she prefers the party chaired by John Burton, the party chaired by John Burton is “participating in the Top 2” primary?
@Richard Winger,
If California had a good Secretary of State, she would not have added words that were not in SB 6.
Remember the reason that the current Secretary of State gave as the reason for voting for him at the sole debate for Secretary of State in 2014.
How often has ANY candidate with any *independent* in his/her partisan / nonpartisan ballot label been elected to any office since 1776 ???
How about the Independent Judicial MORONS Party
— esp for MORON judges who are confused about everything 24/7 ???
Jim Riley,
Why are you bring up California Election Code section 5102 now? The “Constitution Party of California”
is a “political body”. The “Independent Party” is not a “political body”.
We have William “Bill” Lussenheide saying he prefers the party (sic.) headed by Charles M. Deemer and the mother of Gary Odom. Dr. Don Grundmann is the “First Chairman” of the “Constitution Party of California”. The other “Chairman” is Gary Odom.
Robert E. Barnes, Esq., has claimed in the past that he was the attorney of Markham Robinson. Yet Markham Robinson informed me that he has no retrospection of hiring Robert E. Barnes, Esq. Now Robert
E. Barnes, Esq. is the attorney of William “Bill” Lussenheide in the case “Independent Party and William Lussenheide”.
Don Grundmann was an officer of the American Independent Party through September 2, 2008. Following that date Dr. Don Grundmann held no office in the American Independent Party of California..
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Mark Seidenberg,
The Constitution Party is a political party. It is not recognized as such by the State of California. But what is the rational basis for this distinction?
How exactly are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, American Independent, and Peace&Freedom parties participating in the June 7 primary for US Senator, US Representative, and the legislature?
Jim Riley,
Wow, that is news to me, viz., the Constitution Party of California. I understand they only had 338 electors by January 5, 2016. I thought they just had Political Body Status. That is great news to learn
the made party status. When did they submit all those signatures to the California Secretary of State
to become ballot qualified?
As for the AIP, we have endorsed several good people for office. We have endorse someone for the United
States Senate and it is not Grundmann, who I expect will be in last place, because he is running NPP.
Mark Seidenberg,
I can endorse someone for the United States Senate in California. Will that make me a participant?
How come the American Independent Party has not filed a contribution report this year? The other 5 qualified parties have.
Richard – Thank you for your commentary regarding the injustice which the AIP suffered when the Secretary of State office recognized the phone booth meeting of Mark Robinson over our 5 times minimal larger, not to mention legal, meeting. The criminal act by Mark Robinson of filing fake documents with the state, which I have chronicled at TheCorruptionofAlanKeyes.BlogSpot.com., was part of the overall plan of the Republican Party establishment, of which Robinson and Seidenberg are agents, to crush the 3rd party conservative constitutional message in our nation as a revolt against their corruption. The decades long work of Bill Shearer has been destroyed by Robinson and Seidenberg who joined the AIP for the specific purpose of waiting for their opportunity to destroy it. Now they have achieved the objective of their Republican Party Establishment controllers that the party is a political ” fly trap ” for well meaning citizens who join the party without realizing it has no intention of doing anything except dissipating their energies so that they cannot oppose the Plantation Master controllers of the nation. The criminality of Robinson and Seidenberg has been aided by the judicial corruption of our nation which leads Robinson to control a party which he could never have built by himself. He knew that he could never lead the party by presenting his Neo-Con ideas to the members so he chose to file fake documents to seize control and then deny the voting rights of those who opposed his criminality. He has simply claimed the work of Bill Shearer, whom he privately has ridiculed and scorned many many times, as his own and this by performing a criminal act of filing fake documents with the state.
The tragedy of the collapse of our nation has many factors; one of which are those treasonous citizens of our nation, such as Robinson and Seidenberg, who have sold out our Constitutional heritage and betrayed us to the Plantation Masters who are rapidly forming the New World Order world prison.
I hope this note finds you well.
Best to you,
Don J. Grundmann, D.C.
Dr. Don Grundmann again makes statements that are not true. The facts are that by September 3, 2008, he
was no longer on the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party. He is listed on the
ballot as “None” for a party in the current U. S. Senate race. By 2015, he was no longer an elector in the American Independent Party.
I expect he will come in last place on the ballot for U. S. State Senate. As of January 5, 2016, the
political body “Constitution Party of California” has only 338 electors. Grundmann with Bill Lussenheide lost on May 4, 2016 in Sacramento. CA.
The only thing I am interested in will Bill Lussenheide appeal and why? That is because to get ballot
access in California the last date in July 11, 2016.
I think Jim Riley may be incorrect about the status of the “Constitution Party in California”, it is
not now ballot qualified.
I am the Chairman of the American Independent Party of California and I have seen no “fake documents”
filed by Mark Robinson with the California Secretary of State.
The bottom line Dr. Don Grundmann is a big loser.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
@Mark Seidenberg,
I did not claim that the Constitution Party is recognized in California.
AFAIK, Aaron Cervante’s affidavit of voter registration says that he prefers the American Independent Party; and Don Grundmann’s says that he prefers the Constitution Party.
By what RATIONAL basis does the State of California deny Grundmann’s 1st Amendment right to express his party preference on the ballot, while letting Aaron Cervante express his party preference on the ballot.
Jim Riley,
Thank you for the follow-up. I thought you were telling me that the political body “Constitution
Party of California”, went through the alternative process of collecting signature as the “American
Elect” did.
To be on the ballot in California, a political body must qualified party. 338 California Electors are not .33 of one one percent. The “Constitution Party of California” needs to have .33 of one percent
by July 11, 2016. If they are do no have that support it will not be a political party.
What is the Aaron Cevante’s affidavit?
The issue is Dr. Don Grundmann claims he holds the office of “First Chairman” of the Constitution Party
of California”, His mother claims that she is the Vice Chairperson of the same political body. Gary
Odom also claims he is the Chairman of the same political body.
On October 11, 2014 at Fresno California within a meeting of the political body designating itself as
the “Constitution Party of California”, an additional cabal is formed, viz., the “Independent Party”.
its Chairman was the Treasurer and National Committeeman of the “Constitution Party of California”,
viz., Charles M. Deemer. On February 24, 2016, as Chairman of the “Independent Party” Charles M.
Deemer informs the Secretary of State, that Gary Odom’s mother Mrs. M. Stevens was the Secretary –
Treasurer of the “Independent Party”.
At the time that Charles Deemer wrote the letter to the Secretary of State of California, Mrs. M.
Stevens (Gary Odom’s mother) was an elector of the “American Independent Party of California.”
“Independent Party” is part of the name “American Independent Party” of California. Electors in Imperial County have stated they were members of the “Independent Party” and the Registrar of Imperial
County in 2010 issued AIP ballots to them in the 2010 election when AIP had a closed primary.
Having the “Independent Party” as a ballot qualified party would confuse electors in California, because
American Independent Party has been around since 1967.
“First Chairman” Dr. Don Grundmann from current party records show that he first made the State Central
Committee of the American Independent Party of California in 2002. His last day on the State Central
Committee was September 2, 2008. He held no offices in the AIP since September 2, 2008. Yet he was
calling himself “Chairman” of the “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY”. First he had a cabal called the
“Real American Independent Party” and then we have Charles M. Deemer as Chairman of the “Independent
Party”,
What is next? Will we have Don Grundmann for a “Political Body” called the “First Real American Independent Party” and “Charles M. Deemer” form the “Second Real American Independent Party”. Then
we have Mrs. M. Stevens (Gary Odoms mother) form the “Third Real American Independent Party”. Then
we can have William “Bill” Lussinheide pick a from several choices as to he wants to prefer on the
ballot. I recall that “Bill” Lussinheide shows up at a meeting with Dr. Don Grundmann in Los Angeles
in June, 2008, and seconds a resolution at a cabal that Dr. Don Grundmann introduced stating the
American Independent Party of California is affiliated with the Constitution Party.
At that time of the purported second by William Lussinheide he was a “Republican Elector” in California.
Now we have William Lussenheide as a loser. The “real” loser is Dr. Don Grundmann however. After July
11, 2016, I expect Dr. Don Grundmann will be forming the “Real American Loser Party” with his mother
as the Vice Chairperson” at a two person cabal.
Grundmann does not try to get members in the Constitution Party as electors in California, as the national chairman of the Constitution Party direct on October 11, 2014. He just lets Deemer spend
a year and a half trying to get the “Independent Party” political body status. It did not work. Now
he has until July 11, 2016 to get the Constitution Party qualified.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
Dr. Don Grundmann,
You speak of a “phone booth meeting”, I was never in a meeting in a phone booth.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
@Mark Seidenberg
Political parties are not “on the ballot” for voter-nominated offices. Candidates are.
Aaron Cervantes is a candidate for Assembly District 43. His party preference is “American Independent”. His affidavit of voter registration says that his party preference is “American Independent”.
Don Grundmann is a candidate for US Senator. His party preference is “Constitution”. His affidavit of voter registration says that his party preference is “Constitution”.
The California Constitution (Article II, Section 5(b) says “Except as otherwise provided by Section 6, a candidate for a congressional or state elective office may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.”
Don Grundmann is not running for Superintendent of Public Instruction, so Section 6 does not apply.
He is a candidate for a congressional office. His political party preference is “Constitution Party”. Why doesn’t Alex Padilla let him have his political party preference to be indicated on the ballot.
Jim Riley,
Thank you for informing me that Aaron Cerantes has a party preference of “American Independent” Party.
He has not noticed the State Headquarters that he is a candidate for the 43 Assembly District.
As for Dr. Don Grundmann, who is running for the United States Senate in the June 7, 2016 primary election. He did not give a political party preference. The “Constitution” Party is not a “political
party”. It status is a “political body” which as of January 5, 2016 had only 338 electors.
If the “Constitution Party of California” as a designated “political body” had spent the year and a half
getting other California Electors to give an affidavit stating their party preference is “Constitution
Party of California” and had .33 of one percent that did the same thing on its electors affidavit
they may have made the required number.
What they did was however, try to take part of the name of a qualified political party that formed in
1967, as their own to confuse the California electorate. On May 4, 2016 the U. S. District Court stop
Dr. Don Grundmann, and others in his cabal. Now they have only till July 11, 2016 to get the “Constitution Part of California” a “political body” the required number of electors.
My guess is on July 12, 2016, Dr. Don Grundmann will form with his others in his cabal a new “political
body” designated the “California Losers Party”. Dr. Don Grundmann, Charles M. Deemer, William “Bill”
Lussenheide. and Gary Odom’s mom are the big losers.
The real question is will William “Bill” Lussenheide appeal the judgement to the 9th circuit?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
@Mark Seidenberg,
Don Grundmann has a political party preference. He stated it on is affidavit of voter registration, along with other information: his name; his address; his birth date; where he was born; his driver license number or last 4-digits of his social security number; his citizenship status; his criminal status; etc.
See Elections Code 2150(a) for details.
He signed his affidavit to indicate that everything on it was truthful and correct, and could be subject to prosecution for perjury.
See Elections Code 2150(b) for details.
Don Grundmann is a citizen. He is not a subject of the State of California nor King Edmund II.
His name, his birth date, his address, his political party preference, belong to him.
Jim Riley
See Election Code 5004(b)
The issue for the Constitution Party of California is 102 days before the general election. It is not a
party it is a body. By July 12, 2016 it will be abandoned.
Don Grundmann has been off the AIP State Central Committee since the last day he was on the State Central Committee and County Central Committee on September 2, 2008. He is not missed.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
@Mark Seidenberg,
See Elections Code 300.5; 2151(d); 2152; 2187(a); and 2200.
Why hasn’t the American Independent Party reported its contributions for the first quarter?
Richard,
You and Don Grundmann have this in common, you either do not wish to learn the facts or you willfully ignore them when presented to you.
I will not waste many words with those who are so obviously biased and in Mr. Grundmann’s case dishonest, violent and delusional.
I was the credentials committee chairman for the 2008 Convention. My recollection is rusty, but approximately 60 delegates were expected at the Convention, not 10. They would all have received their credentials if they had all appeared. 1/3 of them did not appear, being almost entirely those who supported the rump faction. Since the rebels did not attend the meeting or immediately preceding meetings being too busy with their rebellion to pay attention to regular processes, they were unable by their own choice to hear the mode by which the delegates qualified to be delegates.
“The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight” have not been inclined to abide by the rules and are generally incompetent to understand or apply them. You Richard are evidently the newest Gang member and none of you could shoot straight in the recent court proceedings or in the 3 lawsuits by the same lawyers who sued Noonan once and me twice. Your lawyer and certainly his associate are well-qualified by their incompetence to join the “Gang” should they wish.
Markham,
I recall that Dr. Don Grundmann at the July, 2008 convention of the American Independent Party made a speech as a delegate to the convention. Then September 2, 2008, passed and he became off the state
central committee. Dr. Don Grundmann in circa April, 2015 was no longer an elector in the American Independent Party. Now he is running for the United States Senate as party status: None.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party
Mark,
You will no doubt recall that the Convention “speech” to which you allude, was short and abusive. If the good “Doctor” had remained, he could have attended the credentials committee & might not have made the factual error which the “unbiased” Richard Winger repeated.
Dr. Grundmann also attended an online/telephonic meeting of our State Central Committee held while the conspirators of the rump group were en route to their unauthorized and multiply illegitimate “Convention.” Again he directed abusive comments at us and left the meeting. If he had stayed, the rump group would have been much better informed.
Before the Convention as the acting Secretary, at the direction of our then Chairman Ed Noonan, I sent out to everyone with any faint discernible connection to AIP party leadership known to any loyal AIP officer a call to submit delegate credentials. Even though no rump group member bothered to respond to the official call to submit credentials we still qualified about 20 rump group members as delegates. If indeed the Noonan loyalists had only 10 delegates, if they had showed up and given Mr. Noonan the respect due his office in regard to the call to Convention, they would have had 2/3rds of the vote, 20 to 10 rather than the 40 to 20 in favor of the Noonan loyalists as determined by the credentials committee.
Since the rump group did not in fact attend the regularly called Convention instead of their unauthorized one, no matter what the validity of the Credentials Committee determinations, all the virtually unanimous actions of Convention and Organizing Meeting would have passed.
Since the substance of the disputes between rump group and Noonan loyalists was never adjudicated, the rump group never had a substantive comeuppance, but they surely would have if they had been able to shoot straight as regards legal procedures. Instead they weren’t even able get up to bat so incompetent were their lawyers.
Dear Markham, I am sorry you feel I am biased.
The American Independent Party, under the leadership of you and Mark, has run zero candidates for congress since you two have the undisputed leaders of the party, commencing with the 2012 election. In both 2008 and 2012, you nominated a presidential candidate who did not complete a single petition in any state. No members of the AIP ran for the legislature in 2012. One, George R. Williams of San Diego County, ran in 2014 (out of 100 races). No AIP member ran for any of the 8 statewide offices in 2014 either; the AIP was the only ballot-qualified party to have zero statewide candidates that year (even Americans Elect had one). In 2016, the AIP is the only ballot-qualified party with no candidate running for US Senate. Even the Constitution Party, which is not ballot-qualified, has a candidate on the ballot for US Senate this year. Also in 2016, there is only one member of the AIP running for the legislature (again, out of 100 races).
The level of inactivity shows that the AIP, in its current state, is a very, very tiny party.
Richard – These latest screeds of Robinson can truly be put into a university textbook and classroom regarding the study of sociopaths.
Notice his repeated use of phrases such as –
” pay attention to regular processes,”
” have not been inclined to abide by the rules,”
” incompetent to understand or apply them,”
” to shoot straight as far as legal procedures.”
So we have a guy who told me personally multiple times of how important it is to ” follow the rules ” and who writes the above comments AND THEN DELIBERATELY PRODUCES FAKE DOCUMENTS AND FILES THEM, AN ACT KNOWN AS FRAUD, WITH A GOVERNMENT OFFICE.
So the ” rules ” are important and should be followed – until they get in his way.
Then he will perform a criminal act followed by literally running away ( like the ultra coward which he is ) from process servers and endless other acts to protect his criminality from being stopped; not even mentioning his arbitrary denial of votes to those who would stop his ultra criminality and corruption.
And why??? To produce the exact result which you brush upon. As an agent of the Republican Establishment his assignment ( which was in effect from the first second which he joined the party ) was – A) to attack the Constitution Party and weaken it so disgusted Republicans would not choose to escape their political sewer; and B) keep the AIP just as it is now; a do nothing party that lures in well meaning people – like a political ” fly trap ” – and then dissipates their energies so that they can’t effectively battle the Republican Establishment or the Plantation Masters of the nation. He just joined the party as an assassin and patiently waited until he could put his knife into Bill Shearers back.
So Robinson has done his job for his Republican masters beautifully. He has destroyed the work of Bill Shearer – inclusive of his fake website screeds pretending to be Christian while covering up his anti-Christian Neo-Con true beliefs – and fulfilled the desires of his Republican masters all while getting ( or imagining that he is getting it ) what he wants more than anything else in the world – claiming that he is the worlds greatest parliamentarian, party chairman, yada, yada, yada. Anything which glorifies him and feeds his monstrous ego. He will stab his grandmother in the back to gain such approval. Just as he betrayed the years of work by Bill Shearer to glorify himself leading a party which he did nothing to build. It is a common trait of sociopaths – steal the work of others and claim it as your own.
Fortunately I have chronicled his criminality and corruption at TheCorruptionofAlanKeyes.BlogSpot.com. Future generations will have an instantaneous word association :
corruption – Mark Robinson
criminality – Mark Robinson
betrayal – Mark Robinson
backstabber – Mark Robinson
liar – Mark Robinson
coward – Mark Robinson
For generations to come; long after his it-can’t-come-to-soon passing ( on which day the birds will sing in celebration ), he will be remembered as a classic example of backstabbing betrayer sociopath lying treasonous coward.
He will never be known in textbooks for his so-called and fake ” Chairmanship ” etc. but for being a classic sociopath – a lying betrayer of humanity.
@Richard Winger,
Political parties no longer participate in California elections for congressional or state elective office in a way that requires recognition by the State of California. If the Libertarian or Democratic or Constitution parties engage in candidate recruitment, candidate endorsement, political fundraising, or GOTV efforts, they are doing so as private organizations.
When Gail Lightfoot said on her affidavit of voter registration that she preferred the Libertarian Party, it said nothing about the party. When Kamala Harris said on her affidavit of voter registration that she preferred the Democratic Party, it said nothing about the party. When Don Grundmann said on his affidavit of voter registration that he preferred the Constitution Party, it said nothing about the party.
While the Libertarian, Democratic, and Constitution parties might have recruited these senate candidates, and might be providing campaign support, financial or otherwise, they are no more formally participating in the senate election than is the American Independent Party.
Richard Winger,
Jim Riley stated that when “Don Grundmann said on his affidavit of voter registration that he preferred
the Constitution Party, it said nothing about the party”. On January 5, 2016, the “political body” designated as the “Constitution Party of California” had 338 California electors. This body is not
a political party. I expect come July 12, 2016 it will not even be a “political body”.
What the ‘rump group” did was form a second entity on October 11, 2014 in Fresno, CA and designated
it “Independent Party”, taking part of the name of the “American Independent Party” to confuse the
California electors. On May 4, 2016, they lost in this Federal court. Now they got till July 11,
2016 to get ballot qualified. I expect that on July 12, 2016, Don Grundmann will form a new political
body name the “California Loser’s Party”.
Now Dr. Don Grundmann is running with a party designation as “None”.
The question to ask now is will Mr. William “Bill” Lussenheide appeal to the 9th Circuit court of appeals.
When William “Bill” Lussenheide second Dr. Don Grundmann resolution in June, 2008, for the AIP to
join the Constitution Party, Mr. Lussenheide was a registered “Republican” elector in California.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
Dear Richard,
I’d like to be wrong agout the bias, but you clearly refuse to assign veracity to what I have consistenly told you about what went down between the Noonan Loyalists and the Rump Faction.
There was no action by the State Central Committee nor the Chairman (Noonan) authorizing the Rump Convention, nor was any alleged, all questions of location aside. I have just explained the legitimacy of real July 2008 Convention and how “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight’s” rebellion against “Raging Bull” (Noonan) shot itself in the foot because of its contempt for Noonan who they were trying to get rid of from his election until the expiration of his term.
I will address the AIP’s 100% lack of electoral success from 1968 to date and the prospects going forward especially as relates to the lack of vanity candidates except for the AIP June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary.
Don Grundmann,
You just make things up out of whole cloth. I have never been a great critic of William Shearer the AIP founder in public or private. I WAS a great critic of “Raging Bull” (Edward Noonan) whom I faithfully served and suffered under. He has now left the AIP to found one more irrelevant minor party because he didn’t get the AIP 2012 Presidential Nomination to which he erroneously thought himself entitled LEGALLY, which was and is an absurdity.
Markham Robinson
I thought that Edward Noonan was the winner of the 2012 American Independent Party presidential primary. Why was he not then the nominee in November for the party?
@Mark Seidenberg,
Please indicate for each of the numbered statements whether they are correct or incorrect.
(1) A voter is an individual citizen, entitled to his own personal political beliefs.
(2) If a voter writes on his affidavit of voter registration that he or she prefers the Constitution Party, and signs that affidavit to indicate that it is truthful and correct, we have no basis for doubting it.
(3) When a county voter-registrar tabulates (see EC 2187(a)) the voter preference of each voter in the county, a preference for the Constitution Party is tabulated as for an other party; and not as having no party preference.
(4) Under EC 300.5, the political affiliation or preference of a candidate for a voter-nominated office such as US Senator is what the candidate disclosed on his or her affidavit of voter registration.
(5) We should interpret the word “disclose” to mean what the voter wrote in their own hand on the affidavit of voter registration, and signed to indicate that it was truthful can correct; and not what Debra Bowen or Alex Padilla or anyone else divines it to mean.
(6) Under the California Constitution, Article II, Section 5(b), a candidate for a congressional office (such as US Senator “may have his or her political party preference, or lack of political party preference, indicated upon the ballot for the office in the manner provided by statute.”
(7) A candidate who has not disclosed a political party preference has that indicated on the ballot as “No Party Preference”
(8) Since “No Party Preference” indicates that the candidate had not disclosed a party preference; then it can not simultaneously indicate that the candidate has disclosed a party preference.
(9) A candidate who disclosed a party preference for the Constitution Party should have that indicated on the ballot.
(1) Yes,
(2) No.
(3) Constitution Party of Califronia is not a political party it is a political body.
(4) Maybe yes and maybe no.
(5) No
(6) Yes
(7) Yes
(8) No
(9) Not unless it is a political party. In the case of Dr. Grundmann it will be a non issue on July 12,
2016.
(2) Explain your answer.
(3) On January 5, 2016 Alameda County reported:
Registered 783,564
Democratic 435,036
Republican 103,093
American Independent 16,002
Green 9,138
Libertarian 4,042
Peace&Freedom 2,731
Other 39,739
No Party Preference 173,783
Don Grundmann was reported in the first category, and which other category?
(4) Explain your answer.
(5) We should interpret “disclose” to mean what Debra Bowen divines it to mean?
(8) Explain your answer.
(9) Why does it matter if it is a political party? Which parties are participating in the June 7 senatorial primary, and how are they participating?
Jim Riley,
On February 10, 2015, the Constitution Party in Alameda County numbered 9 electors. Don Grundmann
at that time was an elector of the American Independent Party at the time he claimed to be “First Chairman of the Constitution Party of California”. On January 5, 2016, Dr. Don Grundmann was an elector in the Constitution Party of California. He joins the Constitution Party and the number drops to 8 electors in Alameda County.
Come July 12, 2016 it will not be an issue, the “Constitution Party of California” will no longer be
a “political body”.
Mark Seidenberg
Mark Robinson ( Chairman of the Robinson Crime Syndicate ) – I have forgotten the wording of your comments, and even who allowed me access to the call, but I remember hearing a very short portion of one of your calls to your fellow, but lower level, criminals. Actually you have done such a good job of masking your criminality and corruption that perhaps many of them are not aware of the ultra corrupt criminal and monster that you are.
Anyway the small portion which I heard was a very disparaging comment regarding Eileen, Bill, or both and I was informed that there had been many many others. And if you REALLY had the slightest amount of respect for Bill you would not have filed fake documents with the state to steal the party for your Republican Establishment masters.
In regard to Ed Noonan you certainly did not appear to be suffering in the picture which I saw of you both at the SOS office when you were filing your fake documents. You were both happy criminals then but, as usual, there has apparently been a falling out among demons since that happy criminal moment. No surprise that you now disparage him since you always considered him a chump ( and you were right ) from the start. As a professional sociopath you easily picked up on how to play Noonan like a fiddle to do your bidding after which it was only a matter of time before you betrayed him; just as you do everyone else. Once you seized control he had outlived his usefulness so it was only a matter of time until he got your knife in his back; irregardless of how well deserved it was.
The protests of the party Loyalists of the AIP; i.e.; the REAL AIP; against Noonan was not personal but against his move to break the AIP from the CP. Certainly if anyone has/had contempt for Noonan it was you but he was such a fool that he couldn’t and wouldn’t see it. So Bill Shearers work was totally destroyed by the very person whom he most trusted; helped along by you and Seidenberg who joined the party for the express purpose of turning it over to your Republican Establishment masters.
Dt. Don Grundmann,
What did you do the Constitution Party of California by April 8, 2016? The SOS no longer keeps records
of its electors, which on January 5, 2016 was at 338. Eight of that number were in your home county,
including yourself.
AIP party records show that you first became a member of the AIP State Central Committee in 2002. I find no record of an earlier date for you. The last day I show you as a member of the State Central Committee of the AIP is September 2, 2008. Are these facts correct by your records?
It is my current understanding that you were an AIP elector until April, 2015. Is that correct?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California
Dr. Don Grundmann,
What do you plan to do next, after the Constitution Party of California is deemed abandon following July
11, 2016. Do I expect you to form the “Real American Independent Party”, Since that was a claim of yours
a few years back for a party handle name “Real American Independent Party”. If I recall correctly you
claimed to be the Chairman of the “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY”.
I am the party chairman of the American Independent Party of California. There was no fake documents\
filed with the Secretary of State that I have seen. Don Grundmann is just stating thing that are
not true.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
P. S. My records show that Don Grunedmann first joined the State Central Committee of the AIP in 2002.
His last day of that State Central Committee was on September 2, 2008. Don Grundmann do you have any
document that shows you on the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party before the year
2002?
Lussenheide filed an appeal on Tuesday May 17,2016. The court decision btw was declared “with prejudice”. Which means that court did not want to see this case again. What a waste of tax payer money. The attorney for SOS Padilla, is being financed by the tax payers of California.
This is going to be interesting. The Judge held his nose & gave Lussendheide a hearing despite the fact that non-existent bodies (IndependentParty) can’t sue. Lussenheide has a dubious standing too. It is the temporary officers of the “Independent Party” who could allege a harm, not Lussenheide.
And is this the right motion? Barnes is a signal incompetent, so probably not.
APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re21 Notice of Appeal filed by Independent Party, William Lussenheide. Notice of Appeal filed *5/17/2016*, Complaint filed *2/16/2016* and Appealed Order / Judgment filed *5/4/2016*. Court Reporter: *K. Swinhart*. *Fee Status: Paid on 5/17/2016 in the amount of $505.00* (Benson, A)
Notice of Appeal Tue 3:59 PM
NOTICE of APPEAL by Independent Party, William Lussenheide. (Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0972-6473272) (Barnes, Robert)
To Tom Hutton,
Let me spell it out. When there are no delegate slates, the AIP primary is purely advisory. If there is a delegate slate, then it would be sent to the national party convention if the slate got the greatest number of votes of competing slates. Slates can be either committed or uncommitted. If committed, then if properly selected, said delegates are likely to support the candidate with which they are associated. There hasn’t been a delegate slate for a candidate on the ballot for decades. It takes 1% of party registration on a petition to qualify a slate.
Mr. Noonan has neither the support, the money or the skill to collect such signatures.
For decades no AIP Presidential candidate in this so-called “Beauty Contest” has mounted a serious campaign. None of them lately have contacted me even for access to the party email list which has now about 70K emails for our registrants. If they had and a candidate or candidates had ponied up sufficient funds, I would surely have sent out an email to the approximately 15% of our voters who gave email addresses to the ROV detailing the positions of the contenders, or in this cycle probably also a prominently displayed link to their Candidate Statements residing on the SOS web site.
Without a vigorously contested primary, there is no reason to have much respect even for the advice of the voters, most of whom have no basis for their vote.
Legally, there is no obligation to pick the winner of the Beauty Contest. The last time a man of stature competed was I believe William Shearer, the founder of our party who was the choice of the national party.
Our national party had no delegates committed to Mr. Noonan when it met in 2012. The delegation was all and only our National Committeemen from California since California is the only State affiliate of the American Independent Party Of These United States. The real contest for the nomination occurred in an online debate, which included the national nominees of America’s Party, the Constitution Party, and the Independent American Party. Also in the debate was an independent candidate and two Californians, Noon and Drake, both former Chairmen of the AIP. Hoefling, nominee of America’s Party and its Chairman as well. America’s Party was our immediately previous national party, before AIPOTUS was created. Hoefling had the best performance in the debates, three 2 hour online/teleconference debates of the type that Grundmann refers to as “in a telephone booth.”
Historically the pick of the CA Party has been, not the Beauty Contest winner in CA, but the pick of the national Party. It was the same in 2012. The national party AIPOTUS’s pick, Tom Hoefling, was also the pick of the AIP CA for the California ballot line.
I hope that sheds a little light on the matter.
Yesterday, 19 May 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave a case number to the case. The law firm
that filed this appeal was BARNES LAW LLP. Case # 16-15895. It is to soon to know if the case will be
have its hearing in Pasadena or San Francisco.
The American Independent Party of California will become a party to this appeal. I have not yet picked
which type of party, but we will be a party very soon.
I am interested how the Political Body known as the “Constitution Party of California” with it 340 electors as of April 8, 2016 will react to their internal cabal in the formation of the purported
“Independent Party” at the October 11. 2014 meeting is Fresno. CA.
I see the temporary officers of the purported “Independent Party”, viz., Gary Odom’s mother and Charles
Deemer having far more interest in the outcome than Bill Lussenheide.
The only thing that I recall Lussenheide is famous for was his bogus second to Dr. Don Grundmann in
June, 2008 of attempting to affiliate the AIP with the Constitution Party at a time that Lussenheide
was a Republican elector in California.
Now we have Dr. Don Grundmann in the mix. He has not been on the American Independent Party State
Central Committee since September 2, 2008. Yet he is the “First Chairman” of the Political Body named
the “Constitution Party of California” with a total of 340 California Electors. I expect the Constitution Party will not get the electors to qualify by July 11, 2016, and they will have abandon
their rights that date.
I expect this effort of Barnes Law LLP will fall in the Court of Appeals also. The next thing I see is
Don Grundmann after the “Independent Party” fails, he will try forming a second political body named
the “Real American Independent Party”. I expect Dr. Gundmann race for the United States Senate will
be over soon. The good news is Dr. Grundmann is not an elector in the American Independent Party so he
can not be at the AIP convention and state central committee meeting in 2016.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California