1. Your characterization is misleading. The primary thrust of the Feb 24, 2015, Elections Code Section 5001 filing by Charles Deemer, Chairman of the “Independent Party” was to get approval of the “Independent Party” as a political party attempting to qualify as a party in the State of California. Only secondarily was there a related request included in this rejected filing to include (not merely tabulate) all persons who wrote in “Independent Party” or “Independent” in as the party with which they wished to affiliate.

   The filing by the Treasurer of the Constitution Party as the Chairman of a new Party was attempting to cheat by exploiting the confusion of those designating a state of mind or a non-existent party as the party they wished to be registered with. This is clearly “cheating” because the Constitution Party is thereby trying to get a ballot line, by exploiting the confusion of about 120,00 California voters to become instantly ballot-qualified.

   Why is ballot qualification important to the Constitution Party under another name? Because when the AIP left the dishonest Constitution Party over its dirty tricks, it lost its Presidential General Election ballot line. It will use the “Independent Party,” if their suit is successful, to nominate the nominee of the Constitution Party.

   The “Independent Party” application was rightly rejected by the Secretary of State because it is easily confused with “American Independent Party.”

2. Charles M. Deemer in addition to be State Chairman of the cabal calling itself the “Independent Party”
   is the Treasurer of the political body calling itself the “Constitution Party of California”, with as
   of January 5, 2016 has 338 electors.

   The Secretary-Treasurer of the cabal calling itself the “Independent Party” is the mother of Gary Odom,
   a Chairman of the political body called the “Constitution Party of California”. At the time of the February 24, 2015 letter of formation to the California Secretary of State, Gary Odom’s mother was an
   elector in the “American Independent Party”.

   The “Constitution Party of California” and the “Independent Party” has the same Post Office Box address.

   It is a bad idea to confuse California electors with picking the name “Independent Party”, because it
   is included in the name “American Independent Party”

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

3. It is sad that the leaders of the American Independent Party are acting like major party politicians and trying to keep the competition off the ballot. Generally, leaders of minor parties in the United States realize the injustice of restrictive ballot access laws, and try to work together to help each other improve the ballot access laws.

   Twelve times between 1968 and now (the years in which the American Independent Party has been a party in California), a group with either “American” or “Independent” became a qualified party in California, or filed for political body status in California, and at no time in those previous twelve instances did the American Independent Party complain. Those groups or parties were Americans Elect, Constitutional American, American National Socialist, American Nationalist, American Christian, Real American, American Eagle, American Centrist, American Resurrection, American Third Position, American Concerned, and Independent California.

   The law against two parties having names so similar as to confuse the voters is intended to stop groups like the “Conservation Party” (which tried to get on in New York in 1970 even though the Conservative Party was already on the ballot) and the “Republicsons Party” in Iowa in 1954. Courts have been unanimous that just because two parties share a common word in their name, that is not reason to keep either of them off the ballot. If there were an eye chart, which listed “American Independent” on one line and “Independent” on another line, even someone with bad eyesight would be able to tell the difference.

4. It is so simple for Charles Deemer and M. Stevens to pick a name that is not part of the name of the
   American Independent Party and become a California Political Body. It would be just as wrong for
   Deemer to form the “Freedom Party”. In California we have also a party called the “Peace & Freedom
   Party”.

   This issue would go away, by the cabal picking a new name that is not using part of an others party’s
   name as its name.

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

5. What a joke to have Markham Robinson, one of the greatest liars and cowards in the entire state, to complain about ” cheating ” when he deliberately filed fake documents with the Secretary of State office in order to seize control of the AIP after which he then denied the voting rights of those who would have tossed his ultra corrupt ass right out of the party. His corruption is documented at TheCorruptionofAlanKeyes.BlogSpot.com.

6. The last day that Dr. Don Grundmann was on the State Central Committee and National Committee of the American Independent Party was September 2, 2008. Since that date Dr. Don Grundmann has held no office
   in the American Independent Party. Wow, now Dr. Don Grundmann states that “Markham Robinson” is purport to be “one of the greatest liars and cowards in the entire state”. This is a total false statement.

   My records show that Dr. Don Grundmann became a member of the AIP State Central Committee in the year 2002. He has no connection with the AIP since April, 2015, when he re-registered out of the AIP. It is
   my understanding that Dr. Don Grundmann is now running for the United States Senate from California.
   It was very interesting that Dr. Don Grundmann found five additional delegates in Salt Lake City to vote
   for him for POTUS.

   Don Grundmann is the “First Chairman” of the “Constitution Party of California” with a total of 338 electors. Gary Odom is an other “Chairman” of the “Constitution Party of California”. It is interesting that at a meeting of the “Constitution Party of California” circa October 11. 2014 the
   “Independent Party” is formed, which Charles M. Deemer as the State Chairman and Gary Odom’s mother
   as the Secretary-Treasurer (while she is an elector of the “American Independent Party”).

   It is also interesting that Don Grundmann name will appear on the ballot as “No Party Preference”
   in his race for the United States Senate in California in 2016 primary on June 7, 2016.

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

7. Dr. Don Crundmann made the following statement: “[Markham Robinson] deliberately filed fake documents
   with the Secretary of State office in order to seize control of the AIP after which he then denied
   the voting rights of those who would have tossed his ultra corrupt ass right out of the [American Independent] Party”.

   The event as I recall took place during the first Saturday in July, 2008. Don Grundmann showed up as
   a Delegate to the State Convention of the American Independent Party signed in as a delegate and then
   made a statement and left the convention and did not return. No one denied his right to vote. He just
   left on his own, because he had no one there that did not want to vote for Alan Keyes for POTUS at that Convention other than himself.

   I know of no fake documents filed with the Secretary of State. The following day at the State Central
   Committee meeting Markham Robinson was elected Chairman of the American Independent Party for the 2008 –
   2010 term of office. Mr. Robinson took office on September 3, 2008, after the term of Ed Noonan last day as Chairman was on September 2, 2008.

   sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California

8. Richard Winger,

   Please link your “Winger Decl.” on this posting. I think it would be informative. I for one would like to see your view on PATRIDGE v. DEVORE from year 1905. I see the issues here as the same. I think it would be a bad political move for Castle to run for POTUS on a Independent Party ticket. As Richard Winger appointed to me today running Castle for POTUS on both the INDEPENDENT PARTY and the CONSTITUTION
   PARTY would require a petion signed by one percent of the California Voters. It seams to me that
   the requirement to get only .33 of 1% less timely and at a cost saving than getting that 1% signing
   a petition.

   I can not see why Grundmann, Deemer, Lussenheide, Odom, & Stevens are going to this huger muger action.

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

9. Mark, thanks for that suggestion. I have now done that.

10. Most of the English-speaking world reserves the term “Independent” to a candidate not affiliated with or nominated by any party.

    The SOS brief is inaccurate in its description of Proposition 14 and the California Constitution. The Constitution says that the State of California shall execute Top 2 “without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter, provided that the voter is otherwise
    qualified to vote for candidates for the office in question.”

    “Without regard” means that the State of California may make NO distinctions among candidates or voters on the basis of their political party preference. Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation make clear that each voter’s party preference is what they expressed on their affidavit of voter registration. The voter by signing their affidavit of voter registration indicates that all information on the form, including their party preference is truthful and correct.

    California law going back decades has made no distinction between voter preferences among parties. That it has made it easier for voters to express a preference for so-called qualified parties, does not mean that it is distinguishing on the basis of that expression. It has determined that certain parties were qualified on the basis of the number of registered voter whose intent was to affiliate with the party at the ensuing primary.

    But a voter, such as Alex Padilla, who expressed an intent to affiliate with the Democratic Party was NOT expressing an intent to affiliate with a qualified party so that it would be a qualified party, which is nonsensical. He at best could have hoped or anticipated that the Democratic Party would be qualified in the future.

    But Padilla’s intent was indistinguishable from that of a voter who expressed an intent to affiliate with the Mugwump Party at the ensuing primary election. Perhaps that voter was not as clever or calculating as Padilla, but the State of California is not in a position to judge the sincerity of either Democrat Alex Padilla or Mugwump John Doe.

    The State of California did make a distinction between those who did state their intent to affiliate with a party, and those who Declined To State (DTS) their intent. John Doe did not Decline To State his intent to affiliate — or that Monstrous Concoction of Debra Bowen – declined to state an intent to affiliate with a qualified party. The purpose under the law was an intent to affiliate with a party so that they would be qualified, not that they were qualified.

    Prior to Proposition 14, a qualified party had the right to a state-funded and conducted segregated partisan primary for certain offices, and to have the candidate nominated in that primary placed on the general election ballot.

    But the Fundamental Purpose of Proposition 14 was to extirpate that privilege, and instead replace it with a system in which all voters, without qualification, could participate in the primary.

    Qualified parties retained access to a state-funded and conducted segregated partisan presidential preference primary, and to have their presidential nominee appear on the general election ballot, and to have the state provide for elections of party officers.

    They were also granted a right to have their endorsements appear on the sample ballot distributed to all voters.

11. What we have here is a cabal that has as its State Chairman the Treasurer and a National Committeeman
    of a Political Body, viz., Constitution Party of California with as its Secretary-Treasurer an elector
    who was registered as “American Independent Party”, yet the mother of a Chairman of the Constitution
    Party of California, who served as a delegate to the October 11, 2014 meeting of the Constitution Party
    in Fresno, CA when the by-law of that political body require its delegates to be registered in that party.

    t

12. In Michigan, candidates are labeled NPA if they have No Party Affiliation. OTOH, we do have someone trying to petition to put an “Independent Non Affiliation Party” on the ballot here — the latest word I have is that the Board of State Canvassers approved the petition at its March 7 meeting.

    http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/030716_Mtg_Minutes_516409_7.pdf

13. A reasonable compromise would be to have those registered as preferring the “Independent Party” to have a plebiscite to choose a new party name.

    Those registered with the “Independent Party”, would then have the option of choosing the new name, another party, including write-ins as long as it is not “Independent”, or No Party Preference. Non-respondents would be changed to NPP.

    Henceforth, “Independent” would not be a valid choice for new registrations, and the Voter Registrar would be required to contact and correct the registrations of those who use “Independent”.

    This would protect freedom of association, while avoiding possible voter confusion.

14. Jim Riley,

    Are you talking about the 120,000 electors that stated “Independent” for there party preference. Or are
    you raking the members of the cabal that attended the Constitution Party Caucus on October 11, 2014
    at Fresno, CA that you can count on one hand?

    Maybe we can use this posting to determine a new name for the “Independent Party” chaired by the Treasurer of the “Constitution Party of California” and the mother of the Chairman of the Constitution Party of California who is the Secretary – Treasurer.

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

    P.S. Maybe we will have Dr. Don Grundmann calling himself again Chairman of the “REAL AMERICAN INDEPENDENT PARTY” Who knows maybe William Lussenheide will re-register as a “Republican” so he
    can be a crossover delegate to a convention he is not registered in, like he did in June, 2008.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.