[LPL Board of Directors] Internal party foolishness.

Adrien Monteleone chairman at lplouisiana.org
Fri Mar 29 14:27:17 CDT 2013


To all Board members,

The following is my response to a communication from T. Lee Horne, who has 
been communicating directly with Mr. Lewis through this present judicial action.

I am now including the rest of you in this discussion because this has grown 
beyond any attempt to handle this matter quietly and without full attention of 
the Board.  Please scroll down and read from the bottom up for the proper 
order of the thread.  You will see why I felt it necessary, since everyone is 
now personally involved, that I chose to include the entire Board.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What case does he intend to bring in a court?

There is nothing illegal about an organization attempting to remove a member 
or disciplining a member.

Is the involvement of the NAACP mean he is alleging he can't be subject to 
disciplinary procedures because of his skin color?

Is he alleging he can never be removed from office through the rules and the 
procedures in Robert's because of his skin color?

No cause for relief from a court exists as of today.

No action has been taken by the Board against him.

Allegations are being investigated.  There has not yet been a trial nor any 
decision been made.  He has not been harmed in any way, and certainly not 
publicly.  This information is strictly within the confines of the Board members.

Is he alleging just the mere investigation is an injury to him?

Is a private organization powerless to investigate allegations against one of 
its members?

Is he alleging this powerlessness is simply due to his skin color?

Recall, one of the allegations is an unsubstantiated claim of racism against a 
fellow Board member.  By threatening legal action on such grounds, and for 
things which are according to our By-laws and accordingly under Robert's Rules 
of Order as our Parliamentary authority, within the Board's prerogative to 
engage in, he is in fact, making a blatant unsubstantiated claim of racism.  
He is outright claiming that rightful action and behavior by the Party is 
inherently racist, simply because of his skin color, thus falsely claiming 
that he is not and can never be subject to any such procedures or subject to 
enforcement of any rules or By-laws because of his skin color.

He just added another specification to his charges.

And you just provided the evidence with his quote.

And this time, it isn't against just one or two members, he is now claiming 
the entire Board is racist just for the mere "crime" that some of them sit on 
the Board. Recall, other Board members have not signed on to these charges.  
No one, not even the Secretary has weighed in or commented on them.  And no 
such comments would even be appropriate at this time. (as I think everyone 
recognizes)

I made it clear that a committee was appointed to investigate the veracity of 
the charges.  Thus it is apparent, their status as fact is not yet decided and 
no opinion should be offered on such until the committee issues its report.

Thus he is accusing everyone, who simply received notice as he has, of being 
racist for their mere presence on the Board, and is threatening them with 
legal action on such grounds.

His legal counsel would do well to reconsider, as would he, so as not to be 
sanctioned by any court of law for bringing a frivolous suit.  There's not 
much harsher a rebuke a court can issue an attorney beyond declaring their 
suit "frivolous." Alleging a crime and demanding relief from a court, on the 
grounds that members of the Board are merely members of the Board is a good 
candidate for such a rebuke and dismissal of such a case "with prejudice." 
(which is a legal term meaning "don't ever bring this before this court again, 
as it will be dismissed outright without being considered. And this is not 
appeal-able and will not be reconsidered.")

Not only will this cause the Investigative Committee to add this to its 
specification list, I doubt highly that it will engender him any votes in 
support of his non-guilt or encourage anyone to give deference and vote to 
retain him in his office.

If his fate wasn't already sealed by a potentially long list of improper 
actions if they are verified, this one action on his part, which now the 
entire Board is aware of, may be sufficient to secure his removal, and likely 
now expulsion and life-time banishment from the party.

Lawsuits are an act of government force.  As Libertarians, we do not believe 
in initiating force to solve our disputes.  In fact, we find it reprehensible. 
We do of course allow for self-defense, or the proper seeking of redress for 
previous injury or use of force by someone else upon us.

Since no force has been used against Mr. Lewis, no any injury committed upon 
him, and since an organization has every right and power to protect itself 
from members it deems are harmful or destructive to its purpose, and since the 
Board has not even heard all of the evidence or taken any official decision on 
the allegations, Mr. Lewis' threat of the use of force might well constitute 
an initial use, and would therefore be about as un-Libertarian as one can 
muster without actually using direct physical violence against someone.

This may well provide the justification for penalties of expulsion and 
life-time banishment.

Mr. Lewis is making it clear by such threats that he has zero interest in the 
Party and no concern for its purposes, or even respect for its most basic tenet.

As chairman, I will not allow this process to be turned into a round robin 
circus of threats.

The Board has to follow the procedures in Robert's Rules and our By-Laws, and 
so does the accused. He will be given ample opportunity to defend himself 
against any charges brought against him, if the investigators bring any, the 
Board will then deliberate according to Robert's on the question of guilt and 
the appropriate disciplinary measures if he is found guilty.

I will also not allow this Board to be intimidated, in any way shape or form, 
especially via threats of lawsuits for conducting themselves according to our 
established and accepted By-Laws, Rules, and Parliamentary Authority and 
certainly not for merely being members of the Board.

Mr. Lewis VOLUNTEERED for this position and has served on this Board since 
April 2008, and in his current capacity since September 2008. The rules and 
procedures have never been secret from him.  He has even voted, on the record 
at conventions, to adopt the present By-laws which we all now serve under.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I hereby declare that it is the opinion of the Chair that such threats and 
behavior on Mr. Lewis' part are entirely OUT OF ORDER and remonstrate him to 
not only refrain from making any such further threats or making such similar 
speech or comments, or taking any action upon such words and threats, but call 
upon his IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL, and UNEQUIVOCAL apology to ALL Board members.

Since this infraction occurred outside of a meeting, but one that now the 
entire Board is aware of, according to the procedures as outlined in §61 of 
Robert's Rules of Order, I, as Chairman of the Board, hereby instruct the 
Investigative Committee to add to their list of Specifications under Charge 3 
- Unethical Conduct or whichever charge, or an additional charge if they see 
fit, the aforementioned threats of use of government force against the Board 
in general and a single member in particular, AND a Specification, under 
whatever charge, or an additional charge, as they see fit, for the 
unsubstantiated claims or insinuation of racism upon the entire Board or any 
of them, simply for being on the Board, and for actions not yet taken, said 
actions being within the prerogative of the Board under its right to 
discipline its members and protect itself from members whom it deems dangerous 
or destructive to itself and/or its purposes.




In Liberty,

Adrien Monteleone - Chairman
Libertarian Party of Louisiana

On 3/28/13 2:24 PM, T Lee Horne III wrote:
>
> Adrien,
>
> I spoke with Scott Lewis at length just now. He is quite angry now. He has 
> been talking with his friends who are, as friends will be, very much in his 
> corner and they are not helping me calm him down. One of his friends is a 
> lawyer and is suggesting pro bono legal action against Reed personally and 
> the party in general. I'll need at least another over night to work on 
> calming this down.
>
> It may not calm down, in which case there will be blood in fields so to 
> speak. Reed will have won a very pyrrhic victory. It will cost him all he 
> has and all he may ever get just in legal fees. This could easily turn into 
> an NAACP vs. Libertarian Party of Louisiana State Central Committee battle. 
> There are a lot more of members at the NAACP than there are at the LPLA. Can 
> the treasury take this risk?
>
> As Scott said, "They formed the mob, they brought the rope and they are 
> looking for a tree and I'm going to defend myself."
>
> *T Lee Horne, III*
>
> Organizer of NAACP Unit 6080, Saint Joseph, LA
>
> President of Brumby Enterprises, Inc. 800-746-1705
>
> Former Chairman of Libertarian Party of Louisiana 2009-2012
>
> Former Candidate for Governor of Louisiana ran a 4 year campaign 2003-2007
>
> tleehorneiii at gmail.com <mailto:tleehorneiii at gmail.com>
>
> 318-542-4445 google voice
>
> tleehorneiii skype
>
> *http://bit.ly/12zAQMS***
>
> *From:*Adrien Monteleone [mailto:chairman at lplouisiana.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 1:57 PM
> *To:* Paladin at LPLouisiana.org <mailto:Paladin at LPLouisiana.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Internal party foolishness.
>
> ...
>

> The Investigative Committee already has plans to talk to Scott once they 
> were informed he had received the official notice.
>
> (has he received it yet?)
>
> But certainly, they can do so now regardless.
>
> Charges do not have to be officially brought.  They haven't even finished 
> investigating yet.
>
> This suggestion is perfectly within the framework of Robert's.
>
> I'll inform the Investigative Committee at once so they can contact Scott 
> and get this over with.
>
> If he resigns - and certainly if he does so to focus on the campaign, the 
> committee can simply drop the matter and return "no bill" as you suggest 
> since the issue would be a moot point.
>
> I wouldn't have him address the charges directly in any letter of 
> resignation though.  They aren't public outside of the Board and never will 
> be.  But his resignation will be official record if someone wants to read 
> it.  Best to leave it speaking only of his campaign reasons. If he feels 
> compelled to say something in some fashion otherwise, perhaps the usual 
> artful phrases "differences of vision/opinion" or "irreconcilable 
> differences" would be best.
>
> If however, he waits too long and we have to proceed with a trial before he 
> offers to resign, the Board under Robert's can refuse the resignation as 
> affecting the trial and proceed anyway.  Our By-laws state his resignation 
> is always effective without the need for acceptance, and this would still be 
> true, but the Board could proceed with the trial, still vote on guilt or 
> innocence, and still vote to impose other penalties or sanctions.  The 
> sooner the resignation is offered the better.
>
> ...
>
> In Liberty,    Adrien Monteleone - Chairman  Libertarian Party of LouisianaÂ
>
> On 3/27/13 5:47 AM, T Lee Horne III wrote:
>
>     Adrien,
>
>     I sent the following to Scott Lewis this morning.
>
>     Scott,
>
>     ...<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbY2cmEsS0>
>
>     I'm thinking it may be time to end the BS and go your own way. It's just
>     a matter of negotiation. To me the issue is clearing the charges with a
>     rebuttal and a resignation all at the same time in the same letter. That
>     will give you a clean exit and if the  investigating tribunal will
>     return "No Bill" as in no charges you resign with a clean and clear
>     name. What say you?
>
>     ===========================
>
>     Adrien, do you think this can be done on the side of the party? I know
>     Scott wants to be able to say he resigned because he found his campaign
>     needed more attention and he did not feel he could effectively be
>     vice-chairman and run a full time campaign. I know we are bending things
>     a little and that is the art and science of political negotiation.
>
>     *T Lee Horne, III*
>
>     Organizer of NAACP Unit 6080, Saint Joseph, LA
>
>     President of Brumby Enterprises, Inc. 800-746-1705
>
>     Former Chairman of Libertarian Party of Louisiana 2009-2012
>
>     Former Candidate for Governor of Louisiana ran a 4 year campaign 2003-2007
>
>     tleehorneiii at gmail.com <mailto:tleehorneiii at gmail.com>
>
>     318-542-4445 Google voice
>
>     tleehorneiii Skype
>
>     *http://bit.ly/12zAQMS*
>
> This message has been processed by Firetrust Benign 
> <http://www.firetrust.com/products/benign/>.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lplouisiana.org/pipermail/scc_lplouisiana.org/attachments/20130329/603db3eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chairman.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 283 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lplouisiana.org/pipermail/scc_lplouisiana.org/attachments/20130329/603db3eb/attachment-0002.vcf>