[LPL Board of Directors] Question on eligibility to vote and abstentions
Adrien Monteleone
chairman at lplouisiana.org
Mon Apr 1 14:16:24 CDT 2013
On the question of who can or should be allowed to vote on questions of guilt
and discipline at a trial, I'll refer everyone to Robert's.
§61 in part:
"/Trial Procedure./ ...(c)When the closing arguments have been completed,
the accused must leave the room." and "...the managers, defense counsel (if
members of the society), and member witnesses for both sides remain, take part
in the discussion, and vote as any other members."
(note - defense counsel must be members of the LPL unless the Board votes
otherwise)
To claim the accused can vote on his own guilt or innocence and vote on his
own punishment if found guilty is patently absurd.
It can introduce the very real possibility that the accused could prevent a
vote of guilty, or prevent punishment, or influence it, simply by his vote
should the math work out that way. A society could not therefore protect
itself from the very member it is seeking to discipline.
Additionally, declaring ineligible to vote, anyone who hasn't remained silent
would in this case leave an insufficient number to vote to find guilt or to
impose punishment and certainly not to secure removal, according to our rules
or Robert's. It might even, if no one remained silent, make it possible for
ANYONE to vote on such a matter. The accused or his counsel in such a case,
could goad each member one by one to making any sort of statement on the
matter and thus render them "ineligible." This proposition likewise is
patently absurd.
There is no such provision in Robert's and in fact, Robert's directly
contravenes the member's suggestion on such matters.
There is no "jury" in the traditional sense of a court room. In the case of
an organized society, the removal of an officer is to be voted on by the
members of that society. Our By-laws provide the Board with the power to
remove with a 2/3 vote. The other option is a special convention. In either
case, the managers (the Investigative Committee), the defense counsel, the
witnesses, and all other pertinent members (be they Board members in the case
of a Board action, or ALL delegates in the case of a convention) are eligible
to vote. Only the accused cannot cast a vote on his own fate, for the obvious
and stated reasons.(and the fact that his membership privileges, and thus his
office, are temporarily suspended accordingly)
Members are free of course to abstain, but should be aware that in the case of
a Board action, which we are proceeding under, an abstention has the effect of
a "no" vote. Certainly, members should not express how they intend to vote
before they hear the evidence at trial, but they are under no moral duty to
abstain, and the case can be made under Robert's that as members they have a
duty to protect their organization and thus to cast a vote.
The reason an abstention equates to "no" is because our rules require a 2/3
vote of all Board members to remove, not 2/3 of those voting. Thus if we had
15 members, 2/3 would be 10. If two of the 15 abstain, 10 are still needed to
remove instead of 9, because 10 is 2/3 of the Board. I presume this was put
in place to prevent a smaller quorum from holding a meeting and removing with
a minority of the total Board casting votes to do so.
We will however, vote on each specification and each charge separately. A
majority of those voting is necessary to make a finding of "guilty" on any one
of them. It would be possible therefore, for a member to abstain on the
questions of guilt for each specification and charge, and then cast a vote on
the punishment which is decided separately and only after guilt is determined.
However, if only a small number of members are left actually voting on
questions of guilt, this could render additional problems and raise more
division in the Board. It would be best to cast a vote on guilt no matter
what, according to your own convictions and let the chips fall where they may.
All votes on such questions, as well as on the punishment(s) if any, will be
by paper secret ballot. No one will know, unless the vote is unanimous, how
each member voted.
Still, it is understandable if some members feel obliged (thought they are
not) to abstain on questions of guilt.
They should certainly however, cast votes on questions of punishment if guilt
is determined.
In Liberty,
Adrien Monteleone - Chairman
Libertarian Party of Louisiana
> I submit that if this is to proceed, since the Vice-Chairman as defendant is
> being prohibited from voting on these issues, the accusers, ALL of them, the
> Secretary/Treasurer, and the Chairman must also be prohibited from voting on
> these charges. Of course determining who "ALL of them" is will require a
> distinct and independent investigation as some choose to hide under cover of
> a front man. I also as representative of the Defense, must not vote on the
> charges. The only people fit for the "jury" are those who have been neutral
> up until this point and may be expected to weight this dispassionately and
> fairly. Much as in a court law the judge, prosecution and the defense
> attorney are not allowed to weigh guilt or innocence.
>
> ================================
>
> *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
>
> 318-542-4445 google voice
>
> tleehorneiii skype
>
> *http://bit.ly/12zAQMS*
>
> I will now copy and paste the formerly private communication I sent.
> Vice-Chairman Scott A. Lewis, III asked me to respond to the initial letter
> as his defense. I would rather not have had to bring this forward, it is
> quite unpleasant but I must.
>
> ATACHMENT ONE follows.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Fellow members of the State Central Committee, I have been made aware of an
> email being circulated by our most esteemed and honorable Chairman.
>
> Mr. Chairman,
>
> I am disappointed in you. You decided to circulate this email accusation
> with malice and forethought. You chose to exclude me from the discussion and
> attempted to set up a kangaroo court with only your baseless innuendos and
> accusations. I trust the rest of the state central committee will listen
> with an open mind to the refutation of your specious accusations. Your
> actions are reprehensible and unbefitting of the office. If anyone is liable
> for removal from office for cause, it may be you.
>
> Fellow State Central Committee Members,
>
> It is with heavy heart and great sadness that I am forced to respond to
> this. None of this should ever have been committed to writing, none of this
> should ever have come before the committee. Our Chairman has allowed himself
> to succumb to a fit of moral outrage. I know not from whence his groundless
> anger arises. I do know that his entire diatribe is fallacious. Below is his
> email as circulated and my refutation, line by line.
>
> ===============================================================
>
> This is interesting and I will address some of the points that I have direct
> knowledge of.
>
> *A - Dereliction of Duty**
>
> *#1 - was not present for the convention at which he was elected, and at
> which he was to serve as an officer, being already duly elected by the
> previous convention.
>
> I, in my office as Chairman at the time, discussed with Vice Chairman Scott
> Lewis the coming convention and determined his time would be better spent in
> Baton Rouge and New Orleans than at the convention. The Vice Chairman was
> specifically told by me, the Chairman at the time, that he did not need to
> attend because his time could be put to better use in Baton Rouge and New
> Orleans at a large NAACP event. The current Chairman could have easily
> determined this by a simple phone call to me yet he chose this disruptive
> method to bring this up as a Central Committee item.
>
>
> #2 - was not present for the first SCC meeting as required of his office by
> the LPL By-laws, preventing a quorum, causing members and officers to travel
> at great expense to themselves without purpose.
>
> Both Vice Chairman Scott Lewis and I were under the distinct impression from
> our understanding of party rules, rules we voted on that we could attend SCC
> meetings electronically and we were both available to attend electronically.
> I communicated with Reed and asked to be called so that I could attend if
> needed for a quorum. I asked that Scott also be called so as to attend
> electronically if need for quorum. After the meeting I called and spoke with
> Secretary Reed Ebarb. He said the Chairman had an explanation of why Vice
> Chairman Scott Lewis and I had not been called so that a quorum would be
> present but the Secretary was not able to explain the reasons.
>
>
> #3 - has failed to make any attempt to constitute the Strategic Planning
> Committee as required of his office under the LPL By-laws, making only two
> calls for "information" or "agenda items" but has not held a meeting, set a
> date for a meeting, or had any other discussion on any matter of the committee.
>
> I cannot make first hand comments on this other than note that Vice Chairman
> Scott Lewis and I had many long conversations as he tried to get this
> Committee up and running wherein the Vice Chairman expressed his frustration
> at not getting requested information from the Secretary and the Chairman.
> Vice Chairman Scott Lewis asked for the email addresses for these
> subcommittee chairmen and was denied these email addresses. Vice Chairman
> Scott Lewis was also frustrated by being told several times by the Secretary
> that this was not the time to contact the members of the Strategic Planning
> committee. I will leave it to Scott Lewis to address this issue in more detail.
>
>
> #4 - has failed to make any attempt to establish PECs for unorganized
> parishes as required of his office under the LPL By-laws.
>
> I cannot make first hand comments on this. All I have is this, I know Vice
> Chairman Scott Lewis was active in several attempts to form the Baton Rouge
> PEC because I was present at two of those formation meeting. I will leave it
> to Scott Lewis to address this issue more completely and directly.
>
>
> #5 - has not performed any duties of unorganized parishes as required of his
> office under the LPL By-laws.
>
> I cannot make first hand comments on this. All I have is what Scott Lewis
> told me he was doing. I will leave it to Scott Lewis to address this issue
> directly.
>
> *B - Conduct unbecoming*
>
> #1 - was late turning in his Affidavit of Acceptance Elector form.
>
> Whereas the first form was void in its form because the names were not
> correct and thus useless, this is a specious charge.
>
>
> #2 - failed to turn in his Affidavit of Acceptance Elector form, corrected
> version.
>
> Note that the first form was turned in if later than optimal still in a full
> timely fashion to get the party on the ballot.
>
> Phones work two ways.
>
>
> #3 - failed to communicate why form was not turned in on time the first time.
>
> Whereas the first form was void in its form because the names were not
> correct and thus useless, this is a specious charge.
>
>
> #4 - failed to communicate why form was not turned in the second time.
>
> Phones work two ways. It seems the most reasonable and straight forward way
> of dealing with this would be a phone call or series of call to inquire and
> discuss resolution to the problem. There seems to be a pattern of failure to
> communicate with the Vice Chairman by the Chairman and the Secretary. More
> on this at point #8.
>
>
> #5 - failed to display any concern for his tardiness in turning in forms.
>
> Would you have him tear the pocket off of his shirt and wail loudly Mea Culpa?
>
> Besides, I was told by more than one person the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation after the recent
> SCC meeting on this subject. As to first hand information as to the
> discussion, I have no direct knowledge. I was under the impression all these
> issues had been resolved.
>
>
> #6 - failed to display any interest in securing the form before the deadline.
>
> Once again, I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject,
> in which I was under the impression all these issues had been resolved.
>
>
> #7 - lack of concern for known deadlines affecting ballot access.
>
> Once again, I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject,
> in which I was under the impression all these issues had been resolved.
>
>
> #8 - causing the Chair to go to great personal effort and expense to remedy
> his failure to file paperwork in a timely manner.
>
> Expense the Chair could have easily avoided by the simple expedient of using
> the telephone, calling Vice Chairman Scott Lewis, and meeting the Vice
> Chairman in Baton Rouge on the way to the Office of the Secretary of State.
> For some reason unknown and unfathomable to me the Chair decided to instead
> have another person sign the form thus requiring the Chair to drive to
> Shreveport to meet with the Secretary. It is not the Vice Chairman's job to
> tell the Chairman how to run the party, when the Chairman says words to the
> effect that he will have someone else do the task. That is an Executive
> decision.*The entirety of this problem, the costs, time, and inconvenience,
> is on the head and shoulders of the Chairman.*
>
>
> #9 - volunteering to be co-director of a Presidential Campaign for
> Louisiana, and then failing to accomplish any task, attend any function,
> offer any assistance, help with any planning or coordination of events, and
> essentially holding the position in name only.
>
> I cannot make first hand comments on this. All I have is what Vice Chairman
> Scott Lewis told me he was doing. I will leave it to Scott Lewis to address
> this issue directly. What I do know is that Vice Chairman Scott Lewis has
> distributed a large quantity of door hangers, yard signs and bumper stickers
> in an around Baton Rouge. I do know that he has attended numerous events in
> and around Baton Rouge speaking on behalf of the Presidential Candidate and
> the Libertarian Congressional Candidate. He also gave signs to the
> Congressional Candidates from both Alexandria and New Orleans.
>
>
> #10 - making false and baseless accusations of racism of a fellow State
> Central Committee member.
>
>
> I cannot make first hand comments on this. What I can say is I have had a
> long and positive working relationship with Vice Chairman Scott Lewis. Yes
> there are some cultural differences that we have had to work through but
> both of us were and are doing it. Phone calls and direct personal visits
> help a great deal. As for the statement that Vice Chairman accused a fellow
> State Central Committee member of being racist, I was not there and having
> said that, I find it much out of character for Vice Chairman Scott Lewis.
>
> *C - Unethical conduct*
>
> #1 - attempted to get re-imbursed by the SCC for notarizing an Elector form
> (2008)
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-imbursed for money paid out
> of his pocket for the party.
>
>
> #2 - attended a 2009 LSLA conference, at party expense, with the purpose of
> learning more about new online database systems, but instead used the
> opportunity to pitch a dubious fundraising scheme to other state chairs.
>
> Mr. Chairman, were you there or is this hear say and gossip? I cannot make
> first hand comments on this. All I have is what Scott Lewis told me he was
> doing. I will leave it to Scott Lewis to address this issue directly.
>
>
> #3 - attempted to entice the LPL to enter into an expensive and poorly
> worded contract to raise funds through a 3rd party via the selling of
> medical information devices. (same scheme pitched at the LSLA)
>
> There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or project in an attempt to
> raise money for the party. Vice Chairman Scott Lewis comes to us with years
> of experience in promoting events for various organizations including the
> state Democratic Party, the state Republican Party, the NAACP and other
> charitable and for profit organizations. When he hears the LPLA needs money
> he suggests things he has done in the past. It is up the Party to decide if
> any of the ideas are suitable for the party.
>
>
> #4 - attempted to get re-imbursed for travel expenses incurred while
> fulfilling duties of his office. (travel to and from SCC meetings)
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-imbursed for money paid. He
> was not extorting money, only asking if the costs could be re-imbursed.
>
>
> #5 - sought reimbursement for travel and lodging expenses to attend the
> NAACP convention as a "liaison" to that organization and representative of
> the LPL.
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-imbursed for money paid. He
> was not extorting money, only asking if the costs could be re-imbursed.
>
>
> #6 - attempted to get the party and an LP Congressional candidate to use his
> personal business services at expense to the Party and to the Candidate.
>
> There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or project in an attempt to
> raise money.
>
>
> #7 - has on numerous occasions, solicited interest in holding media events,
> concerts, festivals et cetera, which would not be in any way linked to the
> LPL, but which would be funded by the LPL, in exchange for a share of the
> proceeds of such events. (if any) In all of these events, personal friends
> and himself, were to also profit.
>
> There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or project in an attempt to
> raise money.
>
>
> #8 - attempted to divert discussion at an SCC meeting concerning online
> donation logistics, towards using his personal contacts or himself as
> "bundlers" for LPL funds.
>
> There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or project in an attempt to
> raise money.
>
>
> #9 - attempting to attend a private fundraiser for a Presidential Campaign
> without making a required donation, and while inviting a guest who also
> would not make a required donation, thus each of them partaking of access to
> the candidate and party activists and of food and drink provided, without
> contribution.
>
> As a member of the State Central Committee and Vice-Chairman, I think he,
> the Chairman and Secretary should be entitled to free admission to such
> events. I do not know and I suspect his guest was a member of the press. The
> press is always granted free access to events and the associated food and
> drink.
>
> ==============================================
>
> *In Conclusion: *
>
> *Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone derelict in his duty it is you for failure
> to keep in close working contact and communication with your second in
> command, the Vice Chairman. *
>
> *Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone guilty of conduct unbecoming to the office
> it is you for the manner in which you handled this issue. *
>
> *Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone guilty of unethical conduct it is you for
> making false charges, sending your unsubstantiated charges out to only part
> of the State Central Committee and for failing to even ask the person you
> lay charges on to respond before attempting sending out this diatribe.*
>
> **
>
> *Fellow Central Committee Members, I call upon your good judgment to find
> this attempt to besmirch the name, honor and reputation of our Vice Chairman
> Scott Lewis, baseless and to rebuke the Chairman. I also ask the Chairman
> formally apologize to the Vice Chairman for this dastardly attempt to remove
> a good man from office. Mr. Chairman, I do not call for your resignation.
> You are young and inexperienced. Learn from this. I have great hope for the
> growth of the party under your leadership and in the future, please do not
> let your misdirected personal anger override your good sense and customary
> diplomacy.*
>
> ==========================
>
> The following is the current bill of charges against the Vice Chairman as
> well as the responses I made as the defense spokesperson for the Vice
> Chairman, note again the vague nature of most of the charges and the
> repetition of charges already supposedly resolved.
>
> ATTACHMENT TWO
>
> Wes Benedict - Finance Officer
> Howard Kearney - Membership Officer
> Boyd Smith - Elections Officer
>
> Pursuant to the directions in the email from our Chairman, I have
> information of bearing on this issue. I will ask you pursuant to the
> directions, to not share this outside of your group and I include the
> current party Chairman as OUTSIDE of this investigation group. " The
> committee will conduct its investigation with the utmost discretion."
>
> Before we get into the charges I want you to know who Scott A. Lewis is.
>
> EDUCATION:
>
> High School- Southern Laboratory H.S. (lettered in football, basketball,
> track, baseball and basket ball)
>
> COLLEGE:
>
> Grambling State University Louisiana (4 years)
>
> Southern University (1).
>
> All American - College Football,
>
> DRAFTED NFL 1971 second round, to the KANSAS CITY CHIEFS.
>
> NFL Professional Athlete (Kansas City CHIEFS and Houston OILERS)
>
> WFL World Football League: Chicago Fire and Detroit Wheels.
>
> EMPLOYMENT:
>
> Self-employed Businessman, Civil Rights Activist and Community Leader.
>
> Enjoyed 20 successful years functioning as CORPORATE MEDIA INDEPENDANT LIASON
>
> FOR/WITH:
>
> Communities, FORTUNE 500 International Corporations, National Political
> Leaders, Community Leaders.
>
> CEO/President /Owner S. A. Lewis, III & Associates; and Stockholder of
> Louisiana Inner City Business Alliance, Inc. d/b/a Louisiana Inner City
> Business, publication
>
> Media Relations, Distribution, Marketing and Promotions.
>
> CULTURAL - ENTERTAINMENT - ARTISTIC ACCOLADES:
>
> One of the first minorities to successfully integrate California
> Entertainment Industry as a grip at the Burbank Studios.
>
> Member of the Press WXOK, Radio 1460 AM (1972).
>
> PROFESSIONAL FILM-THEATER AFFILIATIONS:
>
> Black Theatre and Performing Arts (Houston, Texas)
>
> FILM CREDITS:
>
> 1974 American International Pictures, "Buck Town" directed by Arthur Marks.
>
> 1975 MGM Studios, "Drum" Directed by Steve Carver.
>
> AUDIO:
>
> Voice-overs for "Cooley High".
>
> INTERNSHIP:
>
> American International pictures for screening and editing.
>
> COMMUNITY SERVICE:
>
> (Houston, Texas) Project P.U.L.L. (Professional United Leadership League)
> Director: Ernie Ladd. Focus: Youth building.
>
> Served on F.A.M.E. Inc., (Fraternal Athletic Marketing Enterprises, Inc.)
>
> Marketing Campaign Strategist for United Founders Insurance Company
> designing advertising, placement and on-site promotions.
>
> Public Relations /Press Media liaison for Record Retailers Houston, Texas
>
> Professional Entertainers Events Security Coordinator PACE Management
> (Houston, Texas)
>
> Professional Concert Event Coordinator /Press liaison for Professional
> Entertainers
>
> Event Marketing /Promotion to the Stars (Houston, Texas)
>
> Artist Development Representatives for High Profile Recording Industry
> Labels/Moguls
>
> Wrote and produced "Let's Set the Record Straight" and "The Evolution"
> television programs
>
> Artist management various artist.
>
> Wrote and produced several songs for distribution, ("Gotta Lotta Respect")
> Produced multiple video productions, LA
>
> Photographed a multitude of well known and not so well known people, LA
>
> Journalist/Editor/Photographer/Video News Producer
>
> Inducted into the Southern University Laboratory High School Athletic Hall
> of Fame Awarded the Light House award.
>
> ORGANIZATIONS AND AFFILIATIONS PAST AND PRESENT:
>
> Member of Prince Hall Masonic Grand Lodge of Louisiana
>
> SAG - Screen Actors Guild
>
> YBPC - Young Black Programmers Coalition
>
> Kiwanis Club
>
> NAACP
>
> Honorary Louisiana Senator
>
> Honorary Louisiana State Representative
>
> Who's Who in Black Music
>
> BMI - Writer & Publisher
>
> YMCA - Black Achievers
>
> LECTURE:
>
> LA Edutainment Council for Touring United Recording Entrepreneurs
>
> Baton Rouge NAACP Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration Committee
>
> The Black Family Leadership Plan
>
> Louisiana Music
>
> POLITICAL RACES:
>
> Secretary of State 2003
>
> All 4143 precincts reporting
>
> "Al" Donovan (D) 22.42% 284125
>
> Scott Lewis (O) 5.28% 66969
>
> W. Fox McKeithen (R) 72.30% 916235
>
> 2003 Results.
>
> Secretary of State 2007
>
> All 3967 precincts reporting
>
> "Jay" Dardenne (R) 63.32% 757821
>
> Scott Lewis (O) 5.41% 64723
>
> "R." Wooley (D) 31.27%
>
> 2007 results
>
> Governor 2011
>
> David Blanchard (N) 2.61% 26705
>
> Leonard "Lenny" Bollingham (N) 0.51% 5242
>
> "Ron" Ceasar (N) 0.80% 8179
>
> Cary J. Deaton (D) 4.89% 50071
>
> Tara Hollis (D) 17.88% 182925
>
> "Bobby" Jindal (R) 65.80% 673239
>
> William Robert "Bob" Lang, Jr. (N) 0.89% 9109
>
> Scott Lewis (L) 1.22% 12528
>
> "Niki Bird" Papazoglakis (D) 2.14% 21885
>
> Ivo "Trey" Roberts (D) 3.25% 33280
>
> 2011 results
>
> ==============================================
>
> With that in place, let's move on to the specious allegations and character
> assassination attempt by parties who cower and hide behind anonymous masks
> to hide their treachery.
>
> Charge 1. Dereliction of Duty of the Office of Vice-chairman
>
> Specification 1. Not being present for the convention at which he
> was elected, and at which he was to serve as an officer, being already duly
> elected by the previous convention.
>
> I, T. Lee Horne, III, was the Chairman at the referenced convention. I
> specifically told Vice-Chairman Lewis that he should attend a large NAACP
> conference in New Orleans to represent the Libertarian Party rather than
> come to the convention. This charge is a vicious lie by a coward who remains
> in the bushes throwing shit.
>
> Specification 2. Not being present for the first State Central
> Committee meeting, held in Alexandria, Louisiana, such attendance being
> required of his office by the By-laws, his absence preventing a quorum,
> causing members and officers to travel at great expense to themselves
> without purpose.
>
> Neither I T. Lee Horne, III nor Vice-Chairman Lewis attended in person, we
> were readily available by telephone and I so notified the Secretary and the
> Chairman that I would be ready and available should I be needed to reach a
> quorum. There was no response from either saying that such was not
> acceptable and such attendance by telephone had been acceptable during my
> term as Chairman.
>
> Both Scott and I were under the distinct impression from our understanding
> of party rules, rules we voted on that we could attend SCC meetings
> electronically and we were both available to attend electronically.
>
> Specification 3. Not being present for a meeting of the Strategic
> Planning Committee which he chairs, after calling the meeting, and inviting
> members from other parts of the State to attend, causing them to travel at
> great expense to themselves, and instead, attempting to chair a physical
> meeting by telephone in violation of Robert's Rules of Order.
>
> Robert's Rules clearly state that policy of any group over ride Robert's
> rules. It is and always was the policy of the Vice-Chairman to hold meetings
> by telephone conference whenever possible to save time and travel money for
> all members. He was not holding a dance class where the bodies had to be
> present.
>
> Specification 4. Failing to make any attempt to establish Parish
> Executive Committees for unorganized parishes as required of his office
> under the By-laws, leaving the work instead to be done at great personal
> effort and expense to the Executive Director, such work being outside the
> Director's contract, and causing considerable difficulties in negotiating
> agreeable payment terms for such contract.
>
> This requirement is a "best efforts" requirement. The Vice-Chairman has
> worked in and around Baton Rouge as this is his natural base of operation
> and East Baton Rouge PEC is proof of this work.
>
> Additionally the Vice-Chairman has made numerous trips to Alexandria,
> Lafayette, Houma, Thibodaux, La Place and other cities in attempt to
> establish activists who would form PECs in their Parishes.
>
> Once again this is baseless character assassination attempt by someone or
> group who just does not like the person in the office of Vice-Chairman.
>
> Specification 5. In the absence of established Parish Executive
> Committees, failing to take care that the duties assigned to these
> committees are carried out in their respective parishes, either by his own
> actions, or by the appointment of a parish director, organizer, or other
> member as the By-laws require.
>
> Aside from this "requirement" being a best efforts requirement, how is the
> Vice-Chairman to do this? Slavery has been outlawed for a very long time and
> absent of people willing to do this work how can the Vice-Chairman make
> anyone do anything against their free will. Indeed why would a good
> Libertarian even suggest that he should do such a thing? Charges should be
> brought against those who would even suggest such a thing.
>
> I submit that, if the Vice-Chairman is to be removed from office for
> dereliction of duty, then each and every one of us is subject to the same
> sanction right now today.
>
> ==========================================================
>
> The following were all long ago handled and resolved by the current Chairman
> and Vice-Chairman and have no place in this proceeding.
>
> Charge 2. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer of the Libertarian Party of Louisiana.
>
> Specification 1. Failing to turn in his Affidavit of Acceptance form
> for filing as a Presidential Elector.
>
> Whereas the first form was void in its form because the names were not
> correct and thus useless, this is a specious charge.
>
> Specification 2. Failing to turn in his Affidavit of Acceptance
> form, corrected version.
>
> Note that the first form was turned in if later than optimal still in a full
> timely fashion to get the party on the ballot.
>
> Phones work two ways. Did anyone call the Vice-Chairman and ask or inquire
> of him in any way? No, no one called.
>
> Specification 3. Failing to communicate why said form was not turned
> in the first time in a timely manner.
>
> Whereas the first form was void in its form because the names were not
> correct and thus useless, this is a specious charge.
>
> Specification 4. Failing to communicate why said form was not turned
> in at all the second time.
>
> Phones work two ways. Did anyone call the Vice-Chairman and ask or inquire
> of him in any way? Once again, no one called.
>
> Specification 5. Failing to display any concern for his tardiness in
> turning in these critical forms.
>
> Would you have him tear the pocket off of his shirt and wail loudly Mea Culpa?
>
> I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the current Vice
> Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject, resolved all
> these issues. Indeed, I personally spoke with the current Chairman who said
> the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had resolved this in a phone conversation.
>
> Specification 6. Failing to display any interest in securing the
> forms before the legal deadline.
>
> Once again, I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject,
> resolved all these issues. Indeed, I personally spoke with the current
> Chairman who said the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had resolved this in a
> phone conversation.
>
> Specification 7. Lack of concern for known deadlines affecting
> ballot access for the Libertarian Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
>
> Once again, I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject,
> resolved all these issues. Indeed, I personally spoke with the current
> Chairman who said the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had resolved this in a
> phone conversation.
>
> Specification 8. Causing the chair to go to great personal effort
> and expense to remedy the officer's failure to file required legal paperwork
> in a timely manner.
>
> Expense the Chairman could have easily avoided by the simple expedient of
> using the telephone, calling the Vice-Chairman, and meeting the
> Vice-Chairman in Baton Rouge on the way to the Office of the Secretary of
> State.
>
> Once again, I was under the impression that the current Chairman and the
> current Vice Chairman had a long and private conversation on this subject,
> resolved all these issues. Indeed, I personally spoke with the current
> Chairman who said the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had resolved this in a
> phone conversation.
>
> If any of these are allowed to stand then none of us may ever count on
> issues resolved directly between us and the Chairman being over and done
> with but will rather come up over and over. That is just wrong unjust and
> unfair. I don't know about you but I would not consider working with or
> under the never ending threat of old resolved charges being brought up over
> and over.
>
> ==============================================================
>
> Specification 9. Volunteering to be a co-director of a Presidential
> campaign for Louisiana, and subsequently failing to accomplish any task,
> attend any function, offer any assistance with any planning or coordination
> of events, and essentially holding the position in name only.
>
> The person making this accusation needs to look in a mirror. The
> Vice-Chairman called repeatedly to speak with Reed Ebarb on the campaign.
> Reed Ebarb refused to take his calls, refused to answer any email
> communications and indeed Reed Ebarb prohibited the Vice-Chairman and a
> member of the Press James Terry, a Capital reporter for the Associated
> Press, from attending and covering the Presidential campaign event in
> Louisiana and thus denying our Presidential candidate good press coverage by
> a major news outlet. Reed Ebarb should face charges on this but I convinced
> the vice-Chairman to not push it for the good of the party.
>
> Specification 10. Making false and baseless accusations of racism
> against a fellow state Central Committee member.
>
> From what I can see of Reed Ebarb's actions the shoe fits and he should wear
> it. I am glad he resigned and I believe Reed Ebarb to be actively working to
> destroy the party with this whole proceeding.
>
> Specification 11. Making an announcement for elective office in a
> public forum without advising the State Central Committee in advance,
> thereby raising questions among the general membership and the voting public
> with respect to the Libertarian Party's implied endorsement of his
> candidacy, and drawing their leadership into question accordingly.
>
> There is no party by law nor state ethics board violation here. Reed Ebarb
> is on a personal vendetta. Reed Ebarb by his actions proven to be a
> prejudice bigot.
>
> Specification 12. Failing to form an exploratory committee in
> advance of this public announcement, making the announcement without any
> established campaign committee, platform, or ready biography for prospective
> voters and media.
>
> There is no party by law nor state ethics board violation here. But for the
> record that little introduction I made at the beginning of this, well it has
> been available on line for YEARS over on MySpace and other location so don't
> even try to tell me any one made any good effort to find it.
>
> As for the platform and other issues, the Vice-Chairman came to the party
> members in various on line forums and asked the members what was important
> to them. The Vice-Chairman came to the members asking for assistance in
> fleshing out the specifics, he already has the general state platform and
> was asking for people to contribute specific issues. All he got for his
> trouble was a ration of shit. That is no way to treat a candidate.
>
> Reed Ebarb is on a personal vendetta. He has by his actions in this matter
> proven to be an unforgiving and unrepentant prejudice bigot.
>
> Specification 13. Failing to provide any such platform or
> biographical statement upon the request of prospective voters, Officers and
> other party members.
>
> This charge is just a rehash of the previous charge in another form solely
> in an attempt to smear the Vice Chairman.
>
> Specification 14. Filing for elective office in 2011 and failing to
> duly answer media inquiries, creating a poor impression on voters and media
> of the Libertarian Party, its candidates, and its leadership.
>
> This is another load of crap. The Vice-Chairman did answer all but ONE
> reporter. That reporter only gave one day for a replay saying, he would get
> the information from the League of Women Voters site if the Vice-Chairman
> did not answer this one reporter in the short dead line given. NOW, how can
> the Vice-Chairman have had information up at the League of Women Voters and
> this charge even be remotely valid?
>
> This once again is a person vendetta by bigots.
>
> =======================================================
>
> Charge 3. Unethical Conduct
>
> Specification 1. Attempting to get reimbursed for the notarizing of
> an Affidavit of Acceptance form in 2008, such cost, incidental to being a
> candidate for elective office, being only legally payable by the candidate
> or a candidate's committee, and which cannot be paid by the Party.
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-paid for money paid out of
> his pocket for the party. Reed Ebarb was the representative for the
> Candidate in the state and present when the request was made. Never did Reed
> Ebarb clarify from whom the repayment was to come, thus causing the
> Vice-Chairman to be unable to be reimbursed. Where I come from this is
> called malicious and a setup. The man and his may as well be wearing white
> sheet and hood.
>
> Specification 2. Attending a 2009 Libertarian State Leadership
> Alliance conference, in the Chairman's proxy, at Party expense, for the
> purpose of learning more about the new CiviCRM online database system, but
> instead, using the opportunity to pitch a dubious fundraising scheme to
> other state chairs in concert with a personal business partner who made the
> trip, also at Party expense.
>
> I must ask of the anonymous accuser, were you there or is this hear say and
> gossip as regards the activities of the Vice-Chairman at the conference? I
> will grant that a business associate did go along and said business
> associate paid for half the fuel, used his car and paid for half of the
> room. The party preapproved the expense and did give the Vice-Chairman the
> credit card to pay for the travel. The trip actually cost the party less.
>
> Specification 3. Soliciting the LPL to enter into an expensive and
> poorly worded contract to raise funds for the Party through a 3rd party via
> the selling of medical information devices, this being the same scheme
> pitched at the aforementioned conference, and one in which he has personal
> connections to the 3rd party which would profit from the contract.
>
> There is nothing unethical, immoral or illegal in pitching a plan or project
> in an attempt to raise money for the party. There was no threat, no
> extortion, this was just a business offer.
>
> Specification 4. Attempting to get reimbursed for travel expenses as
> a condition of fulfilling duties of his office. (traveling to a and from
> State Central Committee meetings)
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-paid for money paid. He was
> not extorting money, only asking if the costs could be re-paid.
>
> Specification 5. Seeking reimbursement for travel and lodging to
> attend the NAACP 2012 convention as a "liaison" to that organization and
> representative of the Party.
>
> There is nothing unethical about asking to be re-paid for money paid. He was
> not extorting money, only asking if the costs could be re-paid.
>
> Specification 6. Soliciting the Party and a Congressional candidate
> to use his personal business services at expense to the Party and the Candidate.
>
> What? Do not sign painters and people making yard signs charge for their
> work? The Vice-Chairman was offering his professional services at a discount
> to his normal prices. There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or
> project in an attempt to do business with the party. There was no demand or
> threat, only and offer.
>
> Specification 7. Using a Strategic Planning Committee meeting to
> solicit the party again to use these same services.
>
> Again I ask, Do not sign painters and people making yard signs charge for
> their work? The Vice-Chairman was offering his professional services at a
> discount to his normal prices. There is nothing unethical in pitching a plan
> or project in an attempt to do business with the party. There was no demand
> or threat, only an offer.
>
> Specification 8. Using a Strategic Planning Committee meeting to
> solicit volunteers and support from party activists and officers for his
> campaign for elective office, rather than using the meeting to plan strategy
> for the Party.
>
> How does anyone ethically and reasonably make such ludicrous charges? This
> is just a rehash of Specification 12 above in the conduct unbecoming section
> and I will answer it the same.
>
> As for the platform and other issues, the Vice-Chairman came to the party
> members in various on line forums and asked the members what was important
> to them. The Vice-Chairman came to the members asking for assistance in
> fleshing out the specifics, he already has the general state platform and
> was asking for people to contribute specific issues. All he got for his
> trouble was a ration of shit. That is no way to treat a candidate.
>
> Specification 8. Using a Strategic Planning Committee meeting to
> solicit volunteers and support from party activists and officers for his
> campaign for elective office, rather than using the meeting to plan strategy
> for the Party.
>
> This is the same charge reworded and as such just a rehash of Specification
> 12 in the above section on conduct unbecoming. The answer is the same.
>
> As for the platform and other issues, the Vice-Chairman came to the party
> members in various on line forums and asked the members what was important
> to them. The Vice-Chairman came to the members asking for assistance in
> fleshing out the specifics, he already has the general state platform and
> was asking for people to contribute specific issues. All he got for his
> trouble was a ration of shit. That is no way to treat a candidate.
>
> Specification 9. Attempting to involve the Party in an electronic
> communications scheme which would expose its contact list to his personal
> business interests.
>
> This is so vague as to be completely unanswerable. It is just another smear
> by someone attempting a personal vendetta and character assassination.
>
> Specification 10. Has on numerous occasions, solicited interest in
> holding media events, concerts, festivals et cetera, which would not in any
> way be publicly linked to the Party, but which would be partly or entirely
> funded by the Party, in exchange for a share of the proceeds of such events,
> if any. In all of these events, personal friends and himself, were to also
> profit.
>
> This is an interesting half truth. Yes money making events have been
> proposed. The party is constantly and incessantly saying it needs money, has
> no money can't do this or that because there is no money. The Vice-Chairman
> has made good faith efforts to offer his services to the party for fund
> raising. These are legitimate business offers and the party is and has
> always been free to accept or decline.
>
> Specification 11. Attempting to divert discussion at a State Central
> Committee meeting concerning online donation logistics towards using his
> personal contacts or himself as "bundlers" for Party funds.
>
> I submit that there is not enough information in this charge to make a
> response. Once again it appears to be the blather of a prejudice bigot
> intent on smearing the Vice-Chairman.
>
> In any case, there is nothing unethical in pitching a plan or project in an
> attempt to raise money.
>
> I submit that if the Vice-Chairman is to be removed from office for asking
> if expenses incurred for the party at the direction and request of the party
> could be repaid and for proposing money making projects then several others
> must also be removed and NONE will ever be brave enough to ever again
> suggest ways to raise money.
>
> ====================================
>
> In summary, what you see before you gentlemen is an attempt by a party or
> parties mostly unknown, cowardly hiding in the shadows making
> unsubstantiated charges. Yes the party has a problem. The problem is with
> this self-righteous, mean-spirited and bigoted crew and Reed Ebarb is the
> current leader.
>
> As a friend of mine put it, "The have got together the mob. They have found
> the rope. And they are going to hang someone." Do not let yourselves be the
> tree these bastards use to hang a good man.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> T. Lee Horne, III
>
> for the defendant.
>
> *From:*scc-bounces at lplouisiana.org [mailto:scc-bounces at lplouisiana.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrien Monteleone
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2013 3:27 PM
> *To:* Mailing list for LPL Board of Directors
> *Subject:* Re: [LPL Board of Directors] Internal party foolishness.
>
> 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,
>
> ...
>
> 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*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCC mailing list
> SCC at lplouisiana.org
> http://lplouisiana.org/mailman/listinfo/scc_lplouisiana.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lplouisiana.org/pipermail/scc_lplouisiana.org/attachments/20130401/7f666c96/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/20130401/7f666c96/attachment-0002.vcf>