Miriam Steinberg Archives - Florida Politics

Lawsuit seeks to remove Jamie Grant from 2018 ballot

Rep. Jamie Grant’s Republican challenger in the House District 64 primary has filed a lawsuit demanding Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner remove Grant as a candidate, saying he has violated the state’s term limits.

“I believe that Rep. Grant, who was first elected to the Florida House in November 2010, is ineligible to run for reelection in the Florida House in 2018 due to his having served for eight consecutive years,” Terry Power said Wednesday in a news release.

Terry Power
Power

“I believe the courts will agree with me on this important issue.”

Florida voters approved term limits of eight years for members of the Legislature back in 1992; they did not generally become effective till 2000.

Grant was first elected in 2010, and has been re-elected three times to two-year terms. But he did not serve those four terms consecutively. (A separate recounting of that history is here.)

His 2014 GOP primary was postponed when the husband of Republican candidate Miriam Steinberg sued to have write-in candidate Daniel John Matthews removed from the race.

A circuit court ruled that Matthews did not meet the requirements to run and postponed the primary between Grant and Steinberg until November.

Grant

Grant defeated Steinberg easily that fall, but the House voted to invalidate the results because an appellate court found that Matthews was wrongfully withdrawn from the contest.

That meant HD 64 had no representative for several months, until April 2015, when Grant defeated Matthews to finish out the 2014-2016 term.

“To rule against us would have a chilling effect on our term limit laws and open the door to even more shenanigans by career politicians,” Power added.

Grant was on the floor of the House Wednesday, and not immediately available for comment.

The 59-year-old Power is an Oldsmar-based certified financial planner. He has said that if elected, he’ll donate his House salary to charities in the district.

House District 64 covers a northwestern section of Hillsborough and some of eastern Pinellas County.

Is U.S. Term Limits coordinating a grassroots campaign against Jamie Grant?

Several state lawmakers — including Reps. Scott Plakon, Neil Combee, and Randy Fine — have received messages from their constituents asking them to block Grant from running for re-election and running for Speaker during the 2022-24 term, saying the Tampa Republican has already served eight years in office and any more would be in violation of the state Constitution.

The push comes just days after Nick Tomboulides, the executive director of U.S. Term Limits, wrote a post on the group’s website urging Floridians to contact their legislator to stop “Grant from cheating term limits.”

“He has not only filed to run for a fifth consecutive term in 2018, but Grant says he wants to stay in the House to become Speaker in 2024! That would make 14 consecutive years in office, almost double the legal limit,” wrote Tomboulides in a June 21 post on U.S. Term Limits’ website.

“Grant must believe he is above the law. He is attempting to justify his actions by pointing to a brief pause in his service from 2014-2015, when Grant’s friends in the Legislature vacated his seat. He was back in his job just 155 days later, mostly missing time when the House wasn’t in session,” he continued. “According to Grant, this meaningless gap started his term limit clock all over again, giving him a fresh eight years-plus.”

Tomboulides wrote a similar op-ed also ran on Sunshine State News website on June 16. Established in the early 1990s, U.S. Term Limits, a Washington, D.C.-based group, advocates for term limits at all levels of government.

First elected to the Florida House in 2010, Grant’s 2014 re-election campaign was embroiled in controversy. In the months leading up to the election, Tampa attorney Michael Steinberg filed suit over write-in candidate Daniel Matthews.

Steinberg, who was married to Grant’s GOP opponent Miriam Steinberg, said the write-in candidate should be disqualified because he didn’t live in the district. At the time, the Tampa Tribune reported that Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey agreed, and disqualified him. However, Matthews appealed, and panel of judges with the 1st District Court of Appeal sided with him.

While the legal battle was continued, the election played. Grant would eventually win the election; however, the House threw out those election results and vacated the seat. According to a Tampa Tribune report at the time, the House cited the months-long and unresolved litigation over the write-in candidacy.

Gov. Rick Scott ordered a special election, which Grant handily won. And since the seat was vacant when Grant won the special election, he won a new term — not a re-election.

That has left some Floridians irked, and they’re sounding off to their state representatives. In an email to Plakon, Casselberry resident Janet Leonard said she was “very disheartened to learn that Rep. Grant is evading the eight-year term limit set in place by 77 percent of Florida voters in 1992.”

“Why does one man believe he is above the law and not subject to these limits,” she wrote Plakon, according to an email provided to FloridaPolitics.com. “A 155-day hiatus doesn’t change the fact that he’s been in office for each of eight consecutive years. As my state representative, you should stop grant from cheating term limits and becoming a future Speaker.”

In another email, Longwood resident Albert Simpson tells Plakon that “term limits are an essential part of Florida government that stop elected officials from abusing their power.” He goes on to ask Plakon to tell Grant to step down from office instead of violating term limits.

Grant is one of four candidates in the running to be the Speaker of the House beginning in 2022, if Republicans keep their majority. Grant and Rep. Paul Renner, who was elected in a special election in April 2015, are considered to be the leading contenders for the post.

The freshman GOP caucus is expected to vote for its leader, and eventual Speaker, during a meeting in Central Florida on June 30.

Jamie Grant doesn’t miss 2014-15 election drama

This year, Jamie Grant got lucky.

The Hillsborough County Republican qualified for office with no opposition, meaning he’s an automatic walk-on for the 2016-18 term.

But for Grant, who represents Florida House District 64, that’s far from the story two years ago.

He was re-elected, then had the results thrown out after legal challenges put them into question, before finally regaining his seat.

“While it’s hard to imagine a more frustrating campaign than last cycle, I’m a big believer in focusing on what you can control and ignoring the rest,” Grant told FloridaPolitics.com. “The craziness of the last cycle definitely tested that.”

Let’s go back to the beginning: Grant was first elected in 2010, defeating Democrat Michael Steinberg, after prevailing in a five-candidate primary race.

He was re-elected in 2012 without opposition.

But in 2014, the 33-year-old attorney and tech entrepreneur faced a Republican primary challenge from Steinberg’s wife, Miriam Steinberg, a Tampa engineer.

With no other challenger, that would have been an open primary for all voters.

That summer, up popped a write-in candidate for District 64, Daniel Matthews, who had just graduated from Florida State University and wound up never campaigning, raising money or talking to reporters.

Soon, Michael Steinberg, also an attorney, challenged Matthews’ write-in candidacy on several grounds.

He claimed Matthews didn’t live in the district but still resided in Tallahassee. Steinberg also said Matthews had unfairly prevented him and other Democrats and independent voters from casting ballots in an open primary.

A trial judge disqualified Matthews, finding he was living in Tallahassee and not Hillsborough County when he qualified.

Matthews appealed, and the 1st District Court of Appeal reinstated him, saying candidates have to live in their districts only at the time they’re elected.

“Jamie was first elected (in 2010) after entering a five-way primary in a race that was all about strategy, micro-targeting, and focusing on the issues,” said Jen Lux, his campaign manager. “Unfortunately, the operation and strategy of the 2014 campaign centered around keeping up with rulings and trying to guess what that meant for the campaign and the district.”

Steinberg then took the case to the Supreme Court, which paused the proceedings until it decided a similar case in South Florida.

(In February, that court struck down the state law requiring write-in candidates to live in the districts they’re running for when they qualify, finding it conflicted with a constitutional provision that requires candidates to live in their districts “at the time of election.”)

Grant won the November 2014 election but the House of Representatives shortly after that tossed out the results, citing the then-ongoing litigation.

That left Grant’s seat vacant, requiring Gov. Rick Scott to call a special election in April 2015. For almost six months, more than 157,000 people went without representation in the Florida House of Representatives, which Grant called “the most frustrating part of the situation.”

“Despite the challenges, our team of volunteers worked incredibly hard last cycle, but could barely keep straight which election they were working towards at which time,” Lux said. “We just knew that Team Grant had to keep driving turnout, and our supporters had to keep voting to ensure Jamie was re-elected.”

But Miriam Steinberg decided not to run again, and Grant finally crumpled Matthews with about 91 percent of the ballot.

The good news out of that Sturm und Drang? It reset Grant’s term-limit clock, meaning he can serve in the Florida House until 2024. 

“I believe campaigns should be about public policy, about ideas, and should be won on the doorsteps of the district, not in a courtroom,” he said. “Going from that experience to being elected without opposition, I pray it’s safe to say I’ve seen the farthest ends of the campaign spectrum over the last two years.”

Jake Raburn, Jamie Grant re-elected without opposition to Tampa Bay-area seats

A pair of Tampa Bay-area Republicans will return to Tallahassee in 2017, having ended the qualifying period without drawing an opponent.

Plant City-based Rep. Jake Raburn has been re-elected to the House District 57 seat, while Hillsborough County Rep. Jamie Grant will continue in HD 64.

The qualification period ended noon Friday.

Raburn was a prime co-sponsor this past year a bill on agri-tourism. The legislation prohibits a local government from enforcing a local ordinance that lists an agri-tourism activity on land classified as agriculture land.

“Agriculture is the foundation of our economy, and without being able to produce our own food, we’re in serious risk in this country,” he said at a bill signing event at C&W Farms last month attended by Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.

First elected in 2012 and re-elected in 2014, the 31-year-old Hillsborough County native moves on to his third term in the Florida House. District 57 includes Riverview, FishHawk, Apollo Beach and Wimauma. State representatives serve two-year terms.

“I am deeply humbled and honored by the opportunity you have given me, to continue representing our community in the state capitol. The privilege you’ve allowed me to have, in representing you, is one I don’t take lightly,” said Raburn in a statement over the weekend.

For his part, Grant will have a much smoother transition that the last time he was re-elected back in 2014, when he faced Miriam Sternberg in the GOP primary, which was delayed from August to November in 2014 after Sternberg’s husband, Michael, sued to have write-in candidate Daniel John Matthews removed from the race.

Grant was ultimately elected to his seat in April 2015, giving him a few weeks to participate in that year’s regular session.

HD 64 encompasses parts of Hillsborough and Pinellas County — including Carrollwood, Citrus Park, Oldsmar and Safety Harbor.

Obscure Democratic presidential candidate wants on Florida ballot

A dark horse Democratic presidential candidate is suing the Democratic Party of Florida and the state of Florida to get on the 2016 ballot here.

Rocky De La Fuente Guerra, a San Diego real estate developer, filed his suit last week in Tallahassee federal court.

A group of seven Florida voters is listed as co-plaintiffs. They say they will be deprived by not being able to vote for De La Fuente in the state’s Presidential Preference Primary on March 15.

De La Fuente is bolstered by $25 million he got in a settlement after resolving late last year a decades-old land use lawsuit against the city of San Diego. At the time, it was the oldest litigation on the city’s books.

He’s been able to get on the ballot in 20 states, according to reports. By comparison, fellow Democratic candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is now on the ballot in only 18 states.

De La Fuente’s complaint says he “requested that the (Florida Democratic Party) include his name on the list of candidates to be placed on the Florida presidential primary ballot for the Democratic Party, but the (party) refused to include his name on the list.”

“Democratic voters in the state of Florida will not be able to vote for the Plaintiff as their preference for the Democratic nominee for president, and Plaintiff will not be able to have Florida delegates, pledged to support his candidacy, seated at the Democratic National Convention,” his complaint says.

He’s alleging the decision to exclude him violates his right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

“The Party has a … duty to prepare and approve a list of all recognized Democratic Presidential candidates, not just the ones they favor or choose,” the complaint says. “The Plaintiff is clearly recognized by the Federal Elections Commission, the news media, and other states as a Democratic candidate for President.”

Party officials in Tallahassee declined to comment because the litigation is pending. A cursory read of applicable state law and the party’s own rules, however, suggests that setting ballot choices is solely at the discretion of the party’s State Executive Committee.

De La Fuente is represented by Michael Steinberg, a Tampa attorney and registered Democrat. His wife, Miriam Steinberg, unsuccessfully challenged state Rep. Jamie Grant for his House District 64 seat in 2014.

Michael Steinberg sued a write-in candidate in that race on behalf of his wife, claiming the write-in resided in Tallahassee, not Hillsborough County.

Joseph Wilkinson, Jamie Grant’s sole opponent, drops out in HD 64

Little-known political novice Joseph Wilkinson was never much of a threat to the incumbency of Republican Rep. Jamie Grant of Tampa, but now he has completely removed himself from consideration by voters in HD 64 altogether.

Wilkinson, also a Republican, had not reported raising any contributions. Grant, for his part, has raised $25 ahead of his 2016 reelection campaign.

Grant has faced real primary heat in the past: local attorney Miriam Steinberg won the endorsement of the Tampa Bay Times and 41 percent of the GOP vote in a closed primary last year whose results – like the Novemeber general election which followed – was tossed out by state courts amid a court battle over residency requirements for write-in candidates.

HD 64, which covers part of eastern Pinellas County as well as the northwest corner of Hillsborough, was without a representative in the House for months as courts invalidated the results because of a write-in who was wrongfully excluded from the ballot for not living in the district, which courts found was actually permissible. Lawmakers have since changed that state law.

The upshot of the legal wrangling and April special election: Grant got a refresh on his consecutive service, setting him up as a likely candidate for House Speaker in 2022 on the strength of his greater experience.

Grant raised a total of $208,390 for his 2014 campaign against Steinberg and $193,533 in 2010 when he won election to HD 47, an Orlando-based seat he held before he moved to the Bay Area after 2011 redistricting.

Grant is known for libertarian-leaning stances on social and economic issues, as well as an enthusiasm for “ride-sharing” services like Uber, on whose behalf he has advocated with the similarly minded Sen. Jeff Brandes.

Grant has spoken out against moves by the legislatively-designated Public Transportation Commission in Hillsborough County, which he has said is upholding archaic rules to prevent market competition when it comes to vehicles for hire.

Early voting in Jamie Grant’s HD 64 special election begins Saturday

Early voting starts Saturday in the Florida House District 64 seat formerly held by Republican Jamie Grant that, after the election takes place on April 21, will once again be controlled by, yes, Jamie Grant.

The early voting will continue throughout next week in the district, which encompasses northwest Hillsborough and eastern Pinellas counties. It’s been without representation in the Florida House for the past five months, after lawmakers there disallowed Grant’s 19-point victory over fellow Republican Miriam Steinberg. Their decision followed up on an appeal court ruling that invalidated the election results as part of an ongoing case involving write-in candidate Daniel Matthews.

Miriam Steinberg’s husband, Tampa attorney Michael Steinberg, filed a lawsuit this past June on his own behalf over Matthews’ entry into the contest. Steinberg contended that Matthews participation in the race prevented him and other Democrats from casting a ballot in an open or “universal primary.” State election officials previously have ruled that any write-in candidate qualifying for the general election makes the primary election “closed,” meaning that members of the opposing party, in this case, Democrats, can’t vote in it.

But Miriam Steinberg has since dropped out of the special election, meaning Grant is running only against Matthews, a virtual phantom candidate who has nothing to indicate that he actually wants to win the seat. Grant was elected to the seat in 2010, re-elected in 2012 and again last year, before the results were negated.

Early voting takes place in Hillsborough through April 18, 10 a.m.- 6 p.m., at any of these locations:

  • Fred B. Karl County Center, 16th Floor, 601 E. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa.
  • Robert L. Gilder Elections Service Center, 2514 N. Falkenburg Road., Tampa.
  • Jimmie B. Keel Regional Library, 2902 W. Bearss Ave., Tampa.
  • Upper Tampa Bay Regional Library, 11211 Countryway Blvd., Tampa.

Early voting in Pinellas County runs through April 18, 8 a.m.- 4 p.m., at these locations:

  • Election Service Center, 13001 Starkey Road, Largo.
  • Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court St., Room 117, Clearwater.
  • County Building, 501 First Ave. N., St. Petersburg.

 

Bill would close write-in loophole

Hollywood Sen. Eleanor Sobel has introduced what she says is a legislative fix for a perennial bugaboo in state elections — complications extending from minor write-in candidates who rarely gain a significant share of the vote, but who often cause procedural headaches for candidates and sometimes cost the taxpayers  to finance low-stakes special elections.

Sobel’s bill, SB 840, comes in the wake of invalidated results and a subsequent special election in Tampa Rep. Jamie Grant‘s re-election to a House seat in District 64. Grant won handily with more than 59 percent of the vote over his sole viable opponent in the race, Miriam Steinberg. Prior to the election a candidate some would describe as a nuisance write-in, Daniel John Matthews, was excluded from the ballot by a circuit court judge because he did not live in the district.

Grant was declared the winner and was set to be sworn in along with his colleagues.

Then came a 1st District Court of Appeal ruling that Matthews should have remained on the ballot regardless of his not living in District 64. The Florida House took a vote and decided not to seat Grant to avoid cementing the results of an election now ruled invalid, a decision Grant agreed with.

“How do I go to Tallahassee and take an oath to uphold the Constitution and have gotten there in an election that directly violated the Constitution?” Grant said in November, perhaps with an eye toward gaining extra terms of eligibility that may come with the anomalous interruption of his consecutive service.

The appellate court overturned the prior ruling on the basis that a state law requiring write-ins to live within the district they seek to represent at the time of qualification contradicts the Florida Constitution, which provides simply that candidates must live in their prospective districts by the time an election is held.

Sobel’s bill would delete that statutory provision and revert the status quo back to the less stringent constitutional requirement.

The bill would add clarity to such idiosyncratic situations. It may also make it easier for campaigns to plant electorally inert write-in candidates, a tactic sometimes used to trigger a closed primary in cases when candidates from only one party are competing.

SB 840, filed Wednesday, has so far not been matched with a House companion bill.

Martin Dyckman: Write-ins waste money, disenfranchise voters

In a column several months ago I deplored the outcomes of two election cases that brought to mind Charles Dickens’s famous phrase, “If the law says that, the law is a ass, an idiot.”

 In one, the First District Court of Appeal refused to reinstate a legislative candidate who had been kicked off the ballot after her bank erroneously bounced her qualifying fee check.

In the other, the court allowed the governor to call off a scheduled election and instead appoint the successor to a retiring circuit judge who contrived to leave office three days before his term expires.

It has gotten worse since then. That loud sound you hear is the jackass braying.

The Supreme Court refused to review either case. Laura Levy’s hyperlegalistic disqualification in House District 113 left the voters with an unopposed incumbent. Meanwhile, the voters of the Fourth Judicial Circuit were without any voice in the successor to Circuit Judge Donald Moran of Jacksonville.

And in yet another bizarre outcome, the First District in October effectively nullified the August open primary that returned Rep. Jamie Grant to the state House in District 64, which comprises parts of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The court ruled on appeal that a write-in candidate, David John Matthews, should not have been disqualified for living outside the district.

As matters stand, it means the Legislature will reconvene in March with District 64 unrepresented until a special general election on April 21 in which Grant will be the only candidate on the ballot. Miriam Steinberg, the rival he defeated in the voided Republican primary, chose not to qualify for the rerun, leaving Grant unopposed for the nomination.

But Mathews hasn’t withdrawn, requiring a full dress general election despite the overwhelming likelihood that Grant will win. (Matthews wins only if nobody but his friends turn out to vote, which I suppose is remotely possible.) Whatever votes Matthews gets will not include even his own unless he has moved into the district since the litigation.

Even so, early voting is scheduled April 11-18 at four sites in Hillsborough and three in Pinellas and the election supervisors in both counties will have to open election day polling places with at least minimal staffing. Taxpayers who know Matthews might consider reasoning with him about this.

If this situation isn’t absurd, nothing is. But the court was bound by the Constitution, which requires legislators to live in the districts they represent but says nothing about having to reside in them before election.

It all would have been over in November, in the normal course of business, if Steinberg’s husband hadn’t sued to disqualify Matthews and thereby open the primary to Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. The Florida Constitution provides for a primary open to all voters “if all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election.” Trouble is, an early ruling by the secretary of state and later language in the law consider write-ins to be opposition.

That should be fixed – by legislation or by the Supreme Court, if possible. Write-in candidates never succeed in Florida. Their only purpose, aside from vanity, is to close primaries that ought to be open to every voter. But that’s how both major parties seem to like it, the public be damned.

There was a parallel to the District 64 follies in a Broward County Commission race, but the write-in candidate who forced the Democratic primary to be repeated eventually withdrew, so there will be no pointless general election.

One easy fix would be to abolish write-in candidacies. But when the Legislature tried that, it was overruled in 1974 by a split Florida Supreme Court decision holding that the state constitution guarantees the right to a write-in campaign.

A broader solution would be to adopt California’s completely open primary system. It would bring the huge benefit of restoring some of the moderation that has been lost to gerrymandering. But neither major party would welcome that.

What happened to Levy – which even the courts admitted was a “harsh result” – shouldn’t happen to anyone else. When a bank admits it fouled up, the Department of State should be able to take that into account.

The constitutional glitch that Moran exposed should be fixed also. If the governor is to trump the voters, the resignation of the judge who is being replaced should be effectively immediately rather than so near as three days – or even three weeks or three months – to the end of his term.

Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He lives near Waynesville, North Carolina.

Martin Dyckman: Write-ins waste money, disenfranchise voters

In a column several months ago I deplored the outcomes of two election cases that brought to mind Charles Dickens’s famous phrase, “If the law says that, the law is a ass, an idiot.”

 In one, the First District Court of Appeal refused to reinstate a legislative candidate who had been kicked off the ballot after her bank erroneously bounced her qualifying fee check.

In the other, the court allowed the governor to call off a scheduled election and instead appoint the successor to a retiring circuit judge who contrived to leave office three days before his term expires.

It has gotten worse since then. That loud sound you hear is the jackass braying.

The Supreme Court refused to review either case. Laura Levy’s hyperlegalistic disqualification in House District 113 left the voters with an unopposed incumbent. Meanwhile, the voters of the Fourth Judicial Circuit were without any voice in the successor to Circuit Judge Donald Moran of Jacksonville.

And in yet another bizarre outcome, the First District in October effectively nullified the August open primary that returned Rep. Jamie Grant to the state House in District 64, which comprises parts of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The court ruled on appeal that a write-in candidate, David John Matthews, should not have been disqualified for living outside the district.

As matters stand, it means the Legislature will reconvene in March with District 64 unrepresented until a special general election on April 12 in which Grant will be the only candidate on the ballot. Miriam Steinberg, the rival he defeated in the voided Republican primary, chose not to qualify for the rerun, leaving Grant unopposed for the nomination.

But Mathews hasn’t withdrawn, requiring a full dress general election despite the overwhelming likelihood that Grant will win. (Matthews wins only if nobody but his friends turn out to vote, which I suppose is remotely possible.) Whatever votes Matthews gets will not include even his own unless he has moved into the district since the litigation.

Even so, early voting is scheduled April 11-18 at four sites in Hillsborough and three in Pinellas and the election supervisors in both counties will have to open election day polling places with at least minimal staffing. Taxpayers who know Matthews might consider reasoning with him about this.

If this situation isn’t absurd, nothing is. But the court was bound by the Constitution, which requires legislators to live in the districts they represent but says nothing about having to reside in them before election.

It all would have been over in November, in the normal course of business, if Steinberg’s husband hadn’t sued to disqualify Matthews and thereby open the primary to Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. The Florida Constitution provides for a primary open to all voters “if all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election.” Trouble is, an early ruling by the secretary of state and later language in the law consider write-ins to be opposition.

That should be fixed – by legislation or by the Supreme Court, if possible. Write-in candidates never succeed in Florida. Their only purpose, aside from vanity, is to close primaries that ought to be open to every voter. But that’s how both major parties seem to like it, the public be damned.

There was a parallel to the District 64 follies in a Broward County Commission race, but the write-in candidate who forced the Democratic primary to be repeated eventually withdrew, so there will be no pointless general election.

One easy fix would be to abolish write-in candidacies. But when the Legislature tried that, it was overruled in 1974 by a split Florida Supreme Court decision holding that the state constitution guarantees the right to a write-in campaign.

A broader solution would be to adopt California’s completely open primary system. It would bring the huge benefit of restoring some of the moderation that has been lost to gerrymandering. But neither major party would welcome that.

What happened to Levy – which even the courts admitted was a “harsh result” – shouldn’t happen to anyone else. When a bank admits it fouled up, the Department of State should be able to take that into account.

The constitutional glitch that Moran exposed should be fixed also. If the governor is to trump the voters, the resignation of the judge who is being replaced should be effectively immediately rather than so near as three days – or even three weeks or three months – to the end of his term.

Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times. He lives near Waynesville, North Carolina.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons