The Impeachment Hearing Room

Office of General Counsel August 12, 2008

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

&

State of Florida Election Commission

107 West Gaines Street

Collins Building, Suite #224

Tallahassee, FL 32399

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT SEEKING A FINAL JUDGMENT

DECLARING THE INELIGIBILITY OF ALCEE L. HASTINGS' AS A CANDIDATE

FOR CONGRESS DURING THE 2008 ELECTION PROCESS AND BEYOND.

I, Ray Torres Sanchez file this, my memorandum in support of the original Complaint dated August 6, 2008, to be made a part of the original Complaint as if fully set forth within. Complainant prefaces this memorandum by asking the following underlying question regarding Respondent not yet facing disqualification penalties, and his qualification status ¹ as a candidate within the Federal Election process:

“When is an Impeachment, Not an Impeachment”

In consideration of the language contained in USC ART. I, Sec. 3 which states,

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.”,

Complainant respectfully asks the Honorable Members of the Election Commissions, exactly what is the value of the constitutional phrase “…the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.” ?

Complainant advances the punishment according to law provision is the imperatively stated post-conviction penalties associated with being disqualified as a candidate who is ineligible from holding a future office of public trust.

FACT: Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate, inter alia, on Article 1, convicting Hastings for “…engaging in a corrupt conspiracy to obtain $150,000.00 from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, in return for the imposition of sentences which would not require incarceration.”

CITATION: 449 U.S. 825 (1980), the Court held: "corruptly really means unlawful” and, “… to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice is per se unlawful and is tantamount to doing the act corruptly. Id. Black's Law Dictionary defines "corruptly" as follows: "When used in a statute, this term, generally imports a wrongful design to acquire some pecuniary or other advantage." Black's Law Dictionary 345 (6th ed.1990).”

OPINION: The U.S. Constitution, ART. I, Sec. 3 was authored by our Nation's Founders for the purpose of making those convicted during an impeachment hearing ineligible to hold a future “office of public trust”, so as to safeguard the integrity of our Nation's various branches of government and the nation of people each represents, against further misdeeds by public officials who were proven to have acted unlawfully and corruptly in violation of the law (reference District Court Judge Sporkin's Opinion in “Hastings” on the constitutional impacts associated with conviction at an Impeachment hearing and applicable disqualifying penalties).

Complainant advances that the in-place “constitutional stops” contained within USC ART. I, Sec. 3 was specifically created and designed to abate and eliminate the general-public's future risk exposure to the probability of a convicted untrustworthy public office violator taking subsequent actions (post conviction) to move forward in time to then secure yet another office of public trust, wherein the probability of a repeat offense would be highly likely, probable and as advanced herein more pointedly, designed to be preventable as provided for in USC ART. I, Sec. 3.

FACT: To date, the conviction of Mr. Hastings on eight (8) of the eleven (11) Senate Articles of Impeachment, stands firmly set in the absence of a reversal.

CITATION: To best illustrate the seriousness, scope and breadth of Candidate Hastings' offense against the public's trust and interests, I respectfully draw the Commissions' attention toward “The United States Sentencing Commission 1994 Guidelines Manual” Chapter Two - PART C - OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC OFFICIALS, which provides examples of what Hastings may have faced, had he been brought to justice within the judicial system and not the Senate.

2C1.1. Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right

(B)If the offense involved a payment for the purpose of influencing an elected official or any official holding a high- level decision-making or sensitive position, increase by 8 levels.

(1)If the offense was committed for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another criminal offense, apply the offense guideline applicable to a conspiracy to commit that other offense if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.

(2)If the offense was committed for the purpose of concealing, or obstructing justice in respect to, another criminal offense, apply 2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact) or 2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice), as appropriate, in respect to that other offense if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.

OPINION: Irrespective of the passing of nineteen years, the serious nature and severity of Hastings' violation of his “Sworn Oath of Office”, and, the subsequent aftermath affect and subterfuge of the public's trust in government officials (that continues on to this very day as recent current events evidences), cannot and should not be forgotten, nor set aside as being meaningless as it applies towards Hastings' candidacy qualifications for the 2008 Election. The Election Commissions, who are entrusted with the duty to oversee the integrity of the Election Process, is all that we Americans have to rely on, as the public is of the belief the Election Commissions are fundamentally the guardian protectors of the people's voting interests and our individually held views as to the perceived lawful value, nature and integrity of the election process.

FACT:

The Senate Articles of Impeachment which Hastings was convicted on, involved and focused on Hastings' knowingly making false statements while under oath, a most serious violation of the law, especially in light of the fact Hastings was a Federal Judge who understood the legal penalties of lying while under oath.

CITATION: 18 U.S.C. § 1621 Perjury generally, states in pertinent part:

Whoever--

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law [emphasis added by Complainant as to applicability of USC ART. I, Sec. 3 as a penalty], be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

OPINION: Hastings own Democratic Party recently acted to protect their own special political interests against Hastings, reference his proposed appointment to a high ranking Intelligence position which required his maintaining secrecy as it related to matters involving our nation's security, international interests and “Top Secrets”. This Complainant opines the Democratic Party chose not to implement the appointment of Hastings to the subject post because of his reputation of unlawful prior conduct against the United States, thereby considering him (in response to the outcry of both Party's membership and the memberships subsequent reactive measures to quell the political and public uproar that ensued), a person who could not be trusted to hold sacred American interests. In essence, Hastings (although a Congressman) was not “trustworthy enough” due to his conviction on perjury charges and his involvement in the solicitation of a bribe.

USC ART. I, Sec. 3 was authored for the very purpose of eliminating any possibility of the aforementioned scenario from ever occurring within the United States, but occur it did, due to lack of post conviction enforcement.

This Complainant, the people of the State of Florida and our Nation, possess no such individual or collective ability to protect our special and political interests as does the Membership of the US House of Representatives. If it were not for the Election Commissions, we as a people would have no voice and certainly no way in which to act against a threat to our liberties and reputation as a nation of involved citizen voters who expect candidates and public officials, to be held in full compliance with the law, more especially in post-conviction cases.

Closing Statement:

Literature on Hastings conviction during the US Senate Impeachment Trial makes brief mention that the Senate “opted” not to bar Hastings from holding a future office of trust. Complainant states there does not exist any government public record whatsoever supporting this commonly used phrase (opted) as an explanation to factually explain away what actually transpired during the Impeachment hearing. What did transpire however, was the Senate, either by political design or no fault of their own, overlooked and silently disregarded even addressing or voting on the matter of the post-conviction application of USC ART. I, Sec. 3.

Complainant, as a Former Mayor, refers to this type of legislative action/reaction during a quasi-judicial hearing on matters of great public importance and impact as a “Let's not even go there” type of event, which resulted in many Americans presuming the Senate “opted” not to implement USC ART. I, Sec. 3 penalties against Hastings.

Complainant asserts it is the Election Commissions who, post conviction, enforce prohibitions against a person running for office who is not qualified to do so.

Assuming arguendo the Senate's not voting or silence in this matter could be argued by some as a passive opting out of compliance with USC ART. I, Sec. 3, the Senate does not hold the power nor does it possess the authority under law to “opt” out of compliance with any of our Nation's Constitutional provisions, hence, when it comes to the matter of determining the suitability of candidate qualifications reference who shall be permitted to run for election, and who shall not, the Federal Election and State Election Commission(s) are charged with that enforcement duty.

The Constitution of the United States of America stands as written.

THEREFORE, I Ray Torres Sanchez, respectfully request the Election Commissions, either separately or jointly, apply and enforce the penalty provisions of USC ART. I, Sec. 3 against candidate Alcee L. Hastings, and in doing so, render a Final Order declaring Alcee L. Hastings as ineligible to remain a candidate for Florida's 23^rd Congressional District during the 2008 Election Process, and beyond.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Torres Sanchez

Candidate for Congressional Office

FL 23^rd District

By:

Ray Torres Sanchez

2296 East Canal Street South

Belle Glade, FL 33430

(561) 602-0073

Signature of Petitioner Filing Complaint Memorandum

Signature___________________________

Ray Torres Sanchez

Sworn to and signed before me this____ day of August, 2008.

Personally known____________

________________________________

Produced Identification_______ Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida

Print, Type or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public

Type of Identification Produced:

_________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true, correct and accurate copy of the foregoing Complaint Memorandum has been transmitted to the attention of:

Mr. Alcee L. Hastings - Candidate

Hastings for Congress

P.O. Box 100277

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33310

Transmitted via U.S.P.S. Mail on August 12, 2008