The Impeachment Hearing Room

When Is Impeachment, Not Impeachment? The Twists and Turns In The Question Of Alcee Hastings’ Right To Seek Office After Impeachment!

“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.”

Hastings was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He is only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

The Senate did not exercise the Constitutional provision to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again. I find that to be in grave error and I find the failure of the Supreme Court to address that failure to be a grave error as well.

Aside from the fact that this man is a classic example of those who we would rid the Congress of; there is a serious question that must be answered with clarity: “How does he have to right to even seek office after Senatorial Impeachment?”

This is a matter the Supreme Court should address by revisit and not avoidance!

Alcee Hastings (vs) Ray Torres Sanchez Fla 23^rd Congressional District Race Primary August 26

Alcee Lamar Hastings (born September 5, 1936) is a 16 year member of the House of Representatives representing Florida's 23rd congressional district (map).

Born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, Hastings was educated at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee; Howard University in Washington, D.C.; and Florida A&M University. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1970, losing in the first primary to Lawton Chiles.

A Representative since 1993 and a Democrat, Hastings was a lawyer and judge of the circuit court of Broward County, Florida and of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (1979 to 1989). He was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He is only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

In 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Democratic Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and Arlen Specter voting to acquit.^[1]

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.^[2]

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.^[3]

Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"^[4] between Nixon's case and Hastings', specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin's ruling was vacated and Hastings' conviction and removal were upheld.

"Hastings Ousted As Senate Vote Convicts Judge

House Intelligence Committee controversy

After the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections, Hastings attracted controversy after it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might appoint him as head of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Pelosi reportedly favored Hastings instead of the ranking Democrat Jane Harman due to political differences and support for Hastings by the Congressional Black Caucus.^[6]

On November 28, 2006, Pelosi announced that Hastings would not be the Committee's chairman,^[7] and later she chose Silvestre Reyes instead. While Congressman Hastings was passed over to chair the committee he became chair of a sub-committee.

For US Congress, District 23 (The Type of Nonsense we have come to expect from the media)
MiamiHerald.com, FL -
Belle Glade City Commissioner Ray Torres Sanchez says that incumbent Congressman Alcee Hastings has served this district long enough and that it is time for ...

Ray Torres Sanchez - Enough is Enough, it's time for Alcee ...

Ray Torres Sanchez is commited to listening to your concerns. Ray wants to bring "One Voice for All People" to Washington, DC so that we can witness a ...
www.raytorressanchez.com

Office of General Counsel August 6, 2008 August 6, 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

FORMAL COMPLAINT CHALLENGING THE CANDIDACY QUALIFICATIONS,

LEGITIMACY AND LAWFULLNESS OF MR. ALCEE L. HASTINGS' CANDIDACY

FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FL-23^RD DISTRICT, YEAR

2008 ELECTION, AS GOVERNED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I SEC. 3,

AND; STATE OF FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTERS 104 AND 1O6 INCLUSIVE

I, RAY TORRES SANCHEZ, Complainant, and actively qualified candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 23^rd Congressional District, has standing to file this Complaint, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. Candidate for House of Representatives - Florida 23^rd Congressional District, Mr. Alcee L. Hastings' candidacy is in violation of The U.S. Constitution, Article 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.”

2. On or about 1989, The United States Senate, following a trial by a twelve-member Senate member committee, convicted then Judge Hastings on eight (8) of the eleven (11) stated Articles of Impeachment.

3. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 1, charging that in 1981, Hastings and William Borders, an attorney, engaged in a corrupt conspiracy to obtain $150,000 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.

4. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 2, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that he and Borders never made any agreement to solicit a bribe from defendants in the Romano case.

5. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 3, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that he and Borders never agreed to modify the sentences of defendants in the Romano case in return for a bribe from those defendants.

6. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 4, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that he and Borders never agreed that, in return for a bribe, Hastings would modify an order he previously issued that property of the Romano defendants be forfeited.

7. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 5, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that his appearance at the Fontainebleau Hotel on September 16, 1981 was not part of a plan to demonstrate his participation in a bribery scheme and that he had not expected to meet Borders there.

8. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 7 charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that his motive for instructing his law clerk to prepare a new forfeiture order in the Romano case was based on his concern that the order be revised before the law clerk's scheduled departure, when in fact the instruction was in furtherance of a bribery scheme.

9. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 8, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that his October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with Borders was about writing letters to solicit assistance for Hemphill Pride, when in fact it was a coded conversation in furtherance of a conspiracy with Borders to solicit a bribe from defendants in the Romano case.

10. Mr. Hastings was convicted by the Senate on Article 9, charging that in 1983, while Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case and under oath, Hastings knowingly and falsely stated that three documents that purported to be drafts of letters to assist Hemphill Pride had been written by Hastings on October 5, 1981, and were the letters referred to by Hastings in his October 5th telephone conversation with Borders.

11. Mr. Hastings, as a direct result of being convicted and impeached by the U.S. Senate, was subsequently removed from the Federal Bench after District Court Judge Sporkin vacated his Court ruling in “Hastings” which initially favored Mr. Hastings (a decision stayed by Judge Sporkin pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in “Nixon”), thereby finalizing Hastings' removal from the Federal Bench by the U.S. Senate.

12. Irrespective of Judge Sporkin vacating his initial decision in the “Hastings” case, Judge Sporkin distinguished by judicial highlighting, the Constitutionally derived punitive constraints against a Judge who was impeached. Judge Sporkin clearly recognized and commented on the applicability of the constitutional penalties looming over Mr. Hastings' future, when Judge Sporkin's opinion held:

“Ours is a system of checks and balances. To allow impeachment without any check on its abusive use would destroy the independence the Founding Fathers intended the judiciary to have. Once impeached and convicted, judges may never again be able to hold an office of public trust. [emphasis added by Complainant]

The Constitution even bars the extraordinary remedy of a presidential pardon. Specifically, Article II, section 2 reads "The President shall ... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (End of Judge Sporkin's quote)

13. Petitioner wholly agrees with Judge Sporkin, and for the purpose of this Petition, respectfully directs the above listed Election Commissions' attention toward the pointed District Court's Constitutional analysis regarding the severity of the “fixed constitutional consequences” a Judge must face once impeached, an impeachment representing an Official United States Senate counter-measure to combat the constitutionally abrasive negative impacts associated with Mr. Hastings performance of acts so vile, so contrary and deleterious to the public's interests, that the membership of the U.S. Senate (at great cost to our Nation) justifiably convicted Mr. Hastings on eight (8) of the eleven (11) Articles of Impeachment, after determining his actions to be in direct violation of Mr. Hastings' required official duties as a Federal Judge who holds a position of Public Trust in the United States.

14. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to this Complainant (or anyone I've ever known), for the United States of America to declare Hastings a Federal Judge who committed anti-American crimes against the public's trust warranting removal from office, and then somehow Mr. Hastings manages to manipulate the system by slipping through the cracks of time for over sixteen years to go on to hold a position inside the Halls of Congress of even greater force under law than that of any Judge, even greater political importance, with even more public monies at his ready avail, and lastly, Hastings' holding of an ill-gotten position with greater impact and influence over our National Security and the direction in which our Nation will move through the future etc., hence the filing of this Complaint.

15. Complainant advances Article I, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution does not provide the Senate, Congress, the Judiciary or Election Commissions or (as Federal Judge Sporkin held), even the President of the United States, an "option" to avoid enforcing against Hastings, established constitutional penalty provisions conjoined to a finalized Impeachment proceeding of the Senate. Complainant advances there cannot remain a continued silent permitting, exempting, waiving or “looking the other way” as to the matter of Hastings' disqualification to hold future office. Absent a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary, disregard for the proper application of the subject U.S. Constitutional disqualification provision, runs contrary to the law. Either a person is qualified under law to be a candidate, or they are not. In this instance, Mr. Hastings is not, and has never been qualified to hold office after being convicted of such serious offenses during a Senate Impeachment trial.

16. Petitioner further advances the “and disqualification” language in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution does not say or mean “or”, nor does the Constitution say or mean “may also be”, nor does the Constitution say or mean “the Federal and State elections commissions may or may not choose to”, the Constitution clearly says “AND” which Complainant advances disallows any other unauthorized acts, therefore, irrespective of the fact Mr. Hastings became a Congressman (and has been one for well over sixteen years (16 yr) outside the four corners of our U.S. Constitution), this Complainant seeks F.E.C. and State election commission enforcement of Article I Section 3, disqualification requirements during the 2008 election cycle and beyond.

17. Mr. Hastings should have never submitted candidacy papers when his candidacy was impermissibly blocked under law. In light of Mr. Hastings past tenure as a Federal Judge, Complainant advances that Mr. Hastings possesses a full and complete understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and at all times pertinent to his prior and current filings as a candidate for official office, Mr. Hastings knew, should have known, or by a reasonable person's assessment of Hastings' knowledge as a past Judge, could be expected to know that he, Mr. Hastings, could not legally run for official office after conviction during a Senate Impeachment proceeding. The impeachment processes and constitutional knowledge held by Hastings, including Hastings' understanding of Judge Sporkin's on-point assessment of the negative impacts associated with a constitutionally mandated disqualification penalty, and the subsequent actions taken by Hastings to fraudulently or otherwise take action as an unqualified person to secure an official public position of trust thereafter, constitutes a “reckless and willful disregard” for not only the U.S. Constitution, but moreover a defiant thumbing of the nose at the Federal and State statutory provisions governing our Nation's election process. In light of being removed from the Federal bench by the U.S. Senate, Hastings is and remains, wholly unable to ever attain compliance with election laws.

18. Had Mr. Hastings fully and forthrightly disclosed his disqualified status to Federal Elections Regulators at the time he filed his candidate papers, Hastings would have never become, nor remain, a Congressman. But apparently Mr. Hastings instead knowingly chose to willfully and recklessly hide through silence, his disqualified status, in all likelihood hoping his disqualification from ever holding an office of public trust would, as it did, “slip through the cracks”. To date, he has been successful in this regard, hence the filing of this Complaint.

19. As an illustrative example of Hastings' disregard for the importance of what really transpired during his Senate Impeachment proceedings, the “thumbing of the nose” descriptive phrase above is best illustrated within the “Online Official Website of Representative Hastings”, a website Mr. Hastings maintains full control over as to content and public message. Mr. Hastings publishes the following text:

“Known to many as "Judge," Alcee Hastings has distinguished himself as an
attorney, civil rights activist, judge, and now Member of Congress.”

Complainant reaffirms the decision of the U.S, Supreme Court in its landmark holding, “Government is bound to comply with the laws of its own creation”, and based upon the Senate powers and the guiding Constitutional provisions addressing post-impeachment penalties, Mr. Hastings can no more be a Judge, than he can be a constitutionally sound candidate for Congress.

20. In filing this Complaint to challenge the legality and constitutional legitimacy of Hastings' current 2008 candidacy for Federal Office subsequent to impeachment and conviction by the US Senate, Complainant recognizes that sometimes “History Forgets” about compliance with the law, people are swept up in the moment, caught in the ensuing political and societal chaos and confusion, and as a result, History innocently misses the mark from time to time for whatever the reason(s). Thus, History can and does occasionally fail to take swift action against those who violate our Nation's laws in the most caustic of manners, so caustic as to shake the Founding Father's “Principles of Democracy in America” to its very core. However, what should have been done sixteen years ago but was not done during the ensuing years relative to curing Hastings' ongoing contravention and avoidance of the U.S. Constitution's disqualification penalties, does not now form the basis of a viable excuse or plausible justification for continuing, warranting or further permitting a Constitutional Violation to move forward into the 2008 election process and beyond. We as Americans have grown beyond looking the other way when the public's interest is at stake.

21. Violations of the U.S. Constitution cannot be “Grand-fathered- in”. If the prior multitude of government election regulators or their staff members (that have come and gone before us), simply didn't pick up on the import and legal ramifications of Hastings' impeachment conviction, the filing of this Complaint shall serve to reverse and abate the outcome of “unknowing” governmental entity actions during the past sixteen years of our Nation's History.

THEREFORE, I, Ray Torres Sanchez, herein challenge the legitimacy and lawfulness of Mr. Hastings' candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives, FL 23^rd Congressional District for the Year 2008 Election Process.

COMPLAINANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

COMPLAINANT respectfully requests the Federal and State Election Commissions declare, either separately or jointly, Mr. Alcee L. Hastings' candidacy for an official position of public trust in Year 2008 elections as being null and void, and; Complainant requests the Commission(s) issue their findings in fact and conclusions of law identifying Mr. Hastings' current candidacy status as being one which rests in strict violation of the United States Constitution ART. I, Sec. 3. Complainant seeks any and all other relief as may be deemed just and reasonable by the Election Commission(s).

Respectfully submitted,

Ray Torres Sanchez

Candidate - U.S. House of Representatives - 23rdCD

He was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He is only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

The Senate had the (option?) to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. (How?)