The Impeachment Hearing Room

In The Matter of Hastings (v). Sanchez | Judge Love On Alcee Hastings Controversy Florida: Not Fit Not Eligible To Seek Office. (Plus Other Quick Clips)

Judge Love

http://clipmarks.com/clipper/Judge+Love

/>

This Is Different and I Like It! I installed this feature some time ago and have simply never gotten around to trying it. If you have any comment as regards this particular format, please let me know.

Requests for pardons piling up for Bush
Detroit Free Press - United States

Damn there is just so much to do!

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush, who hasn't pardoned many criminals in his time, will have a chance to spare legions before leaving office in January.... for Vice President Dick Cheney was convicted of obstruction of justice. But Bush will have plenty of opportunities before leaving office in January. ...

Requests for presidential pardons and commutations of prison sentences are piling up at the Justice Department, with more than 3,000 pending. And, if history serves as any guide, the height of pardon season arrives in the final December of any president's term.

Bush has proven to be exceptionally sparing with his pardon power. In modern times, only his father offered less clemency for the convicted. The elder Bush, with only one term in which to act, signed just 74 pardons and three commutations--a fraction of what many recent presidents have allowed.

Near the end of his second term, the younger Bush has signed 157 pardons and six commutations. He has drawn widespread attention for only one: the commutation of Lewis (Scooter) Libby's prison time after the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney was convicted of obstruction of justice.

But Bush will have plenty of opportunities before leaving office in January. Nearly 1,000 petitions for pardons and more than 2,000 bids for commutations of sentences are pending.

Marion Jones, the world-champion sprinter serving six months in jail for lying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs, is among those seeking clemency.

So is Michael Milken, the junk-bond financier who went to prison for insider trading and is free now but seeking a pardon. President Bill Clinton turned him down.

Former Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards of Louisiana, serving a 10-year prison sentence for racketeering, is seeking a commutation of his sentence. So are former Republican Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham of California, sentenced to eight years for conspiracy to commit bribery, wire fraud and tax evasion, and John Walker Lindh, the American who served the Taliban and was captured during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, serving a 20-year prison term.

But this president's pardons have tended toward lower-profile wrong-doers.

P.S. Ruckman Jr., a professor of political science at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Ill., and an expert on executive clemency, said, "If you're a betting person, and you look at the numbers and the fact that most pardons have landed in December, I think there is every reason to expect there are some pardons ahead."

In February 2001, Bush said, "Should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I will have the highest of standards."

Through July, the Justice Department has collected 1,936 petitions for pardons since the start of Bush's first term, and 7,330 bids for commutation and had about another 2,000 requests pending that were left from when Clinton served.

While granting the 157 pardons and six commutations, Bush has denied requests for 1,429 pardons and 5,683 commutations.

Pelosi won't limit vote to offshore drilling
San Francisco Chronicle - CA, USA
About 100 protesters advocating impeachment of President Bush interrupted the speaker, who remained calmer than many angry listeners who shouted down the ...See all stories on this topic

Georgia Crisis Vaults McCain Into Top Media Slot
U.S. News & World Report - Washington,DC,USA
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "Jerome Corsi is a discredited liar who is peddling another piece of garbage to continue the Bush-Cheney politics he ...See all stories on this topic

Bluest of blue states is the only one that Bush hasn't visited
Austin American-Statesman - Austin,TX,USA
Kurt Daims of Brattleboro, a driving force behind his town's March approval of the Bush and Cheney arrest resolution, said, "I don't care if he is in ...See all stories on this topic

Open Letter (3): Nixon, Reagan, and the Church
By Mick
The rich and powerful will run everything, the whole society will be as corrupt as the Bush/Cheney Regime, and the American Dream of freedom and equality for all will have become a nightmare of modern feudalism. ...The Bush/Cheney Impeachment Papers - http://impeachment.wordpress.com

The Why-Haven’t-You Impeached-the-President Tour
By Chip
Pelosi found herself under siege by people unhappy that she has not been motivated to try to throw President Bush out of office – even if only a few months remain before he leaves voluntarily. read more.
AfterDowningStreet.org - Convict... - http://www.afterdowningstreet.org

Not my time, Not my dime, and Not my Vote
By JR
"You've ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they've ...portland indymedia - newswire - http://portland.indymedia.org/

Top 10 independent/third-party candidates of 2008: Bird, Pollina ...
Independent Political Report - Saginaw,MI,USA
Cindy Sheehan is endorsed by the San Francisco Peace and Freedom and Green parties, as well as the 50000-member California Reform Party, but she’s running ...See all stories on this topic

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

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?)