Dems Trying to Strong Arm Hoffman, Help Allen
- Login to post comments
Gerzofski (I know I am going to call him that other name during testimony eventually) :shock: is an egomaniac IMHO. He is someone who can't be educated on any subject because he already knows more than anyone else. He and his puppy-dog Strimling were a real treat sitting together on the Criminal Justice Comittee. Imagine going into a hearing with a well-prepared testimony and watching those two jerkoffs roll their eyes and smirk avery time you mentioned something (like the truth or a REAL statistic) that didn't jive with their anti-gun, anti-American agenda they were supposed to pretend didn't exist while on the comittee. It always felt like a lamb testifying in front of a bunch of wolves with a few other lambs (a definate minority) sprinkled in for affirmative action. The outcome was always known before the testimony was even finished. Thank GOD for Sen. Diamond for running a tight ship as the Chairman and logical Democrats like Rep. Hanley who would ask hard questions of everyone in attendance and use common sense to make decisions.
Ed has provided us with an incite to the democratic activist mind. If the facts can be twisted they will be. If political points can be scored, even against a fellow dem, they will be. It isn't about the truth, good government or the competition of ideas. It's about power to Ed. It's about destroying the other side whether it is called for or not, whether it is a friend or not.
Keep going Ed.
It proves a point I've been making for a long time. Liberals consider Republicans more of a threat than terrorists. They never learned anything from 911. It will probably take a few more 911's and thousands of dead Americans before liberals even begin to acknowledge that maybe there are bigger problems in the world than Republicans voting against gay marriage.
You just dealt the "roots" of this party a crippling blow with your actions, by breaking the caucus apart with this little stunt you're pulling. The left is likely broken beyond repair for years to come, and somewhere, the insiders are gloating. Much as they were at the meeting in which you were ousted.
Anyone noticing a recurring theme of activists generally? Blow the problem way out of proportion, propose solutions way out of proportion to the over blown problem and then fear-monger the ramifications of not accepting the overblown solutions to an over blown problem.
www.seacoastonline.com
If you don't like Maine politics — wait a minute
July 31, 2008 6:00 AM
Although the Allen campaign is nowhere near life support, it could have qualified for intensive care if the independent Hoffman made it to the ballot.
[N]ow, Allen is ambulatory but it seems his prescription for victory seems to be counting on riding the coattails of Senator Barack Obama...
Hoffman says he and his lawyers are "considering their options." Whatever they decide, we haven't heard the last of this verdict.
Even some of the liberals are getting tired of the tirades by Ed. Look at this post:
Dude (0.00 / 0)
don't know who you are, but based on this and your previous comment, have just 3 words for you:
Get over yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by: Debbie in ME @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:44:35 AM CDT
Herbert Hoffman ‘08
Independent for U.S. Senate
Contact: Lynn Ellis, Campaign Manager - manager@HoffmanforSenate.us - (207) 491-5064
Hoffman Takes First Step in Bringing Ballot Case to the United States Supreme Court for Review
August 6, 2008
The lead attorney for Independent U.S. Senate candidate Herbert Hoffman took the first step in bringing Hoffman's case to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, filing a motion for a stay of the Maine Law Court's July 28 decision that Hoffman should be denied a spot on Maine's November ballot. The stay has been sought for the purpose of affording Hoffman a meaningful opportunity to seek U. S. Supreme Court review of the Law Court's decision.
Attorney John Branson of Portland said "the campaign has decided to seek federal judicial review of a decision that has troubling near-term and long-term ramifications for the constitutional rights of Maine citizens. The Maine Law Court has construed and applied Maine law in a manner that not only tramples upon the federal constitutional rights of Mr. Hoffman, but also on the rights of the thousands of Maine voters who validly signed his petitions, and the rights of other members of the electorate who seek to engage in political expression or association through the nomination of non-party candidates to federal or state office.
"In view of the citizenry's well established rights of political expression and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, longstanding United States Supreme Court jurisprudence places strict limits on the nature and extent of permissible regulation of ballot access by the states, particularly in the context of state regulation of federal elections," Branson explained.
Branson said that he and Hoffman have secured the services of several attorneys, including members of the bar of United States Supreme Court, to assist in the preparation and filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the High Court to hear the case. Branson said that the Hoffman case has attracted widespread interest among legal scholars, law professors, lawyers, journalists and non-profit organizations around the nation. Moreover, he said, federal courts throughout the country, including the United States Supreme Court, have taken very seriously the task of adjudicating federal constitutional restrictions on state ballot access laws, particularly when those laws restrict ballot access in federal elections.
Branson said that unless the Law Court postpones action on its decision, "the Maine Secretary of State may be placed in the unenviable position of acting in a manner that is unconstitutional, that may be in conflict with his own oath of office, and that violates the fundamental rights of Mr. Hoffman, his petitioners, and Maine voters generally under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
"Furthermore," he said, "in the absence of a stay of the Maine court ruling, Mr. Hoffman's basic right to seek review in the United States Supreme Court would be rendered meaningless."
The Secretary of State determined in June that Hoffman qualified as a candidate for the United States Senate election to be held on November 4, 2008. Following a challenge by the chairman of the Maine Democratic Party, the certification of Mr. Hoffman's candidacy was upheld in three separate rulings.
Then, on July 28, the Maine Law Court ordered that Hoffman be removed from the ballot on the basis that Hoffman's oath was declared "inaccurate" with regard to how he witnessed three individual signatures on three of his petitions. According to the Law Court, the problem with those three signatures required the disqualification of more than 90 valid, authentic and uncontested signatures, pushing Mr. Hoffman below the 4,000 signatures required by law for ballot access.
The Law Court made its determination based on a new, much-stricter standard for petition circulators that the Secretary of State Dunlap applied to Hoffman after he had turned in his petitions. This new standard, which Dunlap adopted at the urging of the Maine Democratic Party, was not in effect when Hoffman signed the certification on his petitions, and it has not been applied to any other candidate in Maine. Hoffman was thus not only found to have violated a standard that was not in effect at the time he allegedly violated it, he was also forced to adhere to a much higher standard than was any other candidate. Both of those actions against him have Constitutional implications.
"In the absence of fraud or intentional misconduct," Branson said, "the U.S. Constitution simply does not permit the wholesale disenfranchisement of more than 4000 registered voters who validly signed Mr. Hoffman's petitions, nor does it allow the retroactive application - to a single candidate - of an entirely new standard for circulating petitions. If indeed the applicable Maine statute compels such a result, then the law is plainly unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case."
"Mr. Hoffman looks forward to the opportunity to enforce and vindicate his constitutional rights, and those of Maine citizens generally, in the context of his request for federal court review, where he hopes the United States Constitution will be afforded the deference and respect demanded by this important case," Branson said.
Secretary of State Dunlap admitted to the Blethen Newspapers Sunday that the new standard he adopted and then applied to Hoffman flies in the face of the way his own Democratic Party traditionally collects nomination papers. He noted that, on the occasion of party caucuses and other Democratic gatherings, petitions are often left on a table for people to sign with no one closely attending to them. "The fact of the matter is, what the Hoffman decision tells us is that those days are over. You can't do that anymore," Dunlap told a reporter.
"But I guess it was OK for Democrat Tom Allen to do it back in February," Hoffman said Wednesday, "We've examined the petitions Rep. Allen filed this year. More than 97 percent of them were collected on caucus day. The confusion - and in some cases pure bedlam - that prevailed at the Democratic caucuses this year has been widely documented. Just a cursory examination of the Allen petitions shows numerous instances indicating many of the signatures may not have been properly witnessed under this new standard.
"Had the Law Court subjected the Allen petitions to the same standard as were ours," Hoffman said, "there is a very good possibility that Rep. Allen would have been denied ballot access as well."
What a ridiculous excuse for ousting Herbert Hoffman from the ballot in November. Three petition signers claim they signed Hoffman's petition, but "not in the presence of Hoffman." He was 4 to 6 feet away and his daughter handed them a pen to sign with. Do these signers feel they were slighted by Hoffman? Link
A recent court ruling will change the way signatures are collected in efforts to put a candidate or issue on the state ballot. Insofar as it tightens up the practice and makes it harder to get around the intent of the law, these changes are for the better.
Maine candidate asks court stay
August 14, 2008
AUGUSTA, Maine—Independent U.S. Senate hopeful Herbert Hoffman is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block a state high court ruling that effectively removed his name from Maine's November ballot.
Hoffman's lawyer Thursday filed a 38-page brief asking the nation's highest court to stay the Maine supreme court's ruling that invalidated some nominating petitions Hoffman needed in order to get on the ballot. It asks the court to rule by Aug. 29.
Contact: Lynn Ellis, Campaign Manager - manager@HoffmanforSenate.us - (207) 491-5064
Hoffman takes ballot case to U.S. Supreme Court
August 14, 2008
Independent U.S. Senate Candidate Herbert Hoffman Thursday filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect his place on Maine's November ballot.
The Maine Secretary of State certified Hoffman as a candidate in June, and Hoffman has remained a valid candidate all through a lengthy challenge by the Maine Democratic Party. The Democrats lost a Superior Court appeal of Hoffman's ballot status, but on July 28 the Maine Supreme Court sided with the Democrats, ruling that three of Hoffman's nominating petitions should be voided.
But the Law Court has yet to officially notify the Superior Court of its decision and thus Hoffman remains a certified candidate.
On Aug. 6, Hoffman filed a stay motion with the Maine Supreme Court, asking it to continue to withhold its notification to the Superior Court until he files his case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Maine Supreme court has yet to rule on Hoffman's stay motion.
The filing Thursday with the U.S. Supreme Court is designed to further protect Hoffman's existing ballot certification in the event the Maine Supreme Court rejects his pending motion.
Today's motion, titled Emergency Application for a Stay of Enforcement of the Judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Pending the Filing and Disposition of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, was filed before Associate Justice David H. Souter of New Hampshire. Souter is the Circuit Justice for the First Circuit, and he alone will decide whether to grant the emergency stay.
Meanwhile, Hoffman's attorneys in Maine and Washington D.C. will file the writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly. A four-justice panel will rule on whether to hear the case.
The 38-page emergency motion filed Thursday was prepared by Hoffman's federal appellate counsel, H. Christopher Bartolomucci of the Washington, D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson. In it Hoffman has exhaustively briefed the reasons why Maine's law cannot survive federal constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment, as well as the irreparable harm that he and Maine voters may suffer if he is excluded from the ballot before the Constitutional aspects of the case are heard
In recognition of the timeline for the formatting and printing of ballots articulated by the Maine Secretary of State, Hoffman has asked the nation's highest court to rule on his emergency application no later than August 29, 2008, which is the date that the Secretary of State has told the Law Court that it must have its ballots ready for printing. In that affidavit, the attorney for the Secretary of State says that in order for absentee ballots to be available by Sept. 22, "the printer needs to able to start the presses by Sept. 2, 2008."
The Hoffman for Senate campaign has filed a formal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an ongoing legal battle over qualifying ballot signatures. Herbert Hoffman is asking the justices to stay a decision by Maine's highest court that effectively removed the Ogunquit psychologist from the ballot last month. The U.S. Supreme Court is in recess, and not scheduled to reconvene until Oct. 6, but Hoffman says he must win a stay to be included on the November 4th ballot.
Received this in an email - Hoffman says he is still on the ballot.
My name is still ON the ballot
By Herbert Hoffman
On August. 14 I filed a motion with the United States Supreme Court in my continuing fight to keep my name on the November ballot as an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate.
Following a Maine Supreme Court ruling on July 28, some press reports and statements by Democratic Party officials have indicated that the Maine Supreme Court removed my name from the ballot.
Those statements are false.
I have been -- and continue to be -- a legally qualified candidate since I filed my nomination papers in early June. Since then, the Maine Democratic Party has spent untold time and money trying to remove me from the ballot. The Democratic Party wants three of my petitions voided because of allegations by three people who signed those petitions that I may not have been watching as they put pen to paper.
In the hearing before the Secretary of State, however, none of these three witness could testify that I was not, in fact, watching them. The best they could do was imply I might not have been watching. Despite that weak testimony, the Democratic Party argued that this testimony meant I was not "present" when the petitions were signed, even though I was actively involved in petitioning in all three instances. The Democrats claim that "presence" also must require being "aware" of exactly when these three witnesses were signing.
Though he later admitted it flew in the face of long-standing traditional methods of collecting nomination petitions, the Secretary of State accepted this new, never-before-applied (in the context of petition gathering), definition offered by the Democratic Party and used it as a rational to remove the names of these three witnesses from the petition -- despite all three testifying they had willingly signed. The Secretary of State did, however, rule that the remaining signatures on those three petitions are valid.
It is that decision by the Secretary of State-- to leave the remaining signatures valid -- that is the basis of the Democratic Party challenge. The Secretary of State's office twice ruled against the Democrats on this issue, and the Maine Superior Court upheld the Secretary of State's decision. Through all of those challenges my name remained on the ballot.
On July 28 the Maine Supreme Court sided with the Democratic Party and ruled that because I allegedly did not follow in April this new petition-circulating procedure that was not established until June, those three petitions should be voided in their entirety. At this point I am the only candidate in Maine history who has had this standard imposed against him, and the decision by the Maine Supreme Court marks the first time in Maine that legitimate petition signatures have been discarded when there is no evidence of fraud in the petition-gathering process.
And despite the libelous innuendos about me made by the Maine Democratic Party, the Maine Supreme Court -- as did the Secretary of State and Superior Court before it -- made it clear that there is no fraud or false oaths involved in the collection or certification of my petitions.
The Maine Supreme Court ruled only that it found my oath on those three petitions to be "inaccurate" and that "the absence of fraud
does not change this result." Thus the Maine Supreme Court ruled "the petitions at issue are void" and therefore it said the decision of the Superior Court upholding the actions of the Secretary of State is "vacated." The Maine Supreme Court ordered that the case was to be remanded back to the Superior Court for "entry of judgment vacating the Secretary of State's decision, and for further action consistent with this opinion."
It's true that the eventual result of any "action consistent with this opinion" could be the Secretary of State determining that without those three petitions the total number of valid signatures I filed was less than the minimum 4,000 required. Once that determination is made, THEN, and only then, would my name be removed from the ballot, not before.
But none of that has yet happened because on August 6 I filed a motion with the Maine Supreme Court asking it to stay (put off) its decision until I can bring the Constitutional questions raised by the Maine Court decision to the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, as of this writing, the Superior Court has yet to receive any orders from the Supreme Court, and I thus still remain a legally certified candidate.
The Maine Supreme Court can at any time it wishes reject my motion. So to further protect my rights and the rights of those who signed my petitions, the August. 14 filing was a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter asking him to order the Maine Supreme Court not to act until the U.S. Supreme Court determines whether it will hear the case.
The Secretary of State has expressed concern to the Maine Supreme Court about potential delays in the printing of ballots. No action I have taken should interfere with that. Like every party candidate who plans to be on the ballot in November, I am a qualified candidate and my name should be included. It is the Maine Democratic Party that wants the ballot changed, and thus should be held responsible if any delay occurs in the printing of ballots.
Some commentators have also argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, it most likely will not hear it until after the November elections, so because of that I should drop my actions, and yield to the decision of the Maine Supreme Court.
But this case is about much more than whether the Democratic candidate for Senate in 2008 has to face one or two opponents in November. The decisions made in this case at many levels have raised serious Constitutional questions that must be resolved if the integrity of Maine's election system is to be maintained. This is not a problem that can just be patched up by the next Legislature.
In the meantime, as a certified candidate, I continue to campaign, but I need your help -- both your time and your financial contribution. Unlike the two party candidates, mine is not a big-money campaign, and we are about to expend considerable amounts of money in defending the constitutional rights of those who signed my petitions.
Apollo -
Was that email sent by the Hoffman campaign?
skf
Yes Scott, it had his logo and everything in it, and asked for contributions at the end of it. I'll see if I can find it and send it to you.
Hoffman decision denied by U.S. Justice Souter
By Jessica Alaimo
Herb Hoffman’s application to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied today.
Souter is a liberal, so I would expect him to do this to help out Allen. Interpret the law however it benefits you from moment to moment. Pretty disgusting. The same sniveling justice who ruled in favor of government land grabs with eminent domain. A real strict constitutionalist isn't he? And Billings will probably have the nerve to say his decision was correct.
If you think he's wrong, he probably got it right.
But I'll give you a chance: what is the federal issue involved here?
I think the Maine Supreme Court made the wrong decision. But they are the last arbitrator of Maine law. The U.S. Supreme Court can't decide that the Maine Supreme Court interpreted Maine law incorrectly.
Hoffman's application has been denied by Justice Souter.
Maine candidate turned down at Supreme Court
August 20, 2008
PORTLAND, Maine --The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to intervene in...Hoffman's bid to get his name on Maine's ballot in November.
Without comment, Justice Souter denied Hoffman's request to block a Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that invalidated petitions to get him listed on the ballot.
The decision effectively puts an end to Hoffman's bid to have his name put on the ballot...
"At this time my legal team and key policy advisers are considering the options available to us," Hoffman said....
Received in an email:
HERBERT HOFFMAN '08
INDEPENDENT FOR U.S. SENATE
P.O. Box 18
Ogunquit, Maine 03907
(207) 646-5431
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 21, 2008
Stay Granted and Stay Denied
On August 20th, the Maine Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of its judgment until 4 p.m. on August 27th. On the same day, the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a letter indicating that Justice Souter had denied Hoffman's emergency application for a stay, without issuing a written decision.
Candidate Hoffman had to satisfy three separate elements to obtain a stay from the nation's highest court: (1) showing of irreparable harm; (2) likelihood that the issue presented was of sufficient interest to the Court to justify review; and (3) good prospect of success on the merits. Without a written decision, it is difficult to know which of these three criteria were found by Justice Souter to be lacking.
Notwithstanding the denial, Candidate Hoffman is grateful to the U.S. Supreme Court, and to Justice Souter, for the expedited action on his stay request.
Various legal avenues for maintaining a place on the ballot remain available to Candidate Hoffman and his many supporters, and are being considered. No federal court has yet ruled on whether the election law in question, as construed and applied by the Maine Supreme Court, violates the U.S. Constitution. In their briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, both Mr. Hoffman, and the Maine Secretary of State (through Attorney General Stephen Rowe) took the position that the Maine election law, as construed and applied in this case, violates the First Amendment rights of Mr. Hoffman and his supporters under the federal constitution.
Candidate Hoffman wishes to express his deep respect and appreciation for the Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General, who have demonstrated the utmost independence and integrity throughout this entire process. By siding with the United State Constitution and the First Amendment rights of Maine citizens, these two state officials have proven themselves to be entirely above the political fray.
Until such time as Hoffman explores and exhausts the remedies available to him, he remains a certified candidate for the United States Senate, and shall continue his campaign for that office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT the candidate, Herbert Hoffman, at (207) 646-5431, or his legal counsel, John Branson of the Law Office of John H. Branson, P.A., at (207) 780-8611 or jbranson@bransonlawoffice.com.
In their briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, both Mr. Hoffman, and the Maine Secretary of State (through Attorney General Stephen Rowe) took the position that the Maine election law, as construed and applied in this case, violates the First Amendment rights of Mr. Hoffman and his supporters under the federal constitution.
Candidate Hoffman wishes to express his deep respect and appreciation for the Maine Secretary of State and Attorney General, who have demonstrated the utmost independence and integrity throughout this entire process. By siding with the United State Constitution and the First Amendment rights of Maine citizens, these two state officials have proven themselves to be entirely above the political fray.
"Until such time as Hoffman explores and exhausts the remedies available to him, he remains a certified candidate for the United States Senate, and shall continue his campaign for that office."
I still think he is expecting his name to be on the ballot (?) This is getting a little confusing.
Because this is a presidential election, ballots need to be available 45 days before election day which is Friday, September 19th. They need two or three weeks to print and ship them to the cities and towns, so September 1 I think is the drop dead date for the ballots.
Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com
Candidates can withdraw as late as 60 days before the election, so as late as September 12 this year (although they can't be replaced anymore unless their withdrawal is due to a catastrophic illness).
HOFFMAN TAKES CASE TO FEDERAL COURT AGAIN...received in an email:
We are back in Court!
Dear Supporters,
This afternoon at about 4 PM John Branson, the Hoffman for Senate attorney, filed an emergency request for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order to the First District Federal Court. This request was filed on behalf of myself and 13 others who signed the nomination petitions.
Essentially, we are requesting the Court to stop the Secretary of State from implementating any orders that would result in the removal of my name from the November ballot. The time is short and a decision must be forthcoming by Friday if my place on the ballot is to be preserved. The Court has a history of fast-tracking ballot access cases and we are cautiously optimistic that a favorable ruling will issue. Once again, no guarantees -- and we have been disappointed in the past.
The filing is strong and is based in large measure on "violations of substantive due process" [14th Amendment], i.e., application of a standard retroactively, and "violations of the First Amendment," i.e., "rights of political expression, association, petition the government for redress of grievances, voting."
I anticipate that the entire filing will be posted on www.HoffmanforSenate.us at some point tomorrow for those who would like a more complete understanding.
We are very close to learning how this is all going to turn out. In the meantime I am continuing to campaign and get op-eds published.
Any assistance you can provide -- volunteering, raising money, contributing -- will be deeply appreciated.
Lynn Ellis, Campaign Manager, can be reached at Manager@HoffmanforSenate.us or 729-0007.
Peace,
Herb
Contact Information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
phone: 207-646-5431
Maine Senate hopeful rebuffed
August 29, 2008
PORTLAND, Maine—A federal judge has turned down the latest bid by independent U.S. Senate hopeful Herbert Hoffman to secure a place on Maine's November ballot.
In an emergency decision in the protracted election law case Friday, U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby expressed some sympathy for the plaintiff's predicament but said Hoffman already had his chance to present a full case in state court.
- Login to post comments
What I don't understand is everyone knows and does not argue that 4000 registered Maine voters wanted Hoffman on the ballot. How is that simple fact not relevant?