CIF Files Official Complaint With Board Of Elections Challenging Hansen Eligibility
Commentary by CIF President Michael J. Springer, Jr.
CIF President Michael J. Springer, Jr.
Crucians In Focus has delivered a copy of the complaint reprinted below to the office of the Board of Elections on St. Croix.
Since the announcement Tuesday morning that we were taking this action, we have received additional information that may provide some insight into how this matter will be addressed.
I spoke this morning with Supervisor of Elections John Abramson who said that the complaint will be handled as a matter in the St. Croix district and not initially a matter for the Joint Board of Elections to address. The next meeting of the St. Croix District Board is currently scheduled for November 5, 2011, with Rupert Ross as Chairman.
There has been much debate about what the central issues of this incident are, and we see evidence of that in the comments on this site and on the conversation on the public airwaves. And there are many issues that grow out from the center of this controversy.
St. Croix Board of Elections Chairman Rupert Ross
We believe that the central issue is whether probationer Alicia Hansen was a “qualified voter” at the time she was deemed to be eligible to run for public office in November, 2010. Qualification as a voter is a legal requirements all candidates must meet to seek election.
We deliberately did not address the question of “moral turpitude”, although we certainly believe that it is present here. However, that’s a concept that, rightly or wrongly, shoots the debate into the realm of the subjective for some people, and it really isn’t material to the underlying issue we believe needs to be investigated.
What also perplexes us is how and why the courts did not raise this issue, even though it would have occurred after the election, when Hansen petitioned for a waiver of the travel notification restrictions she was subject to under the conditions of her probation. The documentation of the waiver request and the granting of the request can be viewed on freemansground.com. Did it occur to no one in the judiciary that there was a fundamental issue with an elected official requiring a waiver to travel because to do so without one was a violation of her probation agreement?
These are debates for other forums. We have chosen to focus on three central questions:
- As a probationer, how was Alicia Hansen designated to be a qualified voter and therefore eligible for candidacy for public office in the November 2010 election?
- If it is officially determined that her candidacy was allowed in error, what remedies exist to remove her from her seat in the Legislature? and
- If it is officially determined that her candidacy was allowed in error, how do we address the flaws in the vetting process at the Board of Elections to assure that this situation does not occur again?
These are serious questions and should be addressed in a serious manner. If there are explanations, as always, we would like to hear them. But for now, the action we are taking is the complaint that is printed below.
We will keep you apprised of any responses we receive or other developments in this matter.
Text Of Complaint
This document serves as a formal complaint and request for an investigation into the eligibility for candidacy for elected office of Alicia Hansen, who was elected to the Virgin Islands Legislature in November, 2010.
The basis for the complaint is that based on the Virgin Islands Code (VIC), Hansen, a probationer, was not a qualified voter at the time of the election and therefore was ineligible to run for any public office
VIC Title 18, Chapter 13, § 263(b) specifically addresses circumstances under which potential voters are automatically disqualified including the following:
“Every person who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude shall be debarred from voting while serving out his sentence, including any period of incarceration, probation or parole.”
Additionally, the 1954 Organic Act, Section 6(b), states:
“No person shall be eligible to be a member of the legislature who is not a citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, who is not a qualified voter in the Virgin Islands, who has not been a bona fide resident of the Virgin Islands for at least three years next preceding the date of his election, or who has been convicted of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude and has not received a pardon restoring his civil rights.”
There is no question that Hansen was on probation, and therefore unqualified to vote, in November, 2010. She was found guilty December 10, 2008, of three counts of failure to file income tax returns under the Virgin Islands income tax laws, received a suspended sentence and placed on three years’ probation.
As further proof of her probationary status, documents on file in the District Court show that shortly after the November 2010 election, Hansen filed and was granted a Motion to Waive Requirement for Authorization to Travel, as her probationary status demanded that she inform the US Probationary Office whenever she planned to travel off island on official business.
In light of the above information, we request an investigation into the following:
- How was Hansen’s application for candidacy approved and certified by the Virgin Islands Board of Elections, since her probationary status was public knowledge at the time the application was filed?
- In the event no legal justification exists for her eligibility to seek office, what immediate remedies are available to cause her immediate expulsion from the Legislature?
- What steps must be taken to evaluate the persons responsible for this potentially damaging oversight and assure that the Board of Elections adequately carries out its duties in vetting and authorizing candidates?
We anticipate your prompt action and response to this request.
*probation…..not probition
Probation is probation. One can not qualify to vote if on probation. One can qualify, however, to have probation revoked if probation has been broken. Traveling out of jurisdiction without permission is a very likely reason to revoke probation. Probation granted in lieu of jail time is a gift for some. Pushing the parameters of such a gift is an egotistical action.
How many times does one get to break the law before enough is enough?
That explanation supports the postings made by U-Turn in another discussion topic on CIF. The meat of the matter is crimes involving moral turpitude. And although this term can be amorphous, the VI Supreme Court has provided a clear definition. Based on the definition, one would ask whether Hansen’s crimes violated the elements of moral turpitude as defined. If the answer is “yes” then grounds would exist to uphold her ineligiblity. If her probation had ended a year ago, the crimes that impacted moral turpitude would be the grounds for a charge. The syllogism is compelling.
Quoted, not my words:
2. Crimes Committed Against Government Authority -Pattern of willful tax evasion and failing to file tax returns in years due, perjury, bribery,
Didn’t I hear today that a hearing has been set by the BOE regarding CIF complaint for November 8, 2011. I want to see the game playing. I wonder who going to take charge and do whats necessary.
Is there any precedent that defines willful failure to file income tax returns as moral turpitude?
Subsitute the word attorney with lawmaker in the link below. Abramson was throwing flares in Friday’s Avis article.
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/june_2004/barcounsel.cfm
Moral turpitude is moral turpitude no matter what the crime is. Meaning someone with a felony is prohibited and those that commit crimes that are misdemeanors but the same crime can be considered crimes of moral turpitude. A sitting senator willfully not filing a tax return for years and when she does file she files a false return is considered a crime of moral turpitude because she was a senator that makes law not break it. ALso, it’s a crime against the government and the people. What makes her special? Hansen being kin to the Boschultes and Sprauves is this why she gets her way?
Damn……..is there any justice for ‘family’ names here? Or are they all just well connected thieves?
@ CIF Admin:
What ‘action and response’ have you received from the Board of Elections in St.Croix on this matter….other than being told ‘the next meeting of the St.Croix District Board is currently scheduled for November 5,2011′?
@ Anonymous. Yes, one would think failing to file your taxes would be a crime involving moral turpitude! For how many years? 3? What – did she just forget? There is absolutely no excuse for this. EVERYONE knows you have to file taxes even if you have no tax due. I’m still wondering if she’s paid any of it and has she fulfilled the requirements of her probation. I’m so glad the issue will finally be presented to the STX Board of Elections on Wednesday. I protested from day one, but no one stepped up. Thank you Mr. Springer.
@ Anonymous. Yes, one would think failing to file your taxes would be a crime involving moral turpitude! For how many years? 3? What – did she just forget? There is absolutely no excuse for this. EVERYONE knows you have to file taxes even if you have no tax due. I’m still wondering if she’s paid any of it and has she fulfilled the requirements of her probation. I’m so glad the issue will finally be presented to the STX Board of Elections on Wednesday. Thank you Mr. Springer for stepping up.
Am I wrong for keep saying it until we vote transparent?
Voting transparent takes away government election control/crookedness.REAL FREEDOM OF SPEACH!
No recount needed. Ask Lybia
But we had our warning starting with Epstein! Those kind flock together.
your comment is awaiting moderation fences freedom of speech. desperate times needs strong voice.
Did Chucky pay her tax in full? And what about C. white?
She didn’t just not file her taxes. She didn’t pay them either. And the exemptions in her check made her withholding zero. So they way you skip taxes is to make sure that they take none out and then don’t file either. So she did both.