HOFLAND v. LIBERTY

Filing 193

ORDER overruling without prejudice 191 Plaintiff's Objection to Docket Record. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
Petitioner,
v.
RANDALL LIBERTY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00414-JAW

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO DOCKET RECORD
On June 22, 2017, the Court received a one-page objection from Randall B.
Hofland to the completeness of Randall Liberty’s State Court Record. Obj. (ECF No.
191); Resp.’s Answer to the Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Attach. 1 (State Ct. Record). In his objection, Mr. Hofland claims that when he
finally obtained access to the state court record, he found it was incomplete because
there was no “docket record” from BELSC-CR-08-333, CR-08-334. Obj. at 1. Mr.
Hofland quotes Black’s Law Dictionary as defining the “record” to equal “[t]he official
report of the proceedings in a case, including the filed papers, a verbatim transcript
of the trial or hearing (if any), and tangible exhibits.” Id. He charges that the
Defendant’s record is “very incomplete.” Id. He complains that Defendant Liberty
filed only selected documents, not the complete record. Id. He ends by saying that it
is “abundantly clear” from his filings in multiple cases that “the State of Maine is a
seditious, treasonous, tortious, racketeering enterprise that kidnaps, extorts and
murders Americans.” Id. He concludes: “Hofland OBJECTS!” Id.

In an attempt to understand Mr. Hofland’s complaint, the Court retrieved the
state record of Mr. Hofland’s criminal proceeding in 2011 that Defendant Liberty’s
counsel filed in paper with the Clerk’s Office. The paper record consists of (1) a fortyeight page docket sheet, (2) a forty-one count indictment, (3) transcripts from trial
proceedings from January 7, 2011 through February 1, 2011, (4) a transcript of the
sentencing hearing on March 14, 2011, and (5) a six page judgment and commitment.
The paper documents are contained in two large paper binders in the Clerk’s Office.
The Court is at a loss to understand what Mr. Hofland is so upset about. The
state court record has been duly filed with this Court and appears entirely in order.
The Court OVERRULES without prejudice Randall B. Hofland’s Objection
(ECF No. 191).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of June, 2017

2