Here is ineresting item re James Traficant, Congressman who asks for more time to prepare his case. Note JJ Cafaro, one big time contributor to Democrat Party including the Hollywood Bash with Barbara Streisand who has turned against his old pal to keep out of slammer or is it a set up. You think JJ Cafaro will miss the money as he is one of the top 10 jewish contributors to Democrat Party; however, he gave to Republicans too for after all the money he gave, Gore and his boys lost - including Lieberman (luckey for Gore). JJ Cafaro donated $500,00 to Klingle Park School where his daughter went - they use the parking at Klingle Manson where Chandra last took a trip surfing on her computer? Chandra also was into newspapers and Mat Drudge which I found strange for perhaps she was looking to talk to somebody about her "romantic" involvement with USS Congressman? Note - Condit took the US Congressman as he predecessor as I recall was into some shady areas; Condit voted more Republican as did Traficant - ' Traficant had some dealings with US Bureau of Prisons where Chandra worked and I wonder if she ever made connection to him - be interesting to find out of Traficant knows something we do not know? You think Traficant is corrupt and crooked? Consider ADL taking $250,000 in bribe for President to pardon Marc Rich? Is Cafaro Jewish Mafia? So Cafaro had a I Have Sinned Jimmy Swaggart open confession and took a chance with guilty plea...... Something does not quite ring well here - after all Barney Frank hired male prostitute and ran male prostitution from his home and so cutsey pooh for fags are in style? Now we have the corrupt Janet Reno going to run for office in Florida - the baby murderer? Saba Two stories here - real tear jerkers.... The Business Journal Online September 2001 Full Text of Traficant Petition for More Time, Private Meeting 09/07/01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Defendant Case No. 4:01 CR 207 JUDGE LESLEY WELLS REQUEST FOR EX PARTE, INCAMERA REVIEW OF AFFIDAVITS & EVIDENCE; REPLY TO AUSAs' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REMOVE AUSA MORFORD Now comes the Defendant, James A. Traficant, Jr., Pro Se, and replies to the government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Remove AUSA Craig S. Morford & Sanctions, as follows: 1) On August 20, 2001, Defendant filed a Motion to Remove AUSA Morford with sanctions; additional materials and subsequent pleadings on this issue were filed on August 24, 2001. 2) On August 27, 2001, the Court ordered that "Defendant Traficant shall produce and file with the Court forthwith, but in no event later than 7 September, 2001, all affidavits and other evidence of factual bases he currently processes [sic] for the broad allegations he set forth in both of his motions to remove AUSA Morford." 3) Defendant has since filed evidence on August 28, 2001, in support of the motions in question, but is leery of publicly filing further sensitive evidence and materials in light of the nature of these motions, which allege that AUSA Morford should be removed for misconduct, obstruction, suborning perjury, and intimidation of witnesses, as well as other offenses cited in three separate motions regarding same. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth below, Defendant, Pro Se, prays the Court stay its Order of August 27, 2001, and grant him leave to file additional evidence on or before October 3, 2001, or at a time convenient to the Court, wherein this evidence can be viewed by the Court in an ex parte, in camera inspection; in the alternative, Defendant respectfully requests that these pleadings/materials be filed under seal by on or before October 3, 2001, or at a time set by the Court. Respectfully submitted James A. Traficant, Jr., Pro Se 125 Market Street Youngstown, Ohio 44503 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant has legitimate concerns about filing sensitive materials because of his belief of misconduct of AUSA Morford as set forth in three previously filed motions. As a result thereof, an in camera, ex parte inspection by the Court and/or filing under seal is warranted. As an analogy, AUSAs are often leery of filing sensitive materials in Court and, in order to protect their witnesses, they often file these materials under seal or in an ex parte, in camera manner. This is the whole purpose of the Jencks Act [18 U.S.C. SEC. 3500] [Congress enacted the Jencks Act in response to Jencks v. U.S., 353 U.S. 657 (1957)]. Also, in a FOI/PA [Freedom of Information and Public Records Act, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 525(b)(7)] context, the government is exempt from disclosing matter derived from "confidential sources" due to the inherent sensitivity of such materials. Defendant has these same concerns. AUSA Morford and/or his office, continually feed the media in areas that are unethical and/or illegal. For example, as previously pleaded, according to a lead story entitled, "Less time recommended for cooperation," that was published in the August 7, 2001, The Vindicator, numerous government witnesses are being given considerations for their "cooperative" testimony, to wit: James R. Sabatine, a Canfield contractor, "would get a reduced sentence...for cooperating with federal officials...and for testifying against U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant, Jr." The story reports that Sabatine's plea "agreement says the U.S. Attorney's office recommends a reduced sentence [from a 37-to 46-months original guideline range to a 10-to 16-month range] for Sabatine in exchange for his continuous cooperation with its investigative efforts." These efforts include testimony against Defendant. According to The Vindicator, this "agreement was inadvertently faxed to The Vindicator and other news outlets by the U.S. Department of Labor, which was part of the Task Force involved in the instant indictment. This story concludes: "Sabatine would become the third local businessman to accept a plea agreement in exchange for their testimony against Traficant, whose case is set for trial in February. A. David Sugar of Honey Creek Contracting in New Middletown and J.J. Cafaro of Liberty, whose family develops shopping malls, are the others." Another example includes: AUSA Morford, or his staff, disclosing to the media secret grand jury materials in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2) which reads: "...an attorney for the government...shall not discloses matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided for in these rules.... A knowing violation of Rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court." In a front-page story that appeared in The Vindicator newspaper on August 23, 2001, entitled "Government: Beware of Lies," the newspaper notes that AUSA Morford, or his staff, released grand jury testimony of William B. Pearch that he allegedly gave in April of 2000. (See exhibit E, newspaper story) In addition, AUSA Morford in his response to Defendant's Motion To Remove AUSA Morford, filed on August 22, 2001 (See exhibit F, pages 2 & 3), reveals testimony before the grand jury of a close associate of the Defendant, and repeats the substance of that testimony. That testimony included by AUSA Morford is a malicious intent to sour a future jury pool in favor of the government's case. And, the use of said testimony clearly violates the statutory and constitutional rights of the Defendant of which a reasonable person would have known, let alone, a United States Attorney [See Doe v. Phillips 81 F.3d 1204, 1211 (2d Cir. 1996)]. These Morford disclosures not only violate Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e)(2), but the Ohio Canons of Ethics as well, to wit: DR 7-107, which states in part: "(A) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would except to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing and adjudicative proceeding in the matter." The aforementioned actions by AUSA Morford fits this definition, to the extreme prejudice of the Defendant. AUSA Morford maintains through Discovery that there was no request for electronic surveillance, but included in the 98 thousand pages given to the Defendant, in 35 boxes, of which half the space was paced with stuffing paper, the Defendant did find an application for surveillance submitted by FBI Agent Denholm (See attachment G), that requested total surveillance on the Defendant including the use of planes, video and other electronic surveillance as well as over-night travel. AUSA Morford has failed to submit to the Defendant, taped conversations in the possession of the government that are intended to be used in this trial against the Defendant. AUSA Morford in his response filed August 22, 2001, stated that the Defendant's motion to remove said prosecutor was without evidence to support said allegations (See exhibit F-2, pages 5, 6 & 17). This is now a moot point, and shall thus be disregarded by the court. AUSA Morford maintains in his August 22, 2001, response that witnesses were not threatened because "their lawyers were always present when the government interviewed them." (See Exhibit F-3, pages 7 & 15, and also see attachment C, page 12, lines 17 & 18, and attachment B pages 1, line 2) Further, under U.S. v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994), it is true that the 6th Cir. Court ruled in favor of the government, citing the fact "that Mullins failed to make a prima facie case of prosecutorial misconduct because Mullins did not show sufficient facts to take the question past a frivolous state and raise a reasonable doubt as to the prosecutor's purpose." This attempt to avoid scrutiny by AUSA Morford is now also moot because Defendant has clearly submitted evidence, with additional reinforcing evidentiary matter to in fact, take the question past the frivolous state, and now does raise a reasonable doubt as to the Prosecutor's purpose. Defendant now maintains that he has met the burden of proving a prima facie case of misconduct of AUSA Morford and his associates, known or unknown, and has in fact demonstrated sufficient evidence to meet the requirements cited in U.S. v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994). In addition, AUSA Morford, in his response to the Defendant's Motion To Remove AUSA Morford, filed August 22, 2001, quoted the Defendant as stating that his misconduct allegations did not "affect Agent Speranza et al." (See exhibit F-4, page 5). Be advised, that the Defendant now raises the issue of Speranza and includes Speranza as additional matter regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant now maintains, pursuant to Defendant's ongoing investigation of both, prosecutorial misconduct and FBI corruption in the Northern District of Ohio, that AUSA Morford was present and did participate in a "secret" hearing in Cleveland Federal Court before Judge O'Malley, regarding the accusation of rape committed by Agent Speranza, due to the allegations made by the Defendant. The Defendant now maintains that this "secret" hearing, where witnesses were examined under oath, was in fact sealed and kept from public scrutiny as a deliberate attempt to continue to make the Defendant's allegations appear to be self serving. This pattern by AUSA Morford continues, as evidenced by the attempts to stop Richard Detor from suing government witness J.J. Cafaro (See attachment C). Defendant now cites the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and asserts that the Court's failure to allow the Defendant to examine AUSA Morford under oath, would be a violation of not only the Constitution, but the Defendant's right to a fair trial on a level playing field. AUSA Morford, by his actions herein documented and supported by evidence, is entitled to neither, "absolute immunity" nor "qualified immunity," as cited in Barbera v. Smith, 836 F.2d 96, 100 (2nd Cir. 1987). Absolute immunity is not available when a prosecutor undertakes conduct that is beyond the scope of his litigation related duties. Thus, when a prosecutor supervisors, conducts, or assists in the investigation of a crime, that is, when he performs functions normally associated with a police investigation, he/she loses their absolute protection from liability. AUSA Morford must be denied "qualified immunity" from his actions in so far as his conduct "does violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." (Doe v. Phillips, 81 F.3d 1204, 1211 (2nd Cir. 1996). Defendant asserts that AUSA Morford and associates, known or unknown, in face of the submitted evidence cannot demonstrate that their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and that AUSA Morford and his associates did act with a malicious and/or intentional state of mind, which played a key role in the investigation, and subsequent indictment which was predicated on trickery, threats, intimidation, extortion and coercion. Defendant does not seek a dismissal of the indictment at this time, but seeks to have AUSA Morford available as a witness to be called by the defense during the trial. AUSA Morford and associates known or unknown, to the Defendant, have violated all of the above alleged acts. Failure of the Court to hold an ex parte, in camera hearing on this matter in the face of such evidence, would constitute grave error. Defendant has factual matters he wishes to present to the Court, but has grave concerns that AUSA Morford and others known or known to the Defendant, will attempt to subvert this evidence through further intimidation of witnesses and other misconduct, as demonstrated throughout this entire investigation that spans eighteen years (See Exhibit H). Defendant includes in this reply, to the government's response, dated August 22, 2001, the following evidentiary material: A) January 24, 2000 Letter of Attorney Henry DiBlasio B) June 13, 2001 Affidavit of John Innella C) Tape and Transcript of Conversation between Defendant and Richard Detor, dated August 1, 2001 D) June 1, 2001 Affidavit of Pat Naples, Jr. E) Vindicator news story dated August 23, 2001 F) Government's Response To Remove AUSA Craig Morford, And Sanctions With Supporting Memorandum For Prosecutorial Misconduct; with respective pages so cited in Defendant's reply herein. G) FBI Agent Denholm surveillance request, dated November 19, 1999 H) May 5, 2000 Affidavit of James A. Kerchum. Pursuant to the gravity of the evidence submitted to the Court concerning prosecutorial misconduct, the Defendant now, again requests an ex parte, in camera hearing before the Court. Respectfully, James A. Traficant, Jr., Pro Se 125 Market Street Youngstown, OH 44503 CERTIFICATION A Copy of the above was this 7th day of September, 2001, mailed to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 1800 Bank One Center, 600 Superior Avenue, East, Cleveland, Ohio, 44114-2600 ©2001 Youngstown Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Youngstown Publishing Co PO Box 714 Youngstown, OH 44501 800/837-NEWS 330/744-5023 330/744-5838 fax information architecture ViP site design / production hosting IDMI services Sacrificing Gary Condit The Democratic leadership won't stand by their man. Plus, Reno's candidacy roils her party, and the GOP takes another hit with Gramm's retirement NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE Sept. 6 — The Gary Condit story is no longer about one obscure congressman and the disappearance of a young woman. With the return of Congress, the media glare has shifted to the Democratic leadership in the House and whether Democrats will move to punish Condit for his role in the media maelstrom. Yet, what exactly has Condit done? He's guilty of serial adultery, which is not uncommon in Washington. And he failed to be explicit about the nature of his relationship with Chandra Levy, a woman half his age, when she was reported missing. Whether that impeded the police investigation, we don't know. IF CONDIT is guilty of something untoward, he's handled the situation brilliantly by making sure there isn't a shred of evidence to tie him to Levy's disappearance. Yet House Democrats appear poised to take some action against him, or at least mount enough credible threats of action in the hope that Condit will wave the white flag by announcing that he will not seek another term. Advertisement Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling by Eleanor Clift The leadership's likeliest action is to remove Condit from the House Intelligence Committee. Democratic leader Richard Gephardt initially defended Condit as an "honorable" man, but sharply reversed course after watching the congressman's evasive performance on national television. Gephardt has two worries: First, he's afraid the Condit scandal could hurt Democratic efforts to take back the House in next year's midterm elections. Second, he's got his own future presidential candidacy to consider. Taking what passes for a moral stand in a scandal of this sort is part of the imperative of being a national candidate. Members of Congress are traditionally loath to strip a colleague of committee membership, and nobody can remember it ever being done midsession. Democrats didn't reappoint Texas Rep. Phil Gramm to the House Budget Committee after the 1982 election, prompting him to switch parties and win in a special election as a Republican. Gramm had been caught passing inside information about Democratic strategy and tactics to the Republicans, presaging his change of political party. More recently, Democrats withheld committee assignments from Ohio Rep. James Traficant, who has been indicted for racketeering and who mostly votes with the Republicans anyway. (Traficant pled not guilty; his trial is pending.) By speaking out strongly, if belatedly, in condemning Condit's behavior, Gephardt opened the door to further action. But he won't be walking through that door unless he has the full weight of the Democratic Caucus with him. "This is not something he would do unilaterally," says a Democratic leadership aide. "He doesn't interpret his role as judge, jury and executioner here." Getting Democrats to coalesce behind a particular punishment will be hard. Members of both parties view these actions as a slippery slope. For example, Republicans allowed Pennsylvania Rep. Bud Shuster, who resigned from Congress earlier this year, to keep his seat on the Intelligence Committee even while he was under investigation for taking bribes and steering business to his girlfriend, who had been his chief of staff. "They think Washington is a cesspool, and that the morals of politicians are continuing to decline." — DEMOCRATIC AIDE Informal conversations about how to handle Condit are just getting underway, and their outcome is uncertain. Focus groups show that so far most people don't know Condit is a Democrat; and if they do, they don't care. "They think Washington is a cesspool, and that the morals of politicians are continuing to decline," says the Democratic aide. "Their attitude is, 'This is the guy who got caught'." The scandal tarnishes Congress as an institution, and hurts incumbents, which, in some convoluted way, could help Democrats, or at least not disadvantage them any more than the opposition. The Democrats are putting the squeeze on Condit, hoping he will decline to run again. That should take the heat off. But Condit is a fighter. When he was in the state Assembly in California, he took on the legendary Democratic Speaker Willie Brown and didn't back down even after it became clear he wouldn't win and would suffer recriminations for even trying. Few people beyond the Condit family have a stake in the survival of a congressman they never heard of before his name was linked to a missing person. Arguing that Condit deserves a zone of privacy falls on deaf ears. That makes Condit the ideal scapegoat for a police department lacking leads, a family desperate to keep alive the search for their daughter and a media eager for real villains, not just budget prevaricators. RENO'S RUN Now that Janet Reno has made it official that she's a candidate for Florida governor, her top priority is to find a campaign manager. The search won't be an easy one. First, the implacable Reno is considered tough duty because she resists anything that smacks of packaging. "What you see is what you get," says a Democratic Party official. Secondly, Democrats see her as something of a spoiler. They had hoped to clear the field for Pete Peterson, the former POW who just finished a stint as ambassador to Vietnam. Peterson was literally packing his bags in Hanoi to fly home when Reno announced her candidacy. Needless to say, she didn't consult with the Democratic National Committee. Still, at least one official had grudging admiration for Reno's debut as a candidate and the political imagery invoked as she stood dressed in a simple dress at the weathered door of her rustic Florida house, vegetables ripening in the window. "No one thinks of her as politically ambitious, and they're right," says Ann Lewis, a longtime friend and White House aide during the Clinton years. "She really does care about the state." Democrats still wish she weren't their candidate, and Republicans are gleeful at the prospect of taking her on. The much maligned Reno should feel right at home. SEARCHING FOR A CELEBRITY IN TEXAS Hard-liners took another blow this week with Texas Sen. Phil Gramm's announcement that he will not run for a fourth term. Even if Republicans sweep Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina, they will be a different breed of Republican than their predecessors. Gramm is the Senate's most influential economic conservative. Departing North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms is the GOP's staunchest social conservative with South Carolina's Strom Thurmond following close behind. Democrats would love to convince former San Antonio mayor Henry Cisneros to run for Gramm's seat, but initial soundings have been negative. "On a purely human level, this guy is not willing to jump back into the arena," says a Democratic official. "I don't think he has the stomach for it." Newsweek.MSNBC.com Click on a section below for more News: •National News •International News •Business & Money •Technology & Health •Lifestyle & Family •Entertainment •Opinion •Live Talk Lineup Cisneros was forced to resign as secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration because of charges that he had lied to the FBI about the amount of money he had paid to a woman with whom he had had a extramarital relationship. Short of a celebrity candidate like Cisneros, Democratic chances of taking the Gramm seat are not high, but Republicans will have to divert resources to defend a seat that would otherwise have been safe. Eleanor Clift: A Problem with the Messenger © 2001 Newsweek, Inc. Perspectives Jonathan Alter: Which Prominent Politician ...? Eleanor Clift: Sacrificing Gary Condit Glancing Goodbye Andy Borowitz: Bill Just Wants to Have Fun MSNBC Cover Page National News | International News | Business & Money | Technology & Health Lifestyle & Family | Entertainment | Periscope | Opinion | Feedback Archives| Subscriber Services | About Newsweek MSNBC VIEWERS' TOP 10 Would you recommend this story to other viewers? not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 highly MSNBC is optimized for • Microsoft Internet Explorer • Windows Media Player • MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy © 2001 Cover | News | Business | Sports | Local News | Health | Technology | Living & Travel TV News | Opinions | Weather | ComicsInformation Center | Help | News Tools | Write Us | Terms & Conditions & Privacy <
http://www.business-journal.com/Traficant/97trafvsgovfulltext.html
