A cesspool of Judicial Corruption


THIRTY-SIX traficant survives the judicial cesspool



Yüklə 0,97 Mb.
səhifə33/44
tarix18.01.2019
ölçüsü0,97 Mb.
#100333
1   ...   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   ...   44

THIRTY-SIX traficant survives the judicial cesspool

You may recall the name of former Congressman James Traficant, how the FBI hounded, prosecuted and then tossed him into prison. Yet he vowed never to let the corruptors rest. They convicted James Traficant in 2002 on trumped-up corruption charges–about the time government agents went after David–and sentenced him to prison, ultimately serving seven long years for crimes he did not commit.

James A."Jim" Traficant, Jr. was born in Youngstown, Ohio on May 8, 1941. He received BS and MS degrees from the University of Pittsburgh. He also received a MS from Youngstown State University in 1976. From 1981-1985 he served as sheriff of Mahoning County, prior to his election to the U.S. Congress in 1984. He was re-elected by overwhelming margins every year up until 2002 when, following his conviction on trumped up corruption charges, the House of Representatives expelled him. He was "set up" by the FBI and the Justice Department, according to Merrill Freeman, a freelance writer/investigator:
[It was] a totally fraudulent case against Traficant, based upon coerced and perjured testimony, fabricated "evidence" and a wide variety of other non-evidence used to convict Traficant with the collaboration of a federal judge, Lesley Wells.

Ironically, Wells should have never heard the Traficant case: her husband was partner in a law firm that represented the interests of one of the key figures in the case against Traficant. The FBI and the Justice Department had between 60 and 90 lawyers and agents–or more–working to "get" Traficant.

What these Justice Department lawyers and FBI agents were doing during the four-year period that led up to Traficant’s trial in the spring of 2002 was scouring all over Traficant’s district trying to find anything they could to put Traficant in jail. What they did was find people in the district whom they believed were guilty of other crimes (tax evasion, corruption charges, whatever). Then the FBI and the Justice Department would take those people in and say,

"We’ve got ya. What can you tell us about Jim Traficant? Did you ever give him a bribe? Did he ever ask you for a bribe? Did he ever do you a favor in return for a campaign contribution?"

So there was this gigantic, taxpayer-financed army of FBI agents and justice lawyers trying to find out everything they could about Traficant.

Youngstown had a reputation for being a center of organized crime. Traficant himself alleged on the floor of Congress and in interviews that a faction of organized crime actually controlled the local office of the FBI as well as judges (local and federal) in the region.

Thus, it was–considering all of this effort by the federal law enforcement apparatus–that they would inevitably be able to find somebody somewhere who would be willing to make an allegation about Traficant in return for getting off the hook in return for getting a reduced sentence or some other form of favorable treatment. [They did this] in order to escape punishment for their own crimes that had absolutely nothing to do with their association with Traficant. Someone accused of income tax evasion, for instance, might plead guilty to the crime in return for probation, rather than a jail term, for having said that they had offered a bribe to Traficant and that he accepted it.

During this time, the media in Cleveland and in Traficant’s home town played up the idea that Traficant was corrupt, working in concert with "the Mafia," constantly reiterating that Traficant was under investigation. As a result of the media onslaught, everybody in the region knew about the investigation: businessmen, political figures, mobsters. Everybody was looking over their shoulders and saying, "I wonder if the FBI is going to come after me?" And that is exactly what did happen.

The FBI was approaching many, many people and what did happen–as could be expected–is that many people concocted lies (often under FBI and Justice Department tutelage) implicating Traficant. And this is what subsequently emerged during Traficant’s own investigation of the intrigues of the FBI and the Justice Department.

When his case finally came to trial, the judge, Lesley Wells, frequently frustrated Traficant’s efforts to bring this into the court before the hearing of the jury. In some instances, the judge actually barred defense witnesses that Traficant hoped to call. In other cases, the judge limited Traficant’s questioning of witnesses called by the federal prosecutors in order to prevent all of the exculpatory facts from being brought to the jury [Does any of this sound familiar.]

In short, people were being told: "If you don’t testify against Traficant, you’ll be prosecuted for fake crimes and sent to jail." In some cases, these people–who were under the gun–simply made up things to satisfy the federal authorities. In other instances, there were those who had innocent dealings with Traficant that the Justice Department and the FBI twisted as to make those dealings appear to be criminal in nature.

The old saying, of course, is that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But there is no defense mechanism in a grand jury proceeding. A grand jury is conducted entirely by the prosecutors who bring forth evidence against a targeted individual who does not have the right to a defense. An individual who has been targeted can be called in and questioned by the prosecutors, but his attorney cannot come in and present a defensive cross-examination. So after several years of work and thousands of man hours spent, not to mention millions of dollars, the Justice Department cobbled together a multi-count indictment of Traficant.

There were headlines all over the country: "Controversial Congressman Indicted." "Racketeering." "Bribery." "Corruption." "Income Tax Evasion." It sounded very sensational and most people’s reaction was: "Oh, here’s another crooked congressman."
These people have the technique down pat. At the time they were vilifying David, others were getting the same treatment in various places. I think an investigation into the Department of Justice would confirm the same pattern. Merrill continues:
Even people who liked Traficant started to think that "He is a good guy who did a lot of good things, but he must be guilty of something. Where there’s smoke, there must be fire." And that’s precisely what the Justice Department and the FBI and their allies in the mass media (not to mention the Israeli lobby) wanted people to think.

However, for those who actually read the federal indictment and who were familiar with standard political corruption cases, any honest observer could only conclude that many of the charges were trumped up, if only in the sense that the charges were penny ante in nature–hardly the major crimes that the Justice Department and the media were attempting to portray.

Yet, even some Traficant supporters, in reviewing the indictment, believed–without having heard Traficant’s defense, as of that point–that perhaps there may have been elements in the indictment that could result in a conviction. But that was before Traficant began responding publicly to the specific charges and outlining his defense.
Now that Former Congressman Traficant is out of prison, he is pursuing the same course: Expose the criminals in government. He is fearless. The cowards that hide under rocks and steal the rights and freedoms of our citizens, may yet pay a price.

A recent article written by Jim Traficant gives even more insight into how far these cowards are willing to go as they try to scratch their way up the ladder of corruption to power. He declares:


Recent national stories have highlighted U.S. attorneys and their abuse of power. The criticism is beginning to grow from all areas of America. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has countered that they’ve only had 201 identified cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the last 10 years. These bureaucrats in Washington D.C., maintain that an average of 20 per year is an insignificant number when you consider the number of cases they handle. The DOJ claims to have prosecuted over 60,000 cases per year, arguing that, in most cases, attorney's "error" is most likely the culprit, not "misconduct."

Here are two cases to digest; decide for yourself. The first is that of John Demjanjuk, the retired auto worker from Cleveland, Ohio, who the DOJ charged with mass murder, claiming he operated the gas chambers at the Treblinka Concentration Camp in Poland during World War II.

DOJ prosecutors claimed that Demjanjuk was, in fact, the infamous "Ivan the Terrible" ;Demjanjuk’s citizenship was stripped away. He was then extradited to Israel to stand trial for his crimes. The family came to me for help, reluctantly, knowing that I was not a DOJ favorite. They had been to every congressional office and every senator’s office. Nobody would talk to them. The son, John Demjanjuk Jr., and son-in-law, Ed Nishnic, claimed to have favorable evidence that supported John Sr.’s innocence. So, I investigated.

An area newspaper wrote: "Traficant supports Nazi mass murderer." Other politicians, at all levels, said I was crazy. Demjanjuk was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. But my investigation proved that Demjanjuk was innocent. To boot, I even proved the true identity of "Ivan the Terrible," a man named Ivan Marchenko. So his first name was Ivan. Go figure.

The DOJ denied my evidence. The 6th Circuit Court refused my evidence. The evidence was delivered to the Israeli Supreme Court. After reviewing the evidence, the Israeli Supreme Court phoned me at my hotel in Jerusalem and said,

"Demjanjuk will be delivered to you tomorrow night; take him home."

All my evidence came from the DOJ. They knew he wasn’t “Ivan,” but they would have let him be executed.

When we landed in America, the 6th Circuit of Cincinnati, Ohio, issued a statement:

"A tragic, but, honest mistake [was made] by the government.

Tragic, yes. Honest, no.

Office of Special Investigations prosecutors should’ve been prosecuted for their serious crimes: subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, violation of Demjanjuk’s civil rights, conspiracy and complicity in attempted murder. Ah, but Demjanjuk was just a Ukrainian guy from Cleveland. Well, when you violate the rights of one American, you endanger the rights of all.

The second case I know in and out–because it was mine. The DOJ spent more than $15 million and assigned 250 agents to investigate me over six years–and our country was attacked, and more than 3,500 people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, during that time.

At trial, the DOJ admitted they "had no physical evidence." They even testified that they didn’t even have a tape recording of my voice because they "didn’t tape" it. If you believe that, you’re either naive or uneducated.

Former Secret Service Agent Mike Robertson said, 'The government made tapes. They probably had boxes of tapes. They said they had no tapes because they had no evidence of crimes by Traficant, and Traficant could’ve used their own tapes to prove his innocence. Traficant was railroaded."

Seven witnesses said they bribed me. Two men, Richard Detore and Namdi Okolo stated the government "pressured" them to lie. Four other witnesses testified that government witnesses confided in them that they "lied to avoid prison."

The judge made those four witnesses testify in open court, subject to perjury charges, but "excused" the jury and never let it hear their evidence. Not one was charged with perjury. They could snatch me tomorrow and send me back to prison for saying this, but the judge and the government knowingly broke the law to convict me.

One last thing: The former clerk for Chief Judge Lambros, Attorney Percy Squires, testified that John Cafaro lied. The judge made his testimony look "controversial." Now that Americans are recognizing the "crimes" committed by government attorneys, the DOJ is harping. Do I hear violins? Get back at me!
When a person knows what may be in store for him/her by telling the truth, it becomes a hard choice. Too few people have the courage to stand up to be counted. It might be like giving birth or having gallstones, how can you truly commiserate unless you have been there? Let's peek inside the dungeon.



Yüklə 0,97 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   ...   44




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə


yükləyin