Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Wells won't preside at trial for Richard Detore (Traficant Judge Tardily Recuses Herself)
The Vindicator (Traficant's Hometown Newspaper) ^ | August 10, 2002 | PATRICIA MEADE

Posted on 08/15/2002 6:42:02 AM PDT by PJ-Comix

To avoid any appearance of impropriety, U.S. District Judge Lesley Brooks Wells will not preside over the case of a Virginia engineer accused of conspiring to bribe imprisoned ex-congressman James A. Traficant Jr.

In an order filed Friday in federal court in Cleveland, Judge Wells recused herself from the case of Richard E. Detore, who once served as chief operating officer at USAerospace Group in Manassas, Va. USAG, owned by J.J. Cafaro of Liberty, which went out of business in early 2000.

Judge Wells' husband, Charles F. Clarke, is a partner at Squire Sanders & Dempsey, which has more than 700 lawyers. The firm had performed legal work on behalf of USAG.

Clarke never represented Cafaro, USAG or the Cafaro Company, court papers show.

Judge Wells, who presided over Traficant's trial, declined to preside over Cafaro's case because of the potential conflict. Cafaro pleaded guilty in May 2001 to providing Traficant with an illegal gratuity and will be sentenced Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr.

Financial interest

Judge Wells became aware through a transcript of testimony Detore gave July 16 to a U.S. House of Representatives ethics subcommittee that he had a financial interest in USAG. Detore said at the hearing that he had 2.5 percent "holding in, ownership in" the company.

Judge Wells stepped off the case "to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety."

Detore's trial is set for Nov. 12. U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich has taken over the case.

Judge Aldrich presided over Traficant's first bribery and tax evasion trial in 1983. He had been accused of taking $163,000 in mob bribes during his successful run for Mahoning County sheriff in 1980.

He won acquittal representing himself but later lost a civil tax case and had to pay tax on the mob money he failed to claim as income.

After four years as sheriff, Traficant won election in 1984 to the U.S. House of Representatives.

He served as the 17th District congressman until July 24, when the House expelled him. The expulsion followed his 10-count conviction in April on charges of racketeering, bribery, obstruction of justice and tax evasion.

Judge Wells sentenced him July 30 to eight years in prison.

Traficant is serving his sentence at a federal prison in central Pennsylvania.

Detore is accused of taking part in Cafaro's efforts to financially reward Traficant for Traficant's promotion of USAG technology with federal agencies.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: leleywells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
The Judge in the Traficant case, FINALLY recuses herself in another case for the VERY SAME reasons she should have recused herself in the Traficant case.

Judge Wells' husband, Charles F. Clarke, is a partner at Squire Sanders & Dempsey, which has more than 700 lawyers. The firm had performed legal work on behalf of USAG.

Clarke never represented Cafaro, USAG or the Cafaro Company, court papers show.

Huh? So what. Yeah, Clarke migh not have REPRESENTED Cafaro, USAG, or the Cafaro company PERSONALLY but because his law firm did then he does have a financial stake.

Judge Wells stepped off the case "to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety."

Hey, Judge Wells! Too bad you didn't do this in the Traficant case since the same CONFLICT OF INTEREST was involved there as well. I know there are a lot of Traficant bashers out there but can ANY of you give me a GOOD REASON why the Trafidant case SHOULD NOT be overturned on appeal. By Judge Wells indirect admission, there was most DEFINITELY a CONFLICT OF INTEREST and she should have RECUSED herself from the Traficant case as she did in the latter case of Detore.

1 posted on 08/15/2002 6:42:03 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: carenot
One important footnote here. I sent THE TRAFICANT ZONE article to all the major newspapers in Ohio, including the Plain Dealer, ostensibly as an article submission which I knew they wouldn't publish because of its length. My real purpose was that I knew those newsroom types would e-mail it around and eventually it would get to Judge Wells which I think it did. Apparently Judge Wells couldn't take the heat of public laughter at her expense and decided, much too late, to finally recuse herself from a case in which she had a conflict of interest due to the financial stake of her husband in the court cases facing her.

Anyway, I sure hope Traficant's appeals lawyers use Judge Wells' tardy recusal as a basis for overturning the Traaficant case on appeal.

2 posted on 08/15/2002 6:51:18 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I wish that the courts would take care of this. The appeals are in. Why with this coming out don't they get with it and overturn Traficant's case. He should be out now. I have seen murder's get out on less of a technicality. There is gross judicial misconduct here. If Trafficant isn't out in a week or two then you know that he is a political prisoner and that the system is broke. You cannot trust the courts if this travesty is allowed to go on. Traficant in jail, Torricelli Briber in jail, Bribee walking around in the halls of power because he is a good Demorat.

Ravenstar
3 posted on 08/15/2002 6:57:26 AM PDT by Ravenstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
whoops typo I guess that should be DemoCrat

Ravenstar
4 posted on 08/15/2002 6:59:49 AM PDT by Ravenstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
There is gross judicial misconduct here.

You can say that again! Judge Wells recuses herself (I think due to the fact that "The Traficant Zone" article turned her into a laughingstock) because of a conflict of interest involving her husband in a court case---The EXACT SAME conflict of interest that existed in the Traficant case. Appeals courts overturn cases on the tiniest of technicalities and yet here we have a GROSS ABUSE OF JUSTICE. Judge Wells is basically now admitting that it was improper for her to have served as the Judge in the Traficant case.

Again, if there is ANYBODY out there who thinks why this case SHOULD NOT be overturned on appeal, I sure would like to hear from him/her.

5 posted on 08/15/2002 7:06:45 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ; Las Vegas Dave; holyscroller; speedy; StriperSniper; ResistorSister; dubyaismypresident
FYI
6 posted on 08/15/2002 7:36:10 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; small voice in the wilderness; Arthur Wildfire! March; MinuteGal; big bad easter bunny; ..
The EXACT SAME conflict of interest that existed in the Traficant case. Appeals courts overturn cases on the tiniest of technicalities and yet here we have a GROSS ABUSE OF JUSTICE. Judge Wells is basically now admitting that it was improper for her to have served as the Judge in the Traficant case.

Interesting turn of events

7 posted on 08/15/2002 8:55:56 AM PDT by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
If Trafficant isn't out in a week or two then you know that he is a political prisoner

The appeals process takes a long time. The best Trafficant can realisticly hope for is a new trial is ordered. The only way he could ever get out in a week is if somebody granted him a pardon - that is not likely. If he had shown some sense in the first trial and gotten a legal team Trafficant might not have be in prison or might have gotten a lesser sentence. The right to consul clause of the Constitution was put to protect the rights of the accused. Trafficant should have used it. It was stupid for him to think that a bunch of catch phrases could have weasled himself out of jail.

8 posted on 08/15/2002 9:16:07 AM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Should the Court of Appeals completely overturn the conviction? - no; should a new trial be granted? - maybe. That's the best Trafficant can hope for I think. I don't have any lost love for him. He broke the law. We are a nations of laws and not colorful quirky politicans. So to say that everybody does it is a complete cop-out. Everybody does not take bribes.
9 posted on 08/15/2002 9:21:42 AM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Judge Aldrich presided over Traficant's first bribery and tax evasion trial in 1983. He had been accused of taking $163,000 in mob bribes during his successful run for Mahoning County sheriff in 1980.
He won acquittal representing himself but later lost a civil tax case and had to pay tax on the mob money he failed to claim as income.

This sheds some light on Traficant's fight against the IRS.So he's acquitted of taking bribes,but then had to pay taxes on the bribes they couldn't prove he took???I know the burden in a civil case is not as stringent as a criminal case,but this is ridiculous.

10 posted on 08/15/2002 9:50:24 AM PDT by kennyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Interesting turn of events...

Actually an INCREDIBLE turn of events. Judge Wells has recused herself for the exact SAME reasons that were present in the Traficant case. Why is no commentator of not picking up on this? O'Reilly? Rush? Andrew Sullivan? WHERE ARE YOU???

11 posted on 08/15/2002 12:47:19 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Should the Court of Appeals completely overturn the conviction? - no

Care to give us a REASON? Judge Wells has recused herself for the EXACT SAME REASONS that were present in the Traficant case. I see NO REASON why this case shouldn't be overturned on appeal. Conflict of interest is PLAIN TO SEE. But perhaps you can give us a reason why the case shouldn't be overturned?????

12 posted on 08/15/2002 12:50:17 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
TY for the ping! I mean, you can look at how Traficant dresses and know he sold out. Has to be a crook. No fingerprints on all those papers. No witness that wasn't intimidated by the FBI. An FBI agency with agents who have an ax to grind against him. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Move along.
13 posted on 08/15/2002 1:35:54 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
God bless you, PJ! Keep up the fight. There aren't enough Traficants in this world.
14 posted on 08/15/2002 1:37:00 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
I find this story to be ASTOUNDING. Why it isn't front page news, I don't know. But basically Judge Wells is admitting she should have recused herself from the Traficant trial. Unless the Appeals Court is completely corrupt, Traficant should have his case OVERTURNED. Remember, Judge Wells has recused herself in another case for the EXACT SAME REASONS that were present in the Traficant case.

Perhaps I should e-mail that Traficant Zone story to radio DJ's in Northeast Ohio to turn up the heat. There is NO ESCAPING the miscarriage of justice that you have perpetrated, Judge Wells.

15 posted on 08/15/2002 1:44:02 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
You can read the actual court document of Judge Wells' recusal HERE.
16 posted on 08/15/2002 2:30:54 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ
Here is the phone number for the Cleveland Federal Court where Judge Lesley Wells can be contacted. You might want to invite her to appear on your next radio show to explain why she recused herself in another case for the EXACT SAME reasons that were present in the Traficant case. Also it might be interesting if you could get Traficant's appeals attorney to appear on the radio show and comment on this latest shocking news about Judge Wells' recusal.

(216) 357-7000

17 posted on 08/15/2002 3:37:03 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
There aren't enough Traficants in this world.

Their too many members of Congress with lifetime ACU ratings of in the 30's.

18 posted on 08/15/2002 11:35:59 PM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
If the Court of Appeals agrees that a conflict of interest existed, it will have to find a solution. If such a finding is made, my judgement is that a re-trial would be in order. Court of Appeals all over the country order re-trials as part of common legal procedure. If Traficant really didn't take any bribes as he claims, then a new trial would show that. I don't have any respect for the opinion of some that just want to get Traficant off-the-hook even if he did illegally take bribes. If reminds me of the segment of the American population that wanted to see OJ Simpson walk, regardless if he killed anybody or not.

On a purely political level, I don't think Mr. Traficant is someone to be admired. Even if he is able to get off - questions of his moral standing (or lack of) are well known. So for him to be charged with racketeering, bribery, obstruction of justice and tax evasion is of no surpise to me. I support Traficant no more than I would support a Republican who broke the law. I will never understand, how so many "conservatives" can claim to support this man and his liberal voting record. I would point out his lifetime voting record is more liberal than Lincoln Chafee. If he were to switch parties he would be among the GOP's shirking liberal wing. On a website were a few irrational fantanics label Jesse Helms or Ronald Reagan as Rinos because they disagree on a issue, Traficant is given a pass by many. Sure, Traficant would occasionally make a good point, even a blind chuckmunk can an acorn on occasion.

19 posted on 08/16/2002 12:06:05 AM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
If such a finding is made, my judgement is that a re-trial would be in order.

I don't think there would be a retrial. The government won't be able to get those witnesses to lie again plus the witnesses already kept up their end of the bargain by falsely testifying in exchange for reduced sentences or to have charges dropped again. They won't do it again for a retrial.

20 posted on 08/16/2002 4:26:41 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson