The Adjudicatory Subcommittee of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct submits this Report to the full Committee pursuant to Committee Rule 24(p). This Report summarizes the Subcommittee’s findings in In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr. The Subcommittee is transmitting with this report all motions, transcripts of evidence, correspondence and other relevant items generated or received by the Subcommittee during these adjudicatory proceedings.

On June 27, 2002, after receiving the Statement of Alleged Violations (SAV) and associated pleadings and responses from the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter, and acting pursuant to Committee Rule 24, the Committee established an Adjudicatory Subcommittee and set July 15, 2002, at 10 a.m. as the date and time for the Adjudicatory Subcommittee to convene its public hearing. By letter to Mr. Traficant on June 27, 2002, the Subcommittee notified Mr. Traficant of the designation of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee and gave him notice of procedures for the adjudicatory hearing as set forth in Committee Rule 24.

On July 15, 2002, pursuant to Committee Rule 24(c) and consistent with the other Committee and House Rules governing these proceedings, the Adjudicatory Subcommittee commenced a hearing to determine whether any counts in the SAV have been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The adjudicatory hearing continued through July 17, 2002. At the hearing, Committee counsel presented evidence in support of the counts in the SAV and Mr. Traficant presented evidence in his defense. Committee counsel relied on certified copies of the transcript and exhibits entered into evidence at the trial of United States v. James A. Traficant, Jr., Case No. 4:01 CR 207 (N.D.OH). Mr. Traficant entered several exhibits, including affidavits, audiotapes, transcripts and other documentary evidence, into evidence at the hearing. Mr. Traficant called four witnesses who testified at the hearing, Linda Kovachik, Sandra Ferrante, Michael Robertson and Richard Detore. Presentation of evidence and argument from Committee counsel and Mr. Traficant ended on July 17, 2002.

After the hearing was adjourned, the Adjudicatory Subcommittee began its deliberations in executive session. At the conclusion of several hours of deliberation, the Subcommittee made the following findings with regard to the counts in the SAV, pursuant to the vote requirements of Committee Rule 10. The Subcommittee determined that, as to the counts which were proven by clear and convincing evidence, those violations are of the most serious nature.

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count I was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommitte found that from approximately December 1986 through approximately October 1996, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, and companies they controlled, for which Anthony Bucci, Robert Bucci, companies they controlled, and others acting at their request agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use at Representative Traficant’s farm. Through this course of conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b)(1)(A), 201(b)(2)(A), and 371) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count II was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately April 1999 through approximately late April 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of Arthur David Sugar, Mr. Sugar’s son, and companies Mr. Sugar controlled, for which Arthur David Sugar and companies he controlled, and others acting at his request, agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value, including free labor, materials, supplies, or equipment for use at Representative Traficant’s farm. Through this course of conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c) and 371) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count III was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately November 1997 through approximately March 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct in which he agreed to and did perform official acts on behalf of James J. Cafaro, U.S. Aerospace Group, LLC ("USAG"), and/or other persons or entities affiliated with USAG, for which James J. Cafaro, companies he controlled, and others acting at his request, agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value. The aforementioned things of value included numerous meals, the loan or provision of automobiles, and/or the payment for repairs, slip fees, and related expenses for Representative Traficant’s boat. As part of the aforementioned course of conduct, Representative Traficant, John J. Cafaro, and others engaged in a scheme under which John J. Cafaro would use his own or company funds to purchase Representative Traficant’s boat, but make it falsely appear that an employee of USAG was purchasing the boat in his individual capacity. In connection with this scheme, John J. Cafaro provided the funds necessary to reimburse the employee for thousands of dollars in funds expended for boat repairs and slip fees, and gave Representative Traficant an envelope containing $13,000 in cash, representing approximately one-half of the purchase price of the boat. Through this course of conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c) and 371) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count IV was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately November 1998 through approximately January 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct in which he agreed to and did employ Raymond Allen Sinclair as a member of Representative Traficant’s congressional district staff, for which Raymond Allen Sinclair agreed to and did provide Representative Traficant with things of value, including (1) an agreement to rent additional office space to Representative Traficant for use as a congressional district office, and (2) the payment by Raymond Allen Sinclair of $2,500 per month of his congressional salary to Representative Traficant. Through this course of conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c) and 371) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count V was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately November 1998 through approximately January 2000, Representative Traficant demanded, sought, received, accepted and agreed to receive and accept $2,500 per month from the congressional salary of Raymond Allen Sinclair for or because of Representative Traficant’s official acts of hiring and continuing to employ Raymond Allen Sinclair on his congressional staff and of renting and continuing to rent space used by Representative Traficant as a congressional office. Through this conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of receiving an illegal gratuity in violation of the federal bribery statute (see 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B)) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VI was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately January 21, 2000 until approximately February 29, 2000, Representative Traficant endeavored to persuade Raymond Allen Sinclair to destroy evidence and to provide false testimony and information to a federal grand jury. Through this conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of violating the federal obstruction of justice statute (see 18 U.S.C. § 1503) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VII was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that from approximately the late 1980’s until approximately early 2000, Representative Traficant engaged in a course of conduct in which he defrauded the United States of money and property (1) by soliciting and accepting payments from the salaries of congressional employees (including Raymond Allen Sinclair), which salaries were drawn from funds of the United States Treasury; (2) by directing members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor and services to maintain and repair Representative Traficant’s boat, and which personal labor and services were performed by members of his congressional staff for no compensation other than their congressional salaries; and (3) by having members of his congressional staff perform personal labor and services at Representative Traficant’s farm, which personal labor and services were performed by members of his congressional staff for no compensation other than their congressional salaries, and which labor and services included baling hay, running and repairing farm equipment, maintaining and repairing structures on the farm, building a horse corral, converting a corn crib to another use, electrical repair, or plumbing repair. Through this conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States (see 18 U.S.C. § 371) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); (2) failed to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules of the House in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (3) received compensation and permitted compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest, the receipt of which occurred by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress in violation of Clause 3 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23).

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count VIII was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee found that on approximately April 15, 1999, Representative Traficant made and subscribed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040 on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar year 1998, which income tax return was verified by a written declaration by Representative Traficant that was made under the penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Representative Traficant did not believe the aforementioned income tax return to be true and correct as to every material matter in that he knew and believed that the true and correct amount of his and his wife’s total income was in excess of the reported amount of $138,985. Through this conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of filing a false tax return (see 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (2) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count IX was proven by clear and convincing evidence. On approximately October 16, 2000, Representative Traficant made and subscribed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040 on behalf of himself and his wife for the calendar year 1999, which income tax return was verified by a written declaration by Representative Traficant that was made under the penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Representative Traficant did not believe the aforementioned income tax return to be true and correct as to every material matter in that he knew and believed that the true and correct amount of his and his wife’s total income was in excess of the reported amount of $140,163. Through this conduct – for which Representative Traficant was convicted of filing a false tax return (see 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)) – Representative Traficant (1) acted in a manner that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives in violation of Clause 1 of the Code of Official Conduct (current House Rule 23); and (2) acted to evade the laws and legal regulations of the United States in violation of Clause 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

The Adjudicatory Subcommittee found that Count X was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Subcommittee dismissed Count X of the SAV.

Pursuant to Committee Rule 24(p), the Adjudicatory Subcommittee reported its findings to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on July 18, 2002, which concluded the work of the Adjudicatory Subcommittee.