Councilor Turner Press Release 12/10/08

Press Release: December 10, 2008

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner has released the following letter which he gave to his fellow Councilors this morning before the City Council meeting:

December 10, 2008

Dear Fellow Councilors,

I too am saddened by the state of affairs in which we find ourselves today. Ironically, I am not saddened by my arrest by the FBI and US Attorney on charges of extortion. The first reason is that having come of age in the 60s, I understand all too well that under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in covert and sometimes documented illegal actions to subvert the constitutional rights of those who were seeking justice.

Yes, J. Edgar is dead but I believe his spirit lingers on. Within the last two decades we have seen the FBI in Boston act as cover for those who committed heinous crimes against the citizens of our city, state, and nation. In fact, given the historic nature of the FBI, my wife and I expected that one day, we would hear the FBI knock at our door to join us to the long list of those persecuted by the FBI and US Attorneys because of our pursuit of justice.

I also am not saddened by the indictment. As all the lawyers on the Council know the indictment has really nothing to do with the issue of my guilt or innocence. In fact, at best the indictment is a confirmation of the original complaint brought against the accused. In order for a grand jury indictment to have any relationship to the issue of guilt or innocence, my lawyer would have to be in the room with the grand jury and question those who are providing alleged evidence of my guilt.

Again, as the lawyers on the Council know, defense lawyers are forbidden to participate in federal grand jury hearings.  Therefore, it is important for the Council to recognize that even though the grand jury has met and indicted me, you have no more substantive evidence of my guilt than you had last week.

Judge Magistrate Hillman had said in my Worcester arraignment that I would have a probable cause hearing today at 3 p.m. at the Moakley Courthouse. At such a hearing my lawyers would be able to cross examine those who have alleged evidence of my guilt.  Judge Hillman would then determine whether there was enough substantial evidence to proceed to trial. However, as soon as Ron Wilburn, one of the Dejavu partners had identified himself publicly as the US Attorney’s cooperating witness and said that the FBI had lied in its affidavit, my lawyers said that we would never have a probable cause hearing.

So what saddens me is not my arrest or indictment. What saddens me is that some of my fellow Councilors hearing are willing to break their oath of office in order to rush to judgment. Let me be more specific. Each year each of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution which includes the 14th amendment. In order to refresh our collective memories, let me state Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution,

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Because of our oath as well as my constitutional rights, I have suggested that it is critically important that you proceed carefully so that you don’t make the Council the laughing stock of the country by collectively denying my rights under the 14th amendment since one of Judge Hillman’s orders was that I not discuss the case with several Councilors who are involved parties. I understand that Corporation Council Sinnott has said that you could proceed to hire a fact finder and that once the fact finder had made a recommendation, you could ask the US Attorney whether he will allow me to speak to whatever charges you are going to bring.

While I don’t deny your right to make that request, I suggest that it makes more sense to make that request before hiring a fact finder. Why should you squander scarce Council resources on hiring a person to be a fact finder, if after that person’s recommended action, you find that the US Attorney is not willing to allow me to speak given the involvement of other Councilors in the case.

However, even if the US Attorney’s office tells you today that they are willing to allow me to speak, in order for my rights of due process to be observed, my lawyer would have to have the right to cross examine the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit; Ron Wilburn, the cooperating witness; and the two FBI agents who say that I lied.  Therefore, I would suggest that before considering hiring a fact finder, you should not only find out from the US Attorney whether I will be allowed to speak to the Council but also whether my lawyers will be able to cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution.   If the US Attorney’s response to either of those questions is no, I would suggest that you should halt your proceedings since your process will violate my constitutional rights.

My other concern is procedural.  A week from today on December 17th, my understanding is that the Council officially dissolves. That is, no official acts can take place after that date. Only when the Council reconvenes on the 5th of January and elects its new president is there the possibility of taking any official action. Thus, I am confused by the fact that Council President Feeney appears ready to ask for approval to hire a fact finder. If the Council does sustain such a request, it would appear that based on the rules of the Council that hiring, if done before the 17th ,  would have to be terminated on the 17th.

While I am very comfortable with my innocence, I am not comfortable with the fact that a body that I am part of is about to embarrass itself by going through a process that at worst will abridge my constitutional rights as well as violate the oath of office that each of us takes to uphold and defend the Constitution and at best be a waste of Council time and energy.

Sincerely,

Chuck Turner