Chuck Turner Statement 12/15/09

December 15, 2009

Dear Supporters,

In the holiday spirit, I decided to Not put out the call for my
supporters to come to the Moakley Court House for this afternoon’s
hearing. The focus of today’s hearing was scheduling so it seemed that
it wasn’t necessary to bring people to the court.

Judge Woodlock who will be the trial judge presided over the hearing.
He moved the tentative date to begin trial from April to June 21st. He
made that decision because of a case before the Supreme Court
regarding the constitutionality of the payment for public services law
that is used in the Wilkerson case. While he set the trial date for
June 21st, the trial might actually begin on a later date depending on
the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Judge Woodlock also set January 22nd as the date by which we will have
to file all of our motions. Asst U.S. Attorney McNeil will have to
file his response to our motions and Senator Wilkerson’s motion by
February 19th.  On March 17th, Judge Woodlock will hear the
presentation on the motions.  So finally we are off and running.

Happy holidays,

Chuck

PS  I can’t talk about the specifics of the “evidence” now that we
have accepted it. However, my view after seeing the evidence is the
same as it was before. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Since I did not commit
the crimes they allege, I should not be surprised at the lack of
evidence. However, my lawyers and I thought they might fake some
information in order to build a case.  The fact that they didn’t
fortify their case with “faked evidence” supports, I believe, the
theory that they assumed that they could push me off the Council
without going to trial.

Chuck Turner Statement 11/4/09

Councilor Turner released the following message to his supporters:

November 4, 2009

Dear Supporters,

I am thrilled to have won such a landslide victory in yesterday’s
District 7 City Council race. I view this victory not only as a
mandate to continue my leadership as Councilor but also to continue my
fight to prove that former US Attorney Sullivan tried to publicly
humiliate and jail me despite his knowledge that I am innocent.

Now that my continuation as the District 7 Councilor is assured, I
will focus my attention on disposing of the government’s bogus case.
As long as the question of my guilt or innocence is unresolved, I will
not be able to serve as a Chair of any Council Committee based on a
ruling by the Council President. Thus to eliminate this impediment to
my service I have directed my lead lawyer, Barry P Wilson, to prepare
a motion to dismiss the charges.

I have also instructed him to take whatever steps necessary to secure
the “so called evidence” that the government claims to have. I
continue to believe that the government’s demand that I give up my
freedom of speech in order to receive “their evidence” is an
outrageous denial of justice. However, my lawyers advise me that their
ability to see the “evidence” strengthens their ability to prove
former US Attorney Sullivan joined the historic pattern of government
persecution of black elected officials by basing his case on his
political desires not on the pursuit of justice.

Since receipt of the “evidence” will limit my ability to discuss the
particulars of the case, I will focus my discussion in the court of
public opinion on US Attorney Sullivan –his history, his objectives,
and his relationship to the press. It is amazing that the Boston media
has focused so little attention on former US Attorney John Ashcroft’s
bankrolling Sullivan’s future despite the profile of Sullivan as a
weak, somewhat inept US Atty.

In closing, let me thank all of you who supported me during the
darkest moment of my life. Without your support, I would not have
survived the early assaults and certainly would not have had the
strength and courage to persevere despite the odds and the attacks. I
am truly indebted to you all. Let me end by publicly thanking Terri,
my wife, for her love and faith which has served as a shield against
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Sincerely,
chuck

Chuck Turner Statement

Dear Supporters,

This Thursday, July 2nd,  at noon in Courtroom 1 in the Moakley
Courthouse Judge Woodlock has agreed to hear my lawyers’ challenge to
court approved gag order and attempt by the US Attorney’s office to
strip me of my first amendment rights. Let me briefly review the
background of this hearing:

a) In December 2008, Asst U.S. Attorney McNeil told my lawyers that if
I would sign a gag order stating that I would not talk publicly about
the discovery information (evidence of my guilt), they would give me
more information than I would get if I wouldn’t sign. They also said
that I would get the information more quickly than I would if I
refused to sign the gag order.

As you can imagine, I said No.  Why should I have to sign  a gag order
in order to get the “alleged evidence”. I felt I had a right to the
evidence and it would be ridiculous for me to give up my first
amendment rights in order to get it.  It was hard for me to imagine
that after they had spread the “alleged pictures of my guilt” around
the world before I was even arraigned, they would have the nerve to
ask me to cooperate with them by silencing myself. However, as I am
learning Asst US Attorney McNeil has no shame.

When I wouldn’t sign, McNeil went to court on January 5, 2009 and
asked the court to require that I sign the gag order in order to
receive the discovery. While the Judge approved the request on March
16th, I continued to refuse to sign. While my lawyers continually
stress that I am making it more difficult for them if I don’t enable
them to see the evidence before the trial starts, my position is:

1) That to cooperate with them by giving up my right of free speech
would betray my people’s 400 year struggle to have rights that are
respected in this country.

2) They don’t have any evidence to convict me since I am not guilty
and if they have made up some, I believe we can expose them.

3) Since US Attorney Sullivan’s objective was to silence me by any
means, it would be crazy for me to cooperate with his objective.

4) Since I am running for office, people will want me to talk about
the legal situation I am in. I can’t afford to say wait for the trial.
They expect me to be candid and have a right to expect me to speak to
the issue of the case, not hide behind my lawyers.

5) While I certainly don’t want to go to jail, some one has to stand
up and challenge the flagrant abuse of power that takes place in many
of the courts of this country every day. If I wind up being the poster
child for racial injustice in this “post racial era”, so be it.

When McNeil found out that I would not sign the gag order, he went
back to court and asked the judge to order me to take the information
and the judge complied. However, I told my lawyer that if McNeil sent
the “discovery” he should send it back unopened. While I thought that
would end McNeil’s feverish attempt to force my silence, he went back
to court yet again in May. This time McNeil asked the Judge to take
away all my legal rights regarding discovery information by ordering
that if I didn’t take the discovery now, I would lose any right to
request motions or continuances on the basis of the discovery when
finally received. Again, McNeil can huff and puff all that he wants
but I am not going to put myself in his trap.

As you can see from the above, McNeil is so determined to silence me,
he has exposed the fact that this trial has nothing to do with
justice.  It’s really about the deal that Sullivan made with Bush,
Cheney, and Ashcroft. What do I mean by that? I personnally believe
that former Attorney General Ashcroft said to Sullivan that if he
could take down Senator Wilkerson and myself, he would put up the
money to open the firm of Ashcroft and Sullivan in Boston where they
could try to secure business for Halliburton to serve as a base while
Sullivan prepares for his run for Governor. Ashcroft seems to have
made similar deals with three other US Attorneys in other parts of the
country. In other words the quid pro quo for taking us down was the
money to open the office.

Hope you can join me on Thursday, July 2nd at noon in Court Room 1 of
the Moakley Courthouse. I think it is not only going to be
fascinating, I think it will also be fun. See you there.

chuck

Chuck Turner Statement 5/10/09

Councilor Chuck Turner releases an update on his campaign and court case to his supporters. 
—–

Good News and An Apology

Chuck Turner Statement 4/22/09

Message to Supporters
City Councilor Chuck Turner
April 22nd 2009

Dear Supporters,

As I announced earlier this year, I plan to run for a sixth term for the District 7 seat on the Council and if successful plan to run for a seventh term in 2011. However, I do not plan to run for the District 7 seat in 2013. Seven terms I believe will be enough to achieve a number of the objectives that led me to run in the first place. I will not go into those details at this time but will certainly expand on these objectives as the campaign moves forward.

Specifically, I am asking for you to join me this Saturday, April 25th from 1-3pm at the First Church in Roxbury where we used to hold our District 7 Roundtables. The meeting will be held in a basement meeting room in the new building and will focus on gathering signatures which will begin on April 28th when we will bring the petitions from City Hall to the District Office. Since there are four candidates for Mayor, it will be important to gather the 191 signatures quickly that we will need to have a place on the ballot.

My plan is to have at least 400 signatures gathered between Tuesday the 28th and Sunday May 3rd so that we can turn in at least 200 good signatures on Monday, May 4th.  By making a quick hit, we can avoid waiting until all the Mayoral signatures are counted to be assured that we have the necessary numbers.  I don’t think that we will have any problems, but would like to end the suspense early.

Also, I invite you to join me at the office of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (Mamleo)  at 61 Columbia Road on Tuesday the 28th for a press conference that will begin at 10 a.m.  The press conference has three objectives:

1)       The release is a study of homicides in the City over the last twenty years that Darrin Howell of my staff has put together. The study has detailed information on all homicides in Boston during the last ten years including the name, age, race, and sex of all killed as well as similar information for all those arrested. We also have information on the weapon, the location, the relationship, as well as trial results for those arrested.

2)       Announce the formation of a coalition, Community United for Change, which will use the data to start a process of bringing the community together periodically to reflect on the data. Through this process of reflection, we hope to generate recommendations on what we as residents need to do to bring peace to our community as well as generate recommendations on what changes the police need to make in their approach.

3)       Introduce to Boston, Ron Hampton of the National Association of Black Police, and Dr. James Bell of Jackson State University in Mississippi who have agreed to work with us on this process.

The members of the group are the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, Mamleo, the Nubian Voices of Experience in Public Safety, the Nation of Islam, and the offices of Councilor Yancey and myself. I will share more on this new initiative in the coming weeks. We will be distributing the study by email after its release on Tuesday so email Darrin.Howell@cityofboston.gov next week if you would like a copy.

In terms of my legal issues, we are still in a struggle with Asst US Attorney McNeil over the gag order. When Judge Hillman ruled on March 16th that I had to sign a gag order in order to receive discovery, I said to my lawyers that I was adamantly opposed to signing the order since I believe that it would put me in jeopardy of arrest if I continued to speak out. I acknowledged that such a strategy would make their defense more difficult but I don’t believe AUSA McNeil have any evidence beyond that which is in the affidavit.

However, Asst US Attorney McNeil was not satisfied and filed a motion to force my lawyer to sign the protection order so that I have to take “their evidence”. His argument is that if I don’t accept the discovery now, I will ask for a continuance and delay trial later. Obviously, he is saying to the judge and the world that I don’t have any rights that he or the court has to respect. We have sent in an Opposition to the motion, but I have also said to my lawyers that it doesn’t matter what the judge decides, I will not accept the discovery under those conditions. So the plot thickens. By the way, Sullivan resigned as of Sunday. We have also filed a motion for a reconsideration of Judge Hillman’s approval of the original gag order. (We will send copies of the orders, our responses, and accompanying press statements soon.)

Hope to see you Saturday.

chuck

Chuck Turner Press Statement 4/10/09

Councilor Turner Launches Discovery in Court of Public Opinion:
Councilor Turner has sent the following statement to his supporters:

Given our disagreement with the Court’s denial of our reconsideration,
we are appealing that ruling. However, we are also launching our own
discovery process in the Court of Public Opinion. Using my power as a
City Councilor, I am requesting under rule 17 F the following
information on all liquor licenses in Boston.

1) Licensee: 2) Type of License; 3) Date of Issuance; 4) Number of
Transfers in the last 10 years; 5) Location; 6) Race of Licensee (s);
7) Lawyer representing Licensee; 8) City Council District. I am also
requesting information on the number of licensees denied in the last
twenty years and the race of the person requesting, and the firm
representing the requester.

Once I have obtained the above information, I will call for a hearing
to explore the issue of discrimination in the distribution of liquor
licenses in the City of Boston which was brought to the City Council
by Senator Wilkerson. It is essential that the public be informed
regarding this issue since I believe it was the basis of Senator
Wilkerson reaching out to the Council as well as the basis of the
Council’s actions regarding her request. I know that the question of
discrimination was the basis of my filing a hearing on the issue of
liquor licenses on July 19, 2008.

While some may raise questions about my discussing these issues while
awaiting trial regarding liquor licenses, Judge Hillman validated my
right to take such action when he wrote in his March 16th opinion
supporting the government’s request for a protective order,  ”I
further find that the proposed protective order is narrowly drawn to
cover only discovery and does not prevent the defendant from
discussing information learned from an independent source.”

Councilor Turner Press Statement 3/18/09

Court Approves Gag Order: Judge’s Ruling Followed by Turner’s Press Statement

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner released to his constituents the
following statement today,

March 18, 2009 the following statement regarding Judge Hillman’s
granting of the protective order:

Dear Constituents,

Thanks for your support in our continuing campaign to secure Justice.
I appreciate the Court’s acknowledgment that the release of the
picture of my alleged wrong doing was designed to prejudice public
opinion against me and focus publicity on the case.  However, in the
absence of any sanctions against the US Attorney for his unwarranted
behavior, the Court is denying me the opportunity to publicize
whatever information the government may have that relates to my
innocence.

I believe the Court’s ruling is denying me my constitutional rights
and have asked my lawyers to see if they can appeal this ruling. I
believe that I have a responsibility not only to myself but also to
all those who are being found guilty in the court of public opinion
through the collusion between the media and the “justice” system. Even
if I am not successful in my appeal efforts, I will not sign any order
requiring me to restrict my rights. As a member of a race that has had
to fight for every right we have in this country, I have a
responsibility to fight any Power that denies me any of those rights.
To sign US Attorney Sullivan’s gag order would be a betrayal of my
ancestors struggle for Justice.

Sincerely,

chuck

=========

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. 08-10345-DPW

DIANNE WILKERSON
and
CHARLES “CHUCK” TURNER

____________________________________

FINDINGS AND ORDER ON GOVERNMENT’S PARTIALLY ASSENTED MOTION

March 16, 2009

HILLMAN, M.J.

Proceedings

The defendants are variously charged with public corruption crimes.
The defendant Dianne Wilkerson (“Wilkerson”) is charged with
conspiracy to extort, attempted extortion, and theft of services under
18 U.SC. §§1951, 1343 and 1346. The defendant Charles “Chuck” Turner
(“Turner”) is charged with conspiracy to extort, attempted extortion
and making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 1001(a)(2)
(1). Both defendants are on conditional pretrial release. Among the
conditions of their release is a detailed prohibition against
contacting prospective witnesses and destruction of documents.

On January 5, 2009, the government moved for a protective order
(Docket No. 38) to restrict the use and dissemination of materials
that are to be provided to the defendants pursuant to the government’s
criminal discovery obligations. The proposed protective order would

Case 1:08-cr-10345-DPW Document 61 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 1 of 6

1

On February 12, 2009, I allowed The Motion of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Massachusetts (“Amicus”) for Leave to File Amicus
Brief (Docket No. 52). That brief was helpful and considered carefully
in arriving at this decision.

2

In addition, the Amicus argues that Turner has a constitutional right
to publicly proclaim his innocence with the same means and specificity
employed by the government in publicly charging the defendant and that
there are no factual underpinnings which would necessitate the
imposition of such an order.

2

essentially prohibit the defendants from using the criminal discovery
for any purpose other than for the legal defense of the pending
criminal cases. The defendant, Wilkerson, assented to the imposition
of the protective order and agreed to be bound by the terms of the
government’s proposed order. The defendant, Turner, opposes the
motion. On February 25, 2009, I held a hearing on that motion.

1 For the reasons set forth below, I grant the motion.

Discussion

The government has moved for the sought after protective order under
Fed.R.Crim.P. 16, and this Court’s Local Rules 83.2B, and 116. Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) provides in part that “[a]t any
time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery
or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. . .” In addition,
Local Rule 83.2B allows the court in high profile cases to issue
special orders governing extrajudicial statements by the parties where
the rights of the accused, or of the litigants to a fair trial may be
implicated.

The government believes that Turner intends to try his case in the
court of public opinion by enlisting the media to bolster his
character and to attack the government’s motive for prosecuting him.
In support of its position, the government points to a series of press
conferences, interviews, and rallies in which Turner has participated.

Not surprisingly, Turner argues that the proposed protective order
denies him the right to defend himself in public against the
government’s accusations and is a gag order in contravention of the
protections afforded by the First Amendment

2. He alleges that the government’s release of photographs to the
media of both he and Wilkerson allegedly accepting bribe money was a
gratuitous public relations maneuver designed to influence jurors and
motivated by a political agenda — since it was the government that
brought the case to the media in the manner in which it did, that he
must respond in kind.

In Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984), the
Supreme Court held that discovery protective orders are not violative
of first amendment protections if three criteria are met: (1) there is
a showing of good cause as required by the rules; (2) the restriction
is limited to the discovery context; and (3) the order does not
restrict the dissemination of information obtained from other sources.
Id., at 37. See also Anderson v. Cryovac, 805 F.2d (1st Cir.1986). In
support of the ‘good cause’ requirement, the government proffers that:
(1) the case has garnered intense media scrutiny which has the
potential of prejudicing jurors and intimidating witnesses; (2) Turner
has engaged in a series of public events proclaiming his innocence;
(3) Turner’s prior conduct indicates that any discovery produced will
make its way into his publicity campaign; (4) the selective release of
discovery material could be used to directly or indirectly intimidate,
coerce, or embarrass witnesses; (5) the discovery material contains a
large amount of grand jury evidence and other sensitive material; (6)
the discovery material contains the identities and other information
regarding persons investigated but not charged; (7) the discovery
material contains personal privacy information of both defendants and
other not charged; (8) the discovery material contains images of
undercover agents whose exposure could place them at risk; (9) the
discovery material contains information about cooperating witnesses
which would subject them to coercion, intimidation, and embarrassment;
Turner tells Channel 7 that he never took money and in his Talk of the
Neighborhood interview he argues that any money he may have taken was
a campaign contribution. and (10) the discovery package contains a
great deal of inculpatory
information about Wilkerson, the release of which could inhibit her
right to a fair trial.

Addressing first Turner’s alleged attempts to publicly influence the
outcome of his case. The government directs the court to a series of
interviews between Turner and members of the local media. I have
reviewed the transcript of Turner’s interview by Jim Heisler for Talk
of the Neighborhood and the video of an interview with Channel 7.
While I am not sure that I understand the tactical value of some of
the statements that Turner makes in these interviews, I do not find them ‘over the top’ in the
sense that I cannot find that Turner has overtly attempted to
influence anyone, nor do I find that his statements would have such an
effect.  Turner essentially asserts his innocence of the charged
offenses and tries to explain his conduct. He also mentions the
government’s cooperating witness by name, however, at the time of the
interviews the cooperating witness had publically identified himself
in the Boston Globe.

Furthermore, I agree with Turner, Wilkerson, and the Amicus that the
government’s inclusion of photographs in the applications for their
criminal complaints, while clearly permissible, added little to the
establishment of probable cause and may have served to ratchet up the
publicity.

That being said, I do not agree with Turner or the Amicus that they
have the right to respond in kind, nor do I agree that the
government’s inclusion of the photographs warrants such a response.
The government surely anticipated that the photographs would become
front page fodder and result in a maelstrom of publicity.

However, that does not mean that the defendants can engage in a ‘tit
for tat’ in the media. Such conduct would only result in a escalation
of charges and countercharges that would infect the fair trial rights
of all parties.

After receiving the discovery material, the defendants are invited to
petition the court for a relaxation of the protective order with
respect to any items they believe are not private or sensitive.

Of more significance to me is the government’s argument that much of
the discovery package is too sensitive to risk being released. The
government has filed an ex parte affidavit detailing references to
existing sensitive grand jury material, ongoing grand jury
investigations, personal privacy information of defendants and
witnesses, and witness security information.

Additionally, the government has argued persuasively that given the
sheer volume of materials, requiring it to redact all sensitive
information would not only be time consuming, but would render many
reports incomplete and, in all likelihood, would result in protracted
discovery disputes. The government also argues that there is
information not germane to the case which would generate media
interest and cause needless harm to the
defendants and innocent third parties.

The government has supported its arguments with concrete and
compelling examples of sensitive information which, if released to the
public at this stage of the proceedings, could impair ongoing
investigations, prejudice the parties’ right to a fair and impartial
trial, and cause irreparable harm to the defendants, witnesses and/or
third parties. Having reviewed the parties’ positions and weighed the
applicable interests, I find that the government has established good
cause for the issuance of its proposed protective order. I further
find that the proposed protective order is narrowly drawn to cover
only discovery and that it does not prevent the defendants from
discussing information learned from an independent source. Therefore,
I am granting the government’s motion. The protective order shall be
issued forthwith.

Conclusion

The Partially Assented-To Motion For Protective Order is granted.

Councilor Turner Press Release 2/9/09

Dear Friends,

Today, we move beyond the first phase of my Campaign for Truth, Light,
and Justice by focusing national and international attention not just
on my arrest and indictment but also on the eight years of corrupt
practices of President Bush’s Department of Injustice.  With the help
of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and his organization, the
International Action Center, a petition is being sent around the world
to enable people to speak out against the judicial atrocities of the
Bush administration.

(to sign the petition go to: http://www.iacboston.org/chuckturnerpetition.html)

Read the rest of this entry »

Message from Chuck and Terri

January 19, 2009

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Let me begin by thanking you for your support during the darkest hour that Terri and I have experienced in life. While we are secure in our knowledge of our innocence and our faith, words can not express the joy that flows from the faith of others in us. It was also the expressions of your faith in our innocence that has forced the media to tone down their attacks as virulent as they are.
Read the rest of this entry »

Councilor Turner Press Release 12/12/08

Councilor Turner released the following press statement given by Attorney Michael Altman, who represents Terri Small-Turner, Councilor Turner’s wife and Campaign Treasurer, at a press conference at the Joseph Moakley Courthouse on 12/12/08.

Press Statement: December 12, 2008

The Committee to Reelect Chuck Turner, Chuck Turner’s Campaign Committee, received a broad grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S Attorney’s Office to produce all campaign documents concerning Councilor Turner’s campaign for the past four years.

1. The subpoena has put the Committee in an uncomfortable position: seek to quash the subpoena to prevent an abuse of power and create the false impression that it had documents that may be incriminating or produce the documents, despite the offensiveness of the subpoena, and show that there is nothing to hide.

Read the rest of this entry »