I am a long-time supporter of Chuck and the Boston Worker’s Alliance that he helped to organize. I feel passionately that empowering urban low-income people is key to our reclaiming America. For this reason I am organizing a house party sponsored by Mel King, Ty DePass and Horace Small to help raise the necessary money for Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner’s legal defense. It will be at my house, 69 Robeson St. (entrance on the right) Jamaica Plain, 02130, Friday March 20 from 6:30-8:00. (Map and directions attached.) It will be professionally catered with beer, wine, many Hors d’Oeuvres, a chicken and a fish entre.  Minimum donation: $25.

The judge in the case to try to ruin Chuck’s career hasn’t yet decided on the government’s gag order trying to prevent the public from learning the truth about why they are pursuing this. With their key witness refusing to testify, there’s cause for great hope that Chuck will be vindicated. Chuck estimates that he will need $25,000 at a minimum, to pay his legal expenses and a larger amount to run his campaign and maintain his office through the end of this year. Our goal is to raise $5,000 of the $25,000.This is a tough year for Chuck. Please help!

As I hope you know, he is innocent of accepting a bribe for procurement of a liquor license. As you know well, he is a most generous, self-sacrificing servant for the people of Boston and has been a leader in the fight to end poverty in Boston. I believe that large numbers of Boston’s poor can not make it out of poverty without him. With his great courage, knowledge, skill and ability I believe that they can make it out of poverty, but only if we stand up and stop the attacks from the defenders of unbridled corporate power.

Chuck will be there, as will Mel King, Ty De Pass and Horace Small.  We will be inviting testimonials and appreciations for Chuck. We would like yours to be one of them.

If you can’t attend, please send a check made out to “Committee to Re-elect Chuck Turner” to David Ludlow,69 Robeson St., Jamaica Plain, 02130. He can accept up to $500 per person per year. There is no limit per household.

Please RSVP by March 13 to david@boldergiving.org. Thank you.

Yours truly,

David Ludlow

By Laurel J. Sweet  |   Tuesday, March 17, 2009  |
http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Local Politics

A federal judge has slapped a partial gag order on the high-profile
public corruption case against Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and
former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman ruled
yesterday that Turner and Wilkerson are prohibited from airing the
government’s evidence against them to outside parties such as the
media, but he won’t stop them from discussing information they learn
from “an independent source.”

Though it is what they wanted in order to protect the integrity of
their case and the identities of their witnesses, the decision fell
short of a decisive victory for the feds.

Hillman chastised U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan’s office for
releasing surveillance photographs of Wilkerson and Turner allegedly
depicting them taking bribes, saying they “may have served to ratchet
up the publicity” the two pols feel victimized by, while contributing
“little to the establishment of probable cause.”

Wrote Hillman, “The government surely anticipated that the photographs
would become front-page fodder and result in a maelstrom of
publicity.”

Turner and Wilkerson are accused of pocketing wads of cash from
undercover operatives to buy their influence.

Wilkerson agreed to comply with the gag order, but Turner objected,
arguing it gave prosecutors an unfair advantage in the court of public
opinion.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1159110

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.

I can’t remember when I first met Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner, since it was so long ago, before he was a city councilor. What I do remember is that he was always out there, standing with the community, serving as a creative resource and seasoned facilitator of the community’s own efforts at change. I know that when I worked at a mutual empowerment, long-term career planning program for women on welfare, we consulted with Turner about ways to break through the poverty-level training and job options that the system imposed upon the women.

Later, when we established the Next-Step Readiness program, we benefited from his efforts to open up job and training opportunities in the higher-wage trades; in the area of cooperative economic development; and from his work with Emerge, which does counseling and education of abusers to stop domestic violence. For years, he has been the only public official who has relentlessly fought to improve the Boston Public Schools and helped to establish the Work4Quality/Fight4Equity network.

In all of this work, Turner has never been a “man on the make,” a self-serving “cutter of deals.” Instead, he has opposed all such corrupt politics-as-usual and taken the higher ground of principled politics, while remaining at a modest financial position himself.

It is for this politics of principle and courageous confrontation of systemic injustice that Turner is paying today. He has been facing a torrent of character assassination and presumption of guilt in the wake of a Federal Bureau of Investigation sting operation, in an attempt to destroy Turner, his steadfast integrity and his effectiveness in the community. As they destroy Turner, they destroy all of us who struggle for desperately needed change, because our struggles are inextricably interwoven, whether or not we know Turner personally. Despite this assault on his character, they have been able to point to nothing in Turner’s history prior to recent allegations that would provide even the slightest hint of deliberate financial malfeasance or desire for selfish gain.

Many truly good people are saying, “Let’s step aside and see how the legal process plays out,” but by then his reputation and the solidarity of the progressive community will have been destroyed. At that point we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not standing up for and with Turner, for and with ourselves when it counted. I am reminded of the Nazi-era poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller, a concentration camp survivor: Speaking of a series of groups of people of which he was not a part, he wrote, “First they came for… and I didn’t speak up… Then they came for… The last line is, “Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

What does a human being have to do in this world to earn and keep the respect and support of his fellow human beings? If Turner can be picked off and destroyed at this critical juncture in history, when we need each other more than ever to move the change process forward, who will be next?

Mary Jo Hetzel

Jamaica Plain

Watch a clip from Chuck Turner Rally:

Thank you to all who attended, and to those who went to court.  More updates coming!

By Adrian Walker, Globe Staff | February 20, 2009

Ronald Wilburn, the federal government’s “cooperating witness” in a bribery sting targeting former state Senator Dianne Wilkerson and Councilor Chuck Turner of Boston, said he is no longer cooperating

In an interview with the Globe, Wilburn, a businessman, said he felt he had been used by the FBI to topple a pair of prominent black politicians, while four months after the first arrest, no white officials have been charged in the investigation.

He acknowledged, with some anger, that the FBI’s use of him in the undercover operation to pay alleged bribes helped insulate the government against accusations that blacks were being targeted. Describing himself as disillusioned and betrayed by the government, he said he no longer intends to testify willingly.

“At this juncture, it is unlikely that I will testify in this case or in any other cases,” Wilburn said in the interview this week. “That is almost not subject to change.”

Wilburn’s dramatic statements - and their effect on his credibility as the government’s key witness in the bribery and conspiracy case - could significantly damage the investigation.

But how much damage his change of heart will have remains unclear. Wilburn, 69, can still be subpoenaed by prosecutors to testify, although defense lawyers would probably find him to be a friendlier witness.

Wilkerson and Turner have pleaded not guilty to the attempted extortion and conspiracy charges lodged against them; Wilkerson resigned her seat last year after she was indicted; Turner continues to hold his Boston City Council seat.

Wilburn agreed to help the FBI investigate corruption because he was frustrated with the insular politics of city and state government, he told the Globe Nov. 24. But now, he said, he is disappointed that the FBI has not toppled more officials in City Hall and the State House.

The arrests of Wilkerson and Turner were followed by a flurry of subpoenas that landed at the Boston Licensing Board, Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s office, on the desks of multiple City Council members, as well as at the State House, the state’s Liquor Control Board, and the offices of developers and construction companies. Despite the widespread expectation of a broader investigation that was fueled by the subpoenas, no additional arrests have been made.

Assistant US Attorney Brian T. Kelly declined to discuss the investigation in detail. “The investigation is ongoing,” he said. “I can’t comment on where it may lead.”

Lawyers for Turner and Wilkerson said they were surprised by Wilburn’s change of heart and added that it spoke to their clients’ innocence.

“I don’t think there’s any question that he was used,” said Max D. Stern, Wilkerson’s lawyer. “I don’t want to speculate on what this means for my client.”

Barry T. Wilson, Turner’s attorney, said: “I’m pleased to hear what you’re telling me. Chuck Turner never took a dime. He never did anything wrong.”

Wilburn, a onetime Roxbury nightclub operator, sought Wilkerson’s help in securing a liquor license for a new club in 2007 to be called Dejavu. According to a federal complaint, Wilkerson worked diligently and successfully on Wilburn’s behalf, even though he had been rejected before and did not have a signed lease on a location, which is usually a prerequisite for securing a license. Federal authorities have released pictures purporting to show Wilkerson and Turner accepting cash payments from Wilburn; Wilburn has confirmed in interviews with the Globe that he paid money to both of them.

In the interview this week, Wilburn offered some of his opinions of the case and drew a contrast between his dealings with the two politicians.

Wilkerson, he said, took money as a bribe, while Turner’s case is more ambiguous. According to affidavits, Wilkerson accepted $8,500 in bribes for the liquor license, as well as $15,000 from undercover agents in a second sting operation involving a parcel of state land in Roxbury. Turner is accused of accepting $1,000 relating to the liquor license.

“Chuck is naive,” Wilburn said in an interview at the Globe. “The only thing I said to him was, ‘Take your wife out to dinner.’ It’s conceivable that it could have been a gift or a campaign contribution.”

He went on to further distinguish between the two cases, saying: “Dianne is a thief. Chuck isn’t. Dianne knew better. Chuck is a victim of circumstance.”

Legal specialists cautioned that Wilburn cannot simply refuse to testify if Wilkerson and Turner go to trial. To resist a subpoena by the government, he would have to assert that his testimony could incriminate him, an assertion that the government could challenge in court. Even if that were upheld, he could be granted immunity, which a witness cannot refuse. If he were to refuse beyond that point, he would potentially face contempt charges.

Still, an openly hostile star witness could be problematic.

“A witness has the right to refuse to speak to a police officer, a prosecutor, or a reporter, but not a court,” said J.W. Carney Jr., a Boston defense lawyer. “I think the real concern is that such a witness would be much more malleable under cross-examination than a normal witness.”

Wilburn said he is not seeking to exit the case out of any kind of coercion. But he made it clear that his life has been uncomfortable since it became clear that he has been the chief informant against Wilkerson and Turner. A Globe report last fall disclosed Wilburn’s identity; he was referred to in government documents as the “cooperating witness” and “CW.”

“My daughter asked me, ‘Dad, is someone going to shoot me?’ ” he recalled. “That really brought it all home for me.”

Wilburn said he got the idea for opening a nightclub near the intersection of Melnea Cass Boulevard and Massachusetts Avenue several years ago. His first attempt at a license was rejected “with prejudice” by the Licensing Board, enraging him.

“Pokaski treated me like a runaway slave,” he said, referring to Daniel Pokaski, the longtime chairman of the board. Pokaski has not responded to repeated requests for interviews.

After he went to the FBI alleging corruption, Wilburn says, his fortunes improved dramatically. Wilkerson successfully lobbied for the issuance of new liquor licenses, including three earmarked for her district. Meanwhile, his second attempt at a license, almost identical to his first, sailed through under the stewardship of Wilkerson and attorney Stephen Miller, whom she had steered him to.

Wilburn said Miller advised him not to appear at the hearing at which his application was reconsidered.

“He told me I was going to get the license, no problem, but that Pokaski didn’t want to see me,” Wilburn said. Miller did not return a call seeking comment.

In an interview late last year, Wilburn expressed little sympathy for either Wilkerson or Turner, saying they were victims of their own bad choices. This week he appeared more sympathetic, with his scorn mostly directed at federal officials.

His attempt to take on the power structure appeared to have left him chastened. “It’s all camouflage for them to steal money and cut deals,” he said.

Adrian Walker can be reached at walker@globe.com.

Chuck will have a hearing regarding the gag order that Sullivan is trying to force onto Chuck.  This hearing will have real arguments being made, and people should plan to attend if possible.

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)

We are asking that they send the online petition to President Obama
and Attorney General Holder asking them to 1) Drop the fraudulent
charges in my case; 2) Investigate all pending indictments of public
officials to determine which ones should be dropped because of
political and/or racially motivation; 3) Review all convictions of all
political officials indicted during the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzalez/Rove
administration to determine which ones should have new trials because
of political and/or racial motivation; 4) Initiate legal action
against those Attorney Generals who set up politically and/or racially
motivated indictments and prosecutions; and 5) Initiate legislation to
end collusion between prosecutors and media that destroys the

opportunity for a fair trial by distributing governmental allegation
as evidence before any arraignments, indictments, or trials have taken
place.

We believe that this petition drive is taking place at an excellent
time given the focus on corruption in the Justice Department locally
and nationally.  On Monday, January 26th, Federal Judge Mark Wolfe,
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Federal Court, ordered Ass’t US
Prosecutor Suzanne Sullivan (not related) and US Attorney Michael
Sullivan to file affidavits by February 5th explaining why he should
not sanction either Ms. Sullivan or the US Attorney’s Office or both
for withholding evidence. The report in the Globe said that Chief
Justice Wolfe characterized Ms. Sullivan’s actions “as the latest
‘egregious failure’ of the US Attorney’s office to disclose evidence
that could have helped clear a defendant.” Chief Justice Wolfe also
listed in his 42 page ruling at least nine major cases he presided
over during the last two decades in which prosecutors working for
Michael Sullivan and his predecessors allegedly withheld importance
evidence.

Remember when Ron Wilburn said that the statements in the US
Attorney’s complaint that said he came to them and told them that he
knew of six instances where Senator Wilkerson had taken bribes were
lies. At that time I said to the media that they should locus on
whether the prosecutors were lying given Mr. Wilburn’s statements. The
media reaction, as usual, was that I was trying to hide my guilt.

Yet, so far the only newspaper response to the report on Justice
Wolfe’s action has been an editorial in the Globe saying that the next
US Attorney should be required to make a commitment before appointment
not to conceal evidence the way US Attorney Sullivan and those working
for him have done. Where is Howie Carr and the other columnists who
condemned me, now that the Chief Justice is condemning US Attorney’s
allowing evidence to be hidden yet again. Seems like a double standard
to me.

In addition to Chief Justice Wolfe’s action, Chair of the House
Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Karl Rove to testify before the
Judiciary Committee to discuss his role in the firing of nine US
Attorneys allegedly for their unwillingness to cooperate with the Bush
administration desire to have them move aggressively against political
officials. Although these firings led to Attorney General Gonzalez and
nine top Justice Department officials, there was little if any
discussion of this during the focus on US Attorney Sullivan’s focus on
Senator Wilkerson and myself.

You can find the online petition on the www.supportchuckturner.com
website. For those who have been asking how you can help, please send
a petition to President Obama and US Attorney Holder and forward it to
your friends and neighbors and ask them to get involved. While it
certainly will be helpful to me, hopefully it will also play a role in
persuading President Obama’s administration to join Congressman
Conyers and his House Judiciary Committee in their attempt to
prosecute the prosecutors who brought Injustice to the Justice
Department.

Watch for announcements of our February rally where we plan to focus
on these issues as well as the historical attacks by the Justice
Department on African-American and other elected officials of color as
well as progressives. We also ask that you come to the Moakley
Courthouse on February 25th when my lawyers will attempt to stop US
Attorney Sullivan attempt to have Judge Hillman force me to sign a gag
order saying that I can’t talk publicly about any evidence that could
help convince the public of my innocence.

Sincerely,

Chuck

To sign the petition: http://www.iacboston.org/chuckturnerpetition.html