As a follow-up to my earlier post about Chuck Turner’s conviction, I thought folks might be interested to know that Turner has sued the City of Boston and the City Councilors for violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and more interestingly, that several voters in his district have sued, claiming that the Council unconstitutionally disenfranchised them by expelling Turner and calling for a special election. The case is Turner v. City of Boston, No. 10-12276, for those of you with PACER access (if you don’t have access, you can get a hold of the complaint at the courthouse, of course).
I am not going to give my thoughts in detail about the supposed merits of these claims. I wanted instead to point out that Turner chose for his lawyer Chester Darling, who is best-known for successfully arguing that the First Amendment permitted the organizers of the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade to exclude gay and lesbian groups, and who has also prosecuted a claim of reverse racial discrimination against the Boston schools on behalf of several white students and who represented the president of the Catholic Action League in a rear-guard attempt to stop gay marriages from occurring while supporters of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage sought to get their measure through the legislature. Again, no comment on the merits of Darling’s suits. The point I want to make is that politics makes strange bedfellows!
TedF
Removal of legislators and officers is a legitimate government function. Also the article you linked did not say how there are 1st or 14th amendment violations.
STATE law allows remeoval for convicted felons who have been JAILED. Since Turner hasn’t been sentenced, the council may have jumped the gun. And if he isn’t jailed, they he may not be subject to removal at all.
<
p>Doesn’t Boston have a town counsel to investigate these things (the actual LAW, not the political decision)?
<
p>And there is always the Adam Clayton Powell exemption – if he’s reelected, there’s nothing that can be done.
Actually, the state law provides that an office is automatically vacated when the officeholder is sentenced to prison. The council would not need to have acted at all to bring the statute into play.
<
p>It seems to me the real question, therefore, is not the statute but whether the Council has the authority to make rules providing for expulsion of its own members.
<
p>It’s somewhat ironic that Turner would take the position he’s taking in the lawsuit, since he voted for the Council rule used to expel him!
<
p>TedF
a great website
Does that mean if an officeholder is merely sent to state prison he can keep his office?
This was politically motivated from the start. The Bush-appointed US attorney — remember that saga — had a clear mission to go after political enemies. This was a crime that was created by US Attorney Sullivan. There was absolutely no evidence that Turner had a history of corruption. And frankly far too little attention has been given the real motivation behind the case.
For you defenders of Sullivan I ask, “do you believe it is the proper role of a prosecuter to lay out a trap for someone who has always been a public servant of high integrity and had never been suspected of anything close to corruption?”
The real crime here was the malfeasance of the federal prosecuter.
TedF, your questioning Turner’s choice of an attorney is innocent enough; but don’t be fooled, this story is an attempt to further marginalize and malign Chuck Turner and to distract us from what’s really happening.
federal prosecutors who got Ted Stevens in Alaska?
<
p>I don’t know the facts of the Turner case, but overzealousness may not be political.
There was plenty of evidence of Ted Steven’s having received goods and services particularly with regard to improvement of his home. The FBI subsequently investigated this.
In the case of Turner there hadn’t ever been any alleged impropriety. This was a witch hunt worse than the Ken Starr investigations of Bill Clinton.
To Christopher I say do a little less echoing of the standard line before you evaluate other people’s arguments.
I actually offered very little new in my comment above. Just that a Council should be able to expel its own and that the news link failed to mention what the constitutional objections were specifically, both of which I’m more than capable of coming up with on my own thank you very much.
— needs work where specifically? Your comment is fine.
Apparently I was not alone.
Do you think the Council should be able to expel members for anything, or just for felony convictions?
…as well as political considerations. As a point of reference the federal Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the right to expel one of its own by a 2/3 vote, without any qualifications as to reasons.
Let’s deal with facts. That’s what I’m trying to do. If you want to argue these or think I’ve misrepresented them then say so. Your reasons for down-rating sound pretty silly. Whose victimhood? And the reasons for cynicism about prosecutorial misconduct are not trivial as I’ve tried to lay out.
I have done plenty of maligning of Chuck Turner myself.
To your substantive points: Turner’s defense was not that he had been entrapped, but rather, that he hadn’t taken any money, and indeed couldn’t testify as to what the green stuff was that changed hand during the “preacher’s handshake.”
To your point about the “real motivation behind the case”, I have yet to see anything but innuendo and hints to suggest that there was any motive behind this prosecution other than the usual motive. Do you have any evidence to support your view?
You complain that Turner has been “marginized and maligned.” Of course he has been–he was convicted of taking bribes.
TedF
for government resources to be used to investigate someone who had no history of illegal or improper behavior as a public official? What was the basis of the $30,000 paid Wilburn to entrap Turner? Why wouldn’t these resources be used to investigate every political official regardless of any suspicion.
Moreover, if he did take the money, what was the quid pro quo? There wasn’t one. For there to be a “bribe” without one seems to be more than a little odd. What, in your mind, was this transaction all about?
Even Ron Wilburn knew what was really going on here.
Since you answer is primarily in the form of rhetorical questions and innuendo (“Even Ron Wilburn knew what was really going on here”, without stating what you think was “really going on” or providing any evidence), I take it that your answer to my question as to whether you have any actual evidence of wrongdoing by the prosecutors is: “No.”
<
p>TedF
Sorry for the typo.
that you would know about one of the central moments of the trial.
<
p>
How Wilburn felt is not evidence of anything, any more than is evidence of how you feel about the case.
<
p>TedF
which suggests that he didn’t believe that Turner was corrupt.
The reason the scope of the investigation was extended was because of what Wilburn supposedly told the FBI about what he had heard about Turner’s willingness to take bribes — remember paragraph 5 in the affidavit. It’s pretty clear Wilburn had misgivings about this and this is entirely relevant.
You could be right, but Wilburn’s misgivings doesn’t really amount to much. I personally am suspicious that they went after Turner but didn’t think to approach anyone else, but it is quite a stretch to go from there to assuming the prosecute guilty of “malfeasance” as you seem to be doing.
I’m still waiting for a legitimate reason why the federal government would initiate this investigation. You deflect my question by asking for proof that the motives of the prosecutors were pure. You would have to be blind not to see that this type of case was precisely the reason that AG Gonzalez fired and hired US Attorneys in the way he did.
Again, absent any valid reason to investigate a public official, the motivation has to be assumed to be political.
that the motivation was indeed political. Let’s also assume that everything Wilburn said was right about the way the FBI actually proceeded.
<
p>Wouldn’t it still have been better for Turner not to have taken the money?
one count of attempted extortion
and three counts of lying to the FBI
<
p>I think as do many others that this was a miscarriage of justice
<
p>Turner maintains to this day that he didn’t take a bribe and doesn’t remember taking any cash. The only evidence presented is the testimony of Ron Wilburn (not the most reliable witness) as well as a lot of circumstantial evidence including a very blurry video clip. Neither the amount of cash exchanged nor the context of the exchange could be independently verified. The jury essentially said that Ron Wilburn was telling the truth and that Chuck Turner was lying — go figure! Case closed.
<
p>My point in this discussion is that the investigation was planned entirely by the prosecutor without any legitimate reason other than what should be assumed as political. Where is the outrage there? TedF and a few others here want to ignore this.
Everyone should be really upset about this. Particularly, because there seems to be overwhelming evidence of political motivation. Honestly, I’ll believe it if you present some evidence.
<
p>In the Steven’s case, Bush appointees screwed up the case. Hard to argue their malfeasance was a matter of politics. Why is the pursuit of Turner a witch-hunt and the prosecutorial misconduct on the Stevens case different? Why not overzealous prosecution? The Fed’s are more motivated by career-making prosecution than by political plots.
<
p>And are you saying that Wilburn didn’t approach the FBI about Wilkerson’s and Turner’s bribery as the FBI affidavit says? Do you know whether Wilburn was on the hook for something and needed to cooperate? I don’t know any of these people and live 90 miles away from Boston, but the burden of proof is on you.
as the affadavit “suggests,” not “says.”
to participate in the FBI operation. So you’re wrong about the chronology. The burden of proof is on you to get informed on a subject about which you claim to have some knowledge and feel free to criticize others regardless of how far from Boston you live.
Wilburn knew that Turner had zero influence as a city councilor into who got a liquor license. The best he could hope for is that Turner would advocate before the Council for more licenses for minority-owned businesses in general, something everyone knows that Turner would routinely do anyway.
A sting is only legitimate when the person being investigated is suspected of having engaged in the sort of crime relevant to the sting. Otherwise it’s entrapment.
keeps saying it was a “politically motivated” prosecution. You’re the one who expects us to be up in arms about Turner’s conviction. Maybe we should be, but no one here is going to take your word for it. If you want credibility–never mind support–you need to do more than offer unsupported assertions.
<
p>And when it comes to criticism others, you began by calling my question “BS.” It was a legitimate question, with as much evidentiary support as your assertions. It was a reasonable question. In polite debate, that means it deserves a reasonable answer, not a dismissal that it is a “bs analogy.”
<
p>Aside from that, I don’t know who I’m criticizing. Wilburn? Turner? You? I’m challenging your poor argumentation. You keep spouting unsupported assertions. According to you, you know what Wilburn knew. Are you Wilburn? If not, how do you know what he knows? If you want to persuade anyone, you’re going to need to pony up some evidence.
the Steven’s case is not analogous. There was plenty of evidence for an FBI investigation. Just because it was mishandled by the prosecution doesn’t mean it wasn’t warranted. You’re being disingenuous to suggest that there was the same amount of evidence in the Turner case to warrant an investigation. If you’re referring to paragraph 5 of the FBI affidavit. This leaves a lot to be desired. Their only witness said that he had no first-hand knowledge of Turner being corrupt but had heard that he had written a letter of recommendation for an ex-con for compensation. Wow! This was the reason to go after Turner. Yes. That is BS and I explained why.
I didn’t say I know any more about what Wilburn knew than what he said to the press. He directly challenged some of the FBI’s assertions and questioned their motives. I didn’t invent this.
aside, I see what kind of response you were looking for, and the level of evidence that I’m asking for is not that relevant to what you’re talking about. I don’t mean that as a dig. Others–like The Loquacious Liberal–have the level of knowledge you are looking for.
…was also legitimately arrived at by a jury. I didn’t follow the case super closely, but until you can show that a prosecutor was out to get Turner a la Ken Starr I’m going to assume there was some basis for the investigation. I’m all for innocent until found guilty, but once found guilty, the consequences are justified.
Do you think that the it’s an appropriate use of government resources to go after someone who had no history of malfeasance in office. If so why shouldn’t every office holder be subject to the same scrutiny. Would you put up with this? It doesn’t take much imagination to see the link between this case and Don Siegelman’s and scores of other politically motivated investigations during the Alberto Gonzalez tenure.
Moreover, if there is evidence of political motivation behind this, don’t you think that there’s a good chance that the evidence and the case itself is tainted?
While it is true that Chuck had no previous history of malfeasance, I think it is fairly obvious why the Feds decided to “investigate” him.
<
p>Unfortunately for him, Senator Wilkerson (a politician with a long history of alleged malfeasance) was paid a series of bribes between 2002 and 2008 to secure a liquor license for a nightclub in Roxbury. Wilburn, who paid most of the alleged bribes, got pissed off that the bribes didn’t work and went to the FBI himself offering to cooperate in exposing this corruption.
<
p>Chuck was a natural #2 target of this ongoing investigation. Without discounting that racism may have played a small role, it seems to me that Chuck was an obvious next target for this investigation. The FBI already had both Wilburn and his business partner (Felix Soto) on the hook and on the payroll. So, naturally, they sought to use Wilburn to prove broader corruption
<
p>If only Chuck had thrown Wilburn out of his district office and reported the attempted bribery to the police…
Turner had no influence in the granting of liquor licenses.
At the time, Chuck was the most prominent politican representing Roxbury (home of the Dejavu club in need of a license). Wilkerson was second, followed by Arroyo Senior and then Fox.
<
p>The license in question was a city, not a state, license.
<
p>Wilkerson herself had already made the connection to the City Council, holding up a home rule petititon the Council majority really wanted (cancelling the at-large preliminary election) while demanding a liquor license in exchange.
<
p>Wilburn asked Wilkerson who he should “touch base with” on the license issue and she suggested Turner.
<
p>Mirage (Estelle’s / Slades, etc) was a well-known host for Turner and Team Unity fundraiser
is to write a letter or to advocate for minority-owned businesses, things he did routinely.
Councillors and/or their staff routinely advocated for specific liquor licenses both behind the scenes and in the public hearing process before the Board.
<
p>Their efforts also helped to defuse neighborhood opposition or focus neighborhood support. As local, community leaders their opinions were heard by those making the decisions.
<
p>I use the past tense, since I do not know what has happened to this process in the wake of Wilkerson/Turner.
It’s not at all unlikely that Chuck Turner advocated for a more liberal policy with regard to the granting of license to minority business owners. That was his job. He did this in City Council hearings. He might even have written a letter to the BLB (before the so-called bribe) recommending a license for Wilburn. So what? I haven’t seen evidence that Councilors can do anything more than advocate for license seekers or conduct hearings on general BLB policy.
The influence of the City Councilors on liquor license decisions is greater than you seem to think. Or at least was prior to the Wilkerson/Turner scandals.
<
p>I would suggest this article on the process, the lawyers involved and their courting of City Councilors (and other local politicians) from Boston Magazine: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/…
<
p>To my point, a few highlights from that piece:
<
p>”In the past year, members of Miller and Quilty’s firm have also donated to eight of the 13 Boston city councilors-the same people who have make-or-break sway over all the proposals that come before the licensing board-including council president Mike Ross… Miller acknowledges that all the donations and fundraisers ‘certainly help you get access to [politicians]. And that’s the biggest thing you need, access to the public officials’.”
<
p>”When South Boston eatery Franklin Southie won a 2 a.m. full liquor license from the board last year, it enjoyed not just the backing of South Boston Councilor Bill Linehan, but also that of Ross, who wrote an endorsement to the board on official city stationery-even though the council president represents Beacon Hill.”
<
p>”So they understood from the start that the key to the liquor license process was getting in with neighborhood organizations-and with local politicians. The licensing board highly values those groups’ input when making decisions. Win the neighbors and the pols, and you win the board.”
<
p>”Alas, there’s little hope new licenses will be created anytime soon. For that to happen, the Boston City Council would have to make a formal request to the state legislature, which would then take up the matter and pass it on to the governor to sign. In doing so, all three political forces would have to overcome the vociferous lobbying of current license holders, who are loath to see the market flooded.”
The process described sounds an awful lot like legalized bribery, with Miller and Quilty first currying favor with City Councilors by donating generously to their campaigns, then seeking the coveted licenses for their clients.
Sorry, I should know this already, but since we’re on the subject, what does “attempted extortion” mean? Attempted extortion of who, and for what?
<
p>This is what juries do, and what they are supposed to do–decide disputed questions of fact.
<
p>TedF
as far as the verdict is concerned, he was found guilty. So what?
Has it ever occurred to you that innocent people are sometimes found guilty?
I guess I’m not sure why I should accept your judgment in place of the jury’s, particularly considering the frankly incredible testimony from Turner.
<
p>Moreover, surely if Turner thought that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, he would have appealed at taxpayer expense?
<
p>TedF
I’m only saying that if there is enough reason to question the legitimacy of the Turner investigation, then it follows that the legitimacy of the whole case including the verdict should also be called into question.
You have questioned the motive of the investigation. I’m not sure what you mean when you talk about the “legitimacy” of the investigation, other than that you don’t like the investigation or think it was warranted. But that’s not a defense to a crime, and Turner did not prove entrapment at trial. So I really think you are muddled and I am not sure what you are getting at.
<
p>TedF
Didn’t Turner’s name come up in the Wilkerson investigation? (See paragraph 5 of the FBI affidavit). Assuming that’s true, I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. Are you saying that the FBI should not have followed up on the information? Or are you saying that the FBI should not have investigated Wilkerson in the first place?
<
p>TedF
says that Wilburn “had heard that Turner had taken cash in connection with his official position”, specifically for writing a letter of recommendation for someone with a criminal record. This is similar to the things Chuck Turner did routinely. Chuck Turner didn’t need bribes to do this sort of thing. That’s who Chuck Turner is. In fact any cash payment of $50 or less is completely legal.
This is the entire basis laid out by the FBI for extending the investigation to Chuck Turner, who again, had no influence in how liquor licenses are issued.
In fact, the FBI affidavit in paragraph 9 states that Wilburn’s initial attempt to get a liquor license that supposedly included a letter of recommendation from Turner to the BLB failed and also did not include any bribe. Doesn’t it seem odd that Turner would get no bribe for writing a letter for Wilburn but after being paid $1000 did nothing in return?
<
p>I’m not an expert, but I don’t think this is right. The law is that all contributions in an amount of more than $50 must be by check or direct deposit. G.L. c. 55, s. 9. I don’t believe that this means that a bribe in an amount of less than $50 is legal!
<
p>TedF
But someone might give a politician $50 in cash to thank them for what they’ve done or for any reason at all.
Somewhat related but entirely unnecessary to bring up here is the fact that Wilburn is recorded to have said that Turner should take his wife out to dinner. This sounds more like $50 than $1000.
was Turner calling for a hearing on the granting of liquor licenses to minority business owners, with the intent of nudging Dan Pokaski et al to look more favorably upon Wilburn’s application. Maybe not much, but something.
Having read the complaint, it appears the majority of the complaint is based on the idea that Chuck should not have been removed until such time as a replacement could be elected to fill his seat, thereby not denying anyone of district representation, but at the same time, a special election could not be called to fill the vacant seat until the seat was vacant, so he would need to remain in the seat indefinitely, but remaining in the seat would not allow for a special election to be called.
<
p>IMHO, it is a very sad and very weak case. Since this will be the sixth special election since I started paying attention (1998??) due to one death and five resignations, it is hardly an exception for a district seat to be vacant.
<
p>While I hope he does not serve any time, this is just sad.