Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chuck turner. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chuck turner. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Chuck, Lyndon and the Long-Faced Chorus


The dour angels of the local LaRouche Youth Movement opened today's meeting with classical praise to God. It was neither to Lyndon LaRouche nor to Chuck Turner.

At the ballroom of the Radisson in Park Square, they sang a cappella in Latin and lacked only emotion. Not aware that the youthful political cadre routinely belted 'em out, I wondered what else they could do beyond haranguing passersby like Scientologists or soliciting contributions. In this case, they didn't seem to have any fun producing fine music. Two young women were unable to stifle smiles leaving the front, but otherwise, it was as though Vulcans were preforming.

Without even the excuse of desperation, Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner was sharing lollipops with strange kids. Except for the occasional blunder such as porn confused with news, Turner's personal theatrics have been more entertaining than destructive. What has he to do with LaRouche sorts?

After his arrest and indictment for allegedly extorting a bribe to facilitate a liquor license, Turner has been on a tear. His often florid and always loosely reasoned claims went out there.

At the Radisson before the meeting, it was clear that this was a mandated event for the LaRouche youth. They knew each other and outnumbered the rest of us considerably. Under 100 attended and the 20-somethings dominated. Each was obviously trained to engage, gathering names and contact info on the way in, offering dozens of tracts as stapled magazines or perfect-bound booklets.

I now own:
  • A DVD that will apparently explain why Barack Obama had better act like Franklin Roosevelt in a big hurry
  • A nearly 300-page Children of Satan, anti-Dick Cheney screed
  • The current Executive Intelligence Review
  • A Your Enemy George Soros LaRoche PAC dossier
  • The Program for World Economic Recovery
  • Tantamount to Treason on the economic bailout bills
  • Last fall's The Tasks Before Us in the Post-Cheney Era
  • Is the Devil in Your Laptop?
Together, those have a suggested contribution value of about $100. I would gladly share so all could enjoy and learn. However, parting with Is the Devil in Your Laptop might be tough for me. In that, Lyndon himself comes heavy on "...Cyberspace looney-bins such as MySpace, Facebook, and killer modes in computer games." A few pages later a Matthew Ogden decries that "Globalization is the thermodynamic 'heat death' of human culture, denegration towards an undifferentiated world 'blah' (what some have dubbed the blogosphere, better named the blah-gosphere)."

If you don't know LaRouche beyond the blinking sidewalk solicitors, you can do worse that start with his Wikipedia entry. There are plenty of links to his documents, as well comments from detractors and champions. I won't touch him here, except where Chuck Turner and the LaRouche folk overlap.

The 86-year-old LaRouche remains fundamentally an economist. His people claim virtually Cassandra-class prognostication there — infallible but ignored. With that eye, he seems to see a kindred mind and spirit in Turner. Speaking at the Radisson for the LaRouche PAC, Western States Spokesman Harley Schlanger said that the group would support Turner because such fighters for the right are rare.


...it makes you sick to your stomach



Turner, Schlanger and LaRouche PAC's literature have some clear overlap in this way. In his remarks, Turner iterated some of he LaRouche argot. A recurrent term in his address, as well as Schlanger's and the lit, was the British Empire.

Woe to us who are so ignorant as to think first of King George III and later the Raj. Instead, this appears to be a shorthand for the larger evils of the cartels that secretly control the world. Schlanger twice expanded the term, first to Anglo-Dutch Empire and then to Anglo-Dutch-Saudi Empire.

Several times, Turner used British Empire á la LaRouche when he meant the old white oppressor class. Fundamentally, Turner was on solid ground when he said this country's economic system has never been fair to all, particularly to those of color, to women and to working whites. How odd though for his to parrot the code phrase.

Turner had another good point in his hit-and-miss criticism of his own prosecution. He fairly questions how U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan had the chutzpah to try to forbid Turner from talking about the case publicly when Sullivan himself has released a still shot off video before the indictment claiming that it showed Turner accepting a $1,000 bribe. Even in playground terms, that's not fair. If Sullivan can trash talk, why not Turner?

At the podium, Turner was much less substantial and much more conspiratorial when he branched from his case. In his lingo, "prosecutors will collude with the media." That seems less likely and yet harder to prove than Sullivan's challenge to show that Turner offered a tit for tat with the liquor license. In the latter case, Sullivan either has the taped evidence and witness testimony or loses his case. For his part, Turner also surmised that Sullivan wanted higher office, like commonwealth governor, which would be his motivation for pegging Turner.

The Council may have been overthinking the media angle in other ways as well. He said that after he ignored his lawyer's instructions to shut up about the case, "my campaign worked — the media backed off." He apparently did not consider Occam's razor possibility — the media got bored with him and the case, and won't report again until there's news not just noise from Turner.

Yet, to me Turner remains deliciously vivid. At 68, he is still activist frisky. He spoke of himself as a crusader, poking the bear. He expected to get poked back. In this case, he and the LaRouche folk claim that the sting that got Turner indicted followed shortly after the Councilor railed against foreclosures on property of poor people.

He continues to play the drama queen well and use fitting language. He said, "When you get in a fight, you don't think about what would happen if you lose. You think about how to win!"

On the one hand, for this case, he claims total innocence. He says he has no recollection of meeting the businessman and moreover, he's not sure that the very distinctive beard on the video is his beard on the video. Not only does he not seem to be shopping for a plea bargain, he is looking beyond his victory. He calls for prosecuting Sullivan. He added that the International Action Center would circulate a petition in his behalf to prosecute the prosecutors.

As Turner not so subtly puts it, "This country is so immoral, it makes you sick to your stomach."

This is sumo at its best. The salt has been thrown. The ring has been purified. Turner or Sullivan will end up tossed out of the ring by his loin cloth.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Chuck Turner Gets His Own Storms

The vice vise squeezes tighter. Chuck Turner got a double blow today. Commonwealth maggy reports:
  1. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock rejected Turner's request to postpone his January 25th sentencing on one bribery and three lying to the feds felonies.
  2. Ramping up for that, the prosecutors provided that judge with a 15-count perjury document, related to Turner's testimony at his trial.
Tip of the toupee to Gintautas Dumcius.

Commonwealth's Paul McMurrow compares and contrasts Turner with the recently sentenced Dianne Wilkerson. Their bribery stings were related although they were not charged as conspirators. She has a history of financial and legal troubles, failures, convictions or pleas. In contrast, his conviction was his first and no one has alleged a pattern of corruption.

He seems to figure that Wilkerson pleaded guilty and admitted to charges. She had many others dropped as part of the deal. Turner on the other hand, claims innocence, that he remembers neither the briber nor the bribe, and that the whole sting is purely a racist move by the feds to stifle a black community leader.

Being just a simple man from the land of the maple trees, I have to wonder whether the feds are giving Turner one last chance (and a huge push) to say he is guilty, made a mistake, and regrets it all.

Of course, the play within this play is Turner's grandstand effort to regain his Boston City Councilor seat, pending his sentencing. That suit is before First District Chief Judge Mark Wolf, who has yet to rule.

MA law would force Turner from office should he receive as much as a day in prison on a felony. I have no doubt his sentence in 12 days will include cell time. However, should Wolf rule that the Council as a body did not have authority to remove a convicted felon from membership and that Turner needs to keep his seat pending sentencing, that would delay his replacement. The February/March preliminary/final special election for the District 7 seat would be pushed out, and the constituents would be deprived of a Councilor even longer.

Sigh.

Wolf is damned sharp. I'm not sure how he'll fall on this. In would be great if he concurred with the Boston city counsel that the rules they adopted over a year ago do give them this power. We certainly don't need to play the home-rule-petition game with elected officials who are convicted felons awaiting sentencing. That's just what all the discussion and voting were about in the year following Turner's indictment. (Coincidentally, the vote to adopt these procedures was unanimous, including Turner.)

I am also eager to see how Turner will assimilate the current status. He has lost at every point so far — indictment, trial, Council hearing, and sentencing delay. Despite his bluster, he's neither historian nor scholar of any type. Yet, he should discern the pattern here.

For little things, he has a shot at keeping his pension for being a Councilor if he appeals it to the pension board. Otherwise, he gets back what he's paid in, plus interest.

I'm far from a chess master, but I do know how to play the game. It appears that Turner doesn't know when to concede. Like a novice who careers his king square to square to delay the inevitable, he seems to be at the mercy of those with more material and better position.

I fear he won't step back. If he pushes and pushes, he'll likely be remembered not as the powerful champion of his neighborhoods that he was for a decade. Rather, it will be Chuck Turner who sacrificed the good of his former constituents for his ego.


Tags: , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Chuck Turner All In


William Ramsey Clark, Esq., will be 81 tomorrow. Apparently he'll celebrate by association with our own Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner. The latter is under indictment for extortion and lying to the FBI. The former seems to be leaving the stage very poorly.

In this era and this season of high-priced theater tickets, we should thank Turner. As drama queen extraordinaire, he presents his show for free.

I am sure I would not want to be a passenger when Chuck drives. It must be at high speed and right next to the canyon drop off. In this case, he chose a both famous and infamous lawyer. For a pissant case that either is or isn't simple bribery, yoking himself to a one-time anti-war humanitarian turned war-criminal defender is a look-at-me-right-now decision Turner is almost sure to regret.

As the Herald quotes local defense guru Robert George, this is a "high stakes gamble." He added that Clark's involvement"on behalf of any criminal defendant is a high-profile endorsement of a person’s innocence, (but) this was the defense attorney for people such as Saddam Hussein, which some people may take the wrong way."

I'm not huge on Wikipedia, but the entries for Clark and some of his more reviled client are rife with references and detail. For your amusement check:
The list of Clark's clients includes, Nazi concentration camp commandant Karl Linnas, Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (eader in the Rwandan genocide), and contract killer Joe "Mad Dog" Sullivan.

In fairness, he was generally on defense teams for the worst of his clients. He also took on clients who were prosecuted for their anti-war activities here, as well as Lori Berenson, nabbed in Peru in a political incarceration. His few cases like those are overwhelmed by his choice of mass murders and war ciminals. Defending the unpopular client doesn't make one an Atticus Finch.

In Turner's instance, we can set aside his flair for the melodramatic. Instead, let's ask what the devil was he thinking? It almost has to be that the higher the profile of his prosecution, the greater his chances of prevailing.

He shouldn't count on it. Consider:
  • Milošević — Indicted 1999 and finally to trial when captured in 2002. A flood of witnesses to his genocide and war crimes was sure to bring conviction. He sicked, maybe exacerbated by the stress, and died in prison.
  • Karadžić — Finally captured after a long-term fugitive life. He is in the Hague awaiting his trial. He too faces many witnesses and much evidence of heinous crimes against humanity in killing thousands of Bosnian Muslims.
  • Hussein — Convicted of and hanged for his crimes.
So, Turner is not up for capital crimes. With the current indictments, at worst he'd face short-time prison and a few thousands of dollars in fines. Yet, it seems as though he would have gone with a better track record from his legal horse.

Many laugh at Turner for this theatrics, yet no one seems to question his guts, just his judgment. In advance of a public announcement today of his latest elevation (farther to fall, though) of this case, Turner's defense site includes:
Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General and recipient of the 2008 United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights, will be in Boston on Wednesday, December 17 to voice his support in the defense of Chuck Turner and demand that the government immediately drop the frame-up charges. He will focus attention on the role that the US Attorney’s office and the FBI has played in the politically motivated prosecutions that are taking place not just here in Boston but throughout the US. Ramsey Clark charges that that US Attorney Sullivan and the FBI have violated their constitutional duties and must be held accountable for their actions.
So, there you have it, brinkmanship at its plainest. I don't think he has the hand to deal. He thinks so.

Perhaps what attracted him was Clark's high profile, as high as Turner's ego. Perhaps instead it was Clark's comments that align with Turner's own to date. As the lawyer's Wikipedia entry reads:
On March 18, 2006, Clark attended the funeral of Slobodan Milošević. He declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that: charges. The trial did not have facts." He compared the trials of Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein by stating: "both trials are marred with injustice, both are flawed." He also condoned and justified Hussein and Milosevic's brutal regimes and their anti-American policies in which Clark described Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein as "both commanders who were courageous enough to fight more powerful countries."
Afternoon Follow-Up: Clark's charge into town (and charges) are well detailed at PolitickerMA. He not only called Turner's indictment racially and politically motivated, he tried to turn tables by calling for an investigation of U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan. Clark further called for "a moratorium on any further action until a new and independent prosecutor can come in here and review this whole matter." As a lawyer and former AG of the nation, he might know more about how criminal cases advance. Meh.

Tags: , , , , ,

Friday, March 25, 2011

Chuck Being Catty

Will he die graceless?

I am not surprised but mildly saddened that Chuck Turner headed off to prison dripping vitriol. He'll have three years to:
  1. Reinforce and practice his shtick, or
  2. Emerge more positive and ready to use his considerable virtues while dropping his substantial flaws.
I really see nothing beyond this single choice...and it will be a real choice. Here's hoping he can take his best and discard his poor tendencies.

While out of town, I could not go to his final public event here, his martyr fest. As reported in today's Herald, he spoke on his (as he would have it) cruel, unfair and impassable suffering at the Framing the Innocent evening at Northeastern. Over at the South End Patch, Christopher Treacy delivers the best brag-and-whine coverage.

Predictably and unfortunately, Turner made his last public oration in Boston into a conspiracy melodrama, dredging up a vote he led in City Council to oppose U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was not surprising from a fabulous loudmouth. For four decades, he has spoken or shouted about many wrongs, mostly by government from local to the feds. Often the noise has meant to make life better for his neighborhood, for others of color, for the poor, and for Boston in general.

Therein lies the current problem with Chuck Turner.

He is such a drama queen and so vain that he muddles and befuddles. Turner tends to mix some verifiable history with reasonable analysis with interpretation ranging from clear to crazy to totally untrue. He dual intent always seems to be to protect and advance various underclasses, while promoting (ta da) Chuck Turner.

I agree with his that the US Attorney and FBI unfairly targeted and entrapped him. He has said much, and among his more lucid and reasonable, judgments, that his investigators had little to no reason to set him up for a sting — no history of corruption to justify literally pressing a bribe into his palm. What he has pretty much ignored is the huge issue of why the feds are tricking people into corrupt acts. They should be about doing real police work and catching the long-term, regular corruption officials.

I view the FBI operation as akin to picking a 65MPH highway, planting a 25MPH sign around a curve, and putting troopers there to ticket drivers. There are plenty of speeding reckless drivers to catch without dirty tricks.

Real v. Imagined



Unfortunately, when Turner broadcasts one wild conspiracy theory after another, he blows his chance to catalyze confronting and removing serious problems. Too many of us will toss Turner into the bowl of mixed nuts instead of getting exercised about serious abuse and injustice by the feds. We listen to his self-important bluster of unprovable conspiracies when he should be describing systemic issues that don't all center on his magnificent and brilliant personage.

I suspect Turner will not be deeply introspective and bent on clarifying his mind in his three years in Morgantown. He's likely to return thinner of body but no less thick of head.

The underlying issue of the clumsy entrapment of guilty and beguiled alike needs fixing. Turner is not going to be in a place, physically or emotionally, to lead that effort. That's a pity, as he'll have three years with plenty of spare time to work on this serious problem.

The burden will then fall to other loudmouths, including me and other political bloggers, as well as progressive pols and organizations. This country need not be about the business of ruining hardworking city councilors and others with a lazy and dishonorable entrapment methodology.

The President, DOJ, MA's federal and state pols need to hear what's right. Too many have said nothing. Turner has made the matter messy, but only temporarily.

What happened to him was wrong, but not because the racist feds hated the black man who spoke up. Instead, the tools and procedures the US Attorney's and FBI's offices have used for too long are un-American. Finding ways to lure the innocent into illegal acts should not be acceptable to any of us. We need to speak up about that.


Tags: , , , , , , ,





Monday, November 29, 2010

Turner Still Claims Big Honking Integrity

Chuck Turner has the bluster and belly. Mike Ross has the other kind of guts.

Boston City Councilor Turner is already whipping out what he say is his super-sized integrity. In advance of his expulsion hearing Wednesday afternoon, he said, "I think it's funny when they say they are going to vote me off to protect the integrity of the Council. I think I have the best a record of moral and fiscal integrity on this council. For the council to vote me off because of integrity is absurd."

The Globe carries the tale of Council President Ross' letter to the body calling for Turner's ouster...by Friday. Universal Hub serves up the 13-page document, replete with opinion from the city attorney that Turner can speak at the hearing but not vote.

Back in more mannered places and centuries, Turner would likely have resigned when he was charged with corruption in talking a bribe and lying to the FBI about it. He seemed buoyed by charges though, as he did when he was convicted, and now that he faces being voted out of office.

Ross lacks the noise, but is not entirely without quiet drama of his own. He is in the unenviable position of chairing a board at a tough time. He has been a solid leader during this entire prolonged episode. It is a bit of a shame that presidents there can serve only two years and he is finishing his second next month.

For the rules-are-rules crowd, several come into play. One is that the Council's unanimously agreed to rules require an expulsion hearing whenever a member receives a felony conviction. Another at the state level requires removal of any public official sentenced to jail or prison for a felony. For Wednesday's hearing, the Council requires a two-thirds vote to toss a member, which would be eight of 13 in this case, even without Turner voting.

Turner continues to negotiate and will likely try again in two days. His final ploy as been to ask for a postponement of action by the Council pending his January 25th sentencing in federal court. Just maybe, he reasons, he'll get probation, thus technically avoiding the mandatory loss of his seat under state law.

That seems highly unlikely, as it involves a guilty verdict of four counts — $1,000 bribe and three lying to the FBI. While summed, those could equal 35 years or so, the Globe quotes an ex-federal prosecutor as saying the guidelines are for 15 to 21 months.

This mess could have dribbled off into prolonged ignominy...had Ross not taken charge in City Hall. Turner had already repeatedly played racial victim. He noted that he and convicted State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson were the only two current officials charged by the feds and both are black. Another Councilor, the other Charles, Yancey, agreed with this judgment at a Turner rally.

Thus, Ross was in the spotlight, with a passive or hostile audience. Councilors were avoiding talking about Turner, like the situation might just vanish. Even before today's letter and packet, Ross had made it plain though they they had to have the hearing and had no reason to wait for the sentencing. It was Turner's conviction that triggered the trial-like meeting.

Even before he won this month's special election to replace Councilor John Tobin, who took a job at Northeastern, Matt O'Malley said that unless something really unexpected and convincing happened at the hearing, he'd have to vote for Turner's removal. Likewise, several other Councilors have mumbled that they may well do the same.

For his part, we may have a preview of Turner's script on Wednesday. He told the Herald that he was set up, as in, "The issue of my moral and fiscal integrity, I don’t think can be questioned. Obviously the FBI set up a situation to remove me from office."

Ross' package to his peers praised Turner mightily, but returned repeatedly to the rule of law, federal, state and city. He included, "We are not above he law and none of us is above the rules we have established as a body. If we act as if we are, t his body loses its credibility, its integrity and the trust of the people we serve. Many are cynical of government as it is, we cannot add to their mistrust."

He followed that with the motion he will put before the body on Wednesday:

Ordered: That under the authority vested in the City Council by St. 1951 c. 376 § 17 and pursuant to the procedures set forth in City Council Rule 40A, the City Council, in consideration of his qualification to serve as a member of the Boston City Council, now moves that Councilor Chuck Turner vacate the office of City Councilor effective Friday, December 3, 2010.

Note that this order makes no mention of any crimes or convictions. Unlike U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, Turner's punishment is not to include a public admonishment in front of the body. Rangel though will be unlikely to serve prison time despite seemingly much worse offenses. Turner may lose his pension, but not what he's paid into it, plus interest.

Turner could have made it easy for everyone. That has never been his style. In his role, Ross could have been cowardly and even acquiesced to Turner's call for no hearing until after sentencing. Yet the facts are now that Turner talks integrity and Ross lives it.

Cross-post note: This appears at Harrumph! also.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, March 01, 2009

Chuck Turner's Strident Adventure


Chuck Turner keeps teaching us, but likely not the lesson he shouts with such volume and repetition. The big lessons will come with the dénouement.

Charged in a corruption sting, accused of extorting a bribe from a businessman seeking a liquor license, Turner has attacked relentlessly.

His campaign of PR and rallies casts him as the wronged hero, a singular champion of the downtrodden beset by racist, classist bigots. He is the pure one, he would have it, while U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan is the villain. He wants charges dropped and Sullivan destroyed for prosecuting him.

Not only does that make for great theater, and rallying cries for the faithful, but he has a slight chance of sliding out punishment for his pretty obvious misdeeds. Sullivan has a much stronger case against the accustomed-to-plea-bargaining Dianne Wilkerson in the same sting operation. In her usual clumsy and arrogant way, the disgraced ex-State Senator surely will plea yet again or pack up her toothbrush for federal prison.

In contrast, Turner seemed an afterthought. Oh, as long as we nab one corrupt pol, let's go for a pair, appears the reasoning. Turner's obvious acceptance of cash on video is not as definitive. While that should not have inspired Turner to claim he is both a the African-American hero in Boston, it does give him the possibility of pretending taking money was both a one-time event and also confused for a campaign contribution. As Wilkerson had previously proven, it's not hard to game the campaign-finance system, pay a fine and keep on keeping on.

Meanwhile, he has staged an undercard, the right to defame the prosecution for its handling of the case. Sullivan must be a hard nose himself. He has gone to court in response, claiming he can parcel out accusations against Turner while forbidding him from revealing any exculpating details.

Turner's bluster plays well in Dorchester, where many see him as politically righteous. In what he has grandiloquently begun calling my Campaign for Truth, Light, and Justice, the city councilor tries to remove himself from what we ordinary humans think of as honesty and integrity.

Turner seemed an afterthought



It may come to his admitting that okay, just maybe he took $1,000, but it was certainly not a bribe in his mind, just a faithful voter who happens to be a businessman looking for a booze license. If Sullivan doesn't have additional witnesses and audio or video, his sloppiness could let Turner skip with minor penalties.

Neither accused nor accuser seems candid and both are obnoxiously cocksure. I for one would rather the resolution was a simplistic and straightforward as Turner presents it. He'd be the champion of the oppressed and those who accuse him are the bad guys.

Unfortunately, it's not that binary. Turner clearly has made a career in Boston government of advocating for the poor, particularly his core African-American voters. He has been one of the strongest councilors in constituent service.

Yet, we are looking the flipped log in the forest. The bugs scatter in the light. Both in the State House and City Hall, we have too many proven cases of petty and large corruption. His saying, "Trust me," does not carry that much weight. We've heard it too many times from others who proved untrustworthy.

Most unfortunately for Turner, corruption prosecutions aren't offsetting. You don't get a stay-out-of-court card for doing good deeds for voters.

Tags: , , ,, ,

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A Cork in Chuck Turner

So, is it true you've been in withdrawal with no news about Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner? Well, Adam over at Universal Hub has the big needle ready for you. He compiled the new docs in the case to ease your pain.

The Turner troops have not responded...yet, but they surely shall. The news is that Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court here cuffed the obstreperous pol. He granted the prosecution request to stifle Turner from going public with any discovery material in his bribery case.

The simultaneous keening of woe-is-me and racism must already be filling Turner's lungs. On the face of it, there's some cause.

Prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, does seem to suffer a bit from DA syndrome. He seems to see himself as right and righteous, and anyone he charges as guilty, guilty, guilty per se. It is unfortunate as both current defendants with linked charges that he:
  1. Did not wait until he also had evidence on some non-African-American crooks. He got the only black state senator, Dianne Wilkerson and Turner.
  2. Did not take the time to build a great instead of merely good case against Turner.

Those seem sins springing from the arrogance of a self-defined crusader.

Start with Hillman's St. Patrick's Day eve decision. It's only five pages of meat and as clear and concise a legal document as you'll see this month.

His decision details the inequality in permitting Sullivan to distribute pix of the pols grabbing the dough they did not report while ordering Turner to stop his melodramatic spewing of evidence to counter the obvious. In no small part, Turner lost this motion because he so heavily overplayed his hand in rallies, press conferences and media appearances. He's never been subtle and never been shy, but his theater suggests he may not be anywhere as bright as his I-have-a-Harvard-degree cutout suggests.

Hillman cites at length a U.S. Supreme Court case [Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199 (1984)] whose findings detail conditions under which discovery material protective orders do not violate defendants' First Amendment rights. Those on are page three of Hillman's ruling.

Here, Sullivan's people has a much better sent of arguments (see Adam's other references). On one hand, Hillman agrees that the release of pix of the pols taking cash "...while clearly permissible, added little to the establishment of probably cause and may have served to ratchet up the publicity." I would add that this is more of Sullivan's version of petty drama.

Yet, Hillman continues, "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." This is where a calmer and out-of-character Turner would have bided his time and played the unfairness card at the trial or plea level. He just couldn't do it.

The emotional aspects aside, what seems to have swayed Hillman to Sullivan's side is that there seems to be a ton of sensitive discovery information. Some of it involves unrevealed grand-jury witnesses. On top of the likelihood that these data might serve to intimidate corruption witnesses, the ruling found:
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.
In other words, he didn't want any opportunity to clog up the prosecution and didn't trust Turner's side to be honorable.

Yet, Hillman expects and enabled the bluster to continue minus discovery stuff. As he wrote, "...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."

That would be a more thoughtful and measured public argument with less drama. That robs us of much of Turner's entertainment value in the name of fair trials for Wilkerson and Turner. Once she cuts her plea deal, we'll see how he and his attorneys play it.

Next Day Follow-Up: Tip of the toupee to Universal Hub's Adam for checking Turner's main website. The councilor says he'll run again but step down by 2012. It reads like it has hidden unnoticed there awhile, saying he'd wait until February to discuss agenda.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Anguish and Necessity Over Chuck Turner

The punchline is that Charles A. Chuck Turner received a new distinction today — the first Boston City Councilor ever to be expelled from the body.

The process was intended to be dispassionate, but the peanut gallery of supporters would not allow that. From shortly after the pledge of allegiance, the call-and-response, catcalls and nasty insults tainted the already emotionally laden special meeting in Council chambers.

In the end, the numbers that counted were that more than the required eight Councilors voted for his expulsion following his four-count felony conviction of taking a $1,000 bribe and lying repeatedly to the FBI about doing so. Deemed by Council President Michael Ross on advice of Boston corporate counsel William Sinnott to have a vested interest in whether he kept his job and paycheck, Turner agreed he would speak but not otherwise act in the meeting. That meant he was disqualified from voting and the two-thirds majority to oust him would become eight of 12 instead of nine of 13. Also, he could not offer amendments to the order to leave the Council under consideration.

Visit from Don Quixote


The vote was 11 to one to expel Turner. Getting to the quick vote took about 100 minutes, largely thanks to Turner's speeches and as much to supporter Councilor Charles Yancey.

I found brief amusement when he first spoke right after Ross opened the proceedings. The humor came from Yancey playing Turner's frequent role of Don Quixote. This other Charles raced at the windmill of the expulsion order, using a limp parliamentary lance.

He did, in fact, sound much like Turner in threatening first Ross and subsequently the whole Council with legal liability, ignominy and, of course, likely loss in the next elections. He based these on two of the rules under which the Council operates — 33 and 47. The gist was that things the Council votes on can't be done the same day they first hear of the proposal.

To keep things kosher, this being the first day of Hanukkah after all, Ross ask lawyerly types, including Sinnott to confer in a brief recess to answer Yancey's drama. The response and subsequent expansion when Yancey iterated and reiterated his charges of bastardizing the laws, rules, Council's integrity, yadda, yadda, was that Council rule 40A had them well covered.

These developed when Turner was first under indictment, the Council realized they had no rule to deal with a felony conviction. As a body and unanimously, they developed 40A and approved it over two years ago. This rule calls for just the type of fitness/expulsion hearing held today and in effect enables what happened and was never needed before.

Yancey's windmill tilting will surely reappear and be repeated by Turner's supporters and conspiracy theorists. Yet repeating at increasing volume that the rules don't use the term "expel" anywhere doesn't change anything. In his expanded explanation, Sinnott was losing patience as he granted Yancey inclusion into the larger body of reasonable people who could understand that 40A covered the proceedings.

Sincerity v. Slander


Regardless, the most moving moments came from the two young Councilors who consider Turner a mentor. Felix Arroyo and Ayanna Pressley each read from carefully prepared remarks, in often quavering deliveries. They independently developed very similar speeches. The thrust of each was that they respected and loved Turner, that he had taught them to do what they knew was right and never to hid or run from a conflict. Each than said the vote to expel him was wrenching but necessary.

Turner supporters were at their most obnoxious during these poignant speeches. The overflow who moved into the nearby Curley room (named for the Boston alderman [pre-Council Councilor equivalent] and mayor who served time for corruption) could be heard bellowing for Yancey and Turner's remarks.

Several times, the sincere and decorous Ross called for order and was reduced to threatening to clear the room and finish the proceedings without an audience despite Turner's request for openness. He responded to the most loutish of the audience screaming about racism, electoral retribution and such repeatedly.

Arroyo was greeted not with compassion as he bared his torment, but with calls from two elderly black women behind me of Uncle Tomás (racist as well as muddled Spanish). Pressley got multiple interruptions of "Shame" and "2011" referring to the next election. Cruelly, the worst came as she faced Turner in the adjacent chair and spoke of her feelings for him and the torment of her decision.

Meanwhile, for both speeches, Turner was rapt and seemingly moved. He's a do-gooder, but also quite an egotist. He seemed to relish hearing of his virtues, even from protégés who intended to vote for his ouster. His seated and standing mob did not pick up on his equanimity.

Earlier Yancey had finally accepted that his parliamentary ploy would fail. He suggested fellow Councilors abstain in the vote, robbing the proposal of the necessary eight votes.

No other Councilor spoke, which itself said volumes. They did not try to justify anything. They made no excuses. No one, even Yancey, offered any amendments. Also, when the roll-call came, it was quick, stark and unequivocal. They went by seniority, starting with 27-year vet Yancey. His was the only no vote. The 11 yes votes came quickly and without comment.

Tomorrow, I'll collect a few quotes and beef up the coverage. Unfortunately, Turner's lengthy statements were not the stuff of oratorical legend. He spoke in mangled metaphors, this time, comparing himself to the Boston Irish-Americans, repressed by Yankees who used laws immorally to crush those they considered inferior.

Alas, this meeting was not Turner's finest moment. Yancey tried a lawyer's trick, even though the closest he has gotten to being one is an honorary law degree from Mount Ida. Turner fell into logical fallacies with his own version of if-the-glove-don't-fit summation with a vote-against-expulsion-unless-you're-sure-you're-more-moral-than-I tack. Both approaches were sure losers and convinced no one.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Turner Re-tells His Truth

Nice get by Commonwealth Magazine — a post-sentencing Chuck Turner interview. Truth be told though, I expected something new, some insights. Nah.

For the positive, ex-Boston City Councilor Turner remains consistent in claiming innocence of taking a bribe and lying to the feds about it. For the negative, the story as he tells it still isn't credible.

Colman Herman wrote the piece. His is noted for such as winning a class-action suit about unpriced items and for kicking the Bay State Banner down the hall for supporting Mayor Tom Menino. I'm not sure any other of us would have come up with more revealing questions for Turner, but Herman certainly stuck to the predictable.

He did tie in the Banner by quoting the publisher/editor Melvin Miller as saying Turner had made mistakes you'd expect from an old man. He quotes Turner as thinking Miller was trying to help and that he was his usual patronizing self.

Otherwise, it's a rehash of stale coverage. The only wrinkle is a wee one. He iterated that he would not run for office when he got out of prison after his three-year sentence, with the nuance being, "...although I think I probably could be elected in my community.

Back on this planet, it will almost certainly be Tito Jackson taking the District 7 seat in the special election 3/15 and barring anything stupid and surprising, for a full two-year term in the regular in November. For Turner meanwhile, it is messy details to be decided:
  • Will he get to keep his full pension or just what he put in with interest?
  • Will the SJC rule that the Council had the right to expel him in December, or if not not, award him back pay for about six weeks between that and 1/25 sentencing?
More broadly, I am not at all convinced that the small cadre of Turner fans will be able to follow through with their threats to punish the expellers (that is the whole Council except for Charles Yancey). More narrowly, despite the obvious sincere remarks at the special meeting in December, will newish Councilors Ayanna Pressley and Felix Arroyo the younger suffer for voting with the others to oust Turner?

I was at that meeting and remain stunned recalling the vitriol directed that the pair. The screams and chants of "Shame!" and calls about the next election were at once cruel and rawly emotional. The people behind and beside me yelling made it plain at high volume that they were outraged that a Latino and black woman would dare vote against a black man...pure color identity.

Yet, both Pressley and Arroyo were plain too, in softer tones. They were voting their conscience, something they learned by lesson and example from Chuck Turner.

By the time Turner returns, his legacy may get a bit of burnishing. After all, he set the modern standard for constituent services. Plus, he hand-picked Tito Jackson to run for his spot. As such, what the new accomplishes will reflect positively on the old. The felony convictions might end up being a footnote.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 20, 2009

Guilty Rich Guy for Chuck Turner

This evening, you can nosh and gnash with Chuck Turner...for a minimum contribution of $25. Philanthropist by spousal inheritance, David Ludlow, of JP is giving it up for the indicted-for-corruption Boston City Councilor.

Details are on Turner's defense site and and at Open Media. Overlooking the White Stadium side of Franklin Park, you'll have access to Turner, Mel King, and "beer, wine, many Hors d’Oeuvres, a chicken and a fish entre." (The promo is sincere but replete with typos.)

Ludlow is a quiet, but big-time, giver to many causes. His wife's death in a climbing accident 13 years ago left him with a multimillion dollar trust fund. He belongs to a group that vows to give at least 50% of their annual incomes to charities and other good causes.

He describes his late wife as an "anti-racism activist." With control of the fortune, he turned to lefty causes, including founding Social Justice Education.org.

Today's event promo includes Ludlow's reasoning:
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.
As an aside, the Turner site and this promo ask that checks be to Committee to Re-elect Chuck Turner. That doesn't seem wise or legally clean, particularly as Turner is facing charges and in his statements he admits he may not have been 100% scrupulous in accounting for his contributions. In fact, he says that if he accepted the $1,000 from a businessman, he figured it was such a campaign contribution. That would have been double the legal maximum per person and would have required recording and filing.

Regardless, Turner with dead-animal entrées anyone?

Tags: , , , ,

Friday, January 07, 2011

As the Turner Worms

News and noise on the Chuck Turner phalanx as replacement candidates settle and fellow convicted pol gets her sentence...

The probably highly caffeinated Gintautas Dumcius over at Dot News provides the breakdown of who's in already for the Boston City Council District 7 seat. Bribery/lying-to-feds convicted Chuck Turner is still trying his damnedest to queer the preliminary and final special elections to replace him after his ousting from Council.

He is most probably but not certainly going to fail in forcing the city to reschedule his replacement. However, he faces sentencing in federal court on January 25th. The state law that tosses convicted felons out of elected office if they get as much as a day in prison would kick in when he gets any cell time. He goes before the same First Circuit Judge Douglas P. Woodlock, who just sentenced ex-State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson to 42 months for her version of taking bribes.

So we get to speculate on many things. First, will Turner's crazy suit to keep his Council office until the state drives him out like the scapegoat into the desert stay in play?

As we have come to expect from him, he is right and righteous and we're all wrong and immoral where he disagree with him. In this case, he'd have it that while the Council as a body has the right to determine who is fit to sit on it, it doesn't have the power to expel a member for any reason.

The reasoning was expounded upon repeated at the special meeting in the first week of last month to consider what to do following his conviction on four federal felonies. Councilor Charles Yancey was the surrogate and acted as Greek chorus. His inane call that absent a specific phrase that used the term "expel" the Council was powerless, powerless I say, to do anything about it.

That's heavy bluster and hair splitting for a non-lawyer. Yancey pulled his longest-serving-Councilor and he's read the city charter many times cards. Yawn.

So back to 2011 and back to this more tangible world, we have to wonder what Wilkerson's slammer slam means to Chuck Turner. His charm and failing are that he doesn't let more widely perceived reality and facts interfere with his perception of himself and his role, his marvelous role.

So far, he has steadfastly held that he was targeted for a corruption sting because of his race and his outspoken advocacy of his constituents. Outside of court, he claims innocence of the bribe. Inside, he suddenly and incredibly feigns loss of memory...of the event, the person involved, the cash, of everything.

In contrast, Wilkerson coped a plea for dropping a couple dozen other charges and admitting to taking over $23,000 in bribes. She wrote Woodlock a long letter saying she was sorry. Unfortunately, both in the letter and in her statements at her sentencing, she tried to finesse her guilt and in effect say it wasn't her fault.

Woodlock scolded her and found her symptomatic of the larger culture of corruption and compliance in the commonwealth. He's certainly unlikely to take kindly to Turner's lecturing him on law and racism and that other corruption, that of federal investigators and prosecutors.

So, can we suppose Turner will look at Wilkerson's clumsy efforts to avoid prison time and change his posture? Probably not. He's always enjoyed being the victim, individually and as members of various classes and races and political stripes.

To his advantage, this was his first provable incidence of corruption. His supporters contend it was his only one, except for those who say the video lies and it never happened.

Often first-time offenders get probation or at last minimal sentences. Yet, that's not about to happen here. While his $1,000 bribe seems wee in the corruption world, his three related felony convictions of lying to the FBI about taking that grand are damning, particularly at the federal-court level. I don't see how the judge can do anything short of sending him to prison for a year or even two.

Given Woodlock's strong condemnation of corruption and the need to punish crooked pols, he might not even be impressed if Turner suddenly admitted guilt and claimed contrition. We are unlikely to know, as there is almost no chance of a mea culpa from the self-defined "bald, bold and bright."

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Chuck Turner and Portents of Doom


Here a Louis. There a Louis.


Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner explicitly compares himself to Rosa Parks, James Michael Curley (and generations of repressed Boston Irish Americans) and numerous martyrs. He implicitly invokes French King Louis XV.

Attributed to Le Roi was "Après moi, le déluge" — imprecisely, after I go, all hell will break loose.

For Turner and his supporters, the updated version is that any Councilor who voted to expel him from the body will at the very least lose the position in the next election. Moreover, his chum and sole Councilor who voted not to oust him, Charles Yancey, repeatedly warned President Mike Ross and Boston Corporate Attorney William Sinnott that they were acting illegally and would surely lose a certain-to-follow lawsuit.

That is a fascinating phenomenon. The most self-important and emotionally involved believe themselves to be both always right and absolutely essential.

It brings to mind the first meeting I attended as a new board member of a major downtown church. It was in terrific financial, membership and other trouble, which I knew when I ran for the position. I was not aware of how angry the very controlling and self-righteous church administrator was.

Rather than give her report at the meeting, she resigned...with great drama. The same person who required the sexton to come to her to unlock a closet containing toilet-paper rolls, came like a Disney-movie witch with portents of doom. The church would not be able to function without her. She regretted she had to leave and that the church would fold without her guidance and constant oversight, but she was out of there.

Well, as these things tend to happen, a bunch of us turned around that church, which has thrived. The administrator's egocentric passion for the position was at once admirable and pathetic. In the end, she was not holding the church together, was not essential, and was not larger than the whole works.


Doom Drama


That was a heavy fingered lead-in to another light on the historic occurrence yesterday on the fifth floor of Boston's City Hall, in the Council chamber. That would be the first expulsion of a Council member since the body replaced the Board of Alderman as the city's regulatory body in 1909.

When Councilor Chuck Turner was severed from the body by a vote of 11 to 1, he tripped and fell into history.

...and for history, he loves to cite and manipulate the past for present polemics. Turner often mentions that he has a BA from Harvard and uses that to vet the strangest and often highly questionable assertions.

Yesterday, he spoke twice from the floor of chamber and managed simultaneously to challenge and insult the whole body of 12 peers as well as the five Irish-American members. He recently compared himself in courage and victim status to numerous famous folk, including Rosa Parks. Yesterday, it was Irish Bostonians and their most famous pol, Alderman, Mayor and Governor James Michael Curley.

While irony is a much overused term, on a par with tragedy, we don't need to know much 20th Century Boston history to appreciate the Curley connection. Immediately, at Turner's request during a recess for Ross to confer with Sinnott and other lawyers, supporters got to go into the Curley Room a few dozen feet from the chamber. It had a TV with a feed from the meeting. While Ross requested quiet and respect for the proceedings, noting that Turner had asked that what would normally occur in private to be open, his fans of over 100 acted more like they were at a hockey game or at the least a tent meeting with an evangelical preacher.

Repeatedly, roars, boos and slurs carried over from the Curley room. When Councilors Yancey or Turner spoke, every claim or conclusion brought forth loud reaction. When the two Councilors, Felix Arroyo and Ayanna Pressley, haltingly delivered their emotional apologies for voting for his expulsion, a half dozen or more in the chamber itself interrupted them with calls of "shame" and worse, and cries of "2011!" implying they would surely lose their seats in the next election.

There was high contrast to the feral and emotional Turner, Yancey and fans with the civility, seriousness and calmness of the rest of Council. Only Sinnott, the city's main lawyer, stumbled a bit when Yancey doggedly reiterated his charges of illegal actions and refused to admit that the rule the Council adopted unanimously (including he and Turner) permitted expelling a convicted felon. Sinnott clearly is not used to such personal challenges. He could take a chill short course from Ross.

Back to Curley, how odd that Turner picked him. As a local folk hero, particularly among Irish-Bostonians, Curley carries the picaresque shield and sword of the rascal warrior. In the last throes of power by the old-line Yankee Bostonians, he showed them how to play and win at politics.

Along the way though, he got sloppy. He was indicted first for felony influence peddling and then separately for mail fraud. He spent five months in federal prison before the MA Congressional delegation successfully pressured President Harry Truman for a pardon. Meanwhile, under indictment, he won reelection as mayor, although Boston defeated him after prison when he ran again.

Another obvious comparison is that both were seen to have taken money illegally, but not necessarily to enrich themselves. I think running for reelection biennially means constantly fund raising and thus being at risk for inappropriate contributions in amount or source. Yet there is no evidence that Turner was personally greedy.

So, Turner would have us equate him with Curley? Well, yes, but not for the obvious reasons. Both were found guilty of fast and loose money raising, handling and not reporting.

What Turner had in mind yesterday though was a class, culture and race-based analogy. He resurrected the Yankee Boston pols and aristocrats of the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries as villains, sort of political zombies, in modern parlance (mine, not Turner's). He called upon the five Councilors of Irish heritage to compare his case with the history of repression in Boston...of their kind.

Feeble Ploy


That tack led nowhere. Keeping an eye on the attentive but inexpressive Councilors, I saw neither sympathy nor outrage. To me, and apparently from their vote to them, Turner was stretching way too far to portray himself as the natural extension of Curley and the Boston Irish.

Pix note: I insert a couple of images from the proceedings. I apologize that the camera and particularly its weak flash was not up to the room and distance.

The Herald has never liked Turner and loves to stir the pot whenever race and culture are in the soup. This morning, they ran a piece quoting state Rep. Marty Walsh and South Boston's favorite hater, Wacko Hurley, as discrediting Turner's linking himself with Irish Americans.

It seems likely that even Turner fans would wonder why he went off the long-time approach of being prosecuted and persecuted because he was black and because he described the oppression of his constituents, particularly the black, Latino and poor. Somehow, I don't see his voters as likening him to the Irish.

Yet after Turner's expulsion, his claque followed him down the hallways and stairs to the front of the building, chanting their support. They still want retribution.

No Hiding


The true oddment here is that courageous and necessary actions by Ross are the catalyst here.

He could easily have finished his two-year term as Council President without dealing with Turner, leaving it for the likely successor, Steve Murphy, or simply the lapping tide of events. Turner's federal sentencing on his four felony counts is 1/25/11. He almost certainly will receive some prison time. As such, state law would require his removal from office, leaving a timorous Council membership free from having to discipline one of their own.

Ross strikes me very much in the Boy Scout mold, or perhaps a lead in a John Wayne Western. He's a do-what's-right kind of guy. He did as he as been doing.

Yesterday's session tok an hour and a half, largely because of Yancey's maneuvering and Turner's lectures and portents of doom. Then too was another chance for Ross to chicken out. He could have cowed to Yancey's attempted trick and pushed off the hearing, pending death by committee.

Instead, he precisely, fully and carefully explained Council rule 40A, which the whole body had created and voted unanimously over two years ago. When Turner was indicted, they discovered they had no enabling mechanism to deal with a felony conviction by a member and passed 40A to be able to have just such a decision as they reached yesterday.

Rule 40A. Pursuant to the city charter and in accordance with the open meeting law, the council president may refer a matter to the council upon his/her determination that any member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Boston City Council or may be unqualified to sit on the body. A member may be unqualified by violating federal or state law, or any conditions imposed by the city’s charter, which includes violating any provisions of the three oaths of office.
The council president shall automatically refer a matter to the council upon a felony conviction of any member by any state or federal court.
Any action by the council taken in response to any referral shall require a two-thirds (2/3) majority roll call vote and will be in accordance with local, state and federal law.

In addition to his painstaking refutation of Yancey's parliamentary gambit, Ross strove to give the voting public some fresh proof that the Council and city government at large had a respect for rule of law.

In 13-page preparatory packet to inform the Councilors of the issues and options on Turner, Ross concluded one section with "We are not above the law and none of us is above the rules we have established as a body. If we act as if we are, this body loses its credibility, its integrity and the trust of the people we serve. Many are cynical of government as it is, we cannot add to their mistrust."

It is a pity that Yancey gave Turner's supporters fodder for feeding a beast of conspiracy and victimhood. The idea that Ross in particular and the Council more widely acted illegally is absurd and Yancey surely knows that.

That's irrelevant though. Yancey's arrow long left his bow. The question now is how accurate are the curses of Turner's opponents and his own allusions that voters will as a body rise up and punish the 11 of 12 Councilors to a man and woman come the next two elections?

I say chicken lips!

Turner will be a jailed felon shortly, as will state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, caught in the same odious federal sting operation. Nearly everyone I know joins me is disrespecting the type of sting operation of manufactured temptation that netted Turner. Yet whether through disregard of known laws, sloppy inattention and accounting or simple arrogance, Turner was nabbed and convicted. As his protégé Felix Arroyo said in his emotional remarks at the hearing, "In the end, we cannot escape our mistakes. We cannot escape our deeds."

Even before yesterday's meeting, Turner had grandiose descriptions of how he'd organize prisoners if he ended up in jail. It is unlikely that a short-timer in a federal prison would have any meaningful impact, but it's a good pre-mythology. Turn is forever editing the book of his life.

Instead, it is likely that another strong advocate of the poor and middle-class people of color who comprise most of District 7 will take over Turner's seat in a special election. My bet is for the charismatic Tito Jackson. He lacks Turner's capacity for B.S. but not his clarity of purpose or worthy goals.

Given those developments, there is little immediacy or even need to consider replacing any of the 11. The greatest impetus would be in Turner's district, where the voters will already have made their choice. The chance of driving out anyone else is slim indeed.

Turner's other dire prophesy goes to his often repeated claim that 90% of politicians, including fellow Councilors, are dirty and take money. He also claims to be the most honest and moral of the lot.

Yet so far, our Speakers of the House (three of the last four) are driven out and/or convicted of corruption, but not so Boston Councilors. Turner's fantasy that they all will earn and fail scrutiny was very unlikely before and given the infamy of his slow, endless fall over the past three years, any Councilor would be a total ass to take any risks.

In fact, his disgrace may be the greatest insurance we have had of political integrity. Don't be that guy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 29, 2010

Chuck Roast in Boston


It's time to whip out some Greek and Latin, like hubris and ipse dixit. Charles A. Turner overplayed both and got caught this afternoon, found guilty on all four corruption accounts — attempted extortion and three of lying to the FBI.

Chuck Turner seems to have lapsed in his folklore here. It's believe half of what you see and none of what you hear, not the other way around.

I can hear him now, saying such criticism is only because he is black. He said that about his entrapment by the FBI in taking money from a businessman for help getting a liquor license. That claim has some credibility when you consider that so far only two local pols have pleaded or been found guilty to corruption, both ex-Sen. Dianne Wilkerson and Turner black. That will likely lose its punch as former House Speaker Salvatore F. (Sal) DiMasi goes to trial on his corruption charges.

Regardless, I call arrogance on Turner.
Background material: The Globe account today has lots of detail, including the 1/25/11 sentencing-hearing date, that he's likely to lose his pension and what options the city has in replacing Turner. UniversalHub reports that Council President Michael Ross is meeting with city lawyers to make sure they proceed correctly. Turner's Council page, which may vaporize soon, is here. The Boston Herald coverage has post-verdict quotes from Turner — he's an organizer, who'll "organize in jail" if sent there and "I’m not the first person who’s innocent to be sent to jail."
He has long been great on bluster as well as leveraging his race, age, class and whatever tools he finds lying around. Unfortunately the 70-year-old Harvard grad has often done so without those messy facts or provable details.

That was certainly the case when he insisted on testifying, and being his defense's sole witness. We were to take him at his word and that would be that — ipse dixit.

With hard-to-see but still visible and audible tape of him taking what sure looked like money from an FBI informant, he needed some kind of convincing proof,...anything of substance.

Instead, he claims not to have known the man in his office and certainly not to have taken a bribe. He claims that if he took anything from him, it would not be a bribe to help him get a license. He couldn't remember the person, the meeting, the handshake and transfer...anything.

Lackaday, the jurors saw the transfer of something and heard the informant and FBI agent's testimony. Apparently they believed at least half of what they saw.

It's pathetic in a human and political sense. A Councilor I respect greatly, John Connolly, has often spoken well of Turner. Connolly chairs and Turner has been a member of the education committee. They have worked together for the good of the kids in public schools for a long time.

Turner's other often-repeated claim that 90% of city pols are dirty may be hyperbole but probably has considerable truth to it. He certainly is not the only bribable one. Short of the U.S. Attorney or FBI admitting they picked him in part because of his race, we aren't likely to know whether that played any role here.

I'm betting that even with four counts, if Turner ends up having to serve any jail time, it won't be long. However, we can be sure if he goes, his cellmates will get an earful, an education, and lessons in polemics.

Late afternoon follow-up: Council President Ross promises a hearing in two weeks and continuity for constituents in District 7.

Halloween follow-up: While I mingled with the pleasant people, Turner did what he does second best — define all in his terms. A tip of the toupee here to UniversalHub for the pointer. At his rally yesterday, he laid down the hate on everyone involved in his sting and trial and concluded he'd never resign from the Council, and wouldn't leave, short of a bullet to the head. By the bye, for all the ego and rhetoric, what he does best is look out for his district's constituents.

Tags: , , , ,

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Stings, Home Rule, Fairness

Turner/Wilkerson fatigue is common in both Boston City Hall and the State House. For example, recent past-Council President Mike Ross writes that Turner's sentencing yesterday, "This is a sad day for all of us. Chuck was a colleague of mine for a decade. My thoughts are with Chuck and his family as they process the sentence handed down this afternoon." Likewise, new Council President Steve Murphy said, "This is a sad end to a sad ordeal."

Let it not be the end. There are two kinds of unfinished business here — Turner related and broader.

While Turner and his lawyer have announced a likely quixotic appeal of his 3-year plus 3 more supervised release sentence, everyone else seems eager to whistle a happy tune and get back to shoveling snow. Seven District 7 residents are running to replace him on Council.


City Powers and Home Rule


Between Turner's conviction on four federal felonies related to corruption and lying about it, Turner filed legal action, as threatened or at least foreshadowed by a friend and fellow Councilor. In the early December Council special meeting that ended up expelling Turner, Charles Yancey as much as promised an after-the-fact suit.

The claim in the suit was that the Council did not have the authority to expel a member. While the city's charter lets the Council make its own rules and procedures and one of those unanimously approved rules is to decide whether a Councilor convicted of a felony should continue to serve, Yancey sounded like a lawyer on it. He is not. However, he demanded that they not expel Turner unless the charter specifically used a term like expel for Councilors.

That seems silly and literal beyond credibility and reason. Yet this still needs resolution.

Turner and his lawyer in the suit, Chester Darling, could withdraw the action following Turner's sentencing yesterday. They had sued for his reinstatement, citing their claim the Council had expelled him improperly. When he got prison time, the state law removing him from office kicked in.

Here's hoping the suit continues and that the Supreme Judicial Court makes a quick decision on it.

If the SJC does not rule in what seems obvious to me — that the city and Council and the city's general counsel had done adequate preparation — then the larger battle of home rule looms. My take on that is even more severe.

The General Court, our legislature, has a colonial legacy view on municipalities that came over into our constitution and badly needs overhaul. Cities and towns have to beseech the GC for the smallest, most sensible changes and if viewed favorably by the paternalist legislature, the municipality has to rewrite its charter and return to beg lawmakers to approve it.

Home rule is a sad term that means the opposite of how it reads. Boston and other cities simply do not have the power to rule at home. The GC reserves all such power.

This, of course, is also a silly waste of time. The legislators could be doing more meaningful deeds and thinking deep or shallow thoughts to benefit their constituents instead.

What they need to do is revise home rule so that simple changes that do not commit commonwealth resources or conflict with MA laws are none of the GC's business. There should be no more pathetic mayoral or city manager trips, figuratively crawling on hands and knees to the Hooker entrance of the State House.

About Those Stings...


Surely of more immediate and widespread interest though is that sting thing. Should the feds be about the business of entrapment, particularly of officials with no history of corruption?

In this case, then State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson by her own admission was taking bribes. She seemed a likely subject for surveillance and other investigation. She pointed one of their informants to Turner, suggesting he deserved some of the bribes for a liquor license.

So, there was a link to at least the hearsay of criminal intent, from a tax evader and provably corrupt politician. Yet, Turner had no previous convictions for anything or even charges or for that matter reasonable suspicions.

That's galling to many, including me.

Turner's take loudly, publicly and often has been that the FBI and federal prosecutors engaged in a racist take-down of two activist black pols. While he seems to be one of the few people in the world who believes that he did not, would not and could not take that $1,000 bribe and lie to the feds repeatedly about it, behind all of his obscuring paranoia and polemics are some worthwhile questions.

Turners sensational claims of highly questionable rationale obscure the underlying issues. That's a pity.

Sure, it is obvious he was entrappable (if that's a legit word). Sure, he took a bribe, although there is no clear evidence on his video that he immediately promised a tit for tat — the essence of corruption in public office. Sure, he lied about it repeatedly to the FBI, prosecutors and the court...and perhaps to himself as well as his constituents.

Let's not lose sight of the question of whether this is the best or even an acceptable way for criminal investigators to act. We seem to have a consensus that we don't want the corruption for which MA among other states is known. We would like the crooked pols and employees identified and removed from public service.

Yet does manufacturing an enticement that an elected official ends up falling for protect us really?

In many ways this plays out more like a romantic comedy of recent years where a spouse or lover sends a surrogate to lure her or his partner into bed. Does either kind of set up, pol or partner, prove the target is already a cheater or instead does it prove that under extreme temptation, most of us would fall short.

It is possible that Chuck Turner has been taking small amounts of money or years. Lord knows, it must be hard to raise campaign funds almost weekly for an office that requires running for reelection every two years. Yet, we have no reason to believe he was consistently crooked.

Everyone outside of the FBI and U.S. Attorneys office likely would feel and think better of this whole Turner mess if the feds has done their stereotypical duty. Instead of constructing a temptation, how about they do the hard work? How about they do real investigation into existing corruption?

Just from those uncovered, as in the past three Speakers of the MA House, there must be plenty of rotten fruit ready for harvest. How about the FBI do real work instead of luring someone into a corrupt act that they created just for that purpose?

We could use some comment from the judges in these cases, particularly at the U.S. District Court level and above to reinforce that direction. Likewise, our Congressional delegation should not be afraid of being called soft on crime if it demands that the feds do real work. It's possible that even the President can say this is a problem that we need to address.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

UpTweet