The Freedom Bulletin

In both 2002 and 2008, the Center for Small Government sponsored a ballot initiative to eliminate the Massachusetts income tax. Unfortunately, it was defeated each time. Now, they are sponsoring an initiative – Question 3 – to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. This is a much more modest proposal, and not quite as exciting for small government people like me, but hopefully this makes it more likely to pass.

State government simply spends too much and taxes too much. Taxes have gone up and up. Tax increases that are supposed to be temporary end up being permanent. I cannot remember any tax in Massachusetts ever going down in my lifetime. The only way that Massachusetts politicians will ever cut spending is if they are forced to.

Question 3 will cut approximately $2.4 billion from the $52 billion state budget – not as good as the $11 billion that ending the income tax would cut, but a good start. It will allow each household to keep an average of $900 more of their own money each year.

If you live in Massachusetts, please, please vote yes on 3. Even if you don’t like any of the candidates for governor, it is worth going to the polls just to vote on this question. We need to stop this unsustainable spending trend and send Massachusetts in a different direction.

If you live in Massachusetts, and you are sick of our state’s current trend of higher taxes, more spending, and more laws restricting people’s actions and taking away our freedom, please vote for Charlie Baker. Baker is not perfect. I wish, for example, that he supported Question 3 (to roll back the sales tax to 3%), and that he opposed the individual mandate in principle.

But, Baker is a heck of a lot better than our current governor, Deval Patrick. In addition to supporting a progressive income tax and thinking it is okay for illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates, Patrick decided, instead of spending less, to raise the sales tax in the middle of this horrific recession. And, due to the unfortunate voting system that is used in America, which makes it almost impossible for independent or third party candidates to win, Baker is the only viable alternative to Patrick. He has some ideas that would truly make our state a better place, such as requiring doctors to actually make their prices public and to cut spending by at least $1 billion (PDF). To paraphrase Baker’s most recent ad, if you want change, change governors.

A video of Baker’s rally last weekend with New Jersey governor Chris Christie at Memorial Hall, Melrose, MA:

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner was found guilty on all four counts: attempted extortion under color of official right, and three counts of making false statemetns. The jury returned their verdict at about 2:00 p.m.

Turner has been out on bail throughout the trial, and he will stay that way. Prosecutor John McNeil said that “the government is not pressing” for his bail to be revoked, but reminded Judge Douglas Woodlock that the burden is on the defendant to show that bail is appropriate. The judge saw no reason to revoke his bail, however, and Turner thanked him.

Sentencing will take place on January 25 at 2:00.

Note: This is the second post about today’s closing arguments in the Chuck Turner trial. The first half can be found here.

Chuck Turner’s defense attorney, Barry Wilson, is a firebrand and is passionate about what he believes in. At least that’s how he came across in his closing argument. Rambling at times, pacing back and forth, and often repeating key phrases again and again in a loud voice, he defended his client’s public service career.

“It’s you – the people of the community – that make this justice system work,” he began. He reminded the jurors that “the burden is always upon the government, and they must prove Mr. Turner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” For Turner to be convicted of attempted extortion under the color of official right and making false statements to the FBI, there must have been more than “just giving somebody money” or “just saying something that isn’t true.” Turner must have taken money in exchange for official acts knowingly, and knowingly lied, which Wilson contends he did not do.

Wilson described Turner’s background. He “constructively tried to be a productive member of society who gave more than he took,” Wilson said. Turner decided to testify because, in Wilson’s words, ”my integrity, my life’s work tainted, tarnished.” On the stand, he did not rehearse but told the truth “no matter how logical or illogical it sounds.” This reminded Wilson of a Mark Twain quote: “If you always tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

He proceeded to trash FBI informant Ron Wilburn, saying that one of his business partners is a “drug dealer,” another is in jail, and a nightclub that he managed bribed police officers. “Mr. Wilburn has a number of problems with his credibility,” said Wilson.

“This was a large, large investigation,” he proclaimed, yet only Turner and State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, both black, were indicted.

Sounding a theme that he returned to several times, Wilson declared, “Mr. Turner is doing what he does every day – his job, his job!” He held about 350 hearings a year, and helped Wilburn because he was truly concerned about the lack of liquor licenses in minority neighborhoods, especially the “empowerment zone” in his district, where Wilburn wanted to open a nightclub. While both Wilburn and Wilkerson wanted to cancel the planned hearing on this issue as unnecessary once Wilburn was promised a license, Turner, according to Wilson, still wanted the hearing. Rather abruptly, he said, “If anyone has racial problems, it’s Mr. Wilburn, Mr. Wilburn!” Then he said again, “Mr. Turner’s just doing his job, trying to get a hearing, that’s what he is doing…his job!”

When Wilburn offered him money, Turner resisted, saying things like “Hey!” and “Let me ask you a question” (which ended up being about issues related to the hearing).

He then hammered on Wilburn’s inconsistencies. Mimicking Wilburn, he said, “I put it in my left pocket, where I had the second recorder.” According to Wilson, the testimony of FBI agent Scott Robbins seemed to contradict that. “Wilburn testifies that he rolled the money, rolled the money, rolled the money before he gave it to him,” Wilson continued. But on cross, he testified that the money was open, and on redirect he did what Wilson called a “dog and pony show,” demonstrating how the money was open, and then he rolled it.

After adding a few more details (Turner voted against a pay raise for himself in 2006; his campaign owes him and his wife $122,000), he whispered, “There is no indication that Mr. Turner did anything but his job…He believes in putting his foot to the metal…he believes in transparency.”

Then, Wilson ended with a surprising accusation: that Wilburn kept $800 of the $1000 that the FBI gave him, and only gave $200 to Turner! I’m not sure why he decided to say this, as there was no testimony to support this claim, and he seemed to almost be admitting that Turner took $200.

McNeil was allowed to make a rebuttal argument after this. “If Chuck Turner was only doing his job, American politics are in a sad state,” he said. “There is not a scintilla of evidence that Mr. Wilburn gave any less than $1000.” He added, “his pride in his reputation gives him an incentive to lie and conceal.” Even if Turner had only taken $200, it is illegal for him to take any money for his official duties, McNeil pointed out.

After a brief recess, everyone returned to the courtroom (which was so full that some people, including myself, had to go into another courtroom to watch a simulcast of the proceedings) for Judge Douglas Woodlock’s jury instructions. He explained reasonable doubt, direct versus circumstantial evidence, and other things that you would expect a judge to explain to a jury, as well as the elements of the charges against Turner: attempted extortion under color of official right, and making false statements. The four elements that must be proved for the first charge include: that Turner knowingly and willfully obtained cash; that he was acting in his capacity as a public official; that he understood the cash to be in exchange for performance of his official duties; and that there is a reasonable probability that interstate commerce could be affected.

A forewoman was chosen, and the jury was sent off to deliberate. They went home at around 5 and will return tomorrow morning.

More from the Globe, the Herald, and an interesting post at On Liberty.

Note: Due to length, I divided my account of today’s closing arguments into two posts. Part 2 can be found here.

The Chuck Turner case is officially with the jury. Closing arguments took place this morning, followed by jury instructions, and the jury deliberated for the entire afternoon. Courtroom 1 of Boston’s federal courthouse was packed with Turner’s constituents and other observers (among the faces in the crowd were reporters from the Globe, Herald, and NECN, as well as local defense lawyer Gary Zerola).

Assistant U.S. Attorney John McNeil gave his closing first, arguing that Turner knowingly took $1000 from FBI informant Ron Wilburn in exchange for performing his official duties as a Boston City Councilor. “Mr. Turner calls this a preacher’s handshake, as if there were something sacred or holy about it,” he said. “but Mr. Turner is no preacher…he is a politician.” Holding up a photo of the moment the money allegedly changed hands, he described it as “the oldest handshake in American politics.”

Then, said McNeil, Turner intentionally lied to FBI agents who went to his office not to arrest him, but with “a pen and a piece of paper” to record his answers and enlist his help in investigating other allegedly corrupt politicians. Instead, he falsely told them that he had never met Wilburn, and Wilburn had never offered to give him anything or hold him a fundraiser. “This was a crime that Chuck Turner knew was a crime, and that’s why he lied,” McNeil said.

The most important thing, according to McNeil, was that every time Turner had a chance, he chose to conceal the alleged bribe. “It’s hard to imagine 15 bills going in your hand and not knowing it’s a wad of cash.” Turner opted not to return the money to Wilburn at the time he gave it to him, at a subsequent meeting, or to mail him a check. “It’s not about one bad choice on August 3 [2007], it’s about 6 or 7 or 8 bad choices,” said the prosecutor.

McNeil spoke skeptically about the “incredible magic blank” that Turner seemed to have in his memory. “He forgets the unforgettable Ron Wilburn, he forgets him?” He maintained that Turner called Wilburn on the morning of August 3 (but Wilburn couldn’t record the call because he is “frankly technologically illiterate”), but said that even if he did not, the government’s case still stands because the extortion charge requires merely “passive acceptance” of a bribe. Wilburn “hates the government” so has no motive to lie, McNeil said. Plus, if he was lying, “Why wouldn’t he have made up better lies?” (for example, that Turner had asked him for money, or that he had counted the money himself).

Additionally, McNeil argued that the money was clearly not a campaign contribution because Wilburn told Turner to “take your wife out to dinner and do something nice.” When Wilburn offered him money and to hold a fundraiser, Turner replied with things like “okay,” “all right,” and “yeah, sounds like fun.” The video of the alleged bribe was “not perfect,” McNeil admitted, but “pretty darn good,” showing the green of the money, with a white border. Turner showed no surprise when Wilburn gave him the supposed cash, and he clenched it in his hand surreptitiously.

Furthermore, McNeil said that Turner agreed to cancel a planned hearing on liquor licenses once it became clear that Wilburn would get his license without it. “How important could that hearing be if he was willing to cancel it in one conversation?”

Turner had “selective amnesia” about Wilburn, said McNeil. “If someone slips $1000 into your hand, you’re never going to forget.” Turner did not merely accept the cash from Wilburn but ”both literally and figuratively grabbed it.”

Finally, McNeil admitted that the case “doesn’t charge the crime of the century,” but “in the United States of America, no one is above the law. In the United States of America, politicians are certainly not above the law.”

Finish reading about today’s closing arguments in Part 2.

Believe it or not, testimony is complete in the Chuck Turner corruption trial. The Boston City Councilor finished testifying today in his own defense, and he ended up being the only defense witness!

Turner’s direct and part of his cross took place yesterday, which I unfortunately missed, but I got to see the conclusion of his cross today. Turner was questioned by Assistant U.S. Attorney John McNeil (whom he addressed as ”John”) and gave repetitive, long-winded, sometimes contradictory, explanations of why he did not look down when FBI informant Ron Wilburn allegedly handed him $1000 cash.

Turner claims to have no memory of meeting with Wilburn, or of Wilburn giving him money, saying yesterday that it would “create a memory” if it had happened. When shown the August 3, 2007 videotape that Wilburn secretly recorded, Turner agreed that Wilburn handed him something, but he said he did not know what it was.

First today, McNeil cast doubt on Turner’s contention that he is the only City Councilor who has a district office. According to McNeil, and a web page that he printed out and showed Turner, Councilor John Tobin has a district office, and so does Councilor Stephen Murphy. However, Turner flately denied this, saying that Tobin only has a campaign office, and Murphy’s office is not staffed full-time.

Then they had a long argument over whether the stuff that Wilburn can be seen giving Turner in a still from the August 3 video is “greenish in color.” Turner said that the image appeared to be black and white, and the object in question looked gray. “My wife says I’m colorblind, but I don’t think I am,” he said.

Then McNeil questioned Turner repeatedly about why he did not look down when Wilburn handed him the alleged cash. “You took it and you just held it in your hand without knowing what it was?” he asked. Turner maintained that he did not know what Wilburn gave him, despite McNeil’s apparent disbelief. He explained that in church, when people give money to preachers, they take it without looking down in what he called a “preacher’s handshake,” because giving attention to the money is considered disrespectful. “In church, do people pass $1000 between preachers and parishioners?” McNeil asked. “It’s a tradition within the church” to give ministers $5 or $10, Turner said, adding that “it’s not uncommon” in politics as well.

It appeared at this point that Turner might be admitting that Wilburn gave him money, and McNeil pounced on the opportunity, asking, “Do you have a general policy to not look down when people give you cash?” “You don’t understand the culture of the church in terms of contributions, or in terms of politics, it’s clear,” Turner shot back. When asked point blank if the reason he did not look down was because he knew it was money, Turner said no. “Isn’t what you got in the picture a big wad of cash, yes or no?” inquired McNeil. Turner said that he cannot answer yes or no because he does not actually remember the events in the picture.

He went on to say that he didn’t look down because, according to Jesus, giving money to someone in public makes one “a boastful person, a pharisee.” He added that ”it’s not about money, it’s about service” and that putting the focus on money would “destroy relationships.” “It was exchange of money for services, right? That’s what happened,” McNeil asked. Turner replied, “I’m here to tell the truth.”

“You know that as a Boston dity councilor, you cannot take any amount of money in exchange for official acts,” said McNeil. “You know that, right?” Turner said he did.

The topic then shifted to Turner’s October 28, 2008 interview with the FBI, which Turner insisted was cordial, even though he became angry at one time. The reason for his anger, Turner said, was something about the city taking down a red, black, and green flag, although McNeil insinuated that it was because he was being asked about Wilburn. Turner freely spoke to the FBI although he had the option of remaining silent. He admitted telling them that Wilburn had never offered to hold him a fundraiser (although such a conversation could clearly be heard on tapes played earlier in the trial), and having met Wilburn three times, although he claimed to the agents that he didn’t remember him. He finally admitted that Wilburn offered him something and that he took it, despite telling the FBI that Wilburn never offered him anything.

With respect to his infamous comment that 90% of politicians are corrupt, Turner said today that he was talking about the corrupt financial system, which 90% of politicians make no attempt to change. At this point, he angrily complained that he was just doing his job, when he got arrested. “I don’t understand what’s going on, I really don’t,” he said.

Turner acknowledged that individuals are only allowed to contribute $500 each year to campaigns, but he expressed unawareness of a rule against cash contributions over $50. He customarily gives campaign contributions in an envelope to his wife, who is his campaign treasurer, and he records each donation, even ones as small as $1 or $5. But, he admitted, there are no records of any $1000 gift from Wilburn.

The final topic of discussion was Turner’s public statements. On a local TV show, he spoke about the legal implications of taking $1000 in campaign contributions. McNeil pointed out that Turner never denied doing precisely that on the show, nor did he say that he was speaking hypothetically. Turner claimed today that he had made that clear: “That’s what ‘if’ means.” McNeil also raised the subject of Turner’s blog (supportchuckturner.com – it is interesting reading), on which he wrote that his prosecution was a conspiracy between President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, and U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan. “It’s one line of thought,” he said today. “I don’t know if it’s true. It’s worth thinking about.”

The defense team opted not to do a re-direct, and they rested their case. So at 10:15 this morning, the jury was sent home. Closing argumetns are set for tomorrow morning.

I’m surprised that the trial was so short, as I figured the defense would have a bunch of witnesses. Turner ran an ad a while back calling for character witnesses, and I believe he said in news reports that he got a lot of responses, but I guess nothing ever came of that.

More articles from the Globe, Herald, and an interesting one from WBUR with one reporter’s impressions of Turner’s testimony.

So of course, the one day that I don’t go to court, Chuck Turner testifies. The Boston City Councilor took the stand in his own defense in Boston’s federal courthouse, completing his direct examination and beginning his cross. I was unfortunately unable to go to court today due to a prior commitment, so it wouldn’t have mattered if I knew Turner was going to testify, but I am extremely surprised that the defense began its case so soon. Before the trial started, there was talk of some 80 witnesses, and the general impression was that the trial was expected to be really long. So much for that. (Or maybe the defense’s case is just going to be really long?)

The prosecution only called six witnesses:

• Special Agent Scott Robbins
• Special Agent Julia Cowley
• Ron Wilburn
• City Councilor Bill Linehan
• Eric Banda
• Assistant City Clerk Alex Geourntas

Turner was questioned by defense lawyer John Pavlos and said that he has no memory of anyone giving him money, and that he would have remembered if someone had. On cross examination, prosecutor John McNeil questioned him repeatedly about a videotape that shows FBI informant Ron Wilburn handing him something, which the government and Wilburn contend is $1000 cash. Turner admitted that the tape shows Wilburn handing him something, but he pointed out that it is blurry and said that he does not remember the meeting with Wilburn or what he handed him.

The Globe and Herald have the full story.