Hey, there! Log in / Register
Turner gets three years
By adamg on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 5:02pm
The Dorchester Reporter reports on Turner's sentence for accepting a bribe and then lying about it to the FBI.
That's only six months less than Dianne Wilkerson got for accepting more money after a career filled with criminal and disciplinary issues, but unlike Wilkerson, Turner didn't plead guilty and never expressed remorse.
He's scheduled to turn himself in March 25; his lawyers promised an appeal.
If it stands, the sentence will render Turner's suit to get his council job back moot, since state law calls for booting elected officials sentenced to prison.
City Councilor Mike Ross, who presided over Turner's expulsion hearing in December said in a statement:
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.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Bad Luck Chuck
Longer than Wilkerson, eh? The Feds rock! Now if they could only track down that wily Whitey Bulger...
Shorter
By about six months, which, considering how much more she was charged with and her history, probably says something about how judges just hate it when somebody's convicted and then not only refuses to show remorse but goes on tirades about conspiracies.
Wearing Freudian Slip
The Globe's version has a wonderful typo:
Cannons to the left of him....
Resolution, please
I hope that suit continues and that the SJC decides that the Boston City Council could make its own procedures and follow them. That's what the city charter says and no municipality should have to trot to the General Court for every specific refinement.
My first thought was...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...
(I promise that's not a rickroll. I couldn't figure out how to actually embed the video in the comment)
Earlier sequence joke
I love that section of the movie. I would have liked the part about how do we know he's a king.
My favorite part was
Chuck babbling about an autopsy if he dies in prison. Please! Chuck will probably end up in FCI Otisville which is like a country club. It's the only jail I've ever seen guys come out fatter than when they went in.
Which brings me to the question of Sal DiMasi, you think he's shitting his pants tonight?
Nah- I doubt he's worried.
He's got more in common with Finneran, Flaherty, and that drug-dealing Menino aide than he has with Turner and Wilkerson. He's probably playing raquetball with Woodlock tomorrow. He'll be just fine.
That's just it though..
Given the fact that those white guys walked and Chuck and Diane(!) got time, I have a strong feeling that Sal won't be as lucky.
I get your point- just don't think judges care
about stuff like that. And I don't think they read UniversalHub, either.
WHAT???!!!! Judges don't read
WHAT???!!!! Judges don't read UHub? Next you'll tell me that they don't participate in flash mobs, anti-establishment bike rides, pantless t-rides, pillow fights/water gun fights on the common, taking pictures of buildings and yelling at security guards, gloating over the closing of Hi-Lo and telling the Hispanics to just shop at bodegas, screaming about cops being too aggressive and then screaming when they aren't aggressive enough and telling people that they are a researcher or licensed mental health clinician and their opinions are fact while yours are rubbish.
There's a key difference
See, what people are failing to understand is the key difference between, on the one hand, Turner and Wilkerson and, on the other, Finneran and DiMasi:
Dont know the man or what
Dont know the man or what courses he took at harvard. but the judge should have and still can have turner mentaly evaluated. and now hes talking about autopsy. I would put him on suicide watch. he has mental issues . I smell a retrial on mental issue. nobody else can see this.
Twenty dollar wager that he
Twenty dollar wager that he flees to the workers paradise of Cuba where he'll be comfortable driving unlicensed in his unregistered 58' Hudson.
See ya, Grady!
Give my regards to Didi Wilkerson, too.
Scum.
How City Councilors keep public information away from citizens.
Proper tracking of all the Councilors at Boston City Council isn't made easy for interested citizenry.
What's problematical about Boston City Council are the public records of this city council are kept at too long an arms reach for any interested citizen to read. For example Boston City Council applies the maximun allowable fees under Massachusetts public records laws http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm And the maximum allowable fees are assessed at each step of retrieval of the public record enquiry violating the spirit of open government FOI freedom of information public records principles. It's a loophole in law that allows custodians of public records to keep a public record out of reach for citizens' ordinary household budgets.
see also
http://anopenbostoncitycouncil.blogspot.com
Charges are assessed for retrieval of the public record at the prorated hourly wage of the lowest paid employee who is capable of performing the task http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf More charges are added for making paper copies even for electronic public records. Then more charges are added for redacting http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/pubreclaw.pdf
Compare the 17F Order of Boston City Council.
"SECTION 17F. Requests for Specific Information. The city council at any time may request from the mayor specific information on any municipal matter within its jurisdiction, and may request his presence to answer written questions relating thereto at a meeting to be held not earlier than one week from the date of the receipt of said questions, in which case the mayor shall personally, or through a head of a department or a member of a board, attend such meeting and publicly answer all such questions. The person so attending shall not be obliged to answer questions relating to any other matter. The mayor at any time may attend and address the city council in person or through the head of a department, or a member of a board, upon such subject as he may desire. [Acts of 1951, c. 376, s. 1.17F"
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/Bosto...
Boston City Charter a different copy
What's needed are reviews and amendments of all applicable Massachusetts Sunshine open public meeting laws and FOI freedom of information public records laws. A public records commission is needed. Attorneys in the offices of the Secretary of the Commonwealth and in the offices of the Attorney General http://mass.gov/ago/openmeetings that review/enforce public records and open meetings appeals need to be given a title of Administrative Judge.
Please stop
Consider this the last warning.
You may have legitimate issues with the city council, but a discussion on Chuck Turner's bribery/perjury sentence is not the place for them.
Zak! Dont let Gaffin silence
Zak! Dont let Gaffin silence you. He is part of the Boston Public Library/Boston City Council's efforts to silence you!
Zak's issue is kind of related - Turner/City Council - but I
(of all people) get your point.
Zak, put this on a blog post.
Zak, put this on a blog post. Then people can complain about all the reasons they think you suck; bad editing, improper topic, shouldn't be on Uhub, everyone disagrees with you, and: You suck. LOL
A bit harsh
I wanted Chuck locked up, but 3 years seems a bit harsh, especially for a first offender (right?). Three years is a long time, I would have been happy with a year.