Canton Cover-Up Part 213: Live Shows Temporarily On Hold After Rulings From 2 Judges Showing They Don’t Understand How The First Amendment Works
Donate to the Turtleboy Legal defense fund
– Framed – Video for Full Background on Canton Cover-Up Story
– Donate to the Karen Read Legal Defense Fund
– See all parts of the Canton Cover-Up Series
– Watch the Live Shows and Videos
– Join ”Justice for John O’Keefe and Karen Read” FB Group
I made an announcement on social media Saturday that I would be holding off on doing any sort of live shows for a while. The fact of the matter is that the people who are prosecuting me are not doing so in good faith, as they have lied repeatedly throughout the charging documents and misrepresented things that I said. They are holding a 90 day jail sentence over my head if I violate the vaguely worded stay away orders, which prohibit any direct or indirect contact with “witnesses.” There are people out there who are so obsessed with my reporting, and so dedicated to shutting it down, that they listen to every word I say on the streams, in order to take quotes out of context in a bad faith attempt to charge me with violating the orders. These people are actively working with Brian Tully and the DA’s Office.
I am the father of two children, and I cannot risk missing Christmas with them if these same bad faith actors intentionally misinterpret my words again. Since the entire charging documents consist of quotes from live videos I posted, I have made the choice, for now, to keep my commentary in written publications. This will allow me to double check everything I write prior to publication.
Also influencing my decision is the fact that two judges this week showed that they have no respect for the First Amendment and will blindly believe anything police tell them. On Thursday Judge Krupp denied our motion to remove the stay away orders that prevent me from reporting on this case. On Friday Federal Court Judge Denise Casper (the judge who sentenced Whitey Bulger) denied a temporary restraining order against the Canton Police Department that would allow peaceful protesters to gather outside of Chris Albert’s pizza shop. Although I believe in time that higher courts will rule in our favor, these two rulings have made me realize that these lower court judges will believe whatever cops tell them.
The Krupp decision was outrageous, and we are discussing our options for appeal. Here it is in its entirety.
AK bail review full decision (1)
The lies and incorrect findings are numerous, so let’s go over them all.
- Elizabeth Proctor “otherwise has no role in the Read case,” and I encouraged people to leave negative reviews on her employer’s social media accounts.
Elizabeth Proctor contacted the workplaces of people who left negative comments about her husband’s corrupt behavior as the lead detective in the Karen Read case. In doing so she created a chilling effect because people were afraid to publicly express their views about a matter of public concern out of fear of economic injury. She therefore chose to play a role in the Read case. People are well within their rights to express their dissatisfaction with Instrom because they employ a woman who would behave like this. They also haven’t fired her, so there was no economic injury. Workplaces are contacted all the time by cancel culture mobs trying to get a person fired. The statute is effectively outlawing cancel culture, but only to family members of “witnesses.”
2. Judge Krupp cited out of context quotes that I made about John O’Keefe’s mother and brother, and used an out of context quote I gave to Boston Magazine.
The O’Keefes do not have stay away orders on me, and I have not confronted any of them in public. Krupp combines those quotes with the Boston Magazine quote and is clearly suggesting that I am only saying the things I say for entertainment purposes. However, when I saw the O’Keefe’s walking up the courthouse steps I encouraged other protesters NOT to boo them (which is on video). The only reason Krupp included these quote was to push the “Turtleboy bad” narrative, suggesting that I am so offensive in general that it’s OK to violate my First Amendment rights.
3. Judge Krupp claimed that I pressured witnesses to change their testimony, spoke to witnesses who told me they didn’t wish to speak with me, increased my viewership as a result of the Karen Read coverage, and didn’t adhere to “codes of ethics for journalists,” as defined by the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
My page views are completely irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn’t stop existing because a lot of people are reading the things that you’re saying, there isn’t a single witness who I tried to pressure to change their testimony, and the SPJ code of ethics is of no value in evaluating a journalist’s actions because their code is not the same as bar rules for lawyers.
4. Krupp claims that examples of “harassment” on my part include “veiled threats” and asking sarcastic and rhetorical questions to witnesses.
Asking sarcastic and rhetorical questions is not harassment, and there were no veiled threats.
5. Krupp claims that in my videos I have encouraged followers to threaten witnesses, by citing a quote I made about Brian Albert – who does not have a stay away order on me. He also included a quote I made about a confrontation that a woman had with Chris Albert in July.
He doesn’t articulate what these “veiled threats” are, and certainly doesn’t give any examples of me encouraging others to threaten witnesses because it never happened. Clearly I am not encouraging any threats to be made towards Chris Albert, since the woman I was discussing didn’t threaten him, and I articulated that I was not encouraging or directing their behavior.
6. Krupp admitted that the basis of his findings come from Brian Tully’s reports, and the video clips he viewed came from the Commonwealth.
I’ve alleged that Brian Tully is corrupt and lies constantly on reports. The fact that his report is the sole basis of the Judge’s decision is exactly the problem. We submitted the entire quotes in context, which Krupp apparently did not view.
7. An example cited by Krupp was this one about why people shouldn’t be afraid to come forward and tell the truth:
An atmosphere of fear and intimidation existed in Canton because people are afraid to testify against the Alberts. My reporting and activism have made people less afraid. Krupp proved my point for me by including this quote.
8. Krupp repeated the lie in his findings that I encouraged followers to order food from Chris Albert and not pay for it, which led to a vast increase in orders not being picked up.
We put in our reply that this literally never happened, and the government didn’t cite a particular show where I said it, because no such show exists. Judge Krupp chose to blindly believe a corrupt cop’s report, without any evidence, and used it as justification to limit my freedoms.
8. Krupp claims that Colin Albert was the target of harassment and intimidation on social media as a result of a voice mail I left mocking threatening statements he made toward rival gang members on social media.
But Colin Albert has no social media. He isn’t on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, so our followers couldn’t harass or intimidate him online even if they wanted to. Krupp completely disregarded the fact that I was mocking Colin with the voicemail, not threatening him.
9. Krupp claims that I harassed witnesses by posting a list of her call log from a publicly available defense motion in the Read case.
It’s not witness intimidation to show the public a public document that any member of the public can see on their own.
10. Krupp claims that I harassed the witnesses when I videotaped into the home of Jennifer McCabe, published pictures of her children, and made comments directed at her sister Denise Galvin.
“You wanna f***ing dance? We can dance.”
These must be the “veiled threats.” However, that is not a threatening statement. If it is then McCabe’s attorney Kevin Reddington is also guilty of witness intimidation, since he told me that he wanted to dance with me on Facebook.
It’s not harassment to walk up to someone’s door and ring the doorbell while videotaping what is directly in front of you. They chose to keep their door wide open. Additionally, the pictures I posted of Jennifer McCabe’s children are pictures that she denies are actually her children.
11. Krupp blindly believed Tully’s lie that we walked on the Proctor’s front lawn and spit on their driveway during the Rolling Rally protest.
I arrived at the Proctor’s house at the 30:30 mark. It was so peaceful that I made note of the lemonade stand across the street and encouraged others to buy lemonade from them. At 31:20 I made note of the “turtle crossing” sign in the front yard (which showed that they thought they were mocking us), and at 31:30 I acknowledged the private property sign and said, “we cannot step foot on his property, which is fine.” At no point during our 7 minute stay does anyone walk on their lawn or spit on their driveway, nor do I direct anyone to do so. The footnote even states that we were all on the street.
12. Krupp made a factual finding that during the rolling rally I directed neighbors of the McCabes to pressure them to change their testimony.
But the quote Krupp cited was me telling the neighbors that the McCabes are cop killers (evidence shows they are), and that we weren’t going to let them get away with killing John O’Keefe. Nowhere do I encourage anyone to change their testimony.
13. Krupp claims I directed Julie Nagel’s neighbors to pressure her to change her testimony.
But he quotes me as urging Nagel to “tell the truth.” If Julie Nagel is already telling the truth then I’m not pressuring her to change her testimony. Is Krupp suggesting that Nagel is currently lying, and that it’s in the best interest of the administration of justice for her to keep on lying, rather than tell the truth? I certainly hope he’s not doing that.
14. Krupp said that the First Amendment does not authorize journalists to commit crimes.
In doing so he had already determined that I was guilty of committing the crimes I’m charged with.
15. Krupp claims that it’s not just my speech, but also my conduct that I’m being charged with. He cited the dancing comment, and the mocking of Colin Albert as examples of true threats because they are speech that was designed to encourage my followers to harass witnesses.
The “dancing” comment was directed at Denise Galvin, who is not a witness. I am not being charged for my “conduct,” just speech. I certainly never encouraged any followers to harass the witnesses. Krupp claims that all of this was “abusive theater,” once against suggesting that the purpose of my journalism isn’t to report the news, but to get clicks and views (which doesn’t matter). He cited the Brandenburg decision to suggest that courts can limit speech when its directed to incite imminent lawlessness. No such direction was given by me, so this is irrelevant.
16. Krupp reluctantly referred to me as a member of the press, but then said that my journalism wasn’t really journalism because I’m attempting to pressure witnesses to change their testimony.
Jennifer McCabe is not going to suddenly admit that she helped murder John O’Keefe and accept a lengthy prison sentence due to a peaceful rolling rally.
17. Krupp claims that my argument that I didn’t know what I was doing was illegal was baseless because it was “commonly accepted and understood” that I was harassing the witnesses.
Except the opposite is true. Two judges in Stoughton District Court both ruled that my conduct towards Jennifer McCabe and Chris Albert was not harassment. The statute is so vaguely worded that none of the 300 people at the peaceful rolling rally had any idea they were committing felonies.
In the federal case Judge Casper’s ruling makes no sense and clearly shows that she did not watch the video of what happened.
”2023-11-10”]
Judge Casper ruled that it was “not clear” if the 9 peaceful protesters outside of D&E Pizza faced a credible threat of prosecution or arrest.
Yet she admits that the police gave protesters a copy of the witness intimidation statute, which states that those who violate the statute “shall be subject to criminal penalty.”
The police told these people that what they were doing was illegal, and according to the law if you keep doing this illegal thing you will be arrested. Yet Judge Casper says it is “not clear” if there was imminent threat of arrest.
The protesters were not arrested, but as the Judge pointed out, you have legally suffered injury merely by being threatened with enforcement of law.
Additionally, the protesters were denied access to the 911 call because there is an “ongoing investigation” into them, and the police have not denied that they might arrest them.
Clearly they are being threatened with arrest if they’re being investigated for violating the same law I was arrested for violating.
The Judge pointed out that it’s unconstitutional to ban “content based” speech.
But at the 3:32 mark Officer Zepf specifically cites the content of the protester’s signs (Free Karen Read, Colin Albert Was In The House) as being in violation of the statute.
The Judge herself cited this.
Judge Casper pointed out how the witness intimidation statute was designed to protect witnesses from being bullied to the point where they are too reluctant to testify.
Not a single person is scared to testify, nor is any of this designed to make them feel that way.
Judge Casper claims that it’s OK to shut down this protest because the protesters can protest elsewhere.
Except they can’t. Five Canton cops are witnesses as well, which prohibits protest outside of the police station. There is nowhere you can go in Canton that would keep you out of eyesight of a witness, potential witness, or family member of a witness.
The most outrageous statement was that the protest increased the risk that Chris Albert would change his testimony because it involved multiple participants.
So if it was one person it would be OK, but you can’t have multiple people. The Judge would have us believe that these 9 people were capable of influencing him to change his testimony and admit that his son killed John O’Keefe.
Judge Casper said that the police merely advised the protesters of the statute, but didn’t threaten to arrest them. However, she then went on to admit that the police intended to enforce the law if violated.
Somehow this judge concluded that the right to protest wasn’t chilled, despite the fact that she admitted that they had legitimate reason to assume they would be arrested if they continued to peacefully protest.
I don’t trust these judges, and I’m not putting my freedom in their hands. We will win this case in time, but I am of no use to my kids, John O’Keefe, Karen Read, or the millions of people following this story if I am in jail. I am more effective with my writing, and have used the power of the pen to take down powerful people for the last 10 years. I will continue to do so, and will not be deterred in the mission for truth and justice.
