The Freedom Bulletin

Note: To make it easier to keep track of things, I created a brief “who’s who” of the people involved in this case.

Now that the most high-profile witnesses against allegedly corrupt former speaker Sal DiMasi have testified, prosecutors are going through witnesses more quickly. The information in today’s blog post is taken from my own personal observations, as well as news reports from the parts that I wasn’t able to make it to.

First up today, following Governor Deval Patrick’s testimony on Friday, was Thomas Dimino, a colleague of DiMasi’s financial advisor and co-defendant, Dick Viatle. He said that Vitale told him, during a plane ride back from Las Vegas, that DiMasi wanted to retire from his position as speaker of the state legislature and return to the private sector in order to make more money. Like DiMasi’s neighbor, Dino DiFronzo, testified two weeks ago, DiMasi wanted Rep. Robert DeLeo, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to succeed him.

Next was Governor Patrick’s deputy chief of staff, David Morales. He testified that in 2007 he met with Dickie McDonough, a lobbyist, friend of DiMasi, and co-defendant, to discuss a statewide performance management software contract, which DiMasi is accused of awarding to the company Cognos after being bribed. “He wanted to make sure it went to the right vendor who could actually have experience performing similar work,” Morales said McDonough told him, adding that McDonough was a friend of DiMasi. He also briefly met Joseph Lally (a salesman at Cognos and former co-defendant who pled guilty) when he was walking around the State House with McDonough.

On cross-examination, McDonough’s lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, portrayed McDonough as no different than any other lobbyist. He also spoke to Morales on behalf of another client, the Cambridge Health Alliance, he pointed out.

Also, when questioned by DiMasi’s lawyer, Thomas Kiley, Morales admitted that he never heard DiMasi mention Cognos by name and that the state legislature has no role in the actual procurement of contracts once they are funded.

Then came Vitale’s personal assistant, Vera Copeland. She said that in addition to being a regular customer of Vitale’s accounting firm, mainly for tax preparation, Vitale and DiMasi regularly dined, golfed, and even occasionally vacationed in Florida together. He was a familiar sight in the company’s office and came there more frequently after becoming speaker. Her records showed meetings between DiMasi, Vitale, McDonough, and Lally. Additionally, she edited a consulting agreement between WN Advisors, Vitale’s other company, and Cognos, which prosecutors allege was used to hide kickbacks paid by Cognos and ultimately funneled to DiMasi for awarding the company lucrative state contracts. On January 10, 2007, Copeland had a document (whose contents were not specified) hand-delivered to DiMasi at his home and the State House. “I would say that no, it didn’t have to do with his taxes,” she said.

On cross-examination by Vitale’s lawyer, Martin Weinberg, she spoke about his involvement with various charities and his concern about his employees and clients.

DiMasi’s lawyer, William Cintolo, also brought up the  fact that Viatle served as DiMasi’s campaign treasurer and ran a Columbus Day parade with him, possibly explaining all the time DiMasi spent at the office.

The final witness of the day was Mary Feeley, a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office who created numerous charts of the defendants’ phone records. The charts showed frequent communication between numbers associated with the defendants and flurries of phone calls around the time of major events in the case, including the renewal of Steven Topazio‘s contract, Vitale’s granting of a $200,000 line of credit to DiMasi, payments and consulting agreements between companies associated with the defendants, and the publishing of a Boston Globe article about the allegedly fraudulent software deal.

On cross-examination, Weinberg pointed out that the records didn’t say anything about the content of the calls, that the charts only contained calls from selected dates, and that Vitale did not necessarily pick up all of the calls made to his office.

Tomorrow is expected to be the last day of the government’s case, and the defense case is expected to last about two weeks.

Sources and further reading: Boston Globe, Boston Herald, State House News Service (and another from earlier in the day).

The awesome Bob Barr, former Congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate, wrote a great blog post on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case:

“French-bashing is a pastime of increasing popularity among conservative politicians and media pundits. The French attitude of superiority, recognized by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th Century (“the French want no-one to be their superior”), facilitates this sport. This is, however, most unfortunate for former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn (often known simply by his initials, “DSK”), as he fights felony sex charges leveled against him in New York City.

The rush to judgment against the wealthy and flamboyant Frenchman has turned the legal process into something more like a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, than the measured and deliberate search for the truth which is the presumed goal of our judicial system.”

Read the rest here.

…In honor of all those who lost their lives fighting for freedom.

Note: To make it easier to keep track of things, I created a brief “who’s who” of the people involved in this case.

During the Sal DiMasi trial we’ve heard from various people involved in state government and gotten an inside look at how the legislative process works. But none was as high-profile as today’s witness, Governor Deval Patrick himself.

The courtroom was completely packed for the governor’s testimony, as you might expect, but all the spectators, reporters, and supporters of the three defendants had to wait quite a while. For almost the first hour of court, prosecutors and defense lawyers argued about a defense motion filed yesterday to strike a portion of Leslie Kirwan‘s testimony, when she said that if she had known that DiMasi received legal fees for promoting the interests of Cognos, she would not have approved the performance management software contract and would have sought legal advice. Judge Mark Wolf ruled that he would deny the motion, at least for now.

At 9:50, Kirwan, the state Secretary of Administration and Finance, took the stand to continue her testimony from Wednesday. On cross-examination by DiMasi’s lawyer, Thomas Kiley, she said that the Cognos software contract (which allegedly was included because of bribes paid to DiMasi) was not the only non-emergency item included in what was supposed to be an emergency bond bill in 2007. A $4.5 million data and automated citation system for police was included as well. Additionally, she admitted, when asked by Kiley, that during her interactions with DiMasi when he mentioned the idea of buying the software, there was “nothing heavy handed…no ‘I”ll give you this, you give me that.’” Moreover, DiMasi’s urging was not the sole reason for choosing Cognos as the vendor for the software; the Information Technology Department (a subdivision of Administration and Finance) strongly recommended it, and Kirwan’s staff had input into the decision as well. In fact, during her grand jury testimony, she had said she “did not feel influenced” by DiMasi’s interest. Today she did not directly admit that but just said, “I made the best decision that I could under all the circumstances facing me.”

On re-direct examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Theodore Merritt, she reiterated that DiMasi asked her about performance management software “in his official capacity as speaker of the House” and that it stood out to her because “he reached out to me personally.” However, once the software was purchased, no one from his office followed up with her about implementation.

At 11:30, after a 15-minute recess, Governor Patrick finally entered the courtroom and took the witness stand, wearing a dark suit, light blue shirt, and green tie. Merritt conducted his direct-examination. Speaking calmly, the governor explained that he initially conceived of the 2007 emergency bond bill as a way to fund transportation projects in order to get matching federal grants which otherwise would have been forfeited. Every Monday afternoon, he had legislative leadership meetings with DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, Kirwan, and others. DiMasi “wanted to add to the bond bill authority to bond for performance management software” and described how valuable it would be for tracking state agencies, projects, and programs. Patrick agreed and was interested in the concept as well. “Not in the emergency bond bill initially, but it was something we were interested in,” he said. More than once, DiMasi reminded Patrick of the software idea and asked how it was going, but he never mentioned the company Cognos.

In the spring of 2007, Patrick began having difficulty getting proposals through the legislature, such as additional funding for police and life sciences. Rep. Michael Capuano arranged a breakfast meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Boston between the governor and the speaker. They discussed, in Patrick’s words, “what I wanted to see moved, what the speaker wanted to see moved.” Patrick mentioned life sciences and a data center in Springfield; DiMasi, as usual, mentioned the performance management contract, saying ,”Don’t forget, that contract’s important to me.” The governor told his staff, “If we could do it within the rules, then go ahead.”

A lighthearted moment happened when an email that Patrick had sent after this meeting was shown on monitors. The sender was “Sally Reynolds,” which Patrick explained was his code name, a combination of his grandmother’s and grandfather’s names. “You’re gonna need a new one,” Judge Wolf quipped.

Merritt then asked, “If you knew that Speaker DiMasi had received money from legal referral fees derived from Cognos in return for pushing Cognos’s interests, would you have acted any differently as governor?” Patrick replied, “Yes…we wouldn’t have proceeded.” He answered similarly when asked what he would have done had he known that DiMasi’s financial advisor (Vitale) was receiving $500,000 in exchange for him taking official actions, adding that he may have gotten advice from the state ethics commission.

After the deal was signed, Patrick’s staff brought up concerns about “the integrity of the process,” and he referred them to the Inspector General’s office. He spoke with DiMasi shortly after an article was published in the Boston Globe about this. “He was angry and upset about the article and said he believed our staff had leaked information to the Globe about the Inspector General’s review,” said Patrick. When the speaker asked him to tell the press that DiMasi had no interest in the contract, he said “we couldn’t do that because it wasn’t accurate.”

DiMasi’s other lawyer, Bill Cintolo, took the podium to cross-examine the governor. “I have a very loud voice,” he warned him, to laughter from the gallery. “In the private sector, your talents would have commanded a considerably higher salary than you received as governor?” he asked. “I hope so,” Patrick replied, to more laughter. Cintolo drew attention to the fact that it is extremely common for people to donate to campaigns, and that often, “after those contributions are made, they seek to do business with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” Cintolo displayed records showing that Cognos had made a contribution to Patrick’s inauguration fund, and Patrick agreed that as a general matter, “Sometimes things happen after something occurs but not because something occurs.” In other words, Patrick approved the Cognos contract after the company made their contribution, but not because of the contribution.

DiMasi never said, “I am asking about this contract because I’ve been paid by Cognos to do that,” nor did he say “I’m getting paid for this; you gotta do it,” or “Do this for me and I’ll do life sciences for you.” Instead, it was Patrick’s decision to approve the contract. “You would ultimately make a decision on the merits?” Cintolo asked. “Sure,” he replied. He also agreed that he replied to DiMasi’s suggestions with “I’ll consider it” as opposed to “I’ll do it,” and that his staff vetted the performance management idea and he concluded, “This is pretty good.”

Later, countering the prosecution’s assertion that the state had not signed another $15 million performance management software deal, Cintolo brought up that there is currently a proposal in the Senate for that type of software. “I think so but I’m not sure,” said Patrick.

After an hour and 15 minutes on the stand, Patrick left, and court adjourned until Tuesday.

Read more about the governor’s testimony at the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, NECN, and AP.

Photo © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.5

When Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the International Monetary Fund, was arrested on allegations of attempted rape, he was paraded in handcuffs in front of mobs of reporters and photographers. To defend this decision, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “If you don’t want to do the perp walk, don’t do the crime.” The New York Post and New York Daily News blared incendiary headlines. Countless writers, columnists, bloggers, and anonymous Internet commenters denounced him and trashed his reputation. Worst of all, law enforcement officials forced him to be photographed naked, and the police commissioner apparently bragged, when he was initially denied bail and held in solitary confinement, that he was strip-searched multiple times a day.

It seems to be lost on New York City’s law enforcement and much of the media that Strauss-Kahn did not necessarily do the crime. This is not the way that a defendant should be treated in a system that, in theory at least, presumes people to be innocent unless proven guilty.

First of all, it is more than a little hypocritical for law enforcement to be so outraged about Strauss-Kahn’s alleged sexual assault on a hotel maid that they immediately hunted him down and dragged him off of a plane, but then bragged about how often they sexually assaulted him.

Second of all, being publicly eviscerated, having one’s reputation destroyed, and being subjected to strip searches, are all serious punishments that should not be inflicted on people unless and until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (if even then). As Edward Wasserman eloquently wrote in the Boston Herald, ”Publicity itself constitutes an extralegal intensification of punishment,” which is ”far less accountable than [punishments] pronounced by judges.”

Third, it defeats the purpose of a trial if the world assumes that a defendant is guilty no matter what the eventual outcome is. The media’s purpose should be to hold the court system accountable, not to be the servant of the prosecution. Often, a defendant’s acquittal receives far less attention in the press than the initial accusations, and the public generally thinks of them as guilty forever more.

Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers filed papers yesterday condemning the leaks from the New York Police Department and suggesting that the case against their client is not as strong as the District Attorney’s office has proclaimed. A prosecutor responded, ”If you really do possess the kind of information you suggest that you do, we trust you will forward it immediately to the District Attorney’s Office.” An interesting thing to say, given that many of the details about the case that have been leaked to the media have not even been shared with the defense team.

It looks like the Patriot Act is going to be extended for another four years. Both the House and Senate voted to renew some key provisions that were set to expire at midnight tonight. But the truly notable story from today is that of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

It started yesterday, when the freshman senator wanted to offer amendments to the legislation, including one to prevent warrantless access to some gun records. Although Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had promised a week of debate and an open amendment process, he chastised Paul, ”The national security of the United States is at stake, and the junior senator from Kentucky is complaining that he has not been able to offer amendments…When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected.” Paul called this a “scurrilous accusation” and said, ”To be attacked of such a belief when I’m here to discuss and debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act is offensive and I find it personally insulting.” Then, Reid said, ”It’s hard to imagine why the senator from Kentucky would want to hold up the Patriot Act for a misguided amendment that would make America less safe.” Well, maybe because it would make America more free, which is anything but misguided.

Today Democrats in the Senate agreed to hold votes on two of Paul’s amendments. But Republican leaders tried to stop this, according to Paul because they did not want to alienate supporters of Second Amendment rights by voting down the gun-records amendment. During debate on this amendment, Paul said, “It’s very important that we are always vigilant, that we are eternally vigilant about the powers of government…Are we so afraid that we’re giving up all of our liberty for security?” Sadly, the amendments were defeated, the provisions were renewed, and the legislators left for their Memorial Day recess a few hours later than planned.

Senator Paul, I salute you for your courage. Although you inconvenienced a few people and did not ultimately stop the renewal of the Patriot Act, you succeeded in making individual liberty and the constitution subjects of discussion, and most importantly, what you said was right. Thank you for the work that you do.

Note: To make it easier to keep track of things, I created a brief “who’s who” of the people involved in this case.

Observers in federal court heard more about the workings of state government today at former speaker Sal DiMasi’s corruption trial. Governor Deval Patrick’s budget chief, Leslie Kirwan, testified about the pressure she felt from Speaker DiMasi’s office to include funding for a $15 million software license in a budget bill, software which prosecutors allege was purchased from Burlington company Cognos because of bribes.

First, however, Patrick’s former deputy chief of staff, David Simas, continued his testimony from yesterday, when he described how he included the $15 million provision in an immediate needs bond bill at the request of DiMasi, so that the legislation could be passed more efficiently. During cross-examination by DiMasi’s lawyer, Bill Cintolo, he admitted that the governor’s office did not automatically include any provision that was requested but only those that they decided, after analysis and investigation, were worthwhile. In fact, performance management software like that sold by Cognos was one of Patrick’s priorities and was considered “best practices for state government” because, in Simas’s words, “You get better decisions when you get better information.” Before including the provision, he did not speak to DiMasi directly, but merely members of his staff, and no one told him, “it better be in there.” Simas agreed that the ultimate responsibility for deciding what is included in a bond bill, and whether to actually follow up on purchasing the items in the bill, rests with the governor’s office. The state legislature does not have authority over procurement, he said.

DiMasi’s co-defendants, Dickie McDonough and Richard Vitale, were not involved in any interactions with the governor’s office as part of this deal, their lawyers pointed out during their cross-examinations.

On re-direct by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Merritt, Simas said that the software purchase was not consistent with the emergency nature of the bond bill, at least as the bill was initially planned, and it was not necessary to maintain any current programs. “At whose request was the $15 million performance management software provision included in the immediate needs bond bill?” Merritt asked. “It was at the request of the speaker and his staff,” Simas replied.

Again, on re-cross, Cintolo asked whether anyone from DiMasi’s office had ever said, “If you don’t put this in, we’re going to bog this down.” Simas said no one had.

Briefly, before the morning break, Maureen Marra (sp?), keeper of the state’s lobbyist registration records, took the stand. Her records showed that McDonough lobbied for a wide variety of organizations, including Suffolk Downs and the Massachusetts Nurses’ Association, but had not registered as a lobbyist for Cognos in 2006, even though he worked as one. On July 22, 2008, the information was updated when Cognos submitted paper filings.

After the morning recess, Leslie Kirwan took the stand. Currently working at Harvard, she was, at the time of the alleged scheme, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A&F) and one of eight members of the governor’s cabinet. Her role was to draft budget recommendations and shape policies. She described four occasions on which DiMasi had pressured her to include the $15 million software provision:

• Once, at a meeting shortly after Patrick took office, DiMasi “brought up business intelligence software as something he would like to see included in the bond bill.” Kirwan stated that she was concerned about this idea because “we were, in my view, not ready…there were a lot of other issues that were a lot more pressing.” When asked if she would have included the software in the budget had DiMasi not asked, Kirwan said no.
• Another time, DiMasi called her to inquire about the performance management software situation. “We were still in the earlier stages of establishing what our program would be,” she explained, reassuring him that she would get to it “in due course.”
• At another meeting in DiMasi’s office, the speaker and the acting chief of the Information Technology Division, Bethann Pepoli, discussed the software in a way that made Kirwan think they had discussed it before.
• In May 2007, during a celebration at Fenway Park to kick off the Red Sox’ sponsorship of the Massachusetts Health Connector, DiMasi approached Kirwan to ask her how the process was going with the software, and she replied, “We’re working on it. It’s coming along.”

She explained, “I took notice of the speaker’s interest in the business intelligence project status…He made a special point of making a phone call to me about it and speaking to me about it at an event that was for a different topic.” However, he never mentioned Cognos by name.

Around this time, two salesmen at Cognos, Chris Quinter and Joe Lally, emailed back and forth, describing Kirwan as “a major player” and “a rogue secretary” who was “flexing her muscles” and “could cause major issues.” After Kirwan met with Lally and others from Cognos, they agreed to reduce the price to $13 million and to include an upgraded support package. The contract was signed on August 24, 2007. “I expressed relief that the process had reached a conclusion,” she testified. “I expressed my satisfaction with the better terms…I expressed the hope that the speaker would be satisfied with the outcome and that would help another matter that we were concerned with.” (That other matter was related to the site of a data center in Springfield.)

When asked if she would have acted differently had she known that DiMasi (allegedly) received legal fees from Cognos for helping them get the deal, she answered, “I would not approve the contract and I would have sought legal advice about what other steps to take.”

After the deal was signed, one of the losing bidders protested, and Kirwan contacted the Inspector General’s office. The contract was voided and the money returned to the state. The state did not buy another performance management software license for $15 million.

On cross-examination, DiMasi’s other attorney, Thomas Kiley, tried to characterize the bid protest as motivated by the disappointment of the losing vendor or errors in scoring the different types of software, as opposed to corruption in the process. Kirwan maintained, “they believed that the process was flawed and should be reconsidered.”

As always, check out the usual sources for more details: Boston Herald, Boston Globe, and Mass Lawyers Weekly.

The next day of testimony will be Friday, when we very well may hear from Governor Patrick himself.