Former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi has blazed a path for his fellow federal convicts, persuading the the state’s highest courtroom to rule that he couldn’t be mechanically disqualified from turning into a lobbyist on Beacon Hill.
This modifications little for DiMasi, 72, who by this level is previous the 10-year ban window for which this is able to apply following his 2011 federal responsible plea to corruption prices, and is presently an lively lobbyist. But Associate Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote in an opinion printed Thursday from the Supreme Judicial Court siding with the North End Democrat that the legislation permitting on the spot bans solely applies to the particular state crimes it lists — and never federal ones like these DiMasi pleaded responsible to, although there are different avenues the secretary can take for such people.
This caps off a giant week for DiMasi, who — together with fellow former-speaker convicts Thomas Finneran and Charles Flaherty, per Politico — shook palms and clapped backs at Gov. Charlie Baker’s farewell shindig within the State House on Wednesday.
DiMasi, a longtime state rep and a speaker for 4 years, was sentenced to eight in federal jail after pleading responsible to steering contracts — a $4.5 million deal in 2006 and a $13 million deal in 2007 — to a Canadian software program firm in trade for kickbacks funneled via a legislation affiliate.
He was the most recent in an extended custom of Boston pols ending up in sizzling water with the feds, from former mayors James Michael Curley and Kevin White — although White was by no means charged — via these former audio system, City Councilor Chuck Turner and state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson additionally within the late 2000s, and into the higher echelons of the Marty Walsh administration just a few years in the past.
DiMasi was launched in 2016 after making an enchantment that his sentence be minimize quick following a most cancers analysis — and tried to turn out to be a lobbyist three years later.
But Secretary of State William Galvin, who overlapped with DiMasi — and Finneran and Flaherty — as members of the Boston House delegation for greater than a decade within the 70s and 80s, moved to dam him. Galvin’s argument then, because it was via the SJC proceedings, was that although the lobbying legal guidelines solely forbid individuals with sure particular state convictions, the conduct DiMasi pleaded responsible to on the federal degree matches with them.
That’s the argument that in the end didn’t maintain weight with the justices. Georges dominated that the legislation on the books lays out extra of an automated course of for Galvin than the discretionary one he claimed — that there are, Georges dominated, sure crimes for which a conviction means Galvin has to disclaim a lobbyist, and people are it.
“Because the Legislature repeatedly rejected language that would have disqualified all felons, and instead included language that limited automatic disqualification to felony convictions under (the law listing the state crimes it settled on), the Legislature evidently did not intend the Secretary to have the broad “automatic” disqualification discretion that the Secretary suggests,” Georges wrote, then quoting earlier caselaw. “To the contrary, if the Legislature’s intent was to disqualify individuals based on their underlying conduct, regardless of the conviction, ‘the wording of the statute could have easily reflected it. It does not.’”
He added that Galvin has different avenues and might work to interact proceedings to ban people who find themselves convicted of federal crimes. It’s simply the “automatic” ban with out proceedings that’s not allowed for crimes like this that aren’t listed within the legislation.
DiMasi’s legal professional Meredith Fierro mentioned in a press release, “At its core, this case is about statutory interpretation. We are pleased that the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed our view that the statute is clear and unambiguous.”
Source: www.bostonherald.com”