Judge says Vitale got help from lawmakers

The lawmakers - House Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas Petrolati and Westport Democrat Michael Rodrigues - have not been charged with any wrongdoing. But the 40-page ruling this week by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frank Gaziano, which discloses many aspects of the state prosecutors’ case for the first time, appears to contradict their earlier contentions about their roles.

Petrolati has said he had limited involvement with the bill, and Rodrigues has said DiMasi never asked him to advance it.

Gaziano’s decision, in rejecting Vitale’s requests to dismiss the case, offers an extraordinary glimpse into how the ticket legislation, an idea first floated by Ace Tickets owner James Holzman in 2006, ended up passing in the House of Representatives more than a year later. The bill sought to remove a cap the state places on the prices for which tickets can be resold.

The ruling threatens to cast a new shadow over Beacon Hill after a period of turmoil leaders have sought to move beyond. After DiMasi resigned from the Legislature in January and was indicted in June on separate federal corruption charges, lawmakers vowed to restore public confidence by toughening ethics and lobbying laws. But the allegations contained in Gaziano’s ruling raise new questions about the actions of some who are still in power.

Gaziano details alleged conversations and e-mail exchanges among Vitale, Holzman, and lawmakers about the bill, which passed in the House in October 2007 before dying in the Senate. DiMasi has also not been charged in the ticket brokers case. His lawyer, Tom Kiley, declined comment.

As the bill was languishing in the Consumer Protection Committee in July 2007, the ruling says, Vitale alerted Holzman that DiMasi had spoken to Rodrigues, then-chairman of the Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure, about moving the legislation along. Rodrigues said Thursday that he did not remember any such conversation.

Vitale also allegedly assured Holzman that he had Petrolati on the case “now on a daily basis.’’ Petrolati, a top DiMasi lieutenant who continues in that role under House Speaker Robert DeLeo, has denied through a lawyer doing anything to help the bill’s prospects. The lawyer, Jack St. Clair, said in June that Petrolati “played no integral role, other than to vote on the bill because it was good legislation.’’

Neither Petrolati nor St. Clair returned calls for comment this week.

According to state prosecutors, Petrolati discussed the legislation in a meeting with Holzman and Vitale at Vitale’s former accounting office in August 2007, and that when an imperfect bill emerged from the Consumer Protection Committee on Sept. 24, Vitale, the next day, instructed his assistant to e-mail Petrolati with Holzman’s concerns “asap . . . personal and confidential.’’ That day, according to Gaziano’s ruling, Vitale and Petrolati spoke by cellphone five times, and Vitale had a package delivered by courier to Petrolati’s State House office.

Later, after the bill stalled, an apparently frustrated Holzman urged Vitale to “tell him [DiMasi] just get the job done and he will be taken care of for a long time with any personal ticket needs.’’

It is illegal to offer something of value to a public official in exchange for an official act.

Holzman’s lawyer, Donald Stern, yesterday denied Holzman was promising DiMasi gifts.

“As Mr. Holzman explained to the prosecutor, there was never a promise or intention to provide Mr. DiMasi with any free tickets in exchange for anything,’’ he said.

Vitale, who is charged with violating state lobbying and campaign finance laws, has denied he acted as a lobbyist and was therefore required to register with the state. In rejecting his argument, Gaziano outlined the extensive efforts Vitale allegedly made to push the bill through the Legislature.

Vitale was paid $60,000 by the ticket brokers and would have been paid an additional $20,000 had the bill become law, state prosecutors say. Success fees are illegal under Massachusetts law.

Before Vitale signed his contract with the Massachusetts Association of Ticket Brokers, he made it clear that he was familiar with the lobbying rules, the decision shows. In an e-mail, he allegedly described the contract as “carefully worded by an attorney who specializes in working with lobbyists etc. It is important that all parties know I am not a lobbyist as they have to register.’’

Gaziano said in his ruling that prosecutors “paint the portrait of a wealthy, well-educated, politically connected individual’’ who had a lawyer and should have known the rules.

“The defendant argues that a person of ordinary intelligence standing in his shoes could not have known he was required to register,’’ the judge wrote. “The defendant’s argument is unpersuasive.’’

Vitale’s lawyer, Martin Weinberg, said he “respectfully disagrees’’ with Gaziano’s ruling.

“We continue to contend the [lobbyist] registration statute in existence at the time lacked the constitutionally required clarity to comport with due process,’’ he said.

According to Gaziano’s ruling, the House Ways and Means Committee, which was chaired at the time by DeLeo, also played a key role in producing the bill the ticket brokers wanted. It was passed by the full House on the same day.

DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell said in a statement that the bill was amended “on the merits.’’

“At no time did Speaker DeLeo communicate with Sal DiMasi, James Holzman, Richard Vitale, Reps. Rodrigues or Petrolati on the ticket broker bill,’’ he said.

Once the bill emerged from the House, it went to the Senate, where the ticket brokers group was hoping Vitale would have similar success.

But Vitale told the ticket brokers that Senate President Therese Murray had a problem with the legislation, according to the ruling. Vitale allegedly told his clients not to worry - that Murray and DiMasi “have bonded’’ and that they were working on persuading her to pass the bill. “We are on it daily,’’ Vitale told the ticket brokers, the ruling shows.

David Falcone, Murray spokesman, said that Murray and Vitale never spoke and that “the Senate president was always opposed to the bill and the outcome speaks for itself. It was never considered by the Senate.’’