The eight-page complaint related to both a court appearance and affidavit aimed at helping Jermaine Berry get a new trial in a stabbing case. It alleges that she gave “intentionally false, misleading, and deceptive testimony” to Superior Court at the hearing.
The complaint alleges that she falsely placed herself at a BPD station when two homicide detectives questioned Isaac Wilkerson, another nephew. She testified that the detectives repeatedly turned their tape recorder on and off. Her point apparently was that police did not capture Isaac Wilkerson's statements that could have cleared Berry. Berry was convicted in the 1994 murder of Hazel Mack.
Suffolk County DA Dan Conley reviewed Sen. Wilkerson's statements. Superior Court Justice Christine McEvoy denied Berry's appeal and wrote, “Dianne Wilkerson's testimony that Isaac made additional unrecorded statements during his interview, and her claims that she was present during this interview, are irreconcilable with the tape recording and the police record of the interview.”
The detectives also said that she was not in the interview room with Isaac Wilkerson when she claimed she was. In August 2006, a family friend Rev. Ernest Branch supported her claim she was with nephew Isaac during an informal interview with police. Also, her lawyer, Jeffrey Denner said he saw no reason to bring perjury charges despite the claims of the police and judge.
The Globe also quotes the former president of the BPD Benevolent Society as saying he was pleased to hear of the disciplinary proceeding. His group filed the complaint. Detective Jack Parlon said, “If she lied — and we allege that she did — and there's an agency that found that she did lie, then c'est la vie. No one is above the law.''
Of course, that's not always true. Dick Nixon pretty much got a free ride, with a pardon, and came back to public life with the honorific of statesman.
Nine years ago, Wilkerson had a law-license suspension following her conviction on income-tax charges and two counts of parole violation. The latest spreading stains follow her plea bargain with the state AG this summer and within the last two weeks notice that she had not made fine payments nor supplied the AG with a plan for staying on the right side of the campaign-finance laws.
If disbarment proceedings continue apace, she has even less prospect for winning her quixotic sticker campaign next month. She and her campaign staff and supporters love to blame everyone else and circumstances for things Sen. Wilkerson does to herself. I don't think there are enough excuse umbrellas to keep her dry this time.
One of the quotes on my law office wall is Mark 4:22:
<
p>
<
p>I tell every client what they don’t tell me, or lie to me about, only hurts them – and I have a form that each signs indicating that if they lie to me and I find out that they lied to me, I will withdraw [among other items on that form].
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Easier said than done, admittedly.
…providing inaccurate information to a judge for one client even if I recieved inaccurate info from the client hurts every client by diminishing my credibility and therefore, effectiveness for all.
<
p>Truly, a client who lies to their own attorney essentially guts their own defense.
Probably not- but then again he’s sort of a disgraced character himself, and no longer in office.
between judging a person and judging a politician. I don’t think Dianne Wilkerson’s a bad person. In fact, if she risked her position with the bar and district to help her nephew, more power to her. However, it’s the duty of citizens to ‘judge’ whether or not someone should be in office.
The crimes this woman has comitted appear limitless.
<
p>Just what criminal act must one commit to become a “bad ” person?
<
p>Wilkerson, apparently, is not a stupid person. Therefore she has nothing but utter contempt for our society and legal system and believes that she is/was “above the law.”
<
p>Wilkerson should be doing time in Framingham, not facing disbarrment. How many felons have we graduated from the Mass. state legislature up to this point?
Nice. That’s a word usually reserved for violent sociopaths. But that kind of extreme hyperbole is of a piece with the unctuous condescension on display here. You write like a petty authoritarian out of a Dickens novel. Inasmuch as … the wheel of justice grinding … ahem, ahem, it gives me no plyesure whatsoever.
<
p>No pleasure my ass.
<
p>If she’s guilty of what she’s accused of – and that’s not clear – it would patently be a case of a morality at odds with a law, not an absence of morality.
Lying to the court is a very moral thing to do. Kudos to Wilkerson if that is what she did. She should be above the law, totally.
this comment bears no relation to the point I made about the definition of amorality and the false tone of the diary.
Count yourself fortunate that you have never been faced with such a situation.
In any event, I think it’s stupid and disheartening that the removal of Diane Wilkerson has been the most vigorously pursued (how many posts now? 20?) and ultimately successful of BMG’s political fights since the election of Deval Patrick, or at least since the election of James Marzilli.
How come the heroic Sonia couldn’t run for Congress against an Iraq War supporter like Steven Lynch? Or moved up to Malden to face off against conservative Donato? Even bought a house in Hyde Park or Roslindale to set her sights on allegedly corrupt, conservative, and anti-equality Angelo Scaccia? Low hanging fruit- easy target- opportunistic.
Hopefully it will not be the last such BMG-engineered electoral success, as Barack Obama’s election will be in some part redemptive.
I was going to say BMG-engineered is too strong, but given how close the result was, BMG-tipped might be realistic.
but it sounded good at the time. I think this is the last time I’m going to weigh in on Wilkerson-I’m just going to get in trouble. The whole thing was just very heavy-handed and unsavory, and the more that these folks seemed intent on seeing her gone the more I wanted her to stay, maybe against rationality. It seems that working-class African-Americans should have at least one senatorial district, given their numbers in Boston, but I’m a racist for thinking of it in these terms. And of course, there’s Deval Patrick.
So like I said, no more from me, even when the fallout begins.
Call it chickening out.
if they can find another good pol who isn’t crooked. in my opinion, chang-diaz never would have gotten a foothold in the district if wilkerson didn’t have about 10 years history of winking at the law.
Dianne’s loss was nearly all her own doing. From 10 years of illegality and bad management, she created enough bad blood for a young comer like Sonia to raise the money and find the volunteers and argue plausibly that she could and should win the race.
<
p>The problem isn’t Sonia — it’s the lack of enough Sonias to go around. We could use young women and young men (and progressives with energy, passion, and intelligence of all ages) to go after the centrists and career pols and good ole boys all over the state. For that matter, we could use more competition, period.
<
p>And I would add this: it’s long past time for Marzilli to resign, and we on Blue Mass should start a drum beat on that. Yes, he’s had a sterling progressive record for years. But now he’s just sticking it out to hit the first of the year and bump up the pension. It’s a disgrace. Billy Bulger would laugh at his mental illness, but would appreciate the small-time corruption of grubbing it out for the higher pension. Just Billy’s style. Sad way for a reformer like Marzilli to end.
I call it not feeding the beast.
You have clearly captured what I have been thinking and have been unable to articulate in several of my posts regarding Wilkerson. Thank you, I coudn’t agree more. I might have to take a break from the wilkerson posts too! I have an idea…we should talk about Scott Brown and Sara Orozco! Did you know the AFL-CIO endorsed Brown?
<
p>Nobody could have foreseen a 14-year incumbent state senator wouldn’t get the required 300 valid signatures to appear on the ballot for the primary. But that’s what Dianne Wilkerson allowed to happen in 2006. Only when that happened, Sonia jumped into the race. Even as newcomer with almost zero name recognition, she came within 5% of beating Dianne Wilkerson in a sticker campaign. She also made a name for herself.
<
p>Again, this is an example of Dianne Wilkerson doing herself in once again: had she gotten the required signatures, Sonia wouldn’t have jumped into the race then and what happened this year wouldn’t have happened.
<
p>2. Why in the world should Sonia have to leave her district, where she lives and is a community member, to run in a different seat? While I’m sure she’s an ambitious person, it would smack of political opportunism if she moved and instantly ran against some of the people you mentioned. She’d have almost certainly lost. Plus, from the few times I’ve met her, it’s obvious she cares deeply about her community and the roots she’s grown there.
<
p>3. It took her a long time to build the credibility and familiarity with and within the district to be able to defeat Dianne Wilkerson. Clearly, this wasn’t “Low hanging fruit.” Dianne Wilkerson was one of the most established, strongest incumbents in the entire state, with a hugely loyal base. It was a huge uphill battle for Sonia to defeat all that; you do yourself a disfavor writing such an ill informed and unthoughtful post, with baseless and, quite frankly, unintelligent smears.
<
p>4.
<
p>Again, the “BMG-engineered” comments make you seem out of touch and ignorant. The reason why Sonia Chang Diaz won was because she had overwhelming support from within the district. Outside forces, by and large, were who propped Dianne Wilkerson up – spending who knows how much, dragging who knows how many volunteers in. Sonia’s support came from within the district, from grassroots volunteers… and from a stellar campaign with an energetic, never-ending candidate.
“Amoral” means without moral quality either positively or negatively. “Immoral” means wrong, evil, etc. At least that’s what I was taught in ethics class.
What Wilkerson is being accused of is moral or immoral, depending on your morality. Not amoral.
<
p>But calling a person amoral is not a neutral claim. It is saying they do not have any notion of morality, that right and wrong don’t enter into their thinking. Usually that’s associated with psychopathology. Not with someone who wept publicly in empathy with those who were being denied equal treatment under the marriage laws.
The complaint did not state that she is amoral. I did and do. She lacks moral sensibility from what she has shown repeatedly. She insists on calling her misdemeanors – choosing not to file four years of income taxes, writing thousands in bad checks to her condo association, parole violations and such things – “accounting errors” and such.
<
p>She’s made it clear that she feels she is outside moral judgments, hence amoral.
<
p>She reinforced that by never once taking personal responsibility. I remain convinced that had she done so and apologized to her constituents she would have won re-election this time.
<
p>The judge who convicted her of various offenses, the one who ruled against her on her condo financial messes, and our AG, all imposed penalties. Her admission of guilt is apparently missing in each case.
<
p>The current complaint is totally different. From the Globe report, the police and DA were angry when she swore and then testified to being in the room during the questioning and to police switching the recorder on and off repeatedly. For one problem, the tape exists, the judge listened to it, and it apparently contradicts Wilkerson.
<
p>As an officer of the court, she has a legal duty to tell the truth in court and to court.
You’re equating morality with the law, and a very narrow set of bureaucratic laws at that. Once again, I ask you to consider Dianne’s speeches at the ConCon and elsewhere, in the face of resistance to equality in her base, as obvious evidence that she has a strong moral sense.
<
p>I don’t think there’s any better indicator of how much Wilkerson’s base stands to lose, than the presumption by Chang-Diaz supporters that anyone with a criminal record is “amoral.” Who with this attitude would ever bother pushing her to reform CORI??
This is my last on this. There’s the dictionary. There are ethics and psychology texts. There are ministers and other clerics…or your parents.
<
p>My comments and nearly all of others here do not make those equations you allege. I do say instead that she does not exhibit the normal differentiations between good and bad behavior, either before or after the fact. As such, my description holds. You are welcome to pretend that this means something else, something you can put up as a straw man and attack. Have at it.
<
p>Wilkerson has voted well many times. That’s not at issue either.
The Dems in the power seats are PO’d that Wilkerson had the stones to ask for a recount. Now she has the temerity to go after a write in. Wilkerson was given pass after pass after her criminal acts that the average Joe would never be considered for. Ms Diaz was given the kiss of the “Party” now Wilkerson wants to play hard ball. The “Party” is about to show Wilkerson what hardball is all about. Why do you think that this complaint languished for two years? Because they misplaced it? N0—they were just holding it in abeyance until “they” could give Wilkerson a broadside. After her disbarrment, neither Mennino or Patrick will touch her with a ten foot pole.
I guess she will just join the ranks of the unemployed.
only comes out during campaigns? This was going on last electionI bet this goes no where and that they have nothing. You really have to question the timing of this charge. It’s like they want this woman to go down hard.
when you go against the grain, you have to be prepared for the consequences.
<
p>DiMasi pretty much basically told the House, “no, we won’t pass casinos,” and right after that leak after leak after leak came out, trying to make Sal look like a criminal or something, when they were spurious charges at best. He even got death threats.
<
p>I don’t know if this is a similar case, where a pro-Sonia force dug this up. However, the charge isn’t new – she’s been dodging it (fairly effectively) for years. It could be that now that she’s out, whoever was holding on it didn’t feel the need to anymore. Who knows? Certainly neither of us, that’s for sure. All I know is that I’ve seen enough from local politics to know that things are not always as they seem.
<
p>But, here’s the relevant piece of info:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know anything about the BPDBS, but I have a hard time believing it’s filled with Sonia’s closest allies. If anything, it seems the sort of place where Wilkerson allies would have been – but very likely neutral. If you’re concerned or curious about this at all, you know the organization that’s bringing up these charges. It wouldn’t take much from there to figure out the relevant questions – who’s specifically behind this, why, etc. I just don’t care enough to do that kind of research. Dianne’s on her way out; I wish for the love of all that was holy that she would have taken the graceful exit, but it was her choice to take the walk of shame.
<
p>I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: had she just bowed out gracefully, she would have salvaged her career. She could have cleaned up her ways, took a nice position (likely much more profitable) for a few years to save up some cash, then ran for something later on. It could have been another rematch, in which she’d have a better shot, or it could have been for a position like Mayor if Menino resigned. She was amazingly shortsighted and really did her best to turn herself into the stereotypical ‘tragic hero’ in Shakespearean proportions. But the bottom line is she did these things to herself and she must accept responsibility, whether she likes it or not.
“I don’t know anything about the BPDBS, but I have a hard time believing it’s filled with Sonia’s closest allies.”
<
p>Doesn’t have to be political like that to be untrue or trumped up. If Wilkerson’s testimony frustrated a prosecution, that’s motive enough right there to want to retaliate.
<
p>A better question: why would the union file such a complaint, instead of Conley charging her with a crime?
<
p>Wilkerson has a history of criticizing the BPD. David Bernstein wrote in 2006 (can’t find it now) that all this stuff was coming in leaks from the BPD during the last campaign.
<
p>I wonder if it’s typical of Chang-Diaz supporters to presume the police always tell the truth? If so, the new power-base of the district is indeed out of touch with the experience of poor minorities.
She attempted to spring a murderer (I don’t care what it was plea bargained to—misdemeanor murder)
<
p>This woman is loathesome. People such as her and her ilk persist in one escalating criminal act to another until they are locked up. I would not be surprised one iota if she winds up in the can in a few years.
I’m just saying that if she were intelligent about all of this, she could have salvaged her political career. This write in, though, mostly flushes any of that future potential down the toilet.
I don’t think Senator Wilkerson is/was “low hanging fruit” nor do I think Sonia is opportunistic. But I do think there is tremendous value in having a honest conversation about how to address the issue of progressives running against progressives. The low-income residents and people of color I work with are much more concerned about how their representatives vote on areas such as increased funding for housing that is affordable, funding to provide meaningful and positive opportunities for young people, and equitable public education than they are about ethics and good government. If we are committed to a progressive agenda here in MA then our work needs to be about more than individual elected officials/offices. Personally, I think our collective resources (volunteer time, donations, etc.) are much better spent picking off elected officials (in all gov’t bodies) who are not progressive and who in some cases, such as Scaccia, hold up important legislation (see Expiring Use bill) b/c of their views or personal vendettas.
<
p>I am not at all saying that Sonia should have moved to Hyde Park and certainly I respect anyone who decides to run for elected office. However, I do think we need to put together a state-wide strategy about how to run and elect more progressives, specially against incumbents.
Ever wonder why this stste is so F—‘d up? It’s because we have a one party system. A big rubber stamp on Beacon Hill. Gotta a problem? No problemo–Here’s a few million. Not to worry—-there’s more where that came from. Screw the taxpayer. That’s OK—–when the stock market and the financial centers crash—there won’t be any money—-for anyone.
for your last paragraph.
<
p>really, you need to get a grip.
You wrote that the BPD detectives’ union “seems the sort of place where Wilkerson allies would have been – but very likely neutral.”
<
p>Dianne Wilkerson called out the detectives of the BPD by name in an op-ed column two-and-a-half years ago, on their work habits, their competence, and their racial make-up.
<
p>And you didn’t need to know about that specific column to guess that someone like Wilkerson would have that kind of history. She was an NAACP lawyer in the 80s, for God’s sake.
Wasn’t Tom Finneran forced to accept punishment from the Bar for virtually the same crime? Lying under oath? Why the surprise over the Senator? My only surprise is the timing, but I’ve said why that was.
Which is why I find it odd people are saying this was released “during” the campaign. For those who missed the news, the election was September 16th and this news did NOT come out. At the time that it was busy not coming out, no one knew that Chang-Diaz would win and that Senator Wilkerson would run in the general on stickers… if there is anything fishy about the timing, it’s that it was held until AFTER the campaign.
<
p>Also, don’t forget, a Judge held a ruling against the Senator for not paying her condo fees in 2006 until something like a week after the election.
<
p>Both of these timings seem odd to me, but not in the way people are suggesting here. Seems more like the announcements are being delayed until after the elections. If someone was trying to release this stuff to hurt her, I think this would have been more damaging a couple weeks before the primary. But it never came out.