(apologies, I may not have "refreshed" the page earlier)
1,007,031 @ 3:59 pm
1,007,005 @ 3:00 pm
58 page views in 67 minutes
________________________________________________
SEPARATE FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE BEING FILED IN FEDERAL COURT, 2 MCAD FILINGS AGAINST THE CITY, RICK CARAVIELLO, THE D.A. et. al.
June 30, 2017
June 30, 2017
MCAD Boston Headquarters
One Ashburton Place, Suite 601
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-994-6000
TTY: 617-994-6196
One Ashburton Place, Suite 601
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-994-6000
TTY: 617-994-6196
RE: RETALIATION - Part 1 of 2
Viglione vs. City Of Medford, Council President Richard F. Caraviello, Mark Tonello, Edward P. Finn, Adam Knight, Frederick N. Dello Russo, Jr., Robert A. Maiocco, Paul Camuso
Public Accommodations Act Chapter Chapter 272, §98
Dear Assistant to the Chairman:
Pursuant to the MCAD’s victory Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners, I would like to file a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against Medford City Council President Richard F. Caraviello and the City of Medford for a violation of the Massachusetts Public Accommodations Act (“PAA”), Chapter 272, §98
This is one of two filings of “retaliation” which I intend to file with the MCAD. The second case is the malicious abuse of process which was Caraviello and the Commonwealth’s failed case against me, prevailing over Caraviello, the Medford Police and the Officer of the District Attorney on January 31, 2017.
I intend to file on all three entities in that separate case, as well as possibly other individuals.
This specific complaint is on the violation of Chapter 272 , §98
On or about March 28, 2017, two months after I prevailed over Mr. Caraviello’s false charges in Cambridge District Court, January 31, 2017, Mr. Caraviello refused to allow me to tape the Medford City Council on “Facebook Live.”
Mr. Caraviello asked me to stand near the window overlooking the left side of the building (or, if you are standing at the council, to the right of the city councilors, to the left of the attendees.) I complied with Mr. Caraviello. Furious that he had lost the court case in January, Caraviello blurted out “I’m calling the police anyway.” I had to leave as Mr. Caraviello had a Mark Tonello in the back of the auditorium ready, purportedly, to put an embarrassing moment on Facebook live.
A Medford attorney and a suspicious president of a 501c3 were escorted out by the police previously for being out of order.
Please note that. The citizens who are orderly, like myself, serve the public good.
By leaving I denied them the opportunity to abuse the public forum in a way that humiliates speakers (I am not the only one, they have many victims, one who asked for their resignation on June 27, 2017 at the council, former councilor Robert M. Penta.)
1)The city of Medford has no public access as the mayor, Stephanie Muccini-Burke, and her predecessor, Mayor Michael J. McGlynn, stomp on First Amendment rights. They willfully and maliciously keep the public out of public access television and have gone so far as to muddy the waters by allegedly putting the public monies into the Medford Vocational Technical school under the guise of “public access.”
2) My videos of the city council are of great public interest as you do not need a cable TV subscription to see the city council in action. This terrifies some on the city council who engage in stifling free speech, starting with President Caraviello and his accomplices, Councilor Frederick N. Dello Russo, Jr., and Councilor Adam Knight.
When I taped
the usually secret “open meeting” in Room 207 I was applauded by Councilor John
Falco, Councilor Michael Marks and Councilor Breanna Lungo-Koehn who had
constituents call her and say they were happy to see the meeting
documented. Caraviello, Dello Russo and
Knight were vicious calling the tapings “creepy” or that their constituents
allegedly were “creeped out.” This is
disgusting censorship as Knight, Dello Russo and Caraviello’s popularity is in
question, and they all have a history of annoying speakers with fraudulent “point
of information” or tearing up paper, or cleaning their desks while citizens are
speaking…and even getting up and leaving while a Bob Penta or a Joe Viglione
are speaking. In fact, Knight, Dello
Russo, Caraviello and former councilor Paul A. Camuso did that to me
specifically as if to walk out on a resident in protest. At $30,000.00 per year
each, one of the highest paid councils in the Commonwealth, this is
unacceptable behavior. All of which is
documented, of course, on the government channel tapes.
______________________________________________________________________________________
_________________
“However the judge ultimately found that, since there was no open investigation or court case occurring at the time that Caraviello alleged he was being intimidated by Viglione, the situation did not fit the definition of intimidating a witness, and the case was dismissed on Jan. 31.
“This is the first time I’m aware of that anybody has
claimed that you are a potential witness until the statute runs out when no
ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings are in existence,” said Savage of
the odd nature of the case.”
You can find the link on Tiny URL / Caravielloabuseofcourt http://tinyurl.com/caravielloabuseofcourt
You can find the link on Tiny URL / Caravielloabuseofcourt http://tinyurl.com/caravielloabuseofcourt
http://medford.wickedlocal.com/news/20170308/case-involving-city-council-president-tossed-out-of-court
__________________________________________________________
I own two publications registered
with the city of Medford – Community Media Medford and Medford Information
Central Dot Com. Medford Information
Central Dot Com has 1,007,011 page views as of 3:15 pm on June 30, 2015
The popularity of the news site –
over a million, seven thousand views – is spectacular and only proves the point
that there is a “media blackout” in Medford where parlor tricks and deceptive
business practices by government officials threaten, harass and humiliate
residents in a kind of gangster way in order to silence the masses so that we
cannot see what is really going on behind the scenes.
Council President Caraviello
admitted under oath that the city clerk, Edward P. Finn, named in this
complaint, was involved in a “yelling incident” (on or about June 16, 2015, 2
years ago.)
I allege that Mr. Finn physically
assaulted me, a senior citizen, which is a felony.
Mr. Finn’s vicious and unprovoked
attack (I was speaking with a videographer; Finn interrupted our conversation
then, later, made a point of running down the hall to confront and assault me)
is just another tool they use to attempt to silence the citizens, and to make a
citizen “toxic” as Finn involved me in an event. Mr. Finn, as city clerk, is responsible for
voting machines and such. That a week after the assault on me Finn and/or his
wife saw an elected official at Stop and Shop and claimed that Finn’s victim, Joe
Viglione, would cost a candidate the election.
The 2015 election was suspect, with multiple incidents including
allegedly a “broken computer chip,” and – voila – Edward P. Finn picked the
right lottery winner, the woman who allegedly got him hired at city hall, and
the very popular Robert Penta – somehow – lost the election as if to invisible “Russian
hackers.” There were no Russian hackers
involved, but the city clerk was involved in an incident during the election
period, and the candidate Finn chose in June won in November, despite her lack
of popularity.
________________________________________________________
This from a police chief whose son, Joseph Sacco, was pulled over on or about January 23, 2017, his gun and truck removed from him, a relative driving Joe Sacco home, but no field sobriety test, no breathalyzer. His son walked while this writer, eight days later, was on trial for phony charges issued by Sacco’s police department.
Caraviello also harassed my lawyer AFTER we won the court case, saying that this student of Christian Science, and senior citizen, needs to be “on medication.” Talk about retaliation, in writing, to the lawyer that beat Caraviello in a court of law. I have that document.
________________________________________________________
Too many people are being harassed
and retaliated against, but no one has had to suffer as I have when:
---Robert A. Maiocco, former council
president, made a threat about hitting me with a metal pipe. Police Chief Leo A. Sacco Jr. wrote about the
incident to me: 04/19/13 at 12:32 PM
To
Mr. Viglione:
That
was not a threat, may have been inappropriate but not a threat to you or anyone
else. The Medford Police will not seek the complaint on that issue.
Feel free to file your own complaint in Somerville Dist Court if you wish.
This from a police chief whose son, Joseph Sacco, was pulled over on or about January 23, 2017, his gun and truck removed from him, a relative driving Joe Sacco home, but no field sobriety test, no breathalyzer. His son walked while this writer, eight days later, was on trial for phony charges issued by Sacco’s police department.
Police Chief Sacco has failed to
protect the residents of this city, coddling the wrongful conduct of many
officers. The list is lengthy and I am happy to provide it to the MCAD as evidence,
if needed.
Maicco’s nephew-by-marriage, Paul A.
Camuso, has had a history of bullying this resident and others at the Medford
City Council. He is no longer a
councilor but here is some of the history which shows a pattern. And please note that Camuso’s colleague, Rick
Caraviello, has worked in concert with Camuso to keep citizens “in their place”
– meaning – Camuso has also phoned the police fraudulently, one officer telling
me “What a waste of time.” Caraviello
and Camuso have both phoned the police as if they were their own “personal storm
troopers” to quote a mayoral candidate, Caraviello doing so the very night of a
court hearing, I believe, where the judge gave me PERMISSION to be at the
council (the night of the arraignment on the phony charges) yet Councilor
Caraviello and the City Solicitor were lurking around and – when officer John
Ghilain said to me
“We’re in agreement with you” (that the judge gave me permission to exercise my right to the public accommodation) the Solicitor, Mark Rumley, turned beet red and was totally angry. My opinion is that they were trying to use the police to intimidate me to leave city hall, which Caraviello later did after he lost the case on March 28, 2017.
“We’re in agreement with you” (that the judge gave me permission to exercise my right to the public accommodation) the Solicitor, Mark Rumley, turned beet red and was totally angry. My opinion is that they were trying to use the police to intimidate me to leave city hall, which Caraviello later did after he lost the case on March 28, 2017.
Caraviello also harassed my lawyer AFTER we won the court case, saying that this student of Christian Science, and senior citizen, needs to be “on medication.” Talk about retaliation, in writing, to the lawyer that beat Caraviello in a court of law. I have that document.
Enclosed is some of the
documentation of Paul Camuso’s wrongful conduct – his behavior clearly aimed at
denying public accommodation and retaliating:
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013, 5:27 PM
Paul A. Camuso
c/o Office of the City Solicitor
85 George P. Hassett Drive
Medford, MA 02155
Mr. Camuso,
Please be advised that I have filed, by hand and via certified mail, a complaint of Retaliation on you with La Donna Hatton and with Peter J. Koutoujian. This is retaliation alleged because of the public records request that I filed on you which you referenced as you, Mr. Dello Russo and your uncle, Robert Maiocco, were leaving Alden Chambers about 10:30 pm or so on May 21, 2013.
This is also a cease and desist. Please do not REFERENCE ME, do not look at me, do not interrupt me, do not say "hello" to me. Nothing. I would very much appreciate it if you leave the council when I am speaking as your alleged "Point of reference" comments have more to do with interruption of a citizen than they do of looking out for the consumers who pay outrageous cable TV bills.
Here are the reasons why you should leave the City Council when I'm speaking:
1)On a previous occasion you got up with fellow councilors and walked out on my speech. It was meant to be a slap in the face, that two city councilors being paid
$27,592.32 each and another councilor at $28,200.00 would be so disrespectful to the viewers and residents as to be disruptive.
2)On or about October of 2006 I had to file a police complaint on you for leaving the City Council (while on "company time") and running down the hallway of the first floor to catch up with me as I was walking to my car. That was sick. If you had something to say to me, you SHOULD have said it with some transparency - for the citizens to hear. What you did was sneaky, deceptive and frightening. You weighed well over 300 pounds at the time and were an intimidating figure in the dark.
3)On May 21, 2013, you pulled a similar stunt. After you made your parting comment, as I was loading expensive TV equipment and an expensive computer into my vehicle, you were driving the wrong way, blasting a horn at 10:30 PM at night, pointed at me in threatening fashion, and went speeding through a DO NOT ENTER sign in the City Hall parking lot with a reckless disregard for my personal safety.
___________________________________________________________________
I have a plethora of evidence
regarding these councilors denying public accommodation at the city council of
Medford. Their wrongful conduct must stop.
I will be at the MCAD next week to file the two formal complaints.
Joe Viglione
The Court upheld for the first time
the MCAD’s previous construction that the PAA’s declaration that “[a]ll persons shall have the right to the full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities and privileges" applied not just to a person's
entrance into a physical structure but also to situations where services
are provided that do not require a person to enter a physical structure.
_______________________
_______________________
The Court held that “the active
provision of testing services in Massachusetts, which services by their nature
are mobile, is sufficient to bring the NBME within the reach of the statute.”
Additionally, the Court rejected NBME’s no physical presence argument on the ground that it could not be absolved of liability
Additionally, the Court rejected NBME’s no physical presence argument on the ground that it could not be absolved of liability
|
