Friday, July 21, 2017


1,021,287@9:51 pm
1,021,112 @ 5:06 pm
Mark E. Rumley,
City Hall Medford
85 George P. Hassett Drive
Medford MA 02155

Dear City Solicitor Rumley:

We are discussing the city council president, Rick Caraviello, who used the police and the office of the DA in an inappropriate fashion to try to censor the person filing the Open Meeting Law violation, correct? 

And he's now utilizing a city lawyer thrown off of a witness stand in a separate case for being irrelevant, correct?

1)My complaint is substantial, and I have videotape from Facebook live of the events prior to the council meeting where the city council president, in retaliation for losing to me in criminal court, engaged in harassment and illegally removed me from a city council meeting.

The council was NOT in session.  I behaved appropriately, Mr. Caraviello, again, did not.

My credentials as a journalist are solid; you, of all people, Mr. Rumley, know the access I have to A-list guests, and that I have written a plethora of articles for Gatehouse media as well as the companies that owned the Medford Transcript before Gatehouse purchased the company - the Boston Herald, Community Newspaper Company, etc. etc. 

The fact that you don't ask for credentials from other Medford Transcript writers to sit at a desk at city hall, yet target me for exclusion, is pure discrimination.  Maybe it is due to my being openly homosexual, maybe you can't stand legitimate criticism, for whatever reason, it is just plain wrong, and it is the rule, not the exception, in this city where a solicitor allegedly had a separate law office with the State Rep in Haines Sq. (as Mr. Paul Donato informed me as he had me sit in your chair one day,) to allegedly rip off the citizens of Medford by allegedly moonlighting as an alleged bill collector at Somerville District Court on Thursdays, while the citizens needed a full time city solicitor.

Really, Mark, how many pro se litigants have had you thrown off of a witness stand for being "irrelevant?" And a simple "objection" with a judge as referee, stopped your nonsensical rants which - sadly - are reflected in this balderdash you are now passing off as a response to a claim of an open meeting law violation.

When a respected third party, like a judge, was involved, isn't it interesting that my point was valid while the arrogance of the city solicitor was exposed, and the solicitor's position was called "irrelevant" by that third party? 

That is BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION as evidence that my facts hold great weight over the solicitor's defensive positions in this matter.

From your obvious conflict investigating a 501c3 that you were on the board of one or two times, to your screaming and yelling at City Councilor Michael Marks at council meetings because you demand respect that you haven't earned as city solicitor (don't try to deny it, two instances of these unbecoming moments of yours I believe are on tape) to your failure to do the right thing because you are too busy acting defending the positions of government officials who employ double standards, in fifteen and a half years dealing with you I have noticed how you drag your feet, fail to respond properly, and never get the results that the residents of Medford, who pay you, deserve; results that the residents are looking for.

We are still on #1 of my response to your letter responding to my open meeting law violation complaint.

We citizens have been abused week after week by unsavory individuals like:

---disgraced ex councilor Paul Camuso (alleged to have assaulted his own grandmother with a butcher knife, and other alleged incidents alleged to be worse than that)

---juvenile Fred Dello Russo Jr. behaving like a young brat at the council week after week

---Adam Knight making noises while a woman, a veteran of our military, is speaking


---Rick Caraviello, who:

a)Yelled in my car window at 10:57 am on Saturday 7/15/17
b)Blasted his car horn at me while I was doing laundry on 7/16/17 at 7:30 pm or so on Route 60
c)harassed me while at the council meeting of 3/28/17 simply in retaliation for losing in criminal court on 1/31/17 where I believe Caraviello (allegedly) perjured himself in regards to moonlighting on the city council...

The fact that - with a straight face - the city solicitor is trying to defend those indefensible people and fracture the First Amendment, is appalling given your statement to a retired judge, as published in the Medford Mercury November 16, 2008:

“The one sentiment that I have heard that I take great exception to is that the city is trying to limit speech,” said Rumley. “The notion the city would censor or squelch free speech is baseless and as city solicitor I would find any such effort repugnant.”

Were that so, Mr. Rumley, why is there no firm date for the access TV station when the students AND the city council have use of the facility?

2)Attached, Exhibit A, is the response to a public records request that I received from Kim Scanlon in your office today.  As you know, or maybe you don't, it appears that Mr. Caraviello did not familiarize himself with the OPEN MEETING LAW MATERIALS, which I believe are required by law.

3)Mr. Rumley, we went through a similar situation when Paul Camuso chose to be Council President
(the tactics in room 207 allow councilors to "choose" rather than be legitimately elected to the position. Case in point Mr. Dello Russo getting in again in 2016 when Mr. Caraviello thought he had made an alleged deal.) I believe Mr. Camuso had failed to file the Certificate of Receipt of Open Meeting Law Materials, and now, years later, Mr. Caraviello allegedly has failed to do the same. 

As city lawyer do you have an obligation to school these novice council presidents on the rules if they can't properly open the alleged packet they purportedly receive from the State Ethics Commission, which is being CC'd in this correspondence, along with other government oversight who should find this information critical, even if the time limit allegedly expired on filing an Open Meeting Law complaint.

4) "Backstage pass to a David Bowie concert"   - that you aren't kidding, Mr. Rumley, is the sad thing here.

,,,I brought legitimate press passes, which I get just about daily (as you know, I've been a film critic for most of my life, since I first published in 1969, at the age of 15; met Alfred Hitchcock at the age of 18; while in high school attended a press conference with the incredible Maysles Brothers (filmed bands The Beatles and The Rolling Stones) for my high school newspaper, years later watching Beatles' footage from Ed Sullivan (unaired) IN THE OFFICE OF THE MAYSLES BROTHERS.  

The David Bowie medallion wasn't a back-stage pass (who needs a backstage pass when I was in a lengthy meeting with Bowie at the hotel in Springfield in 1976 and again with him at the Four Seasons Hotel in the 1990s)

That you focused on my Bowie medallion instead of the legitimate press passes speaks volumes about how you conduct city business, Mr. Rumley.  That Bowie medallion is worth a lot of money these days, I just wore that to prove a point, IN ADDITION TO MY PRESS PASSES

That you didn't reference the legitimate press passes in your response is a huge statement of how the city solicitor takes things out of context, repeatedly, and it weakens your position substantially.

What that says is this:  If Ethan Hartley is the new kid on the block and Joe Viglione wrote for the Medford Transcript as far back as 2004 (and the Woburn Advocate in the 1990s, and the Stoneham Sun (great article on a WROR d.j.) in the 1990s as well - for the same company - then it is PURE DISCRIMINATION because YOU, Mr. Rumley, and Mr. Caraviello not only loathe me for my talents; you hate and despise me.  That is why city hall discriminates and has polarized our city.

I wrote for Gatehouse, was paid for my work, and Caraviello denies this sixty-three year old journalist and award-winning radio host and award-winning TV host the right to sit at the desk, the right that I earned when Mr. Adam Knight was merely a twinkle in his daddy's blue jeans.  The same right he gives to another journalist who now works for the same publication that published me.

You people are completely self-absorbed and derelict in your obligations to this city and its residents when this kind of discrimination is the rule, not the exception.

We residents understand how we've been cheated by government officials.  Your letter is more of the same and your position is weak and has become tiresome, Mr. Rumley.

When you or your colleagues name-call and ridicule and belittle the late Pat Fiorello, or great men like Dr. Storella and Bob Penta, or humiliate a Doreen Wade (or fail to investigate properly,) or have Adam Knight belittle a Jeanne Martin by making noises while she speaks, or allow an Edward P. Finn to physically assault a man, it shows how negligent and immoral you and some of your colleagues are, colleagues like-defendant in a shocking court case George Scarpelli, Adam Knight, the juvenile Frederick N. Dello Russo, Jr., Caraviello etc. 

How you individuals really and truly are.

Have I made my point yet?    

5)"Buffoon."  Mr. Caraviello was abusing this citizen, not the other way around. 

Then again, we are talking about the assessment of one vindictive Mark Rumley, a man who in Jekyll and Hyde fashion wrote me this week besmirching me with Frank Pilleri's favorite word, "delusional," (how unoriginal, Mark,) and then saying that you will "pray" for me. 

Why are you, the city lawyer, mixing religion with politics?  It is as off-base as Caraviello writing to my attorney to say that a student of Christian Science needs to be on "medication." 

Where are you, Mark Rumley, defending my choice of religion (though I am still listed as a Catholic with the Catholic church, I attend a Christian Science church, as a student, not a member.)    You certainly are worldly enough to know that the Christian Science religion finds advertising for Breo or Levitra - with their side effects - to be repulsive; that Caraviello would reference "medication" after he loses a court case, and sends the slur directly to my lawyer, is repugnant, to use one of your favorite words.  (Editorializing on this: one of my favorite words is "brio" -
noun: brio
  1. vigor or vivacity of style or performance     Let there be no doubt that I find a pharmaceutical company twisting the word brio and calling a drug "Breo" most offensive)

How can you defend such blatant religious discrimination by a city council president?

Where is Mark Rumley to defend MY religion, even if the solicitor disagrees with my choice, we are still living in America.  And to avoid the side effects of a Levitra or a Breo by turning to prayer is more logical than the spitballs a city council president throws honking his horn, yelling into a window, or dragging a man into court on false charges. 

I feel Mr. Caraviello is now stalking me for pointing out his deficiencies as council president and also feel that the city solicitor isn't backing up the citizen who has IMPROVED Medford by giving the facts on Caraviello's lack of qualifications to run a council meeting ... a council meeting which is supposed to have oversight like the Open Meeting Law.

Or even Mark Rumley's failure to address Caraviello's lack of qualifications to determine who a legitimate journalist is.

Mr. Rumley, I had to request that you remove the city e mail from a non-city website where you were listed as a "permanent"  person at that institution.  If you are no longer there, why the claim of being "permanent" ?   Does this help citizens or does this make you impressed with yourself?  

I point this out to show the difference between "self serving" and "public service."

You once stated to me that you knew my mission was to help the entire community (paraphrasing you here.)  It is one of the few truthful statements that I have heard you make.  So why does a man making over one hundred thousand dollars a year of our money not hold a City Council President Accountable To The People Paying Him Over Thirty Thousand Dollars A  Year ?????

The fact that Caraviello has failed as a public servant has not escaped you, Mr. Rumley. We know that.

Which makes your defense of Caraviello's immoral and unethical behavior all the more outrageous. 

You know exactly what Caraviello is, yet you defend him, and not the city that pays you.

Incredible.    It begs the question, if taxi cabs have to vet their drivers, who scrutinizes the drivers of a limo company owned by a council president also paid by the citizens of Medford? 

Citizens should be able to look at every employee of RC Limos and see if the kind of people Mr. Caraviello hires are people that we can trust; people we could hand a key to every apartment in the city and trust...  don't you think, Mr. Rumley?  

Let's see if every employee of RC Limos is honest enough that we could give them a key to every apartment in Medford.

Can we see Mr. Caraviello's files?   If he is in such a powerful seat in our community, we are owed that.

As for your own situations, Mr. Rumley, not only did you immediately see the error in mixing the state with a non-state entity with the abuse of the government e mail (after I pointed it out) I no longer see the term "permanent" or your name on that site.   

Having said that, my new requests / demands of Caraviello are here:

---For violating the open meeting law and NOT having a certificate of receipt signed properly,
Mr. Caraviello should step down, resign as council president and allow Michael Marks to ascend to the presidency

---Mr. Caraviello should apologize to me for the religious discrimination, in writing.

---Since Caraviello was negligent in filing the open meeting law certificate, what else is our council president negligent in?  Citizens need to look at employee records of RC Limos to see if public safety is the council president's #1 goal.  Especially if the limo services proms and drives teenagers and young adults.

---as a citizen of Medford, I feel that Caraviello mixes his private for-profit business with city business, even by bringing the corporate car to council meetings like an advertisement,. Same with Dello Russo's name promoting his business, same with Adam Knight not giving as many motions or resolutions as he gives out "congratulations" - ostensibly campaigning while at the city council.

That a citizen is, as Michael Marks called me, so "articulate" - and "logical," as Judge LaMothe called me, and "intelligent" as Judge Fitzpatrick also noted in open court, makes this legitimate complaint all the more powerful.  Especially in light of my having Governor Deval Patrick remove Mayor McGlynn's uncle from the board of the Medford Housing Authority, and my extraordinary work in the removal of the stain that was TV3 from Medford life.

Having to listen to more nonsensical rants from a city lawyer looking for respect that he hasn't earned, who calls people "delusional" rather than do his job, I find quite troubling.

I find your response to my Open Meeting Law Violation complaint to be thin, except for the timeline issue.  
Mr. Caraviello failed to file the proper paperwork. Mr. Caraviello bullied me.

I am the victim here.  Caraviello harassed a resident and phoned the police when the police were not necessary.

It was wrong as the phony court case that Caraviello lost and you need to punish Caraviello for abusing our police force and crossing the line.

The council meeting was not in session, and Rick Caraviello is a known liar, a dishonest councilor who cannot be trusted.  You, as city solicitor, should find Caraviello's stalking activities - twice on Route 60, once on Central St., and via e mail, of great concern.

Elected officials should be held to higher standards.  My experience in this city is that the City Solicitor has the lowest of standards for the government officials that he represents, and engages in a smear campaign on citizens who lodge legitimate complaints, as surely as that solicitor's histrionics are so transparent when Councilor Marks baits Mr. Rumley, and Rumley takes the bait, on camera, exposed to citizens who expect more, yet who are forced to accept the judgments of an appointed city official who is negligent with the finances of Medford Community Cablevision, vindictive, and who can't hold himself to the highest of standards, but who behaves like his colleagues at the now-defunct TV3. 

Mr. Rumley has the lowest of standards for himself and the unprofessional individuals who have invaded our school committee, city council and corner office.

Mark, your sophomoric behavior has become tiresome, and your defense of Mr. Caraviello is offensive.   Mr. Caraviello lost in court, he filed false criminal charges.  You were thrown off of a witness stand, Mr. Rumley, for having irrelevant testimony.  You can't be that blind to see that your positions are in error and that when a third party is involved, the city - and you - are often found to be on the wrong side of the ruling.

Perhaps this victim didn't file the paperwork on time, but this resident did find out that Caraviello was so busy dragging an innocent man into court that he didn't have time to familiarize himself with the open meeting law.

For that alone, Caraviello has disgraced himself and needs to be sanctioned.

Joe Viglione