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
and
---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
- 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.
