1,021,112 @ 5:06 pm
Mark E. Rumley,
And he's now utilizing a city lawyer thrown off of a witness stand in a separate case for being irrelevant, correct?
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.
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.
- 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)
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.