Thursday, August 10, 2017

1,033,084 Caraviello called "THIN SKINNED" in Court Document

1,033,084 @ 3:34 pm

DID CARAVIELLO PAY FOR THE POLITICAL VENDETTA THAT HE WAGED...AND LOST?

THE CRYBABY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF MEDFORD CITIZENS

DO NOT VOTE FOR THE LIMO DRIVER IN ELECTION 2017


Here is a court document calling Rick Caraviello "thin skinned" = note that Caraviello used the police department and resources of the District Attorney (costing the taxpayers how much money?) for a personal vendetta against a citizen.


Why would ANYONE vote for Caraviello who failed to silence a critic by his abuse of the court system and YOUR money?

FROM THE MOTION:

The use of a Complaint for Intimidation to silence a critic is just hard ball Medford politics.

The Court should not be used to carry out political vendettas.

The Victim is not a witness to a judicial proceeding, or even a potential judicial proceeding

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS. DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT
C.A. NO. 1652CR 000010
COMMONWEALTH v. the Editor

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Now comes the Defendant who asks this Honorable Court to Dismiss the above referenced Complaint after testing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the secret Clerks Hearing held at Somerville District Court.


I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Sometime in early June 2015, the Defendant, Joseph Viglione, was involved in an incident at Medford City Hall with the City Clerk. At the time of the incident, the Defendant was at City Hall obtaining information for his blog on Medford politics. The Defendant reported this incident to the Medford Police Department and the matter was referred to Officer Mackowski for investigation. During the course of the investigation Officer Mackowski interviewed Richard Caraviello, the Victim and member of the Medford City Council, who claimed to be a witness to the incident involving the Defendant and the City Clerk. At all times material, the Victim was running for re-election to the Medford City Counsel. 

On August 3 sent an e-mail to Officer Mackowski with a copy to the Victim which stated in part…”Mr. Caraviello’s shameful act of lying to the police is typical of the City of Medford.”(see Exhibit 1) Later on August 3, 2015, Officer Mackowski advised the Defendant to have no further contact with the Victim as it could be construed as intimidation. Two days later on August 5, 2015, Officer Mackowski informed the Defendant that he had closed his investigation and found the Defendants allegations unsubstantiated. Later on August 5, 2015, the Defendant e-mailed Officer Mackowski that he was dropping the matter and would not pursue a complaint.


On or about December 8, 2015, the Victim contacted Officer Mackowski and stated that he was the subject of the Defendants blogs calling him “inept” and “bungling” and that he “does not know what Mr. Viglione is capable of and that this continued intimidation has left him and his wife fearful.”

Based upon the fact that the August 3, 2015 e-mail to Officer Mackowski contained a “direct” reference to a criminal matter involving the Defendant and other e-mails written during the Victims campaign for, or activities on the Medford City Council, in which the Defendant referred to Mr. Caraviello as “inept” and a “bungler”, Officer Mackowski sought and received from the Somerville District Court this Complaint for Intimidation of a Witness.

II. THE VICTIM IS NOT A WITNESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE

The Defendant initiated a police investigation following an incident with the Medford City Clerk. During the investigation the Victim was interviewed. On or before August 5, 2015, the investigation was closed by Officer Mackowski as the allegations of the Defendant could not be substantiated. Later that day, the Defendant notified the Police Department that he was dropping his complaint against the Medford City Clerk.

Whatever relevant information the Victim may have possessed when he was interviewed by the Police, it clearly did not relate to the commission of a crime. In all likelihood, he stated that no criminal incident occurred between the Defendant and the City Clerk as the Police could not substantiate the Defendants statements and closed their investigation.


The term “witness” as used in the statute, includes any person who has or possibly may be called upon to testify in a judicial proceeding. Commonwealth V. Burt, 40 Mass.App. Ct. 275, 277-278.

Further, Intimidation means “putting in fear for the purposes of compelling or deterring conduct”. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. V. Blake, 417 Mass 467, 474. Without a crime there is no likelihood of a judicial proceeding and the statements attributed to the Defendant are equally unlikely to compel or deter a witness from testifying that no crime occurred.


The August 3, 2015 e-mail to Officer Mackowski , with a copy to the Victim, was about the police investigation and the Defendants concern that the Victim was “lying” during his interview with the police. 

This e-mail had no effect on Officer Mackowski’s investigation as he closed his investigation two days later after finding no substantiation to the Defendants allegations. 

The e-mail cannot be construed as Intimidation because it neither sought to compel or deter the victim’s conduct through fear. 

Unless of course, truthfulness is something to fear


III INTIMIDATING POSTS WOULD NOT INSTILL FEAR IN A REASONABLE PERSON

The Commonwealth is “required to prove that the Defendant engaged in intimidating conduct, that is, acts or words that would instill fear in a reasonable person, and did so with the intent to impede or influence a potential witness’s testimony.” Commonwealth V. Rivera, 76 Mass App Ct. 530, 535
The Victim is a member of the Medford City Council and was running for re-election at the time the Defendant called the Victim “inept” and a “bungler”.
At the time of these posts, the Police Department had closed their investigation of the Defendants allegations and the Defendant himself, had notified the Police of his intention to drop the matter. Calling a Politician running for re-election “inept” or a “bungler” on a political blog is not intimidation.
The blog is known in Medford for calling out the City Council when their conduct requires comment. This is a natural function of a Democracy and a First Amendment Right. There is nothing in the blogs that would make a “reasonable person” fearful, let alone a pol. The posts are political in nature and the only fear they might generate has nothing to do with compelling or deterring the Victim’s testimony, it is, rather, the fear of losing the election.
IV. THE VICTIM IS A PUBLIC PERSON

The victim, in his capacity as a member of the Medford City Council is a public person, especially when he is a candidate for re-election. The use of political blogs to form the basis of a criminal complaint for intimidation speaks more about the Victim than the Defendant.

The use of a Complaint for Intimidation to silence a critic is just hard ball Medford politics.

The Court should not be used to carry out political vendettas.

The Victim is not a witness to a judicial proceeding, or even a potential judicial proceeding

Police must therefore, have contradicted the Defendant s allegations that a criminal assault had occurred.
If there was no crime, there will be no criminal proceeding.

Alleging that the Defendants First Amendment Right to comment on the Victims political travails are an act of intimidation is demeaning to all Parties involved.

Someone should have put the brakes on this Complaint before it was issued.

This is what you get when politics intervenes and a “secret” hearing on the facts is allowed to be held without the participation of all Parties.


Thin skin and payback are what this Complaint is about and this Honorable Court should dismiss the Complaint before more damage is done to the Defendant through the judicial process. 


Respectfully Submitted