Monday, May 27, 2019

Rumley's Bad Actions Ruining Medford History

Has Mark E. Rumley's CORI check taped more football games?

The sick mind of a drunk-with-power city lawyer spits on the oath of office that he swore to God to uphold.

Mark Rumley, the enemy of the First Amendment, installs his scarecrow pals, Lenny Scoletta,
Dr. Rabies - elder-hater Arthur Alan Deluca, and another exile of the shuttered TV3, Steve Bertorelli.

Those sorry individuals who allegedly frighten residents away, those are Rumley's pals.

You feel safe having your children work around the bully remnants of the old TV3?

Mark E. Rumley took the witness stand on behalf of a stalker instead of doing city business.

And when Rumley was thrown off the witness stand by the judge for testimony deemed "irrelevant," the irrelevant and obsolete city solicitor hung out with Harvey Alberg and Arthur Deluca of TV3 at Somerville Court.

Rumley, as this witness noticed, stayed around to watch the proceedings that had nothing to do with him - unless Rumley was working in conjunction with the stalker, aiding and abetting the threat to my life.

Did  you ever read a Massachusetts lawyer's OATH OF OFFICE?

I solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the ...

or malice?
this victim of Mark E. Rumley saw malice in Rumley's eyes; Rumley gave me the eyes of death in Middlesex Superior Court when I defeated Dawn Natalia and her ugly suit.


Massachusetts Attorney's Oath of Office - Massachusetts Bar Association

So let's do some simple math:

An Harassment Prevention Order was placed on a woman harassing a senior citizen Sept 1 2015 to Sept 1 2016.

On September 1, 2016 four members of TV3 and Solicitor Rumley and a police detective who made a damn fool of himself on the witness stand five months later (January 31, 2017) all ganged up on the victim.

The victim who filed for the protective order.
Mr Rumley took an oath, swore to God, these words:

 I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same

And then Rumley accepted a subpoena while Edward P. Finn, allegedly Rumley's "client" as the city clerk, snubbed a criminal court subpoena.

Think about that.

Mr. Rumley, the city lawyer of Medford, rather than recuse himself by going to the clerk, going to the judge, and stating that he has no information, got on the witness stand and attacked the victim, until the victim OBJECTED and the judge removed Rumley.

The court ruled that the stalker presented a danger to the victim.

Rumley - this victim believes - abused his license to practice law; Rumley used it in a manner in which it was NOT intended to be used, to attack a victim from the witness stand, and to be found by a judge to have IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY.

A city lawyer must be held to the highest of standards.  We now know what a fraud Rumley is.

Rumley presents a clear and present danger to the election.

Rumley screwed cable TV subscribers by investigating a board that he was once part of.

Rumley dropped the investigation so that he didn't have to publicly go after his good, good friends.


It is perverted.

Mark E. Rumley, called "obnoxious" by another resident, is a very bad man.

Every day Rumley is in the law office at city hall, your office, not his office, bad things happen that hurt each and every resident, business and civic group in Medford.

Why is that bad person destroying our history by stopping people from going to the access facility with Rumley's bizarre and unwarranted CORI check?

Because Rumley hates you, Medford. He takes your money like a con artist and he hates you.

He loathes you, Medford citizen.

Rumley says he embraces freedom of the press.
Rumley is a liar, and we will test him at the bottom of this post.

Are you going to continue to take Rumley's shit?

City Solicitor Mark E. Rumley / Medford Daily Mercury 
on or about Nov. 16, 2008 (quoted from the 2nd Judge Jackson-Thompson hearing) saying:

“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.”







Sunday, May 26, 2019

Dello Russo and Scarpelli Want the BIG SIGN

Dello Russo and Scarpelli voted for Church sign

Yes is to Reverse, 
needs 5 votes

Dello Russo, Yes
Scarpelli, NO

Knight No
Breanna No
Marks No
Caraviello NO
Falco NO - Public Safety

Petition DENIED, motion fails.

Next up
Petition from Mayor
Home Rule Petition

Adoption of Institutional Master Plan

Separation of Church and State....

1,351,000 @ 11:12 pm  Sunday May 26, 2019

"The City said this originally, not the city council"  Michael Marks

1:58:12  a fellow speaking talks about a safety issue, signs that they did not expect

That the church purchased it before getting permission.

Michael Marks: My vote hasn't wavered over the last several one hangup with that sign was the mere size of the sign.   ..."we already bought it."

That was the hang-up.   It's very different than other locations,

it's about 7' from the sidewalk

1:59:54 in

City Council 5-21-19 Shuts down Church Sign: THE VIDEO

Two Hours and Fifty Minutes that cost YOU over 200k a year!

1:01:15 IN  church sign
Marks, Chair of Sub Committee, but Marks says it is now before the council

Knight wants to read Committee of Whole report

"Redundancy is one things...Knight talking so fast we can't type the nonsense..."

Marks: 102:33 in on video: 2 weeks ago no one wanted to read reports, now they want to read the reports.

Marks and Knight have a hissy fit,...blame

Madame Knight for this one!

1:02:54 mumbling and stumbling by night, whispering between open this any way to run a city council meeting, Madame Knight....duh duh duh I can't find the notes I asked about....duh.... 

Knight is the king of the run-on-sentence. She never gets her period does she, but she's always OTR - Oh! That Rumley!   HA HA....

1:03 20
Marks: 2 weeks you want to read them again

Knight: well, it's pertinent to the subject matter

Marks:You were opposed to reading any minutes 2 weeks ago, now you want to read them into the record (Marks shrugs shoulders mockingly at Madame Knight, town buffoon!)

First 30 minutes or so about the veterans.


2nd topic See Click Fix or whatever   311 system "There are definitely some issues with it" Breanna Lungo Koehn says 35 minutes in.  "A potential fix the city of Medford could fix."


Citizen Complained to City Hall Regarding Alleged Poor Treatment by Rumley against Breanna Lungo-Koehn - allegedly

1,350,995 @ 10:31 pm Sunday May 26

My response to the woman who allegedly complained about Rumley's behavior to the mayor:

Here's what I don't understand, Jxxxxxx, a city lawyer is supposed to represent the city - that means the city council as well, and the city clerk, I believe.So if a lawyer who purportedly represents Breanna Lungo-Koehn as a councilor speaks to her, on camera, in what could be perceived as an embarrassing way; if that same lawyer belittles Michael Marks and talks over him - while Marks has the floor and even Dello Russo showing a little outrage, how does that comply with the oath of office a city solicitor took, swearing to God? Enclosed is one of those documents


Top 10 5:32 pm Sunday 5-26-19

Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr  

"I'm confused as to who has the floor, 

Mr President"

Freddy wakes up from his Ed-Finn Nap and says something coherent, for once!
Happy Valentine's Day from an egotistical and arrogant city solicitor...


Mark Rumley Should Resign: 3:50 pm May 26, 2019 Completed Essay

1,350,906 all time page views @ 4:30 pm


A)Joe Viglione, victim of many Rumley misdeeds
B)Rumley's Oath of Office to the City of Medford
C)Rumley's battles with Michael Marks, on camera, during council meetings
D)Rumley's Oath to the Commonwealth as an officer of the court, a Massachusetts lawyer.
E)Thatcher Magoun Deed Restriction
F)April 10 Public Records request response - no response from Rumley's office

here's the completed essay:

City Hall – Room 206

City of Medford
85 Geo P Hassett Drive
Medford MA 02155
RE: Possibility of Conflict of Interest as City Solicitor
       Absolute Perception of Conflict of Interest with Rumley as City Lawyer

Dear Law Office:

I am respectfully requesting that Mark E. Rumley step down as City Solicitor as I believe there is at least the "possibility of a conflict of interest" with Rumley as city lawyer.  

Councilor Michael Marks accused Rumley - on camera - of being "the mayor's spokesperson" and not acting in the best interest of the city, but of the mayor.  That is clear.  With such a flawed "job description" we will not have a fair election, just as Edward P. Finn, former, disgraced city clerk who skipped a subpoena to criminal court, interfered in the election of 2015 and, I believe, stole the election for Mrs. Burke over the legitimate winner,
Robert M. Penta.  I have MUCH evidence to back-up that assertion that Finn interfered in Election 2015 starting with an appointment to Mayor Burke's transition team who allegedly claimed he got illegitimate votes on Burke's behalf.  Maybe someone should ask Attorney Teresa Walsh, also on that transition team, what she thinks of that.

I believe Mark E. Rumley is a threat to our election and must be removed.  My evidence follows.

A city councilor and a sitting mayor are at odds in Election 2019 - and I am Exhibit A that Mr. Rumley cannot be fair and objective; that Mr. Rumley has a sorry history of letting his emotions infect his judgment - means that if Mr. Rumley is backing the current mayor, as Ed Finn certainly did in 2015, then the election has problems 162 days before it actually happens (May 26 to Nov.5 2019.)  

The results of Mr. Rumley's lack of control and self-restraint are bad for this municipality and, I believe, a violation of Mr. Rumley's oath of office  (Exhibit B attached)

Exhibit C: Mark Rumley's behavior at a city council meeting, fighting with a city councilor in public

City Councilor Michael Marks told Mr. Rumley - on TV - that he was wearing 'two hats."

Marks: "The gentleman here is acting on behalf of the the mayor's spokesperson"

Rumley: "I object, I'm on behalf of the city" 

Marks:"This is not a court, you can't object here."

Rumley then, shamefully, starts interrupting the man who has the floor, Michael Marks

Rumley: "Yes, I can, I'll object to you today, tomorrow or the next day"
The gavel slams as Rumley is now interfering in city business and hogging up the floor for himself.

Rumley, rather than be that "gentleman," blew up and embarrassed himself again at city hall, in public, and on camera. 

Marks: Mr. President if I could finish my comment.  I'm very confused

44 seconds in Mr. Rumley can't control himself; he has to interrupt and engage in Trump-styled attacks, which is disrespectful to the citizens who pay him (citizens Rumley has NEVER given a damn about,) and very disrespectful to the councilor Rumley is supposed to represent, as well as being disrespectful to the council itself.

Rumley: Very confused is an apt description (interrupting a speaker)

Dello Russo "I'm confused as to who has the floor, Mr. President"
clearly defending his fellow councilor, Marks, and not the city lawyer.

MARKS: Mr. President, the gentleman comes up here as the mayor's spokesperson (52 seconds in on the video,) ...then he's coming up here based on legal maneuvers that we're doing as a council on voting on issues to give his opinion on that...I don't know what he's acting as (a, Marks points to a finger)city solicitor (b, another finger) the mayor's spokesperson (turns to president of council) I can't understand Mr. President ...(Marks still talking but about to be interrupted again by an enraged city lawyer) 

Rumley (1:05 in, interrupting while Marks is speaking) "Well I'll make it clear to you, councilor, I'm the city solicitor, 


Marks: Well you should act like the city solicitor and not the mayor's spokesperson

Rumley (interrupting again, you or I act like this and they would throw us out!) 

Rumley: (1:11 in on video) "And as to procedure, perhaps the council should get its act together on procedure
(Isn't that a job a Solicitor and Council should consider IN PRIVATE, not in public? Shame on Rumley again!)

Marks: Well, you can't be both, you're wearing two hats tonight
Rumley talking over Marks "No, I wear one, the city solicitor and I will not be insulted in this manner"
Simultaneously Marks is saying "the mayor's spokesperson and the city solicitor"

It was mind-boggling, Marks had the floor yet angry Rumley was speaking over him.  Why have a hothead in the Solicitor's office?

Marks in response to "I will not be insulted in this manner" 

Marks: And you should not be.   Mumbling from Richard F. Caraviello in the background as they move on.

Michael Marks Gives Mark Rumley a Taste of his own Medicine 2-14-17
Happy Valentine's Day from an egotistical and arrogant city solicitor...


The MassBar Association President Christopher P. Sullivan calls it a "noble" profession, "an ancient and honorable" profession, and that the Massachusetts oath is "the oldest attorney's oath in the country."

I, Joe Viglione, will provide evidence that I believe Mr. Rumley - allegedly - violates that oath, and does so with impunity.  I, Joe Viglione, am Exhibit A. in how Mr. Rumley harms the citizens of Medford, spitting on the 1st Amendment with his phony CORI check at the public access TV station (which costs citizens millions and millions of dollars) and bizarre reading of Thatcher Magoun's  deed restriction to the city of Medford (the very expensive library, costing millions and millions more to the citizens.) Mr. Rumley doesn't give a damn about YOUR MONEY, like a drunken sailor the spending of OUR MONEY with little or no benefit to us, has a firewall to protect the owners of that money from speaking up. That firewall is the City Solicitor with Unclean Hands.  Be it abusing a taxpayer funded e mail on the Immaculate Conception church website or allegedly working on company time for his own moonlighting benefit allegedly at Somerville District Court.  Rumley's alleged misdeeds and his arrogance are a detriment to life in Medford
The oath is short, only 90 words long, but it certainly provides a clear road map for how Massachusetts attorneys swear they will conduct themselves. The new attorneys swear they “will to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.” The oath also binds the attorneys not to “sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit” nor to consent or help anyone trying to do so. The attorneys promise they won’t cause delays for “lucre” [money] or malice.” Finally, the ancient oath requires the attorneys to conduct themselves “with all good fidelity” toward the courts and their clients — simple, yet powerful promises.

So when Mr. Rumley was on the witness stand and disrespected the victim who called him to testify, Joe Viglione, why would Rumley walk up to the victim, also a witness, and give him the "eyes of death" in Judge Daniel Wrenn's courtroom?

Even more reprehensible, why would Rumley show up and throw rocks at a citizen on September 1, 2016 in Judge Yee's courtroom when the victim's life was in danger due to a violent stalker who had threatened to kill him with a bloody meat cleaver.

Let's look at the Massachusetts Oath of Office and Rumley's disgusting action where he was thrown off of the witness stand for being "irrelevant" 

I solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.

"I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same;"

Rumley had no right testifying on behalf of a stalker.

Rumley claimed he was under "subpoena" - yet the judge found Rumley's testimony "irrelevant."

Now, Rumley's allegedly the lawyer for the city clerk, correct?

If so, Ed Finn failed to show up in criminal court, under subpoena, and was most relevant.   Rumley ALWAYS wants it both ways, until he is caught by the court being "irrelevant" or caught by the Secretary of State's office not giving up documents that, after my appeal, well - abracadabra - I must be a magician - or Rumley must be dishonest, because VOILA, the documents appeared and Rumley has egg on his face, ink on his nicely pressed shirt, and is exposed as a charlatan.

Do you want that kind of person interfering in Election 2019?

Mr. Rumley plays fast and loose with the truth when he so obviously claims public access producers are all bad and must be given a CORI check for the "possibility of contact with children" when a Pat Gordon is paid over 60k or so, allegedly, to supervise the children after Mayor McGlynn, ill-advised, put the access station at the high school.

Rumley only thinks we are "all bad" because we have the possibility of criticizing a bad city lawyer on TV

So Rumley, as usual, wants it both ways.  But here is where Rumley is so wrong: the "possibility" of contact with children - with a paid employee there to supervise, is far less egregious than the absolute possibility of conflict of interest with a city lawyer playing both ends against the middle in an election with two individuals he presumably works for: the mayor and the city council vice president.
We saw the skewed results when Mrs. Burke went up against Bob Penta, rumors that a member of Burke's transition team was bragging that he allegedly stole the election for Mrs. Burke, and Mr. Rumley's actions when city clerk Ed Finn attacked this journalist, Rumley and the police department refused to properly investigate claiming there was no assault (potentially making those involved third-party defendants when I file in Federal Court 

and then the police admitting that Finn did assault me by filing phony charges in Cambridge District Court where I prevailed and Rick Caraviello and the city and the Medford Police lost in spectacular fashion.

It gets even stickier for Rumley and Mayor Burke as the phony charges were filed by the police regarding the Finn incident as an excuse, but not because of the Finn incident:

a)Joe Viglione filed a complaint on the Mayor's husband, Brian S. Burke, as Mr. Burke used a vulgarity when I was assigned to film a "back-up" copy of the Great Debate October 15, 2015.   I believe this was a reason for part of the retaliation by city hall; the malicious abuse of the court; using the court in a manner in which it was not intended to be used.

b)Viglione also filed a public records request with Superintendent Belson and then-Police Chief Sacco regarding a teacher who was exiled on June 30th, 2015 (14 days after Clerk Finn had assaulted me,) - a teacher and an alleged LaCrosse player alleged to have had sexual relations with the teacher/varsity coach.  Add to the mix that I was stalked on June 12 and 13th, three days before Finn's assault and you can quote Will Smith in I ROBOT "My luck can't be this bad."   It had nothing to do with bad luck, and everything to do with a conspiracy to attack a journalist. A journalist now protected with four years of a harassment protection order placed on the stalker. 

So why would Mark Rumley and Detective MacKowski come to the stalker's defense Sept 1, 2016, only to have both "witnesses" for the stalker - if memory serves - found irrelevant to the case?   Indeed, MacKowski should have been arresting the stalker, not harassing a witness.  Was it allegedly Witness Intimidation on MacKowski's part prior to the phony trial?  The victim certainly thinks so, absolute intimidation.  MacKowski needs to arrest himself, but we'll let the lawyers in Federal court grill MacKowski on his alleged misdeeds; then the District Attorney can be on the hot seat! )

In all these instances it is the city lawyer who is the central figure on behalf of city hall.  Mr. Rumley can't feign ignorance, no matter how many years of practice he has at doing so.  Rumley still ends up as the bad actor in the play and that is not good for the city of Medford.

Now let's look at how Rumley ran the other way with getting access TV "centrally located" and out of Medford High School.

Based on information and belief: keep in mind, I was part of the trio that shut down TV 3, AND the sole person who uncovered that Mrs. Burke and Mr. Belson and the Chapter 74 Board failed to adhere to the Open Meeting Law, based on information and belief I say that there IS a conspiracy to keep the public out of the Access TV that it funds and as yet another Exhibit - "E"  the Thatcher Magoun Deed Restriction and Rumley's misreading of it.

“If the question is whether access is or is not a violation of an educational purpose, we’d have to carefully consider it,” Rumley said. “You have to keep in mind that if we challenge the restriction, there could be serious consequences because it may mean we could lose the property. There are still heirs of Thatcher Magoun out there.”
Rumley added there is a case to be made for overlap of library function and educational purpose, but the solicitor added no one has asked him to look into that as of yet.
The library:
Did Thatcher Magoun want a library to look like a Burger King?  Changing the complexion of our community?
Honorable (former) Councilor Bob Penta stated about the library: Robert M. Penta $34 million and increasing every day as time goes by. The question to be answered is who is going to pay for this ? A complete financial breakdown of all $34 million dollars needs to be presented to our Medford taxpayers. As complained about, the $22 million dollar price tag for a new police station will be about 5,000 square feet less than needed a
When Rick Caraviello mentioned the library as a home for TV3, I noted that it would complement my idea of the Chevailer, to have a van with 2 cameras that could park at the Chevalier or the Library with editing done on computers at the library.
There was nothing about an access station AT the library, it was about using computers, which the library already engages in, to edit TV materials at the libary. Absolutely educational.

But Mark E.Rumley's bad actions ruined our ability to document Medford history.
Rumley is a scoundrel who - I believe -violates the oath of office in Medford (Exhibit B) "...agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution..."  Real First Amendment stuff that Mr. Rumley spits on when he denies you, me, your children, your grandparents free and easy access to the TV and Computers and Cameras that YOU FUND.
Keep in mind, get Rumley into a court of law or his failure to provide documents in a timely manner to the Secretary of State and Rumley does not prevail: Rumley usually loses.
You want a loser city solicitor, Meddford? Of course you don't. Yet why is our election in so much jeopardy 162 days out? Simple. Ed Finn is no longer there to do the dirty work, Rumley is.

“People can call me what they want,” he said. “What hurts is that these two people (Rumley and McGlynn) were friends of mine. I’ve been called a thief and a crook, but what they did hurts. The mayor could have called, but he took the chickensh— way out.”

Pilleri admits that Mark Rumley is his "friend"

July 23, 2014, 

On July 7, Rumley sent Pilleri a letter requesting financial data from MCC and information about where it transferred remaining assets. Rumley asked to receive the records by July 24.
Rumley had not received records from MCC as of the Transcript’s Tuesday print deadline.

Rumley, Pilleri's good friend, on May 26, 2019, is still not working on behalf of the citizens to where our money is, two months shy of five years after Rumley lied to the public again - that he would get to the bottom of what his friends and colleagues did.

Five years is too long to wait; Rumley, obviously, deep-sixed the investigation.
I have NEW information from the Attorney General's office and will be requesting more soon.  I'm doing Rumley's job for him - because Rumley is not honest with the citizens of Medford, which I believe is a violation of his oath of office.

Rumley merely passified the public access activists for a few months and then, after Rumley FAILED to have a TV3 Open Election in  Jan. 2009 that Rumley promised the citizens that they would have, he thinks that's the end of it.  Rumley KNEW there would be no election after Rumley was warned that a colleague of Harvey Alberg's informed me, Joe Viglione, that the Election would be SHUT DOWN by Frank Pilleri, Rumley phoned me at approx 8:45 pm in December of 2008 to tell me that I was right and that his good friend Frank Pilleri did exactly as I informed Rumley.    So Rumley needs to be fired for negligence or worse.

Rumley should have been removed when he reneged on his promise to the citizens of Medford.   One wonders how many board members were "in on it."  That's all I will say on that right now, citizens, but Rumley is either ineffective or worse.

Rumley cannot conduct himself in a manner that benefits Medford.
It is all about Rumley and his power and his paycheck, NOT about you, dear citizen

EXHIBIT G - Rumley's office NOT abiding by FOIA

Notice the Public Records Response about the city hall doors from Rumley's office.  A snippy remark about getting the documents from the taxpayers brought swift censure in the form of a demand  from the Sec of State's office and VOILA - SOME of those papers magically appear.

So why doesn't an honest city solicitor who took an oath to the city and another oath to the state not be honest?

That's a rhetorical question.  Mark Rumley is dishonest to the citizens he has taken an oath or two to serve.

WHEREFORE: I demand the City of Medford remove Mark E. Rumley as he, indeed, wears more than two hats, is duplicitous, and is a clear and present threat to the 2019 election, based on Rumley's own errors in judgment at the city council, based on the taxpayer funded e mail on the church website, allegations of moonlighting, failure to have an election for TV3 though Rumley knew in advance the subterfuge at play, Rumley's incessant deceptions vis-a-vis phony CORI check (any employee of Medford High School convicted of child rape Mr. Rumley?  Ever heard of Jenna Tarabelsi?) - Rumley's bad interpretation of the Thatcher Magound deed restrictions, Mr. Rumley's ugly, multiple fights at the city council with Michael Marks.

I've spent many valued, volunteer hours investigating Mr. Rumley.  This election will be as tainted as the TV3 election if Rumley, who is involved in both as city lawyer, is allowed to keep his unclean hands on our city.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joe Viglione  
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn MA 01888