On September 1, 2016 MARK E. RUMLEY
WAS under subpoena by an attorney or attorneys for a stalker who was under a restraining order.
The stalker's attorneys were trying to re-try the case and the judge wouldn't hear of it.
Mr. Rumley KNEW he had nothing to offer the court, and in another case on 1/31/17, the clerk of the city of Medford SNUBBED a subpoena in criminal court. Now - perhaps - Ed Finn was terrified of testifying as he could have been arrested on the spot for assault. That was the goal of the victim of Ed Finn and Rick Caraviello.
But the fat coward Ed Finn was the invisible man, and it is real hard to hide all the fat, but Finn was allegedly so terrified he went on the lam and failed to show up in court.
Now Mr. Mark Rumley should have recused himself. Mr. Rumley is a very smart man, he can't feign stupidity that he HAD to accept a subpoena from a stalker. An honest city lawyer who cared about the taxpayers and cable subscribers would have called his pals in the clerk's office and they would have squashed the irrelevant testimony.
Rumley went for two reasons: to watch me in action and to attack me from the witness stand.
One objection from the victim removed Rumley's testimony and embarrassed the city lawyer, angered him, and got him more agitated than ever. Rumley then talked to Harvey Alberg and Arthur Deluca, the individuals he was supposed to be investigating: his pals and colleagues that he seems to be protecting, the charlatan board of MCC TV3.
_________________________________
Friday, March 29, 2019
Home »
» DID MARK RUMLEY'S TESTIMONY, RULED IRRELEVANT BY A JUDGE, VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE?
DID MARK RUMLEY'S TESTIMONY, RULED IRRELEVANT BY A JUDGE, VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OFFICE?
By Information Central March 29, 2019