1,350,858 @ 2:35 pm
Law Department
City Hall – Room 206
781-393-2470
Rumley: "Yes, I can, I'll object to you today, tomorrow or the next day"
Dello Russo "I'm confused as to who has the floor, Mr. President"
Marks: Well you should act like the city solicitor and not the mayor's spokesperson
Law Department
City Hall – Room 206
781-393-2470
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 mayor...as 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 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,
GAVEL SLAMS
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!)
(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...
______________________________________________________________________
Exhibit D A Lawyer's OATH OF OFFICE in the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Rumley plays loose with the truth when he 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.
So Rumley, as usual, wants it both ways. 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 https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/CJ%20Brochures/massachusettsciviljusticebrochure.pdf?sfvrsn=2 ) 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.
b)Viglione also filed 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,) 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 (with four years of a harassment protection order placed on the stalker, and Mark Rumley and Detective MacKowski coming to the stalker's defense Sept 1, 2016, only to have both "witnesses" for the stalker 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.
Joe Viglione
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn MA 01888
EXHIBITS
A)Joe Viglione, victim of many Rumley misdeeds
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.
When a lawyer doesn't give up documents to the people
