Please note. Some grammatical and spelling errors need to be fixed that are in the original e mail.
To expedite this appeal I did not proof read.
Atty Scanlon
To expedite this appeal I did not proof read.
Atty Scanlon
Officer Casey
c/o Medford City Hall
85 George P. Hassett Drive
Medford MA 02155
RE: Names of 27 officers, Alleged Child Porn, Varsity Coach Allegations
Dear Attorney Scanlon and Officer Casey:
The response that I received is inappropriate.
I am asking for an appeal via the Public Records Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Enclosed are:
a)my original public records request dated September 26, 2019
b)the city's response received 10/9/19 @ 4:00:50 pm
Here are the elements of that appeal:
1 of 3)Police Misconduct
I do not believe that Exemption applies.
a)We are talking about a QUARTER of the police department, just about. An investigation of forty of one hundred and twelve police officers with twenty-seven out of that one hundred and twelve disciplined, fifteen exonerated and three missing in action or not discussed that I can see.
a)We are talking about a QUARTER of the police department, just about. An investigation of forty of one hundred and twelve police officers with twenty-seven out of that one hundred and twelve disciplined, fifteen exonerated and three missing in action or not discussed that I can see.
Exemption should not apply to what the Medford Transcript (Oct 4 2019) noted is "police misconduct." Here's the headline
Medford residents, officials "concerned" with police misconduct, Chief says he still trusts officers
b)Exemption did not fully apply to the alleged domestic violence of officers Jimmy Lee, Shawn Hughes, the late Greg Hudson and others. The information was released, to some extent, to the public paying the salaries of these alleged public servants
c)with an election 26 days away and this event a disaster for Mayor Stephanie Muccini-Burke, it is sad that the police - and this is not
a joke or me trying to be funny at all, this is serious - that the police would hide in cowardly fashion behind the mayor's apron strings.
The public has a right to know ESPECIALLY with an election less than 4 weeks away exactly how the officials paid to serve and protect us are behaving.
d)How can voters make an educated evaluation, how can discussions prior to an election be held with city hall not revealing these embarrassing incidents which happened on the watch of the mayor and the police chief?
e)This is especially alarming given the gravity of Detective Mackowski's misconduct in filing false charges thrown out of court 1/31/17;
ex police chief Leo Sacco's son NOT arrested for the allegation of drunk driving that very same week as Mackowski's malicious attack on a victim of an assault at city hall, Stephen Lebert's murder threat resulting in his removal and becoming national news in the process, Stephen Lebert and his uncle in the high profile beating of a Woburn resident resulting in a $49,000.00 payout to the victim - one would think that city hall and the police department would understand the gravity of not informing the public funding these operations; that their track record is ugly and hardly what citizens expect of public servants, a track record dating back to Depositors Trust as well as a recent television report on Captain Alan Doherty (resulting in Doherty's easy money being stopped BECAUSE THE PUBLIC FOUND OUT,) an officer allegedly attacking another office AT the police department, the low standards of the Medford Police Department and two administrations at 85 George P. Hassett Drive - city hall - are unacceptable. The long history of low standards for the police and high standards for the citizens footing the bill are exactly why the public has a right to know which individuals that the public is employing are involved in what the weekly paper called "police misconduct."
f)Chief John D. Buckley using talking points from his own biography on the police website insults the intelligence of every Medford citizen. "These are good men and women." No they are not, they have been labeled by the weekly newspaper as participating in something as egregious as "police misconduct." They took an oath of office and are now shielded by a weak mayor facing a strong opponent in Breanna Lungo-Koehn and a novice police chief obviously schooled by the previous chief of police - Leo A. Sacco, Jr., with a lot of baggage on Mr. Sacco's resume' - and that is this writer being polite. Chief Sacco masqueraded as "Buddy Sacco" but like former mayor Michael J. McGlynn, they could whisper in your ear with pure malice, as I have had to endure from both Michael J. McGlynn AND Leo A. Sacco, Jr.
This is not our first time to this rodeo. I've been investigating Medford government since before 2002, my first meeting at city hall with Solicitor Mark Rumley and former Human Rights Commissioner Diane McLeod in early 2003.
We are all aware of the rules, we are all aware of Medford's failure to hand over public records requests on time; Medford city officials violating the Open Meeting Law, fracturing the public trust as surely as many government officials have demolished their oath of office - exemplified by Mark Rumley's perpetual distractions and hyperbole from the law office.
g)an example of this "subterfuge" (definition: deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.) is when Mr. Rumley:
---failed to have an election for the 501c3 Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. on or about January 2008 when Rumley promised the citizens this, was warned (by me, thanks to a then confidential informant. It can now be disclosed that the informant was a business partner of a board member infuriated by their dealings with the 501c3that the allegedly self-appointed president of the 501c3 was going to shut down the election.
Example of past misconduct at city hall cheating the citizens
City Solicitor Mark Rumley, who represents the mayor on the Board of Directors, said on Jan. 19, 2008, there will be an election in City Hall, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and anyone who appears that day can become a member of TV3 for the special rate of $15, half of the regular price.
Rumley was advised of the impending shutdown of the election and the solicitor let it happen, costing cable TV subscribers their access monies used for harassing lawsuits instead.
The installation of the allegedly fraudulent board happened this way: Ex board members of the TV station were posted as current board members, yet they were no longer on the board. They had left. This is something that my investigation discovered and brought to Rumley.
This is why my investigation of this police misconduct, ten years later, is so important for the public to read.
Once I uncovered that an ex board member was being used as a ruse, Solicitor Rumley ran with the idea, promised to credit me, basically stole my idea for his Rumley Report (trying to evade that he plagiarized me by using other members that he found were also listed as current board members, but not mentioning Brian Mahoney, the tip-off from me as I went to Mr. Mahoney and got verification that the former Federal employee was no longer on the board!) so the votes were the poisonous tree and all that came after the fruit of that poisonous tree, allegedly. And Mr. Rumley, as an appointed board member, either was negligent or was part of the deceit.
Either way, citizens should not be saddled with Rumley's "poor lawyering" or - far worse - Rumley violating his oath of office to hurt the community while enriching himself with a salary this writer does not believe Rumley has earned or deserves. Just Rumley's failure at stopping the fraudulent vote at TV3 with questionable and suspicious board members halting an election, then misusing the funds for anti-SLAPP violations (as we found in court) and other misdeeds, shows the squandering of citizen monies that Rumley took an oath to protect.
Read the Transcript article from a decade ago with the Rep Paul Donato more concerned about the station censoring what Donato wanted to watch rather than what the citizens want to see on the access channel.
This is how city hall behaves in Medford and now - again - Medford wants to fail to give the citizens this key information prior to an election.
RUMLEY AND THE CITY LAW OFFICE MISBEHAVING WITH TV3 BOARD THAT RUMLEY SAT ON
RUMLEY AND THE MEDFORD POLICE ENGAGING IN THE SAME EXACT SUBTERFUGE PRIOR TO AN ELECTION
WITH THE FAILURE TO REVEAL WHO THE 27 OFFICERS ARE
This doesn't help the citizens make an informed opinion. This helps a scurrilous mayor, Muccini-Burke, and those on the gravy train.
IF, within the article from a decade ago, the still-in-office Rep Donato screamed "The most protected right" in regards to free speech and freedom of the press during an election cycle, this "most protected right" is essential in regards to the election and the information necessary about the police misconduct for the voters to make an informed decision.
________________________________________________________________________________
Interesting that City Hall demands a CORI check of access television producers - even if producers are simply mailing a show in - to investigate the private lives of private citizens - especially if they are running for office - but public servants who do wrong hide in cowardly fashion under city hall talking points and now this "exemption" malarkey when there was no exemption for other officers of the law who broke the law.
An innocent man - a victim of an assault by a violent ex city clerk - is harassed by the police with phony "Witness Intimidation" charges which cost the innocent man and victim of city hall violence thousands of dollars to defend. City Hall intentionally published a libelous piece in the weekly Medford Transcript to smear the journalist. City Hall lost.
Mark E. Rumley goes on the witness stand, the city solicitor, to smear the same victim. The victim looks at the judge and says one word "Objection" and the judge agrees thrown the city solicitor OFF of the witness stand and labeling the solicitor's testimony as "irrelevant."
The vindictive nature of the Medford police - a private comment to me by Chief Sacco (10-17-17) or the "eyes of death" from the city solicitor, or nasty abuse by the Mayor (La Cascia's Bakery, 5/17/17) or the mayor's husband, a court clerk, abusing the public with his alleged "hit list," and his "Payback begins tomorrow" allegation - calling this journalist a vulgarity when I was assigned to tape the debate, 10-15-15 - just more evidence of how the Medford police and city hall target critics and refuse to release pertinent information.
This is pertinent information. The failure to make the information public when other police officers were named for misconduct, is wrong. Acting like cowards, doing wrong and running and hiding, does NOT make the public safe.
We want brave men and women as officers. If they do wrong, they should apologize to the public. If they do wrong and are shielded from transparency for the public paying their salaries, it is the same misconduct that led to Stephen Lebert having a reign of terror as a police officer.
I submit that Mr. Lebert is Exhibit A as to why all 27 officers need to be named, along with the three not exonerated but listed as people of interest. Chief Sacco failed to disclose ALL the complaints on Lebert resulting in Lebert threatening to murder a Malden resident AFTER the physical assault his uncle and he allegedly engaged in, costing the city $49,000.00.
Hiding wrongful conduct from the public results in more Mackowski/Lebert style abuse by the police department.
I am appealing City Hall's tactic and this administration's stonewalling because an election is 26 days away and demand those names immediately.
2)The same goes for the alleged child pornography that this journalist brought to the attention of the FBI because we knew the police would hush it up
3)the same goes for the varsity coach/teacher and a student, that student purported to be the daughter of the mayor and a participant in the alleged affair.
If the mayor's daughter was 17 at the time, she was of a legal age. Since it was allegedly a consensual act for her, the teacher is a different story being in a position of power. The public absolutely has a right to know if there is one standard for the daughter of a public official and another standard for Jenna Tarabelsi, now convicted ex employee of Medford High School.
Hushing this story up for the 2015, 2017 and now 2019 elections does a disservice to the public. I submit that the 27 police officers that were engaging in what the weekly paper called "police misconduct" are being as hushed up as the alleged affair between (allegedly) the mayor's daughter and the teacher/varsity coach, now allegedly employed in another city close by.
The mayor's daughter is not a child, nor was she violated. If she engaged in the conduct, the mayor's daughter made a poor choice, but it is news and there is no shield for this outrageous failure to make this known to the public. Especially in light of Jenna Tarabelsi's rape conviction on Oct 13, 2015 for sex with a 15 year old student and allegedly two 17 year old males.
We have double standards in Medford, and this appeal during an election cycle is THE MOST PROTECT RIGHT according to State Rep Paul Donato.
City Hall wants it both ways: they want to smear a journalist who was a victim of violence by the city clerk, and they want to hide the wrongful conduct of police officers - who were required to help the victim of violence at city hall, not smear him - and they want to hide an alleged sex crime if it reveals unethical judgment by a mayor who is negligent, who lies on the campaign trail, and who hides everything she possibly can from the public.
Failure to give the 27 names of those officers infects the 2019 election. It tampers with the possible results of the election and it is a slap in the face to the public that funds these men and women; a public that deserves better.
We've been cheated by City Solicitor Rumley and the two administrations that he worked for (and still works for.)
The names of these officers is of GREAT public interest
Attorney Scanlon's e mail is exactly the response I figured that city hall would send prior to an appeal - having corresponded with this city hall over the past thirteen years.
I am as serious as a judge about this information.
Do we have a police department engaging in deception in order to try to tilt an election?
Why does the police chief have a talking point for this police scandal directly from his biography on the police department website,
Why does the police chief have a talking point for this police scandal directly from his biography on the police department website,
two city councilors using another city hall talking point on October 2, 2019, and Chief Buckley saying he has "overwhelming" support when my readers, City Council Vice President Breanna Lungo-Koehn and the Medford Transcript offer evidence that Chief Buckley has no such overwhelming support; that the police chief is lying to the public in order to help Mrs. Burke get elected again, because that is in the best interest of the current administration, not the public.
This is our most protected right, freedom of information and freedom of the press during an election cycle.
If Chief Buckley and Mrs. Burke are honest about wanting to "rebuild the public trust," then they are off on the wrong foot.
Truth be told - Chief Buckley and Mrs. Burke are deceiving the public and hoping that they will get away with it.
Failure to disclose the names of those engaging in "police misconduct" - as the Transcript headline reads - when other officers of the law, Lee, Hughes, Hudson, Norton, Sacco, Doherty, etc. etc. were disclosed, is a farce, is abuse of the Exemption rule when it wasn't used before, is not being honest with the public during an election cycle, and is unacceptable.
This is more inappropriate behavior for a city hall and a police station that the public doesn't trust.
Chief Buckley said there is no reason to fear the police. False charges on a reporter who was a victim of violence by a member of city government is just one of many good reasons to fear the police and more proof that Chief Buckley is being dishonest with the citizens of Medford.
And the need for those names is because the "Police Misconduct" was allegedly the police being dishonest with the public.
Chief Buckley has violated our trust. He is being dishonest and shielding cops who may be allegedly dishonest.
Birds of a feather is not a reason to shield police misconduct from the public during a critical election cycle.
Sincerely,
Joe Viglione