Saturday, October 5, 2019

Home » » Proof that Buckley LIED to the Community

Proof that Buckley LIED to the Community

By  October 05, 2019  
control
intimidation
a complete abuse of power
Olivia Benson, SVU!
Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2019, 3:48:56 PM EDT
Subject: News Gathering; Police Chief-difference between right and wrong

To USA Today and other News Media:

Candidate for mayor, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, said on 10/1/19 on the government channel: "But there are a lot of people questioning the trust of this city with regard to this matter and others and they're...they're too afraid to speak up. This is our police department. The department that keeps us safe....people are reaching out to us." 1:14:00 in on the city council videotape October 1, 2019.

The City Council Vice President - mayoral candidate Breanna Lungo-Koehn, noting that people are reaching out to the council, and that people are too afraid (of the police, of city hall) to speak up.

The police chief, looking weak, talking very slowly - not powerfully, tapping his finger on the podium, then lies to the public refuting what the council vice president said.   But she's not the only one.  One Medford resident phoned me and said that they'd lost all respect for the chief of police with his bad performance.  

1:15:53 "That we're capable of policing the police" John D. Buckley, Medford Chief of Police.
1:16:06 Buckley "I've spoken to a number of people in the public...(intentional pause) ...since this happened ...I've received overwhelming support for the way that it's been handled..." ...

Does Chief Buckley know the definition of the word "overwhelming?"   This e mail is in direct conflict with Burkley feigning support that is not there from the people I talk to...the majority of the people who have spoken with me on this.

Back the tape up and listen to Councilor Michael Marks not-so-overwhelming comments about the situation.

Does Chief Buckley not know the difference between right and wrong, and the commitment his oath of office demands of him to "serve and protect" citizens?

Definition of "overwhelming"

adjective: overwhelming
  1. very great in amount.
    "he was elected president by an overwhelming majority"
So, we have evidence on tape of Chief Buckley lying to the city council and the citizens of Medford.

More importantly, the public is overwhelmingly against how the chief handled it, if you listen to the council vice president, this reporter and many others.

When a city council vice president states on the same video that the public is afraid of the police, and when this writer finds evidence, overwhelming evidence, actually, that refutes Buckley's false claims - oh, a politically connected cop committing adultery then breaking the lip of his mistress; a cop having his gun taken away by a judge for spousal abuse - yet still packing a piece, carrying a gun, while on duty; a cop driving drunk, a cop strangling his wife and now a QUARTER of the police force under John Buckley disciplined, 27 out of 112, and all the chief can say to save his own bacon is "These are good men and women" - the same mantra / talking point on the police website in Buckley's bio.  Detective Mackowski and Officer Paul Covino turning a blind eye to ex city clerk Edward P. Finn committing a felony; Edward P. Finn failing to show up in criminal court under subpoena on 1/31/17, the same week ex chief Sacco's son was allegedly drunk driving, according to Channel 5 news.    These are not honest officers of the law - and be very clear about this:

---Covino, Mackowski, Buckley hold themselves to the lowest of standards when the public wants the highest ethical standards for people in positions of authority

----Covino, Mackowski, Buckley, Mrs. Burke, Solicitor Mark Rumley are WORSE than criminals because they pretend to be good, law-abiding public servants when, in fact, they take care of their families first and they feed the public to the wolves and the lions.

That's how they conduct themselves in the city of Medford which is pure organized crime.  You can't believe what Buckley tells you becaue the criminal element runs the city of Medford and citizens are much too afraid to bring child pornography to the police station or a photo of the mayor giving the finger to firefighters or the photo of Rep Donato grabbing the penis area of the former vice president to the council, Michael Marks, who talks a good game but is as spineless as the rest of the thugs running and ruining the city of Medford.

The public isn't buying it.  Not the excuses, not the stonewalling, not the failure to be honest, the lateness of the press conference, perfectly timed after a celebration of the "topping off" of the new police station, this entire fiasco orchestrated by Chief Buckley, Mayor Burke and Solicitor Rumley.

These facts hardly show "overwhelming" approval of Chief Buckley's bad moves; the show they opposite, that the public does NOT support Chief Buckley's cowardly ducking of information 30 days before a critical election.  Buckley is doing the bidding of dishonest mayor Burke, and it is sick, it is calculated, it is wrong.

Chief Buckley knows the difference between right and wrong, and his decision, his determination, was to do the wrong thing and blind the public to how ugly and awful this story is.

Now Buckley, instead of showing strength, instead of being a man, hides behind the skirt of the deceptive District Attorney of Massachusetts, Marian Ryan.    You make an untrustworthy woman do your dirty work, Chief Buckley?  Is that what a man does?
Or is that what a yellow-bellied coward does?
______________________________________________________________________________________

1)A police chief needs to know the difference between right and wrong.  Chief John D. Buckley of the Medford Police Department is just as bad as Leo A. Sacco, Jr. who preceded him.  On 10-17-17 "Buddy" Sacco was at the city council lying about how fine and dandy everything is in Medford.  Earlier that year, January 2017, his son was NOT arrested for allegedly drunk driving.  Channel 5 reported that they took the gun, keys, truck away from the MBTA cop and a "family member" drove him home.


3)News Gathering in Medford can't be cablecast on local television EVEN IF E MAILING THE STORY, as the City Solicitor has demanded CORI checks on individuals, not to protect the children, but to spy on potential candidates for elected office.   If you want to MAIL your tape or DVD in or e mail it to the station, Rumley demands a CORI WAIVER FORM which makes the participant look like a child rapist.

Solicitor Rumley's track record is ugly - allegedly moonlighting at Somerville District Court to allegedly collect credit card bills; Rumley using his taxpayer funded city e mail on the Immaculate Conception church website.  Charlatan Rumley appointed himself to investigate a 501c3 that ripped off the community though Rumley had a huge conflict: Rumley was on the board while the "alleged" crimes were being committed.  So Rumley ran from the investigation that he started because - let's face it - he was on the board when alleged crimes were being committed and he - as the city attorney - didn't stop the abuses, the waste of cable TV subscriber monies via the franchise fee.

 July 31, 1986
William F. Weld, the United States Attorney, charged today that the men formed a ''tightly knit clique moving to seize governmental power'' and ''posed a serious threat to law enforcement'' in Massachusetts.
As an example of the threat, the Middlesex County District Attorney, Scott Harshbarger, cited a $1.5 million bank burglary that he said was carried out by the ringleaders of the group, who were then able to ward off investigation for five years.
Mr. Weld, who has been nominated by President Reagan to head the criminal division of the Justice Department, said the case was unusual and one of the most serious examples of police corruption in recent American history.

There is no news gathering in Medford because Rumley censors the residents with impunity.

Rumley will make you look like a child rapist if you don't sign his phony form which he said publicly, on TV, was "in flux" on or about March of 2018 - over nineteen months ago - a phony form to MAIL your shows in to YOUR TV station which Rumley has stolen from you, which Mayor Burke has stolen from you with a Chapter 74 board found "guilty" of not adhering to the Open Meeting Law...intentionally and on purpose.  So that the mayor could spend the money that this journalist saved the city when I demolished the old TV3 under that fraud bord of directors that Attorney Rumley was appointed to.

Rumley fractures his oath of office and spits at you when Demarest vs Athol/Orange gives us what his pal Paul Donato, state reprobate, calls "the Most Protected Right" - political speech during an election cycle.


CCR Amicus Brief - Center for Constitutional Rights
https://ccrjustice.org › sites › default › files › assets
May 21, 2014 - Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty. TV, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. ..... is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”); Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty.

A federal court has ruled that nonprofessional news gatherers have the same rights as professionals, supporting a community gadfly who claimed she was muzzled by a public access cable company.
It is the first ruling of its kind, said the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented plaintiff Patricia Demarest in her fight with Athol/Orange Community Television.
"It will open so many more doors for common citizens to use public access as a public forum and a place to speak their minds," said Demarest, co-producer of the program "Think Tank 2000."
"It's a fight for any common citizen to bring forth ideas and generate healthy communities."
Demarest used the program to accuse local officials in the central Massachusetts town of Athol of conflicts of interest.
But after she broadcast the grilling she gave one official, she was suspended by the cable company, whose board is appointed by the city. The company also changed its rules to ban controversial programming, requiring broadcasters to get written permission from anyone they portrayed.

Chief Buckley lies as sweetly as Mark E. Rumley does - just put "Rumley Repugnant" in Google and get Mark Rumley lying to a retired judge:


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.”

Now Mark wants to CORI check you, even if you mail a show
in to the TV station.

So much for political speech during an election cycle.
What it means is that Rumley and Burke are screwing with an election again, can't win honestly, they have to cheat, and they spit in your face while they rifle your wallet out of your back pocket.
Hey, I'm only the guy Judge LaMothe called "very logical," and who Judge Fitzpatrick said is "an intelligent man."

Why listen to intelligence and logic when Rumley can distract you with his eloquent lies, straight out of his worn-out thesaurus.


Joe Viglione