RE: SPR19 2081
Objection to Aspects of Amended Response
Dear Public Records Supervisor
I did not address my objection to Attorney Scanlon's Amended Response which the Medford Assistant City Solicitor sent past the deadline when responses were due.
My questions in my Objection to her Amended Response are here:
1)On Oct 10, Fredson Sossavi Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, gave us ten business days to add anything
to the records request.
I added information, Attorney Scanlon did not.
2)Attorney Scanlon only amended her complaint on or about Thursday, October 24, 2019, 2:26:33 PM EDT - only after the Determination was made and sent earlier that day. Because Ms. Scanlon missed the deadline, her Amended Response should be ignored.
The history with Attorney Scanlon at Medford City Hall is well documented over multiple public records requests. It is interesting to note that Attorney Scanlon's professional responses sometimes appear to have a different style of writing injected into the correspondence.
I humbly request that the Secretary of State's office demand that if this is allegedly happening, and the style seems very much like Ms. Scanlon's boss, Solicitor Rumley, that if Mark E. Rumley, Esq. has something to say he send it in a separate correspondence.
For example, a snippy comment in a different public records request about me going to the "taxpayers" to find out about the missing doors rather than city hall, who "disappeared" those doors, was rude and objectionable. But it was made in a response with Kimberly Scanlon's signature attached. IF Rumley is using his assistant's name to inject his venomous attacks on me, well documented on witness stands in three different court rooms (Cambridge District Court, Somerville District Court and Middlesex Superior Court) - his attacks so egregious that Judge Yee finally removed him from a witness stand on September 1, 2016, that it is improper and - if the allegation is true - it is fraud on Mark E. Rumley's part.
Knowing Mr. Rumley since early 2003 and Ms. Scanlon over the past few years, they have two separate personalities. Ms. Scanlon is hard-working and polite. Mr. Rumley is alleged to have moonlighted, used his taxpayer-funded e mail in an inappropriate way, and has had beefs with a city councilor, ostensibly his own client, in public, with Rumley attempting to belittle Councilor Michael Marks every chance that Rumley gets.
I will go further and state, based on information and belief, that Mr. Rumley has intentionally caused both your office and this investigative reporter time with his subterfuge and failure to answer properly in a timely manner.
3)Ms. Scanlon references "naked children" that the police claim appear on the floppy disc that a whistleblower mailed me regarding MCC TV3, the board of directors that her boss, Mr. Rumley, appeared on. Now we personally do not believe Mr. Rumley would profit from child pornography, though the individual alleged to be the pornographer was a close friend of a now deceased convicted child molester who appeared on TV3. (Mr. Rumley, as a board member, allowed an out-of-town child rapist free speech but FAILED to help the cable TV ratepayers get on their own channel, how sick is that?)
Two things are of great concern with Ms. Scanlon's response:
a)The Medford Police "Cyber Crimes Unit" was alleged by one officer to be "the finest in the country" (paraphrased.) Yet the cyber crimes unit claimed, I believe falsely, that they couldn't find the vital information on harassment.
b)the claim that the police could not determine the age of the individual they say appears on the floppy disc is illogical.
They knew the time of the alleged photographs (before the alleged culprit was evicted from an apartment,) where the person in the photographs worked, so they can match up the date of birth of the victim in the photographs and the time of the eviction and - voila - have an idea if the person was a child or a teenager over 16 years of age.
Ms. Scanlon stated "...mandate that photographs of naked children be released" knowing full well that my concern regarding the documents is for public safety: just state plainly that the images are of naked children and then prosecute the offenders.
If the images are of a male over sixteen years of age, release the images and return the floppy disc.
The point is this: If Mark E. Rumley sat on a board of directors with an ex board member using city-owned equipment to film children, create child porn with a city-owned camera, allegedly, then the city lawyer - allegedly - is throwing public safety under the bus so that he will not be investigated for failure to rein in his colleagues at Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. Allegedly.
If the McDonald's corporation on November 3, 2019, yesterday, voted their president and chief officer off of the board for a consensual relationship with an adult fellow employee, why is Mr. Rumley not held accountable for his multitude of failures vis-a-vis the free speech platform, TV3?
That's why these documents are so essential.
Supervisor Sullivan wrote in the October 24, 2019 Determination by (public records) office - Page 3 -
Supervisor Sullivan wrote in the October 24, 2019 Determination by (public records) office - Page 3 -
"Nevertheless, there is a strong public interest in monitoring public expenditures and public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to public employment matters."
The Determination goes on to state:
"Further, the public has an interest in knowing whether public employees are "carrying out their duties in an efficient and law-abiding manner."
1)The Medford law office lacks transparency and intentionally drags its feet to keep essential information from public view - despite the law declaring that there is "strong public interest in monitoring public expenditures," like TV equipment that may have been used for child porn.
2)The public's interest in knowing if a Mr. Rumley is carrying out his duty in an efficient and law-abiding manner. Given Mr. Rumley's use of a taxpayer funded e mail on the church website in violation of his oath of office and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Rumley - under subpoena from me, giving his late brother's best friend, the then-mayor's cousin legal advice after I had a judge remove the mayor's cousin-by-marriage for being "conflicted," as Judge Timothy Gailey so nicely put it. After I reported 5 death threats made by the attorney, the mayor's cousin, directed at me - which Judge Gailey knew were true because one of his clerks, Brian Sullivan (now head clerk in Cambridge Court I believe) heard one of the five threats. The attorney joked when those civil cases involving the TV station concluded "I can make it six in four" laughing in front of my attorney who stared suspiciously at the mayor's cousin (Six in Four, meaning we were in a courthouse where he hadn't threatened me before and he could make it the sixth death threat in four court houses!) - and given that I received a threat on the 24th of October, 2019, after City Hall objected to the Determination (that the police have put a bounty on my head,) I think it is pretty clear where the threats are coming from.
"Why all the anxiety" Mayor McGlynn once said about TV3.
The same could be said of Mark E. Rumley - anxiety enough that I have been stalked, threatened and that Mr. Rumley CC'd two police officers, two additional attorneys and the district attorney after the Determination in my favor.
I request that the Public Records supervisor uphold the Determination in my favor, order city hall to give me all the documents requested AND, if you find that my details about Mr. Rumley's objectionable behavior are correct, that your office file with the authorities on city hall's conduct which is a clear and present danger to public safety. Not only the death threats and stalking aimed at me, but the failure to arrest an alleged child pornographer because city hall Medford loathes transparency and has swept many an important issue under the rug and away from the residents, businesses and civic groups, making Medford a very dangerous place to live.
Mr. Rumley once said to me personally "No one would do this for himself; you are working for the public good" (paraphrased.)
That is exactly what I am doing
Please uphold the Determination in my favor, order city hall to hand over the documents, and see about opening an investigation into how business is done at Medford City Hall
Respectfully,
The Editor
The above letter is an objection to Kim Scanlon's Amended Response
The previous e mails were objections to Mr. Rumley's Reconsideration of something vital to upholding the public trust; material that is vital to the monitoring of public expenditures
There are 5 e mail objections to Mark Rumley's Reconsideration letter - all five are attached in one file.
1)Oct 24 at 3:56 PM Objection to Reconsideration Re: Public Records Determination SPR19 2081
2)Oct 24 at 4:38 PM Pt 2: Attorney Scanlon Missed Deadline - Re: Public Records Determination SPR19 2081
3)Oct 24 @ 6:17 pm SPR19 2081 Part 3 - Objection to Reconsideration Re: Public Records Determination SPR19 2081
4)Oct 25 at 2:38 PM SPR192081 (4th e mail) Threat that there's a "bounty" on my head allegedly from the police; letter to D.A. Marian Ryan
5)Oct 26 at 12:54 PM SPR19 2081 Solicitor Rumley's Page 3 Urgency of the Public's Right to Know
_________________________________________________________________
THE EDITOR
