Censorship Hatemonger Mark E. Rumley Damaged Medford Life and Medford's History By Shutting Down Free Speech

our message is getting out to a wider audience

9:04 am Dec 14 2020  over 33,000 views since 11/1

 

THE ex CITY LAWYER AS LIAR  

HATEFUL, SPITEFUL CENSORSHIP MONSTER MARK E. RUMLEY DAMAGED MEDFORD, AND PROFITED FROM IT.

 http://freespeechmedford.blogspot.com/

 
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.”

 

Hey Mark -

Lip service is so unbecoming.

“This is free speech. It’s the public’s right to listen to political speech. It’s the most protected right. I was just flabbergasted.”   Paul Donato

 http://medfordinformationcentral.blogspot.com/2019/06/rumley-must-resign.html

 Rumley admitted to "faxing back and forth" with the judge. What the hell was a board member or former board member of TV3 doing seeing the judge's report in advance?   Allegedly white washing it!

__________________________________________

Remember when Marie O. Judge Jackson-Thompson (retired) said these words on the GATV (Government-access television) channel in Medford around 2008 -    

"I'm here to make sure that this TV station is the best it can be for ourselves and for our children"  

 Well, it's sad to say that the judge, paid $3900.00, failed in her mission.

 

in 1953 THE FREE SPEECH CASE

UNITED STATES VS. RUMELY

 

IN 2O2O THE PEOPLE OF MEDFORD AGAINST

RUMLEY...DESPICABLE HATE MONGER MARK RUMLEY DENIED FREE SPEECH AS CITY SOLICITOR, HIS DIRTY LEGACY LIVES ON WITH PHONY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES PATRICK GORDON USES TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF ACCESS TELEVISION IN MEDFORD

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/321/united-states-v-rumely

United States v. Rumely (1953)

By John R. Vile

Related cases in Government Investigations and Freedom of Association

Edward Rumely is shown on the left in this 1918 photo. In the early 1950s, Rumely was convicted of contempt after refusing to disclose to a congressional committee who bought political books for further distribution. His conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court, and the Supreme Court affirmed, saying the congressional committee was limited in its inquiry. Rumely, also publishers of the New York Evening Mail, had experienced other government prosecutions. In this photo, he is in the custody of a federal agent after being arrested on charges that he accepted money from the German government to run his newspaper. After his conviction, he was given a presidential pardon by President Calvin Coolidge. (Photo, public domain via Wikimedia.)

The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), took as its basic premise the First Amendment’s prohibition against congressional abridgment of the rights of free speech and a free press.

Rumely convicted of contempt after refusing to tell congressional committee who bought political books

The Court unanimously affirmed a federal appeals court decision invalidating a contempt conviction of a witness who had appeared before the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities.