Fri, Jul 2 at 4:09 PM
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
One Ashburton Place, Room 1719
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-2832 (office)
(617) 727-5914 (fax)
RE: Medford Police Department has NOT met the burden SPR21/1525
Dear Public Records Division:
As a follow-up to my first Notice for Reconsideration:
The
subject of SPR21/1525, City Council Vice President Adam Knight has
appeared in the powerful weekly press, the Medford Transcript,
admitting he did something, but spinning the facts falsely as he is running for reelection.
Thus,
the presumption of innocence doesn't exist. Mr. Knight admitted, in
public, that something happened. In an election cycle the rights of
voters
paramount. Without seeing the
photographs prior to the election, the voters only have the false claims
of Adam Knight to the press that this isn't a
story but, yes, he did something.
Why
should the defendant have the right to obscure the facts and the public
be kept in the dark? The original determination that the public should
see
the photos MUST stand and this
reconsideration is valid: all government records are public records and
the public's right to know matters of great public
interest,
especially when the defendant appears to have the only voice out there,
must supersede alleged rights of the defendant to stand in the way of
the public's right to know.
Exemption C appears to favor the voters, taxpayers, general public in regards to what the
third paragraph of the letter to Lt. Casey (July 1, 2021, SPR21/1525) expresses:
"The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosures by creating a
presumption that all governmental records are public records."
In Paragraph 2, above on the first page, Rebecca Murray - Supervisor of Records - notes "I found that the department
had not met its burden to withhold certain responsive records under Exemption (f)."
In the Medford Police Department's response, page 2 paragraph 2, it cites Exemption (f) and Exemption (c)
Exemption (c) includes the term "the disclosure of which may constitute an unwanted invasion of personal privacy."
I submit that the defendant, Adam Knight, as Vice President of the City Council, being a public figure, has less personal
privacy
than a janitor or clerk at Medford City Hall. Yet Knight and the
Medford Police Department spoke on May 10, 2021 to Gannet's powerful
weekly paper, the Medford Transcript/Wicked Local Medford, about this
very case.
The police - and defendant Knight - are choosing how they will disseminate the information to the public.
In the newspaper today is an article about NY Times vs Sullivan:
That
1964 ruling created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel and
has been a bedrock of US media law, but the two conservative justices
said it's time to take another look." https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/02/politics/supreme-court-landmark-libel-case/index.html
The focus is on the fact that Adam Knight is a public figure who - by speaking in the paper - has admitted to sufficient facts.
By
speaking publicly they - Knight and the Medford Police - have forfeited
the right to hold back certain information as they are giving the
voting public during an election cycle merely one side of the story.
Both the police department and defendant Knight have given up the right
to withhold some of the information. The council vice president's
egregious actions were a clear danger to the public. Knight was accused
of fleeing the scene of his alleged crime at an alleged "high rate of
speed." Allegations are that his own children had to experience the
alleged nightmare ride. Voters have a right to see these documents IN A
TIMELY FASHION.
Knight
and the police have forfeited their right to hold back the photos as
what Mr. Knight told the press is in direct conflict with the police
report and the damage done to the Bank of America, Mystic Ave., Medford.
By withholding the documents they fail to serve the public interest.
If Mr. Knight wanted privacy, why is he spinning a story his way to the powerful weekly paper?
Only by disclosing the photographs and videos can the public be served during an election cycle.
This
is "the most protected right" (political speech,) state Rep Paul Donato
said to the same paper over a decade ago when his rights were violated
by the local TV station.
So
is the Records Division of a mind that elected officials have more of a
right to public information than the voters and taxpayers who fund not
only the salaries, but the entire system?
I
submit that it is a flagrant abuse of the system to deny voters the
right to see public documents during a critical election where one of
the candidates smashed a door, admitted to it, and allegedly created a
safety hazard in his alleged anger by fleeing the scene at a "high rate
of speed." If his children were involved in the incident, the voters '
rights and the rights of the public demand that full disclosure be made.
The city council's behavior in protecting Mr. Knight is outrageous and
currently the subject of 3 Open Meeting Law investigations.
1)I filed a petition on or about April 29, 2021 to speak at the council NOTIFYING CLERK HURTUBISE that he is NOT to change
my wording in the petition. Arguably, I have spoken at the city council more regularly since on or about 2004/2005 to present
than
any petitioner in Medford's last two decades. My persistence in filing
with this Public Records Division should give a hint
to
my perseverance and determination in making Medford a better place to
live - which is why the documents are so very necessary.
2)City Clerk Adam Hurtubise in an extraordinarily outrageous move, concocted fiction to replace my petition, totally invaded my
right
to present my own petition, claimed - falsely - that he had to right it
this way to get me on the agenda (???) and wrote that
this was a "personnel issue" about a person's "character."
No,
it was a petition about a public figure, not the private person mail
room clerk, totally eradicating the fact that an elected
official has less privacy than the mail room clerk, janitor or telephone answering person.
3)City Council President, now subject of a discrimination complaint because of his and Clerk Hurtubise's actions, called the
paper that I did not write "out of order."
They
made up fiction specifically to call it out of order and then Council
President Caraviello, conflicted and with no scruples,
said the paper couldn't be re-presented for 90 days per council rules. That Mr. Knight himself on or about June 1, 2021
violated Council Rule 9 and heckled the head of the Department of Public Health during this Covid crisis, with no admonishment
from President Caraviello, gives the Division of Public Records a clear and precise picture of shenanigans that are unethical.
4)At 1 pm on July 1, 2021, three months after Adam Knight's Bank of America incident, outside counsel for the City of Medford
contacted me (12:59, actually) and we spoke for 58 full minutes regarding my complaint on the city council failing to give
this reporter "public accommodations." Basically, the right to tell
the public about the incident involving the city council vice
president.
Council President Caraviello has retaliated against this reporter for years. At least four documented incidents of
Caraviello keeping this petitioner from speaking have happened, Mr. Caraviello making it personal where for me it is the opportunity to enlighten the 58,000 or so residents of Medford. Those 58,000 residents' rights are currently being denied them as defendant Knight spins the story falsely during an election cycle.
A place of public accommodation is defined as "any place,
whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits
the patronage of the general public."
This portion of the Notice of Reconsideration Part II is essential as it provides proof to the Records Division that Medford city government fails to play by the rules: the council has very low standards for itself (Knight heckling the Director of Public Health last month with no sanctions or recrimination by the council president; the council president going out of his way to interrupt an emergency meeting on Wednesday, June 23, 2021 to admonish this writer for taking pictures 3 chairs away from where he wanted me to be. I am not joking, their actions are that sick.
On or about June 22, 2021 a resident and former candidate for council, Andrew Castagnetti, uttered a gay slur, calling the male vice chair of the school committee "Ms. Ruseau," as Mr. Ruseau is a married homosexual. Castagnetti called him a "convicted felon" as well (a story broke by my publication.) No admonishment.
On or about June 29, 2021 Councilor Michael Marks praises Mr. Castagnetti's wife, though the week before Castagnetti's gay slur came within 30 seconds or so of Marks claiming he wouldn't stand for discrimination.
So the playing field is not level for the idea that "The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosures by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records."
Basically the city council violates its own rules, generates public records that are incorrect by disposing of petitions or chilling and squelching speech, a violation of their oath of office, and have a policy of "do as we say, not as we do."
The Medford Police, by extension, also hold themselves to the lowest of standards - as can be seen protecting a public servant, Knight, rather than providing public service to the voters. The voters are held to the highest of standards (Caraviello forcing me to move 3 chairs down to take photos? Really? while allowing Castagnetti to utter gay slurs. It's all on the video.)
Caraviello had my voice erased from a council tape when I stated my name and topic: Knight Police Report, yet Adam Knight is allowed to heckle the director of public health. I was sitting in the front row when this egregious sophomoric stunt was committed.
5)Here is where the police have a problem with Exemptions (c) and (f), I believe:
On May 10th, the individual running for council again, is in the pages of the weekly Transcript giving his side of the story.
A public figure has access to the press that regular private citizens do not have:
Medford Police are still investigating an April 1 incident involving City Councilor Adam Knight in the lobby of the Bank of America building on Mystic Avenue that resulted in smashed glass and a broken door frame.
The incident, according to Knight, was “just an accident. There’s not much of a news story.”
Knight, under criminal investigation, tells the citizens that it was "just an accident." Voters have no information to rebut the public figure / candidate's claim.
That
Knight used the bully pulpit to deceive the public as to the truth of
the event - wanton destruction of property, allegedly fleeing the scene
of the
alleged crime, is all the more reason that
"The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosures by creating a
presumption that all governmental records
are public records."
By
determining that this journalist have those photos and videos, then
denying those photos, allows Knight to control the conversation, and in
my
opinion it is tantamount to election fraud by the
vice president of the city council. It goes beyond spinning to
outright lying to the voters.
Why is the Medford Police Department telling the weekly paper this information yet denying me the evidence for the public to determine with its own logic?
Any reasonable person can
see the double standard at play - which is why the public records
(photos, videos) need to be made public.
"The surveillance video shows the man pushing open the door by pressing on the glass as he exited; the glass in the front door shattered and the frame appears to have been damaged. The bank manager and a client also witnessed the incident."
So
the video that I seek is noted in the weekly paper from Officer Paul
Covino. The very photographs that the police fail to offer me are
discussed in a weekly
newspaper. Why the double standards?
Story that the police participated in here:
In
conclusion, if there is misconduct by Adam Knight, which he has
admitted to in the press while spinning the story, that should be
Exemption (f) alone
1)This
writer believes that Exemption (f) does not apply here as the
information disseminated to the public from Knight to the weekly
newspaper has so prejudiced the case that effective law enforcement is
in question; thus, the public interest is far greater than Mr. Knight's
attempts to obstruct justice.
2)Knight's Connections Are Vast The powerful unions and Knight's day job at the DIY Lawrence Conciliation Unit https://www.mass.gov/service-details/contact-the-dia-lawrence-conciliation-unit
indicates Mr Knight allegedly may be owed many "chips" for his
government work. Allegedly. Knight has managed to walk between the
rain drops and one must wonder why that is. Now the photographs in
question, once ordered to be made public, resulted in another
determination when this case is very similar to the spr2019/2081 on
which I prevailed. As discussed with Mr. Sossavi on the phone July 1, 2021, I prevailed in 2019 on a very similar case: SPR19 2081 Objection to Aspects of Amended Response of Kimberly Scanlon Addressing Fw: Public Records Determination"
3)The MBTA found that a police officer wrote a false report about an arrest that never happened to benefit the MBTA driver. https://lawandcrime.com/police/boston-police-officer-produced-phony-arrest-report-in-plot-to-help-best-friends-brother-ethics-board/
Mr. Knight, speaking publicly, is writing his own "police report" to
the public in an effort to get elected again. By denying these documents
the Records Division is granting Mr. Knight the right to obscure the
facts, injure effective law enforcement, and behave like a cop writing a
false police report of an MBTA bus driver so that Knight can drive his
City Council seat bus for his benefit, not the benefit of the public
4)
The Stephen Lebert case - had a Malden resident not posted the video
of ex Medford officer Lebert's wrongful conduct, the dangerous,
temperamental Stephen Lebert would still be on the streets creating
dangerous situations.
It
was the release of the video on YouTube which got justice and was in
the public interest; not withholding it which the Medford Police
Department so very much wanted to do that improper information was being
dispersed "through the grapevine" about the victim with the dashboard
cam. It was the release of the dashboard cam which doomed Mr. Lebert's
efforts to skirt justice. Mr. Knight is EXACTLY in that position with
all sorts of wagons being circled at the police station and the city
council to ensure the "protected species," not be brought to justice;
one of their own. Which harms the public and defeats the very work the
Records Division is required to provide
See the Medford Transcript's effective reporting which only happened due to the release of the video: https://medford.wickedlocal.com/article/20150814/NEWS/150817509
If
there is misconduct by Mr,.
Knight and he’s going to a Magistrate hearing I submit that with half
the police report already public, the photos and the video will give the
public a better understanding of this case. It will not harm the
magistrate hearing as Knight has already spoken publicly; without the
release of the video it can do significant damage to the public in an
election cycle.
Such disclosure IS in the public interest,” and Exemption (c) " shall not apply to a misconduct investigation."
So why is it?
Please reconsider immediately and benefit the public. That is the Record Division's purpose.
Respectfully
Joe Viglione
0 comments:
Post a Comment