PUBLIC FIGURES ADAM KNIGHT AND RICHARD F. CARAVIELLO CHEATING THE VOTERS OF MEDFORD
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:
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.
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."
Council President Caraviello has retaliated against this reporter for years. At least four documented incidents of
Caraviello keeping this petitioner from speaking have happened.
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 public reprimand 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:
0 comments:
Post a Comment