Fw: SPR22-2772 MPD's Lt. Casey Ignoring Determination

 Rather than send the Records Division information in the alotted time, in this endeavor, Brady-listed Officer Joseph Casey sends his info in AFTER I prevailed again, ignoring the Determination with a delaying tactic. That is shameful of the MPD, and he put a CC of Chief Buckley on it, probably knowing that he intentionally (allegedly) did wrong:

Dear Melissa Hayes,

I am including the Mayor, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, in this correspondence

as this document is itself a public record. 

Rather than offer more information prior to the Determination in the time alotted, Officer Casey

writes "Regarding Mr Viglione's appeal" (Sincerely Diane Riley) as if there were no Determination

That is offensive and I believe mocks the rules we are all to abide by in this process.

 

1)It is appreciated that in your Determination re: SPR22-2772  dated December 15, 2022,

on Page 3 you state: "Based on the Department's response, I find that it has not met its

burden to withhold records responsive to Items 1 and 2 from disclosure."

This is a pattern with the Medford Police Department.  I had previously asked for

police reports on city councilors in 2021- just as allegedly "vague,"  and received two that were involved with suspicious conduct in that year, Councilor Adam Knight and Councilor Isaac Bruce "Zac" Bears.

As there is precedent here, a request for a police report on a firefighter or police officer

should garner this writer, and the public, that information.  Unless, of course, the police

allegedly didn't file a report on alleged egregious behavior of a colleague within MPD

and/or MFD (Medford Fire Department.)  There is great public interest in the alleged matter

 that is subject of SPR22-2772.

Thus, I believe I have sufficiently responded to any question about #3

2)The Determination also request of this journalist "With respect to Item 3"

The above precedent is my clarification regarding police reports.

I was (purportedly) "vague" about the city councilors and obtained two police reports,

yet a year later Lt. Casey is not interested in updating this journalist

on police reports potentially on school committee, city council or

members of the mayor's staff.  I don't think the  request is vague at all,

especially given a previous successful response from Keeper of the Records,

Lt. Casey

Thus, I believe I have sufficiently responded to any question about #3 

As mentioned, I had received an anonymous tip by one of my many readers

(the blog, Medford Information Central.com has as of 11:49 pm 12/15/22

2,337,720 page views; 62 since 7 pm this evening. My Real Medford Mass

Politics page on Facebook generating more hits hourly now than the blog!)

I received a tip in regards to Adam Knight smashing a bank door on 4/1/21.

The evidence from the MPD in regards to councilor Knight's misconduct was

outrageous and - again - proves that the standards for insiders at Medford City

Hall, be it violent ex clerk Edward P. Finn assaulting a senior citizen (Mayor

Lungo-Koehn was a witness in the case, and later praised the offender in

the pages of the Medford Transcript; a thoroughly disgusting endorsement

of elder abuse by this current mayor,) or Adam Knight being violent with

a bank door, with at least one of his children in the automobile that fled

the scene of the crime allegedly (as noted in the police report) at "a high

rate of speed."  Allegations abound in the rumor mill that Mr. Knight has

an alleged drinking problem - yet - had Brady-listed officer Lt. Casey

not changed his horses mid-stream vis-a-vis my records requests,

Knight may have been brought to justice in a timely manner: before

the election.  At least in the court of public opinion, which seemed

rabid for the story of a wayward councilor absolutely endangering the

life of his child OR the lives of his children. (I could find an image of

only one child in the vehicle, though sources tell me that both children

were in the car for that regrettable ride by the city councilor.)

These tips have proved to be true I would surmise around 90 percent

of the time.  It also is an indicator of my readership being proactive

and finding my venues the ones that they trust for their news.

This terrifies the mayor's office (she refuses to air my good, clean

television program, though I worked hard cleaning up the vulgarity

the previous tv station exacted on the mayor when she was a citycouncilor; 

which Mayor Lungo-Koehn thanked me for in writing.)

 

 

3)I object to Lt. Casey writing directly to the Public Records Division

without responding clearly to the directive to respond to my documents

request.

This is another pattern that Lt. Casey displayed in the Councilor Knight

requests  - SPR22/1566 - and in my letter of July 21, 2022 to

Patrick Sullivan, Esq. in regards to Knight (where I prevailed again,)

From that July 21, 2022 correspondence:

Exhibit 1 is from page 6 of District Attorney Marian Ryan's public notice
to law encorcement.  It states:

"The recently-passed "Act Relative to Justice, Equity and Accountability in Law Enforcement in the Commonwealth," eliminates the "privacy exemption" to the Public Records Law for records relating to a "law enforcement misconduct investigation."
 

See Section 2, Chapter 253 of the Acts of 2020;  MGL c.4 § 7 cl. 26 (c).  As such, defendants and members of the public may now be able to access an officer's IA file without filing a motion in conjunction with a criminal case.

I seem to recall that Lt. Casey's position switch from "impeding law enforcement" to "privacy" of an elected official, a Medford city councilor.

If a privacy exemption cannot shield a police officer from a "law enforcement misconduct investigation," all the more reason an elected official has no such privacy right.   

Again, Mr. Casey switched horses mid-stream where I have been consistent in merely wanting photographs of a public figure who misbehaved, and whose police report is in the public domain, thanks to this hard-working journalist.

____________________________________________________________________________________

 Lt. Casey's response, I believe, is not in a manner consistent with Supervisor of Records Manza Arthur's order.

This is of GREAT public interest when my readers are issuing "tips" and when we get spikes in readership of these items
on Facebook. 

The Public Records Law strongly faces disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records
are public records.

The city of Medford has been infected with censorship for the past twenty-years at least.  From the City Council violating the oath of office - each and every member of the 7 person body - on or about 1/4/21 - taking an oath of office and, while making outreach across America for input, refusing to allow me to speak as I lived 50 yards away from the city line in Malden.  You can have free speech in Medford if you are calling in from Alaska, but Richard F. Caraviello, a councilor who lied to the police (I have the evidence,) and abused taxpayer monies on a witch hunt which he lost, and his six colleagues, all engaging in censorship; Mayor Lungo-Koehn following in the ugly censorship footsteps of her predecessors Mayor Muccini-Burke and Mayor McGlynn, and a school committee that is out of control and out of its depth.

When it comes to censorship, it is a clean sweep in Medford.  This is all the police department knows, and
they follow suit with relish.

The public has a right to know.

I request that Lt. Casey respond properly to the Determination and not attempt to circumvent it
with a paper that is tardy



Please send responses via e mail

 

Please send responses via e mail

Respectfully,

 

Joe Viglione  
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn MA 01888
tel 617 899 5926  

 
----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Joseph W. Casey <jcasey@medfordpolice.com>
To: Melissa.Hayes@sec.state.ma.us <melissa.hayes@sec.state.ma.us>; Joe Viglione <joeviglione@yahoo.com>; pre@sec.state.ma.us <pre@sec.state.ma.us>
Cc: John D. Buckley <jbuckley@medfordpolice.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 03:04:14 PM EST
Subject: SPR22-2772

 HI;  Thank you for your response to Mr. Vigliones appeal.  Please accept my comments for clarification as to the Departments position:

Below is Mr. Vigliones records request on November 29, 2022


"Re: Massachusetts Public Records Request

       Alleged Assault by Police Officer or FirefighterHello Lt. Casey and Medford City Hall:
This is a request under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10). I am requesting that I be provided a copy of the following records -

1)Any police report regarding a firefighter or police officer in Medford who may have assaulted his wife

  I received a letter in the U.S. Mail on or about 11/28/22 informing me of an alleged assault.

2)Any correspondence between Medford City Hall and any entity regarding this alleged assault


3)Any police report(s) from Jan 1, 2022 regarding members of the city council, school committee or employee of Medford


   city government (DPW, etc.)"


In regards to #1 and #2 Mr. Viglione is requesting records pertaining to an alleged assault by a Medford Police Officer or a Firefighter upon the individuals wife.  Mr. Viglione attributes this information to a letter he received on or about 11/28/22.  I am unable to confirm or deny the existence of the record as Mr. Viglione has not identified specific information such as the time and date of the alleged assault, or the names of the individuals involved in the alleged assault.   Furthermore if Mr. Viglione has such information the record would be exempt per Exemption A, in that the record is exempted form disclosure by statute.  The nature of the record (if it does exist) is of an individual (police officer or firefighter) who had allegedly assaulted his wife, as such it is an incident in relation to domestic violence which is exempted as a public record.   

MGL chapter 41 section 97 D provides the following:

"Section 97D: Confidentiality of reports of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence; access by victim and certain individuals in performance of their duties; violations; penalties

Section 97D. All reports of rape and sexual assault or attempts to commit such offenses, all reports of abuse perpetrated by family or household members, as defined in section 1 of chapter 209A, and all communications between police officers and victims of such offenses or abuse shall not be public reports and shall be maintained by the police departments in a manner that shall assure their confidentiality;"

Thus any police report or communication between City Hall and the Police Department (if it does exist) would be exempt per statute. 

Mr. Viglione correctly asserts that Internal Affairs reports of the Police Department are not exempted as public records.  However with out further information to identify which Police Officer Mr. Viglione is referring to, I am unable to identify the specific record that he is requesting. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Lt. Joseph Casey
Medford Police 

________________________________
From: MPD Records <mpdrecords@medfordpolice.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 2:03 PM
To: Joseph W. Casey <jcasey@medfordpolice.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL]Determination SPR22-2772
 

Regarding Mr. Viglione’s appeal.

  Sincerely,

Diane Riley

Records Department

Medford Police

100 Main St

Medford, MA  02155

P 781-391-6760

F 781-219-3695

 
 
Hello,

 Please be aware, the Supervisor of Records has issued a determination relating to appeals in which you were involved. This determination is attached and available online at: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/AppealsWeb/AppealsStatus.aspx.

If you have any questions, please contact the Public Records Division at 617-727-2832 or pre@sec.state.ma.us.

 

Thank you,

 

Melissa Hayes (She, Her, Hers)

Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth

Public Records Division

One Ashburton Place, Room 1719

Boston, MA  02108