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

 

 

 

Read More

Holding TV3 Medford ACCOUNTABLE Day #180 of Breanna Lungo-Koehn Administration

1,642,247 @ 6:51 pm
1,642,241 @ 6:47 pm
1,642,223 @6:27 pm
1,642,207 @ 4:28 pm

Kimberley Scanlon, Esq
Medford City Hall
85 George P Hassett Drive
Medford, MA 02155
http://www.medfordma.org/departments/electrical/

Eli Reusch
Assistant Attorney General
General Counsel’s Office
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place – 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Office: (617) 963-2942
Eli.Reusch@mass.gov

Dear Custodian of Records, Public Charities Div,  Atty Scanlon and Madame Mayor:

Under the Massachusetts Public Records Act § 66-10 et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that

give great detail on the status of Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. at the Attorney General's office of public charities and at Medford City Hall.

I seek:

1] The exact legal status of the non-profit corporation known as Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.

2]The exact legal standing of the board of directors - Frank Pilleri, alleged self-appointed president who allegedly used former board members in a charade that was an allegedly phony "vote" to put in those who would march lockstep with him - Harvey Alberg, Arthur Alan Deluca, Ron Delucia, Cornelius Murphy

a)All documents that show the corporation is still alive: as this is an ongoing matter, is the statute of limitations alive ...Deluca wrote an absurd piece in the local weekly Medford Transcript claiming the board was given a "clean bill of health" from the Public Charities Division;  Harvey Alberg uses an address that DOES NOT exist in the city of Medford on corporate papers ...responses to the public records requests that I have filed are in direct conflict with Mr. Deluca's fake news.  Deluca lied to the police in correspondence regarding a former board member of Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. - Matthew Page Lieberman, allegedly telling an African American woman to kill herself.   The police brought Deluca's false report to my attention.  Why they did not arrest the TV3 board member for lying to the police IS the question.  This is NOT an allegation but a fact....

b)any documents that show where the alleged thirty-eight thousand dollars or so may be. Those monies were allegedly unaccounted for in an edition of the Medford Transcript and if the monies are missing, Medford City Hall needs a full accounting and reparation for those monies designated for access television.

3]All documents which show when the public charities division or ANY division of the AG's office will conclude their investiations of Medford and Lynn public access television.

a)also documents, e mails, texts, notes on any updates on where the investigations into both cities' television stations are now

Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn has promised "transparency, unity, community, integrity" yet she has the previous mayor's censorship tactics with a disgusting "Policies and Procedures" which violates the oath of office of its alleged composer, former solicitor Mark E. Rumley, and a bizarre "CORI CHECK" designed to keep people out of access television, and in violation of their First Amendment rights.  I submit that Mayor Lungo-Koehn and former mayors Burke and McGlynn intentional violate their oath of office by abusing public access creators, stifling that creativity and certainly DENYING the community their free speech rights (see Demarest vs Athol/Orange and the judge's determination) here on this 180th day of the new administration.   Currently Medford has no non-profit running the city's TV station.  I have asked the city for a complete accounting of "every nickel," to paraphrase ex-Solicitor Rumley, coming in to the city's bank accounts and every nickely being spent on access television, how it is spent and WHERE it is spent.


If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $1.00 However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the effectiveness of our mayor and her administration as well as how forthright the Division of Public Charities is when it comes to public monies that the public cannot find..  



My news organization has a huge readership -July 3, 2020  @ 2:26 pm

Pageviews today  372
Pageviews yesterday  617
Pageviews last month  21,771
Pageviews all time history  1,642,121


This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.


The Massachusetts Public Records Act requires a response to this request within 10 days.  If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than this amount of time, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records.


If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.


Thank you for considering my request.


Sincerely,

 

Joe Viglione  
P.O. Box 2392
Woburn MA 01888

EXHIBIT A 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/188/82/2576984/

188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (2002)

Patricia DEMAREST and Vicki Dunn, Plaintiffs,
v.
ATHOL/ORANGE COMMUNITY TELEVISION, INC., et. al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A.01-30129-MAP.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

February 28, 2002.

*83 Harris Freeman, William Newman, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Northampton, MA, for plaintiffs.

Peter J. Epstein, Boston, MA, for defendants.

______________________________________________

EXHIBIT B

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/06/demarest-v-atholorange-and-rights-of.html

The producers (plaintiffs) Patricia Demarest and Vicky Dunn

did a public affairs show about gov't officials. They challenged
this rule and were suspended. They sued to get their access back.

The court found:

``At base, plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected right
to record matters of public interest, see Smith v. City of
Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531
U.S. 978 (2000); .... as applied to these plaintiffs, the Release Form
provision made no distinction between the newsworthy and the
mundane, or between matters of public interest and purely private
matters.

Rather than being tailored to protect legitimate interests
in privacy, the Release Form Provision made Athol's news makers
news editors. By refusing to sign a release form, Athol's news
makers could ensure that their images did not appear on AOTV. It
is highly probable that the filming which gave rise to Demarest's
suspension will be found to be constitutionally protected.``

Citizen Journalists: there it is if it comes up for you.

Access Channel Managers, you should read this decision well
to understand the kinds of things which are inappropriate in
a producer's contract.  (e.g., Release form requirements, or
any Content-based restrictions)

Read More

OpEd to Medford Transcript - The Other Side of Mark E. Rumley 1-20-2020

1,523,162 @ 12:40 pm
1,523,139 @ 12:25 pm 
1,523,083 @ 11:05 am 1-20-2020
660 since 7 pm 1-19-2020

Medford Transcript

Letter to the Editor

...to enable the city government to operate at maximum potential with minimal risk.   Medford City Law Office Mission Statement

Exited solicitor Mark E. Rumley leaving the stage is a very good thing for the city, many believing that Rumley had as much power as former mayor Stephanie Muccini-Burke.  

Two recent puff pieces in the Medford Transcript reading like a Muccini-Burke administration newsletter were a disservice to the voters and residents of Medford, prompting me to write this response.

The core mission of a city solicitor is the "orderly operation and administration of local government," according to the Mission Statement of the Everett City Solicitor: "The City Solicitor advises and assists all city officials and employees in the lawful performance of their duties for the effective and orderly operation and administration of local government.

http://www.cityofeverett.com/165/City-Solicitor

As this writer has stated to the Medford city council in regards to access television, understanding the rules in our neighboring communities will help us build a more solid foundation for this city - and help us better interact with cities and towns in our region.

___________________________________________

Mark Rumley was a negligent bully who abused his office, disrespected the citizenry and is quite the opposite of the public persona the - thankfully - now former solicitor was out there selling like Colonel Tom Parker's antics squeezing every nickel that he could out of Elvis Presley.   The difference is big: Elvis enjoyed his alleged 50/50 partnership with Parker and they were in show biz, no oath of office, government mission statement, oath as a lawyer, etc. 

Elvis playing fast and loose with hundreds of adoring women - consenting adults - a little different from Rumley's playing fast and loose with those pesky "duties for the effective and orderly administration of local government."

That cost you, cable TV ratepayer, taxpayer, civic group, business, visitor to Medford, etc.

"You ratted me out to Joe Vig" Rumley is alleged to have said to a popular mayoral candidate.  The candidate saw Mr. Rumley, allegedly, conducting his own personal business on Thursdays in Somerville District Court.  Purportedly, Rumley was collecting bills for credit card companies, on Thursdays, when residents expected him to be doing city business.  Rumley had or still has an office at 271 Spring St. in Medford, Massachusetts.  I would know this: during a meeting with my old pal Paul Donato (we met circa 1973 or so...prior to Paul becoming mayor of Medford 1980-1985) at that address Paul told me that I was sitting in Attorney David Skerry's chair.  I jumped up as if frightened and Mr. Donato laughed "That's actually Mark Rumley's chair." (paraphrased.)

Now how does the Medford law office mission read?

"Law Department Personnel are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford"

I submit that Mark E. Rumley was unethical, self-serving, wore his unwarranted yet bloated ego on his forehead like a scarlet letter, and failed to uphold those "highest ethical standards," and believe that I have the facts and evidence to prove that Mr. Rumley had the lowest ethical standards for himself and bad actors like former city clerk Edward P. Finn and current city council vice president Richard F. Caraviello.

The facts are as clear as the sun in the sky this morning at 11:14 am.

_________________________________________________________________

Let's go over the Top 10 questions regarding Rumley's ethics, or lack thereof and why this information, certainly in the public domain now, wasn't discussed in the two Medford Transcript puff pieces

1)Did Rumley run his own business from Donato's office at the Somerville District Court and, if so, for how many years and - very key - how much money did Mark Rumley accrue during that time?

2)When this individual, Joe Viglione, got a Determination in my favor regarding misconduct by the Medford Police Dept, nearly a quarter of the force, why did Mr. Rumley call in the cavalry to try to stop a journalist from enlightening the public?

a)Chief Buckley had already disciplined the officers and the money, apparently, was returned.

b)the Public Records Division of the Sec of State's office goes by the assumption that all government documents are public records

c)Rumley's attempt to hide the names of the officers in question, and the taxpayer-funded L'Italien report, was hardly " Law Department Personnel  committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

Far from it.

Rumley went so far as to write to Marian Ryan, investigating the issue after Chief Buckley handing down the discipline.   Now I'm not a lawyer, but as a humble journalist my perspective was that if the discipline was handed down by the Chief of Police, you could have 500 more investigations, further investigating was no reason to block the public from its right to know.

Unless Mr. Rumley was hiding something.  

And my victory over the thankfully now removed solicitor ...oh, excuse me, "resigned" city solicitor, is proof that Rumley violated the mission statement of the law office he ruled like the wolf in the proverbial hen house, and possibly his oath of office - if not his oath as an attorney.  And if not in this instance, certainly in example #3.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

3)Determination on TV3, Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.

   Utilizing the law as noted by the Sec. of State's office in my victory regarding the L'Italien Report and police compensation fraud, the law was then applied to the Attorney General's office ducking we cable TV subscribers for close to six years.  For six years.  Finally we are going to get some material, redacted - of course - but some information that has been withheld from the public under the guise of "law enforcement might be impeded."  Well, you saw how that didn't work out very well for Rumley vis-a-vis the L'Italien report, and now the excuse isn't working for Maura Healey's office either.

   Rumley took it upon himself, probably with the shield that McGlynn appointed him, to investigate the very board that he was once a part of.   A former board member investigating the board he was part of and after all the bluster ending the investigation with a whimper would, to any sane and logical person, be part of a cover-up.
  

    And though I am not a lawyer, here's where this journalist believes it is a problem for Rumley and the word "ethical."  You see, Medford has a unique situation where the MCC TV3 contract cites that the city co-owns the TV equipment.

Police Chief Jack Buckley take note.

And the city co-owned equipment was used - allegedly - to make child pornography with an alleged 15 year old boy.

a)it is a simple matter to find out the minor's true age as the confidential informant told us where the boy worked, and when the alleged child pornographer and ex board member of MCC TV3 was allegedly evicted.  Take the date of alleged eviction and the boy's age and match them up.  The pornography was purported to have been made at the apartment where the ex-board member was evicted.

In typical ex-Chief of Police Leo A. Sacco Jr. malarkey, he and Sgt. Schultz know "nothing...NOTHING!"

b)this is not like West Medford Hillside Little League where the headlines screamed: Officials Found Guilty. Stanley Komins and Stephen Komins sentenced for stealing from non-profit."

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. co-owned equipment with the city.  West Medford Hillside Little League allegedly did not.

Thus, this journalist - who is not a lawyer - wonders about  the Law Department Personnel  committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

__________________________________________________________________

Top 10

1)Moonlighting, allegedly, at Somerville District Court
___________________

2)Unethically attempted to stop release of L'Italien Report
____________________________

3)Failure to investigate TV3 Medford in 2013 though Rumley promised the residents he would
_____________________

4)Failure to stop Frank Pilleri from squashing 2009 election vis-a-vis TV3, though Rumley had inside information
__________________________

5)saying Medford Housing a "separate body politic" yet tried to chill and squelch free speech at a board meeting where Rumley had

   zero jurisdiction
______________________________

6)told Judge Jackson-Thompson the city doesn't chill speech when it does. Liar.
__________________________

7)Gave legal advice to TV3 attorney when under subpoena from victim
_____________________

8)Went on witness stand defending a violent stalker and was removed for "irrelevant testimony"
__________________

9)Ed Finn failed to show up in criminal court under subpoena. So much for "highest ethical standards.

   Finn violently verbally and physically assaulted a victim, edited petitions by seniors, was a violent thug
__________________

10)Argued with Michael Marks at the council and was hardly utilizing "highest ethical standards."

We have lots more.  

Those are the ten most egregious at the moment.

Note to Mayor Lungo-Koehn - this kind of conduct is unacceptable.  

Hire a new City Solicitor and investigate Rumley

IF you are serious about cleaning up the Medford mess.  

Failure to do so enables McGlynn to undermine you and

to sabotage your administration.

__________________________________________________________________

 committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

Ya think?

 committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its representation of the City of Medford.

YA THINK??????????

TO BE CONTINUED

Read More