1,383,660 @ 9:13 pm
110 views in 73 minutes!
1,383,647 @ 9:07 pm
110 views in 73 minutes!
1,383,647 @ 9:07 pm
97 from 8 pm - 9:07 pm
67 minutes, 97 views!
Von Rommel Fernandes:
"You people treat Joe Vig like (xxxx, Von Rommel insinuating a very old man we knew and loved)
And then Von Rommel warned them:
"Joe Vig is no PXXXX FXXXXXXX"
But they didn't listen
Arthur Alan Deluca of TV3 to Johnny Byers:
"Joe Vig is DEADLY!" (alleged quote)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDFORD CITY SOLICITOR MARK E. RUMLEY AND MAYOR STEPHANIE BURKE CONSPIRE TO FRACTURE FIRST AMENDMENT
DURING ELECTION CYCLE
Voight vs. City of Medford
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court. Middlesex, SS Jan 30, 2007
No. 200500163F (Mass. Cmmw. Jan. 30, 2007)
Know
your Medford history. Censorship is alive and well in the City of
Medford, and the unethical city solicitor, and I can prove that,
is the point man who chills speech so that the many sins of many, many government officials stay hidden.
Mrs.
Burke's cowardly act is a violation of her oath of office; Mr. Rumley
Masquerades As a Benevolent, Kind Person. He's a Snake.
This
is an election cycle, yet the TV station's website has no upcoming
classes, has yet another joke of a station manager in Patrick Gordon,
who
might as well be Ben Brown. Ben Gordon, Patrick Brown, synonymous with
smacking free speech around as their skills are prostituted
by Mayor Burke for her own personal pleasure.
Mark Rumley is the Architect of Censorship in the City of Medford and Fraudulently Acts Like the Defender of Free Speech.
The
case of Cheryl Voight exposed Michael Marks and former councilors Paul
A. Camuso and William Carr as individuals who failed to uphold the U.S.
Constitution vis-a-vis First Amendment Protection, Freedom of Expression
The upcoming case, which may be entitled Viglione vs. Caraviello, Finn, Covino, Mackowski, Sacco et. al. will definitely be viewing the Voight vs Medford case as precedent, and as a history of censorship in Medford, a pattern designed to silence the ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, civic groups, businesses and visitors to this city.
Why is the current TV station as dead as the previous station?
a)Patrick Gordon does NO OUTREACH that we can see, and that allegedly is intentional
b)Lenny
Scoletta, one of the scoundrels from the now defunct Medford Community
Cablevision, Inc. is said to be at the station daily. Lenny is a
"scarecrow,"
like Arthur Alan Deluca and Steve
Bertorelli. Residents stay away from the new station because of the
stench of MCC TV3. So Mayor Burke allows the old, nasty crew to come in
with their documented ability to be rude and obnoxious - a pure
violation of the station's policies and procedures.
The
Voight Case is ESSENTIAL to understanding how unethically the city of
Medford has operated dating before the days of Gerry Clemente's bank
robbery
Those
three hostile individuals, Deluca, Scoletta and Bertorelli, have no
place at the current access station, but because they are so fluent in
the language of censorship, cowardly Burke has them there to keep the
station empty, the way this highly suspicious mayor likes it.
That
trio, and Paul Gerety, should be banned from the new station for 7
years because of the unethical conduct of the previous station, a
station which had Solicitor Rumley as a board member.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now let's look into the Voight case:
I. First Amendment Protection
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects speech, including conduct, if the conduct is expressive and sufficiently communicative in nature. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-10 (1974). While the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether tattooing qualifies as protected First Amendment activity, this Court has held that tattooing is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. See MacNeil v. The Board of Appeal of Boston, Civil No. 02-01225 (Suffolk Super.Ct. Aug. 9, 2004) (Connolly, J.) [18 Mass. L. Rptr. 1531; Lanphear v. Commonwealth, No. 99-1896-B, slip op. (Suffolk Super.Ct. Oct. 20, 2000) (Rouse, J.); Commonwealth v. Meuse, Cr. No. 98-02639 (Essex Super.Ct. Nov. 29, 1999) (van Gestel, J.) [10 Mass. L. Rptr. 661] ("Tattooing is recognized by government agencies as both an art form and a profession and tattoo-related art work is the subject of museum, gallery and educational institution art shows across the United States . . . Tattooing cannot be said to be other than one of the many kinds of expression so steadfastly protected by our Federal and State Constitutions"). This Court has no difficulty in agreeing that tattooing constitutes expression protected by the First Amendment. https://casetext.com/case/voigt-v-city-of-medford
Freedom
to be on access TV without harassers Deluca, Bertorelli and Scoletta
creeping the place out , is
paramount.- and all three have been hostile to me, though I
have been very kind to them, especially during an election cycle
The violation of the oath of office is a serious matter. Rumley does it. Stephanie Muccini-Burke does it.
Does
anyone believe civil rights attorney Neil Osborne will fight for your
TV rights? Not when his bloated paycheck keeps him in check.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Burke's
political connections, from Michael Sullivan to D.A. Marian Ryan to
Attorneys General Martha Coakley and Maura Healey (Martha is as much the
ex AG as Mayor McGlynn is the ex-mayor...they are the elephants in the
room!) ...Burke has insulation, and with mysterious "suicides" of Brian
Joyce, Jimmy DiPaola, James O'Brien (the sex offender at Medford Housing
Authority with keys to every apartment ...and lots of dirt he could've
let out) - like Jeff Epstein, it's no coincidence that these people
vanished without a trace when they could do so much damage to so many
politically corrupt individuals.
Mark Rumley spits on his oath of office to keep YOU out of TV3
And now a word from the corrupt "sponsors" of censorship...such a ton of Malarkey, Ed Markey...
Donato:
"It's the most protected right. I was just flabbergasted" (That it
happened to Mr. Donato, not to his old pal Joe Viglione...not at
all....)
Mark E. Rumley lying through his teeth:
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.”
If you lose this particular quote, just put
Repugnant Rumley in Google
it will come right back up!
Mr. Rumley and Mrs. Burke are spitting on your cable subscriber fees
and fracturing your First Amendment rights - at an election time -
despite Mr. Donato saying it is THE most protected right.
Unethical Rumley and Burke violate their oath of office
to rip you off and try to steal another election
It is theft of free speech during an election cycle and it is wrong
Read the Cheryl Voight case carefully,
Michael Marks and Medford City Hall are NOT your friends
Marks wants to be on TV, but he won't fight for you to have the same opportunity
Respectfully,
