14,172 past month
____________________________________________________________________
LETTER
8:52 am August 22, 2019
Dear Candidates for Elected Office:
Enclosed
are key court cases regarding freedom of expression. You candidates
should NOT submit to Mr. Rumley's fraudulent CORI check.
It
is designed to look into your background so that Mrs. Burke, who should
NOT be looking at your personal information, can use it against you on
the campaign trail. The current mayor wants to shape the city council
and school committee to do her bidding, which thwarts the idea of checks
and balances.
Rep Paul
Donato said "It is the most protected right" when TV3 censored a
program - and I believe it was Stephanie Muccini-Burke's words being
censored.
Now that Mrs. Burke is in a position of power, she is
acting every bit as unethically as TV3 Medford. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely, at the expense of candidates for elected office.
https://medford.wickedlocal.com/article/20071119/NEWS/311199802
Nov 19, 2007 - It's the most protected right. I was just flabbergasted.” Donato said this is the second time TV3 has decided not to run a program which he sent .
Here's my current TV show from August 12, 2019.Visual Radio August 12 2019 James Montgomery Talks to Joe Viglione
Informative and compelling, it is censored in Medford because Rumley
doesn't want my voice on the airwaves. Rumley took an oath that he spits
upon; Rumley must be held to a higher standard, but the cowardly city
lawyer - who can't seem to find employment anywhere else - has skin
ultra thin to complement his enormous ego.
I've
attached Rumley's oath. See for yourself if Mr. Rumley is adhering to
the U.S. Constitution. I submit that he is not, and that he has betrayed
you by taking an oath and doing the opposite of what that oath
requires. But what do I know? I only had Rumley's testimony in
Somerville Court (9/1/16) dismissed for being "irrelevant." I'm not
afraid of that bully and have succeeded in knocking him down a few pegs
in open court. You need to do the same. It is YOUR civil rights that
Rumley is denying you. Rumley is un-American and has betrayed the
citizens of Medford.
Here's my TV show...all I like to do is help people...and that is something that Rumley, Burke and McGlynn can't stand.
LITTLE CHANCE TO WIN IF YOU ARE NOT IN 'THE CLUB"
You
are being silenced by the city lawyer and the unscrupulous incumbent
mayor in an underhanded way. The ploy is to get as many of Mrs. Burke's
allies in office BY LIMITING SPEECH and keeping new faces OFF of the
council and school committee. In a city with no "term limits" It's an
abuse of the access TV station that cable subscribers pay for, it is an
abuse of power, it is Mayor Burke's cowardly yellow streak designed to
shape Medford in the image that Mrs. Burke and former Mayor McGlynn
want, and certainly not in the best interest(s) of the city.
You
have a right to PUBLIC EXPRESSION under the First Amendment, not Mr.
Rumley's limited idea of giving you a tiny bit of a forum. Rumley is a
coward and doesn't want to lose his position of power, thus, Mr. Rumley
perpetually violates his oath of office, while masquerading as some kind
and benevolent man.
Rumley is a devil, a snake, and you must recognize this if you want any chance of being elected in this city.
Rumley is a devil, a snake, and you must recognize this if you want any chance of being elected in this city.
Mr Rumley is the enemy if you aren't one of Mrs. Burke's "chosen ones." Rumley's bread is buttered by Burke, so buyer beware.
"It
is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of
ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves
offensive to some of their hearers." Street v. New York, supra,
at 592. Moreover, appellant did not impose his ideas upon a captive
audience. Anyone who might have been offended could easily have avoided
the display. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Nor may appellant be punished for failing to show proper respect for our national emblem. Street v. New York, supra, at 593; Board of Education v. Barnette, supra.
Counsel for the State conceded that promoting respect for the flag is not a legitimate state interest. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
Spence V Washington
https://casetext.com/case/spence-v-state-of-washington-8212-1690
Mr. Rumley's wrongful conduct is DENYING you the ability to have FREE EXPRESSION - as granted by the U.S. Constitution.
Eleven
years ago Rumley, the architect of censorship in Medford, lied to the
citizens and lied to a well-respected retired judge:
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.”
Mr. Rumley does NOT want you, me or anyone on access TV
The
Access TV station, rife with TV3 refugees who scare the public away, is
as dead under this mayor as it was under the fraudulent 501c3 that
operated the old one, and which featured Solicitor Rumley as a board
member.
Think about that. Rumley's lame arguments about being "appointed" won't stand the test.
Rumley STANDS IN THE WAY OF FREE SPEECH and it is ELECTION TAMPERING AT ITS WORST
Rumley's oath of office is attached. He violates that oath with every CORI check he has the TV station make.
__________________________________________________
Look at the Demarest v Athol/Orange case:
Look at the case the city of Medford lost regarding free expression and Cheryl Voight
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
___________________________
Demarest v Athol Orange
Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002)
February 28, 2002
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.
MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCKET NO. 2)
PONSOR, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs Patricia Demarest ("Demarest") and Vicki Dunn ("Dunn") (together, "plaintiffs") produced a show called "Think Tank 2000," which aired on a local public access cable television station, Athol *84 Orange Television, Inc.[1] Think Tank 2000 concerned itself with issues of local concern, and some of its broadcasts focused on the behavior of local officials in Athol, Massachusetts. In particular, Demarest criticized one local official as having a conflict of interest, and camped outside another local official's home, broadcasting a segment in which she accused him of using his position to get special treatment. When these officials complained to defendants, AOTV suspended Demarest for thirty days from using AOTV facilities and revised its Policies and Procedures Manual.
The suspension and the revised AOTV Policies and Procedures Manual (the "Revised Manual") brought plaintiffs to this court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs contend that suspending Demarest violated the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 531 of 47 U.S.C. §§ 522 et seq. (the "Cable Act"), and that certain provisions of the Revised Manual are in violation of the First Amendment or the Cable Act. Plaintiffs also argue that AOTV has violated Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. They have filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be allowed as to three of the four disputed provisions: (1) the provision that requires release forms from all people that appear in AOTV broadcasts, (2) the provision that prohibits the recording of any illegal act, and (3) the provision that requires producers to indemnify AOTV for legal fees. The motion will be denied as to the provision that requires producers to notify AOTV when a broadcast contains material that is "potentially offensive." Plaintiffs' request that AOTV be enjoined from using Demarest's thirty-day suspension as grounds for further discipline or curtailment of her use of AOTV equipment or facilities will be allowed.
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND HTTPS://LAW.JUSTIA.COM/CASES/FEDERAL/DISTRICT-COURTS/FSUPP2/188/82/2576984/
if you really want to win this election,
demand your First Amendment RIGHT to be on TV3 without a CORI check,
without limited access - have your own TV show - and mock the mayor and
Mark Rumley for trying to chill your speech.
Do it right on the air. Mock Mrs. Burke and watch her go nuts!
What they are doing is interfering in Election 2019 in a malicious, unethical and planned-in-advance way.
Mrs.
Burke is abusing her position as "issuing authority," and wants to
hoard the airwaves/cablespace for herself while limiting your speech.
It is reprehensible.
And it takes courage to stand up to the bullies
This is YOUR election, and this is about Medford's future
Joe Viglione
Pageviews today
|
355
|
Pageviews yesterday
|
383
|
Pageviews last month
|
14,172
|
Pageviews all time history
|
1,383,905
|
