Letter to Law Office and Chief of Police

1,423,448 @ 12:10 pm

1,423,428 @ 11:56 am

19,399 @ 12:10 pm page views last month

To: Law Office, City of Medford

RE: Access to Public Access

Given that the Law department has repeatedly failed to give public documents upon first request, and that the Law department loses appeal after appeal, and that Mark Rumley's CORI check is designed to stifle freedom of the press and free speech, I submit that the mayor, the police chief and the city solicitor are all cowardly in their approach, are thin-skinned, and cannot stand the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in direct conflict with their oath of office.

As I am preparing the presentment letter in my suit against the city, note this date, October 24, 2019, as the date of a complaint filed regarding the failure to air public access programming by the city.

Yes, citizens are afraid of the police, Chief Buckley.  Look at the phony lawsuit that your department filed on a victim of a violent assault by former city clerk Edward P. Finn.   Your department, under Leo A. Sacco, Jr., could only file such a fraudulent suit if there was a crime. So the police, by their filing, and Marian Ryan's office of the District Attorney, by its filing, admitted to felonious assault by Clerk Finn.

That being said - why haven't you pressed charges on Finn?

Why did the police not arrest Finn when he failed to comply with a subpoena to attend a hearing at criminal court?

Mr. Rumley, the solicitor, wants it both ways.  When a stalker issued a subpoena to Rumley, Rumley told me that he had to comply.

___________________________

No he did not.  The solicitor is well-known at Somerville District Court, to the point where he allegedly had a private business that he conducted (allegedly bill collecting) during city hall hours, while he was being paid to be the city lawyer.

So Rumley started throwing rocks at the victim - me - from the witness stand.  I looked at Judge Yee and simply said "Objection."

Judge Yee removed Rumley for having "irrelevant" testimony.

So Mr. Rumley - who could have requested the court to dismiss him from testifying as he KNEW he had no knowledge of what the stalker did to me, chose to be a bully and disgrace himself rather than do the right thing.

Simultaneously, isn't the city lawyer the counsel for the city clerk?  Did Mr. Rumley advise Ed Finn to violate the subpoena?

Given how many records requests Rumley has failed to properly answer, a betting man would find the math quite easy to do.

I am suing the city of Medford.

But as Mark Rumley himself told me "You don't get thrown out of the country for suing the U.S.A."

Well, Rumley's words seem to be in direct conflict with his actions, which I consider a violation of his oath of office.

Don't get me started on Rumley's bizarre interpretation of Thatcher Magoun and the Medford Public Library vis-a-vis public access TV.

1)I want my current show - and all my shows - aired on the access TV station

_______________________________________
NOTE: HERE'S WHAT'S ON THE CORI THAT I INTEND TO EXPUNGE SOON:

THE RICK CARAVIELLO FRAUD CASE 1/31/17
THAT CARAVIELLO LOST.

CARAVIELLO'S FICTIONAL HARASSMENT CASE WAS FRAUDULENT.  

IT SAYS 'NOT GUILTY."  

AND THAT KIND OF PUBLIC HARASSMENT WILL BE PART OF THE CASE AGAINST CARAVIELLO, THAT THEY TAINTED MY REPUTATION FOR SPORT, NOT FOR ANY LOGICAL OR REAL REASON.
______________________________________________

2)I have a background clearance certificate from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but since I record my show at a high school  or high schools, and have never had to submit to one (invasion of privacy) - it's absurd for city hall to pry into records!  Especially when I    merely want to e mail the program to the station manager.

3)As an over-65 senior person, I consider Rumley's vicious attacks on me to be elder abuse.

I have fought long and hard for free speech in Medford.  Worse than the TV3 self-appointed president, Mr. Pilleri, is the solicitor,

Mark E. Rumley, the architect of censorship in Medford.  He should resign from the office immediately, or Chief Buckley should have

the solicitor arrested for a violation of his oath of office.  A copy of that oath is enclosed (see attached.)

This is about free speech.  This is about a critical election, what Paul Donato said was "The most protected right."

I'm not feeling very protected by this police department that Chief Buckley claims people aren't afraid of.

Yet another newsflash to Mr. Buckley - the public is terrified of the police department.  Look at the fraudulent suit filed on a victim

of a vicious assault.   When I was victorious in court it was the same two or three week period where Chief Sacco's son was NOT

arrested for the allegation of drunk driving.   Interesting irony there.

Sacco, enraged that I directed the city council and the public on 10-17-17 to his son's online report on Channel 5, blurted out:

"You get the police service you deserve" after I asked him why he never protected me from the stalker.

Sacco then said "Sue me."   Who am I to defy a direct order from a chief of police.

Play my show, and we will see you all in court - as defendants when I take Sacco's word to heart and litigate.

Here's the program 

(file in original letter)

Please air it.

Respectfully,

Joe Viglione