Djuna Perkins – the “D” is silent, she is not. She has had the administrative experience needed to run the DA’s office.

Dear Friends,

Please join me in voting Djuna Perkins for Norfolk County District Attorney in the September 1 Democratic Primary. Djuna is the most qualified candidate for the job. She’s a former Assistant Attorney General, Assistant District Attorney and head of the Suffolk County Domestic Violence Unit, and a lawyer with 30+ years of experience standing up for victims of crime.

• Djuna has been unafraid to challenge the political status quo to restore justice to Norfolk County. She got into this campaign early because she wanted to stand up for what is right and amplify the voices of those unheard.

• Djuna’s commitment to justice is shaped by her lived experience. Her mother died by suicide when Djuna was a baby and she grew up in poverty and on public assistance. She understands what injustice is because she has lived it, and she has dedicated her life’s work to protecting those who need it most.

• Djuna speaks truth to power. From calling out the current District Attorney’s failure to charge the murderer of Sandra Birchmore and her refusal to treat those with money, connections and power differently, to her vocal opposition to ICE abuses and attacks on our most vulnerable neighbors from the Trump administration, Djuna will always stand up for what is right.

• Djuna is a longtime resident of Dedham. She and her husband, a Milton Public Schools teacher, have three young adult children.  Aside from me, Djuna’s endorsers include Progressive Mass, Progressive MA Western Norfolk County, and over one hundred highly respected city and town councilors, select board members, criminal justice professionals and Democratic and community leaders. A full list is here.  

The Democratic Primary is September 1. Early In-Person Voting began Saturday, August 22. 

Please Vote Djuna Perkins for District Attorney.

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the Superior Court order enjoining the construction of statutes of two saints at a Quincy public safety building as being constitutionally prohibited by the Massachusetts Constitution.

===================================================

KAFKER, J. The mayor of the city of Quincy (city) seeks to
install two ten-foot-tall statues on the façade of the city’s
new public safety building at taxpayer expense. One statue
depicts Saint Michael, an archangel with wings, stepping on the

head and neck of a demon.3 The other depicts Saint Florian, a
larger-than-life Roman soldier towering above a burning building
and extinguishing the fire with water from a single vessel.
Saint Michael and Saint Florian are recognized as religious
saints by the Catholic Church. They are also important symbolic
figures for police officers and firefighters, respected for the
values of bravery and honor they represent.
The plaintiffs, fifteen residents and taxpayers of the
city, sued the city and the mayor in his official capacity to
prevent the installation of the statues, arguing that the
expenditure of public funds on, and the display of, the statues
violate art. 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as
amended by art. 11 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution, which provides: “all religious sects and
denominations . . . shall be equally under the protection of the
law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to
another shall ever be established by law.” A Superior Court

judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction and denied the city’s motion to dismiss. The city
appealed, arguing the plaintiffs lack standing and the statues
are permissible under art. 3.

We conclude that the plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers
under G. L. c. 40, § 53. We further conclude that the
constitutionality of the statues must be evaluated according to
the framework we set out in Colo v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen.,
378 Mass. 550 (1979), a decision that explored and applied the
evolving text, constitutional history, and purposes of art. 3.
That decision further considered, as helpful guidance,
additional factors recognized in Federal and State case law,
particularly the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lemon
v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which reflected the Supreme
Court’s establishment clause analysis at the time, to identify
improper intermingling of State and religion. Applying the
comprehensive reasoning of Colo, we conclude that the motion
judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary
injunction. We therefore affirm.4

Yesterday the Baptist Church celebrated the 250 years that it has been extant in Medfield by ringing its bell 250 times.

Names not known, but Pastor Hunter Gutherie stated that they are siblings and the one on the left is a FBC Medfield congregant.

Town alert –

Select Board Office Hours this Friday

I hold regular monthly office hours at The Center on the first Friday of every month from 9:00 to 10:00 AM. 
Residents are welcome to stop by to talk in person about any town matters.

From David Baime –

The Leaf Blower panel discussion recorded by Medfield TV and presented during Medfield Climate week is now available on YouTube:

The title on YouTube search is “Leaf Blowers – What’s All the Noise About?“

From Medfield TV, a fun promo for its 8/3-7 film classes for high schoolers, with a sign up deadline of 7//27 –

Maria De La Fuente, Director of Land Use and Planning, today shared this with a resident in response to a query –