1st Assistant Monroe County District Attorney and Husband of Colleen Mancuso Threatens Complaint of Libel
On May 10th, 2017 we published a post made by Dr Karin-Susan Breitlauch on Facebook under the title of Thousands of Unreturned Library Items, Almost $100,000.00 Owed to the Western Pocono Community Library and Our Local Magistrate Refuses to hear Criminal Cases, and since then Michael Macuso the Monroe County 1st Assistant District Attorney and husband of Colleen Mancuso has threatened to file a Complaint of Libel against myself and The West End Reporter if we did not print a retraction and add the comment made by Colleen Mancuso on the FB Page Pleasant Valley Community to the article.
Had Colleen Mancuso made her comment on The West End Reporter website, her comment would have been seen like her husbands two comments. Below is Colleens Mansuso's comment from the Pleasant Valley Community to the post:
Colleen Nevins Mancuso The statute Scott Drake cited is correct unlike the statute cited in Karin Breitlauch's political HACK piece. The library had filed private criminal complaints, but the last one I could find was in 2008. FOUR years before I took office. I don't tell anyone what to file. Nor do I refuse to hear cases. Former DJ York wanted the district attorney's office to limit approval of private criminal complaints indicating that the library was using the court as their collection agency. Breitlauch's article is a cheap attempt to use the library to gain political favor for her candidate York by making up stories.
Below are the two comments by Micheal Mancuso Monroe County 1st Assistant District Attorney and husband of Colleen Mancuso that he posted on our website:
| Michael Mancuso Michael@mancusomancuso.com 50.29.163.505/18/17 |
Hi Mr. Drake I have reviewed the Article you have written under the erroneous title ending with the claim that the local MDJ refuses to hear criminal cases dealing with the overdue retention of library books. The contents of the article are well known to you so I won’t detail them here. I also note that you included an Editor’s Note citing 18pacs6708 and that the section was identified as the correct section by MDJ MANCUSO. However, you failed to mention the MDJ’s response defending against the unwarranted politically motivated and totally improper posting on the part of the library board president. The facts should be corrected and retraction of the article posted. First, as a summary offense it is the library that must file the charges in the DIstrict Court. The filing must comply with the section’s notice requirements to the defendant. The court then schedules a hearing date and the parties are notified and the Judge decides the case. Quite simple isn’t it? However, as pointed out by Judge Mancuso the library has not filed a private criminal complaint with the court since 2008. Judge Mancuso didn’t assume the bench until 2012. Further, former Judge York (Judge Mancuso’s current political opponent) had refused to hear those cases protesting that the court shouldn’t be the library’s bill collector. Her position is contrary to the law and Judge Mancuso has remained willing to hear any and all private criminal complaints brought in her court by the library. However, the library has not brought a single case to court since Judge Mancuso was sworn into office. Furthermore, and as you are well aware Ms. Debby York is a board member of the library herself and therefore clearly a part of the improper and politically motivated hit piece published in the West End Reporter. The action of these library board members would seem to violate the non profit and public purpose of the library. In addition it’s publication by West End Reporter can be considered as libelous. Therefore, retraction of the article along with a correction in the form of an Editor’s Note is demanded. Thank you |
| Michael Mancuso Michael@mancusomancuso.com 50.29.163.505/20/17 |
Hi Mr. Drake I am following up on my earlier communication. The one where I pointed out the false and libelous nature of your article accusing MDJ Mancuso of violating the law. Although, I wanted to resolve the issue amicably by your publication of a retraction and correction you haven’t even responded. So I’ll give you one more chance before I file a complaint for libel against you and your publication. Thank you |
The above three comments have been added to the original post.
OK so I’m confused here. Mr. Mancuso is telling Mr. Drake to correct and retract, but Mrs Mancuso is agreeing with Mr Drake. It seems the problem is between the Mancuso’s and Ms Breitlauchs political hack piece. If Ms York is on the public library board, she is also to blame for this. $100,000 in revenue to a public library can go a long way. Seems as though the uncollected library fines are not as important as getting elected to me.
Hi Dennis
A judge can only decide cases that are brought to the court. A judge can’t reach out and bring people into court to answer charges unless a party first files process. My complaint about the West End Reporter’s posting of the Breitlauch piece was two fold. First, it wrongfully accused Colleen of refusing to hear cases, when the library had never filed the cases with her court in the first place. As I said and as she maintains she would hear any cases brought by the Library to recover the losses incurred. Second, although the West End Reporter notes that Colleen responded and indicated what the correct provision of the law is- the Reporter failed to mention Colleen’s defense to the false hit piece. That gave a false impression that Colleen somehow acquiesced in the post. So it is clear to me that only after threatening a libel suit did Mr. Drake of the West End Reporter finally post my comments. While he is entitled to support whoever he wants for the Judge position he should not use the West End Reporter to spread false stories about Colleen. If you need any further clarification please email me at Michael@mancusomancuso.com
I’m confused too. One of the conditions of libel is to “publish information known to be false”. If the West End Reporter merely reprinted a “story” posted elsewhere it is not libel if the West End Reporter didn’t know. I would assume a simple “not threatening” message to the West End Reporter would have led to the correction. Just seems a bit heavy handed towards a very important publication that helps to keep the community informed. Kind of like using a shotgun to swap a fly. I find the “dirty” politics interesting and glad the truth has come out, but the West End Reporter is protected by the first amendment and has lots of latitude and I hope is not “frightened” to post info for all of us to make judgements about. I don’t like to see the “free press” bullied. One more thing – in libel damages have to be proven – I’m not a lawyer, but I assume that would mean proving that the false information (which the West End Reporter didn’t know was false) had to cause some loss – financial (I assume) – and it would have to be shown that that loss came from its publication on the West End Reporter and not Facebook or other sites…