Will Grace Cuozzo Finally Answer Sean Donahue's Questions?

Kelly Monitz of the Standard Speaker wrote this article today describing Sean Donahue's prolific career writing what was on his mind penning hundreds of emails and letters to the editor, writing on an Internet blog and newspaper forums, and calling into radio talk shows.

An interesting email exchange is found on the internet where Mr. Donahue chose to store his writings "in the cloud" after shutting down his blog, Blogginghazletoncity.blogspot.com.

In the Standard Speaker article Grace Cuozzo, disastrous candidate for Mayor of the City of Hazleton, makes the following representation of her interactions with Mr. Donahue.

Grace Cuozzo, a long-time government watchdog, communicated with Donahue while on the campaign trail in Hazleton last year, and still received his emails until his arrest Tuesday.
"I don't know why he sends them to me," she said.

She wonders why none of the recipients, including law enforcement, didn't reach out to help.

"He should have been put in a hospital for an exam," Cuozzo said. "There's no question there was a problem. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't take a mind-trust to see there was a problem. I'm floored they didn't put him in the hospital.
"
I think he needs help, not jail," she said.

The real question is why did Cuozzo, who by her own words, converse with Mr. Donahue if she believed him to have psychological problems?  Why did she enlist him as a soldier in her fruitless campaign for Mayor?  Read the following exchange obtained by SOP.

From: Sean Donahue

To: Grace Cuozzo; loubarletta [rest of barletta address redacted]

Cc: MarkKatchur ; Carl Christopher ; Chiefof Police Robert Ferdinand ; Sr. CEO Sam Lesante ; Kristen Buczynski; Lisa; Jim Reinmiller ; AndyMehalshick ; NancyDoyle ; Drew Speier ; NancyStasko ; [Seven email addresses redacted for privacy reasons] Kevin ODonnell ; SteveCorbett ;[ 4 emails redacted for privacy concerns;] MaryellenLeib ; Bernadette DeBias ; [5 emails redacted for privacy reasons]

Sent: Monday, September12, 2011 8:50 AM

Subject: Questions For Cuozzo Campaign Headquaretes

Dear Ms. Cuozzo,

Please answer the questions listed below;
Why didn't you send your below e-mail to others so that they know it was you who contacted me to find out what Lieb had sent me regarding her salary, made wild claims and then backed off them?
Why did you tell me that the executive order Lieb sent mew as a xerox of a document that Barletta only recently signed and that Deakos could verify the date of the original document having been signed?

Why then when I requested documents that would confirm plans to allow Deakos to examine the document, as you claimed needed to be done, did you back off of your claim?

Why didn't you share acknowledgment of your error with others? You are running for Mayer here. You can't be calling constituents hoping to rally support with outlandish claims and then back off those claims when someone pursues your claims in order to prove them right or wrong. You are in a political race her for a position that would allow you to make decisions that would affect my life. Your claims must now be proven to be either true or false. That must be done prior to election day and voters must know whether or not you were correct.

You called me several times, intentionally seeing me out hoping to conjure up the political spirits. Do you feel that you mistook my criticisms of government agencies as a constituency farm for yourself?

Sincerely,


Sean M. Donahue


Hazleton, PA
It appears her contact was more than just communicating; it seems incendiary.

As Mr. Donahue's computer, hard drives, and portable drives are examined by law enforcement much more information may arise outlining how many politicians were trying to exploit Mr. Donahue's instability for their personal agenda.  Was there a premeditated effort to politically charge Mr. Donahue into explosive anger?

Sean Donahue and A Hazleton City Councilman

Photo Standard Speaker Jamie Pesotine

 

In today's Standard Speaker veteran writer Mia Light covers the arrest of a nemisis known to many public officials for his plethora of harassing emails written to them with escalating overtones.

A Hazleton man is facing charges after allegedly making terroristic threats against Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis.

Sean Donahue, 43, of 625 Cleveland St., was remanded by Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola to Luzerne County Correctional Facility in lieu of $100,000 bail following preliminary arraignment Tuesday on charges of terroristic threats and harassment.

According to court documents, Donahue sent an email message to Salavantis on Aug. 17 stating that he would engage in a gun fight with city police if the district attorney did not comply with his demands.

Police said Donahue sent multiple email messages to Salavantis, threatening violence toward government employees and police. One email asked the district attorney to provide him with various assault weapons and bullet-proof clothing.

Going back to 2009 his rants are still on the internet placed by Mr. Donahue in response to articles appearing in the Standard Speaker.  Here is one example.

Dear All,
(1). I am not opposed to an organized Halloween event, similar to what the Freeland Mayor promoted this year. The events should occur on different days in both towns.(2). I agree with using a church picnic environment.(3). I stand adamantly opposed to desensitizing children to the dangers of going near car trunks, especially to get free candy. Please have the FBI tell me that I am wrong in voicing this concern and I will back off of it (but not until after I complain to every FBI office in the country). (4). Finally, all of you seem to be claiming that if you collocate 40 to 100 children in one place with sugar filled candy, the threat of chaos ensuing is minimal. Do you really believe that? To "tire of sean donahue" My job in the Army was to be a threat analyst. It was a natural it. It was a place where pessimism prospered. There are bad people in society. Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

What becomes puzzling and disturbing is the recent contact by one Hazleton City Council member who copied by means of a "cc" to Sean Donahue over  a city matter. 

From: "Jack Mundie" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Date: July 30, 2012 2:35:47 PM EDT
To: < editorial@standardspeaker.com >, "richard ammon" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Peter O'Donnell" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Kent Jackson" < email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Elaine M. Curry" <email redacted for privacy reasons >, "Scott   McCarthy" <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Sean Donahue" < smd5389@verizon.net >, Steve Hahn < email redacted for privacy reasons >, <  email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Thomas A. Makowski" <email redacted for privacy reasons  >, Sam Galski<  email redacted for privacy reasons>
Subject: FW: billable hour mistakes



From:   Jack Mundie [email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Monday, July 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To:   'Jack Mundie'; 'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'; Chris Slusser, Esquire; Jack Mundie; MaryEllen
Subject:   billable hour mistakes
Chris,  I know you donated $500.00 to the city because you made a mistake by having us pass  a resolution instead of a required  ordinance for eminent domain on the Greco property.  Now, I know everyone makes mistakes and I make one every day, but, mistakes are not billable hours.  Your invoices show eminent domain research of $1200.00  and I estimate another $800.00 billed expenses for  the eminent domain of the Greco property.  Hazleton taxpayers should not pay for
anyone’s mistakes.   The total comes to $2000.00. If you want to take credit for the $500.00  that you donated  the total that you should refund to the Hazleton taxpayers is $1,500.00.  Please drop a check off at City Hall at your earliest convenience. Cheers, Jack

From:   Jack Mundie [ email redacted for privacy reasons ]
Sent:   Friday, July 27, 2012 3:14 PM
To:   'Keith Bast'; 'Karin Cabell'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jim Perry'; 'Jean Mope'
Cc:   'Lisa Barkus'; 'Chris Slusser, Esquire'
Subject:   TRANSFERS
MaryEllen, According to  our monthly report that we received recently, under the special litigation line item we have paid out $16,154.00. We have budgeted $5000.00. So you paid them without coming to council to request a transfer. You said you would be requesting transfers this year. If there is a reason why you are not doing transfers and not following the third class city code please let me known. Chris if you have any thoughts on this I would appreciate a reply.
Cheers, Jack
.
Sean Donahue replied with this email exchange.  He copied the former police chief, the present police chief, a failed candidate who ran for Mayor of the City of Hazleton as well as Wilkes Barre radio hosts.

From: "Sean Donahue" <smd5389@verizon.net>
To: "Steve Corbett" <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Cc: "Robert Ferdinand" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "DeAndrea Jr." <email redacted for privacy reasons>, "Grace Cuozzo" <email redacted for privacy reasons>, Webster< email redacted for privacy reasons>, Nancy K <email redacted for privacy reasons>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:06:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: billable hour mistakes
Dear Steve Corbett,

Now their doing it to me (sending the "I'm pissed off e-mails").  I got something going here.  Its the stuff of democracy.

Sincerely,
Sean M. Donahue

Among public officials there exists an undeniable belief that Sean Donahue possesses a threat to them because his out of control behaviors were escalating.  Almost every Hazleton Area government entity was a target of his menacing emails where the brashness climbed to new heights with each click of the mouse.

A question for Jack Mundie is why did he think Sean Donahue needed to be copied on a city matter?   Sean Donahue's minacious demeanor towards public officials was common knowledge. Being a Hazleton City Councilman did he have knowledge of the F.B.I. visit to Hazleton City Hall? What was the motive behind that action to copy Donahue?  If Mr. Donahue's computer was seized how many more public officials and those seeking a public life will have communications found on his computer? Only time will tell.

Hazleton City Councilwoman Fighting For Political Life

In a letter to the editor today appearing in the Standard Speaker Hazleton City Councilwoman, Jean Mope, appears to be struggling in her attempt to explain her way out of a mess she solely created.

When Civil Service Rules were presented to Hazleton City Council for adoption Ms. Mope had some questions. According to sources Ms. Mope first approached the City Solicitor, Chris Slusser, with a set of questions. Taking his answers with an incredulous stance she unilaterally proceeded to contact the labor attorney designated during the Barletta administration to handle Civil Service Commission matters concerning the police.

Ms. Mope failed to have the knowledge that the Civil Service Rules were not a Hazleton City Council matter. Due to her lack of knowledge, not only in this matter but most city matters, she proceeded to demand answers from the labor attorney relative to Civil Service procedures and rules.

Here is the list of questions she posed to the labor attorney.

From: Jean Mope (redacted email address for privacy reasons)
Sent: June 08, 2012 4:10 PM
To: David E.
Mitchell
Subject: Hazleton City Civil Service
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Let me introduce myself, I am Jean Mope, Hazleton City
Council Woman.
I have just received your rewritten Hazleton City Police
Civil Service Regulations. I have a few questions and they are as
follows.
Page 2- Definitions, (g), Hazleton is Optional Plan B, not
Home Rule Charter. I was under the impression when Optional Plan B fails to
address a situation we then follow Third Class City Code. Please explain your
definition as to why you state "conflict with Home Rule Charter that the Charter
shall control."
Page 3- (n), your contention is the mayor appoints to the
CSC, what are you basing this determination on?
Page 4-(t) it appears your rules may conflict
here.
Page 5-(y) based on this definition Hazleton City Council
Does hire new employees. Am I correct?
It goes on to say specific comments concerning Veterans, does
this apply only to (New) Veteran Hires?
Page 6-Article 2-201- Since this Board's power is vested by
Third Class City Code, and we are under Home Rule Optional Plan B, the Mayor
merely makes a recommendation to council, not an appointment, for this board.
Please see P.S. law. Or provide me with the documentation showing
otherwise.
Page 7-208- Does not Council have to approve any changes? I
cite the fact we have just gotten your rewritten regulations, as a Resolution to
be placed on our upcoming agendas? Doesn't make any sense to me, either the
board approves their own rules with the solicitor reviewing them or council
does, which one?
Page8-302- Cost incorrect
Council should also be given a copy of applicants immediately
following testing.
Page8- I would like to see these notices also posted in City
Hall per Hazleton City Code.
Section 505- Written Examination- I would like it noted here
that a CSC board member not act as proctor.
Page8- Article 3- 301- The cost for processing (testing) is
incorrect, please see Resolution 2010-63
Section 507- Why place a limit on candidates, as long the
have passed to this point.
Section 511- Legality of toss of a coin?
Section 603- In violation of state law I believe. Third Class
City Code 4406?
Section 606- Again I question using the Police Chief to make
, in essence the final decision. (Considering the chief of police is to come
from within the ranks and we fail to do this.)
Article VII- Does this not violate Section 2001 of the Third
Class City Code?
Section 701- Why are certain positions taken out of Civil
Service procedures? See Section 2002 of Third Class City
Code.
Section 702 should include all positions within the police
force, what laws are you using to take out specific
positions?
Section 708- You are reviewing scores here yet in new hires
you are tossing a coin? I have problems with something like this, from a legal
stand point.
Section 710- What section of state law grants the police
chief the right to select an employee rather than the CSC board?
Section 713- Council should be included in receiving lists
promotional eligibility.
Section805- The city solicitor acts as legal representative
for the CSC, which would place him in a conflict. The problem here is our CSC is
budgeted no funds. The fees for testing covers that and the board is not paid. I
am sure the city solicitor bills under the city as a whole for any action he
does for the CSC. So who represents the board and where do funds for the legal
representation come from? Are these board members covered by E&O insurance?
Who pays for this and where is it budgeted?
Section 810- This should be more definitive of who hears
grievances? The CSC has done its job, the city council is the ones who should
have hear these complaints, not CSC.
Section 10.4- Is the press allowed to record, both visual and
audio?
Article XI-For the record Hazleton is governed under THIRD
CLASS CITY CODE/OPTIONAL PLAN B.
One last question, last year Mayor Yannuzzi made some
promotions, but the problem is some of these positions do not exist. So maybe
you can tell me the status of these promotions?
Sincerely,
Jean Mope

It is unbelievable, no make that preposterous, that Ms. Mope makes the assertion in her editorial that "Most of my questions could have been answered by one or two words, but it appears someone wanted the cost for the answers to be expensive." Ms. Mope challenges the attorney to prove what he is saying is correct with questions like "what are you basing this determination on?,   "it appears your rules may conflict here.", "I have problems with something like this, from a legal stand point." "Or provide me with the documentation showing otherwise."  She goes in Section 805 and asks for a detailed explanation.  The person who wanted the cost to be expensive was Ms. Mope herself.   Instead of asking the City Solicitor her questions who told her he would answer her question for free she went outside to seek her answers.  She didn't like the answers to the questions she originally asked the City Solicitor so she created a whole new set of questions for the labor attorney. 

According to the City Government in Pennsylvania Handbook it is clear that under Third Class City government majority rules.  Earlier this year Ms. Mope had a problem with the majority of Hazleton City Council adopting new rules. 

The Third Class City Code, Optional Third Class City Charter Law and the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law do not set forth rules of conduct or procedure for municipal meetings. Each city is free to establish its own order of business and rules for conduct and procedures.

Most cities have procedures for their meetings set by ordinance, resolution or perhaps tradition. Rules of procedure are always within the control of the majority and may be changed at any time by majority vote.

In her editorial Ms. Mope states "I did the only smart thing I could do. I wrote the law firm that composed the policy and asked my questions."  She forgot one thing.  She needed the approval of the majority of Hazleton City Council in order to unilaterally create a bill for which no line item was approved in the budget.  Without it her move wasn't smart at all. 

Ms. Mope goes on to state " per Third Class City Code."  If she knows the code so well she should know that the majority must approve first.  But Ms. Mope appears to be a renegade who only wants the majority to abide by the rules.

Ms. Mope should have owned up to her mistake instead of trying to blame everyone else but herself.  She wants to blame the City Administrator and the City Solicitor but they didn't decide to write the labor attorney. The bill attributed to her was around $1800.00.  Yet the title says $11,000.  Evidently math isn't her strong point either.

Lou Barletta Comment's On Paul Ryan's Selection As VP

Press Release From The Lou Barletta For Congress Campaign Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                  Contact: Lance Stange, Jr.

August 11, 2012                                                                                                                                   lance@loubarletta.com

or 570-501-8683

Lou Barletta’s statement on the selection of

Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate

Hazleton, PA – Today, Lou Barletta issued the following statement regarding the selection of Paul Ryan to complete the Republican presidential ticket:

“Jobs and the economy are the number one concern of voters across America.  Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand the need for pro-growth strategies that will get our economy back on the right track.

“A Romney-Ryan ticket offers a clear contrast to the failed policies of President Obama that have only made our economy worse.  The team of Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan has the expertise to offer idea after idea on how to fix our economy, cut Washington’s red tape, right-size federal spending to deal with our deficit, and save important federal programs that so many rely on.

“Having worked with Paul Ryan, I can say no one in the House of Representatives knows the federal budget better than he does.  He will be an invaluable resource to the ticket and the American people as their next Vice-President. At a time when our country is heading for a fiscal cliff, there could not be a better team for the future of America than Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan.”

Tony Phyrillas On Paul Ryan

Paid for by Lou Barletta for Congress