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?
Showing posts with label emails. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emails. Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
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.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Email As Evidence Controversy
Evidence in the Bonusgate/Corruption investigation is under attack by the defendants. Specifically, the defendants are trying to have emails retrieved by the AG's office from Commonwealth computers excluded on the grounds they cannot be authenticated or the defendant's atttorneys did not have access to the hard drives where the emails were retrieved.
On the surface that argument may have some merit. It probably is the reason a judge has been wrestling with the issue for months.
This court case highlights some important points in AG Corbett's favor.
The defendant argues that the trustworthiness of these e-mails cannot be
demonstrated, particularly those e-mails that are embedded within e-mails as having been forwarded to or by others or as the previous e-mail to which a reply was sent. The Court rejects this as an argument against authentication of the e-mails. The defendant’s argument is more
appropriately directed to the weight the jury should give the evidence, not to its authenticity.
While the defendant is correct that earlier e-mails that are included in a chain – either as ones that have been forwarded or to which another has replied – may be altered, this trait is not specific to e-mail evidence. It can be true of any piece of documentary evidence, such as a letter, a contract or an invoice. Indeed, fraud trials frequently center on altered paper documentation, which, through the use of techniques such as photocopies, white-out, or wholesale forgery, easily can be altered. The possibility of alteration does not and cannot be the basis for excluding e-mails as unidentified or unauthenticated as a matter of course, any more than it can be the rationale for excluding paper documents (and copies of those documents). We live in an age of technology and computer use where e-mail communication now is a normal and frequent act for the majority of this nation’s population, and is of particular importance in the professional world. The defendant is free to raise this issue with the jury and put on evidence that e-mails are capable of being altered before they are passed on. Absent specific evidence showing alteration,
however, the Court will not exclude any embedded e-mails because of the mere possibility that it can be done.
On the surface that argument may have some merit. It probably is the reason a judge has been wrestling with the issue for months.
This court case highlights some important points in AG Corbett's favor.
The defendant argues that the trustworthiness of these e-mails cannot be
demonstrated, particularly those e-mails that are embedded within e-mails as having been forwarded to or by others or as the previous e-mail to which a reply was sent. The Court rejects this as an argument against authentication of the e-mails. The defendant’s argument is more
appropriately directed to the weight the jury should give the evidence, not to its authenticity.
While the defendant is correct that earlier e-mails that are included in a chain – either as ones that have been forwarded or to which another has replied – may be altered, this trait is not specific to e-mail evidence. It can be true of any piece of documentary evidence, such as a letter, a contract or an invoice. Indeed, fraud trials frequently center on altered paper documentation, which, through the use of techniques such as photocopies, white-out, or wholesale forgery, easily can be altered. The possibility of alteration does not and cannot be the basis for excluding e-mails as unidentified or unauthenticated as a matter of course, any more than it can be the rationale for excluding paper documents (and copies of those documents). We live in an age of technology and computer use where e-mail communication now is a normal and frequent act for the majority of this nation’s population, and is of particular importance in the professional world. The defendant is free to raise this issue with the jury and put on evidence that e-mails are capable of being altered before they are passed on. Absent specific evidence showing alteration,
however, the Court will not exclude any embedded e-mails because of the mere possibility that it can be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)