Former Heidelberg council member files suit against ex-colleague |

Former Heidelberg council member files suit against ex-colleague

A Heidelberg man says in a lawsuit that two people falsely described his stance on Section 8 housing to voters on their way to the polls last year.

Raymond Losego, a former councilman who was campaigning as a write-in for a seat on Heidelberg Council, filed the lawsuit against Albert P. Kosol and Dolores Kosol. He is suing them for slander, negligent communication and civil rights, according to a lawsuit filed in September.

Losego’s attorney, Edward P. Weiss, declined to comment. The Kosols declined to comment.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Allegheny Court of Common Pleas but recently was transferred to federal court.

According to the lawsuit, the couple confronted residents en route to the polls on Nov. 5, 2013 at the Heidelberg Volunteer Fire Department parking lot and made false and defamatory comments related to Losego’s stance on Section 8 housing.

Section 8 is a program offering government-subsided housing for low-income individuals.

Losego seeks damages for lost earnings and earning capacity, pain, suffering and humiliation, and impairment to reputation. He was not on the November ballot after failing to place in the top three on the Democratic ticket during the May 2013 primary.

He received 71 write-in votes during the November election, failing to earn a spot on council, according to the Allegheny County Division of Elections.

The Kosols were not on the ballot. Losego and Albert Kosol served on council together, and they each received a Key to the Borough at the conclusion of their terms in December 2013. Losego had served on council for 12 years, and Kosol for 14 years.

Alex Felser is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5810 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.