Leaderboard 728 X 90

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Ashley Madison records show Alabama tax attorney Thomas Mancuso has been looking for a woman who wants "to be licked" or "taken from behind"


Thomas and Judy Mancuso
A summary of an Alabama tax attorney's activities on the Ashley Madison (AM) extramarital-affair Web site shows he is looking for a woman who wants "to be licked," wants "to be taken from behind," and wants "to play with me in your mouth."

Thomas Mancuso, of Montgomery, is married to Judy Mancuso, but that hasn't kept him from seeking more than a little adventure on the side.

Records show that Mancuso signed up for AM at 3:51 p.m. on March 3, 2014, using a computer with an outbound IP address of 72.242.125.26, located on or near State Dock Road, Montgomery, AL 36104. His Ashley Madison account number is 24474963. (The full summary is embedded at the end of this post.)

What is Mancuso looking for in a partner? Well, he is quite explicit. From his AM profile description:

don't be too shy . . . say or show what you like . . . be aggressive if you like . . . or tell me to take control and seduce you . . . if you want to be licked, then lead me there . . . want to be taken from behind . . . then flip to your stomach . . . I will figure it out . . . want to play with me in your mouth . . . then do it . . . want to scream when you cum . . . that makes me nuts.
Mancuso then puts his slightly kinky side on display, and in perhaps his most impressive move, he points to his wallet:

want me to pull your hair . . . sure . . . your butt spanked softly . . . love to do it . . . and best of all, I am first class, have money, no nut case but very adventuresome, don't need you to go dutch, etc., etc.

We sought comment from Mancuso for this post, but so far, he has not responded to our queries.


37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hah! This is great. Love these Ashley Madison stories, especially when they provide all of these details. Love it!

Anonymous said...

What happened to the summary of Mr. Mancuso's activities?

legalschnauzer said...

It looks like my Scribd account has been hacked. This has happened before. It will be taken care of. This probably is from someone connected to Ashley Madison, which we already know is a corrupt outfit. The whine about someone hacking into their data, and then they do the same thing to journalists.

I doubt Mr. Mancuso is enough of a techie to do this. Anyway, we will get it corrected before long.

Anonymous said...

Think I'm going to lose my lunch. Mancuso thinks a woman would debase herself enough to "play with him in her mouth." Jesus, I'm sick! Gotta find a barf bag!

Anonymous said...

Do it Lickity Split.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to various readers:

Thank you for sending links to Carol's mugshot. This is, indeed, good news. It gives Carol a powerful defamation claim, to go along with those for police brutality, false arrest, false imprisonment, violation of constitutional rights, and so on. A lawsuit on those matters will be coming soon, and the more the mugshot is disseminated, the greater the damages to which Carol will be entitled.

Thank you, again.

Anonymous said...

By someone hacking your Scribd account, I would take that as an admission from the hackers that your documents and reporting are accurate. I also suspect this is a criminal act, so I hope you will look into that.

legalschnauzer said...

That's how I take it too, @1:44. For the moment, someone has removed all of my documents in Scribd, save one. I have notified Scribd, and we will see where it goes from here.

e.a.f. said...

OMG

I think I just lost my lunch.

This is what passes for professional in the U.S.A.?

No wonder they have Trump as president.

he put it in writing on a public website??????? BAD JUDGEMENT!

Anonymous said...

Scribd removed them. They will probably cancel your account because of your abuse of private persons.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a criminal act to me. This is from an article at Wired:


"Instead, he’s been charged with a felony count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (CFAA) a law passed in 1986 to prevent and prosecute malicious hacking. The charges could carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in penalties."


https://www.wired.com/2016/06/admin-faces-felony-deleting-files-flawed-hacking-law/

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for sharing, @2:11. I found the following about the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center:

https://www.ic3.gov/faq/default.aspx

Anonymous said...

Defamation? You idiot. A mugshot is part of the public record. She was arrested and has been charged with assault. It's the truth. Legal action won't change that.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:52 -- You don't have any idea what Scribd did, moron. I didn't violate terms of service, and Scribd has never notified me of any such issue.

Anonymous said...

Shuler, you cannot post that kind of personal information anywhere on the web. It's a violation of everyones' TOS. The sooner you figure that out, the better.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:31 -- You have no clue. I've been working with Scribd for probably 6-7 years and never received a notice about even a possible violation of terms of service. If Scribd did remove my documents, they had better return them, or they might have problems on their hands.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:27 --

You think Carol's reputation isn't damaged by having a mugshot distributed as the result of a false arrest and imprisonment? You need to brush up on your defamation law.

Anyone who caused the photo to be unlawfully taken is subject to liability. Anyone who caused said unlawful photo to be distributed is subject to liability.

You aren't very smart -- that is clear.

Anonymous said...

The court found facts sufficient to issue a warrant. What those facts are, might (or might not) surprise you. The state actors will all be immune. It's a public photo and there is no liability for republishing it. It's a fact she was arrested and a fact its her image.

So good luck with that.

Apparently the Scribd document didn't belong to you. You stole it, or used someone elses stolen document.

That's a private person, btw. That guy nor his family are public figures and public disclosure of private facts is still a tort. It's crazy how you think everyone is as obsessed with the love/sex life or fantasies of other people as you are. It really is unworthy of a serious reporter.

Anonymous said...

LS, the mugshot was found online, no? That's just like you posting pictures of family members from Facebook, etc. We've already established that it's fair since it's part of the story. Same thing. I personally do not think its right and i like your reporting, but it's not defamation since it's true - she was arrested and had her mug shot taken

Anonymous said...

Mr.Shuler it may not be the Ashley Madison crew, that is, not directly. These people go to the same lodge. And the ones most likely to benefit most from your censorship are the Scribes and Pharisees. That is, the players in a corrupted judicial system. Your blog is unique(independent). Even though you are not a lawyer, your understanding of the law and how it is applied is remarkable. You are not one among the tribe,therefore, you are a threat to expose their scheming and fraud that is endemic within our court system and probably begin after the Civil War. (see: Albert Pike, he's not in the Hx books) With your abilities, you can critique the Scribes and that has never been done. I have watched how the "High Power" have been working to destroy you. I have seen how they crucified you but every three days you show back up again. IMO, for the most part, you speak the truth. Without doubt, you expose them when you put court documents on Scribd which shows how the Scribes rule contrary to law. Keep fighting! Don't give up! Your determination speaks for itself. (Jeremaih 7:8-11/8:8-9)

Anonymous said...

LE has no choice once the warrant is signed. They must execute the warrant and process the arrested. Regardless of if the initial arrest or warrant is legal is a separate issue. They must execute the warrant once the warrant flows downhill to them. Think your beef is with whoever signed the warrant. I doubt the judge signed it. They usually have a minion that rubber stamps warrants. That person probably has no clue of your ongoing issues so they are basing it on the arrest report. Unless the initial arrest and charges are thrown out or the police are proven at fault then a defamation suit would be pointless. Sounds like your case will hinge on the outcome of the initial arrest.

Anonymous said...

Arrests are public record. It sounds like you're getting ready to lose yet another case in court. It's a shame that you took your wife down with you.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:08 --

I'm well aware that arrests are public record. But the people who caused Carol's false arrest, and thus her photo to be taken and distributed, are liable for defamation. I guarantee I've studied the law on this way more than you have. The people in Alabama who falsely arrested me and caused my mugshot to be distributed also are liable for damages, via defamation.

This was a false arrest, and the post I wrote today proves it -- assuming you are capable of reading and understanding a post.

legalschnauzer said...

@6:10 --

Thanks for a thoughtful and insightful comment. You make a lot of interesting points.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:27 --

They aren't remotely the same thing. Carol's mugshot was taken and distributed because of a false arrest. The people responsible for the false arrest damaged her reputation, and they are liable for defamation. It's a pretty simple legal concept.

I would encourage you to go back and read my first post today, which was about Carol's arrest. It was a false arrest, and I cited chapter and verse on the relevant law. Even you should be able to understand it.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:26 --

I would suggest you read my response above to @3:27. I didn't steal anything, and you might be careful about making such allegations. Accurate reporting of facts, whether you consider them public or private, is not a tort. If you think that's a tort, you are beyond clueless.

legalschnauzer said...

Followup to @3:26 --

The warrant was issued for "failure to appear." If you read my post today on that subject, you will see issuance of the warrant was unlawful and not based on any facts. Again, you have no understanding of even the simplest facts in this matter.

Anonymous said...

It can be a tort to disclose private facts that re not a matter of public concern, about a non-public figure that a reasonable person would find offensive.

It's bad form in any case, and utterly pointless besides being an awful thing to do. Badly done, Emma.

No one is liable for distribution of the mugshot, The court found facts sufficient to issue a warrant. The judge is immune even if he erred. Those who issued the warrant in response to the order have no liability. Those whom arrived out thenarrestbhave no liability. Those who publish facts if her arrest or her mugshot (it's a matter of public concern) have no liability.

There is no one to sue and nothing to sue about. I don't know what basis the judge had for issuing the failure to appear warrant, but it is reasonable to assume he had one. And given your repeated propensity to hide when servers come by, it seems plausible on its face that the server knew you were there, and you refused to open the door and take the summons, or pretended you were not at home. All the server would have to do is p, on the other side of the door, offer the document or to read it, and service is accomplished.

There may be other facts the judge relied on.

I know you (reasonably)! Feared charges would be brought, because you discussed that worry more than once, including your conversations with a lawyer about the possibility of charges being brought. I have a hard time believing you had no actual knowledge that charges had been pressed....you would be foolish not to check with that risk hanging over both of your heads.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:42 --

Not sure why I post your comments. Guess I continue to be amazed at your stupidity:

(1) What you describe is not a tort; it's 100 percent lawful, and you can cite no law to the contrary;

(2) Someone is responsible for the false arrest that led to the mugshot and its distribution. You don't know if a judge issued a warrant or not.

(3) It's a matter of public record that the attempted service was at an address where we had been evicted roughly one year earlier. We had not lived there for a year or more. We weren't there. Anyone who checks the court record, and can read, would know that.

(4) I've never said I was worried about charges being brought. To the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that no charges could be brought under the law -- that Carol was the victim of assault, not the other way around. There was nothing hanging over our head, and just because an attorney says something doesn't mean we put stock in it. The attorney was describing the possibility that cops can file bogus charges, which wasn't a surprise to us. But we thought even the Greene Co. sheriff would not stoop that low and resort to absolute criminality. If you want to accuse me of something, accuse me of underestimating LE corruption in SW Missouri.

(5) You simply refuse to understand that the warrant was for "failure to appear," and my post today shows it is unlawful to issue a warrant for someone who did not receive notice via first-class mail.

You are the most dense individual I've ever encountered.

Anonymous said...

You worried enough to see an attorney and discuss with him the possibility of charges, and you were a fool if you weren't worried. And "guffawing" at the possibility was not helpful to someone you claim to care for.

legalschnauzer said...

Well, Mr. Apologist is up early this morning.

(1) We saw an attorney about filing a civil case, which will be filed in short order.

(2) The attorney brought up the possibility of criminal charges, saying it can happen when a law-enforcement department is exceptionally corrupt, they know they really screwed up in abusing you, and a prosecutor is weak. The situation in Greene County apparently meets those criteria. The lawyer brought it up; we didn't ask about it.

Bottom line: Based on the attorney's word, it shows how strong Carol's civil case is (and mine because I was abused, too). It also shows the thug-cops are worried in a major way. And since you probably are connected to them, I'd say you've got shit stains on your undies.

The lawyer, by the way, offered to take our case. We opted to keep looking.

Anonymous said...

You have been worried about Carol being charged since the day she was injured and taken into custody. You have talked about it several times. It was a reasonable concern.
I think you have known about the risk of this for some time, and I don't believe you never checked case.net.

I think you would have been foolish not to care about it or check, given that the statute hadn't run and a trained advisor had warned you of the occurrence. Laughing it off would not be a prudent response.

All that said, the court did find facts sufficient to issue a warrant, according to the docket in case.net. Those facts could include an attempted alternate service. Again, all they have to do is approach and offer - this can be through a closed door.

You are at a real disadvantage in a Civil suit wrt to Carol's injuries, because you have talked too publicly about what you saw and didn't see. Even if arrest is proper, there could still be a case for unnecessary force. But even there, you described her fall. That type of fall - which you said yourself was forceful enough to possibly cause a concussion - is associated with elbow breaks JUST LIKE CAROLS. You described an alternative cause of her injury.

I saw her mugshot and all I could feel was great pity. She looks frightened and unwell. Her appearance (eyes, eyebrows, thinning hair) suggest she might have some kind of underlying thyroid disorder. Her bones may not be as strong as they ought to be in a woman her age.

She has paid a large price for being a loyal wife to you. You have let her down by ignoring the threat of charges being filed against her. You needed to be prepared for that and to be responsive to the court if that happened, to protect her interests.

legalschnauzer said...

Are you with the Trump White House? You seem to live for "fake news," creating facts that have no ties to reality.

Carol was not "injured." She was brutally assaulted and beaten. I've never said Carol fell. I saw the whole incident and heard portions of it. As I've written multiple times, a male officer grabbed her and slammed her butt-first to the ground. And it was with the kind of force that can cause a concussion. I never said she "fell," I never described a "fall." I described her being slammed to the ground.

Not sure how someone lies like you do with a clear conscience, but I'm guessing you have been to law school, where folks tend to check their consciences at the door. I know, I've got a brother who went to law school and he lives his life like someone with no conscience.

I'm guessing you are trying desperately to protect yourself, your client or both. And you probably are a veteran attorney who has lied so much over the years that you don't even recognize the truth anymore. You have no clue how clear your lies are to others.

Everything you write is a fantasy designed to reduce someone's liability. You can't help yourself; lying is all you know. Trying to escape responsibility is your specialty.

BTW, your act of pretending to care for Carol's well-being doesn't fool me. Just another con from a man who probably has made a nice living at being a paid liar. Wouldn't be surprised if you are Craig Lowther or someone else from Lowther Johnson law firm, the bunch that unlawfully scheduled the eviction in the first place.

Anonymous said...

I thought Cliff Sims was going to close down your blog overnight. I see it's still here. Sims must be all hat and no cattle.

Anonymous said...

You are on the record as saying you did not see or hear the whole incident. You saw some things and did not see others. You heard some things and did not hear others.

You did say Carol fell to the ground, seat first. It's a fall even if she was made to fall; but bringing an uncooperative subject to the ground is not unnecessary force when there is a determination to effect an arrest and there is any resistance. She wasn't slammed face first. I don't reccommend you publish any more about it or show any more documents, and definately say nothing about "your side" ; you could unwittingly hurt her and you should only publish anything after getting the express approval of Carol AND her lawyer.

I don't recall you mentioning her saying "don't touch me"(or words to that effect) until you recently reported on statements made by others. That is going to be potential testimony your wife and her attorney will have to be prepared for, if she ends up being tried. It suggests that she pulled away and they had to use force to gain compliance.

That's never going to be found an excessive use of force. Carol having permission to enter from one person didn't give her option of ignoring a deputy or officer telling her to stop, and she should have obeyed until the matter was cleared up.

You also mentioned Carol being struck by a door *and* falling backward when officers first entered your apartment. She was looking through the eyepiece in the door I believe you said.

Carol's case has been materially hurt by the things you've already published. I would guess, though I have no certain knowlege, that anything you have said or written about the matter is archived and you won't be able to conceal it. Just don't compound the errors you have made so far.

I think you, sir, live in a fantasy land if you believe I have anything but an observers interest in the story, but you are also in a fantasy land if you don't understand that what you have written hurts your claims because they offer the other side defenses or limit your ability to testify differently than what you've written - even if you saw more, or even if things happened in a different sequence than what your described. THere are others that were there who have made statements too, and their testimony will be difficult to impeach.




legalschnauzer said...

Well, our lying liar who lies is back.

(1) I've reported from day one that I saw the whole thing and heard portions of it. The charges against Carol have zero to do with what anyone said, under Missouri law.

(2) I've reported from day one that Carol was slammed by a deputy butt-first to the ground. She did not land on her arm, and the injury was not consistent with a fall. It was consistent with having been in a car wreck or a beating. Hence, the need for trauma surgery. We look forward to testimony from her surgeon, his team, and her therapists. We also look forward to presenting the X-rays in court, plus the fact the probable-cause statement makes no mention of Carol's broken arm, no mention of all the guns pointed at us, no mention of Arnott being on the scene and letting this happen. No mention that they jailed Carol originally, released her when they discovered the broken arm and waited more than a year to arrest her again.

(3) I've reported from day one that Carol's arm was broken when a deputy yanked viciously on it in an upward and backward motion.

(4) I've reported from day one that both of Carol's arms were purple up and down from bruising, consistent with a violent beating, not a fall.

(5) Yes, she said "Don't touch me," and that indicates the cops initiated contact, not the other way around, and the charges against Carol are bogus.

(6) It's clear the sheriff did either no investigation or a faulty investigation, contrary to their own guidelines. Why do you think that is? It's called a coverup.


(7) You have a horse in this race, and I don't believe a word you say about being a disinterested party. If you are so disinterested, let's meet for lunch and I'd be glad to show you how wrong you are in person. You won't agree to that because you can't let your identity be known. Again, you've lied so much throughout your life that you can't even recognize the truth. You just know that you and/or your client are in real trouble. You are right about that.

Anonymous said...

Before he was a lawyer, I wonder if he was a ghost writer for the Penthouse Forum?