N. Belle Vernon woman accused of harassing ex-boyfriend with 2 dozen phone calls | TribLIVE.com

N. Belle Vernon woman accused of harassing ex-boyfriend with 2 dozen phone calls

Paul Peirce

North Belle Vernon police accused a 44-year-old woman of making more than two dozen harassing telephone calls to her ex-boyfriend at his workplace since February.

Pamela S. Gamble, who lives in the borough, is charged with 25 counts of harassment by communications and a single count of disorderly conduct in connection with the repeated calls that police allege began Feb. 15 and continued through last week.

Police Lt. Ron Van Scyoc reported that the victim, Steven Cornelius, works at the 7-Eleven on Fayette Street and complained that Gamble repeatedly calls on the workplace phone despite his requests that he no longer wanted any contact with her.

According to court documents, Van Scyoc said he was at the store taking a complaint about the repeated calls from Cornelius at 1 a.m. March 7 when Gamble called the store.

“I got on the phone … and advised Ms. Gamble that I would be filing charges of harassment, and Gamble’s response was that I could not file any charges against her,” Van Scyoc said.

Complaints were filed Wednesday before Rostraver District Judge Charles Christner and mailed via summons. A preliminary hearing is scheduled April 22.

Paul Peirce is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Paul at 724-850-2860, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.