FirstAlerts

Ashley Man Charged with Stalking Probation Officer

Korey Mitchell Fegely faces a charge of stalking for allegedly sending unsolicited letters to a county adult probation officer.

3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 2:26 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 9, 2026, 1:08 p.m. ETWritten Sep 9, 2026, 3:25 p.m. ET
Korey Mitchell Fegely, 30, of Mary Street, Ashley, has been with stalking, according to the Times Leader. The charge stems from allegations that Fegely sent unsolicited letters to a county adult probation officer, as reported by the Times Leader. The case is being prosecuted by the , with detectives from that office conducting the investigation. As this is only a charge, Fegely is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the case remains undecided.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 9, 2026, 2:52 p.m. ET

    Ashley Man Charged with Stalking Probation Officer

    Korey Mitchell Fegely, 30, of Mary Street, Ashley, has been charged with stalking, according to the Times Leader. The charge stems from allegations that Fegely sent unsolicited letters to a county adult probation officer, the newspaper reported.

    The case was brought by the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office, with detectives from that office conducting the investigation. As of the latest report, the matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved in court. Fegely is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  2. Sep 9, 2026, 2:26 p.m. ETFirst report

    Ashley Man Charged with Stalking Probation Officer

    Korey Mitchell Fegely, 30, of Mary Street, Ashley, has been charged with stalking, according to the Times Leader. The charge was filed by the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office, whose detectives investigated the case.

    The government alleges that Fegely sent unsolicited letters to a county adult probation officer. The case is at the charging stage, and Fegely is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 19 Sept 2026, 18:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 19 Sept 2026, 18:26current

    First published.

  3. Version 19 Sept 2026, 19:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.