It’s 2026 and MP News is still publishing stories about me.
A new article was published by Cameron McCullough, a man I have never met but who has published multiple stories about me over the past two years.
This week, MP News published an article by Cameron McCullough titled “Arrest warrant issued for Somerville Times publisher Jamie Scicluna.” The headline and framing are misleading because they leave readers with an impression of criminality. The reality is that this relates to a civil enforcement process connected to a judgment debt. It is not a criminal charge.
The key issue here is simple: service and notice.
MP News presented this as “failed to attend court” and “warrant issued”. In civil enforcement matters, notice and service are critical. Service is required to be carried out by the applicant. I dispute that I was properly served with the relevant documents, and as a result I had no knowledge of the alleged date before this “story” started circulating.
If you are going to publish a story as serious as “warrant issued”, the bare minimum is to verify the underlying court step, including whether the person had notice, and to clearly distinguish between a party lodging paperwork and a court making an order. A request is not the same thing as a court finding. A civil enforcement process is not the same thing as criminal offending.
For context, the judgment debt relates to costs awarded in earlier proceedings connected to a person described by MP News as a Somerville businesswoman and a former accountant.
The moneys said to be owed are not an unpaid invoice for services. They relate to a costs order made against me after I withdrew a personal safety intervention order application. I sought that order for a simple reason: while this person was handling my accounts, I became concerned that sensitive information about my financial circumstances was being discussed within the community. Before ending the working relationship, I raised this directly and then lodged a complaint with the relevant industry bodies. Months later, while I was working, I was harassed by the same person in public, which prompted me to make the PSIO application. I later withdrew that application because I no longer had the capacity to continue, and the cost of a contested hearing was too significant.
I should not have to share that publicly. But when articles are published about me that omit key context and present the most damaging interpretation of a civil process, it takes a toll on my personal life and my work.
I want readers to consider this: why is a competitor newsroom so willing to run with the most damaging interpretation of a civil enforcement process, without clearly explaining the basics, and without any evident care for accuracy, service, or context?
Look, I understand that times are tough for everyone. But when you start attacking rather than competing, a boundary has been crossed.
MP News is entitled to report on court processes. But if it chooses to publish material that implies criminality, it has a responsibility to explain the difference between civil enforcement and criminal offending, and to take basic steps to verify notice and the actual court position. You cannot omit key details and present that as the whole truth.
STPL News is a small operation: myself, a handful of freelancers, and volunteer writers. We focus on serving the community with timely local reporting. That work will continue. But where inaccurate framing risks misleading readers and damaging reputations, I will correct the record.
This might be a case of deformation against MP News for saying there is an arrest warrant for you.