RTKL Answer Regarding Creation of a Fayette County Sports and Exhibition Authority

Posted: Monday, December 28, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

On 12/23/2015, Fayette Searchlight received an answer to the following Right-To-Know law request:

12/18/2015
Attn. Ms Amy Revak, Fayette County, PA Open Records Officer
Pursuant to the Right-To-Know Law (Act of Feb. 14, 2008 No. 3, P.L. 6 and 65 P.S. §§67.101  et seq.), I am making a records request for written communications (e-mail or hard copy) between the office of state Sen. Pat Stefano (PA-R-32) and/or Mr. Brad Geyer and/or his attorney(s) and the county regarding the creation of a Sports, Tourism and Recreation Authority.
Also, I request, any e-mail communications between Mr. Geno Gallo and Chief Clerk Amy Revak that pertain to the creation of a Sports, Tourism and Recreation Authority, including any communication regarding the the wording and the placement of a Public Notice for same. Because of the specificity of this request and because a public Hearing is scheduled for January 11, 2016, on the matter of the creation of said authority, I trust that this request will be able to be completed within the five-day period for an initial response.
Before the county incurs printing costs in the above request, please first advise this requester as to the volume of responsive materials to this request and as to cost.

See RTKL Answer 20151223 here:  20151223 RTKL Answer.

We learn many things from the answer.  We learn that Michael Butler of Grant Forbes, LLC wrote the Draft Motion of the resolution to be considered by the Board of Commissioners of Fayette County and e-mailed it to Brad Geyer and Geno Gallo on Friday, November 13, 2015, at 3:45 PM.

 An aside:  

 Michael Butler is the principal at Grant Forbes LLC.  See Butler's LinkedIn page here:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-butler-ab75945.

 Grant Forbes, LLC is being paid to do the as-yet-to-be-completed feasibility study.  


 We learn that in his e-mail to the commissioners at 9:03 AM on Monday, November 16, 2015, Gallo changed the wording in the Draft Motion written by Butler from "for the purpose of financing sports, entertainment and exhibition facilities in the County. . . ." to "for the purpose of developing sports, entertainment and exhibition facilities in the County. . . ." [Emphasis added.]

 We learn that the wording Chief Clerk Amy Revak used in a Public Notice (a legal ad which ran on 12/10/2015 and 12/11/2015) -- "Sports, Tourism and Recreation Authority" -- does not match the wording in the proposed motion -- "sports, entertainment and exhibition."

 We learn that Gallo, in his communications, firmly places the imprimatur of state Sen. Pat Stefano's (PA-R-32) office on the project.

 Please note that this writer contacted the office of state Sen. Pat Stefano (PA-R-32) week before last and talked with Legislative Assistant Brad Geyer, the main proponent of the creation of a county municipal authority which would, if created, finance a multi-purpose sports, exhibition, tourism, and recreation facility.  In this writer's telephone conversation with Geyer, it was learned that the feasibility study has not yet been completed.  This statement by Geyer confirmed a statement made by Redevelopment Authority of Fayette County Executive Director Andrew French that the study has not been completed.

Geyer argued that a feasibility study need not be completed before a county municipal authority was created and that the authority could then be tasked with overseeing the finalization of the study.

 This earth-shattering statement by Geyer raises many questions.

 Why put the cart before the horse and create an authority before a feasibility study is complete?  Could not the study come down on the side of infeasibility, or is the outcome of the study pre-determined?  

 Why did Michael Butler of Grant Forbes, LLC write the Draft Motion of a resolution for the commissioners to consider when he is performing the yet-to-be-completed feasibility study? Is this not a conflict of interest?  

 If the Grant Forbes, LLC study is a pre-determined matter, why pay nearly $27,000.00 in Act 13 monies for the study, or why even perform a study? As nearly $27,000.00 in Act 13 (Marcellus Shale Impact Fee) public monies already have been paid out beginning in late 2014, why isn't the feasibility study complete?  Why are monies that should be going to ameliorate impacts from the Marcellus Shale industry (i.e., crumbling roads) being spent on a Connellsville Ballpark Project?

Are not elected representatives much more accountable to the electorate than appointed members of an autonomous authority that's being put on a very fast track, and should it not be elected representatives (and not members of an autonomous authority) who should be making decisions regarding a feasibility study (and the probable floating of bonds in the millions of dollars)? Why should an authority be created at all, especially before any study is complete and before any cost estimates are provided to the public?  Is a Connellsville Ballpark and the gamble to acquire a minor league baseball team a core function of Fayette County government?  

 Should Fayette County citizens be forced to finance facilities for a sports and exhibition authority when their county government faces prison renovation/building costs, a possible adverse Munchinski verdict, a ballooning county budget (thanks in large part to political cronyism), and a state budget that should have been completed by June 30th, but was not?

 The answer here at Fayette Searchlight is a definitive "Hell No!"



Prosecution Derived From Grand Jury Presentment To Extend Into 2016

Posted: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

The docket sheet for Cheryl Lynn Bozek has seen recent updates.

 See:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002012-2015.

 The updates show that the attorney of record for Ms. Bozek, Daniel David Taylor, filed a Request for Bill of Particulars and a Request for Discovery on 12/21/2015.

 Moreover, on 12/23/2015, the Court of Common Pleas -- Fayette County filed a Pre-Trial Notice dated May 31, 2016.

 Thus, the prosecution derived from a Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 presentment will extend into 2016.

 UPDATE:

 The docket sheet for George P. Bozek reflects the identical notation of a 12/23/2015 Court of Common Pleas  -- Fayette County filing of a Pre-trial Notice dated May 16, 2016.
See the George P. Bozek docket sheet here:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002011-2015.

 Thus, this prosecution, also derived from a Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 presentment, will extend into 2016.

Prosecutions of Fayette County Grand Jury Presentments Continue Amidst Sealed 5th Presentment Status and 3rd Referral Non-Investigation

Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

According to the Magisterial District Justice level docket sheets, the Formal Arraignments of Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek were scheduled to take place this morning at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5; however, the Court of Common Pleas level docket sheets note that the Formal Arraignments were waived.

 See the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Docket Sheets for the Bozeks here:


Cheryl Lynn Bozek Criminal Docket:

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002012-2015


George P. Bozek Criminal Docket:



We learn many things from the entries on the above docket sheets.  We learn that on 11/16/2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion for a Protective Order and In Camera Hearing.

 On 11/19/2015, Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen issued an Order "that the Commonwealth may use the testimony of the Def(s) at the preliminary hearing in this matter if it is otherwise admissible as admissions under the rules of evidence & the stenographer who transcribed said testimony may testify as to the relevant sections of testimony."  

 We learn that on 12/02/2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania consolidated the cases against Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek.  On 12/16/2015 and 12/17/2015, we learn of the Waiver of the Arraignments and of an Information being filed by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Raydan Heneks Jr. (12/17/2015) in both of the consolidated cases.

 As has been noted in this space, DA Heneks, while prosecuting the charges against the Bozeks, which emanated from grand jury presentments against them, has failed to unseal (and thus to prosecute) the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 on December 12, 2014.  DA Heneks also has failed to investigate the allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) contained in a 3rd Referral made by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board on May 24, 2012. 

Act 13 Monies Spent For Connellsville Ballpark Project

Posted: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

With the Fayette County commissioners unanimously voting at the November 2015 meeting to allow law firms to explore the creation of a Sports and Exhibition Authority, Fayette Searchlight has learned that nearly $27,000.00 in Act 13 (Marcellus Shale Impact Fee) monies have already been spent on consulting fees, feasibility study costs, and legal fees for a Connellsville Ballpark Project.

 The subject was broached through an amended agenda process at the November 2015 commissioners meeting.

 The primary proponent of the project, Brad Geyer, did not identify the names of individuals who are members of a group that is pushing for the building of a facility and the creation of a municipal authority, nor did he specifically explain where the authority, if created, would find funding for the project.

 Mr. Geyer who is a legislative assistant for Sen. Pat Stefano (PA-R-32) mentioned at the commissioners meeting that his group received funding from the Fayette County Redevelopment Authority (FCRA).

 When contacted this afternoon, and asked how to go about making a Right-To-Know law request with the FCRA for the record of the expenditure to Mr. Geyer's informal group, Executive Director Andrew French said that the monies were paid directly to Grant Forbes. French, upon request, kindly provided the information regarding the expenditure via e-mail to this writer.

 Please see the particulars of the expenditure for the Connellsville Ballpark Project here:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Npj2fC7aS0JaUGM0UzBueno1MXc1eGlTeFlnN3I2WFJz/view?usp=sharing

 The agenda for the Dec. 15, 2015 commissioners meeting included an item to consider approval of a resolution for public notice announcing a public hearing to inquire into the creation of a Fayette County Sports Exhibition/Tourism Authority.

 See Page 5 here:
http://www.co.fayette.pa.us/Lists/News%20%20Announcements/Attachments/75/December%2015%202015%20agenda.pdf.

 WMBS AM 590 news reported this afternoon that a hearing would be held on January 11, 2016.

 For a full exploration of the implications of the creation of the authority see the 12/15/2015 post at Not Enough Said:

 http://notenoughsaid.blog.com/2015/12/15/fayette-county-board-of-commissioners-skip-discussion-of-public-debt-service-obligations-should-sports-and-exhibition-and-tourism-authority-be-created-to-construct-manage-project-and-facility/



Fayette County Grand Jury 5th Presentment Sealing Reaches 1 Year

Posted: Saturday, December 12, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

Today, December 12, 2015, the sealed status of the 5th Presentment from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 reaches one year in length.

 See Page 7 here:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-MD-0000475-2012.

 Time is running out on outgoing Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., to unseal the 5th Presentment, let alone to prosecute the case.

 While the prosecutions of individuals named in unsealed presentments proceed apace, in his charge from the investigating grand jury, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., has failed utterly to indict, arrest, arraign and prosecute the individual named in the 5th Presentment within the time span of one calendar year from its sealing on December 12, 2014.

 It is virtually unheard of that a Pennsylvania district attorney fails to follow the recommendation of a grand jury to issue an indictment.  Let no mistake be made; the failure of DA Heneks to unseal the 5th Presentment before he leaves office as Fayette County district attorney is of historical import. His abject failure to unseal the 5th Presentment coincides with his blatant failure to conduct a mandatory investigation [as required by law -- 25 P.S. § 2642(i)] of the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board -- allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) forwarded for investigation by the unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney on May 24, 2012.

 (See: YouTube 3rd Referral 20120524)

 Heneks' camouflage of the 3rd Referral in his Application to impanel a grand jury, Heneks' refusal to recuse himself from all three election-related referrals due to his conflicts (see: Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030, Heneks' political relationship with Mahoney, and Heneks' campaign contribution from Mahoney), and Heneks' failure to investigate and to prosecute the 3rd Referral (while prosecuting de minimus violations of the Pennsylvania Election Code) are such putrid injustices that they surely rank very high up on the list of the worst miscarriages of justice in the annals of Pennsylvania jurisprudence.

 The only comfort that Fayette County citizens can take from outgoing Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., and his "management" of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 is that "outgoing" precedes the name of this dastardly and derelict DA.

 On January 4, 2016, at long last, the night of his terrible, tyrannical tenure as Fayette County district attorney will come to an end.

 Sic semper tyrannis

The Prosecution of Walter "Deb" Wiltrout, the Non-Investigation of the 3rd Referral, and the Absence of a 9th Presentment

Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0


The Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection dealt with the claim by State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) that he was the impetus behind the impanelment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 (See YouTube: Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030) and how the personal and political relationship between Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. and State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) resulted in non-investigation of allegations of election fraud against Rep. Mahoney contained in the 3rd Referral sent by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney for investigation on May 24, 2012.
Putrid Injustice

 On October 16, 2013, Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 issued a 3rd Presentment against Bullskin Township Supervisor Walter "Deb" Wiltrout for election law violations.  According to Paragraph 1 of the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout, by way of reference, the first 21 Paragraphs of the 1st Presentment (along with other paragraphs) were incorporated into the 3rd Presentment.  From the 1st Presentment, Paragraph 5, District Attorney Heneks incorporated the following into the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout:

5. As a result of the referral, the District Attorney caused an investigation to commence and to advance same along with other matters this investigating grand jury was convened to hear.  [Emphasis added.] 

 In stark contrast to the Fayette County Election Board's 1st Referral of May 24, 2012, resulting in the District Attorney causing an investigation to commence and resulting in the Fayette County Grand Jury's 3rd Presentment against Walter "Deb" Wiltrout (and two other presentments), why did the Fayette County Election Board's 3rd Referral not likewise result in "the District Attorney caus[ing] an investigation to commence" in order that the alleged election fraud of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) be investigated?  In other words, where is the investigation by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 into the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney?

 The 3rd Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 against Bullskin Township Supervisor Walter "Deb" Wiltrout laid out alleged election law violations.  In Paragraphs 13 - 15, 18, the 3rd Presentment states:
13.  No declaration of assistance required under 25 P.S. 3146.6(a) was filed by Mr. Wiltrout nor is there any filing of need for such assistance filed by either elector with the Elections (sic) Bureau.
14.  It is clear that a violation of 25 P.S. 3530 and 25 P.S. 3554(b) occurred as a result of assisting the voters, helping them mark the ballots and not filing the requisite declaration of assistance.
15.  The grand jury recognizes that this could be considered a de minimus violation, nevertheless the grand jury believes that Mr. Wiltrout as an elected supervisor and past candidate for office was aware or should have been aware that such assistance was done in violation of the Election Code.
18.  The grand jury recommends that the district attorney consider filing charges of one count of violating 25 P.S. 3530 and one count of P.S. 3554(b) for each elector, James B. Queer and Sandy Lee Queer. 


 The grand jury itself classified the charges against Wiltrout as de minimus (minimal) in Paragraph 15, yet the presentment against Wiltrout makes clear that -- because of his position "as an elected supervisor," and as he had been a "past candidate for office" -- Wiltrout "was aware or should have been aware that such assistance was done in violation of the Election Code."

 It is clear that Wiltrout -- because he held elective office and was a past candidate for office -- was held to a high standard by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 and Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks for de minimus (minimal) violations.  As laid out by Paragraph 13 above, Wiltrout failed to file the required declaration of assistance in order to be able to render assistance to electors filling out absentee ballots.  As the Wiltrout Criminal Docket (Page 2) makes clear, Wiltrout was charged in strict accordance with the recommendations of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.  He was charged under 25 P.S. § 3530 with two counts of unlawful assistance in voting, and he was charged under 25 P.S. § 3554(b) with two counts of violation of provisions relating to absentee voting.  Wiltrout was charged, although the 3rd Presentment lays out in Paragraphs 11 and 12 the following:
11.  That the testimony of the electors and Mr. Wiltrout at the grand jury proceedings indicated that Mr. Wiltrout's assistance was done out of friendship and aiding the voters in the electoral process.

12.  That there is no testimony that the electors were influenced by Mr. Wiltrout in their voting selections nor that Mr. Wiltrout attempted to influence them.  

 Let's compare the investigation/prosecution of Walter "Deb" Wiltrout with the non-investigation of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51).  In comparison, is not State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), who is alleged to have committed election fraud, also a holder of elective office? Hasn't Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, been a past candidate for office (numerous times)?  Was Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, aware or should not he have been aware that to alter the oath on 50 Affidavits of Circulator, to falsely swear out the altered 50 Affidavits of Circulator before a notary public, to have notarized said 50 Affidavits of Circulator, and to file said 50 Affidavits of Circulator (election documents) in the manner in which they were filed are violations of the Election Code? Should not the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, have been as vigorously investigated/prosecuted as the 1st Referral and the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout?  Should not Rep. Mahoney, who is a Pennsylvania state representative who is alleged to have committed election fraud, have been held by DA Heneks and Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 to the same standard to which they held Walter "Deb" Wiltrout, a township supervisor?

 Gentle readers, in a world of equal justice under law, the answers to the questions above should all be 'yes.'

 However, the sad result of the non-recusal and the non-investigation of the 3rd Referral by DA Jack Heneks is not equal justice under law; it is the prosecution of the de minimus (minimal) criminal violations of some (Wiltrout) and the massive cover-up of the weighty, alleged, criminal violations of others (Mahoney).

 While the 1st Referral of the Fayette County Election Board led to the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout [and the 1st Presentment and 2nd Presentment against two others (Geary and Keefer)], the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board led neither to a serious investigation into the allegations and the evidence against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), nor to a 9th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 against him.

 In fact, from the outset, DA Heneks camouflaged the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney in his Application to impanel an investigating grand jury.  DA Heneks, though he had blatant conflicts of interest, did not recuse himself.  DA Heneks -- though forwarded the 3rd Referral by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board, and though having a mountain of ironclad evidence delivered to his office under a miscellaneous docket number (509 MD 2012) -- investigated and prosecuted Walter "Deb" Wiltrout for lesser criminal violations of the Pennsylvania Election Code than those violations which Rep. Mahoney is alleged to have committed.

The jurors of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 could not have been introduced to the evidence against Rep. Mahoney by DA Heneks, for if the grand jury recommended charges in a 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout for violations it termed de minimus (minimal), it certainly would have issued a 9th Presentment against Rep. Mahoney for weightier, alleged, criminal violations of the election laws in regard to which there exists a literal mountain of evidence.

 That the 3rd Referral led to camouflage, non-investigation, and cover-up, instead of a serious investigation into the evidence (and a 9th Presentment from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2), is a putrid injustice orchestrated by Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr.

One of America's ideals is the ideal of equal justice under law.  Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks' non-recusal and non-investigation of the 3rd Referral, coupled with his continued ignoring of the sealed 5th Presentment (while continuing to prosecute others targeted by unsealed presentments) epitomizes unequal justice under law.  More accurately, it epitomizes putrid injustice under the color of law.

 It is a putrid injustice that must be rectified.





While 3rd Referral and Official Complaint Go Uninvestigated, Zimmerlink to Review Non-Formal, Election-Related Reports

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

On Tuesday, 11/17/2015, at the Fayette County Commissioners meeting, Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink made clear that she would look into reports which concern the propriety/legality of a candidate for office holding an election party in the same building which houses an Election Day polling location.

 The reports stem from an Election Day party held by a recent candidate for county commissioner, namely a party held by current Fayette County Commission Chairman Al Ambrosini at the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.

 Today, in a call placed to the Fayette County Election Bureau, Fayette Searchlight learned that no formal, official complaint was filed regarding the matter.

 Thus, Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink has vowed to look into informal reports while all indications are that the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board (a motion made by Zimmerlink herself) has gone uninvestigated by Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. and Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 At the 09/28/2012 meeting of the Fayette County Election Board, after a lengthy presentation of our formal complaint (and before Commissioner Zapotosky left to make an appointment and, thus, a quorum being lost) Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink failed to make a motion (See this video at 4:30 onward.) to refer the formal complaint regarding election irregularities and suspicious circumstances -- filed by the writer of this blog and NES Editor DAY -- to either the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney or (more appropriately) to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

 Subsequently, on November 19, 2012, the same day materials were filed with the Fayette County Clerk of Courts and with the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney, a computer disk containing files highlighting election irregularities and suspicious circumstances was delivered to the Office of the Fayette County Commissioners.

 In later e-mails to the board of commissioners, this writer and NES Editor DAY requested that each commissioner separately refer our formal complaint and information about election irregularities and suspicious circumstances to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and to provide proof via a registered return signature that each had done so.

 The generous time period provided to perform that request passed with no commissioner (including Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink) providing any evidence that the election irregularities and suspicious circumstances had been forwarded to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for investigation.

 Thus, while the 3rd Referral and an official complaint go uninvestigated, Commissioner Zimmerlink is on the record that she intends to look into non-official, informal reports.

 For a seasoned commissioner who should be a guardian of the propriety of elections in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, it's not a record to be proud of.








Prosecutions of Unsealed Grand Jury Presentments Continue, Weightiest Charges Dismissed

Posted: Monday, November 23, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

In the continuing prosecutions of two unsealed presentments issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2, as a result of today's Preliminary Hearings, the formal arraignments of Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek have been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on 12/17/2015 in Courtroom 5.

 Three of five charges against Cheryl Lynn Bozek were dismissed, and two of five charges (including Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function and Conspiracy - Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function) have been held for court.

 One of two charges against George P. Bozek was dismissed, and one charge (Conspiracy- Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function) has been held for court.

 Both cases saw the weightiest charge of Unlawful Use of a Computer - Access/Interference/Damage/Destruction, a third degree felony, dismissed.

See the Cheryl Lynn Bozek Docket Sheet:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-14304-CR-0000142-2015

 See the George P. Bozek Docket Sheet:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-14304-CR-0000141-2015



The Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection

Posted: Saturday, November 14, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

On October 15, 2012, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. made an Application to impanel an investigating grand jury. Foremost among the reasons cited for the impanelment were allegations of voter fraud/election fraud forwarded to his office by three Fayette County Election Board referrals.  DA Heneks' initial application was dismissed without prejudice for lack of commonality by then-President Judge Gerald R. Solomon.

 However, on October 23, 2012, Judge Solomon granted the Application for the grand jury.

 On October 30, 2012, a mere 15 days after DA Heneks' initial Application for a grand jury, and a mere seven days after Judge Solomon granted the Application, during a paid political advertisement, State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) made an appearance on WMBS Radio 590 and said the following:

 (See YouTube Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030)


"I do want to talk about the grand jury that I-I pushed for before anybody else pushed for. . . I mean, everybody wants to come happy-go-lucky later, but I asked Jack.  Ah.  We've talked about this numerous times a year ago, and I'm glad he got the grand jury formed.  I'm glad Judge Solomon reconsidered it because I think it is very important to have this, ah, you know, this  -- everything -- come to light what really happened in the different areas.  [Emphasis added.]

 We learn much from this statement.  First we learn that State Rep. Tim Mahoney proudly claims to have been the impetus behind the impanelment of the grand jury and that he "asked Jack" (i.e., he and DA Heneks have such a close personal and political relationship that Rep. Mahoney refers to DA Heneks on a first-name basis, even while making a public statement).  Additionally, according to Rep. Mahoney, we learn that he and DA Heneks had numerous discussions approximately one year prior to the statement.  This would place those discussions in the October/November 2011 time frame.  Readers will recall that the David E. Butler allegations regarding mainly absentee ballots in Bullskin Township emanated from the November 2011 election of Thomas Scott Keefer over Butler in the race for township supervisor.
Breathtakingly, the above statement was made by the target of the 3rd Referral made by the Fayette County Election Board on May 24, 2012, a mere six months earlier. 

(See YouTube 3rd Referral 20120524)

 This raises many questions.  How could a full, fair, and impartial investigation of the 3rd Referral be conducted by DA Heneks who has such blatant conflicts of interest (i.e., Heneks' personal and political relationship with Mahoney, Heneks' campaign contribution from Mahoney, Heneks' conversations with Mahoney about forming a grand jury, Heneks' unexplained attendance at the May 24, 2012 election board meeting but no other election board meeting, etc.)?   How could the man who claims credit for pushing for the grand jury in numerous discussions with DA Heneks ever honestly be investigated/prosecuted by the same grand jury and the same friendly DA?  Why did DA Heneks not recuse himself? 

How does State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney -- the target of the 3rd Referral (which calls for a review and a determination to be made about allegations of election fraud) -- so insouciantly gush about his gladness that a motion for a grand jury had been granted?

 Obviously, there is only one way that one could make such a statement a mere seven days after the news came down that a grand jury would be impaneled to look into voter/election fraud.  State Rep. Mahoney had to have rested in the assurance that he would not be an investigative/prosecutorial target of the grand jury.  There is no other explanation.

 Whether explicit or tacit, the only person who could have provided such assurance was the person who would lead Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 -- Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr.

 In his Application, DA Heneks lays out the three Fayette County Election Board referrals as follows: 
Item 12:
Finally there were matters presented to the Election Board of Fayette County for consideration involving allegations regarding violations of the Election Code and/or Criminal Code arising from the November, 2011 General Election in Bullskin Township, chiefly regarding absentee ballots.
Another is an examination of the signatures affixed to the petition of Michael Cavanaugh (sic) to place his name for the Republican nomination for the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives in the 51st District for the 2012 election.
Other matters involving petitions and possible election code violations remain subject of possible exploration by the investigating grand jury should evidence lead in that direction.

 Item 13:
The Fayette County Board of Elections has made referral of said suspicious circumstances pursuant to 25 P.S 2542(i).

 Analysis:

 While the first two Referral descriptions leave no doubt about the targets (even naming Michael Cavanagh, though misspelling his last name), the 3rd Referral, in contrast to the very specific wording of the actual 3rd Referral, is made intentionally vague.  Remember, DA Heneks attended the election board meeting in which these referrals were made, yet he camouflaged the referral against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney with vague language.  (An aside:  This salient point along with the word choice of "camouflaged" originated with NES Editor DAY.  The point, though borrowed here, is hers.)

 There are other serious problems with DA Heneks' wording in the description of the 3rd Referral.  He refers to "possible election code violations" which remain subject to "possible exploration by the investigating grand jury should evidence lead in that direction." Then, he cites the statute pursuant to which the referrals were made.  The problem for DA Heneks here isn't just that he incorrectly cites the statute (i.e., the statute actually is 25 P.S. § 2642(i).  The problem for DA Heneks is that the law requires the referrals to be investigated as it states unequivocally "the county boards of elections. . . shall exercise. . .all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following: (i) To investigate election frauds, irregularities and violations of this act, and to report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney."   [Emphasis added.]
25 P.S. § 2642:The county boards of elections, within their respective counties, shall exercise, in the manner provided by this act, all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following:
(i) To investigate election frauds, irregularities and violations of this act, and to report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney.

Because the Fayette County Election Board did not exercise its power and perform its imposed duty to investigate (but instead referred the matter to DA Heneks), the law, through the requirement to investigate, takes the 3rd Referral out of the realm of "possible exploration" and firmly places it into the realm of mandatory investigation.  The district attorney's prosecutorial discretion does not supersede the law to which it is subject, and grand jury secrecy laws do not exist so that district attorneys can shield themselves from public scrutiny, lest the citizenry find out that the requirement of mandatory investigation has been turned into non-investigation. 

 Additionally, DA Heneks' "should evidence lead in that direction" language has been entirely refuted. The first evidential lead was provided by Rep. Mahoney himself when he admitted in open public at the May 24 election board meeting (which Heneks attended) that he signed 42 altered "certificates." (Rep. Mahoney actually altered, falsely swore out, and signed 50 Affidavits of Circulator which he had notarized and then filed with the election bureau on August 9, 2011.)  

 (See YouTube Mahoney Admits Alteration and Signing 20120524)

 After filing evidential materials including a computer disk and questions under a miscellaneous docket number (509 MD 2012) at the Fayette County Clerk of Courts, in a visit to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney on November 19, 2012, this writer presented a literal mountain of evidence regarding election irregularities and suspicious circumstances to District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., including the official complaint filed by this writer and NES Editor DAY on August 24, 2012 at the Fayette County Election Bureau.

It is crystal clear that no amount of evidence presented to District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. would cause him to commence an investigation into the allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney.

Such is the putrid injustice of the Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection.











Fayette County Grand Jury 5th Presentment Sealing Reaches 11 Months

Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

Today, November 12, 2015, the time span of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 reaches 11 months.

 On Page 7 of the grand jury docket sheet, we see the last two entries made on 06/25/2015, nearly six months ago!

 The entries pertained to two Orders by Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen -- which Orders granted Motions made by the attorneys for George P. Bozek and Cheryl Lynn Bozek for the "Transcript of any Testimony before Grand Jury that is Exculpatory."

 As noted in the previous column, the Bozeks each have a preliminary hearing before MDJ Defino on 11/23/2015.  For the Bozeks, the judicial process continues.

 This brings us to the 5th Presentment, and its continuing sealed status.

 Here are some pertinent questions:

 Why does the 5th Presentment remain sealed after all this time?  After a two-year tenure of the grand jury, one would think that the subject of the 5th Presentment would have been able to have been indicted, arrested, and arraigned in an additional 11 months time.

 Speaking of time, if it will take nearly six months time (for the Presentments against the Bozeks to reach the Preliminary Hearing stage, is it realistic to think that in the time remaining in DA Heneks' tenure that he will unseal the 5th Presentment and see the matter through to its final outcome before he leaves office in January 2016, especially with the office's routine duties, and with the intervening holidays?

 All indications, thus far, are that Heneks will continue down the road of prosecuting unsealed Presentments, while he ignores and refuses to comment upon the sealed 5th Presentment.

 Fayette County citizens who paid for Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2. deserve answers.

 Perhaps they will get them from DA-Elect Richard Bower when he takes office in 2016.  

 Perhaps it will be DA-Elect Richard Bower who will take his duties seriously and who will unseal the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 Perhaps the new year will bring the impanelment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 3 with additional Presentments.

As Sealed 5th Presentment Approaches 11 Months, DA Heneks Refuses Comment

Posted: Monday, November 9, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

The 11-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 arrives Thursday, November 12, 2015.

 Today, in a telephone contact to the Office of Fayette County District Attorney Jack R, Heneks, Jr., seeking comment, Fayette Searchlight has learned (through office staffer Pam) that DA Heneks refuses to comment on the status of the sealed 5th Presentment or to provide any guidance or public accountability by relaying whether he intends to bring an indictment against the individual named in the sealed 5th Presentment.

 Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen sealed the 5th Presentment on December 12, 2014.  As noted on Not Enough Said (NES) in this post, it is unfair that DA Heneks continues to prosecute other unsealed grand jury presentments/indictments while so far turning a blind eye to the sealed 5th Presentment.  For example, George P. Bozek and Cheryl L. Bozek each face a preliminary hearing in front of Magisterial District Justice Defino on November 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., according to their respective docket sheets.

 See: Cheryl L Bozek docket; George P. Bozek docket
As readers of this space and NES are well aware, three, unanimous, May 24, 2012, Fayette County Election Board referrals were referred to District Attorney Heneks' office for investigation/prosecution.  

 See:  Fayette grand jury may probe vote fraud, Tribune-Review, May 24, 2012

 To date, the only election board referral on voter fraud or election fraud that has been investigated and prosecuted is the one referral regarding three former or current Bullskin Township supervisors.  Heneks indicted William H. Geary, Thomas Scott Keefer, and Walter "Deb" Wiltrout on election code violations. Each applied for and received admission into ARD -- a pre-trial diversionary program for first-time offenders with the opportunity to have one's record expunged.  Admission was granted in a hearing before Senior Judge Ralph C. Warman on September 16, 2014.  As far as can be gleaned from the absence of current court dockets, it seems the three successfully completed their ARD stint and have had their records expunged.

 The other May 24 2012 election board referrals dealt with allegations of election fraud.  State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) alleged that Michael J. Cavanagh, the lone affiant/signator to his petitions' Affidavits of Circulator for his candidacy for state representative (against Mahoney) in the Spring of 2012, filed petitions which contained alleged forgeries.  Signed affidavits from 27 individuals who attest they did not sign the Cavanagh petitions were presented to the election board which unanimously referred the matter to DA Heneks for investigation/prosecution.  

 Concomitantly, Michael J. Cavanagh alleged that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney committed election fraud when he altered and signed (as the lone affiant/signator) 50 Affidavits of Circulator which pertained to his August 9, 2011, filing of 42 Referendum Petitions and 50 altered (oath Whited-Out and oath-changed) Affidavits of Circulator -- 8 of which date-and-time-stamped affidavits never ended up being attached to any referendum petitions whatsoever.   

 As discussed in this space previously, investigating grand jury presentments issue against individuals. Thus, if the sealed 5th Presentment pertains to either one of the remaining election board referrals, it cannot apply to both.  It is a travesty that, to date, only one of the election-related referrals has been investigated/prosecuted.  It would be an even more blatant travesty for two out of three election referrals to be investigated/prosecuted, while the other was ignored.  If it does not already, this would not amount merely to selective prosecution; it would amount to criminality in the form of obstruction of justice.  

 As one of the witnesses with ironclad evidence that overlaps the Cavanagh allegations against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), this writer can attest that he has never been asked by Fayette County District Attorney Heneks to come in and to be interviewed. The grand jury, while still listed as active on its docket sheet because of the remaining prosecutions and the sealed 5th Presentment, released its jurors on December 11, 2014.  No serious investigation of Mahoney by Heneks ever took place.  As far as the public knows, District Attorney Jack Raydan Heneks, Jr. failed to bring any information about State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's alleged election fraud before Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 Local mainstream media are well aware of the alleged, uninvestigated election fraud.  They remain utterly silent.  Failing to perform their Fourth Estate duty to be watchdogs and bulwarks against governmental corruption, the media silence marks their lapdog status as mere stenographers for the blatantly corrupt powers that be.  The media silence is their complicity.

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower open the sealed 5th Presentment, if DA Heneks does not?

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower investigate/prosecute the two other unanimous Fayette County Election Board referrals of May 24, 2012, if DA Heneks does not?

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower investigate current DA Jack Raydan Heneks Jr. and his mishandling of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2?