Fayette Searchlight

Yesterday, July 12, 2015, marked the seven-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

The Fayette County Investigating Grand Jury was seated December 11, 2012, and it was impaneled to deal primarily with overhead copper cable thefts and three election-related (alleged voter fraud and alleged election fraud) referrals from the Fayette County Election Board.  The referrals were sent by unanimous vote of the election board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney for investigation on May 24, 2012.

In fact, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., attended the May 24, 2012, election board meeting in which the three election-related referrals were by unanimous vote sent to his office.

Questions to ponder:

1.  After two years of investigation (i.e., an 18-month tenure of the grand jury with a six-month extension), why has there been a seven-month delay in bringing the subject of the 5th Presentment into custody (i.e., the investigating grand jury statute permits sealed presentments until the individual is taken into custody)?

2.  Three election-related referrals were sent to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney by the unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board (then-Chairman Al Ambrosini, Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, and Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink).  One of the referrals dealt with absentee ballots in Bullskin Township, which led to three presentments (and indictments) against two current township supervisors and one former township supervisor from Bullskin Township.  From the perspective of the Fayette County Election Board, that means two other election-related referrals were to be addressed by the Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 -- State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's allegations against Michael Cavanagh, and Michael Cavanagh's allegations against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51).  

However, presentments issue only against an individual; therefore, even if the 5th Presentment pertains to another one of the election board referrals, it cannot pertain to both.  Does the 5th Presentment pertain to another one of the election-related referrals of the Fayette County Election Board made by unanimous vote on May 24, 2012?

3.  What are the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) -- who comprised the election board on May 24, 2012, and who decided not to hold any hearings, as is their duty under statute -- doing to follow up on the election-related referrals?  What are they doing to ensure Fayette Countians that the allegations were actually investigated?

4.  If the 5th Presentment pertains to another one of the election-related referrals of May 24, two of the three election-related referrals will have resulted in presentments (and one would expect -- charges).  Will the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) then adopt a Meatloaf posture (i.e., "Two Outta Three Ain't Bad") or as a matter of justice, will they ask the current election board to institute a hearing and to send its findings to the newly seated district attorney in 2016?

5.  If the 5th Presentment pertains to neither one of the outstanding election-related referrals of May 24, 2012, it will mean that only one of the three election-related referrals will have resulted in presentments. Will the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) then adopt a semi-Meatloaf posture (i.e., "One Outta Three Ain't Bad") or as a matter of justice, will they ask the current election board to institute hearings and to send the findings to the newly seated district attorney in 2016?

At this seven-month remove from its sealing, Fayette Countians yet await the unsealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.