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.











0 comments: