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.





0 comments: