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

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.








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



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

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.

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 docketGeorge 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?  

Voices4Liberty Facebook Page Posts 'Fallen Soldier' Fable as Fact

Posted: Sunday, November 8, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

Voices4Liberty is a one-hour radio program aired Tuesdays on WMBS 590 AM in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.  The program airs after the news from 3:00 P.M. -4:00 P.M.  Show hosts are Gary Colatch and Dave Show, chairman of the Fayette County Republican Party, and leader of the Fayette Patriots.

The broadcast mainly covers news and politics at the national, international, and state levels.  Local politics, usually given short shrift, receives coverage during election season.

The program hosts' stance on foreign policy is decidedly pro-interventionist, and the reverence for the military and for veterans crosses into the neoconservative realm of idolatrous worship of the state and its proxies.

Thus, it is not surprising that one would find pro-military/pro war themed posts on the Voices4Liberty Facebook page.

What is unsettling is the October 29 post by Voices4Liberty of a link to this post http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/pilot-told-fallen-soldiers-family-is-on-the-plane-story/ by The Political Insider.

Voices4Liberty characterized the link as, "A good read folks, read and pass it along."

GullibiltyPlanet has exercised its critical thinking skills to expose the story as a military fable.

See:  http://gullibilityplanet.blogspot.com/2012/12/tear-jerky-military-fables.html.

In short, the story is nothing more than war propaganda for the gullible.

True voices for liberty should not be passing off fictional military fables and war propaganda as fact.

Fayette County Election Complaints Filed November 03, 2015

Posted: Thursday, November 5, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

As mentioned in the previous post, two, formal, election complaints were filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The request to inspect and or copy the formal election complaints was honored today because filed complaints are public records which are open to inspection as per the Pennsylvania Election Code (i.e., the law).

The following hyperlink links to a PDF file of the two complaints each of which were filed on November 03, 2015.

Please see:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Npj2fC7abVp3WnVHeE5lbW8/view?usp=sharing

0

Confirmed today by Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser, two, formal, election complaints have been filed with the Fayette County Election Board/Bureau.

Copies of the formal complaints have been sent to Fayette County Election Board/Bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid for review.

Today, Fayette Searchlight attempted to retrieve copies of the formal, election complaints from the election bureau but was stymied in its attempt to review or photocopy the formal, election complaints.

When asked whether those filed complaints are public records, Blosser said that he is waiting on a determination by Solicitor Sheryl Heid.

When hinting about a visit to Heid's legal office to ascertain her answer as to whether filed election complaints are public records, a Fayette County Election Bureau staff member relayed that Solicitor Sheryl Heid was not in her office today.

Fayette Searchlight contacted the nearby Westmoreland County Election Bureau and was informed that complaints filed with local election boards/bureaus are indeed public records in Pennsylvania.

Update:
25 P.S. Section 1207(a)(4) provides that petitions (in this case, complaints) and appeals to the local commission (i.e., election board/bureau) are open to public inspection.