0

As sure as the sun rises in the east, one can count on grants of taxpayer funds being passed out just prior to an election and credit being claimed by politicians as if the monies were free or came from their own pockets.

To wit:


The corporate welfare handout announced by State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) gives public funds to a private company.  It is nothing less than the plundering of taxpayers, and it is wholly unconstitutional.

See:


Article VIII
TAXATION AND FINANCE Uniformity of Taxation
Section 1. All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.

Commonwealth Credit Not to Be Pledged Section 8. The credit of the Commonwealth shall not be pledged or loaned to any individual, company, corporation or association nor shall the Commonwealth become a joint owner or stockholder in any company, corporation or association.



The Oath of Office taken by state representatives before taking office requires a sworn oath of obedience to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Art. VI, § 3. Oath of office. Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity." The oath or affirmation shall be administered to a member of the Senate or to a member of the House of Representatives in the hall of the House to which he shall have been elected. Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)


Evidently, to Rep. Tim Mahoney, that Oath of Office means about as much as the oath on his altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator.

Update:
The Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 4 Campaign Finance Report shows Boeing's campaign contribution of $500.00 on the top of Page 10.  That's one hell of an unconstitutional return on investment!

Dowling Ducks Election Fraud Issue

Posted: Thursday, October 20, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

This afternoon, for nearly 45 minutes, Matthew Dowling, a candidate for the 51st Legislative District seat held by State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney, was a guest on the Truth For America program heard on WMBS 590 AM in Uniontown, and hosted by Fayette County Republican Party Chairman David Show.

The subject of per diems versus paid reimbursement was covered at length, as well as budget votes, the Castle Doctrine, the Second Amendment, school localization, etc.

Although the issue of voter fraud entered last evening's third presidential debate/forum in the form of the candidates being asked if they'd accept the results of the election, and although the blogosphere and Twitter are abuzz with the discussion of fraud in elections, Mr. Dowling did not broach the issue of the non-investigation of the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board [allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) stemming from his filing of altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator and fatally defective Referendum petitions in his attempt to place a question on the Fayette County ballot].

For the record, this writer does not post at Fay-West Discuss under the pseudonyms "Jack Webb," "Loren Mazik," or as anyone else who reposts material from this blog.

That being said, do not these apparent supporters of Mr. Dowling -- who, by their numerous posts, must see the non-investigated allegations of election fraud against his opponent as a gross injustice -- want their candidate to address the issue and to take a stance?

Will Mr. Dowling do something now to stand up for equal justice under law by publicly calling for the investigation of the 3rd Referral, and by pledging (prior to November 8) to petition (win or lose the election) the next attorney general of this commonwealth to conduct the mandatory investigation required under Pennsylvania law, or will he remain silent?





Warman Ruling Recognizes Mahoney Election Code Violations, Cites Flaherty

Posted: Friday, October 14, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels:
0

On August 22, 2011, Fayette County Common Pleas Judge Ralph C. Warman heard the petition challenge to the Referendum Petition of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney.

In his ruling dated August 25, 2011, Judge Warman recognized violations of the Pennsylvania Election Code and issued an Order sustaining the objection to the Referendum Petition.

The Order struck the Referendum Petition.

Warman Ruling Excerpts:

Warman Ruling Page 7


Initially, Mahoney attempted to file the Referendum Petitions at the Election Bureau without an affidavit being attached.  After being informed by Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser that the office required affidavits be attached to all petitions, Mahoney left with the Referendum Petitions and a copy of an affidavit for a nominating petition.  Mahoney returned to the Election Bureau with the Referendum Petitions.  A sworn affidavit of Mahoney was appended to each of the Referendum Petitions and read as follows:
I do swear (or affirm) that I am a qualified elector of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; that my residence is as set forth below; that the signers to the foregoing nomination paper signed the same with the full knowledge of the contents thereof; that their residences are correctly stated therein; that they all reside in the county specified in number one below; that each signed on the date June 1 - Aug 8, 2011 and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the signers are qualified electors of the electoral districts designated in this nomination paper.

(Petitioner's Exhibits "1" - "42").


Warman Ruling Page 9

Mahoney changed that affidavit from reading "on the date set opposite his name" to "on the date June 1 - Aug 8, 2011" because none of the Referendum Petitions contain any date, despite being required by 25 P.S. § 2868, and the date range represented the time period the Referendum Petitions were given to the circulators.  At the hearing held before this Court, Mahoney was asked if he himself circulated the Referendum Petitions.  Mahoney testified that he distributed the Referendum Petitions to a little over forty people for circulating.  Once filled, the circulators returned the Referendum Petitions to Mahoney.  Mahoney never indicated that he witnessed any of the Referendum Petitions being signed.  Therefore, we find the Affidavits attached to the Referendum Petitions violated § 2869 of the Election Code and are thus invalid.

Judge Warman's Footnote 2 cites the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Flaherty.

See In re: Nomination Petition of Flaherty, Pa. Supreme Court (2001).  

In order to validly attest to the criteria in the oath on the circulator's affidavit, one's presence is a requirement.  The case precedent was set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court some 10 years prior to the circulation of Mahoney’s Referendum Petition in 2011.

To see the ruling in its entirety, click Warman Ruling.

Highly astute readers of this blog will note the signature of then-Prothonotary Lance Winterhalter appearing on pages 17 and 18 of the Warman Ruling does not match any of the signatures of "Lance Winterhalter" signed by multiple hands in the notarization section of State Rep. Tim Mahoney's Affidavits of Circulator. 

For comparison, here is the link to review the Affidavits of Circulator and eight (8) extra Affidavits of Circulator -- withheld from the Referendum Petition challenge by the Fayette County Election Bureau, and (although stamped as valid) unattached to any Referendum Petitions.

By executing and officially filing altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator in his attempt to place a question on the election ballot in Fayette County, did State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) understand what he was doing?

Listen here for his answer.

UPDATE:

Lance Winterhalter was District Attorney Richard E. Bower's campaign manager when Bower was a candidate for office.  An astute poster ("conflict") on the Fay-West Discussion Board raised the salient issue of conflict of interest regarding Bower's refusal to investigate the 3rd Referral.  In the opinion of the poster, the conflict raised by District Attorney Bower's campaign manager's notarization of the Mahoney Referendum Petitions was such that Bower should not have rendered a decision on the case but that he should have recused himself.  This space agrees with the poster's assessment.  

Subsequently, the post was erased (10/17/2016) by the Fay-West Discuss powers that be. 

0

Today, October 12, 2016, marks the 22-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2. -- an Order issued by Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen on December 12, 2014.

To view the docket sheet entry of the Order Presenting SEALED Grand Jury Fifth Presentment, see the top of Page 7 of 8 of the Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Docket Sheet.

For approximately thirteen months of the former administration of then-District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., and now for more than nine months of the current administration of Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower, the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 has remained sealed.

In a previous post in this space we pondered the possible reasons for the dormancy of the 5th Presentment.

Other presentments from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 have been prosecuted and penalties have been meted out.  Juxtaposing the prosecutions of other presentments and the 22-month sealing of the 5th Presentment raises serious questions.  While a previous post in this space covered some of those questions, it bears reiteration that the most serious question is the one which regards equal justice under law.

When the Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 issued a presentment, by law, it had to also be approved by Presiding Judge Steve Leskinen.  Thus, presentments are not issued haphazardly.  For a presentment to issue against an individual, evidence must exist that points to a crime.  Moreover, as the district attorney leads the grand jury in its investigation and in the issuance of presentments, the district attorney usually follows the recommendations of a grand jury.  In fact, the case where a district attorney refuses to follow the recommendations of a grand jury is virtually unheard of.  Why would a district attorney urge a presentment to be issued only never to bring an indictment?

This leads us to the heart of the matter:  It is inherently unequal justice under law to prosecute individuals under other presentments while the individual named in the sealed (for 22 months!) 5th Presentment remains unnamed, unindicted, and unprosecuted.

Grand jury secrecy laws are in place to elicit testimony and to shield witnesses from threats; grand jury secrecy laws are not in place to shield district attorneys and judges from public scrutiny and accountability.

It's high time the public received some answers on why the 5th Presentment has remained sealed for 22 months and when it will be unsealed.

After 22 months, it's time for Fayette County Grand Jury Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen and Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower to be held accountable to the public which paid for the grand jury and which has every right to know what is being done/what will be done with the sealed 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

Companion articles:

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

The Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection 

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

Fayette County Grand Jury 5th Presentment Sealing Reaches 1 Year   

0

Last evening, an interesting conversation took place on the Fay-West Discuss Uniontown thread.  The posts below in bold were subsequently removed from the discussion board. 

The posts demonstrate the ability of regular people to harness the power of the Internet to facilitate discussion, ferret out truth, and expose fraud and corruption.

The posts below are self-explanatory; however, what they demonstrate is that the brief discussion from last evening was more of an investigation into the alleged election fraud of Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) than the non-investigation (Heneks) and refusal to investigate (Bower) which has emanated from two consecutive administrations of the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney.

Gentle readers, read the posts from the Fay-West discussion below to see for yourself if something isn't rotten in Fayette.


The following post initiated the discussion:

In response to kaj 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
Anyone supportive of Mahoney's proposals to consolidate the schools and the police should just put a figurative bullet into the figurative head of this community.
A signature reading Kathryn Jones address 137 Union Street Uniontown appears on the year 2011 Referendum Petition on Line 1009 of Petition Number 24. Were you a supporter of Tim Mahoney's consolidation of local public school districts in Fayette County back then? Did you sign such petition? The next Line 1010 signer (Charles) provides the same 137 Union Street Uniontown address. You and one of your sons?

Pertinent posts followed chronologically in this manner:

Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 7:44 PM
kaj
In response to Petition #24 Line 1009 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
A signature reading Kathryn Jones address 137 Union Street Uniontown appears on the year 2011 Referendum Petition on Line 1009 of Petition Number 24. Were you a supporter of Tim Mahoney's consolidation of local public school districts in Fayette County back then? Did you sign such petition? The next Line 1010 signer (Charles) provides the same 137 Union Street Uniontown address. You and one of your sons?
I don't recall signing any local petitions other than the prison referendum petition. However, considering that my older sons came of age in an excellent county system, I can see why I might have been in favor of school consolidation~FIVE YEARS AGO. That would have been long before the depths of the corruption in Fayette County became clear to me. Oh boy....you have evidence that I can change my mind, over a period of years, with added information. How devastating for me. lolololol

Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 9:18 PM
FORGERY OR YOURS?
In response to kaj 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
I don't recall signing any local petitions other than the prison referendum petition. However, considering that my older sons came of age in an excellent county system, I can see why I might have been in favor of school consolidation~FIVE YEARS AGO. That would have been long before the depths of the corruption in Fayette County became clear to me. Oh boy....you have evidence that I can change my mind, over a period of years, with added information. How devastating for me. lolololol
is it a forgery or signature? too important to not know what a person signs. too often people sign and have no clue what they are signing. no excuse for signing a paper without knowing what one is signing.


Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 9:31 PM
kaj
In response to FORGERY OR YOURS? 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
is it a forgery or signature? too important to not know what a person signs. too often people sign and have no clue what they are signing. no excuse for signing a paper without knowing what one is signing.
I have no recollection of being presented with or signing a petition in favor of school consolidation. That doesn't mean I didn't, given my positive experience with county school systems. And it certainly doesn't mean I didn't understand what I was signing or that the alleged signature is a forgery. Under competent leadership, school consolidation might be worth exploring. Under current leadership, it would be suicide to consider it. Do you have a point? Or am I gonna get to use the words 'corrupt' and 'leadership' and 'Tim Mahoney' every day between now and election day?

Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 9:52 PM
Fayette Searchlight
In response to kaj 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
I have no recollection of being presented with or signing a petition in favor of school consolidation. That doesn't mean I didn't, given my positive experience with county school systems. And it certainly doesn't mean I didn't understand what I was signing or that the alleged signature is a forgery. Under competent leadership, school consolidation might be worth exploring. Under current leadership, it would be suicide to consider it. Do you have a point? Or am I gonna get to use the words 'corrupt' and 'leadership' and 'Tim Mahoney' every day between now and election day?
Kaj, I'm neither initial poster, but I think Forgery or Signature poses an interesting question. The petitions may be viewed at Fayette Searchlight. Top story; hyperlink #2, Referendum Petitions; Scroll to Petition 24, Line 1009. If the 'Kathryn Jones' signature is authentic, I would be interested to learn if you would would fail to recollect something as unforgettable as Rep. Mahoney's presence during the petition signing. If your signature is authentic, and if you would not forget his presence (but do recall never having signed a petition in his presence -- either as a circulator himself or present with a circulator), then the Affidavit to Petition 24 is false. Rep. Mahoney signed all 50 of his Affidavits of Circulator. Supreme Court case precedent requires one's presence to sign lawfully.

Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 10:17 PM
kaj
In response to Fayette Searchlight 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
Kaj, I'm neither initial poster, but I think Forgery or Signature poses an interesting question. The petitions may be viewed at Fayette Searchlight. Top story; hyperlink #2, Referendum Petitions; Scroll to Petition 24, Line 1009. If the 'Kathryn Jones' signature is authentic, I would be interested to learn if you would would fail to recollect something as unforgettable as Rep. Mahoney's presence during the petition signing. If your signature is authentic, and if you would not forget his presence (but do recall never having signed a petition in his presence -- either as a circulator himself or present with a circulator), then the Affidavit to Petition 24 is false. Rep. Mahoney signed all 50 of his Affidavits of Circulator. Supreme Court case precedent requires one's presence to sign lawfully.
Yes, that is my signature. And I can state, with certainty, that Tim Mahoney was not present when I signed this petition. I would not have signed it for him and I would have been (memorably) angry had he been present at the time the petition was offered to me.

Mon, Oct 10, 2016 - 10:24 PM
Fayette Searchlight
In response to kaj 's message:
RE: Layoffs Grow 
Yes, that is my signature. And I can state, with certainty, that Tim Mahoney was not present when I signed this petition. I would not have signed it for him and I would have been (memorably) angry had he been present at the time the petition was offered to me.
Thank you for taking the time to review the signature and to respond to my query.
Unique IP Code: ab8257d221b768c

Source:  Fay-West Discuss, Uniontown thread, 20161010



UPDATE:

Here is the link to review the Referendum Petitions.

Kathryn Jones states above, with certainty, that State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) was not present when she signed the petition.  (Petition 24, Line 1009)  

In order to validly attest to the criteria in the oath on the circulator's affidavit, one's presence is a requirement.  The case precedent was set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court some 10 years prior to the circulation of Mahoney’s Referendum Petition in 2011. 

See In re: Nomination Petition of Flaherty, Pa. Supreme Court (2001).  

0

The Pennsylvania Election Code defines a candidate in this way:  (25 P.S. § 3241(a)(1) (“Received a contribution or made an expenditure or has given his consent for any other person or committee to receive a contribution or make an expenditure, for the purpose of influencing his nomination or election to such office. . . .”).

A review of The Friends of Tim Mahoney committee campaign finance reports demonstrates that the Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 4 2011 report shows that on August 9, 2011, the very day Rep. Mahoney officially filed his fatally defective Referendum Petitions and altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator with the Fayette County Election Bureau, his committee both received a contribution (pg. 3) and made expenditures (pgs. 31-32).

On August 9, 2011, legally defined as a candidate, Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) was (and remains) subject to the requirements of the law (the Pennsylvania Election Code) in 25 P.S. § 3551.

25 P.S. § 3551:  “Any person who shall, while a candidate for office, be guilty of bribery, fraud or willful violation of any provision of this act [the Pennsylvania Election Code], shall be forever disqualified from holding said office or any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth.” [Emphasis added.]

Thus, a state representative convicted of fraud or willful violation of any provision of the Pennsylvania Election Code would be forever disqualified from holding his current office or any office of trust or profit in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Additionally, Article II, § 7, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “Ineligibility by criminal convictions,” prescribes the following:

“No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth.” [Emphasis added.]

Excerpts from the Bower Submission, filed with the Fayette County Office of District Attorney on June 15, 2016:

EXCERPT 1:

Prima facie evidence exists which shows Mahoney altered the oath on a single Affidavit of Circulator, duplicated (as all of the altered affidavits are identical per the alteration) the altered Affidavit of Circulator (producing at least 49 other copies), and before notary Jeffrey Clipper (2 Clipper-notarized Affidavits of Circulator) and before the Office of the Fayette County Prothonotary (48 Winterhalter-notarized Affidavits of Circulator) signed as the affiant (one who was present and had firsthand knowledge of the signatories to the Referendum Petition).  The Fayette County Office of Prothonotary notarized 48 altered Affidavits of Circulator in nine (9) minutes time (See August 9, 2011, Fayette County Courthouse Surveillance Video, 16:10:30  – 16:19:30) absent the presence of the already-filed (4:04 p.m. -4:07 p.m.) Referendum Petitions.  The notarization signatures of the notary, while done in the name of then-Prothonotary Lance Winterhalter, were signed by multiple hands (i.e., the handwritten signatures of Lance Winterhalter are readily distinguishable as distinct and different handwriting).  This evidence points to multiple hands working quickly to notarize Mahoney’s altered Affidavits of Circulator.  Again, this notarization of altered Affidavits of Circulator was done absent the presence of the already filed Referendum Petitions to which the Affidavits of Circulator are supposed to attest.

As the Referendum Petitions circulated continuously on a county-wide basis, as Mahoney testified to having over 40 circulators, and as no one person can be in fifty places at one time, Mahoney could not have been present to witness signers to each and every petition – a requirement set by Pennsylvania Supreme Court case precedent some 10 years prior to the circulation of Mahoney’s Referendum Petition. See In re: Nomination Petition of Flaherty, Pa. Supreme Court (2001).  Thus, he could not have had firsthand knowledge of the signatories in order to be able to attest validly to the signatures.  Additionally, Mahoney’s sworn court testimony and the reading of the names of 13 of the actual petition circulators into the court record (Court Transcript, pg. 67), stand as incontrovertible evidence that Representative Mahoney could not lawfully sign the 50 Affidavits of Circulator as the sole affiant and validly attest to the criteria in the required oath.

Moreover, via an answer to a Right-To-Know law request, evidence shows that Mahoney claimed numerous per diems for overnight stays in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during the purported circulation period (June 1 – Aug. 8, 2011) of his Referendum Petition to which he testified under oath in a court of law. 

·         Mahoney Voucher Report 05 2011
·         Mahoney Voucher Report 06 2011
·         Mahoney Voucher Report 07 2011
·         Mahoney Voucher Report 08 2011

It is an impossibility that one can be simultaneously in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and present in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, before 50 continuously circulating Referendum Petitions and have firsthand knowledge of the Referendum Petition signatories in order to be able to attest validly and lawfully to the signatures. 

Public comments made by Mahoney during the May 24, 2012, meeting of the Fayette County Election Board include the admission that he altered the Affidavits of Circulator to his Referendum Petition.  [05-24-12, Fayette County Election Board meeting audio (02:28:44 - 02:29:16; and Mahoney Admits Alteration and Signing 20120524)]  This public admission parallels Mahoney’s court testimony (Court Transcript, pg. 70) that he altered an Affidavit of Circulator (i.e., by Whiting-Out the required oath and inserting a date range of June 1 – Aug. 8, 2011), had altered Affidavits of Circulator notarized, and filed the altered Affidavits of Circulator (which Mahoney knew were false) with the Fayette County Election Bureau.

Therefore, I allege Mahoney, on August 9, 2011, knowingly and willfully swore out 50 altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator before notaries public.  In so doing, I allege Mahoney committed no less than perjury through his falsification before notaries public of 50 Affidavits of Circulator. [57 P.S. § 162(b) (any person who shall be convicted of having willfully and knowingly made or taken a false oath, affirmation, deposition, affidavit, certification or acknowledgment before any notary in any matters within their official duties shall be guilty of perjury under and shall be subject to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa. C.S. § 4902 (relating to perjury).]  [Emphasis added.]

EXCERPT 2:

Most damning for the FCEB, we have learned that Director Blosser and the FCEB withheld from our pre-challenge request for a copy of the Mahoney submission of August 9, 2011, eight (8) extra Affidavits of Circulator that were time-and-date stamped as valid and which were unattached to any petitions whatsoever and remain so to this very day.  This intentional act by the FCEB (most likely by Director Larry Blosser himself) not only served to impede the petition challenge to the Mahoney Referendum Petition but also acted to enhance the furtherance of the election fraud being perpetrated by Mahoney on the electorate of Fayette County.

The validation of the unattached eight extra Affidavits of Circulator points to conspiracy.  On June 6, 2012, when Delinda Young and I went to the Election Bureau to retrieve copies of the eight (8) extra Affidavits of Circulator, Director Blosser told Delinda Young and me that the reason for the unattached Affidavits was that they awaited Referendum Petitions on August 9, 2011, which never arrived.

Here is a pertinent excerpt from my Not Enough Said blog post, “Mahoney Court Testimony at Variance with the Facts,” 10/28/2012:

“On August 9, Blosser accepted these 8 affidavits and waited on the arrival (which never came) of at least 8 other petitions which were still in circulation (on Aug. 9) to be attached to these 8 affidavits which attest (as did Rep. Mahoney's court testimony) that the circulation period ended one day earlier -- on Aug. 8, 2011.  A question deserving investigation is why Blosser stood ready to accept (and Mahoney stood ready to file) at least 8 more petitions which were circulating on August 9, 2011, when the oath sworn to and signed by State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) on the 8 extra Affidavits of Circulator attested to a circulation end date of August 8, 2011.”

The above excerpt goes directly to the knowing and willful falsity of the Affidavits of Circulator.  Mahoney knew he had eight (8) more Referendum Petitions circulating on August 9, 2011 (i.e., beyond his sworn end date of August 8, 2011).  That is why he executed 8 extra Affidavits of Circulator, had them notarized, filed them with the FCEB, and awaited the arrival with Blosser of 8 Referendum Petitions which never came.  However, since Mahoney was in the courthouse and at the FCEB without those eight extra Referendum Petitions, he certainly could not validly and lawfully sign as the sole affiant, for the law requires one’s presence to lawfully execute the oath on the circulator affidavit.  Mahoney certainly was not present before the eight extra continuously circulating Referendum Petitions when he is seen on video inside the courthouse and when the eight extra Affidavits are time-stamped and remain unattached to any Referendum Petitions (i.e., the eight, extra, yet circulating Referendum Petitions never arrive at the FCEB).  The above fact, along with the circulation of the Referendum Petitions outside both the front end and the back end of Mahoney’s purported date range, Mahoney’s presence in Harrisburg during his purported circulation period, the lack of any dates (or date ranges) on the Referendum Petitions to which Mahoney swore, and the impossibility that Mahoney could be present simultaneously in front of 50 continuously circulating Referendum Petitions stand as testament that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney knowingly and willfully swore out false Affidavits of Circulator before notaries public on August 9, 2011.

[End EXCERPT 2]


Knowingly and willfully executing a false affidavit in front of a notary subjects one to the penalties for perjury in Pennsylvania.

57 P.S. § 162

§ 162. Power to administer oaths and affirmations

(a) Notaries shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations, certify copies and take depositions, affidavits, verifications, upon oath or affirmation and acknowledgments according to law, in all matters belonging or incident to the exercise of their notarial office.

(b) Any person who shall be convicted of having wilfully and knowingly made or taken a false oath, affirmation, deposition, affidavit, certification or acknowledgment before any notary in any matters within their [i.e., the notary's] official duties shall be guilty of perjury under and shall be subject to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902(relating to perjury).  [Emphasis added.]

State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) is yet subject to prosecution for alleged criminal election law violations, as they are alleged to have taken place in connection with his office.  In that case, an extension to the general statute of limitations applies.
 
In Pennsylvania, a conviction on perjury charges means certain disqualification from office.

The law -- 25 P.S. § 2642(i) -- requires mandatory investigation of the Fayette County Election Board’s unanimous 3rd Referral of May 24, 2012, yet there has been (and continues to be) no investigation.

Investigate now!


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

Mahoney's Broken Soap Box

Posted: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

State Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) recently sent out a taxpayer-funded, pre-election newsletter titled "Opioid Crisis -- Fall 2016."

Let’s examine the newsletter’s first article, specifically the first and second paragraphs:

As I look around this summer and see other elected officials in the local newspapers stating their concern over the opioid abuse and heroin use crisis that’s crippling our area, state and nation, I’m left to wonder: where were they in April and May of 2015?


More than a year before anyone else went public in a big way, I was holding a House Democratic Policy Committee hearing with my fellow state legislators and a Town Hall meeting, trying to get everyone’s attention about this growing epidemic.


In the first paragraph, Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51) excoriates “other elected officials” for being late to state their concern over “the opioid abuse and heroin use crisis. . . .” and wonders “where were they in April and May of 2015?”  In the second paragraph, Rep. Mahoney claims credit for being out front on the issue “more than a year before anyone else went public in a big way.”  Rep. Mahoney then cites a House Democratic Policy Committee hearing and a Town Hall meeting he held in 2015.

It is true that Rep. Tim Mahoney held both a Town Hall meeting (April 2, 2015) and a Democratic Policy Committee hearing (April 30, 2015).  While that covers April 2015, obviously, those events precede May 2015 – the second of the two months Rep. Mahoney cites in his newsletter.

It’s interesting that Rep. Mahoney brings up May 2015 to chastise elected officials.  

On May 5, 2015, the FBI conducted a major drug raid on 11 locations across Fayette County, Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring counties.  As Rep. Mahoney’s legislative district covers a massive portion of Fayette County it would be safe to assume that some of those locations were within the 51st Legislative District.

That being said, let’s turn Rep. Mahoney’s question around and ask where he was in May 2015.  Specifically, where was he in the aftermath of the May 5, 2015, drug raids some of which took place in his district?  Remember, he claims credit in the newsletter for being up on his soap box more than a year out in front of everyone else.

A check of Rep. Mahoney’s  House website and social media (see: Facebook and Twitter) demonstrates that there is a lone drug-issue-related, May 2015 post made on May 7, 2015. The Facebook post is a link to a Tribune-Review article by Brad Bumsted lamenting seven deaths per day in Pennsylvania due to drug overdoses.  There are no other May 2015 Facebook posts on the drug issue or the May 5, 2015, drug raids.  Ditto for June 2015, July 2015, August 2015, September 2015, and October 2015.  It was not until November 17, 2015, that a drug-issue-related post of a link to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article appeared on Rep. Mahoney’s Facebook page – just in time to dust off the issue ahead of the 2016 Primary Election.

In fact, in the wake of the May 5, 2015, raid, 16,675,200 seconds, or 277,920 minutes, or 4632 hours, or 27 weeks and 4 days, or 6 months and 9 days, or 52.88% of 2015, or 193 days passed between Rep. Mahoney’s May 7, 2015, drug-issue-related, Facebook post and his November 17, 2015, drug-issue-related, Facebook post.

A check of Rep. Tim Mahoney’s House website and social media and also demonstrates that Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Broken Soap Box) has never made a public mention of the May 5, 2015, drug raid on his House website, on his Facebook page or on his Twitter feed – never!  One has to wonder what happened to his April 2015 anti-drug soap box.
 
What better opportunity ever would be presented to mount his anti-drug soap box, to show his support for law enforcement, and to advance his so-called claim to the anti-drug issue than the May 5, 2015, drug raids within his own legislative district?  Were not seven Pennsylvanians a day (193 days * 7 PA deaths per day = 1,351 PA deaths) yet dying from drug overdoses?

While Rep. Mahoney chastises “other elected officials” for being late to jump on their anti-drug soap boxes, in May 2015, in the wake of the May 5 drug raid (and subsequent indictments) , when the rubber met the road, Rep. Tim Mahoney went more silent than a group of mimes at a marathon game of Quaker's Meeting.

Where was Rep. Tim Mahoney on the opioid issue and the May 5 drug raids in May 2015 (and beyond)?
 
He and his broken soap box were nowhere to be found.