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:
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?In response to kaj 's message:
Pertinent posts followed chronologically in this manner:
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. lololololIn response to Petition #24 Line 1009 's message:
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.In response to kaj 's message:
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?In response to FORGERY OR YOURS? 's message:
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.In response to kaj 's message:
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.In response to Fayette Searchlight 's message:
Thank you for taking the time to review the signature and to respond to my query.In response to kaj 's message:
Source: Fay-West Discuss, Uniontown thread, 20161010
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).