Investigate Now!
Posted: Saturday, October 8, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: 3rd Referral, 51st District, alleged election fraud false swearing conspiracy and perjury, District Attorney Jack R. Heneks Jr., Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower
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.
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.
Investigate now!
Companion article:
The Prosecution of Walter "Deb" Wiltrout, the Non-Investigation of the 3rd Referral, and the Absence of a 9th Presentment