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:


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.]


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.


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