The Spurious Advice of FCEB Solicitor Sheryl Heid

Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

Currently, the Fayette County Election Board is in dereliction of its duty to investigate the Official Complaint duly filed by this writer with the Fayette County Election Bureau on September 10, 2018.

See 25 P.S. § 3548:

Any Secretary of the Commonwealth, member of a county board of elections, chief clerk, employe, overseer, judge of election, inspector of election, clerk of election, machine inspector or custodian or deputy custodian of voting machines on whom a duty is laid by this act who shall wilfully neglect or refuse to perform his duty, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) dollars, or to undergo an imprisonment of not more than two (2) years, or both, in the discretion of the court. [Emphasis added.]

 Fayette Searchlight has learned that, on the spurious advice of Solicitor Sheryl R. Heid, the Fayette County Election Bureau's position is that the Board already addressed the issue raised in the official election complaint duly filed by this writer on Sept. 10, 2018 (as if the 12-page complaint raised only a singular issue).

Additionally, Solicitor Sheryl R. Heid goes on to advise "[i]t is the Bureau's position that a letter to Mr. Frasconi should be sufficient to inform him that the issue (again singular) was previously addressed under Section 2642(i) and was properly referred to the District Attorney's office on May 24, 2012."  The letter asks for Chair Zimmerlink's "directive in this matter." 

 See:   Heid Letter 20180918

Solicitor Heid's advice is way off the mark.  The detailed complaint of Sept. 10 lays out allegations of election fraud and perjuries against ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney, non-investigation of the Fayette County Election Board's Third Referral of May 24, 2012, and potential crimes regarding the Fifth Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 In her weak attempt to conflate this writer's complaint with Michael J. Cavanagh's 2012 complaint (allegations against Mahoney regarding alterations on affidavits of circulator which led to the Third Referral), perhaps Solicitor Heid would like to explain to citizens in a public meeting how non-investigation of the Third Referral of May 24, 2012 could have taken place on or before May 24, 2012, and how potential crimes regarding the sealed Fifth Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 could have taken place on or before May 24, 2012, when the Fifth Presentment was not even issued and sealed by the Order of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen until 12/12/2014 -- some two years and seven months after Cavanagh's complaint was addressed by the election board on May 24, 2012!

 Solicitor Sheryl Heid knows better.  Rather than investigate crimes against the electorate of Fayette County, she is giving advice to ignore them!

 Here is a YouTube video of a segment of the 09/28/2012 meeting of the Fayette County Election Board where Delinda Young's and this writer's August 24, 2012 complaint was kept off the agenda by then-Fayette County Election Board Chairman Alfred Ambrosini.  We were later permitted to make a presentation of our findings to the board which can be found in the videos here. 

 Election Board Meeting Part VII 20120928:




Readers who view the entire video will be rewarded with particular insight into not only some of the allegations made in the Sept. 10 complaint, but also insight into why Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself from offering any advice to the Fayette County Election Bureau/Board pertaining to the Sept. 10 complaint.  For the purposes of this article, readers and viewers can scroll to the 6:05 mark of the video and view the pertinent footage until the 10:30 mark.

 At 6:05, the alteration on Mahoney's Affidavits of Circulator is broached by Delinda Young.  

 At 6:25 Solicitor Heid argues thusly:  "They [then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's circulator affidavits] were properly altered because, they couldn't have, it couldn't have been filed the way it was pre-printed . . . . So he had to alter it.  It was supposed to be altered because it was a pre-printed form."  [Emphasis added.]

At 8:03, Solicitor Heid argues for more alterations: "He [Mahoney] should have made further alterations, but it wouldn't have been improper to accept it."  [Emphasis added.]

 The problem with Solicitor Heid's arguments pertaining to alterations and the acceptance and validation of altered election documents is that her arguments contradict election law that is crystal clear on the matter of alteration.

 Because Pennsylvania is not a referendum and initiative state, and because Pennsylvania provides for referenda only in limited instances, the election laws governing referendum petitions follow the election laws laid out for nomination petitions.

 25 P.S. § 2936:
When any nomination petition, nomination certificate or nomination paper is presented in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth or of any county board of elections for filing within the period limited by this act, it shall be the duty of the said officer or board to examine the same. No nomination petition, nomination paper or nomination certificate shall be permitted to be filed if--(a) it contains material errors or defects apparent on the face thereof, or on the face of the appended or accompanying affidavits; or (b) it contains material alterations made after signing without the consent of the signers; or (c) it does not contain a sufficient number of signatures as required by law: . . . . [Emphasis added.]

On 08/09/2011, on the advice of Solicitor Sheryl Heid, the election bureau provided Mahoney a single copy of an affidavit of circulator for a nomination paper when he initially arrived to file his referendum petitions without the affidavits which are required to be appended to the petitions by law.

 At least 49 other duplicates were made after Mahoney Whited-Out the required oath and inserted his purported date range of June 1 - Aug. 8, 2011.  Were the duplicates run off at Mahoney's legislative office, the election bureau, or elsewhere?

 Here is more about why Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself from providing any advice on the Sept. 10 complaint:
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed petitions to be filed without affidavits appended -- which is unlawful under the Pennsylvania Election Code.
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed fatally-flawed, defective referendum petitions (without dates set opposite names; a prima facie defect) to be filed -- which is a violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed the appending of altered affidavits to already-filed, fatally-flawed referendum petitions -- which is a blatant violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid woefully failed to perform her duty to examine the referendum petitions and the affidavits or to have her board (which was at the time comprised of three attorneys -- Mark Mehalov, Barbara Balling-Carl, and Jeremy Davis) examine same.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid failed to follow state law which prohibits advisory referenda, although she testified under oath on August 22, 2011 that her opinion was the Mahoney referendum was advisory.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid refused to reject Mahoney's referendum petition on the basis that it was advisory and non-binding, although, in 2007, faced with a referendum on Uniontown-area school district construction, she rejected the referendum petition for the cause it was advisory.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid failed to reject the fatally-flawed, defective referendum petitions and return them to the filer (Mahoney), instead, on her advice, she had the bureau provide Mahoney a nomination paper affidavit which Mahoney would duplicate and allegedly falsify, notarize, perjure, and fraudulently file.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid, after all the foregoing, with a quick turn of her shoulder, after finally signing and handing Delinda Young and this writer a letter, informed us of a seven-day deadline to file a court challenge to the fatally-flawed, defective Mahoney Referendum Petitions and altered, falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator, forcing citizens to go to court to stop election wrongdoing rather than perform her duty as solicitor to stop it herself. 


 While Solicitor Sheryl Heid may or may not be able to be held accountable criminally for the multiple failures to perform her duty as a solicitor during the Mahoney Referendum Petition Fiasco because of the question of time limitations, she is definitely yet subject to reprimand and/or firing.  She is, more than likely, yet subject to professional sanction (i.e., disbarment).  She is yet subject to be called to testify (which the Sept. 10 complaint filed by this writer makes abundantly clear).

 Given her blatant and obvious conflicts of interest, Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself in the matter of giving any advice to the election board on the Sept. 10 complaint.

However, her conflicts over ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Democrat Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney's alleged election fraud and alleged perjuries (and the part she played in allowing them to unfold) impelled her not to recuse herself from giving advice to the election board on the Sept. 10 complaint.  

 The only conclusion an honest observer can draw is that Solicitor Sheryl Heid is compelled by her blatant and obvious conflicts in this matter to ignore the law she is supposed to uphold, to snuff out the truth, and to kill the complaint -- even if it means providing spurious advice to an election board that is all too willing to bury the complaint unlawfully rather than perform its duty under law to investigate it.














0 comments: