Showing posts with label Fayette County Election Board. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fayette County Election Board. Show all posts

Did Election Board Solicitor Sheryl Heid Instruct Mahoney To Alter Affidavits?

Posted: Saturday, October 27, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , , , , , ,
0


The last post in this space laid out the reasons why Election Bureau/Board Solicitor Sheryl R. Heid should have recused herself from giving any advice to the election board on the Sept. 10 complaint filed by this writer, but the piece did not bring up a potential elephant in the room.

This piece intends to unveil that potential elephant.

Here is a brief excerpt from the May 24, 2012 election board meeting.  Astonishingly, in a meeting where ex-DA Jack R. Heneks, Jr. was in attendance, in the excerpt, then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney admits in open public to the alteration and signing of his altered and allegedly falsely sworn, perjured, and fraudulently filed affidavits of circulator.   

See:  Mahoney Admits Alteration and Signing 20120524

The excerpt's context is Michael J. Cavanagh arguing for the election board to make a motion and to take a vote to forward his allegations (election fraud/altered election documents -- Affidavits of Circulator) against then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney to the district attorney for investigation.

Mahoney:  The allegations that he is saying about the certificate – that it was altered—the judge already ruled on that certificate that it was altered.  I was told to alter it.  I was told to sign it.  I was told to sign 42 of’em—that I knew these petitioners that garnered these petitions, the names. [Emphasis added.]

Commissioner Zapotosky:  We’ve already addressed that you were instructed to do that.

Mahoney:  So, how can anyone [Michael Cavanagh (overtalk):  He wasn’t instructed to do that.] recommend anything [Michael Cavanagh (overtalk): It was never said.] to the district attorney for what I have done?

Commissioner Zimmerlink:  The recommendation is not being asked whether or not you followed the direction of the election bureau.  That’s not what he’s asking us.

Michael Cavanagh:  That’s right; it’s a separate issue.


Let's comb through (in blue text) this miasma a little more deeply.

Mahoney:  The allegations that he is saying about the certificate – that it was altered—the judge already ruled on that certificate that it was altered.  I was told to alter it.  I was told to sign it.  I was told to sign 42 of’em—that I knew these petitioners that garnered these petitions, the names. [Emphasis added.]

Here Mahoney claims that he was told to alter it (i.e., "it," not "them," is singular and implies the singular affidavit of circulator for a nomination paper provided to him by the Fayette County Election Bureau on the advice of Solicitor Sheryl Heid).  

 In the 09/28/2012 election board meeting, Director Larry Blosser said that he was instructed by the solicitor (Heid) that Mahoney needed affidavits of circulator.  A single affidavit of circulator for a nomination paper was provided to Mahoney by the Fayette County Election Bureau on the advice of Solicitor Sheryl Heid.  However, Mahoney's claim of "I was told to alter it" begs a very serious question.  If Mahoney is telling the truth in this instance, by whom was he told to "alter it"?  Did Solicitor Sheryl Heid tell Mahoney to alter the affidavit?  Did Solicitor Sheryl Heid tell Mahoney to sign it and the rest of what turned out to be 50 (not 42) affidavits, and have them notarized, and to bring them back to the bureau and file them?  

Commissioner Zapotosky:  We’ve already addressed that you were instructed to do that.

Here Commissioner Zapotosky makes the claim that Mahoney was instructed to do that (i.e., alter the affidavit, sign it, and sign the other affidavits).  Again, if this statement is true, by whom was Mahoney instructed?  Solicitor Sheryl Heid?  Then-Commissioner Zapotosky again made the same claim that Mahoney was instructed in the 09/28/2012 election board meeting.  If then-Commissioner Zapotosky had some inside knowledge as a commissioner and is telling the truth about Mahoney being instructed to alter an election document, the question of instructed by whom arises.

Mahoney:  So, how can anyone [Michael Cavanagh(overtalk):  He wasn’t instructed to do that.] recommend anything [Michael Cavanagh (overtalk): It was never said.] to the district attorney for what I have done?

Here Cavanagh is correct that Solicitor Heid said during the May 24, 2012 election board meeting that she merely directed Mahoney to the PA Referendum Handbook for guidance, but is that statement by Heid omitting anything?  Also, here Mahoney admits in open public (before then-DA Jack Heneks) that he altered and signed the affidavits of circulator, yet a grand jury presentment never issued against Mahoney!  

Were Mahoney and Zapotosky telling the truth?  Did Solicitor Sheryl Heid instruct Mahoney to alter his circulator affidavits and sign them, or did she not?  In the last post, we saw her argue that an affidavit would be provided to anybody and that, contra election law, Mahoney properly altered his affidavits and should have made further alterations.  But, did she instruct Mahoney to alter them?

If Solicitor Sheryl Heid not only instructed Director Blosser that Mahoney needed affidavits of circulator and to provide Mahoney with a single affidavit of circulator for a nomination paper (which would imply that Heid would have knowledge that the single affidavit would have to be duplicated multiple times to cover the requirement for one affidavit for each of Mahoney's petitions), but also if Solicitor Heid instructed Mahoney to alter his affidavits and sign them, upon the filing of the Sept. 10 complaint, an "elephant in the room"-sized conflict would confront Solicitor Sheryl Heid:  Recuse and allow the board to follow the law and allow the mandatory investigation of the complaint to go forward and risk exposure of instructions which led to allegations of election frauds and perjuries against the person (Mahoney) she instructed, or offer spurious advice as to why the complaint should not be heard and cover up the inconvenient truth.

Under the law, a Fayette County Election Board investigation/hearing (where testimony is taken) should be receiving answers to all these questions and more, but on the spurious advice of Solicitor Sheryl Heid, the board is in dereliction of its duty to investigate the official complaint duly filed by this writer on September 10, 2018. 





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.














Neglected Official Election Complaint Turns 1 Month Old

Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

Today, October 10, 2018, marks the one-month anniversary of the filing by this writer of an official election complaint.  The complaint alleges election fraud and perjuries against ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Democrat Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney, non-investigation of the Third Referral of the Fayette County Election Board passed unanimously on May 24, 2012, and potential crimes regarding the sealed Fifth Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.  Because Mahoney was defined as a candidate during the commission of these alleged crimes, upon conviction, Mahoney is subject to disqualification from any office of trust or profit in this commonwealth.

 See:  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, shall be forever disqualified from holding said office or any other office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth.

For one month, there has been no indication that any investigation into the allegations laid out in the complaint has taken place (or has even begun).  Fayette County Commissioners David Lohr, Vincent A. Vicites, and Angela M. Zimmerlink now comprise the election board.

 The election board has a mandatory duty to investigate the complaint under 25 P.S. § 2642(i).
25 P.S. § 2642:The county boards of elections, within their respective counties, shall exercise, in the manner provided by this act, all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following:

(i) To investigate election frauds, irregularities and violations of this act, and to report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney.

 To date, the three election board members are in dereliction of that duty.


Original Documents of ex-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's Fatally-Flawed Referendum Petition and Perjured Affidavits Destroyed

Posted: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

Yesterday, 08/27/2018, via telephone, this space received confirmation from Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser that the original documents in the August 9, 2011, submission of fatally-flawed referendum petitions and altered, falsely sworn, and perjured affidavits of circulator filed by then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney have been destroyed by the Fayette County Election Bureau.

 Blosser said the destruction was related to the election bureau's five-year retention policy and received assent from the Fayette County Office of District Attorney.

 Blosser also said the original documents related to alleged voter fraud/election fraud in two other referrals made to then-Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. by the Fayette County Election Board on May 24, 2012, also have been destroyed.

 There is no problem with records destruction of original documents pertaining to the David E. Butler allegations which led to presentments against three Bullskin Township supervisors.  The supervisors went through ARD, paid fines, performed community service, and had their records expunged.  The cases there are closed. 

 The destruction of the original records pertaining to the Mahoney allegations against Uniontown businessman Michael J. Cavanagh may seem to be in order, for time limitations pertaining to the allegations have lapsed.  Yet, due to the sealed Fifth Presentment from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2, the unanswered question as to who is the subject of that presentment, and whether Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen's order to seal the Fifth Presentment will be lifted after more than 44 months, the original documents regarding the Mahoney allegations against Cavanagh likely should have been retained.

 Blosser was confronted with the facts as to why the original documents regarding the Mahoney submission should not have been destroyed.  They should not have been destroyed because the matter was referred to then-DA Heneks for a determination (Third Referral), because the matter was included in his Application for the empanelment of a grand jury, because there exists a sealed Fifth Presentment (Page 7 of the next hyperlink) from the grand jury which has never been unsealed, because the grand jury docket remains active (not closed), and because, due to an extension on the time limitation which applies, Mahoney is yet subject to investigation and prosecution.

 Current District Attorney Richard E. Bower was made aware of this extension of the time limitation in a submission letter detailing the allegations against Mahoney dated 06/15/2016.  Approached with prima facie evidence of election law violations where an indictment could have issued within a matter of days to stop the time limitations from running, Bower, for weeks, shirked his duty to perform the mandatory investigation in the case and knowingly permitted the general statute of limitations regarding the allegations on perjury against Mahoney to expire (August 9, 2016; August 22, 2016). 

 Subsequently, in 2016, following his failure to perform his mandatory, statutory duty to investigate the allegations against Mahoney under 25 P.S. § 2642(i), Bower made a contribution to then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's campaign committee -- The Friends of Tim Mahoney (see the top of Page 4 in the link to the report).  Bower also became a listed co-sponsor of "The Democratic Radio Hour" heard Fridays on WMBS 590AM and funded, in part, by The Committee to Re-Elect Tim Mahoney (see bottom of Page 11 here).

 While Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower should have been investigating and prosecuting the case against Mahoney (or, more appropriately, recusing himself and referring the matter to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General because his campaign manager Lance Winterhalter's Office of Prothonotary notarized 48 of 50 of Mahoney's altered, falsely sworn, and perjured affidavits of circulator outside the presence of the already-filed referendum petitions to which the affidavits are meant to attest), instead, after allowing the general (i.e., not the extended) statutes of limitations to expire, Bower contributed to Mahoney's election in 2016 and, in part, as a co-sponsor, currently funds the radio program stumping for Mahoney's re-election in 2018.

[Now we learn that DA Bower's office had a hand -- in the face of his personal knowledge of the extended statute of limitations which applies to Mahoney -- in assenting to the Fayette County Election Bureau destruction of the original documents filed by Mahoney on August 9, 2011.]  RETRACTED SEE UPDATE/RETRACTION

 Yesterday, a Right-to-Know Law request was filed with Fayette County Open Records Officer Amy Revak and with Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser seeking communications between the election bureau and the district attorney's office regarding the destruction of the original documents in the Mahoney submission.

 UPDATE/RETRACTION:

 Fayette Searchlight issues a retraction for this part of the story above:  

 "Now we learn that DA Bower's office had a hand -- in the face of his personal knowledge of the extended statute of limitations which applies to Mahoney -- in assenting to the Fayette County Election Bureau destruction of the original documents filed by Mahoney on August 9, 2011."  

 This section of the article was based on incomplete knowledge.  The article section was written with the thought the original materials in matters referred to former District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. and included in his Application for the empanelment of a grand jury would be kept for at least as long as the general statute of limitations -- i.e., a five-year time period from August 9, 2011.  This would have placed the destruction squarely within the administration of current Fayette County DA Richard E. Bower.  Instead, according to an answer to a Right-To-Know law request, the Fayette County Office of District Attorney never provided direction to the Fayette County Election Bureau to preserve documents beyond their scheduled two-year destruction schedule.  Thus, according to Cheryl Karol at the FCEB, the Tim Mahoney and Michael Cavanagh papers and petitions were destroyed at the two-year interval.  Even hypothetically going off the May 24, 2012 election board meeting date (to be conservative), the documents would have been destroyed by May 24, 2014 -- squarely within the DA Heneks administration. 





Flashback: Board hears allegations of election impropriety

Posted: Saturday, August 18, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

With the news of two election complaints having been filed, respectively, with the Fayette County Election Bureau/Board, with Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower, and with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and with the evidence of the alleged election frauds and perjuries of the current 51st District Democrat nominee and ex-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney in possession of Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, First Deputy Attorney General Michelle A. Henry, and Attorney General Josh Shapiro, this space ponders why an investigation into alleged election frauds out of the county of Fayette in 2018 (on which cases the district attorney is reportedly going to recuse himself and forward to the attorney general) should take any precedence over allegations of election fraud made in 2012 that, to this day, remain uninvestigated.

 Excerpt from the May 24, 2012, meeting of the Fayette County Election Board (Source:  Herald-Standard Media YouTube Channel):





No less an expert than Judge Ralph C. Warman himself provided the outlines of the Mahoney election fraud within his ruling which struck Mahoney's fatally-flawed referendum petition.

 See:

 Warman Ruling Page 7

Warman Ruling Page 9

 NotEnoughSaidBlog YouTube Channel videos of the 09/28/2012 Presentation of suspicious circumstances surrounding the filing of then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's fatally-flawed and extralegal referendum petitions and altered, falsely sworn, and perjured Affidavits of Circulator.




















Prosecutions of Fayette County Grand Jury Presentments Continue Amidst Sealed 5th Presentment Status and 3rd Referral Non-Investigation

Posted: Thursday, December 17, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

According to the Magisterial District Justice level docket sheets, the Formal Arraignments of Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek were scheduled to take place this morning at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 5; however, the Court of Common Pleas level docket sheets note that the Formal Arraignments were waived.

 See the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Criminal Docket Sheets for the Bozeks here:


Cheryl Lynn Bozek Criminal Docket:

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002012-2015


George P. Bozek Criminal Docket:



We learn many things from the entries on the above docket sheets.  We learn that on 11/16/2015, the Commonwealth filed a Motion for a Protective Order and In Camera Hearing.

 On 11/19/2015, Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen issued an Order "that the Commonwealth may use the testimony of the Def(s) at the preliminary hearing in this matter if it is otherwise admissible as admissions under the rules of evidence & the stenographer who transcribed said testimony may testify as to the relevant sections of testimony."  

 We learn that on 12/02/2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania consolidated the cases against Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek.  On 12/16/2015 and 12/17/2015, we learn of the Waiver of the Arraignments and of an Information being filed by Fayette County District Attorney Jack Raydan Heneks Jr. (12/17/2015) in both of the consolidated cases.

 As has been noted in this space, DA Heneks, while prosecuting the charges against the Bozeks, which emanated from grand jury presentments against them, has failed to unseal (and thus to prosecute) the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 on December 12, 2014.  DA Heneks also has failed to investigate the allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) contained in a 3rd Referral made by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board on May 24, 2012. 

Fayette County Grand Jury 5th Presentment Sealing Reaches 1 Year

Posted: Saturday, December 12, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

Today, December 12, 2015, the sealed status of the 5th Presentment from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 reaches one year in length.

 See Page 7 here:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-MD-0000475-2012.

 Time is running out on outgoing Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., to unseal the 5th Presentment, let alone to prosecute the case.

 While the prosecutions of individuals named in unsealed presentments proceed apace, in his charge from the investigating grand jury, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., has failed utterly to indict, arrest, arraign and prosecute the individual named in the 5th Presentment within the time span of one calendar year from its sealing on December 12, 2014.

 It is virtually unheard of that a Pennsylvania district attorney fails to follow the recommendation of a grand jury to issue an indictment.  Let no mistake be made; the failure of DA Heneks to unseal the 5th Presentment before he leaves office as Fayette County district attorney is of historical import. His abject failure to unseal the 5th Presentment coincides with his blatant failure to conduct a mandatory investigation [as required by law -- 25 P.S. § 2642(i)] of the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board -- allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) forwarded for investigation by the unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney on May 24, 2012.

 (See: YouTube 3rd Referral 20120524)

 Heneks' camouflage of the 3rd Referral in his Application to impanel a grand jury, Heneks' refusal to recuse himself from all three election-related referrals due to his conflicts (see: Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030, Heneks' political relationship with Mahoney, and Heneks' campaign contribution from Mahoney), and Heneks' failure to investigate and to prosecute the 3rd Referral (while prosecuting de minimus violations of the Pennsylvania Election Code) are such putrid injustices that they surely rank very high up on the list of the worst miscarriages of justice in the annals of Pennsylvania jurisprudence.

 The only comfort that Fayette County citizens can take from outgoing Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., and his "management" of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 is that "outgoing" precedes the name of this dastardly and derelict DA.

 On January 4, 2016, at long last, the night of his terrible, tyrannical tenure as Fayette County district attorney will come to an end.

 Sic semper tyrannis

The Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection

Posted: Saturday, November 14, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

On October 15, 2012, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. made an Application to impanel an investigating grand jury. Foremost among the reasons cited for the impanelment were allegations of voter fraud/election fraud forwarded to his office by three Fayette County Election Board referrals.  DA Heneks' initial application was dismissed without prejudice for lack of commonality by then-President Judge Gerald R. Solomon.

 However, on October 23, 2012, Judge Solomon granted the Application for the grand jury.

 On October 30, 2012, a mere 15 days after DA Heneks' initial Application for a grand jury, and a mere seven days after Judge Solomon granted the Application, during a paid political advertisement, State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) made an appearance on WMBS Radio 590 and said the following:

 (See YouTube Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030)


"I do want to talk about the grand jury that I-I pushed for before anybody else pushed for. . . I mean, everybody wants to come happy-go-lucky later, but I asked Jack.  Ah.  We've talked about this numerous times a year ago, and I'm glad he got the grand jury formed.  I'm glad Judge Solomon reconsidered it because I think it is very important to have this, ah, you know, this  -- everything -- come to light what really happened in the different areas.  [Emphasis added.]

 We learn much from this statement.  First we learn that State Rep. Tim Mahoney proudly claims to have been the impetus behind the impanelment of the grand jury and that he "asked Jack" (i.e., he and DA Heneks have such a close personal and political relationship that Rep. Mahoney refers to DA Heneks on a first-name basis, even while making a public statement).  Additionally, according to Rep. Mahoney, we learn that he and DA Heneks had numerous discussions approximately one year prior to the statement.  This would place those discussions in the October/November 2011 time frame.  Readers will recall that the David E. Butler allegations regarding mainly absentee ballots in Bullskin Township emanated from the November 2011 election of Thomas Scott Keefer over Butler in the race for township supervisor.
Breathtakingly, the above statement was made by the target of the 3rd Referral made by the Fayette County Election Board on May 24, 2012, a mere six months earlier. 

(See YouTube 3rd Referral 20120524)

 This raises many questions.  How could a full, fair, and impartial investigation of the 3rd Referral be conducted by DA Heneks who has such blatant conflicts of interest (i.e., Heneks' personal and political relationship with Mahoney, Heneks' campaign contribution from Mahoney, Heneks' conversations with Mahoney about forming a grand jury, Heneks' unexplained attendance at the May 24, 2012 election board meeting but no other election board meeting, etc.)?   How could the man who claims credit for pushing for the grand jury in numerous discussions with DA Heneks ever honestly be investigated/prosecuted by the same grand jury and the same friendly DA?  Why did DA Heneks not recuse himself? 

How does State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney -- the target of the 3rd Referral (which calls for a review and a determination to be made about allegations of election fraud) -- so insouciantly gush about his gladness that a motion for a grand jury had been granted?

 Obviously, there is only one way that one could make such a statement a mere seven days after the news came down that a grand jury would be impaneled to look into voter/election fraud.  State Rep. Mahoney had to have rested in the assurance that he would not be an investigative/prosecutorial target of the grand jury.  There is no other explanation.

 Whether explicit or tacit, the only person who could have provided such assurance was the person who would lead Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 -- Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr.

 In his Application, DA Heneks lays out the three Fayette County Election Board referrals as follows: 
Item 12:
Finally there were matters presented to the Election Board of Fayette County for consideration involving allegations regarding violations of the Election Code and/or Criminal Code arising from the November, 2011 General Election in Bullskin Township, chiefly regarding absentee ballots.
Another is an examination of the signatures affixed to the petition of Michael Cavanaugh (sic) to place his name for the Republican nomination for the Pennsylvania State House of Representatives in the 51st District for the 2012 election.
Other matters involving petitions and possible election code violations remain subject of possible exploration by the investigating grand jury should evidence lead in that direction.

 Item 13:
The Fayette County Board of Elections has made referral of said suspicious circumstances pursuant to 25 P.S 2542(i).

 Analysis:

 While the first two Referral descriptions leave no doubt about the targets (even naming Michael Cavanagh, though misspelling his last name), the 3rd Referral, in contrast to the very specific wording of the actual 3rd Referral, is made intentionally vague.  Remember, DA Heneks attended the election board meeting in which these referrals were made, yet he camouflaged the referral against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney with vague language.  (An aside:  This salient point along with the word choice of "camouflaged" originated with NES Editor DAY.  The point, though borrowed here, is hers.)

 There are other serious problems with DA Heneks' wording in the description of the 3rd Referral.  He refers to "possible election code violations" which remain subject to "possible exploration by the investigating grand jury should evidence lead in that direction." Then, he cites the statute pursuant to which the referrals were made.  The problem for DA Heneks here isn't just that he incorrectly cites the statute (i.e., the statute actually is 25 P.S. § 2642(i).  The problem for DA Heneks is that the law requires the referrals to be investigated as it states unequivocally "the county boards of elections. . . shall exercise. . .all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following: (i) To investigate election frauds, irregularities and violations of this act, and to report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney."   [Emphasis added.]
25 P.S. § 2642:The county boards of elections, within their respective counties, shall exercise, in the manner provided by this act, all powers granted to them by this act, and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them by this act, which shall include the following:
(i) To investigate election frauds, irregularities and violations of this act, and to report all suspicious circumstances to the district attorney.

Because the Fayette County Election Board did not exercise its power and perform its imposed duty to investigate (but instead referred the matter to DA Heneks), the law, through the requirement to investigate, takes the 3rd Referral out of the realm of "possible exploration" and firmly places it into the realm of mandatory investigation.  The district attorney's prosecutorial discretion does not supersede the law to which it is subject, and grand jury secrecy laws do not exist so that district attorneys can shield themselves from public scrutiny, lest the citizenry find out that the requirement of mandatory investigation has been turned into non-investigation. 

 Additionally, DA Heneks' "should evidence lead in that direction" language has been entirely refuted. The first evidential lead was provided by Rep. Mahoney himself when he admitted in open public at the May 24 election board meeting (which Heneks attended) that he signed 42 altered "certificates." (Rep. Mahoney actually altered, falsely swore out, and signed 50 Affidavits of Circulator which he had notarized and then filed with the election bureau on August 9, 2011.)  

 (See YouTube Mahoney Admits Alteration and Signing 20120524)

 After filing evidential materials including a computer disk and questions under a miscellaneous docket number (509 MD 2012) at the Fayette County Clerk of Courts, in a visit to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney on November 19, 2012, this writer presented a literal mountain of evidence regarding election irregularities and suspicious circumstances to District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., including the official complaint filed by this writer and NES Editor DAY on August 24, 2012 at the Fayette County Election Bureau.

It is crystal clear that no amount of evidence presented to District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. would cause him to commence an investigation into the allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney.

Such is the putrid injustice of the Heneks-Mahoney Grand Jury Connection.











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

Posted: Monday, November 9, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

The 11-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 arrives Thursday, November 12, 2015.

 Today, in a telephone contact to the Office of Fayette County District Attorney Jack R, Heneks, Jr., seeking comment, Fayette Searchlight has learned (through office staffer Pam) that DA Heneks refuses to comment on the status of the sealed 5th Presentment or to provide any guidance or public accountability by relaying whether he intends to bring an indictment against the individual named in the sealed 5th Presentment.

 Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen sealed the 5th Presentment on December 12, 2014.  As noted on Not Enough Said (NES) in this post, it is unfair that DA Heneks continues to prosecute other unsealed grand jury presentments/indictments while so far turning a blind eye to the sealed 5th Presentment.  For example, George P. Bozek and Cheryl L. Bozek each face a preliminary hearing in front of Magisterial District Justice Defino on November 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., according to their respective docket sheets.

 See: Cheryl L Bozek docket; George P. Bozek docket
As readers of this space and NES are well aware, three, unanimous, May 24, 2012, Fayette County Election Board referrals were referred to District Attorney Heneks' office for investigation/prosecution.  

 See:  Fayette grand jury may probe vote fraud, Tribune-Review, May 24, 2012

 To date, the only election board referral on voter fraud or election fraud that has been investigated and prosecuted is the one referral regarding three former or current Bullskin Township supervisors.  Heneks indicted William H. Geary, Thomas Scott Keefer, and Walter "Deb" Wiltrout on election code violations. Each applied for and received admission into ARD -- a pre-trial diversionary program for first-time offenders with the opportunity to have one's record expunged.  Admission was granted in a hearing before Senior Judge Ralph C. Warman on September 16, 2014.  As far as can be gleaned from the absence of current court dockets, it seems the three successfully completed their ARD stint and have had their records expunged.

 The other May 24 2012 election board referrals dealt with allegations of election fraud.  State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) alleged that Michael J. Cavanagh, the lone affiant/signator to his petitions' Affidavits of Circulator for his candidacy for state representative (against Mahoney) in the Spring of 2012, filed petitions which contained alleged forgeries.  Signed affidavits from 27 individuals who attest they did not sign the Cavanagh petitions were presented to the election board which unanimously referred the matter to DA Heneks for investigation/prosecution.  

 Concomitantly, Michael J. Cavanagh alleged that State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney committed election fraud when he altered and signed (as the lone affiant/signator) 50 Affidavits of Circulator which pertained to his August 9, 2011, filing of 42 Referendum Petitions and 50 altered (oath Whited-Out and oath-changed) Affidavits of Circulator -- 8 of which date-and-time-stamped affidavits never ended up being attached to any referendum petitions whatsoever.   

 As discussed in this space previously, investigating grand jury presentments issue against individuals. Thus, if the sealed 5th Presentment pertains to either one of the remaining election board referrals, it cannot apply to both.  It is a travesty that, to date, only one of the election-related referrals has been investigated/prosecuted.  It would be an even more blatant travesty for two out of three election referrals to be investigated/prosecuted, while the other was ignored.  If it does not already, this would not amount merely to selective prosecution; it would amount to criminality in the form of obstruction of justice.  

 As one of the witnesses with ironclad evidence that overlaps the Cavanagh allegations against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), this writer can attest that he has never been asked by Fayette County District Attorney Heneks to come in and to be interviewed. The grand jury, while still listed as active on its docket sheet because of the remaining prosecutions and the sealed 5th Presentment, released its jurors on December 11, 2014.  No serious investigation of Mahoney by Heneks ever took place.  As far as the public knows, District Attorney Jack Raydan Heneks, Jr. failed to bring any information about State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's alleged election fraud before Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 Local mainstream media are well aware of the alleged, uninvestigated election fraud.  They remain utterly silent.  Failing to perform their Fourth Estate duty to be watchdogs and bulwarks against governmental corruption, the media silence marks their lapdog status as mere stenographers for the blatantly corrupt powers that be.  The media silence is their complicity.

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower open the sealed 5th Presentment, if DA Heneks does not?

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower investigate/prosecute the two other unanimous Fayette County Election Board referrals of May 24, 2012, if DA Heneks does not?

 Will DA-Elect Richard Bower investigate current DA Jack Raydan Heneks Jr. and his mishandling of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2?  

Fayette County Election Complaints Filed November 03, 2015

Posted: Thursday, November 5, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

As mentioned in the previous post, two, formal, election complaints were filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau.

The request to inspect and or copy the formal election complaints was honored today because filed complaints are public records which are open to inspection as per the Pennsylvania Election Code (i.e., the law).

The following hyperlink links to a PDF file of the two complaints each of which were filed on November 03, 2015.

Please see:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_q6Npj2fC7abVp3WnVHeE5lbW8/view?usp=sharing

Two Formal Election Complaints Filed With Fayette County Election Bureau

Posted: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , , ,
0

Confirmed today by Fayette County Election Bureau Director Larry Blosser, two, formal, election complaints have been filed with the Fayette County Election Board/Bureau.

 Copies of the formal complaints have been sent to Fayette County Election Board/Bureau Solicitor Sheryl Heid for review.

 Today, Fayette Searchlight attempted to retrieve copies of the formal, election complaints from the election bureau but was stymied in its attempt to review or photocopy the formal, election complaints.

 When asked whether those filed complaints are public records, Blosser said that he is waiting on a determination by Solicitor Sheryl Heid.

 When hinting about a visit to Heid's legal office to ascertain her answer as to whether filed election complaints are public records, a Fayette County Election Bureau staff member relayed that Solicitor Sheryl Heid was not in her office today.

Fayette Searchlight contacted the nearby Westmoreland County Election Bureau and was informed that complaints filed with local election boards/bureaus are indeed public records in Pennsylvania.

Update:
25 P.S. Section 1207(a)(4) provides that petitions (in this case, complaints) and appeals to the local commission (i.e., election board/bureau) are open to public inspection.