Fayette Searchlight

Today, July 12, 2016, marks the 19-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2. -- an Order issued by Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen on December 12, 2014.

To view the docket sheet entry of the Order Presenting SEALED Grand Jury Fifth Presentment, see the top of Page 7 of 8 of the Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Docket Sheet.

For approximately thirteen months of the former administration of then-District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., and now for more than six months of the current administration of Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower, the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 has remained sealed.

In the previous post in this space we pondered the possible reasons for the dormancy of the 5th Presentment and we showed that the prosecutions of at least two of the presentments issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 are yet proceeding through the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General taking over the prosecutions at the request of District Attorney Richard Bower.

While there is much more to say on those prosecutions, gentle readers, let us pause to reflect upon the meaning of the sealed 5th Presentment.  Other presentments from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 have been prosecuted and penalties have been meted out.  Juxtaposing the prosecutions of other presentments and the 19-month sealing of the 5th Presentment raises serious questions.  While the previous post in this space covered some of those questions, it bears reiteration that the most serious question is the one which regards equal justice under law.

When the Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 issued a presentment, by law, it had to also be approved by Presiding Judge Steve Leskinen.  Thus, presentments are not issued haphazardly.  For a presentment to issue against an individual, evidence must exist that points to a crime.  Moreover, as the district attorney leads the grand jury in its investigation and in the issuance of presentments, the district attorney usually follows the recommendations of a grand jury.  In fact, the case where a district attorney refuses to follow the recommendations of a grand jury is virtually unheard of.  Why would a district attorney urge a presentment to be issued only never to bring an indictment?

This leads us to the heart of the matter:  It is inherently unequal justice under law to prosecute individuals under other presentments while the individual named in the sealed (for 19 months!) 5th Presentment remains unnamed, unindicted, and unprosecuted.

Grand jury secrecy laws are in place to elicit testimony and to shield witnesses from threats; grand jury secrecy laws are not in place to shield district attorneys and judges from public scrutiny and accountability.

It's high time the public received some answers on why the 5th Presentment has remained sealed for 19 months and when it will be unsealed.

After 19 months, it's time for Fayette County Grand Jury Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen and Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower to be accountable to the public which paid for the grand jury and which has every right to know what is being done/what will be done with the sealed 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

• After the passage of so much time, why has the Fifth Presentment remained sealed?
• Is the subject of the Fifth Presentment on the loose and a danger to the community?
• What are the charges contained in the Fifth Presentment?
• Who is named in the Fifth Presentment?
• Do not Fayette County taxpayers (who paid for the grand jury) have a right to know the contents of the Fifth Presentment?
• Are some presentments being prosecuted, while another/others that should be prosecuted is/are being ignored?
• If the whereabouts of the individual named in the Fifth Presentment is known, and if the individual has not died, where is the unsealing of the Fifth Presentment, the indictment, the arrest, and the prosecution of this individual?
• Of the three, unanimous, May 24, 2012, Fayette County Election Board referrals sent to the Fayette County Office of District Attorney for investigation (each of which was included in the Heneks Application for the impanelment of a grand jury), only the First Referral (Item 12, Paragraph 1) resulted in three presentments/prosecutions.  Were the Second Referral (Item 12, Paragraph 2, which pertained to allegations of election fraud and forgery) and the Third Referral (Item 12, Paragraph 3, which pertained to allegations of election fraud, conspiracy, and perjury) investigated by the grand jury?  
• Does the sealed Fifth Presentment pertain to either the Second Referral or the Third Referral of the Fayette County Election Board?  If so, why didn't another presentment issue from the grand jury which dealt with the remaining, non-investigated Referral, and why hasn't the Fifth Presentment been unsealed?

Yesterday, the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney confirmed that the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General was asked to come in and to prosecute the cases against George P. Bozek and Cheryl Lynn Bozek.

According to the district attorney's office, District Attorney Richard E. Bower requested the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General take the cases to avoid a possible conflict of interest.

According to a report by the Tribune-Review, Bower (while in private practice) served Franklin Township as a special counsel and was paid $20,520 of the $34,500 the grand jury alleged Cheryl Bozek cost the township.

See:  Fayette County grand jury recommends 2 be charged with obstructing justice, Tribune-Review, Dec. 12. 2014.

Yesterday's confirmation by the district attorney's office reflects the changes made on the docket sheets.  On 04/28/2016, the docket sheets for both George P. Bozek and Cheryl Lynn Bozek show the Entry of Appearance for Attorney Simquita Renetta Bridges and for Senior Deputy Attorney General L. Todd Goodwin. 

See:

George P. Bozek Docket Sheet 

Cheryl Lynn Bozek Docket Sheet   

The cases -- which stem from presentments made by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 and indictments issued by former Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. -- have been consolidated and are currently scheduled for trial on 06/06/2016.

The docket sheet for Cheryl Lynn Bozek has seen recent updates.

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

The updates show that the attorney of record for Ms. Bozek, Daniel David Taylor, filed a Request for Bill of Particulars and a Request for Discovery on 12/21/2015.

Moreover, on 12/23/2015, the Court of Common Pleas -- Fayette County filed a Pre-Trial Notice dated May 31, 2016.

Thus, the prosecution derived from a Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 presentment will extend into 2016.

UPDATE:

The docket sheet for George P. Bozek reflects the identical notation of a 12/23/2015 Court of Common Pleas  -- Fayette County filing of a Pre-trial Notice dated May 16, 2016.


See the George P. Bozek docket sheet here:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-CR-0002011-2015.

Thus, this prosecution, also derived from a Fayette County Grand Jury No.2 presentment, will extend into 2016.

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 dealt with the claim by State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) that he was the impetus behind the impanelment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 (See YouTube: Mahoney Pushed For Grand Jury 20121030) and how the personal and political relationship between Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. and State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) resulted in non-investigation of allegations of election fraud against Rep. Mahoney contained in the 3rd Referral sent by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney for investigation on May 24, 2012.


Putrid Injustice

On October 16, 2013, Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 issued a 3rd Presentment against Bullskin Township Supervisor Walter "Deb" Wiltrout for election law violations.  According to Paragraph 1 of the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout, by way of reference, the first 21 Paragraphs of the 1st Presentment (along with other paragraphs) were incorporated into the 3rd Presentment.  From the 1st Presentment, Paragraph 5, District Attorney Heneks incorporated the following into the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout:

5. As a result of the referral, the District Attorney caused an investigation to commence and to advance same along with other matters this investigating grand jury was convened to hear.  [Emphasis added.] 

13.  No declaration of assistance required under 25 P.S. 3146.6(a) was filed by Mr. Wiltrout nor is there any filing of need for such assistance filed by either elector with the Elections (sic) Bureau.

14.  It is clear that a violation of 25 P.S. 3530 and 25 P.S. 3554(b) occurred as a result of assisting the voters, helping them mark the ballots and not filing the requisite declaration of assistance.

15.  The grand jury recognizes that this could be considered a de minimus violation, nevertheless the grand jury believes that Mr. Wiltrout as an elected supervisor and past candidate for office was aware or should have been aware that such assistance was done in violation of the Election Code.

18.  The grand jury recommends that the district attorney consider filing charges of one count of violating 25 P.S. 3530 and one count of P.S. 3554(b) for each elector, James B. Queer and Sandy Lee Queer. 

11.  That the testimony of the electors and Mr. Wiltrout at the grand jury proceedings indicated that Mr. Wiltrout's assistance was done out of friendship and aiding the voters in the electoral process.

In the continuing prosecutions of two unsealed presentments issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2, as a result of today's Preliminary Hearings, the formal arraignments of Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek have been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on 12/17/2015 in Courtroom 5.

Three of five charges against Cheryl Lynn Bozek were dismissed, and two of five charges (including Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function and Conspiracy - Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function) have been held for court.

One of two charges against George P. Bozek was dismissed, and one charge (Conspiracy- Obstruction of Administration of Law/Other Government Function) has been held for court.

Both cases saw the weightiest charge of Unlawful Use of a Computer - Access/Interference/Damage/Destruction, a third degree felony, dismissed.

See the Cheryl Lynn Bozek Docket Sheet:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-14304-CR-0000142-2015

See the George P. Bozek Docket Sheet:
https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-14304-CR-0000141-2015

Today, November 12, 2015, the time span of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 reaches 11 months.

On Page 7 of the grand jury docket sheet, we see the last two entries made on 06/25/2015, nearly six months ago!

The entries pertained to two Orders by Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen -- which Orders granted Motions made by the attorneys for George P. Bozek and Cheryl Lynn Bozek for the "Transcript of any Testimony before Grand Jury that is Exculpatory."

As noted in the previous column, the Bozeks each have a preliminary hearing before MDJ Defino on 11/23/2015.  For the Bozeks, the judicial process continues.

This brings us to the 5th Presentment, and its continuing sealed status.

Here are some pertinent questions:

Why does the 5th Presentment remain sealed after all this time?  After a two-year tenure of the grand jury, one would think that the subject of the 5th Presentment would have been able to have been indicted, arrested, and arraigned in an additional 11 months time.

Speaking of time, if it will take nearly six months time (for the Presentments against the Bozeks to reach the Preliminary Hearing stage, is it realistic to think that in the time remaining in DA Heneks' tenure that he will unseal the 5th Presentment and see the matter through to its final outcome before he leaves office in January 2016, especially with the office's routine duties, and with the intervening holidays?

All indications, thus far, are that Heneks will continue down the road of prosecuting unsealed Presentments, while he ignores and refuses to comment upon the sealed 5th Presentment.

Fayette County citizens who paid for Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2. deserve answers.

Perhaps they will get them from DA-Elect Richard Bower when he takes office in 2016.  

Perhaps it will be DA-Elect Richard Bower who will take his duties seriously and who will unseal the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

Perhaps the new year will bring the impanelment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 3 with additional Presentments.

Today, Monday, October 12, 2015, marks the ten-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

Today, Saturday, September 12, 2015, marks the nine-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

Incontrovertibly, Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2, after sifting through evidence and hearing testimony, issued a 5th Presentment against an individual.  After the two-year tenure of the investigating grand jury and after an additional nine months time, the citizens of Fayette County still do not know against whom the presentment was made and what the charges are.  

At a nine-month remove from the December 12, 2014, sealing of the 5th Presentment, with two election fraud referrals from the May 24, 2012, Fayette County Election Board meeting, one must wonder whether outgoing Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. will indict the subject of the 5th Presentment or whether he will leave office without issuing an indictment.  Will Heneks allow the job to fall to the next district attorney?

Being that no indictments have issued from the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney in the two other unanimous election board referrals on election fraud in Fayette County, and being that only one presentment remains sealed, the foul stench one smells emanating from the direction of the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney is that no serious investigation into at least one of the election fraud referrals ever took place.

Being that the citizens of Fayette County paid for the investigating grand jury, it is incumbent upon District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. to issue an indictment against the individual named in the 5th Presentment.  Heneks must move to unseal the presentment before he leaves office.  Moreover, if the presentment involves another one of the three election-related referrals made to his office by unanimous vote of the election board, Mr. Heneks will have much explaining to do. 

Today, August 12, 2015, marks the eight-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

At this eight-month remove from its sealing, Fayette Countians yet await the unsealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

For more detailed information about the sealing see the previous post.    

Yesterday, July 12, 2015, marked the seven-month anniversary of the sealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

The Fayette County Investigating Grand Jury was seated December 11, 2012, and it was impaneled to deal primarily with overhead copper cable thefts and three election-related (alleged voter fraud and alleged election fraud) referrals from the Fayette County Election Board.  The referrals were sent by unanimous vote of the election board to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney for investigation on May 24, 2012.

In fact, Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr., attended the May 24, 2012, election board meeting in which the three election-related referrals were by unanimous vote sent to his office.

Questions to ponder:

1.  After two years of investigation (i.e., an 18-month tenure of the grand jury with a six-month extension), why has there been a seven-month delay in bringing the subject of the 5th Presentment into custody (i.e., the investigating grand jury statute permits sealed presentments until the individual is taken into custody)?

2.  Three election-related referrals were sent to the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney by the unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board (then-Chairman Al Ambrosini, Commissioner Vincent Zapotosky, and Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink).  One of the referrals dealt with absentee ballots in Bullskin Township, which led to three presentments (and indictments) against two current township supervisors and one former township supervisor from Bullskin Township.  From the perspective of the Fayette County Election Board, that means two other election-related referrals were to be addressed by the Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 -- State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's allegations against Michael Cavanagh, and Michael Cavanagh's allegations against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51).  

However, presentments issue only against an individual; therefore, even if the 5th Presentment pertains to another one of the election board referrals, it cannot pertain to both.  Does the 5th Presentment pertain to another one of the election-related referrals of the Fayette County Election Board made by unanimous vote on May 24, 2012?

3.  What are the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) -- who comprised the election board on May 24, 2012, and who decided not to hold any hearings, as is their duty under statute -- doing to follow up on the election-related referrals?  What are they doing to ensure Fayette Countians that the allegations were actually investigated?

4.  If the 5th Presentment pertains to another one of the election-related referrals of May 24, two of the three election-related referrals will have resulted in presentments (and one would expect -- charges).  Will the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) then adopt a Meatloaf posture (i.e., "Two Outta Three Ain't Bad") or as a matter of justice, will they ask the current election board to institute a hearing and to send its findings to the newly seated district attorney in 2016?

5.  If the 5th Presentment pertains to neither one of the outstanding election-related referrals of May 24, 2012, it will mean that only one of the three election-related referrals will have resulted in presentments. Will the members of the current board of commissioners (Ambrosini, Zapotosky, and Zimmerlink) then adopt a semi-Meatloaf posture (i.e., "One Outta Three Ain't Bad") or as a matter of justice, will they ask the current election board to institute hearings and to send the findings to the newly seated district attorney in 2016?

At this seven-month remove from its sealing, Fayette Countians yet await the unsealing of the 5th Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.    

Yesterday, Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen filed two separate orders granting the motions for disclosure of any exculpatory grand jury testimony.

The orders are titled identically as Order Granting Motion for Transcript of any Testimony before Grand Jury that is Exculpatory.

The motions were made through Defendant's Applications filed on 06/22/2015 by attorneys for Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek. 

See the Fayette County Investigating Grand Jury Docket Sheet here:  https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-26-MD-0000475-2012.  The docket sheet lists The CP Filed Date for the orders as 06/25/2015.

The investigating grand jury recommended Cheryl Bozek, a former Franklin Township treasurer, be charged with theft and obstruction of justice and that her husband, George Bozek, a former Franklin Township supervisor, be charged with conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice.