Fayette Searchlight

As I look around this summer and see other elected officials in the local newspapers stating their concern over the opioid abuse and heroin use crisis that’s crippling our area, state and nation, I’m left to wonder: where were they in April and May of 2015?

More than a year before anyone else went public in a big way, I was holding a House Democratic Policy Committee hearing with my fellow state legislators and a Town Hall meeting, trying to get everyone’s attention about this growing epidemic.

Today, August 12, 2016, marks the 20-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 seven 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 a previous post in this space we pondered the possible reasons for the dormancy of the 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 20-month sealing of the 5th Presentment raises serious questions.  While a 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 20 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 20 months and when it will be unsealed.

After 20 months, it's time for Fayette County Grand Jury Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen and Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower to be held 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.

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.

Newly elected Republican Commissioner Dave Lohr's vote for Democrat Vincent A. Vicites to chair the Fayette County Commission that has a Republican majority has drawn a swift response from Fayette County Republican Party Chairman Dave Show. 

Today, Show, who is also the leader of the Fayette Patriots, expressed his dismay over Lohr's support for the minority Democrat to chair the board in a post on the Fayette Tea Party Patriots FaceBook page.

See:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1089294487776442&set=a.114787158560518.7327.100000877026852&type=3&theater.

*Republican Angela Zimmerlink reelected.
*Democrat Al Ambrosini gone
*Republican candidates running for first time in decades
*2 elected Republican registered County Commissioners
*Democrats being challenged and put on the record.
*Opposition spending boat loads of money to stay in office
*Tums sales way up election night.
Well Fayette County guess what, the sun came up today and has given us a new chance to do the right thing. God has given us a new chance to repair a wonderful county with newly elected people. He has given us a chance to correct the mistakes of the past if we are willing to lead and to do his will. We wake today to see our county with a majority of Republican Commissioners in office. Regardless of how we got there it's now our chance to lead the county as Republicans with Republican values. The voters of Fayette have spoken. They have said with their ballots yet again that they trust the judgment and leadership of Republican Angela Zimmerlink by making her the top Republican vote getter. They also have decided Republican Dave Lohr should get the chance to lead. It's been a long, hard, even nasty road to this point but now is the time for all to lead. This is the chance Fayette has been given and we all have a responsibility to boldly walk through this open door, put the county first, move to the right, and fix this County. This will be the time to show our character or our lack of character. I for one am willing to see us do the right thing, rise above all those thing that have always held us back and see 2 Republicans lead with conservative values working in cooperation with their Democrat counter part to be fiscally responsible, ethically and morally just, and honest. Now we will see these 3 leaders true colors. We will see if they can truly raise to challenge. It's a new day and I truly wish them all the best. night.....priceless

For those who felt I/we were being too hard on now new commissioner Dave Lohr for not supporting him because he was a RINO(Republican in name only) does todays action show you why so many said they would not support Dave Lohr. Can you imagine 2 Democrats voting to make a Republican Chair of the county. Lohr proved today he is no Conservative and proves we were correct about who and what he is. Hold on tight Fayette County it's going to be a long term. 

Ending weeks of political speculation as to who would be voted chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Fayette County, Republican Commissioner Dave Lohr nominated Democrat Vincent A. Vicites chairman, with Vicites providing the second.

The vote was 2-1.

In turn, Vicites, nominated Lohr as vice-chairman.  Lohr seconded the motion for another 2-1 vote.

Republican Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink, who abstained, was voted in as secretary on a 2-0 vote.

See WMBS 590 AM SoundCloud:  https://soundcloud.com/user-94071533/commissioners-1-4-16.

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.

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.