Showing posts with label alleged election fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alleged election fraud. 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. 





Official Election Complaint

Posted: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , , ,
0

Here is a link to the Official Complaint (corrected copy) filed with the Fayette County Election Bureau/Board on Monday, September 10, 2018.  The complaint is replete with Pennsylvania Election Code citations and corroborating evidence.  However, for more than one month, the complaint has been neglected by the Fayette County Election Board -- now comprised of the three Fayette County Commissioners (Angela M. Zimmerlink, Chair, Vincent A. Vicites, Dave Lohr) -- which has a mandatory duty to investigate the complaint under 25 P.S. § 2642(i).

 The law is unequivocal:  

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.
The election board remains in dereliction of its duty under law to investigate the complaint and will remain so until it performs its duty as prescribed by law.


Audio Update:

 By scrolling to the 23:36 mark, You can listen to this writer's call made to WMBS 590AM "Hot Topics" hosts Phil Michael and Kendall Sisler explaining the topic of the Fayette County Election Board's non-investigation of the official election complaint filed Monday, September 10, 2018.
https://soundcloud.com/user-94071533/hot-topics-hour-2-10-16-2018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=email

Update 1:  Republican complaint filed by PA state Republican Committee Chairman Val DiGiorgio on August 8, 2018 and heard September 10, 2018.  Allegations referred to the Office of Fayette County District Attorney by the Fayette County Voter Registration Commission (Angela M. Zimmerlink, Chair, Attorney Herbert G, Mitchell, Jr., Attorney Mark Rowan).

 Update 2:  Democrat complaint filed by Fayette County Democrat Chairman George Rattay on August 16, 2018 and heard on September 10, 2018.  The attorney for the Democrat Committee and Chairman George Rattay failed to provide any statutory citation -- either under the Voter Registration Act or the Pennsylvania Election Code -- under which the Voter Registration Commission/Election Board would have jurisdiction to investigate the allegations made in the complaint.  The Voter Registration Commission (Angela M. Zimmerlink, Chair; Attorney Herbert G, Mitchell, Jr.; Attorney Mark Rowan) dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction.

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.




















Sealed Fifth Presentment Reaches 44 Months

Posted: Sunday, August 12, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0


Today, 08/12/2018, marks the 44-month anniversary of the Order by Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen to accept and to seal the Fifth Presentment issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

See the Leskinen Order here:  Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Docket (top of Page 7) .

Since 12/12/2014, for 44 months, or for three years, eight months, or for an unheard of 1,340 days, the Fifth Presentment has remained sealed, and curiously, astute readers will note, the Unified Judicial System database lists the grand jury docket as active, not closed, although jurors were dismissed 44 months ago!  

Investigating grand jury presentments are normally not sealed.  A sealed presentment usually means the target’s whereabouts is not known or a subject has yet to be apprehended. Moreover, the investigating grand jury statute contains language that logically contemplates the eventual unsealing of a sealed presentment.

See:
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4551:   Title 42 § 4551(b)   Sealed presentment.--The supervising judge to whom a presentment is submitted may, on his own motion or at the request of the Commonwealth, direct that the presentment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. In directing that the presentment be kept secret, the supervising judge shall enter an order requiring that the presentment be sealed and that no person shall disclose a return of the presentment except when necessary for issuance and execution of process.  [Emphasis added.]

The reason why the length of time we are dealing with on the Fifth Presentment is so unusual is because, in law, there exist time limitations by which time criminal charges must be brought, or the person alleged to have committed a crime cannot be charged.

For example, during the May 24, 2012, meeting of the Fayette County Election Board, Michael J. Cavanagh and then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney traded allegations of election fraud.

See:  Allegations of election impropriety leveled by Mahoney and Cavanagh, Herald-Standard May 25, 2012

https://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/allegations-of-election-impropriety-leveled-by-mahoney-and-cavanagh/article_6f8b5ca4-e6c6-551d-a591-75e6dba84d95.html

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

https://triblive.com/news/fayette/1858638-74/allegations-mahoney-heneks-bullskin-cavanagh-signatures-board-election-forged-grand

This space has covered extensively (including in the last installment) the allegations and the evidence against Mahoney.  We now turn to the allegations and evidence presented by Mahoney against Michael J. Cavanagh.
 
At the May 24, 2012, meeting of the Fayette County Election Board, Mahoney leveled charges of forgery against Cavanagh pertaining to signatures on Cavanagh’s nominating petitions from Primary 2012 where Cavanagh made an unsuccessful bid against Mahoney for state representative.  Mahoney had hired a private detective to investigate the signatures and presented signed, sworn affidavits from 27 individuals who attested they did not sign Cavanagh’s nominating petitions.
 
See:  Mahoney Findings and Allegations
 
As Cavanagh filed the petitions with the state on February 16, 2012, and since the time limitation on forgery in Pennsylvania is five years from the date of the alleged crime, a prosecution would have had to commence by February 16, 2017, or Cavanagh could not be prosecuted on the charges.  Obviously, it is 2018, and Michael J. Cavanagh was never prosecuted on the Mahoney allegations of election fraud.

Did the Fayette County Election Board referral against Cavanagh result in an investigation?  Did then-Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. pursue the matter with the investigating grand jury?  Did the grand jury issue a presentment against Michael J. Cavanagh, and if so, did Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen issue an order to seal it?  In other words, was Michael J. Cavanagh the subject of the sealed Fifth Presentment?  

If Cavanagh was the subject of the sealed Fifth Presentment, why was the presentment never unsealed and the case prosecuted?  Was it to cover up the non-investigation of the Third Referral against Mahoney?  Even if Cavanagh was not the subject, again, why has the Fifth Presentment remained sealed for 44 months?

As Fayette Countians paid for that county investigating grand jury, the citizens of this county deserve answers from current Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower on why he has not asked Judge Steve P. Leskinen to unseal the Fifth Presentment and why no formal charges ever resulted from it.  More directly, Judge Steve P. Leskinen must be held to account for the lengthy sealing of the Fifth Presentment.

In light of the fact that suspicious circumstances surrounding outright election law violations have arisen once again in Fayette County in the case of Fairgate, it is high time and long overdue for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General to investigate why the sealed Fifth Presentment has remained sealed for so long and whether grand jury secrecy has been used to cover up the non-investigation/non-prosecution of alleged election frauds in Fayette County.

 Update:
A copy of the link to this article has been sent by fax to First Deputy Attorney General Michelle A. Henry.

 Update 2:  If you would like to exercise (respectfully) your First Amendment right to petition your government for a redress of grievances and have it perform its duties to investigate alleged election frauds, perjuries, and public corruption in Fayette County, you possess the right and the power to let the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General know that you expect it to perform its duties under the law and the constitution and in accordance with the office's own Code of Conduct and with the Oath of Office sworn by its officers.

 Phone:  717-787-3391
Fax:       717-783-1107

 Update 3:  Anyone with an e-mail account can send a three-page fax for free at FaxZero.com, https://faxzero.com/.

Mahoney Plunders Taxpayers in Violation of State Constitution

Posted: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0

As sure as the sun rises in the east, one can count on grants of taxpayer funds being passed out just prior to an election and credit being claimed by politicians as if the monies were free or came from their own pockets.

To wit:

Mahoney announces $1.5 million for Boeing expansion


The corporate welfare handout announced by State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) gives public funds to a private company.  It is nothing less than the plundering of taxpayers, and it is wholly unconstitutional.

See:


Article VIII
TAXATION AND FINANCE Uniformity of Taxation
Section 1. All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.

Commonwealth Credit Not to Be Pledged Section 8. The credit of the Commonwealth shall not be pledged or loaned to any individual, company, corporation or association nor shall the Commonwealth become a joint owner or stockholder in any company, corporation or association.



The Oath of Office taken by state representatives before taking office requires a sworn oath of obedience to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Art. VI, § 3. Oath of office. Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity." The oath or affirmation shall be administered to a member of the Senate or to a member of the House of Representatives in the hall of the House to which he shall have been elected. Any person refusing to take the oath or affirmation shall forfeit his office. (May 17, 1966, 1965 P.L.1928, J.R.10)


Evidently, to Rep. Tim Mahoney, that Oath of Office means about as much as the oath on his altered and falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator.

 Update:
The Friends of Tim Mahoney Cycle 4 Campaign Finance Report shows Boeing's campaign contribution of $500.00 on the top of Page 10.  That's one hell of an unconstitutional return on investment!

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. 

The Prosecution of Walter "Deb" Wiltrout, the Non-Investigation of the 3rd Referral, and the Absence of a 9th Presentment

Posted: Sunday, November 29, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , ,
0


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.] 

 In stark contrast to the Fayette County Election Board's 1st Referral of May 24, 2012, resulting in the District Attorney causing an investigation to commence and resulting in the Fayette County Grand Jury's 3rd Presentment against Walter "Deb" Wiltrout (and two other presentments), why did the Fayette County Election Board's 3rd Referral not likewise result in "the District Attorney caus[ing] an investigation to commence" in order that the alleged election fraud of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51) be investigated?  In other words, where is the investigation by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 into the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney?

 The 3rd Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 against Bullskin Township Supervisor Walter "Deb" Wiltrout laid out alleged election law violations.  In Paragraphs 13 - 15, 18, the 3rd Presentment states:
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. 


 The grand jury itself classified the charges against Wiltrout as de minimus (minimal) in Paragraph 15, yet the presentment against Wiltrout makes clear that -- because of his position "as an elected supervisor," and as he had been a "past candidate for office" -- Wiltrout "was aware or should have been aware that such assistance was done in violation of the Election Code."

 It is clear that Wiltrout -- because he held elective office and was a past candidate for office -- was held to a high standard by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 and Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks for de minimus (minimal) violations.  As laid out by Paragraph 13 above, Wiltrout failed to file the required declaration of assistance in order to be able to render assistance to electors filling out absentee ballots.  As the Wiltrout Criminal Docket (Page 2) makes clear, Wiltrout was charged in strict accordance with the recommendations of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.  He was charged under 25 P.S. § 3530 with two counts of unlawful assistance in voting, and he was charged under 25 P.S. § 3554(b) with two counts of violation of provisions relating to absentee voting.  Wiltrout was charged, although the 3rd Presentment lays out in Paragraphs 11 and 12 the following:
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.

12.  That there is no testimony that the electors were influenced by Mr. Wiltrout in their voting selections nor that Mr. Wiltrout attempted to influence them.  

 Let's compare the investigation/prosecution of Walter "Deb" Wiltrout with the non-investigation of State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51).  In comparison, is not State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), who is alleged to have committed election fraud, also a holder of elective office? Hasn't Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, been a past candidate for office (numerous times)?  Was Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, aware or should not he have been aware that to alter the oath on 50 Affidavits of Circulator, to falsely swear out the altered 50 Affidavits of Circulator before a notary public, to have notarized said 50 Affidavits of Circulator, and to file said 50 Affidavits of Circulator (election documents) in the manner in which they were filed are violations of the Election Code? Should not the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney, who is alleged to have committed election fraud, have been as vigorously investigated/prosecuted as the 1st Referral and the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout?  Should not Rep. Mahoney, who is a Pennsylvania state representative who is alleged to have committed election fraud, have been held by DA Heneks and Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 to the same standard to which they held Walter "Deb" Wiltrout, a township supervisor?

 Gentle readers, in a world of equal justice under law, the answers to the questions above should all be 'yes.'

 However, the sad result of the non-recusal and the non-investigation of the 3rd Referral by DA Jack Heneks is not equal justice under law; it is the prosecution of the de minimus (minimal) criminal violations of some (Wiltrout) and the massive cover-up of the weighty, alleged, criminal violations of others (Mahoney).

 While the 1st Referral of the Fayette County Election Board led to the 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout [and the 1st Presentment and 2nd Presentment against two others (Geary and Keefer)], the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board led neither to a serious investigation into the allegations and the evidence against State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney (D-51), nor to a 9th Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 against him.

 In fact, from the outset, DA Heneks camouflaged the 3rd Referral against Rep. Mahoney in his Application to impanel an investigating grand jury.  DA Heneks, though he had blatant conflicts of interest, did not recuse himself.  DA Heneks -- though forwarded the 3rd Referral by unanimous vote of the Fayette County Election Board, and though having a mountain of ironclad evidence delivered to his office under a miscellaneous docket number (509 MD 2012) -- investigated and prosecuted Walter "Deb" Wiltrout for lesser criminal violations of the Pennsylvania Election Code than those violations which Rep. Mahoney is alleged to have committed.

The jurors of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 could not have been introduced to the evidence against Rep. Mahoney by DA Heneks, for if the grand jury recommended charges in a 3rd Presentment against Wiltrout for violations it termed de minimus (minimal), it certainly would have issued a 9th Presentment against Rep. Mahoney for weightier, alleged, criminal violations of the election laws in regard to which there exists a literal mountain of evidence.

 That the 3rd Referral led to camouflage, non-investigation, and cover-up, instead of a serious investigation into the evidence (and a 9th Presentment from Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2), is a putrid injustice orchestrated by Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr.

One of America's ideals is the ideal of equal justice under law.  Fayette County District Attorney Jack Heneks' non-recusal and non-investigation of the 3rd Referral, coupled with his continued ignoring of the sealed 5th Presentment (while continuing to prosecute others targeted by unsealed presentments) epitomizes unequal justice under law.  More accurately, it epitomizes putrid injustice under the color of law.

 It is a putrid injustice that must be rectified.





While 3rd Referral and Official Complaint Go Uninvestigated, Zimmerlink to Review Non-Formal, Election-Related Reports

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

On Tuesday, 11/17/2015, at the Fayette County Commissioners meeting, Fayette County Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink made clear that she would look into reports which concern the propriety/legality of a candidate for office holding an election party in the same building which houses an Election Day polling location.

 The reports stem from an Election Day party held by a recent candidate for county commissioner, namely a party held by current Fayette County Commission Chairman Al Ambrosini at the Joseph A. Hardy/Connellsville Airport.

 Today, in a call placed to the Fayette County Election Bureau, Fayette Searchlight learned that no formal, official complaint was filed regarding the matter.

 Thus, Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink has vowed to look into informal reports while all indications are that the 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board (a motion made by Zimmerlink herself) has gone uninvestigated by Fayette County District Attorney Jack R. Heneks, Jr. and Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 At the 09/28/2012 meeting of the Fayette County Election Board, after a lengthy presentation of our formal complaint (and before Commissioner Zapotosky left to make an appointment and, thus, a quorum being lost) Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink failed to make a motion (See this video at 4:30 onward.) to refer the formal complaint regarding election irregularities and suspicious circumstances -- filed by the writer of this blog and NES Editor DAY -- to either the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney or (more appropriately) to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

 Subsequently, on November 19, 2012, the same day materials were filed with the Fayette County Clerk of Courts and with the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney, a computer disk containing files highlighting election irregularities and suspicious circumstances was delivered to the Office of the Fayette County Commissioners.

 In later e-mails to the board of commissioners, this writer and NES Editor DAY requested that each commissioner separately refer our formal complaint and information about election irregularities and suspicious circumstances to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and to provide proof via a registered return signature that each had done so.

 The generous time period provided to perform that request passed with no commissioner (including Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink) providing any evidence that the election irregularities and suspicious circumstances had been forwarded to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for investigation.

 Thus, while the 3rd Referral and an official complaint go uninvestigated, Commissioner Zimmerlink is on the record that she intends to look into non-official, informal reports.

 For a seasoned commissioner who should be a guardian of the propriety of elections in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, it's not a record to be proud of.








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.