Fayette Searchlight

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. 

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.