Fayette Searchlight

Today, September 12, 2016, marks the 21-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 eight 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 21-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 21 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 21 months and when it will be unsealed.

After 21 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, 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.

Yesterday, Fayette County President Judge John F. Wagner, Jr., dismissed the criminal cases against Cheryl Lynn Bozek and George P. Bozek.

See:

Cheryl Bozek Docket Sheet 20160714

George Bozek Docket Sheet 20160716

The court assessed a monetary penalty of $284.25 ($234.25 for Costs and Fees and $50.00 for Restitution) against Cheryl Lynn Bozek.  Included in the breakdown of the Costs/Fees were assessments for a "Clerk Fee - Misd./Felony (Fayette) $137.00" and for "District Attorney - Misdemeanor (Fayette) $15.00."

The assessments against Cheryl Bozek were paid in full. 

For details about the background of the cases see:  Fayette County grand jury recommends 2 be charged with obstructing justice, TribLIVE.com, Dec. 12, 2014.

The cases saw the dropping of felony charges at the lower court level, the recusal of District Attorney Richard E. Bower, and the entry (at Bower's request) of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General as prosecutor in the form of AG L. Todd Goodwin and AG Simquita Renetta Bridges.

The cases emanated from two presentments issued by Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 -- the investigating grand jury which sat for two years in Fayette County and which was impaneled primarily to investigate voter fraud and election fraud allegations that stemmed from three Fayette County Election Board referrals.

The sole remaining issues stemming from the grand jury include the sealed 5th Presentment (which has been sealed for 19 months, and which has been extensively covered in this space) and the uninvestigated 3rd Referral of the Fayette County Election Board (allegations of election fraud against State Rep. Tim Mahoney).

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.

Grogan Graffam, P.C. , the firm which represented the scofflaw Friends of Tim Mahoney campaign committee in the Voucher Request cases closed its doors on April 15, 2016.

The GG homepage gives its thanks and says goodbye.

To which this space can only say: Good riddance!!