Official Right-To-Know Law Request Seeks Recusal/Transmittal Record

Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 by Pezzonovante in
0

Yesterday, 10/30/2018, a Right-To-Know law request was made to Fayette County Open Records Officer Amy Revak for any record documenting the recusal of Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower in the referral made by the unanimous vote of the Fayette County Voter Registration Commission on September 10, 2018.  The records request also seeks any record documenting the transmittal of the referral to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General for investigation.

 Here reproduced is a copy of the RTK request:

Attn. Amy Revak,
Fayette County Chief Clerk and Open Records Officer

Pursuant to the Right-To-Know Law (Act of Feb. 14, 2008 No. 3, P.L. 6 and 65 P.S. §§67.101  et seq.), I am making a records request for any record documenting the recusal of Fayette County District Attorney Richard E. Bower and/or the transmission/referral of the September 10, 2018 referral made by the Fayette County Voter Registration Commission by DA Bower to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

The record was referred to by DA Bower in an e-mail exchange with a local blogger at the following link.

See:  http://www.julietoye.com/Bower_To_Recuse_From_Dem_Fairgate_Voter_Registration_Investigation.html

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attempt At Truth

Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

Another attempt at truth was made today on WMBS' "Hot Topics" program hosted by Phil Michael and Kendall Sisler.

This space believes WMBS Radio's responsibility to its listeners is to report all the news factually.  In that vein, WMBS' non-reportage on the filing of an official complaint on September 10, 2018 and the non-reportage of the subsequent dereliction of duty of the Fayette County Election Board to investigate the complaint was called into question on today's "Hot Topics" program.

 This space disagrees with the notion that truth-telling is somehow not positive.

 This space disagrees with the notion that seeking for the rule of law to be upheld (and for equal justice under law to reign) is somehow negative. 

 This writer's comments begin approximately at the 24:24 mark.

 See:
https://soundcloud.com/user-94071533/hot-topics-hour-2-10302018


Mahoney's Double-Signed Referendum Petitions

Posted: by Pezzonovante in Labels: , ,
0

In reviewing ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Democrat Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney's fatally-flawed referendum petitions, Fayette Searchlight came across something which caused a side-to-side shake of the head.


Here is a link to Mahoney's fatally-flawed and defective referendum petitions:  Referendum Petitions.

Remember, that Mahoney, as the sole affiant on the affidavits, altered and allegedly falsely swore out, allegedly had notarized (perjury), and allegedly fraudulently filed 50 Affidavits of Circulator.

See:  




These affidavits were meant to attest to the validity of the signatures on his referendum petitions.

If one scrutinizes the referendum petitions carefully, one finds something very interesting.

At the Referendum Petitions link, if one scrolls to Petition 16, Line Number 1355, one will see the signature of Stephen E. Kezmarsky.  The signatures of Nancy L. Kezmarsky and what appears to be Alexa Kezmarsky follow on Line 1356 and Line 1357, respectively, with Steve Kezmarsky on Line 1364.  The address associated with each of these signatures is 93 Belmont Circle, Uniontown.

If one scrolls to Petition 25, Line Number 747, one will again see the signature of Stephen E. Kezmarsky.  On Line 748, one will again find the signature of Nancy L. Kezmarsky.  On Line 763, one will again find the signature of Steve Kezmarsky.  On Line 769, one will find the signature of Lexi Kezmarsky (short for Alexa, we surmise).  The address associated with each of these signatures is 93 Belmont Circle, Uniontown.

Mahoney, whose sworn affidavits were meant to attest to the validity of the signatures on his fatally-flawed, defective referendum petitions, filed referendum petitions which were double-signed by Stephen E. Kezmarsky and other members of the Kezmarsky family.

While this, in small part, points to the fraudlent nature of Mahoney's referendum petitions, it does not implicate Mahoney in the alleged criminal fraud at the Kezmarsky Funeral Home just as State Rep. Matthew Dowling's employment there and subsequent interest in purchasing the business do not implicate him in any criminal wrongdoing, notwithstanding the baseless claims of the Mahoney campaign.

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. 





The Spurious Advice of FCEB Solicitor Sheryl Heid

Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2018 by Pezzonovante in Labels: , , , ,
0

Currently, the Fayette County Election Board is in dereliction of its duty to investigate the Official Complaint duly filed by this writer with the Fayette County Election Bureau on September 10, 2018.

See 25 P.S. § 3548:

Any Secretary of the Commonwealth, member of a county board of elections, chief clerk, employe, overseer, judge of election, inspector of election, clerk of election, machine inspector or custodian or deputy custodian of voting machines on whom a duty is laid by this act who shall wilfully neglect or refuse to perform his duty, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) dollars, or to undergo an imprisonment of not more than two (2) years, or both, in the discretion of the court. [Emphasis added.]

 Fayette Searchlight has learned that, on the spurious advice of Solicitor Sheryl R. Heid, the Fayette County Election Bureau's position is that the Board already addressed the issue raised in the official election complaint duly filed by this writer on Sept. 10, 2018 (as if the 12-page complaint raised only a singular issue).

Additionally, Solicitor Sheryl R. Heid goes on to advise "[i]t is the Bureau's position that a letter to Mr. Frasconi should be sufficient to inform him that the issue (again singular) was previously addressed under Section 2642(i) and was properly referred to the District Attorney's office on May 24, 2012."  The letter asks for Chair Zimmerlink's "directive in this matter." 

 See:   Heid Letter 20180918

Solicitor Heid's advice is way off the mark.  The detailed complaint of Sept. 10 lays out allegations of election fraud and perjuries against ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney, non-investigation of the Fayette County Election Board's Third Referral of May 24, 2012, and potential crimes regarding the Fifth Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2.

 In her weak attempt to conflate this writer's complaint with Michael J. Cavanagh's 2012 complaint (allegations against Mahoney regarding alterations on affidavits of circulator which led to the Third Referral), perhaps Solicitor Heid would like to explain to citizens in a public meeting how non-investigation of the Third Referral of May 24, 2012 could have taken place on or before May 24, 2012, and how potential crimes regarding the sealed Fifth Presentment of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 could have taken place on or before May 24, 2012, when the Fifth Presentment was not even issued and sealed by the Order of Fayette County Grand Jury No. 2 Presiding Judge Steve P. Leskinen until 12/12/2014 -- some two years and seven months after Cavanagh's complaint was addressed by the election board on May 24, 2012!

 Solicitor Sheryl Heid knows better.  Rather than investigate crimes against the electorate of Fayette County, she is giving advice to ignore them!

 Here is a YouTube video of a segment of the 09/28/2012 meeting of the Fayette County Election Board where Delinda Young's and this writer's August 24, 2012 complaint was kept off the agenda by then-Fayette County Election Board Chairman Alfred Ambrosini.  We were later permitted to make a presentation of our findings to the board which can be found in the videos here. 

 Election Board Meeting Part VII 20120928:




Readers who view the entire video will be rewarded with particular insight into not only some of the allegations made in the Sept. 10 complaint, but also insight into why Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself from offering any advice to the Fayette County Election Bureau/Board pertaining to the Sept. 10 complaint.  For the purposes of this article, readers and viewers can scroll to the 6:05 mark of the video and view the pertinent footage until the 10:30 mark.

 At 6:05, the alteration on Mahoney's Affidavits of Circulator is broached by Delinda Young.  

 At 6:25 Solicitor Heid argues thusly:  "They [then-State Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney's circulator affidavits] were properly altered because, they couldn't have, it couldn't have been filed the way it was pre-printed . . . . So he had to alter it.  It was supposed to be altered because it was a pre-printed form."  [Emphasis added.]

At 8:03, Solicitor Heid argues for more alterations: "He [Mahoney] should have made further alterations, but it wouldn't have been improper to accept it."  [Emphasis added.]

 The problem with Solicitor Heid's arguments pertaining to alterations and the acceptance and validation of altered election documents is that her arguments contradict election law that is crystal clear on the matter of alteration.

 Because Pennsylvania is not a referendum and initiative state, and because Pennsylvania provides for referenda only in limited instances, the election laws governing referendum petitions follow the election laws laid out for nomination petitions.

 25 P.S. § 2936:
When any nomination petition, nomination certificate or nomination paper is presented in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth or of any county board of elections for filing within the period limited by this act, it shall be the duty of the said officer or board to examine the same. No nomination petition, nomination paper or nomination certificate shall be permitted to be filed if--(a) it contains material errors or defects apparent on the face thereof, or on the face of the appended or accompanying affidavits; or (b) it contains material alterations made after signing without the consent of the signers; or (c) it does not contain a sufficient number of signatures as required by law: . . . . [Emphasis added.]

On 08/09/2011, on the advice of Solicitor Sheryl Heid, the election bureau provided Mahoney a single copy of an affidavit of circulator for a nomination paper when he initially arrived to file his referendum petitions without the affidavits which are required to be appended to the petitions by law.

 At least 49 other duplicates were made after Mahoney Whited-Out the required oath and inserted his purported date range of June 1 - Aug. 8, 2011.  Were the duplicates run off at Mahoney's legislative office, the election bureau, or elsewhere?

 Here is more about why Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself from providing any advice on the Sept. 10 complaint:
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed petitions to be filed without affidavits appended -- which is unlawful under the Pennsylvania Election Code.
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed fatally-flawed, defective referendum petitions (without dates set opposite names; a prima facie defect) to be filed -- which is a violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid allowed the appending of altered affidavits to already-filed, fatally-flawed referendum petitions -- which is a blatant violation of the Pennsylvania Election Code.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid woefully failed to perform her duty to examine the referendum petitions and the affidavits or to have her board (which was at the time comprised of three attorneys -- Mark Mehalov, Barbara Balling-Carl, and Jeremy Davis) examine same.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid failed to follow state law which prohibits advisory referenda, although she testified under oath on August 22, 2011 that her opinion was the Mahoney referendum was advisory.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid refused to reject Mahoney's referendum petition on the basis that it was advisory and non-binding, although, in 2007, faced with a referendum on Uniontown-area school district construction, she rejected the referendum petition for the cause it was advisory.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid failed to reject the fatally-flawed, defective referendum petitions and return them to the filer (Mahoney), instead, on her advice, she had the bureau provide Mahoney a nomination paper affidavit which Mahoney would duplicate and allegedly falsify, notarize, perjure, and fraudulently file.  
  • Solicitor Sheryl Heid, after all the foregoing, with a quick turn of her shoulder, after finally signing and handing Delinda Young and this writer a letter, informed us of a seven-day deadline to file a court challenge to the fatally-flawed, defective Mahoney Referendum Petitions and altered, falsely sworn Affidavits of Circulator, forcing citizens to go to court to stop election wrongdoing rather than perform her duty as solicitor to stop it herself. 


 While Solicitor Sheryl Heid may or may not be able to be held accountable criminally for the multiple failures to perform her duty as a solicitor during the Mahoney Referendum Petition Fiasco because of the question of time limitations, she is definitely yet subject to reprimand and/or firing.  She is, more than likely, yet subject to professional sanction (i.e., disbarment).  She is yet subject to be called to testify (which the Sept. 10 complaint filed by this writer makes abundantly clear).

 Given her blatant and obvious conflicts of interest, Solicitor Sheryl Heid should have recused herself in the matter of giving any advice to the election board on the Sept. 10 complaint.

However, her conflicts over ex-State Rep. and current 51st Legislative District Democrat Nominee Timothy S. Mahoney's alleged election fraud and alleged perjuries (and the part she played in allowing them to unfold) impelled her not to recuse herself from giving advice to the election board on the Sept. 10 complaint.  

 The only conclusion an honest observer can draw is that Solicitor Sheryl Heid is compelled by her blatant and obvious conflicts in this matter to ignore the law she is supposed to uphold, to snuff out the truth, and to kill the complaint -- even if it means providing spurious advice to an election board that is all too willing to bury the complaint unlawfully rather than perform its duty under law to investigate it.














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.

Fayette County Election Board Ignores Complaint, Subverts Election Law

Posted: Monday, October 15, 2018 by Pezzonovante in
0

The Fayette County Election Board, led by Fayette County Commissioners Dave Lohr, Vincent A. Vicites, and Angela M. Zimmerlink, has an election board meeting set for today to consider a polling location change in Menallen Township.

 Absent from the public notice of the meeting and from the agenda, is any consideration by the board of an official complaint filed on September 10.

 In the board's first meeting since this writer filed an official complaint with the Fayette County Election Bureau/Board on Monday, September 10, 2018, the board has chosen to ignore the official complaint and to subvert election law, rather than to carry out its mandatory duty under law 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.