| Feb. 12, 2019 Judge orders Fay DA off criminal case of Dem party committee man, transfer to AG
Democrat committee man, working as a home improvements contractor a few years ago are amazingly close to breaking records of times being jerked around by the courts and denied due process, as only people such as Fay Commish Angela Zimmerlink, Chris Shellhammer, Diane and Terry Kriss, former editors of the extinct blog Not Enough Said, Mr. Munshinski and a few others have been. RANTS that the young Bullskin couple lost about $5,000 to a contractor two years ago and, as claimed in their Writ of Mandamus filed against the district attorney in federal court five months ago, were told by the county district attorney, on more than one occasion, that he was not prosecuting the county Democrat committee man working as a self- employed contractor for theft. Fayette County District Attorney Rich Bower, instead, as per the couple's Writ of Mandamus, ignored their complaint for two years against the county Democrat committee man self employed as their paid contractor and suggested they seek repayment through a civil law suit. The need to have to file that level of grievance against a district attorney is unfortunate. The feds typically receive that formal Writ grievance against some local lawyers, or a system of legal defense, such as the county public defender's office. There were some of those being filed by frustrated incarcerated detainees and sentenced inmates of the Fayette County Prison in 2018, as readers here probably recall. It's a sign, or a concerning appearance of a sign of political corruption, for the county's lead and top prosecutor, the county's district attorney, to dismiss felonies and reduce another felony to a misdemeanor, for a county Democrat committee man working as a contractor -- especially, especially since Bower was once Bower's former attorney. Thus, out $5,000, the Bullskin couple filed the Writ of Mandamus in federal court five months ago, after two years, reportedly, of being shown the door in Bower's office or told no. Coincidentally -- or, as a direct result of that filing -- a county detective appeared pronto at their home. He asked for their account of the hiring of the contractor and payment. The detective seemed to come through for them one month later. The local paper carried the tough on crime story, that the county detective charged the Democratic committee man, self-employed contractor, with three felony charges of theft and failing to disclose proper contractor licensing information. In the meantime, the Bullskin couple was assured that their August Writ of Mandamus complaint against Bower was resolved with filing in September of charges against the contractor, Democratic committee man. The Writ of Mandamus piece of the couple's federal file was to be closed then in September, agreeably by all. Please keep in mind that the Bullskin couple still believed at that point in September that the three criminal felony charges pressed would finally be prosecuted. Only along the short way before the first court appearance, Rants&Raves was told that 2 felonies of theft were dismissed and the third was downgraded to a misdemeanor. It is unclear when that agreement was made for the county Democratic committee man self- employed as a contractor, in which court appearance that revelation was disclosed to the Bullskin couple. In interview on Tuesday, one of the two in the Bullskin household expressed surprise to receive a copy of Leskinen's court order written on February 3. During an court appearance four weeks ago, before Leskinen, "Bower was a no show" leaving the judge to leaf through the court paperwork and find "a piece of paper in the middle of everything that indicated that Bower was turning the case over to the (state attorney general)," Rants&Raves was told. "(Leskinen) was not happy that he was not told the week before the hearing," she said yesterday of their time spent in court on January 14, one month ago. Bower was not present, but, reportedly, had asked for 30 days to refer the bulky file to the state attorney general. The judge, 17 days after the court date, issued the court order on the third day this month, requiring Bower to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. Concerning is that eight days since Leskinen issued his court order, the state attorney general's attorney updated the victims that its state office has yet to receive any forwarded information from Bower's office. The state promises more details to the victim in the next few days. Why hadn't Bower realized his conflict of interest two years ago and referred the matter to the state attorney general in the first or even second place? Email to Bower and a Right To Know request were sent today asking to confirm that Bower did or did not voluntarily initiate a transfer of the case to the state attorney general for investigation or prosecution. Why not? Judge, AG on same page yet? Of concern, too, is news that Leskinen told the couple two days ago that he received a letter from the state attorney general's office the previous week before he wrote his court order on February 3, that the district attorney must recuse himself to the state attorney general for all action. However, the state attorney general rep, who yesterday could not locate the letter that Leskinen said he received one week earlier from the state attorney general office, said he knew nothing of the judge's order and promised updates to the couple later in the week. Now, just to avoid confusion. The customers mentioned so far are none of those more recently victimized, who told a Pittsburgh television news reporter -- with the approval of the state attorney general office -- that a downtown Uniontown business specializing in kitchen upgrades suddenly closed and did not provide the paid for goods or services. What's worse, those customers, reportedly, were stiffed by a business owner said to have left another previous location the same way, disappointing, owing. Locals told Pittsburgh television news that their criminal theft complaints went unaddressed downtown at Bower's office, so, reportedly, contacted the state attorney general to ask for prosecution of the business owner. The news video produced with stiffed customers never aired, or at least, has not yet aired. Reportedly, as per a highly trusted source, the state attorney general office, in that case, wants to hold off and give the business owner more time to resolve problems or repayment with the affected customers. jt 12 Feb 19 Copyright Protected |