January 4, 2017 · 3 Comments
DuPage Co. (ECWd) –
Husna Ghani and Rafath Waheed turned in petition packets for election to the Board of Trustees at the College of DuPage, however, both have had objections filed against them due to alleged fatal errors. Those errors may subject them to removal from the ballot in a petition objection hearing.
Ed Franckowiak, of West Chicago, filed petition objections today and his findings outlined in his objection pertaining to Rafath Waheed may point to possible forgery.
Rafath Waheed turned in petitions with what appears to be photocopied petition documents (duplicates) that were sworn to separately and notarized. In addition to those documents, Waheed failed to provide a Statement of Candidacy.
Husna Ghani failed to number the petition pages which constitutes a fatal error.
The packets turned in by Waheed and Ghani can be viewed here and here respectively. When reviewing the petition documents of Waheed, we suggest you print pages 1-4 and hold page 4 in front of page 1 up to the light as well as page 3 in front of page 2. It will become very clear that one is a copy of another with the exception of the lower portion.
What makes this a potentially a serious issue is the fact the portion below is being signed and sworn to that the signatures on the sheet were signed in their presence. How is it possible to have a photocopied petition and claim you were present when those people signed? Even more compelling evidence that these pages were photocopied and do not contain actual signatures is the fact page 3 has signatures done in Blue ink yet page 2, which contains an exact matching set of signatures as page 3, except they are in black and white. The two pages appear to be two pages of signatures, however, are alleged to be photocopies of signed pages.
Is this potentially a case of forgery?
(a) A person commits forgery when, with intent to defraud, he or she knowingly:
(1) makes a false document or alters any document to make it false and that document is apparently capable of defrauding another; or
(2) issues or delivers such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered; or
(3) possesses, with intent to issue or deliver, any such document knowing it to have been thus made or altered; or
(4) unlawfully uses the digital signature, as defined in the Financial Institutions Electronic Documents and Digital Signature Act, of another; or
(5) unlawfully uses the signature device of another to create an electronic signature of that other person, as those terms are defined in the Electronic Commerce Security Act.
Although the Election Hearing Board that is now triggered by the filing of an objection does not have the power to determine any potential criminality, we would encourage them to forward the records to the appropriate criminal investigative unit to further investigate this matter should they determine these are as we described above. As pointed out in the objection: “when in the course of hearing objections to nominating papers, evidence beyond specific objections comes to the electoral board’s attention, it cannot close its eyes and ears if evidence is relevant to the protection of the electoral process.” See Fortas v. Dixon, 122 Ill.App.3d 697, 462 N.E.2d 615, 78 Ill.Dec. 496 (1st Dist. 1984), at 618.
We want to say thank you to Mr. Franckowiak for his efforts of ensuring potential elected officials follow the law, which in this case appear to have not followed the election code as it pertains to their election packets turned in as Candidate(s) for College of DuPage Trustee.
You can review copies of the two objections filed by Franckowiak below.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
By Kirk Allen
Readers Comments (3)