Gingrich Forgery Case Synopsis

FACTS

Mauree Gingrich, candidate for Representative in the General Assembly and current incumbent officeholder for the 101^st legislative district, filed petitions with the Department of State on February 11, 2008 including 708 purported signatures of 101^st district Republican voters.

Such petitions include specific instructions to the circulator requiring each signer to fill out all the required information on a given line themselves, and contain a circulator’s affidavit to be signed and sworn before a notary public to attest to the veracity of the signatures within. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the sworn circulator must be present when each elector signs. Each candidate must also sign and swear a separate candidate’s affidavit which states that they will not knowingly violate any election law.

Upon examination of Gingrich’s filing by the Russ Diamond campaign team, 25 of those signatures came into question due to strikingly similar handwriting. The signatures all appeared consecutively on one page of the petition[1] which Gingrich herself signed and swore as circulator. All 25 signatures were dated February 9, 2008.

The Diamond team compared the names on lines 25-50 to a list of registered Republican voters. The name on line 49, Jeffrey Shane[2], appeared to be misspelled in both its signature and printed forms on the petition. Voter registration records and the phone book both list the elector’s name as Jeffrey Shade. This error raised particular suspicions regarding the veracity of page 2, lines 26-50.

An attempt was made to contact all the voters in question to confirm they had indeed signed the petition. The 25 voters reside predominately in two compact geographic areas, on West Oak Street in Palmyra and in the neighborhood of Shady Lane, North Londonderry Township. Their signatures appear on the petition in order of house number, indicating the use of a voter “street list” by a circulator who went door to door.

Over the course of two days, 12 of the 25 voters were successfully contacted and interviewed[3]. Of those, five (all on Oak Street) said they did not sign a petition for Gingrich in 2008, although some recalled signing one in 2006.

Seven voters in the Shady Lane neighborhood said they signed a petition circulated not by Gingrich, but by Susan Edris or others. One of those seven voters, Alicia Dunlop, indicated that the petition shown to her during the interview was not the petition she signed and that Edris circulated. All seven said the petition was brought to their homes for signing.

Upon information and belief that 1) some of the signatures were forgeries; 2) some were gathered by someone other than the sworn circulator; and 3) Gingrich knowingly signed a false circulator’s affidavit on page 2 of the petition, Diamond challenged Gingrich’s candidacy in Commonwealth Court. Diamond’s argument was that a circulator’s affidavit knowingly and falsely sworn by Gingrich also invalidated Gingrich’s candidate’s affidavit[4], in which she swore to not knowingly violate any election law. False affidavits are a violation of election law.

A February 22 article in the Lebanon Daily News by Chris Sholly was illustrated by a partial copy of the petition in question, showing sixteen lines of the strikingly similar handwriting[5]. It is reasonable to believe the Daily News contacted some of the voters in question prior to publishing their alleged signatures, names and addresses, although the paper has not stated so.

A February 24 news report on the matter by Charles Thompson of the Harrisburg Patriot-News revealed that Thompson had contacted several of the voters in question and confirmed Diamond’s claims regarding the circumstances surrounding their signatures appearing on the petition[6].

Eleven of the twelve voters interviewed by the Diamond team were subpoenaed to testify at the Commonwealth Court hearing, as were Edris and Gingrich. Diamond was also scheduled to testify regarding his own experience collecting signatures and to provide further testimony[7]. Presiding judge Keith Quigley did not allow the twelve voters to testify, opting instead to ask the Diamond team to prove that Gingrich signed the documents and made her filing with an “intent to deceive the electorate,” and only allowing the testimony of Gingrich and reluctantly, Edris.

On the witness stand as of cross[8], Gingrich testified that she was in the western part of Palmyra with page 2 of her petition on February 9, but could not clearly recall whether she visited the Oak Street neighborhood or not[9]. She testified that "[t]his petition was on my person at all times"[10].

Gingrich testified that on the evening of February 9, she hosted a “nacho party” at her home[11]. She could not recall how many signatures were on page 2 before the party started[12]. Her testimony inferred that most or all of the signatures in question somehow got on to the petition at said party.

Gingrich’s counsel introduced an email invitation to the nacho party sent to members of the Lebanon County Republican Committee[13]. Counsel also pointed out that Lebanon mayor Robert Anspach was present to attest to the occurrence of said party[14], but Anspach did not testify. Gingrich further testified that she had no hand in affixing the signatures in question to the petition.[15]

Upon re-direct, Gingrich testified that none of the signatures in question were from Lebanon County Republican Committee members[16]. Gingrich was able to name only four committee members in her district[17].

Gingrich testified that Susan Edris was well-known to her, had participated in past campaigns with Gingrich[18] and that Susan Edris’ signature appears on the petition in question on line 37[19].

Susan Edris testified that she did not circulate the petition in question, as previously indicated during interviews by several of the subpoenaed voters[20]. Not only did Edris testify that she did not circulate it, she also testified that she had never seen the petition before and that the signature appearing on line 37 is in fact not hers and that she did not sign the petition[21]. Edris testified that she attended the nacho party[22].

Edris further testified that she did circulate a petition among the interviewed and subpoenaed voters, but that she used “the incorrect form.” She testified that the form she circulated was for the office of Lebanon County Republican Committeeperson, not Representative in the General Assembly[23]. Gingrich also testified to this theory.[24]

Despite twelve witnesses present in the courtroom - including eleven appearing under subpoena - prepared to testify, Quigley did not allow the Diamond team to present its case, which would have provided a distinct contrast to Gingrich's testimony. Quigley ruled that he found Gingrich’s testimony “credible” and that the objection to her candidacy would be dismissed[25].

Diamond has since appealed Quigley’s decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That appeal is pending at this time.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Robert Mansouri, one of the interviewed and subpoenaed voters, recalled seeing the name and office of Gingrich on the petition he signed during a phone conversation with Diamond one day prior to the hearing. Mansouri phoned Diamond to ask to be excused from appearing due to a heart condition. Diamond assured Mansouri he would not be called to testify due to his condition and that he could remain at home to recuperate. Mansouri appeared in court the next day, much to the surprise of the Diamond team.

It has since been learned that Edris was once a candidate for committeeperson herself, which combined with Mansouri's claim and the testimony that Edris worked on previous campaigns with Gingrich, makes the sworn testimony of both Gingrich and Edris regarding using the wrong form quite troubling.

High resolution scans of the documents included in Gingrich’s filing for ballot access (both the page 2 petition and known Gingrich handwriting samples) were subsequently forwarded to a questioned document examiner and fraud investigator, Michael Robertson of Ohio, for an objective and independent analysis.

Robertson served as a Special Agent of the United States Secret Service, Department of the Treasury, for 17 years and currently serves as the principal questioned document examiner of Robertson Investigations, Inc. Robertson's U. S. Treasury Department Job Description / Classification as a Criminal Investigator stated that he is an “expert in the detection of forgeries.” Robertson, who has testified before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on election issues in the past, concluded that some of the entries were forged by Gingrich herself.

Robertson’s analysis and report[26] focused on the signature and printed name portions of Gingrich's page 2 petition, but also noted that “many entries in the other columns contain numerals and printing executed by one person.” It also noted “the presence of unnatural or disguised writing which is present on this document.”

Robertson provided a two-color markup of the questioned page 2 petition. In pink, he highlighted letters and styles that match the “known letter forms of Mauree Gingrich.” In blue, he highlighted “letter forms that are common within the document.” Each line on side 2 of the page 2 petition contained one or both of these elements.

Robertson's report concludes with the following statement: “It is my opinion based on a reasonable degree of professional and scientific certainty that the author of the known Mauree Gingrich documents executed the pink highlighted letters on the questioned document exhibit.” Also included in Robertson’s report are his Qualifications and Professional Credentials[27].

Robertson's findings are in direct contradiction of Gingrich's sworn testimony that she did not add signatures to the petition or violate the election code[28]. Robertson further recommends that “this matter be turned over to law enforcement for criminal investigation, to obtain affidavits from the listed voters and obtain solicited handwriting exemplars from Ms. Gingrich for further examination by the Pennsylvania State Police or other forensic lab.”

HYPOTHESIS

In light of the Robertson report, it is believed that Gingrich herself added the signatures and other information listed on lines 25-50 of page 2 of her petition.

It is further believed that Gingrich transferred the signatures of the Oak Street voters from a previous petition – perhaps her own petition from 2006 – or forged the signatures outright using a voter “street list.” It is also believed that the petition circulated by Susan Edris among Shady Lane voters was given to Gingrich, who in turn forged those signatures and transferred the other information to page 2 of her petition.

MOTIVES

Why would Gingrich do this? By February 9, her campaign had collected well over 600 signatures, more than double the 300 signatures she needed to obtain ballot access. Why would she commit forgery to bolster her numbers when ballot access was already assured?

The answer partially lies with who actually collected those signatures, and partially with the knowledge that Gingrich was under some pressure to bolster her personal and aggregate signature totals. The vast majority of Gingrich’s signatures were collected by people other than Gingrich. Gingrich herself collected only 68 signatures prior to February 9, 2008.

In a letter Gingrich sent to Lebanon County Republican Committee members on January 11, 2008, Gingrich states: “It has been recommended by the House Republican Campaign Committee that we collect an average of 900 signatures.”[29] Gingrich’s aggregate signature total before February 9 fell short of this stated goal by more than 200 signatures, or 22 percent.

Additionally, former Speaker of the House John Perzel, the leading fundraiser in the House Republican Caucus, has indicated that money he is raising with a newly-formed Political Committee will be used to help the campaigns of those Republicans who work the hardest and/or knock on the most doors. This was stated by Perzel during a 30 minute interview aired by the Pennsylvania Cable Network and on other occasions. Gingrich’s personal signature total before February 9 stood at 68, certainly not indicative of someone who was working hard and/or actively knocking on doors.

Gingrich may have been under additional pressure on February 9 due to learning of Diamond's potential candidacy only one week earlier. Diamond has a reputation of being no stranger to knocking on doors and gathering signatures on petitions.

In retrospect and in comparsion, Gingrich personally collected only 100 (at least 25 of which are believed to have been forged) of her aggregate 708 signatures (14.1 percent). She accomplished this between January 22 and February 9, a period of 19 days. By contrast, Diamond personally collected 204 of his aggregate 400 signatures (51 percent). His petition drive began in earnest on February 2 and ended on February 10, a period of only 9 days. Gingrich allegedly personally collected only an average of 5.26 signatures per day while Diamond averaged 22.67 per day.

By further comparison, Gingrich personally collected 78 of her aggregate 588 signatures (13.3 percent) during the 2006 election cycle. In addition to feeling pressure to out-perform Diamond, Gingrich may have felt additional pressure to top her 2006 performance and give the House Republican Campaign Committee and Prezel the impression of a widening support base and a vibrant campaign.

It is believed that Gingrich, feeling pressure to bolster her aggregate signature totals and additional pressure to show that she was out knocking on doors and working hard on her campaign, resorted to forging signatures on page 2 of her petition to create the appearance of a candidate worthy of financial support from the House Republican Campaign Committee and former Speaker of the House and leading fundraiser John Perzel.

As a result of these forgeries, Gingrich’s aggregate signature total was bolstered – but more importantly – her personal signature total jumped from 68 to 100. It is believed that Gingrich knew exactly what she was doing and committed these acts in the interest of helping to ensure her re-election by obtaining assistance from the House Republican Campaign Committee and Perzel.

It is believed that the theory regarding Edris circulating "the incorrect form” was concocted after Diamond’s challenge was filed and before the Commonwealth Court hearing occured. It is likely that much of Gingrich's testimony at the hearing was purposefully evasive and/or false. It is also possible that Gingrich and others may have conspired to commit one, or more, or all of these acts.

FURTHER INVESTIGATION REQUIRED

This information has been turned over to the Attorney General of Pennsylvania for further review. The Gingrich forgery case bears a striking resemblance to that of Linda Bebko-Jones, a former state representative who was charged by the Attorney General just two days after the Gingrich hearing with multiple crimes in connection with her filing for ballot access in 2006[30].

A Philadelphia Daily News article published on March 3, 2008[31] indicates that the Attorney General has jurisdiction and a keen interest in this matter. "Typically, the way it works is, if someone makes a complaint with us alleging forgery, we'll investigate," said Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. "Particularly if it involves an incumbent state representative, we have original jurisdiction."

This information is also posted at www.russdiamond.org for public review.

[5] Exhibit D (Lebanon Daily News report; February 22, 2008)

[6] Exhibit E (Patriot-News report; February 24, 2008)