Uniontown woman faces trial on forgery charges
A Uniontown woman will stand trial on charges of forgery, access device fraud and receiving stolen property, following a preliminary hearing on Thursday before District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr.
Francine Susanna Ptak, 43, of 67 Milton St. was accused of using a former acquaintance's credit card to make numerous charges in November totaling nearly $750.
Yesterday James Ritenour identified Ptak as someone he "dated for about three days, six years ago."
He testified that Ptak was not authorized to use his bank card.
In November, he noticed suspicious withdrawals on his bank account and went to state police.
Several witnesses identified Ptak as the person who placed orders with Rick's 50's Cafe, Mundel's Furniture and Zep's Furniture, allegedly using Ritenour's credit card.
Additional charges on the card were made with the Home Shopping Network, testimony showed.
Ptak did not testify yesterday.
After the hearing, Assistant District Attorney Mark Brooks said Ptak was a "repeat felon." He said she faced a prison term of two to four years on each charge, or a total of eight to 16 years, and asked Haggerty to reconsider her unsecured bond.
Haggerty changed the bond to $10,000 straight cash.
When Ptak protested that she could not pay it, Haggerty told her, "You can make a phone call."
Ptak became distraught as a police officer attempted to place her in handcuffs.
Public defender Tom Shaffer, the officer and people who had accompanied Ptak to court attempted to calm her.
"Please post it. I have a medical problem. I can't go," Ptak begged.
She faces arraignment in Fayette County Common Pleas Court on July 19.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.