If the notary falsified the document, she is guilty of a felony. So the lawyer was probably trying to see if Helen pursued the violation with a write up or potentially for criminal prosecution, thus the police. Once Helen could not produce the document that she testified had been written and was in her office, she also committed perjury as all of these people should have been sworn in.
I'm not Sherlock Holmes but here's my theory on what happened. Helen supports the objector (Presswood?) After Viesman turned in his petitions, Helen realized they weren't notarized and let Presswood know that. Once he picked up the copies, someone else in the office, let's say a relative, notarized the copies in Helens' possession.
In short, Helen may have been better off saying that she called the objector and informed him of the infraction(morally wrong but not illegal(That would have proved her stance about the documents being stamped later making them null and void and all she would be facing is the lying under oath charge.
Sounds like the Township has revived discussion on GCG at least.