Search Results

Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Caroliina, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are all of the battleground states that have formed election integrity coalitions to return security to our elections. NC formed the North Carolina Integrity Coalition, your Coalition, to train, to certify, and geographically certify you to establish a statewide infrastructure comprised of regional and county Election Integrity Task Forces for 2022 and 2024 and beyond.. WE are fighting back. Pennsylvania and Georgia are with us. Absentee ballot security is #3 on our list of Eight Systems of Election Integrity. Join US! https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981357583/georgia-legislature-approves-election-overhaul-including-changes-to-absentee-vot https://www.wabe.org/georgia-senate-passes-measure-to-eliminate-no-excuse-absentee-voting/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-07-23&utm_medium=email

IT IS IMPERATIVE that you submit your own original comments so the State Board of Elections has to address each one. Focus on Poll Observer Rule Changes below in paragraph: 20.0101. CC your comments to your NC legislators. The NC State Board of Elections (NCSBE)) has way overstepped their authority. The General Assembly makes rule changes, not the NCSBE. The proposed rule changes for observers are designed to restrict observers and address non-issues because they are already addressed in the state statutes. The NCSBE is also attempting to circumvent the normal time for public comment. All the NCSBE is succeeding in doing is making the public even more suspicious of them. It looks like they obviously don't want transparency or accountability, heightening the public's mistrust for election integrity. They need to shut this down now immediately. (Also see paragraph below on NCEIT's position on the Temporary Rule Making.) There are four ways to submit your comments: On-line, email, snail mail, or phone See below. You can also join the Public Meeting at the portal listed below. SUBJECT: NCEIT Response to NCSBE Proposed Temporary Rulemaking – July 2022 Background: During the NCSBE’s July 14, 2022 monthly meeting Attorney Katelyn Love announced agency plans to pursue temporary rulemaking under the provisions of “NCGS § 150B-21.1 Procedures for adopting a temporary rule.” The recorded meeting is at the link below and the discussion pertaining to temporary rulemaking begins at 1:03:00 of the meeting: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2022-07-14/State%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Meeting-20220714%201332-1.mp4 Ms. Love explained that temporary rulemaking was necessary because the process for following the more traditional, formal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act were “too lengthy” to be in place in time for the November 2022 election cycle. She advised the state board that the NCSBE has authority to exercise temporary rulemaking, inferring authority under paragraph (a)(11), wherein the NCSBE has been granted authority to implement provisions of federal or state law where it has been granted statutory authority to adopt such rules. NCSBE’s proposed temporary rules pertain to two specific areas of election law: (a) 08 NCAC 10B .0101, TASKS AND DUTIES OF PRECINCT OFFICIALS AT VOTING PLACES; and (b) 08 NCAC 20 .0101, ELECTION OBSERVERS. Public Hearing & Opportunity for Public Comment: NCSBE has announced it will accept public comments now through August 8, 2022 at its portal, by email or by mail. Online: https://www.ncsbe.gov/2022-public-comment-period-duties-precinct-officials Email: rulemaking.sboe@ncsbe.gov Mail: Attn: Rulemaking Coordinator, 6400 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27603-1362 Public hearing: A virtual public hearing will be held at 10 a.m. Thursday, July 28, 2022. How to join: Online: https://ncgov.webex.com/mw3300/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=ncgov&service=6&rnd=0.7040517500148347&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fncgov.webex.com%2Fec3300%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Ddetail%26%26%26EMK%3D4832534b00000005c0df80fa97c6c38db4d335706d8dd0726320a1f81b0e44a1caf2f43b0123f6a6%26siteurl%3Dncgov%26confViewID%3D232976246337711366%26encryptTicket%3DSDJTSwAAAAVUwGjMvgvJAv-Hk1wFKIPSaD-IXCOp-D8Mva45plWxDw2%26 Phone: 1-415-655-0003, Enter Code: 2422 789 8391# NCEIT Position on NCSBE Proposed Temporary Rulemaking: The NCEIT team objects to the NCSBE’s proposed temporary rulemaking to implement modified rules at 08 NCAC 10B .0101 and 08 NCAC 20 .0101. NCEIT recommends the Rules Review Commission reject this attempt to circumvent formal rulemaking, reasonable opportunity for public comment, and due consideration of those comments, followed by NCGA adoption of rules. Formal rulemaking is necessary to avoid negatively impacting the transparency and integrity of the November 2022 general election. As admitted by NCSBE counsel during the meeting, many of the proposed new rules are “…already addressed in other provisions of law….” Moreover, several of the newly proposed rules are contortions of existing administrative code and state statutes that were intended to make our elections more transparent, yielding stronger voter confidence in our elections. The proposed modifications induce ambiguity and reduce the broad accessibility by poll observers and election officials, conferred by statute, that were to be applied to all phases of the voting process. The changes represent controversial and unnecessary deviations that will generate confusion among poll observers and election officials given such short notice prior to the fall election cycle. Facts: (Note- NCEIT Members are welcome to use the following facts as the basis of their commentary or inputs to the NCSBE. Please paraphrase any use of these comments so your inputs will be given deliberate consideration and equal treatment as substantive input for them to consider. Verbatim duplicate comments are typically lumped together for easy addressment by the agency.) 1. The NCSBE does not have clear statutory justification for temporary rulemaking, as proposed. a. NCGS § 150B-21.1 addresses the context and applicability for temporary rulemaking. Only the most contorted logic could justify the use of the provision for temporary rulemaking merely to avoid the more onerous task of formal rulemaking. Yet, this was the suggested justification by NCSBE Counsel between 1:03:36 and 1:04:11 of the recorded meeting. This chapter of the NCGS clearly states, under (a) Adoption, that “…an agency may adopt a temporary rule when it finds that adherence to the notice and hearing requirements of G.S. 150-B-21.2 would be contrary to the public interest and that immediate adoption of the rule is required.…” (my emphasis added to show context). Frankly, none of the NCSBE proposed rule modifications are urgent or necessary to conduct a free and fair election this November. The public has a definite interest in formally digesting, debating and deliberating the proposed rule modifications prior to their adoption in whole or in part. That can only be accomplished through formal rulemaking procedures. b. When advocating for these temporary rule changes before the NCSBE on July 14, 2022 (1:06:44 of the recorded meeting) NCSBE Attorney Love admitted that “by and large, most of what is listed as prohibited is already addressed in other provisions of law….” In other words, the NCSBE acknowledges many of the proposed rule changes are already codified; therefore, not urgent or even necessary to conduct a free and fair election in November. c. Under (a)(11) of NCGS § 150B-21.1, there are generally three allowances for NCSBE temporary rulemaking- (1) IAW G.S. 163-22.2, to respond to declaration of unconstitutionality or the invalidation of any portion of Chapter 163; (2) to implement state or federal law where authorized by the NCGA; and/or (3) a compelling need for the rule to become effective immediately to preserve the integrity of an upcoming election. None of these three provisions apply to the present situation. There is no current constitutional challenge to our election laws, nor is there a recent invalidation of Chapter 163. NCSBE has already undergone codification of procedures to implement rules for Poll Observers and Election Officials. No new statutory provisions require immediate NCSBE rulemaking. And finally, the proposed new rules are not compelling—some are simple clarifications, others are redundant with existing provisions of law, and still others are more restrictive than requirements enumerated in the general statutes, making them inconsistent with legislative intent. 2. Statutory guidelines in NCGS § 163 and historical rulemaking to implement the statute (Title 08 NCAC) unambiguously reflect legislative intent for the presence of Poll Observers and their generally unrestricted access within all polling locations for the purpose of monitoring registration desk operations, observing all ballot handling operations, challenging ineligible or unauthorized voters, and ensuring election officials are performing their duties in accordance with state law and relevant administrative code. Legislative intent is that Poll Observers should be free to move about the voting enclosure in the performance of their duties so long as they do not obstruct voting or become a distraction to those who are voting there. The three consistent statutory constraints imposed on Poll Observers are: (a) that they must not view confidential voter information (such as SSN or date of birth); (b) they must not observe the actual markings on voter ballots; and (c) they must not interfere with the voting process. These proposed temporary rules clearly and more severely restrict Poll Observers from performing their duties as prescribed under NCGS § 163. a. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (c) is modified to limit access and egress of Poll Observers at the voting enclosure. This runs counter to legislative intent for Poll Observers to observe both inside and outside the voting enclosure. Implementation of this rule would subject the observer to the idiosyncrasies of the Site Administrator or Chief Judge in determining whether movement in and out of the voting enclosure is a “disruption.” Clearly, Poll Observers must be able to depart the voting enclosure to monitor curbside voting when applicable and to make or take important phone calls without disrupting voting operations. Chief Judges and site administrators must not be in a position of imposing arbitrary and capricious standards for movement by poll observers in the execution of their tasks and functions, or for having discretionary authority to remove a Poll Observer from the voting enclosure if the only “disruption” is the frequency of Poll Observer movement in and out of the voting enclosure. b. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (d)(3) exacerbates an already ambiguous rule for “interfering with the privacy of a voter…” The proper positioning of an observer to adequately monitor voting activities within the voting enclosure is constrained by numerous factors including space available in the enclosure, sound (and acoustic) constraints in the enclosure, and configuration of the tables and equipment in the enclosure. Moreover, observers cannot communicate with or compel election staff not to expose confidential voter information from view. The prohibition in this rule ought to be clearly defined by specific distance (no closer than 6 feet, for example) or simply to say Poll Observers are prohibited from viewing confidential voter data. Arbitrary, discretionary, and ambiguous terminology like the language in (d)(3) lead to Poll Observer confusion and unnecessary challenges within the voting enclosure, which could potentially lead to disruption of voting activity. c. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (d)(9) is clearly inconsistent with Chapter 163 of the NCGS in that it imposes non-statutory restrictions on movement and methods for Poll Observers. Observers must be able to make expeditious entry and exit from the voting enclosure as their duties require. They must have the same latitude for movement that precinct and site officials have to adequately monitor election operations. Restricting Poll Observers to use of the same doorways that voters are limited to could cause “disruption” in the voting lines and prevent timely Poll Observer monitoring of voting activity. d. 08 NCAC 20 .0101(d)(10) incorrectly presumes that Site Administrators or Precinct Chief Judges are authorized to designate an area for Poll Observers to operate from. Chapter 163 of the NCGS does not authorize precinct or site officials to designate areas for poll observers to operate from. Instead, the statutes clearly and specifically delineate what Poll Observers are not permitted to observe- essentially, confidential voter information and the markings on a ballot. This proposed rule has no basis in statute and is ambiguous at best. It serves only to grant precinct or site officials authority not envisioned in the general statutes to arbitrarily restrict the positioning and range of operations for Poll Observers. e. 08 NCAC 20 .0101(d)(11) is vague and ambiguous. It does not meaningfully contribute to the good order and discipline in the voting enclosure. The words “Distributing or posting any written material in the voting enclosure” can be wildly interpreted to include carrying a clipboard with printed materials on it, or wearing a badge informing all persons present that the person is a Poll Observer, or wearing a shirt with the U.S. Constitution printed on it. There is no need for such a rule when Poll Observers are already prohibited from making contact with voters and staff and because they are prohibited from wearing or distributing campaign materials or electioneering in (d)(1). f. No where in Chapter 08 of NCAC is there an adequate or complete list of terms and definitions for voting and election-related rules. This omission is a serious NCSBE deficiency that mitigates against temporary rulemaking. Proposed new temporary rules in 08 NCAC 20 .0101 use undefined and ambiguous terms like “disruption,” “posting written materials,” and “positioning themselves so close…” NCSBE is in serious need for formal rulemaking to replace the now-expired lists of terms and definitions used throughout their rules in Chapter 08 of the NCAC. 3. Statutory guidelines in NCGS § 163 and the existing rules under 08 NCAC 10B .0101 were adequate for managing the upcoming election cycle, without clarification. Subparagraphs (a) through (g) are substantially unchanged. However, the NCSBE proposal to add Subparagraph (h) “Prohibited acts by precinct officials” is fatally flawed- likely to generate more confusion and disruption to the voting process than it eliminates. All twelve proposed “prohibited acts” have serious flaws in construction, definition, scope, or practicality. Most of these rules were already addressed through “other provisions of law” as Attorney Love so astutely pointed out in her presentation before the board on July 14, 2022. a. 08 NCAC 10B .0101 (h)(1) introduces a new, undefined term “tampering,” as in “tampering with voting equipment.” It must be recognized that precinct officials have a duty to configure, operate, and manage the operations of election equipment. Any mistake in performing those duties could be construed to mean “tampering.” If the NCSBE perceives there to be a risk from criminal manipulation of a voting machine, then perhaps the term “tampering” should be clearly defined in the NCAC and uniformly applied to anyone who might have access to a voting machine, including voters, election staff, the company producing the machine, Poll Observers, and anyone coming in contact with a voting machine. b. 08 NCAC 10B .0101 (h)(2) introduces the newly prohibited concept of “permitting unauthorized access to voting facilities or equipment.” There is no accompanying definition for the meaning of “unauthorized access” to frame this rule. The language could be interpreted to mean unauthorized access to the voting facility by voters, unauthorized contractor access to equipment, unauthorized staff contact with machines, and myriad other improper activities. This rule is not needed to enumerate duties and responsibilities for precinct officials as they already are outlined in (a) through (g) of this ruleset. c. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(3) introduces the notion of “intent” into the rules for prohibited activity. Intent presumes a knowledge of the state of mind of a precinct official, which is problematic short a declaratory statement from the precinct official about his or her intent. Precinct officials are expected to facilitate legal and permissible voting as defined in (a) through (g) of the tasks and duties of precinct officials. Ambiguous statements about willful or intentional behavior serve only to confuse officials and voters. Note- it should be prohibited activity for any precinct official to improperly or impermissibly interfere with, delay or prevent any voter from casting a ballot, regardless of intent. As such, this rule is a solution in search of a problem. d. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(4) seeks to outlaw precinct official oral and written communications that might be interpreted to be “political” in nature. “Political views” run the gamut of values, beliefs, policies, governmental preferences, and cultural predispositions. Attempts to regulate the broad category of “political views,” and specifically prohibiting speech about political views, are dangerously close to infringement on one’s First Amendment right to free speech. Best this rule be eliminated to avoid confusion or constitutional challenge. While not recommended as a substitute, expressions of “partisanship” or “political party preference” are far superior standards for prejudicial speech to be discouraged among election officials in the voting enclosure. e. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(5) prohibits precinct officials from missing training, creating an unnecessary, redundant rule. Precinct officials are already required to attend training by their respective county boards of elections as expressed in 08 NCAC 13 .0103 Training and Certification of Team Members and in NCAC 04 .0305 Instruction of Precinct Officials and Voters in the Use of Voting Systems. f. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(6) disallows some precinct officials from following the instructions of others. The rule misapplies the term “lawful instructions” in attempting to establish a standard of performance for election officials. While instructions from some officials may be “lawful,” neglecting to follow those instructions or ignoring those instructions is not necessarily a violation within NCGS § 163. For example, the Chief Judge is statutorily responsible for managing his or her precinct on election day. Lawful instructions from a local Board of Elections member for the Chief Judge to perform one or more tasks at that facility – tasks that might also prevent the Chief Judge from adequately administering the election at the site – may have to be ignored or challenged by that judge. The Chief Judge is sovereign at that precinct and should be responsible for executing the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Judge, even if it means lack of conformity with some “lawful” instructions from the local BOE. g. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(7) again invokes the concept of “intent” into the rules. As stated above, “intent” is not a reasonable standard for these rules. Moreover, the notion of intent generates confusion about the issue of “providing inaccurate information.” Is it impermissible for a precinct official to unintentionally provide inaccurate information about election administration; or is it only impermissible to provide inaccurate information intentionally? This rule is unnecessary in that NCGS § 163 and 08 NCAC 10B (b) through (g) already establish duties and responsibilities for precinct officials, including the imperative for providing accurate information and reports. h. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(8) essentially states precinct officials are prohibited from breaking any rules. It is an unnecessary statement of the obvious. Moreover, this rule causes confusion by including the amorphous term “policies” among the specified items precinct officials must follow or adhere to. This rule does not clarify what the precinct official is to do when local election or voting “policy” interferes with requirements in NCGS § 163. i. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(9) again invokes the concept of “intent” with respect to reporting incidents. As stated earlier, “intent” ought not be applied to these rules as the standard of “intent” cannot easily or reliably be determined. Moreover, a precinct officer may choose not to report minor incidents, with little or no consequence for election administration, to higher authority. NCGS § 163 is silent on many aspects of election reporting requirements and standards and does not suggest rulemaking to apply “intent” as a standard for precinct officer behavior. j. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(10) introduces unclear terms and conditions in the regulation of prohibited information sharing. “Confidential voter information” is not defined in NCGS § 163 or 08 NCAC. “Confidential information on security features of voting equipment or voting facilities” is not clearly understandable. The term “non-elections officials” in this context is presumed to be everyone not classified as an election official by statute; but this too isn’t defined or clear. k. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(11) prohibits voter discrimination among a host of categories. This rule is unnecessary because state and federal laws already prohibit voter discrimination in all these enumerated areas. Rulemaking is not necessary. l. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(12) cross references to NCGS § 163-41(e) in prohibiting engagement in otherwise certain “political activities” on the part of precinct officials from the start of early voting until the end of election day. NCGS § 163-41(e). This prohibition is not needed because the statute already requires administration of the oath acknowledging the precinct official will not engage in those specified “political activities.” The rule is unnecessary because it is redundant with the statute. m. As stated in paragraph 2.f. above, the absence of a comprehensive set of terms and definitions by NCSBE causes the proposed rules in 08 NCAC 10B (h) to be vague and ambiguous. Before developing any new rules for voting and elections, NCSBE ought to be compelled to perform formal rulemaking for the expressed purpose of developing terms and definitions that can be used to properly interpret and apply its rules across all of 08 NCAC. James K. Womack President, North Carolina Election Integrity Team www.NCEIT.org Tel. (919) 770-4783

One of the lefty publications in Washington, POLITICO, published an attempted hit piece attacking Cleta Mitchell this week for her presentation at the Arizona Election Integrity Summit in March 2022 – during which Cleta talked about how the left intends to manipulate the 2022 elections using our tax dollars. Because POLITICO falsified its description of the presentation, we are publishing the entire audio so you can learn what the Biden Administration is doing with your money. In March 2021, Biden issued Executive Order 14091, which requires all 600 federal government agencies to develop a “voter registration plan” using federal dollars to target what the left calls the “New American Majority” (their words, not ours): young people, people of color, unmarried women, and low- income people. The Executive Order targets those who are most vulnerable in our society, who come to the federal government agencies for assistance and benefits, and then uses their vulnerability for the Democrats’ political purposes. A major part of the plan is to provide tax dollars to left wing groups to “educate” voters…not all voters, though. Just the ones who comprise what the left calls the New American Majority. And none of the agencies are coughing up their plans, despite demands under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for copies of the agency plans. Mollie Hemingway wrote in June 2022 about the secrecy of the Biden Executive Order and the White House plans. Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections (thefederalist.com). The Biden Administration is using our tax dollars to churn out Democrat votes in November 2022. Listen to the entire audio presentation and help us fight back to stop this misappropriation by Democrats of our tax dollars for their political purposes. Biden Executive Order Using Tax-dollars for Democratic GOTV https://rumble.com/v1eo22j-biden-executive-order-using-tax-dollars-for-democratic-gotv.html Subscribe and listen on: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify Please support the Election Integrity Network by making a tax-deductible donation today. Your gift will help us build a coalition of conservative activists, leaders, public officials, and organizations to advance election integrity reforms nationwide. DONATE

More Training: Here's your chance to get a better insight on Cleta Mitchell's Guide we use to secure election integrity. Ned Jones will be having a Zoom meet on Thursday, August 25th at 7PM. Please consider joining the call. Here's the link for Thursday.8/25/22. Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI's Zoom Meeting Time: Aug 25, 2022 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81451848283?pwd=U1A2SDd0NE9qUHVoa3AvRFpWSXJzQT09 Meeting ID: 814 5184 8283 Passcode: 036912 One tap mobile +13126266799,,81451848283#,,,,*036912# US (Chicago) +16469313860,,81451848283#,,,,*036912# US Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 309 205 3325 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 386 347 5053 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 814 5184 8283 Passcode: 036912 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbcGNhncMM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ned Jones11:21 AM (4 hours ago) to me, hoffmanm679, karenvasquez1234 The Zoom trainings are Tuesday, 8/23/2022 Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI's Zoom Meeting Time: Aug 23, 2022 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87124729209?pwd=eW9IbWtJRUlkdkI3eVhxSEI0cFhkQT09 Meeting ID: 871 2472 9209 Passcode: 301023 One tap mobile +13092053325,,87124729209#,,,,*301023# US +13126266799,,87124729209#,,,,*301023# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 386 347 5053 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 719 359 4580 US Meeting ID: 871 2472 9209 Passcode: 301023 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kCien7cze Ned Jones Deputy Director, Election Integrity Network Conservative Partnership Institute 804-337-9966 www.whoscounting.us Thanks, I'll be there. Got it, thanks! Thank you! ReplyReply allForward Ned JonesDeputy Director, Election Integrity Network Conservative Partnership Institute 804-337-9966 www.whoscounting.us

Click on the link: https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/so/2fOBAhSzO?languageTag=en&cid=de5f0a75-82ac-41f9-8d18-d2861b0d7ed7#/main

Asheville Tea Party will be having monthly meetings the first Thursday of each month at IHOP, 229 Airport Road, Arden at 6PM. On Thursday, August 4th, we will be showing the documentary 'Rigged: The Zuckerberg Plot To Defeat Donald Trump.' It will be followed by the winning strategy the North Carolina Election Integrity Team (NCEIT.org) is implementing to assure 2020 never happens again and how you can join the fight to assure election integrity. Sign ups for the NCEIT Regional Summit in Asheville on August 20th welcome. The Trailer here. Summary: Rigged is a documentary by Citizens United Productions, exposing Mark Zuckerberg for his role in funding drop-box ballot operations across the country during the 2020 Election. This documentary outlines a blatant cover-up of the fact that a billionaire elitist used his personal fortune to illegitimately sway the 2020 Election in favor of Joe Biden. By placing ballot drop-boxes across the country, Zuckerberg helped facilitate the ballot harvesting that was used to rob the American people of their voice. Please check out the posts on AshevilleTeaParty.org. Find out how the legislature, the judiciary, and the North Carolina State Board of Elections is doing everything in their power to stop us - but they won't. NCEIT is part of an eight state initiative to duplicate the 2021 Virginia electoral success. Come to the meeting and find out how this all came about and how to join this monumental to assure that we have a Republic. Thank you. Jane@NCEIT.org

This is How The Left Hopes to Seize Control of Local Elections. The Left only has a 2-5% radicalized army of robot activist puppets run by an even smaller Marxist Democratic Socialist Cabal at the top. Their greatest weakness is the 95% of Americans who wake up and decide to start representing themselves and take back the nation! Are you one of the 95%? Learn how to take back our country. Join us at the The North Carolina Election Integrity Team Regional Summit in Asheville Date Saturday, August 20, 2022 Time 9:15AM – 3PM Location Woodfin Community Center 23 Community Rd. Woodfin, NC Buy Tickets Here $15 Deadline for ticket sales is Saturday, August 13th so you have lunch. Registration includes materials and lunch. Agenda: Poll Watcher Training. Task Forces/Work Groups. Our Reporting System. List Maintenance. Absentee Ballots, and more. We are building a permanent electoral infrastructure and duplicating the election success in Virginia in 2021. This is how we fix election fraud. See Citizens Guide to Building an Election Integrity Infrastructure: www.whoscounting.us Election Integrity Network – Who’s Counting with Cleta Mitchell Paid for by NCEIT.org and not any candidate or candidate's committee.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/08/09/judge-who-approved-maralago-raid-tied-to-epstein-obama-n2611480?utm_source=breakingemail In the hours since President Trump announced that his "Southern White House" Mar-A-Lago had been raided by the FBI, details on how the federal operation against the former president came to be were scant — but as more information about the raid's approval comes to light, things are looking even worse for those going after Trump. As Miranda Devine uncovered, a sealed search warrant was assigned to magistrate judge Bruce E. Reinhart, someone who has quite the legal history in Florida. Reinhart's resume includes previously quitting his job with the U.S. Attorney's office — which was prosecuting crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein — in order to start a private practice — through which he represented people who worked for Jeffrey Epstein against the government. That nugget of intrigue came from The Miami Herald: On October 23, 2007, as federal prosecutors in South Florida were in the midst of tense negotiations to finalize a plea deal with accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, a senior prosecutor in their office quietly laying out plans to leave the U.S. attorney's office after 11 years. On that date, as emails were flying between Epstein's lawyers and federal prosecutors, Bruce E. Reinhart, now a federal magistrate, opened a limited liability company in Florida that established what would become his new criminal defense practice. The stated address, according to Florida state corporate records: 250 South Australian Ave., Suite 1400. It was the same location, and identical suite number, as that of Epstein's lead attorney, Jack Goldberger. By the end of the year, Reinhart had resigned his post in the Southern District of Florida. Within Days, on Jan. 2, 2008, he was hired to represent several of Epstein's accused accomplices who would later, like Epstein, receive federal immunity for allegedly trafficking underage girls. So, Reinhart switched from working for the government and prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein and his associates for sex trafficking to... representing Jeffrey Epstein's employees accused of sex trafficking against the government, a successful effort that saw his clients get immunity. Among the Epstein employees Reinhart represented were his scheduler, pilot, and a woman Epstein once referred to as his "Yugoslavian sex slave," The New York Post reported. Adding to the questionable reputation for Judge Reinhart are his political campaign donations. Per FEC records, Reinhart donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in 2008 and $500 to Jeb Bush in 2015. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/08/09/judge-who-approved-maralago-raid-tied-to-epstein-obama-n2611480?utm_source=breakingemail

https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/first-settlement-reached-health-care-workers-lawsuit-filed-over-covid Chicago-based NorthShore University HealthSystem has agreed to pay more than 500 current and former health workers. The first settlement in the U.S. has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed by health care workers over a university system’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Chicago-based NorthShore University HealthSystem has agreed to pay more than 500 current and former health-care workers a total of $10,337,500 as part of the terms of the settlement. It’s also changing its policy to accommodate religious exemption requests and rehiring former employees who were fired or forced to resign whose exemption requests were denied. Represented by the nonprofit religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel, NorthShore employees sued, alleging they were discriminated against because they were denied religious exemptions from the company’s vaccine mandate. The settlement was filed Friday in the federal Northern District Court of Illinois. The is the “first-of-its-kind class action settlement against a private employer who unlawfully denied hundreds of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 shots,” Liberty Counsel said. Its founder and chairman, Mat Staver, said it “should be a wake-up call to every employer that did not accommodate or exempt employees who opposed the COVID shots for religious reasons. Let this case be a warning to employers that violated Title VII.” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The settlement nearly concludes a conflict that began after NorthShore rejected employees’ religious accommodation requests to its “Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.” Last October, Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter on behalf of the impacted employees but NorthShore didn’t change its policy. As a result, Liberty Counsel filed a class action lawsuit. “If NorthShore had agreed then to follow the law and grant religious exemptions, the matter would have been quickly resolved and it would have cost it nothing,” Liberty Counsel said. While the parties have agreed to the settlement, it still has to be approved by the court. Employees of NorthShore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement and be given an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment within deadlines yet to be established by the court. The settlement requires NorthShore to change its “no religious accommodations” policy, which it has agreed to do, and provide religious accommodations in every position throughout its company. Employees who were terminated because their religious exemption requests were denied are now eligible to be rehired, according to the terms of the settlement. They can apply for positions at their previously held seniority level within 90 days of the court approving the final settlement. NorthShore’s director of PR, Colette Urban, told The Center Square, “We continue to support system-wide, evidence-based vaccination requirements for everyone who works at NorthShore – Edward-Elmhurst Health and thank our team members for helping to keep our communities safe. “The settlement reflects implementation of a new system-wide vaccine policy which will include accommodation for team members with approved exemptions, including former employees who are rehired.” The amount individuals will receive in payments will depend on how many valid and timely claim forms are submitted. If all, or nearly all, affected employees file valid and timely claims, it’s estimated that those who were fired or forced to resign after their religious exemption requests were denied will receive approximately $25,000 each. Those who were vaccinated under duress in order to keep their jobs and against their religious beliefs will receive about $3,000 each. The 13 employees who were the lead plaintiffs will receive an additional payment of roughly $20,000 each. Liberty Counsel will receive 20% of the settlement amount of $2,061,500 to cover attorney fees and costs. Liberty Counsel’s VP of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio G. Mihet said, “The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to NorthShore’s employees who were callously forced to choose between their conscience and their jobs. This settlement should also serve as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.” Staver added that it was “especially significant and gratifying that this first classwide COVID settlement protects health care workers. Health care workers are heroes who daily give their lives to protect and treat their patients. They are needed now more than ever.”

On Saturday, August 20th, 2022, 146 patriots gathered in Buncombe County at 9AM at the Woodfin Community Center for a day of North Carolina Election Integrity Training and learning how to make it Easy to Vote and Hard to Cheat. It was incredibly successful and the day accomplished what the NCEIT team hoped it would. Because we value and respect you, a crew of 12 of us arrived at 6:30AM to make the place look decent, a very difficult task for reasons stated below. This letter was sent to Shannon Tuch, Woodfin Town Manager, all of the Buncombe County Commissioners, residents of Woodfin, and key folks in Buncombe who attended. Why did we rent this place? We needed a place that could afford a large crowd and we needed to keep the cost at a minimum. Your entry fee covered materials, lunch and the venue. This was the only place we could find that met those needs. We tried churches and other community centers to no avail. We thank you for your patience and your understanding. It is my hope that maybe, just maybe, something will be done about the care and maintenance of this facility paid for by Buncombe taxpayers. You deserve better! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complaint From a Customer: There is no excuse for filth and disrepair and deliberate negligence of the Woodfin Community Center. External Inbox Jane Bilello 8:36 PM (11 hours ago) August 21, 2022 to STuch@WoodFin-NC.gov Town of Woodfin Shannon Tuch Town Manager 90 Elk Mountain Rd. Woodfin, NC 28804 STuch@WoodFin-NC.gov 828 253 4887 Jane Bilello NCEIT 218 Vincent Place Hendersonville, NC 28739 Cell: 209 986 3845 Dear Ms Tuch: On July 6, 2022, I signed a contract with the Woodfin Community Center for rental of that space for August 20, 2022 for the purpose of educational training. With a debit card, I paid $525.00 on July 6th, 2022 and on July 15th, 2022, I paid $265.00 for a total of $790.00. The contract I signed states a rental fee of $250.00 with a deposit of $500.00 for a total of $750.00. We had no alcohol. Why $790? This is the additional problem. Others who rented Woodfin Community Center complained that the place was dirty. There were beer bottles and cake left on the floor. It also had no air conditioning. I called Ryan Vinson to talk to him about this. He said that it would be cleaned up by Merry Maids and it would be clean for our use on August 20th. He also informed me that the air conditioning would be fixed. So, three of us came to inspect the place starting approximately 3 weeks before our event. We made three visits to the Center. Picked up the key. This is what we found - on two visits! The floor was so dirty that we stuck to the floor. The floor is tile. Cleaners remove dirt and grit. I know because I have tile in my house. The excuse that it was an old floor and it had always been that way did not hold sway. It obviously was not cleaned. The kitchen was filthy. Both refrigerators had never been cleaned. They contained sprinkles, crud stuck to the shelves, and some brown gunk stuck to the bottom shelf. There were crumbs and sticky stuff on the counter tops. The bottles of cleaner were empty. The closets smelled. The toilet seat in the handicapped ladies’ room was broken. It would not stay up. The toilet paper dispenser in the handicapped ladies’ bathroom was held together with scotch tape. It did not work. Other than a light over the vanity in both the ladies and men’s room, the other two fluorescents in both bathrooms were burnt out. There was garbage all over the lawn. The garbage pails were full and stunk. Mr. Vinson said that the garbage was picked up by the town once a week. The grass was mowed every other week. However, we came to make sure the place was clean. The garbage pails were still full and stunk. Garbage was also stuck to the cement patio on the side of the building. We spoke to Mr. Vinson again when we returned the key. He said that Merry Maids would return to clean the floor and the kitchen. The day before our event, on August 19th, 2022, at approximately 11:30AM, two of us came to pick up the key to inspect the facility again. This is what we found. The floor had been cleaned. It looked good. We did not stick to the floor. The kitchen had never been cleaned. It was still filthy. The fluorescent lights in both bathrooms were still dead. I brought my blower from home anticipating debris on the sidewalk. It was still there. So, I used the blower to blow out the sidewalk of the debris strewn on the sidewalk and all over the lawn. It wasn’t enough. We hand picked out paper, bottle caps and other debris from the lawn. The air conditioning worked. This was a good sign. However, it quit on August 20th. We had to go out and purchase 5 fans to keep the place cool until 3PM. The fluorescent light in both bathrooms still didn’t work. The toiled seat was still not repaired. The toilet paper dispenser held together with scotch tape was not still not replaced. The garbage pails were still full and stunk. There was garbage stuck to the patio where the garbage cans are kept. When we returned the key to Janice in the office, we informed her of what we found. Very nice lady. She called me a few hours later to tell me the toilet seat had been fixed and the lights replaced so they worked. That was a welcome relief and I thanked her profusely. Saturday, August 20th, 2022, the day of the event. A crew of 12 of us arrived at 6:30AM. We cleaned the kitchen: the countertops and the filthy refrigerators. Disgraceful. The fluorescent lights in both bathrooms had been replaced and worked. However, the toilet seat still would not remain upright. It had not been repaired properly. It should have been replaced. We decorated the filthy front doors, back and front. A little paint would have been great. The air conditioner quit within an hour after folks arrived. It seemed that the kitchen air worked but the main room did not. So, one of our folks went out and bought 5 fans to keep the temperature down for the 146 of us who were there from 9:15AM to 3PM. Purchasing fans for $105.00 was an expense we did not expect or anticipate. We washed down the kitchen after we finished. We also brought our own toilet paper and paper towels and plenty of hand disinfectant. Ms. Tuch, we all understand ‘old’ facilities that need updating. However, there is no excuse for filth and disrepair and deliberate negligence. That’s all this is. Deliberate negligence. You have some nerve charging this kind of money for this dump. I had thirteen North Carolina counties from across the state in that room on August 20th. The opening remarks focused on this place as a physical manifestation of the failure of government. A waste of Buncombe tax payer dollars. A very poor face for Buncombe. I know Buncombe is trying to pay for greenways and parks. That’s all well and good but it has nothing to do with cleaning facilities you are renting to the public and charging a ridiculous amount of money for a filthy, unkempt facility in total disrepair. How dare you. Repeated reasonable requests to at least fix and clean every day wear and tear went unanswered. Have you no shame! We left this dump in way better shape than what we found it. I am forwarding this to your commissioners, residents of Woodfin who attended as well as the many Buncombe county folks who attended our event. Something needs to be done. I expect our $525.00 deposit - over charge - to be returned and a reimbursement of the $105.00 we spent on fans at the very least. We will never rent this place again and we will make sure no one else we know does either. This is shameful and a blatant disrespect and disregard for every hard working taxpayer in your town and county! Totally Disgusted With You, Jane Bilello 209 986 3845 -- North Carolina Election Integrity Team NCEIT.org Jane@NCEIT.org Cell: 209 986 3845

Task for #1: County Board of Elections Liaison (Leads all local Task Force interactions with CBE) County Board of Elections Liaison Citizens Guide to Building An Election Integrity Infrastructure here Task Force #1: Pg 12 - 13 Become a Presence Always go to in twos. Witnesses! Remember: You Build a Permanent Infrastructure •Make an appointment with your local Board of Elections Director. Let that person know who you are. How can we support your tasks? Where do you need help? Volunteers? •Get to know your local Republican Board of Elections members. How can we support you? What are the current issues we need to address? Have coffee. Exchange phone numbers. Stay in close touch. •Get on an email list from the local BOE to be notified of the upcoming meetings. Request an Agenda from the BOE. (Warning: The will probably send a generic/non-descript agenda. This is where your relationship with your BOE member is vital. Know what to expect at the upcoming meeting. •Request notification for Observation of Voting Machine Set-Up and Testing •Read the minutes of the last BOE meeting: learn the issues that have been addressed (or not) by the office in past meetings. •Attend every local BOE meeting. No less than two. Have a phone or in-person meet with others on your task force to go over what to expect/hear. •After the meeting is concluded, remain, raise your hand and ask question about what you just heard at the meeting. (Ex: What is the chain of custody for seals on absentee ballots? Where do you store them? What security measures do you use? Are you taking funds from any 501c3s?) (Know that answer!) •Make the commitment that every decision made by the election office will be made in the presence of one or more representatives of your local Election Integrity Team. •Only by being ever-present at the election office and board meetings can you see and learn things. •Make the commitment that every decision made by the election office will be made in the presence of one or more representatives of your local Election Integrity Team. Only by being ever-present at the election office and board meetings can you see and learn things. BeThere PLAN TO MAKE THIS PERMANENT!