Public Records Request for Committee for Safe and Secure Elections (CSSE). Copy/Paste into a clean email sheet and fill in your information. To: Your Local County BOE Director Address Phone Email From: ____ County North Carolina Election Integrity Team (NCEIt) Your Name Address: _________ To: _______ County Board of Elections Date: ___________ Attention: (BOE Director________) Subject: Request for Public Records for the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections Pursuant to the North Carolina Freedom of Information Act, releasable under the provisions of NCGS 132-1, Public Records, I am requesting the following information. Please provide me with any correspondence, including, but not limited to, letters, emails, faxes, phone call notes, meeting notes, grant applications, grant offers, grant contracts, scholarship applications, scholarship offers, scholarship contracts between anyone associated with The Committee for Safe and Secure Elections and anyone in the office of___________Director of ________ County Board of Elections, the Electoral Board, governing body, or other municipal employees, appointees and elected officials. I am requesting this documentation be provided to me at no charge in an electronic format that is commonly machine readable (suck as pdf, jpg, etc.) and in a common media form such as email, thumb drive or DVD disc. CC Your County Board of Elections members. Their emails should be on your county website) Thank you. Your name Your Email: Your Phone:

Public Records Request for The U S Alliance for Election Excellence (USAEE). Copy/Paste into a clean email sheet and fill in your information. From: ____ County North Carolina Election Integrity Team (NCEIIT) Your Name Address: _________ To: _______ County Board of Elections Date: ___________ Attention: (BOE Director________) CC Your County Board of Elections members. Their emails should be on your county website) Subject: Request for Public Records for the U S Alliance for Election Excellence (USAEE) Pursuant to the North Carolina Freedom of Information Act, releasable under the provisions of NCGS 132-1, Public Records, I am requesting the following information. Please provide me with any correspondence, including, but not limited to, letters, emails, faxes, phone call notes, meeting notes, grant applications, grant offers, grant contracts, scholarship applications, scholarship offers, scholarship contracts between anyone associated with The U S Alliance for Election Excellence (USAEE) and anyone in the office of___________Director of ________ County Board of Elections, the Electoral Board, governing body, or other municipal employees, appointees and elected officials. I am requesting this documentation be provided to me at no charge in an electronic format that is commonly machine readable (sucH as pdf, jpg, etc.) and in a common media form such as email, thumb drive or DVD disc. Time frame: 1/1/2022 to the present. Thank you. Your name Your Email: Your Phone:

FROM: __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ TO: ______County Board of Elections ATTN: ___________, Director __________________________ __________________________ •Pursuant to the North Carolina Freedom of Information Act, releasable under the provisions of NCGS § 132- Public Records, I am requesting the following information. •Please provide me with an electronic copy of any correspondence, including, but not limited to, letters, emails, faxes, phone call notes, meeting notes, grant applications, grant offers, grant contracts, between anyone associated with •· The US Alliance for Election Excellence •· The Center for Civic Design •· The Elections Group •· The Center for Election Innovation and Research •· US Digital Response •· The Committee for Safe & Secure Elections (CSSE) and anyone in the __________ County Board of Elections office, the Electoral Board, governing body, or other municipal employees, appointees and elected officials. "Public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. For any records found that are deemed non-releasable because of confidentiality or security restrictions, the County BOE’s response shall indicate the existence of those other records that are not releasable and identify all local officials who are authorized to review that documentation. I am requesting this documentation be provided to me at no charge in an electronic format that is commonly machine readable (such as pdf, jpg, etc.) and in a common media form such as a thumb drive or DVD. Thank you. Your name

Submitted by Jim Womack Wednesday, 6/22. 2023, The NC Senate actually released a 3rd Edition of S747 with three amendments, then passed it out of committee and the Senate on third reading. It is now in the House for consideration next week. We have precious little time to get folks mobilized and in action. Here's what I have discovered in my brief review of Edition 3: 1. Edition 3 preserves much of the language in Edition 2 (which we have numerous objections to). 2. Edition 3 amended the anti-Zuckerbucks provisions of Sections 1 and 2 to also prohibit "in-kind" contributions- a nice improvement that we had asked for. 3. Edition 3 adds the requirement for NCSBE to conduct a pilot test of signature verification software and procedures during the 2024 primary period in 10 counties, and to report lessons learned to the NCGA for additional statutory consideration. The Pilot Test is described in Section 33 of the edition. I am seriously disappointed in our Senate contacts failing to address the vast majority of things we provided and discussed with them. Clearly, they were not motivated to move the needle on election integrity. Here is the link to Edition 3 that is now engrossed and awaiting on the House docket: https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/Senate/PDF/S747v3.pdf Beginning Friday through all of next week we need to rally the troops to get the House to fix this deficient bill. I will be sending out a special message Friday to our 1066 active NCEIT members to make repetitive phone calls to all House targets advocating for meaningful election law changes- including H770 and H772, along with fixing the many deficiencies in S747. Best/ Jim

Submitted by Jim Womack Some good news to report. In March & April, we worked our tails off to generate a comprehensive bill addressing Poll Observer authority and permitted activities. We successfully secured sponsors in the House (while the Senate blew us off). The House elections committee chair Grey Mills was one of the four co-sponsors. Our old friend George Cleveland, though, was a primary sponsor as well and he has been pressuring Mills and the others to get the bill moved out of the Elections Committee. After sitting for two full months, the bill moved to the Judiciary Committee yesterday and secured a favorable report. It has been re-referred back to House Rules, Calendar & Operations where it has a good chance of securing passage. I am excited by this movement and hopeful it will proceed next week to the House Floor for 2nd and 3rd readings, then cross over to the Senate for quick consideration. Here is the action plan- 1. We remain supportive of H772 passing independently through both chambers; and we also support the contents of this bill being rolled into S747 in the House if that's what will be needed to get it passed through both chambers. 2. We will generate a lot of activist calls, faxes, and emails across the House Monday through Thursday of next week to make sure all our targets know the contents of H772 bill are imperative. (We also need to motivate them to move H770 - Cast Vote Records). 3. We will monitor this bill's status at least twice each day so we remain situationally aware of its movement. 4. We will ask George Cleveland, Harry Warren, and Ted Davis to help us keep this bill alive as a top Elections Committee priority. 5. We will work on key House Rules, Calendar & Operations Committee members to ensure they know how important this bill is, as well as H770. Warm Regards/ Jim Womack (919) 770-4783

Infiltration of Schools and Colleges : https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/post/citizens-research-project-infiltration-of-schools-and-colleges From Restoration News: (Weaponized Charities/Manufactured Participation) Leftist Center for Voter Information/Voter Participation Center website CVI/VPC Inside Democrats’ Best Kept Secret: Mass NonProfit Voter Registration (Pt.1) •Foundation Maps here https://maps.foundationcenter.org/#/list/?subjects=all&popgroups=all&years=all&location=6252001&excludeLocation=0&geoScale=ADM0&layer=recip&boundingBox=-188.7890625,-66.65297740055277,189.140625,76.10079606754579&gmOrgs=all&recipOrgs=all&tags=all&keywords=&pathwaysOrg=&pathwaysType=&acct=democracy&typesOfSupport=all&transactionTypes=all&amtRanges=all&minGrantAmt=0&maxGrantAmt=0&gmTypes=all&minAssetsAmt=0&maxAssetsAmt=0&minGivingAmt=0&maxGivingAmt=0&andOr=0&includeGov=1&custom=all&customArea=all&indicator=&dataSource=oecd&chartType=bars&multiSubject=1&listType=gm&windRoseAnd=undefined&zoom=0 •Complete List of U.S. Organizations Funded by George Soros: https://thewillcountynews.com/install/index.php/2020/01/11/complete-list-of-u-s-organizations-funded-by-george-soros/

See link https://voterga.org/studies/ Capital Research Center report on 2020 “ZuckBucks” funds in battleground states This updated Capital Research Center report defines how $330 million was distributed from CTCL disproportionally across the country to change the results of the 2020 Presidential election in violation of Equal Protection clauses in Georgia and U.S. Constitutions. The Georgia SOS office never objected to this $45 million violation of state and federal law. he latest in a series exposing Mark Zuckerberg’s influence on the 2020 election. The Capital Research Center was among the first to unearth hundreds of millions of dollars in “Zuck bucks” flowing from the family of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to, first, the Center for Technology and Civic Life, (CTCL), and then on to thousands of local government election offices in 2020. We were also the first to report on the secrets hidden in CTCL’s financial disclosures in December 2021, which confirmed the flood of private money used to skew 2020 election turnout and unseat President Trump. Now, after an entire year of exposing how one billionaire privatized a presidential election, we can re-examine our original findings in nine battleground states that were essential to placing Joe Biden in the White House. The results are striking—and in many cases, even worse than we initially feared. For an ongoing list of states banning or restricting private funding of elections, go here. For answers to common Zuck bucks questions, go here. Jan. 18, 2022: Our Zuck Bucks reporting was featured in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board’s condemnation of using private money to fund elections: “Zuckerbucks Shouldn’t Pay for Elections“ CTCL “consistently gave bigger grants and more money per capita to counties that voted for Biden, ” says an analysis by the Capital Research Center. Its tally for Georgia, to pick one state, shows average grants of $1.41 per head in Trump areas and $5.33 in Biden ones. A conservative group in Wisconsin suggests that extra voter outreach funded by CTCL could have boosted Mr. Biden’s turnout there by something like 8,000 votes. It isn’t hard to see why they’re concerned. . . . Yet among the “advisory services” that CTCL made available to Green Bay, one consultant was from the Brennan Center, a highly ideological outfit that supports Democratic legal and election causes. What if conservatives underwrote “voter outreach” by town clerks, while sending in experts from the Heritage Foundation? This isn’t how elections should be run, especially in the current era of partisan mistrust. For convenience and transparency, we’ve grouped the nine states CRC examined in 2020 below, with links to our original reports and data sets so the facts can speak for themselves. December 30, 2021: This article will be updated as we finish analyzing the data. January 3, 2022: Analysis completed for all states except Michigan and Wisconsin, where CTCL’s grant reporting makes it difficult to complete on a county level. January 18, 2022: Added analysis for Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania (Updated December 30, 2021) | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $22 million Their disclosed data: $25 million Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0.57 Trump; $3.11 Biden Their disclosed data: $0.60 Trump; $2.85 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 10 of the 13 counties Biden won statewide, one of which (Erie County) flipped from Trump’s 2016 column. Together, these 10 counties received $20.8 million, or over 83 percent of all CTCL grants to Pennsylvania. In contrast, CTCL gave grants to 12 of the 54 counties Trump won statewide. These 12 counties received just $1.73 million, a mere 7 percent of all CTCL funds in the Keystone state. Turnout: CTCL-funded counties provided Biden with 2.5 million votes, nearly 73 percent of his statewide total. These same CTCL-funded counties provided Trump with 1.8 million votes, or 53 percent of his statewide total. Overall, in CTCL-funded counties Biden turnout surged by an additional 20 percent over 2016 turnout… But Trump turnout surged by only 15 percent in these same counties. Per capita bias: The 5 biggest grants per capita in CTCL-funded counties all went to counties which Biden won: Philadelphia: $6.56 Centre: $5.46 Chester: $4.79 Delaware: $3.77 Lehigh: $2.04 The largest per capita grant to a Trump county, however, went to Berks County ($1.10). Other oddities: The Pennsylvania Department of State received $2.44 million from CTCL. How those funds were spent remains unclear, though it is possible that they were eventually distributed to counties. Early research suggests that an allied organization which received $69.5 million from Zuckerberg, the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), distributed its funds to secretaries of state. The Foundation for Government Accountability reports a CTCL grant of $37,104 to Somerset County, unlisted in CTCL’s IRS Form 990 filing (possibly an error). CTCL’s preliminary grants list includes a grant of unknown size to Somerset County. Georgia Updated Dec. 31, 2021 | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $27.8 million Their disclosed data: $45 million Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0.98 Trump; $5.06 Biden Their disclosed data: $1.41 Trump; $5.33 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 17 of the 31 counties Biden won in Georgia. Together, these 17 counties received $42.4 million, or over 94 percent of all CTCL funds in the Peach state. CTCL gave grants to 26 of the 128 counties Trump won statewide. But these 26 counties only received $2.6 million from CTCL—less than 6 percent of all grants distributed across Georgia. Turnout: CTCL-funded counties gave Biden 1.96 million votes, a little over 73 percent of all votes he received statewide. Trump, however, only received 1.35 million votes across these same CTCL-funded counties, or just over 55 percent of his statewide total. Biden turnout surged by an impressive 35 percent in CTCL-funded counties in 2020 as compared with Hillary Clinton’s turnout in the 2016 election, netting him an additional 510,000 votes. Trump turnout only increased by 18 percent in these same counties over his own 2016 performance, netting him another 203,000 votes—less than half that of Biden. Per capita bias: CTCL’s 10 biggest grants per capita all went to counties which Biden won, 6 of which are part of Atlanta: Clayton: $12.88 DeKalb: $12.59 Douglas: $11.53 Fulton: $10.01 Cobb: $7.39 Gwinnett: $6.69 Macon-Bibb: $4.78 Muscogee: $3.50 Chatham: $3.49 Dougherty: $3.44 Together these 10 counties gave Biden 1.49 million votes, 60 percent of his total across Georgia and nearly 378,000 votes over Clinton’s 2016 turnout here. In contrast, Trump only received 691,000 in these counties in 2020, an increase of just 92,000 votes over his 2016 performance. The biggest per capita grant to a Trump county went to Early County ($3.42), where Trump earned just 2,710 votes. Clayton County, CTCL’s biggest per capita target, netted Biden over 95,000 votes. Arizona Updated Dec. 31, 2021 | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $5 million Their disclosed data: $5.1 million (a difference of roughly $142,000) Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $1.29 Trump; $5.83 Biden Their disclosed data: $2.16 Trump; $3.47 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 4 of the 5 counties Biden won in Arizona. These counties received $3.9 million, 75.5 percent of all CTCL grants to the Grand Canyon state. In contrast, CTCL gave grants to 4 of the 4 counties Trump won. Trump counties received just under $671,000, or 13 percent of all CTCL grants statewide. Critically, only one county in Arizona flipped in 2020: Maricopa County, centered on Phoenix and the state’s most populous county, which broke for Biden after Trump won it in 2016. Maricopa received $1.84 million from CTCL. Turnout: CTCL-funded counties gave Biden 1.55 million votes in 2020, a staggering 92.5 percent of his statewide total. Biden grew his turnout by nearly 694,000 votes over 2016 turnout in CTCL-funded counties, an average increase of 81 percent. CTCL-funded counties gave Trump 1.42 million votes, an equally impressive 85 percent of his statewide total. Trump’s turnout in CTCL-funded counties grew by 563,000 votes over his 2016 performance, an average increase of 66 percent. Per capita bias: 8 of Arizona’s 15 counties received CTCL grants in 2020, listed below by CTCL’s per capita spending: Apache (Biden): $8.93 Navajo (Trump): $5.56 Coconino (Biden): $3.62 Pinal (Trump): $1.11 La Paz (Trump): $1.06 Pima (Biden): $0.91 Yuma (Trump): $0.89 Maricopa (Biden): $0.42 Nevada (Our original report) Total Grants: Our estimate: $2.7 million Their disclosed data: $2.7 million Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0 Trump; $0.89 Biden Their disclosed data: $0 Trump; $0.89 Biden We were dead-on in our Nevada report’s figures. Nevada received two CTCL grants, which went only to the counties that reliably vote Democrat—Washoe County and Clark County. None went to counties won by Trump. The two funded counties also fit the urban bias of CTCL: they contain the state’s eight largest cities. North Carolina Updated Jan. 3, 2021 | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $5.4 million (including $1 million to the secretary of state)* Their disclosed data: $7.2 million (including $4.3 million to the secretary of state)* *CTCL’s 2020 Form 990 report claims it gave a grant to the North Carolina Department of State treasurer; however, the address listed is that of the state Board of Elections. Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0.73 Trump; $1.46 Biden Their disclosed data: $0.61 Trump; $1.44 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 6 of the 26 counties Biden won in North Carolina. These 6 counties accounted for 64 percent of all grants paid to counties in the Tar Heel state, totaling just under $1.9 million; if we include CTCL’s huge grant to the secretary of state, however, it drops to 26 percent. Of the 74 counties Trump won, CTCL funded 21 of them. These counties received almost 36 percent of all CTCL grants to counties ($1.04 million), or 14.5 percent of all funds statewide if we include the secretary of state’s grant. Turnout: CTCL-funded counties gave Biden over 691,000 votes in 2020. That’s an increase of nearly 139,000 votes over Hillary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 election. However, this only accounts for 26 percent of Biden’s overall votes in North Carolina—a vastly lower share than in any other state we’ve examined. CTCL-funded counties gave Trump 782,000 votes, an increase of 125,000 votes over his 2016 turnout. Again, this only accounts for 28.4 percent of his statewide vote total. Yet our original estimate found that CTCL-funded counties provided Biden with 47 percent and Trump with 41 percent of their statewide vote totals, respectively. What caused this large discrepancy? One possible explanation is the mysterious $4.3 million CTCL gifted to the secretary of state, funds which (theoretically) could’ve been redistributed to counties without being reported on CTCL’s IRS disclosures. Per capita bias: The top 10 counties by per capita funding in 2020 were: Durham (Biden): $4.13 Orange (Biden): $1.96 Lenoir (Trump): $1.09 Hoke (Biden): $0.94 Jones (Trump): $0.91 Beaufort (Trump): $0.73 Craven (Trump): $0.70 Swain (Trump): $0.69 Pamlico (Trump): $0.69 Alleghany (Trump): $0.66 Biden won just 3 of the top 10 counties in this list. But that obscures a bias in the actual distribution favoring the Democratic candidate. Those 3 counties together received nearly $1.7 million from CTCL and provided Biden with 220,000 votes. The remaining 7 counties only got $196,807 from CTCL and gave Trump less than 79,000 votes. Other oddities: We originally reported a $1 million CTCL grant to the North Carolina secretary of state; CTCL’s disclosures instead report it as a $4.3 million grant. Precisely how that money was spent is still unclear, but it’s possible that the funds were redistributed by the secretary of state to county elections offices. A handful of populous counties are missing from CTCL’s IRS Form 990 filing, despite county documents showing they received CTCL grants. Wake County, for instance, reportedly got $1 million from CTCL according to this draft agreement from October 2020, but no such grant appears in CTCL’s disclosures. It’s also possible that these missing jurisdictions received their grants via the North Carolina secretary of state. Why CTCL would choose this roundabout route instead of its modus operandi of paying direct grants is a mystery. Yet despite these discrepancies the per capita spending remains shockingly close to our original estimates—and in fact worsened for Trump from $0.73 to $0.61 on average. Texas Updated Dec. 31, 2021 | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $35.2 million Their disclosed data: $38.6 million Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0.55 Trump; $2.95 Biden Their disclosed data: $0.66 Trump; $2.03 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 16 of the 22 counties Biden won in Texas. Three of these counties—Williamson, Tarrant, and Hays—flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020. No CTCL-funded counties flipped to Trump. Biden counties received a stunning 94.5 percent of all CTCL grants flowing to Texas ($36.5 million). CTCL gave grants to 67 of the 231 counties Trump won statewide. Yet Trump counties only received 5.5 percent of CTCL’s grants to Texas ($2.1 million). Trump flipped 8 traditionally Democratic counties, none of which received CTCL grants: Zapata, Val Verde, Reeves, La Salle, Kleberg, Kenedy, Jim Wells, and Frio Counties. (Although we originally believed Zapata County received a grant, CTCL’s disclosures show otherwise). Turnout: CTCL-funded counties gave Biden 4.04 million votes in 2020, or 77 percent of his votes statewide. Biden turnout increased by over 1.04 million votes over 2016 turnout for Clinton in CTCL-funded counties, an average of 24.8 percent. CTCL-funded counties gave Trump 3.6 million votes, 61 percent of his statewide vote total. Trump’s turnout also increased by 768,000 votes over his 2016 turnout, an average of 27.8 percent. This is one of the very few instances we’ve discovered where Trump outperformed his Democratic opponent in CTCL-funded counties in the 9 states we’ve examined. Per capita bias: Per capita spending was more mixed in Texas than in most other states we’ve looked at, with lower per capita figures overall in the top 10 counties: Webb (Biden): $8.80 Dallas (Biden): $5.79 Cameron (Biden): $4.38 Refugio (Trump): $2.50 Harris (Biden): $2.04 Bee (Trump): $1.91 Duval (Biden): $1.51 Dimmit (Biden): $1.48 Brooks (Biden): $1.30 Hidalgo (Biden): $1.13 Yet the presence of 2 Trump counties in this list is somewhat misleading, since together they only gave him just under 39,513 votes. Altogether, Biden netted 1.76 million votes in these counties while Trump only netted 1.2 million votes here. Other oddities: In its preliminary grants list from late 2020, CTCL reported grants to 116 Texas counties. However, its IRS Form 990 filing from late 2021 reveals grants to just 83 counties. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown. Virginia Updated Jan. 3, 2021 | (Our original report) | (New data set) Total Grants: Our estimate: $4 million Their disclosed data: $3.7 million Average Per Capita Grant: Our estimate: $0.72 Trump; $1.14 Biden Their disclosed data: $0.66 Trump; $1.11 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL gave grants to 14 of the 46 counties Biden won in 2020. Two of these jurisdictions, James City County and Lynchburg, narrowly flipped from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020. These 14 counties received $3.4 million, over 90 percent of all CTCL grants in Virginia. CTCL gave grants to 22 of the 87 counties Trump won. However, these 22 counties only received $358,910, a mere 9.6 percent of all CTCL grants in the Old Dominion. This is the second-most lopsided bias in favor of Democratic-leaning counties we’ve identified (after Texas). Fairfax County, the most populous spot in Virginia, received nearly 3.5 times ($1.24 million) as much from CTCL as every Trump county combined. Turnout: CTCL-funded counties gave close to 1.2 million votes to Biden, 49 percent of his statewide total. Turnout for Biden in these counties increased by 206,000 votes (17 percent) over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 turnout. CTCL-funded counties gave just 699,000 votes to Trump, or 36 percent of his statewide total. Trump’s turnout increased by a tiny 68,319 votes (12 percent) over his 2016 performance here. Democratic turnout increased most dramatically in D.C.-influenced Northern Virginia, where just 4 counties contain 25 percent of Virginia’s entire population and the core of the state’s liberal voters. Loudoun County, for instance, saw a 37 percent increase in Democratic turnout (37,577 votes), with Biden defeating Trump by more 56,000 votes. Per capita bias: Breaking down CTCL’s grants per capita reveals a deep bias towards Biden: Petersburg (Biden): $2.45 Charlotte County (Trump): $1.74 Halifax County (Trump): $1.62 Prince William County (Biden): $1.31 Alexandria (Biden):$1.26 Manassas (Biden): $1.26 Henrico County (Biden): $1.23 Emporia (Biden): $1.15 Charles City County (Biden): $1.09 Fairfax County (Biden): $1.08 And for kicks: Arlington County (Biden): $1.08 Franklin (Biden): $0.96 Biden won 9 of the 11 counties most richly funded counties (>$1.00 per person) went to Biden, while Trump won 20 of the 25 least-funded (<$1.00 per person). Other oddities: Fairfax County’s follow-up report to CTCL notes it spent its grant on the following: $967,294 for “temporary staffing support” $59,850 for “vote-by-mail/absentee voting equipment or supplies” $102,765 for “election administration equipment” $54,802 for “voting materials in languages other than English” $58,530 for “security for office and polling locations” Our original report identified grants to 38 jurisdictions across Virginia. CTCL’s preliminary grants document from late 2020 notes the same number of grants (without identifying grant sums). Yet CTCL’s 2020 disclosures only reveal 36 grants. The 2 discrepancies come from Hanover and Carroll Counties, the former of which applied for a CTCL grant in October 2020 and a separate grant from the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) that same month. Since CEIR’s IRS disclosures for 2020 won’t be released until July 2021, we won’t know for certain if it received a grant from that group. Wisconsin Updated Jan. 18, 2022 (Our original report) | (New data set)* For an in-depth report of CTCL’s activities in Wisconsin, see the Rodney Institute’s analysis in “The Wisconsin Purchase” (The American Conservative, Dec. 2021). CTCL’s grants to Wisconsin primarily went to cities and townships, not counties, making it difficult to give useful per capita statistics. Most grants CTCL distributed here were the $5,000 minimum, which further skews statewide figures. In the interest of transparency and clarity, our analysis uses grants of $5,000+ to give a better picture of CTCL’s influence in Wisconsin. Total Grants: Our estimate: $7.6 million Their disclosed data: $10.1 million* * Includes $9.2 million listed in our data set plus approx. $940,000 in minimum grants ($5,000) paid out to 188 jurisdictions (not listed in data set but available in the Form 990) Average Per Capita Grant (for grants over $5,000): Our estimate: Inconclusive Their disclosed data: $0.55 Trump; $3.75 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL distributed a total of 31 grants above the $5,000 minimum to Wisconsin cities and townships. Three of these grants went to counties, while 28 went directly to specific cities. Out of those 28 grants just 8 of the recipient localities were won by Trump, while 20 were won by Biden. Together, these 20 cities received $9 million or 90 percent of all CTCL funds in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, cities that voted for Trump overwhelmingly received CTCL’s minimum grant ($5,000), and a few received even less. Per capita bias For grants over $5,000, 9 of CTCL’s 10 largest per capita grants went to cities which Biden won. The top ten cities were: Racine: $21.83 Green Bay: $11.60 Kenosha: $8.63 Milwaukee: $5.91 Madison: $4.71 Janesville: $2.79 Cottage Grove: $1.37 Wausau: $1.25 Rice Lake (Trump): $1.11 West Allis: $1.03 Turnout Across all CTCL-funded cities (receiving grants over $5,000), Biden received over 608,000 votes; Trump received just over 286,000. Biden’s margin of victory across the state in 2020 was just 0.7 percent: 49.6 percent for Biden vs. 48.9 percent for Trump. Yet Biden’s margin of victory in CTCL-funded cities was roughly 36 percent: 68 percent for Biden vs. 32 percent for Trump. Michigan Updated Jan. 18, 2022 | (Our original report) | (New data set) CTCL’s grants to Michigan primarily went to cities and townships, not counties, making it difficult to give useful per capita statistics. Most grants CTCL distributed here were the $5,000 minimum, which further skews statewide figures. In the interest of transparency and clarity, our analysis uses grants of $5,000+ to give a better picture of CTCL’s influence in Michigan. Total Grants: Our estimate: $9.5 million Their disclosed data: $16.8 million Average Per Capita Grant (for grants over $5,000): Our estimate: Inconclusive Their disclosed data: $0.45 Trump; $1.83 Biden Key Findings: Partisan distribution bias: CTCL distributed a total of 135 grants above the $5,000 minimum to Michigan cities and townships. Out of these grants just 45 of the recipient localities were won by Trump, while 90 were won by Biden.4 Together these 90 municipalities received $14.6 million or 86 percent of all CTCL funds in Michigan. Meanwhile, Trump won municipalities overwhelmingly received CTCL’s minimum $5,000 grant, though some received even less. Per capita bias CTCL’s 39 largest per capita grants all went to cities which Biden won. The top ten were: Benton Harbor: $13.27 (Benton Harbor voted 94 percent for Biden) Detroit: $11.64 (Detroit also favored Biden over Trump by 94 percent to 5 percent) Muskegon: $11.32 Saginaw: $9.11 Pontiac: $6.58 Southfield: $5.82 Ypsilanti: $4.86 Lansing: $4.34 East Lansing: $4.19 Flint: $3.84 Within the top 39 municipalities by average per capita funding, Biden received an average of 75 percent of all votes cast. These 39 cities gave Biden approximately 1 million votes, a little under one-third of all votes he received across Michigan. The biggest per capita grant to a Trump municipality went to Macomb Township ($0.86) where Trump won 62 percent of the vote. Patterns Emerge Across States CTCL consistently gave bigger grants and more money per capita to counties that voted for Biden. Some outlets, like the normally right-leaning Washington Examiner, have pointed out that more Republican counties received CTCL grants than Democratic counties, an unhelpful data point since it obscures the overall pattern of CTCL grantmaking—and the partisan turnout it created. It’s no surprise CTCL funded more Republican than Democratic counties, given that Trump won about five times as many counties as Biden did. In multiple states, per capita grants to Trump counties averaged around $0.60 per capita. Is that a coincidence, or did CTCL have per capita guidelines when making grants to Republican-heavy counties? There seems to be a semi-discernible pattern to grants from CTCL and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), a separate but allied organization which spent heavily in the 2020 election thanks to a $69.5 million grant from Zuckerberg. What Else Is New? Late 2021 brought the revelation that the roughly $400 million Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, had funneled to CTCL and an allied group—the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR)—was moved through the couple’s donor-advised fund housed at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. We’ve reported extensively on that foundation’s financial and #MeToo woes. It was originally established to help local communities in the greater San Francisco Bay Area but has effectively become the private pass-through for a handful of left-wing billionaires, who largely fund political causes. Zuckerberg is likely the foundation’s biggest donor, dumping roughly $2 billion into it since 2010. We also discovered CTCL’s second-biggest donor: the New Venture Fund, which moved nearly $25 million into CTCL. How that money was spent remains unknown. But the Arabella network’s funds originate with outside donors, so it’s possible that this donation also came from Zuckerberg, though why he would use two conduits to fund CTCL is unclear. The New Venture Fund is part of a $1.7 billion “dark money” empire run by Arabella Advisors, a consulting firm for left-wing donors in Washington, D.C. CRC is the top reporter on all things Arabella; our reporting was the first to expose this massive network in 2019. Since then we’ve broken the story on how Arabella funneled huge sums aimed at defeating the confirmations of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court; created groups to push the radical Left’s D.C. statehood and courtpacking schemes; and ran a shadow campaign to topple the Republican Senate majority in the 2020 election. For more on Zuck Bucks, see InfluenceWatch’s profile of the Center for Tech and Civic Life

Did you know Flag Day commemorates the adoption of the flag of the United States on June 14, 1777? The resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress on that day read: “Resolved: that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.” The words of the resolution demonstrate the need for unity in our new nation. Sadly, as the email below shows, some people think the Betsy Ross flag—one of our new nation’s first flags—no longer promotes unity in America. Take a moment to read the message below, and I hope you’re flying our national flag on this Flag Day! Thank you again for your support. It’s crucial to our success.

This is a comprehensive PRR seeking all public records for CTCL – The Center for Tech and Civil Life. Copy/Paste below into your email. Fill in the blanks with your county information. Send to your BOE local Director and cc all of the board members. We need an electronic trail. Keep track of it, as your other public records requests, and make sure you get a response. Save the response. We need these for evidence. Send to me, jane.bilello@gmail.com and to Ned Jones, ned@electionintegrity.network. Thanks. Jane ================================================================================== FROM: __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ TO: ______County Board of Elections ATTN: ___________, Director __________________________ __________________________ Date:________________ Pursuant to the North Carolina Freedom of Information Act, releasable under the provisions of NCGS 132-1, Public Records, I am requesting the following information. SUBJECT: Request for _________ County Correspondence with the Center for Tech and Civil Life (1 July 2022 through 31 the Present 2023) 1. This is a public records request seeking a digital copy of all correspondence, received by or transmitted from the ____ County Board of Elections, pertaining to the Center for Tech and Civil Life at the county or state level. This correspondence shall include all records of relevant communications between and among the Center for Tech Civil Life and its subsidiaries, the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE), and any 501(c)3 organizations advertising or purporting to assist the _____ State or County Board of Elections with protection of election records, systems, or processes. 2. Subject materials of interest pertain to grants, scholarships, training assistance to the _____Board of Elections and the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE). 3. The period of interest for these records is from 1 July 2022 through the Present, 2023. 4. "Public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. 5. For any records found that are deemed non-releasable because of confidentiality or security restrictions, the County BOE’s response shall indicate the existence of those other records that are not releasable and identify all local officials who are authorized to review that documentation. 6. I am requesting this documentation be provided to me at no charge in an electronic format that is commonly machine readable (such as pdf, jpg, etc.) and in a common media form such as a thumb drive or DVD. Thank you. __________________________ __________________________ __________________________ Email: _____________________ Tel. _______________________ North Carolina Election Integrity Team NCEIT.org

Einstein wisely said that 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.' Ever wonder how many times the same corruption has to occur before folks figure it out. They need a new party! JB The Daily Haymaker: June 11, 2023 by Brant Clifton: https://dailyhaymaker.com/whatley-regime-now-illegitimate-a-convention-goers-interesting-take/ NCGOP State Convention, June 9 - 11, 2023 So many lessons learned (- depends on who's doing the learning!) From NC Audit Force The Bible: Our Source of Truth Since today is Sunday, it's only fitting to review the events of the NCGOP State Convention to see how well they line up with what Bible-believing Christians know to be true. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd: All Republicans are Honest and Trustworthy This weekend we learned from the leadership of the NCGOP that the Bible is missing two words from Romans 3:23. It should read, "For all, except Republicans, have sinned and come short of the glory of God". The concern raised on Friday and Saturday: This voting app will allow delegates to vote from anywhere in the United States, whether they're on the floor of the convention or not. This, of course, is against the rules. The reply from those in favor of using the voting app: Yes, that is true. But we are Republicans, and Republicans don't cheat. Conversation with Michael Whatley on Saturday at about 11:00am: "I just talked to Michael Whatley, shook his hand and spoke calmly to him about my concerns. This was the conversation, in a nutshell: Mr. Whatley, the rumor on the floor is that someone within the NCGOP has checked in but is out of state today and will be using the voting app to vote. The rule in the Plan of Organization is that delegates must be on the floor of the convention to vote. Will a head count be taken to by county to ensure all votes are by delegates in attendance? W: They voted yesterday to use the voting app. You'll have to take that up with Billy [Miller - the convention Chairman]. So you're saying there are no plans for each county to take a head count this afternoon? W: We are all Republicans, so I would hope no one would be breaking the rules. But you'll have to take that up with Billy." During the Voting Process it was learned: 1. Votes were cast in the Whatley vs Kane race for NCGOP Chair by delegates while they were in Wilmington, NC, as well as from a city in Wisconsin. Those are just the ineligible delegates that were uncovered. Obvious truth: We don't know what we don't know. How many others not in attendance voted? 2. *At least one convention guest (who was not a credentialed delegate) was able to use the voting app to vote. Answer from the Chair of the Convention: the voting app software automatically throws out those votes. However, that particular county had one overvote, so was that the truth? (*At least one - I actually received a forwarded text message of screenshot from another guest who was able to access the voting screen of the convention app.) Before the Convention it was learned: 1. One county did not vote on their delegates at their County Convention; instead, the delegates only signed up to attend the convention. DeVan Barbour, the Chair of the Credentials Committee was informed of this, and asked if the rules allowed a way to rectify this oversight. No answer was given. It is unknown if any action was taken at all. The delegates from this county were considered credentialed delegates and they did vote on Saturday. How many other counties also sent delegates on which no vote was taken at their County Convention? Invalid Ballots In, Invalid Ballots Out? One Nation Under God One word in the Pledge to our nation's flag can be substituted at will. Some Republicans may believe we are One Nation Under Trump, while others believe Exodus 20:3, "you shall have no other gods before Me". Was the 9th inning endorsement of Michael Whatley by President Trump a game-changer? There's no way to know. We do know after it was announced that President Trump endorsed Michael Whatley on Saturday, this text was being sent around: "Donald Trump is not my Savior." · Some believe Donald Trump uses a strategy to elevate people to positions of authority to shine the light on their corruption. · Some people know in our minds and in our hearts that Donald Trump is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life; as such, his endorsement means nothing when we are strong in our convictions. Good Trees vs Bad Trees Luke 6:43 can also be altered - when love is the motive. This weekend we learned this Biblical truth is not always the case: "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit". It's ok to use an unreliable voting app (a bad tree) as long as our motives are pure to achieve quick results. We want to show love to our fellow delegates by providing them with a voting app so we're not wasting their time waiting 5 hours* to hand count. It's good to show love to one another by not making those with tickets to the VIP reception and/or the Trump dinner miss those events. This is known as situational ethics. Sometimes the end justifies the means. Every single person on the floor of the NCGOP State Convention, and everyone watching the fiasco unfold while it was being livestreamed into Auditorium II knows without a doubt the NCGOP's voting app was not functioning properly, nor was it secure. And that's putting it mildly. We saw people throw up their hands and leave, without voting at all. Just like the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, fellow Republican delegates were disenfranchised - not by the Maricopa Co Board of Elections or the AZ Secretary of State Katie Hobbs - but by the NCGOP leadership. This weekend we learned: in situations when love is the motive, a bad tree does bear good fruit. Luke 6:43 is wrong. Also, this too is wrong: For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, because sometimes confusion is Godly when it's at a Republican State Convention. End of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. (*The notion from the Wake BOE member that hand counting 1,863 ballots containing one race with two candidates would take "5 hours" is a deception straight from the pit of hell.) Life Lessons Many learn only from experience. Granville County: deliberately, only one delegate voted for John Kane so that the entire county's weighted votes (100%) would be attributed to him. Results from voting app were as follows: 1 vote for Kane (33%), 2 votes for Whatley (66%). Another County: "All 14 of our delegates said they DID vote, but the results for our county are showing only 13 of us voted." Unless all 1,863 delegates are canvassed to compare their actual votes to the reported results, we'll never know how many other discrepancies like this occurred in the state. Truth: Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord. The Bottom Line Truth: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Patriots will continue to stand on the wall. Together. Our children and our grandchildren deserve nothing less. North Carolina Audit Force is a Non-Partisan, Grassroots organization. Our PURPOSE is Simple: Please tell us all the ways you'd like to VOLUNTEER by filling out the volunteer form. We have MANY tasks to accomplish to ensure our votes are secure. VOLUNTEER Check out our website

Buncombe Bond Issues: Houseing and Open Spaces: Numbers of Voters Influenced by Illegal Electioneering during Early Voting and Election Day Housing Ballot Count % Election Day Absentee Absentee Provisional One-Stop by Mail Yes 71,373 61 21,520 44,343 5,396 114 No 43.909 38.09 18,583 23,476 1,785 65 Housing: Absentee One-Stop + Provisional = 44,457 – 71.373 = 26,916 influenced by electioneering Open Spaces Ballot Count % Election Day Absentee Absentee Provisional On-Stop By-Mail Yes 79,365 68.88 24,685 48,702 5,848 130 No 35,859 31,12 15,429 19,049 1,331 50 Open Spaces: Absentee By One-Stop + Provisional = 48,832 – 79,365 = 30,533 influenced by electioneering --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get The Data on the North Carolina State Board of Elections Website (NCSBE NCSBC.GOV website search for Referenda Data NCSBS.GOV Results & Data Scroll down: Launch Election Results & Data Dashboard Choose from dropdown: Election 11/8/2022 County Buncombe Office (Referenda for Bond issues) Contests Housing Open Spaces When you get to the Contests: Click to the right of the box and click on View Contest Details Then, Results by Voting Method

New "Threat to Poll Workers" at the Citizens Research Project meeting. Submitted by Ned Jones Link to NC Public Records (FOIA) Request for leftist grant money and the CSSE- Threat to Poll Workers: https://www.ashevilleteaparty.org/post/public-records-request-for-grant-money-to-your-local-board-of-elections Read on ... Last week, an electoral board member in a southern state attended an annual conference for a statewide association of election officials. I (Ned Jones) received several emails during the conference about the extremely disturbing presentations that were being made. The "Keynote" address was given by Neal Kelley, former Registrar of Voters in Orange County, CA, and the current chairman of the Committee for Safe & Secure Elections (CSSE) (link below). In his speech, he focused on the Left-wing false narrative of threats against election officials, using terms like "Election Deniers" and "Domestic Terorism", and described a Five Step Plan for election officials to work with law enforcement. During his presentation he played a staged video (link below) from R Street about the "Threats". He also talked about election officials working with Fusion Centers that are connected to DHS. His most disturbing recommendation was for election officials to work with DHS by sending them a list of their poll workers, so DHS can research social media and scrub the list. DHS would then have information on Conservative poll workers who could be targeted as "Election Deniers" and "Domestic Terrorists", based on their social media, and removed as poll workers. This direct involvement with DHS is another attempt to intimidate and thereby reduce the number of Conservative poll workers. Here are links to CSSE (It doesn't always work), Fusion Centers and the staged R Street video. The members of CSSE are election officials, law enforcement, EAC, and several Left-wing organizations. https://safeelections.org/members DHS Fusion Centers: https://www.dhs.gov/fusion-centers Video: This was made by actors. It's a propaganda film to set us up as terrorists and threats to elections. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMYF8V5t-L4 The members of CSSE are election officials, law enforcement, EAC, and several Left-wing organizations. Thomas Hicks from EAC was another speaker. He talked about a HAVA program, Help America Vote College Program, that was funded with a million dollar grant in the 2022 Omnibus Bill. The EAC is using this grant to recruit college students as poll workers. The Left-wing false narrative is that there is a nationwide shortage of poll workers. We know this isn't true as we can't get our poll workers hired in many locations. More federal tax dollars going after the college student vote! (My bold print.) Here is the Citizens Research Project "Call to Action". Meet with your local election official, or file a FOIA/Open Records Request, if necessary, to learn as much as you can about any communications with CSSE, Fusion Centers, and DHS. Every state has an association of election officials, and they all have an annual convention. Another call to action is to find out if CSSE and EAC made, or are making, a presentation at the annual convention in your state. This involvement with DHS and EAC with poll workers, and what we already know about the involvement of the DOJ and the FBI in our elections, is very alarming. (My bold print.) Thank you. Ned Ned JonesDeputy Director Election Integrity Network Virginia Institute for Public Policy 804-337-9966 www.whoscounting.us