Your state math sounds like our state math. Nothing adds up, you can’t have the audit trail, but it’s totally fine, trust us! Nebraskas Total Vote system and South Dakota’s Total Vote system is going some crazy things with voter rolls and election results. Remember, this fraudulent system ran the elections in Arizona where Hobbs the communist was installed and in Pennsylvania where Fetterman “won”.
Re: Evnen and Bena….’birds of a feather…’. I wonder if that goes the same for vultures 🤔. Anyway, the next election is coming fast so I wonder if changes will be made since they know we’re on to them. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Also I've recently found out the SOS can set there own pay rate adjustments since they are constitutional agency and not under the Governor's control. They must have the Budget to allow those very high salaries but where does it come from? Still digging.
Thank you for sharing this very important report. One day this will all be brought to light. The rats will scatter, just to be rounded up and exterminated for treason. We will stand and watch as Justice prevails, once again.
Keep the faith. Stand firm. No one can stop what is coming!
My "Sent" email to Lancaster County Board of Commissioners:
"Dear Lancaster County Board of Commissioners,
According to Sam Lyon, this county's GOP chair, the supposed "random" audits of precincts are not random at all. Instead, the only precincts that are eligible for these audits are those that appear on their face to be totally in order. Excluded first from being chosen for audit are those precincts that have some characteristics of or are characteristic of fraud. Is this true? Sam said he knows this from his first hand presence, observation, questioning and receiving answers to this effect from election officials. If true, the very precincts disqualified from post election random audits are the ones most needing to be looked into for fraud.
Hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections.
Whenever hand counts double-checked the race results of ES&S election equipment, ES&S invariably, that means in 100% of the instances, eventually acquiesced to the results of the hand counts, thereby confirming that hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections. Whether either method gives perfection is not the point, is it? The point is which method do the people trust more. If ES&S doesn't trust their own products, they show how clueless they are gaining people's trust.
If ES&S were an honest company, they would recall their products immediately until they gleaned from every single one of those instances why the difference is there. Then, they would gain the people's trust with transparency. Instead, they let some of those hand count results stand without appearing to care why their machines report differently. In other cases they blame causes that they didn't know existed prior to some candidate drawing their attention to a miscount - a situational awareness deficiency unbecoming of an organization as large as ES&S.
Of course, ES&S is required to self report to you, or to somebody at least, their vote count failures...aren't they? Does anyone know if they are subject to self reporting rules by any authority whatsoever?
Why shouldn't election officials be more than willing to let ES&S investigate every race to any and every degree? In fact, why aren't election officials DEMANDING that, now that they prove to have a MUCH poorer track record than 1 in 10,000,000 error rate? Let me say this as loud and clear as I can - ES&S is grossly cavalier only to care about miscounts by their equipment if someone who they think highly enough of MAKES them care, rather than performing the required ongoing 100% oversight of their products and procedures that is justified because of their many times they have to acquiesce to the superiority of hand count accuracies.
Martin V. Linscott, individually and on behalf of Shasteen, Linscott & Brock, P.C., a Nebraska professional corporation, appellant, v. Rolf Edward Shasteen and Tony J. Brock, appellees.
No. S–13–597
Decided: June 06, 2014
second paragraph of the "ANALYSIS" section contains:
"....We therefore begin our analysis by setting out the established Nebraska law on implied in fact contracts.
To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract.2 A binding mutual understanding or meeting of the minds sufficient to establish a contract requires no precise formality or express utterance from the parties about the details of the proposed agreement; it may be implied from the parties' conduct and the surrounding circumstances.3
An implied contract arises where the intention of the parties is not expressed in writing but where the circumstances are such as to show a mutual intent to contract.4 Evidence of facts and circumstances, together with the words of the parties used at the time, from which reasonable persons in conducting the ordinary affairs of business, but with special reference to the particular matter on hand, would be justified in inferring such a contract or promise, is sufficient.5 The determination of the parties' intent to make a contract is to be gathered from objective manifestations–the conduct of the parties, language used, or acts done by them, or other pertinent circumstances surrounding the transaction.6 If the parties' conduct is sufficient to show an implied contract, it is just as enforceable as an express contract.7"
I assert that many thousands of Breaches of Implied Duty exist by election officials relative to:
- implied warranty to count accurately even down to this single vote using the counting means that has been demonstrated to be most accurate
- implied warranty to prevent diluting of this vote by illicit votes overtly and publicly known and observable in excess of legitimate numbers of votes
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information within contracts with and as to the suitability of moral character of parties empowered (legally or not) to so control the reporting of race outcomes and whether said reporting is capable of deviating from truth and honesty even to the extent of exerting significant effect on whether candidates might demand hand recounts of original paper ballots. The moral character of said parties will most certainly be relevant to many if not most voters if said parties are or employ felons or ex-felons, communists, satanists, atheists, anti-American persons, etc. Do they have political bias? (WHO DOESN'T!) Or malicious intent? Considering the position of Edison Research polling company, there are so many possibilities for bad actors in these capacities maliciously to affect race outcomes and to maliciously manipulate the expectations of voters and groom them to accept planned manipulated race results. No laws prohibit any of these RELEVANT things from existing, but they are profoundly relevant to many if not most voters who vehemently oppose them being between them and the final race results.
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information that ES&S is not subject to ANY self reporting requirements for when they've acquiesced to hand counts proving their products to be inaccurate and/or untruthful.
Correction: "This is the case with all but 5 of the 198 counties."
should have read, "This is the case with all but 5 of the 198 precincts."
The correction has been made above.
Thank you!
Peg
Your state math sounds like our state math. Nothing adds up, you can’t have the audit trail, but it’s totally fine, trust us! Nebraskas Total Vote system and South Dakota’s Total Vote system is going some crazy things with voter rolls and election results. Remember, this fraudulent system ran the elections in Arizona where Hobbs the communist was installed and in Pennsylvania where Fetterman “won”.
Senator Dungan won , Mayor Lerion won, Govenor violet won .
The slection algorithm did a fine job.
Re: Evnen and Bena….’birds of a feather…’. I wonder if that goes the same for vultures 🤔. Anyway, the next election is coming fast so I wonder if changes will be made since they know we’re on to them. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Thank you so much Robert shared told ppl must read
THANK YOU, BOB!
Can anyone help explain who sets the SOS operation budget. According to this:
Salaries are way over medium ranges.
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/NE/secretary-of-state-agency-9
Also I've recently found out the SOS can set there own pay rate adjustments since they are constitutional agency and not under the Governor's control. They must have the Budget to allow those very high salaries but where does it come from? Still digging.
Thank you for sharing this very important report. One day this will all be brought to light. The rats will scatter, just to be rounded up and exterminated for treason. We will stand and watch as Justice prevails, once again.
Keep the faith. Stand firm. No one can stop what is coming!
Peg
My "Sent" email to Lancaster County Board of Commissioners:
"Dear Lancaster County Board of Commissioners,
According to Sam Lyon, this county's GOP chair, the supposed "random" audits of precincts are not random at all. Instead, the only precincts that are eligible for these audits are those that appear on their face to be totally in order. Excluded first from being chosen for audit are those precincts that have some characteristics of or are characteristic of fraud. Is this true? Sam said he knows this from his first hand presence, observation, questioning and receiving answers to this effect from election officials. If true, the very precincts disqualified from post election random audits are the ones most needing to be looked into for fraud.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections.
Whenever hand counts double-checked the race results of ES&S election equipment, ES&S invariably, that means in 100% of the instances, eventually acquiesced to the results of the hand counts, thereby confirming that hand counting of paper ballots is the gold standard for elections. Whether either method gives perfection is not the point, is it? The point is which method do the people trust more. If ES&S doesn't trust their own products, they show how clueless they are gaining people's trust.
If ES&S were an honest company, they would recall their products immediately until they gleaned from every single one of those instances why the difference is there. Then, they would gain the people's trust with transparency. Instead, they let some of those hand count results stand without appearing to care why their machines report differently. In other cases they blame causes that they didn't know existed prior to some candidate drawing their attention to a miscount - a situational awareness deficiency unbecoming of an organization as large as ES&S.
Of course, ES&S is required to self report to you, or to somebody at least, their vote count failures...aren't they? Does anyone know if they are subject to self reporting rules by any authority whatsoever?
Why shouldn't election officials be more than willing to let ES&S investigate every race to any and every degree? In fact, why aren't election officials DEMANDING that, now that they prove to have a MUCH poorer track record than 1 in 10,000,000 error rate? Let me say this as loud and clear as I can - ES&S is grossly cavalier only to care about miscounts by their equipment if someone who they think highly enough of MAKES them care, rather than performing the required ongoing 100% oversight of their products and procedures that is justified because of their many times they have to acquiesce to the superiority of hand count accuracies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Implied-in-fact Contract" exists between each voter and their election officials and is enforceable once a ballot is surrendered properly
source - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ne-supreme-court/1669167.html accessed 07/24/2023 10:21am
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Martin V. Linscott, individually and on behalf of Shasteen, Linscott & Brock, P.C., a Nebraska professional corporation, appellant, v. Rolf Edward Shasteen and Tony J. Brock, appellees.
No. S–13–597
Decided: June 06, 2014
second paragraph of the "ANALYSIS" section contains:
"....We therefore begin our analysis by setting out the established Nebraska law on implied in fact contracts.
To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract.2 A binding mutual understanding or meeting of the minds sufficient to establish a contract requires no precise formality or express utterance from the parties about the details of the proposed agreement; it may be implied from the parties' conduct and the surrounding circumstances.3
An implied contract arises where the intention of the parties is not expressed in writing but where the circumstances are such as to show a mutual intent to contract.4 Evidence of facts and circumstances, together with the words of the parties used at the time, from which reasonable persons in conducting the ordinary affairs of business, but with special reference to the particular matter on hand, would be justified in inferring such a contract or promise, is sufficient.5 The determination of the parties' intent to make a contract is to be gathered from objective manifestations–the conduct of the parties, language used, or acts done by them, or other pertinent circumstances surrounding the transaction.6 If the parties' conduct is sufficient to show an implied contract, it is just as enforceable as an express contract.7"
7. https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2011/s-10-753.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assert that many thousands of Breaches of Implied Duty exist by election officials relative to:
- implied warranty to count accurately even down to this single vote using the counting means that has been demonstrated to be most accurate
- implied warranty to prevent diluting of this vote by illicit votes overtly and publicly known and observable in excess of legitimate numbers of votes
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information within contracts with and as to the suitability of moral character of parties empowered (legally or not) to so control the reporting of race outcomes and whether said reporting is capable of deviating from truth and honesty even to the extent of exerting significant effect on whether candidates might demand hand recounts of original paper ballots. The moral character of said parties will most certainly be relevant to many if not most voters if said parties are or employ felons or ex-felons, communists, satanists, atheists, anti-American persons, etc. Do they have political bias? (WHO DOESN'T!) Or malicious intent? Considering the position of Edison Research polling company, there are so many possibilities for bad actors in these capacities maliciously to affect race outcomes and to maliciously manipulate the expectations of voters and groom them to accept planned manipulated race results. No laws prohibit any of these RELEVANT things from existing, but they are profoundly relevant to many if not most voters who vehemently oppose them being between them and the final race results.
- implied warranty to reveal relevant information that ES&S is not subject to ANY self reporting requirements for when they've acquiesced to hand counts proving their products to be inaccurate and/or untruthful.
Bcc: My Election Corruption Investigators group"
Thank you Kenneth
Told them on fb to read your comment Kenneth