Here we go again!

Last Tuesday, three county commissioners refused to vote yes and certify the recent recount.
(Read the legal analysis that was shared with us on why certification should not happen in the P.P.S. section)

The DDA told them to vote their conscience.
They did; they were made aware of some of the fraud and issues with the recount and the 2024 primary election and voted against certifying the canvass for the recount.

This is a first in Washoe County and maybe in Nevada where a commission refused to certify a recount. They did the right thing! They represented us!

But Tuesday, Commissioner Andriola is bringing it back for a new vote to certify it!

Has the proof of fraud of the 2024 election and recount been investigated and the bad guys locked up? Nope.

Instead, the top political servants tell the three Washoe commissioners to certify the fraud or they will be criminally prosecuted and removed from office!

Do you understand what just happened?
Rather than investigate the glaring fraud that happened to all legal voters in Nevada, the top officials tell these three commissioners to certify the fraud or possibly go to jail!

This is insane!

That’s the textbook definition of extortion, and anyone doing that should be prosecuted and, when found guilty, sent to jail!

Instead, what we see is literally the criminals running the justice system, who took their seats through this exact same fraud.

This is not hyperbole; many have tried to claim the $80,000 challenge to dispute us, all have failed, all have seen that we are right.

What’s worse? The county, which is supposed to be representing the commissioners, is attacking the commissioners. By law, the county is required to bring in third-party counsel to defend Commissioners Clark and Herman, but the DA refuses to!

They are being attacked by the very county that they are supposed to be in charge of!

Why? Because the fraud is off the charts! The powers that be want this book closed asap and all this swept under the rug asap! Why do you think they refused to do a hand recount?

Do you know what it would have shown?

Here’s a taste.

In the two reports, one from one of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence platforms and one of the world’s smartest mathematicians, their findings for the 2024 primary election show the entire election was compromised. Potentially 20,930 ballots of the 80,000 cast were changed. Not one race result can be trusted in the 2024 primary. The rig affected every race from school board to senate! Republican ballots were changed to Nonpartisan ballots, Nonpartisan ballots and Democrat ballots are impossibly married together. I could go on and on, but feel free to read the reports and dive into what happened in depth. Share with your best and brightest, they will quickly find we are telling the truth, yet again.
(Links to the reports are in this post here)

https://operationsunlight.com/2024/07/08/impossible-to-certify-we-must-have-a-new-election-heres-why

Additionally, here is my election integrity violation report filed with the Nevada Secretary of State, with the two reports mentioned above that show the election was 100% rigged.

Data Analysis Report ChatGPT: https://operationsunlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Data-Analysis-Request.pdf

The SOS has not responded, nor investigated, nor prosecuted the perpetrators. Instead, they appear to be using extortion against the commissioners to rubber-stamp the fraud.

I feel Herman will stand strong as she always has, and Clark possibly too. Will Andriola? It’s unlikely, as this revisiting of the vote only happened because of her.

What can you do?

Show up Tuesday, and support Commissioner Clark and Vice Chair Commissioner Herman! They have fought for you since day one, it’s time you peacefully show up and support them and thank them for standing strong for us.

We know this vote is only made possible because Commissioner Andriola has had a change of heart and succumbed to peer pressure. As I mentioned, it’s unlikely she’ll do the right thing and stay strong, and represent us, but one can hope. With the glaring amount of fraud in the 2024 primary election, it should be criminal for anyone to certify it now that they know what happened.

Here is the proof again that the 2024 Primary was stolen:
https://operationsunlight.com/2024/07/08/impossible-to-certify-we-must-have-a-new-election-heres-why

Share this everywhere.

Share this far and wide with the media, legislators, friends, family, law enforcement, and US Marshals.

Get involved before it’s too late.

Show up this Tuesday and support Commissioners Clark and Herman.

Commissioner Hill controls the agenda and moved the vote to the end of the meeting, so if you can’t stay the whole time, at least show up and put your statements on the record for public comment before the vote to certify the fraud happens. Can’t do that? At least send an email.

Be respectful, be peaceful, be heard. See you Tuesday!
Tuesday, 10 am, 7/16/24
1001 East 9th Street
Reno
County commission chambers
Beadles
P.S.

• 8 AM this Tuesday at 1001 E 9th Street: peaceful demonstration
• 10 AM: address the commissioners, new election, no certification of recount.
• Or email:
  • candriola@washoecounty.gov
  • mgarcia@washoecounty.gov
  • ahill@washoecounty.gov

P.P.S.

Here is a legal analysis of why the certification of the recount should not happen until a full-blown investigation into the proof of election fraud is affirmed or dismissed.
Legal Framework and Statutory Interpretation

1. Mandamus Standard and Discretionary Duties:
   • The petitioners argue that the Board of County Commissioners has a mandatory duty to canvass and certify the recount results under NRS 293.387 and NAC 293.365. However, the refusal to canvass is based on allegations of significant irregularities brought to the commissioners’ attention, suggesting a need for judicial review rather than a mechanical application of the statutes.
2. Ministerial vs. Discretionary Acts:
   • The canvassing of election results is typically seen as a ministerial duty, but this does not preclude the commissioners from exercising due diligence when substantial evidence suggests possible fraud or irregularities. The statutes do not explicitly prevent commissioners from withholding certification if there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the election process.

Fraud Allegations and Due Process

1. Commissioners Informed of Fraud:
   • The commissioners, as respondents, were informed of potential fraud in the election process. Certifying the results without investigating these allegations would be a dereliction of their duty. They have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the election by thoroughly investigating or referring the matter for investigation before certification.
2. Judicial Oversight and Remedies:
   • Judicial remedies exist to address allegations of election fraud. The appropriate forum for resolving such disputes is through the courts, where both parties can present evidence and arguments. The commissioners’ refusal to certify based on fraud allegations is a preliminary step to ensure that these claims are adequately investigated and adjudicated.

Commissioners’ Duty to Investigate and Potential Liability

1. Duty to Investigate Fraud Allegations:
   • The commissioners were directly informed of potential fraud. Certifying the results without investigating these allegations would be a dereliction of their duty. They have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the election by thoroughly investigating or referring the matter for investigation before certification.
2. Potential Criminal and Civil Liability:
   • If the commissioners were to certify the election results without addressing known fraud allegations, they could be held criminally or civilly liable. Rubber-stamping the results without due diligence could expose them to legal consequences for failing to uphold their duty to ensure a fair and accurate election process.

Public Policy and Electoral Integrity

1. Ensuring Voter Confidence:
   • Certifying potentially fraudulent results without thorough investigation would undermine public confidence in the electoral process. The commissioners’ actions can be seen as an effort to uphold the integrity of the election by ensuring that any irregularities are addressed before final certification.
2. Protecting Voters’ Rights:
   • By not certifying the results, the commissioners are acting to protect the rights of voters to a fair and accurate election. This aligns with the broader public policy goal of maintaining electoral integrity and public trust in the democratic process.

Refuting Specific Legal Arguments in the Petition

1. Standing of the Secretary of State:
   • While the Secretary of State has a vested interest in the proper conduct of elections, the local election officials also have a duty to ensure the integrity of elections within their jurisdiction. This includes investigating and addressing any credible allegations of fraud or irregularities.
2. Mandamus Relief Criteria:
   • Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when there is no other adequate legal remedy. In this case, judicial proceedings to investigate the fraud allegations provide an adequate remedy. Therefore, a writ of mandamus may not be appropriate until these investigations are concluded.

Conclusion
In summary, while the statutory framework mandates the canvassing of election results, nowhere in the statutes does it state the commissioner MUST certify the recount or election. Their duties are to the voters and their best interests, not some ministerial act, especially in the face of substantial allegations of fraud. The commissioners’ refusal to certify the recount results can be justified as a necessary step to ensure the integrity of the election and protect public confidence in the electoral process. Additionally, certifying the results without proper investigation could expose the commissioners to criminal or civil liability. The petitioners’ arguments fail to recognize the commissioners’ responsibility to address potential fraud before certification, thereby ensuring that the final certified results accurately reflect the will of the voters.