Regarding the Public Act 116 of 1954 § 765(5) and the numbers we are trying to get from Ed McBroom

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 256 KiB.

Expand view Topic review: Regarding the Public Act 116 of 1954 § 765(5) and the numbers we are trying to get from Ed McBroom

Regarding the Public Act 116 of 1954 § 765(5) and the numbers we are trying to get from Ed McBroom

by xotrevor » Thu Mar 24, 2022 8:05 pm

Regarding the numbers we are trying to get from Ed McBroom that the county clerks were supposed to post according to the Public Act 116 of 1954 § 765(5) but the Michigan State House and Senate oversight committee failed to address the election irregularities in the hearings they held on the First Tuesday of November 2020.

The Public Act 116 of 1954 § 765(5) requires the Clerk of each county to post two public documents on every Election Day at the Opening of the Polls, and following the close of the Polls. Why were these documents never addressed by the Michigan legislative oversight committee in either chamber?

We need EVERYONE on these numbers. The absentee ballot numbers from the clerks plus the number of people that voted in person equals the true vote count. At that point we don't NEED AN AUDIT! If we had both sets of those numbers there would be NO WAY for there to be other votes. Because every absentee ballot is filed by the clerk.

This is why these numbers are vitally important.

And this is most likely the reason we are not getting these numbers from Ed Mcbroom or why we have not had an audit of the state-wide election result according to our Constitutional right.

Top