A letter written to all election officials in New York County was recently leaked New York Citizens Audit (NYC). NYCA is an all-volunteer group of patriotic citizens, now about 2,000 members, who have been researching New York State elections since late 2021. According to their website and numerous public media announcements, they have found hundreds of thousands of votes. count discrepancies and more than a million suspect voter registration records. The letter, in essence, claims that there is no voter fraud, that groups like NYCA do not know what they are talking about, and that the claims they have made are false.

Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, co-executive director of the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE), signed her name to the letter, which includes a couple of pages that appear identical to another letter I’ve seen, written by Brian Quail. , NYSBOE legal counsel. NYCA has responded to the letter on its website, along with several other letters written by officials who share Stavisky’s reasons for responding to NYCA. NYCA’s letters and responses can be viewed on their website by following this link.

Go ad-free, get exclusive shows and content, go Premium today – $1 trial

NYCA is not named in any of the letters, but the content of these letters appears to be directed at NYCA. This may be to save himself from a libel suit, but it’s hard to see how his letters could be directed at any other group. I spoke with NYCA director Matly Hornik about his response. “Did the NYCA make any attempt to discuss its findings with state officials?”

“Yes, we did. They never responded. We first reached out last year, early summer, when we sent out petitions with over 5,000 signatures along with notebooks full of documentation of our findings .Crickets.”

Now, nearly a year later, NYCA has taken possession of a document that appears to dispute NYCA in an attempt to persuade county officials that they shouldn’t be talking to NYCA. This is after many successful meetings that NYCA has had with some of these same officials and law enforcement, who have independently confirmed NYCA’s findings.

Stavisky adamantly states that “we have been made aware of a group alleging that the New York State voter registration database contains unidentified or ‘cloned’ voters who are voting in the election. We know these claims to be unequivocally false.” This is his first sentence. As the first few steps go, it’s like walking straight into a pit full of jello. An example immediately comes to mind that proves her wrong.

Get a good night’s sleep and RVM support with great discounts from MyPillow – use promo code RVM

NYCA has widely reported on a fictitious voter they call “Mr. M.” Mr. M has 25 registration records in the NYSBOE database. Twelve of the records have unique State Voter Identification (SBOEID) numbers and all have unique County Identification (CID) numbers. All were registered the same month. None are in the same county. All but one share the birth date of July 7, but in different years, ranging from 1979 to 1981. Ten of the records have the same mailing address, a rented PO box at a mall. Registration cards show that while some registrations do not have a mailing address, all cards do, and they are all the same. All registration cards ask for absentee ballots, which according to an official with I spoke, they would result in ballots being sent to the mall mailbox for all 25 write-ins.In other words, it looks like a small part of a larger vote-gathering operation.

According to the state census, Mr. M. never voted. This seems to support Stavisky’s claim that cloned voters do not vote. However, that would be wrong. NYCA made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIL) request for Mr. M. Some sent them; some don’t Two counties sent something else: a Voter Information Report (VIR). The VIR sent by two of Mr. M shows that he did vote in both places. Therefore, Mr. M, who is a clone, has a double vote in the same election year. So a clone “cast a vote”. Stavisky is wrong in her first sentence, but she is so sure that she uses the phrase “unequivocally false,” meaning without exception or nuance.

NYCA took care to request Mr. M. Two of the records did not have a mailing address in the state database; three others have recently been discovered. Of the remaining twenty, NYCA picked up nineteen. All those addresses had the same story: no one named Mr. M had ever lived at that address. Here are some sample results:

One address was an apartment building. A kind resident led the hawker to the building’s manager, who pored over hundreds of documents dating back decades, looking for any sign of Mr. M. He was not there and never was there.

Another address was a gas well. For safety reasons, gas wells must have a physical address so emergency personnel can find them. There is no domicile at the address. It was an empty field with a gas well, that’s it.

One address was a parsonage. The current pastor-in-residence invited the NYCA collector to look at the parish records, which listed all the previous occupants of the house. No, Mr. M.

There was an address that should have been between two houses in the farm field, but there was no space between the two lots for another address. Another was an office building. NYCA reviewed county records for the building to ensure it was in its current location at the time of Mr. M. He did and for many years before. Another was an art gallery. All their addresses were, in other words, fake. It is possible that Mr. Let M be a false identity. To date, NYCA has found no evidence that Mr. M be a real person.

The documents of Mr. M have been shown to several county sheriffs, district attorneys and election commissioners. All agree: registrations are fraudulent. With all due respect to Ms. Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, your first statement is false. All the other claims he makes in his letter to election officials are equally flawed. It’s like watching the headless horseman in court trying to prove he has brains. Really? where is it

Quick: Do It Before Biden ‘Fixes’ Your Retirement Plan Next…

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Red Voice Media. contact with us for guidelines for submitting your own comment.