FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senator Kelly Townsend responds to allegations of medical malfeasance at Phoenix Indian Health Center, and other private hospitals in Arizona.
September 21, 2021
Phoenix, AZ

Monday of this week, Project Veritas released a video that showed undercover recordings of physicians and other staff of the Phoenix Indian Health Center discussing the fact that adverse events after the COVID-19 vaccine were not being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Senator Townsend expressed her concern with the video. "I am not surprised to hear of these allegations from this hospital. Complaints such as these are becoming increasingly more frequent, along with allegations of other public hospitals committing medical discrimination against the unvaccinated." Townsend continued, "I am glad the reality is coming to light of how easily people have devolved into blatant discrimination against those who chose not to, or cannot be, vaccinated. I have received reports out of Tucson of patients being grossly neglected due to their vaccine status. This cannot stand in our state. I have advised the family members to make a complaint to the Department of Health Services and I hope it is investigated immediately."

Senator Townsend has been consistent in her messaging regarding the right of a person to make decisions regarding their medical care, including the COVID-19 vaccine. "Wherever there is a risk, there must always be the opportunity for choice," said Townsend. She continued, "In the last several months, I have been contacted by many seeking recourse, whether it be patients needing an advocate, nurses seeking to preserve their employment, parents of school children seeking help due to an arbitrary quarantine, or first responders facing illegal mandates from City officials."

Because the volume of calls and emails has become insurmountable, Senator Townsend has moved to form a group of like-minded individuals from many professions to join her in creating the Arizona Health and Safety Coalition. It is her desire to see a group that is dedicated not only to assisting the public with resources, but to act as a watchdog when things like what was seen yesterday with Project Veritas happen. "I expect this group to act as a think-tank and a resource to help the citizens of Arizona find solutions during this pandemic. I also expect that we can help guide family members as they seek recourse for the mistreatment they are experiencing in various parts of the state. We will provide access to the laws that are there to protect them from maltreatment and neglect and will point them to legal counsel who can represent them if they need to seek damages.

Townsend tweeted earlier today that because the Phoenix Indian Health Center is a federal facility, she is calling on the Congressional delegation to investigate. As for a solution for private and public institutions under the state's jurisdiction, Townsend indicated that she is proposing legislation to create a similar reporting system for Arizona that is transparent for the public to see and more reliable, with an enforceable mandate for medical practitioners report the adverse event.

Senator Townsend can be reached at her office at 602.926.4467 or by email at ktownsend@azleg.gov
###

I am about to go on KNST to speak with Garrett Lewis regarding multiple issues Arizona is facing at 7:05 PST. The Audit, Steve Chucri, Phoenix Indian Health Center, etc.

https://knst.iheart.com/?pname=knst.com&sc=dnsredirect

Governor Ducey pledged to me to end the State of Emergency in Arizona when the bills went into effect on September 29th of this year. I am looking forward to that happening next week!

https://tucson.com/news/local/ducey-gives-up-emergency-powers-in-deal-to-pass-budget-and-tax-cut/article_f451eb5a-d434-11eb-8c31-eb3b8bcac446.html

I take apologies in written form, verbal, recorded in voice mail, or by broadcast. Those who took umbrage with my swastica post to illuminate the parallels between early Nazi Germany and now are welcome to explain this young man's horrific and disgusting rant and then tell me I was wrong.

https://youtu.be/4oWWcqGk1m4

I preface this by saying I am not giving up. I am looking for the most effective way to deal with election fraud. We have at least two opinions that have advised us regarding the process of how Arizona would decertify a Presidential election. Neither of these two opinions seem promising. The statutes and laws in place right now seem to not allow any decertification at this point. However, (not speaking as an attorney) I would imagine that a challenge in court should be attempted, if warranted. In my thinking, I believe it would have to be the candidate who feels with new information that they were wronged, to bring this to court. However I am reaching out to see if any of you are thinking of an alternative path. I am not satisfied with just these two opinions and I know that if there was wrongdoing we must address it.
Please see the opinion below and tell me what you think:



ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEMO

QUESTION
Is there a mechanism to decertify a presidential election?

ANSWER
Federal law provides for determination of election challenges regarding
presidential electors in each state pursuant to state law. In Arizona, the contest of an
election of presidential electors must be instituted within five days after completion of the
election canvass. When Congress reviews the votes submitted by presidential electors, members of the House of Representatives and Senate may object to the votes. A vote
may be rejected on the concurrent vote of both houses. There is no other provision in the United States Constitution or federal law to challenge a presidential election.

DISCUSSION
In regard to presidential electors, the United States Constitution provides:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
Under this authority, the legislature may select the presidential electors, it may
allow the voters to select the presidential electors and it may change how the electors are
selected. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104
(2000). However, the Constitution provides that Congress determines the time of choosing presidential electors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The Court in McPherson 2
and Bush did not address this congressional authority because it was not an issue in those
cases. Under its constitutional authority, Congress has directed that "[t]he electors of
President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after
the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President." 3 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1.

The Arizona legislature has prescribed the method of appointment of presidential
electors for this state by enacting several statutes, including Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 16-212, which provides in part:

A. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1956,
and quadrennially thereafter, there shall be elected a number of presidential electors equal to the number of United States senators and representatives in Congress from this state.

B. After the secretary of state issues the statewide canvass
containing the results of a presidential election, the presidential electors of
this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state as prescribed in the canvass.
The statutes also provide that the chair of the state committee of each political party that qualifies for a column on the general election ballot must appoint the candidates for the office of presidential elector for the respective political party. A.R.S. section 16-344.

Federal law addresses the determination of controversies as to the appointment of
presidential electors. 3 U.S.C. §

5. The so-called safe harbor provision states:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any
controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and
such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

3 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added).
This section states that if a state has in place before an election is held a law that
prescribes procedures to resolve any controversy about the election, the resolution made 3 pursuant to these procedures will govern in the counting of electoral votes if the
resolution is made at least six days before the presidential electors meet. While this
section is not exclusive, it clearly expresses the congressional preference for
controversies to be determined through processes established by law. The legislature has enacted procedures to contest elections in A.R.S. title 16, chapter 4, article 13.

An elector may contest a statewide election for a variety of reasons, including misconduct by election officials, counting illegal votes and erroneous counting of votes.
A.R.S. section 16-672. A contest is made by filing an action in superior court. Id. A person contesting a statewide election must file a statement that identifies the parties and the reasons for the contest with the court within five days after completion of the canvass of the election.
A.R.S. section 16-673.

So, in Arizona, an elector may contest the election of presidential electors according to the law in effect at the time of the election. Under the current law, a contest must be filed within five days after the completion of the canvas of the election at which presidential electors are selected. If the determination of the court concerning the challenge is made at least six days before the meeting of the presidential electors, the determination of the court is conclusive.
Federal law does provide that members of Congress may object to a state's
submission of presidential electors at the time of counting electoral votes. 3 U.S.C. §

15. Each objection must be signed by at least one member of the House of
Representatives and one member of the Senate. Id. The House and the Senate
separately consider the objections to a state's submission of presidential electors. Id.

The determination of each house is limited because:
[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified
to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the
vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
Id.
This section allows Congress to reject votes submitted by presidential electors from a state based on irregularities in the selection of the presidential
electors or in the voting by the electors. However, in making this determination,
Congress is bound by any decision made in an election challenge that complies
with 3 U.S.C. § 5.
We have not found any other provision of the United States Constitution or

federal law that would allow for a challenge to or decertification of a presidential
election. The only court case that we found addressing this issue agrees with this
conclusion. The federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia held: Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court decertifying the November
3, 2020, election results. . . . 3 U.S.C. § 15 provides the only process by
which the electoral votes are to be counted and potentially challenged. . .
. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statute or case that provides for any mode
of challenging electoral votes already certified and counted by the
Electoral College outside the congressional method outlined in 3 U.S.C. §
15. Thus, this Court finds no grounds upon which to independently order
the decertification of Georgia's election results.
Trump v. Kemp, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1335–36 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (emphasis added and
footnote omitted).
Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this issue.
cc: Michael Hans

I want to reassure you that throughout this morning we have received even more insight on whether or not the legislature is able to do certify a fraudulent election. The news is promising and I will not stop looking for answers, despite a couple of opinions from our legislative Council. We are preparing to make sure we are able to do the right thing. Please do not just assume that I have rolled over because that's the furthest from the truth. I am looking forward to tomorrow's report and will be communicating with you after.

Here is the official link for tomorrow's broadcast of the report of the audit in Arizona.

https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2021091005

You're a daisy if you do...

I suspect there will be fraud found, so no, Biden didn't win.
https://twitter.com/AZKellyT/status/1441404966132858885?s=19

You guys should know me well enough by now. Don't freak out about my last post.

Broadcasting the audit live on my Facebook

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senator Kelly Townsend reacts to the Arizona Election Audit Report
Phoenix, AZ
September 24, 2021

I am thoroughly shocked, yet not surprised, at the product that was delivered to the people of Arizona by the hands of Adrian Fontes regarding the 2020 General election. Although the raw numbers of votes show a similar outcome to the official canvass. The important outcome is that the votes that were counted could be trusted as actual and true voter submissions, according to Arizona State law.
However, what we learned today that there was a myriad of issues with the counting process that undermine the confidence in the true and accurate count of this election. The election system simply does not balance. Some of the issues that jump out immediately to me are as follows:
• Deleted / purged files - The timing and deletion of files the day before the 2/2/21 audit. Maricopa county purged the machine records the day before the audit started. Many .exe and .dll files (approximately 1500) were either deleted or modified.
• No security or credential management. There were shared accounts and passwords which made the identification of those deleting or purging files difficult, but not impossible.
• Duplicates ballots were grossly mismanaged, and our laws were broken regarding this important part of our election process.
• Chain of custody was not accurately kept, making it impossible who touched what and when.
• Envelopes without signatures, images of ballot envelopes with an apparent approval stamp behind the basic graphics of the envelop, suggesting tampering.
• Connectivity to the internet has been established, in violation of Arizona law and contrary to what we have been told about the system.
• Sloppy caretaking of ballots, missing batches in boxes, batches in boxes not listed on the box or county list.
These are just a few of the many issues brought up today and necessitate a dramatic change in the way we oversee our elections, and how we hold those accountable who have broken our laws. Most importantly, whenever there is malfeasance and skullduggery, we must both nullify that election and repeat it with one more securely conducted, and we must move forward with indictments of hose who perpetrated this fraud against us.