top of page
Episode 30: Election Integrity Under Fire: Fraud Claims and Double Standards in Shasta County
0
7
1
In this episode of North State Breakdown, we examine the controversial claims of voter fraud by a former Redding landlord, Charles Pierce, who allegedly boasted about using mail-in ballots from former tenants. We also draw parallels to the case of Tina Peters, looking into how election integrity is being challenged both locally and nationally. We also discuss the hypocrisy of local leaders like Patrick Jones, who advocates for fines over peaceful protests while downplaying his own campaign violations, and the dangerous rhetoric that is currently being spread in Shasta County.
Transcript:
Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. I'd like to begin by discussing the Mesa pattern of fraud narrative that gained national attention through Mesa County's former clerk, Tina Peters.
Peters, in her role, allowed unauthorized individuals access to the voting machines during a secure update of their software, leading to a significant security breach. These actions were not just illegal; they created a false foundation for what many election deniers now refer to as the Mesa pattern of fraud theory. The Mesa pattern of fraud Peters tried to expose stems from her own illicit activities. By allowing unauthorized individuals to tamper with the machines and leak sensitive data, Peters created a situation where baseless claims of election fraud could flourish.
In a recent HBO documentary, Stop the Steal, officials clearly state that election machines are not connected to the internet.
"So this is very important that people understand that these tabulation machines are not connected to the internet in any way. Because people say, 'Well, what about Wi-Fi?' Well, there's no routers in these tabulation machines, so outside actors are not able to control the machines remotely. Then, in addition to that, if they wanted to physically access these, they would have to break in to some of the additional security features that we've put in there. So it is because of these various layers of security that I'm confident that these machines have not been manipulated by outside actors. And that's been confirmed time and time again by experts as well as in a court of law, in many courts of law, in fact."
Ironically, Tina Peters allowed unauthorized physical access to equipment within her department that she was elected to protect.
According to many involved with Trump's campaign in 2020, Trump's loss was predictable, including the attorney general, Bill Barr.
"You actually look at the votes, there's no mystery as to why he lost in 2020. He lost where people were telling him for months and months he was going to lose. The problem all along was that his way of going about energizing his base drove away a lot of suburban professionals. That's where the fatal gap was for him. It was in the suburbs. So it's no mystery as to why he lost."
But let's make one thing clear: Peters' theory never held up under scrutiny. In the realm of science, a theory is supposed to go through rigorous testing and must be backed by solid evidence. Peters' version of events leaves out significant details, selectively choosing what fits her narrative, much like a conspiracy theorist trying to fit mismatched puzzle pieces into a predetermined picture. It's a classic case of correlation not equating to causation.
Now, let's talk about Tina Peters herself. Peters was indicted for her crimes and sentenced to nine years in prison. Judge Matthew Barrett minced no words when he addressed Peters, calling her out for her crimes and the lies she told to fuel her claims of fraud.
"There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. You are no hero. You abused your position. And you're a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that's been proven to be junk time and time again. In your world, it's all about you. But at bottom, this case was about your corrupt conduct and how no one is above the law. No one in this country has absolute power. Your lies are well documented, and these convictions are serious. I'm convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You're as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen."
Peters' downfall wasn't just a personal failure; it was a stark example of how far some individuals are willing to go to undermine our democratic institutions. She became a central figure in the spread of election disinformation, but her story doesn't end with her arrest, and it spread far beyond Colorado.
Enter Douglas Frank. Frank, a close associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, took Peters' debunked theory and ran with it. He's been traveling across the country, including here in Shasta County.
"That's about Tina Peters. I was just in Colorado the other day, like I mentioned. And that's another situation where I was in the right place at the right time, because I'm the one who was with her when we red-pilled her as a clerk. I meet with a lot of clerks around the country."
He even went as far as to attack our own registrar of voters for not behaving like Tina Peters.
"If I felt I could red-pill your clerk, I would be nice to her and we would try to get her flipped over, and then she could help us expose everything like our other clerks have done that I flipped. OK, but we protect them. But I can tell she's not flippable. I think she's—yeah, she's not—I don't think she's flippable, so I think you're going to have to make a stand against her. I think you ought to rise up as a community and get her unelected."
As if their reckless actions were something to emulate. Frank's rhetoric gained enough traction that Shasta County made a dangerous decision. We got rid of our voting machines. Why? Because figures like Frank, Lindell, and their ilk convinced local leaders, including members of our board of supervisors, that these machines were part of some grand conspiracy. And in the process, Douglas Frank vilified our registrar of voters, casting them as part of the problem simply because they weren't willing to engage in illegal activity like Tina Peters.
This brings us to Supervisor Kevin Crye, who prior to his election in 2022, openly stated on a podcast that he didn't believe that there were any issues with elections. Fast forward to his tenure on the board of supervisors, and Crye voted to end the county's contract with Dominion Voting Systems, a complete reversal from his previous stance. In March of 2023, Crye took a county-sponsored trip to meet with Mike Lindell. This trip, which cost taxpayers $1,400, was later framed by Crye as a trap he fell into, claiming that Shasta County officials misled him into using county funds for the visit.
"The Lindell trip, when I went to staff and said, 'Hey, I can pay for this,' they said, 'No, no, no, no, no. You need to have the county pay for this because this is county business.' OK. So I stepped into traps."
To absolve himself, Crye donated the same amount to a youth program as if this donation erased the questionable decision to take the trip in the first place. Crye has since appeared on Lindell's streaming platform, Frank Speech, discussing his recall and election integrity efforts.
"In these times that we're living in, if you're doing anything that the state does not approve, they are going to come after you. And Kevin Crye has been one of the most outspoken board supervisors in the country, and because he knows that the elections are rigged. He knows that 2020 was stolen. And the people are demanding that there be some changes in our election platform. So when he got into office, he immediately set to work doing exactly what the people wanted, which was getting Shasta County out of the machines."
"Kevin Crye is joining us now here on America's Mom. Kevin, thank you so much for being with us. You know, I wasn't sure about elections, to be honest. Even when I took office in January, I definitely had my questions, but we made a vote to go to hand counting. And it was after a lot of careful consideration that I made that third deciding vote on our board. Chairman Jones and Supervisor Kelstrom, you know, it was something much more that they were certain of."
While the board was pursuing a replacement for Dominion machines, they ultimately went with Hart, but not without some controversy.
On Kevin Crye's radio program, Crye attempts to find a legitimate reason to disenfranchise disabled voters by insinuating that there was a number small enough to ignore.
"Let's just say and again, I don't this. This is absolutely hypothetical. Like, I don't have the answer, but let's say it costs. I don't know. For argument's sake, I don't even know what the number would be. Let's say half a million dollars to have machines, whatever that looks like. And there is 50 voters that it's going to impact, possibly negatively in terms of they're going to have to have a caregiver or somebody else help them with that vote. And there may be a secondary person. So is it is it two hundred thousand? Is it five hundred thousand? Is it a million? What's the number that says, hey, for these 50 voters, we're going to go this way because the county saves this much money and it is 50 voters."
Crye's actions are just one facet of a broader effort to cast doubt on local elections. Both the previous registrar of voters, Cathy Darling Allen, and the current registrar Thomas Toller have resisted illegal requests from the Shasta County Elections Commission, a body created under dubious pretenses to undermine confidence in local elections. These registrars have stood firm against attempts to change policies that would violate state law, all in the name of fabricated election integrity issues.
It's worth noting that both Mike Lindell and Douglas Frank had their cell phones confiscated as part of an investigation related to Tina Peters' trial, highlighting the legal scrutiny under which these figures are now operating. Their involvement in spreading disinformation has had far-reaching consequences, both national and local.
The Shasta County Elections Commission has also played a role in undermining election integrity by promoting unfounded doubts and misinformation. A striking example is the invitation of Steve Umfleet to give a presentation on election data, despite his lack of expertise in the field. In fact, during the trial of failed District 2 candidate Laura Hobbs, a Shasta County judge explicitly rejected Umfleet's qualification as an expert witness on election matters. His presentation before the commission, lacking substantive evidence, contributes to sowing doubt rather than addressing real issues.
Adding to these concerns is Laura Hobbs' troubling approach to questioning the integrity of the election office staff. She suggested that many workers are liberals, citing hair color as an indicator of their political beliefs, a baseless claim that undermines the professionalism of election workers.
Further fueling doubts about election processes is a non-county sanctioned elections task force, which has been reported on the North State Breakdown previously. This group has been going door to door, questioning residents about voter registration, a practice that could potentially have legal implications and create further mistrust in local elections. Together, these actions contribute to a broader strategy of casting doubt on the integrity of the election process in Shasta County.
On October 25, Charles Pierce, a Redding landlord, is now facing potential legal consequences after allegedly posting on Reddit that he used mail-in ballots belonging to former tenants to cast fraudulent votes. Although Pierce later claimed that his statements were exaggerated and that he did not actually commit voter fraud, the district attorney's office is now involved and an investigation is likely underway. The Shasta County Elections Office will need to review the voting history of his former tenants to ensure that no fraudulent ballots were cast. Pierce has since lost his job following these revelations, and he may still be held liable under California Election Code 18500, which makes election fraud punishable by up to three years in prison, with additional penalties that could include federal charges if it is found that he intentionally voted more than once.
I'd also like to mention campaign finance issues currently faced by District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones. Back in 2021, Jones received a formal warning from the FPPC for submitting a campaign finance form late in his 2020 race, an error he dismissed as "minor." Now we are learning that in addition to this previous warning, Jones has been fined $10,000 alongside his campaign treasurer, Lyndia Kent, for violations related to his 2019 assembly run. This fine was for failing to properly report and document contributions and using schemes to mask donor identities, including accepting cash-filled envelopes. To circumvent the $100 reporting threshold, Jones' campaign refunded $1 bills to donors, believing this would avoid the disclosure requirements. However, this tactic did not comply with the law. Campaigns are still required to keep detailed records of all contributions over $25, even if they are not publicly itemized. The campaign's actions reveal a repeated disregard for campaign finance laws and a selective adherence to regulatory standards when politically convenient.
The irony is palpable when considering that on July 31, 2024, Jones took to the radio, suggesting that the district attorney should prosecute and fine my wife $1,000 for her peaceful protest during the July 23, 2024 board meeting.
"Right, you know, they've asked her many times to please leave, and they said, 'Hey, we could do this the easy way or the hard way.' They had to do the hard way, which was to literally lift her up and remove her out the back door, where they cited her. Now it's up to the DA as to what to do. You could put her six months in jail or you could give her a $1,000 fine. That's up to the DA. Now I'm hoping that a fine would be levied because that's what would teach a person that if you violate the law, which is Penal Code Section 403, that there is a penalty and it's going to cost you some money."
While he dismisses his own campaign finance violations as a, quote, "political attack," he simultaneously advocates a steep fine for a silent, lawful protest, revealing his willingness to leverage punitive measures for political motives. This double standard underscores Jones' tendency to overlook his own ethical missteps while promoting punitive actions when they serve his political aims. Jones, who also led the recall of Supervisor Leonard Moty, and a huge proponent of election denialism, has been quoted as saying that the election he won in 2020 was rigged.
"All of you were elected with these dominion machines, were you not? Were you not, Mr. Crye? Was it free and fair election with the dominion machines for you? For you, Mr. Kelstrom? For you, Mr. Jones? It was not with me and I can prove it. Have you put anything out on that? We're going to get there. You won it. You're sitting in the spot. So in 2020, on my race, if you take a look at the statistics and analyze that race, you will see the Mesa, Colorado pattern of fraud existing in my race. Explain it to me."
Recently, a news segment from a Dutch news outlet aired, featuring Jones and his family-owned gun shop, Jones Fort. One of the curious statements Jones made...
"They said they were Republicans. They were not Republicans. So you can say that I'm a buffalo, but I am not a buffalo. I'm a human, right? But if you keep telling people you're a buffalo, pretty soon they... he's a buffalo. Well, that's what these guys were doing."
Jones' assertion that fake conservatives were misleading the public by repeating lies strikes a chord, but not necessarily what he intended. In another clip from the HBO documentary, says it best...
"That's very suspect. Its name is Dominion. You can press a button for Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is this? It was just weird because literally everything he had said had been stuff I had debunked or people in Arizona had debunked. But he's saying it all again. Because I guess you keep on saying the same thing over and over again. If nobody's pushing back, eventually people will believe you. Say something enough, it becomes the truth."
Later in the segment, Jones ominously states that if Trump loses, there will be consequences.
"What if Trump doesn't win in November? It's pretty obvious to most of us that he should easily win this. And if they cheat him out of it again, I don't think... I think the response from the public is going to be very different, unfortunately. They know that, too. They know that people will be very upset. They can certainly cheat. But there will be a price for that."
Insinuating that violence may follow if Trump doesn't win the election. The image of a public official making such statements in a gun shop should send chills down the spine of every voter. It is very clear that dangerous rhetoric is being peddled by certain leaders in our community.
And that's The Breakdown.
Related Posts
Comments (1)
bottom of page
I certainly can't prove what I'm about to say, but here it goes...Patrick Jones and Lyndia Kent are somewhere in Shasta County planning the next step, this time for Corkey Harmon. Be it, a plane with a banner flying over D3, renting more flashing signs and placing them illegally, vote harvesting, election deniers going door-door asking folks if they've voted and can they hand their ballot over to the fake vote deliverers...or, you make something up and it'll likely take place. That's where they're coming from, the Harmon's and the Jones', in league so that Jones' legacy will be carried on by Corkey. Whoa, I just woke up and had to share this with someone !