Woman Escapes COVID-19 Hospital Treatment Protocols, Says Others Not So Lucky

 

Woman Escapes COVID-19 Hospital Treatment Protocols, Says Others Not So Lucky

By Matt McGregor
September 15, 2022 Updated: September 15, 2022

Over a week after Gail Seiler’s physician had given her a terminal diagnosis, her husband, Brad Seiler, wheeled her out of the back door of the hospital where she had been admitted for COVID-19 on Dec. 3, 2021.

“I’m so sorry, Mrs. Seiler, but you are going to die,” she recalled her physician telling her on Dec. 5.

On Dec. 15, despite resistance from hospital staff, Brad extracted Seiler from Medical City Plano hospital in Plano, Texas, where the couple lives.

Seiler is one of the few patients who has lived to tell her story about what she said she witnessed on the inside with COVID-19 hospital treatment protocols.

“It became clear to me that people are not dying in hospitals from COVID. They are dying from these protocols,” Seiler told The Epoch Times.

Seiler went in for a monoclonal antibody infusion with the request that she be given the early-treatment protocols prescribed through the Front Line Critical Care Alliance (FLCCA), which included the use of ivermectin and budesonide.

However, when staff discovered she was unvaccinated, “the whole tone changed,” she said.

“I quickly lost the right to advocate for my own medical care,” she said.

‘I Didn’t Come Here to Die’

After a 26-hour wait, she finally got a bed in the intensive care unit (ICU), but no family members were allowed to visit, she said.

This is where she met Dr. Giang Quach, the physician who told her she was going to die because she was unvaccinated, she said.

“I told him, ‘I didn’t come here to die,’” she said.

Seiler said Quach pushed her to take Remdesivir, a drug known to cause kidney failure. She repeatedly asked for a different doctor, but her pleas went unanswered and Quach remained in charge of her care, she said.

In 2018, President Donald Trump signed the Right to Try Act into law, which allowed patients with life-threatening diseases who have exhausted all other options to try certain unapproved treatments.

Because Quach had given Seiler a terminal diagnosis, she was entitled to try FLCCA protocols to treat COVID-19, but the hospital denied her those treatments, she said.

Quach also denied Seiler her right to see a priest to administer her last rites, she said.

So, Seiler made a deal with Quach, she said.

She said she would submit to a round of remdesivir if Quach let her see her priest for final sacraments.

Quach agreed, and Seiler was allowed to see her priest, she said.

“Then, we denied the remdesivir,” Seiler said. “They were pretty angry about it, but honestly, I felt I was in a fight for my soul. When the priest left, I had this renewed feeling that I was going to live and not be killed.”

Epoch Times Photo
Gail Seiler’s last day at the hospital in 2021. (Courtesy of Gail Seiler)

‘Every Day I Would Tell Them I’m Not a DNR’

Every day, Seiler said, she made it known that she did not want Quach in charge of her care and insisted on seeing a different provider, but Quach always returned.

Seiler’s daughter had access to her online records, where she found that Seiler was classified as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), she said.

Seiler said she was not supposed to be listed as DNR.

“The scariest part of it was every day I would tell them I’m not a DNR, but them telling me I’m a DNR,” Seiler said.

In order to be resuscitated, Seiler said, hospital staff told her she had to go on the ventilator, the final stage for many who have reported similar hospital stories that ended in death.

Each of the standard treatment protocols for COVID-19, beginning with remdesivir and ending with the ventilator, are reimbursed with lucrative payoffs from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), leading many to believe this is the reason hospitals continue to use these protocols while denying early treatment.

In a Sept. 7 conference titled “Remdesivir Death: Landmark Lawsuit” in Fresno, California, two attorneys announced lawsuits against three hospitals for what they allege are the hospitals using remdesivir without informed consent, leading to wrongful death.

The lawsuit addressed what the attorneys called “the remdesivir protocol,” in which the patients may be admitted to the hospital—often for problems unrelated to COVID-19—and then diagnosed with COVID-19 or COVID pneumonia.

The patients are then isolated and malnourished before being told remdesivir is their only treatment option, according to the lawsuit.

The patients are also placed on a BiPap machine, which uses pressure to push oxygen into the lungs at a high rate, the lawsuit says, with the patients’ hands often tied down so they can’t remove it.

The final stage of the protocol is intubation, at which point the patients die an average of nine days after being admitted, the lawsuit states.

In the end, the hospital can get up to $500,000 in reimbursement per patient for the protocol.

‘Things Just Got Worse’

Seiler goes into more detail about her story on the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation’s COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project.

She became the Texas chairperson for the foundation, where she gathers stories similar to hers to submit to the project’s documented cases.

The foundation also offers multiple online support group meetings where others can tell their stories.

The number of people who say they’ve had family members die in hospitals at the hands of what they call the “death protocols” continues to surface. However, for many of them, their loved ones’ deaths left them with inconceivable stories of administrative cruelty.

Patients and families are scared into accepting treatment such as remdesivir without being informed about the risks such as kidney failure.

Families have reported that physicians will tell them that the patient needs oxygen and rest, then the oxygen is used to such a high degree that later a ventilator is required because the lungs are damaged.

When a patient tries to remove the BiPap mask, they are deemed agitated and given sedatives, leaving them at the mercy of hospital staff, many reported, while being denied access to basic nutrition, hygiene, and exercise.

For Seiler, the lack of nutrition caused hair loss, and she developed a bacterial infection called thrush because no one removed her BiPap mask to clean her mouth, she said.

Seiler said the doctors and nurses wouldn’t allow her to even sit up, resulting in bed sores, and she eventually lost her ability to walk.

After two days on a catheter that she said was forced on her because nurses told her they couldn’t take her to the bathroom, she got another infection from the catheter.

“Things just got worse,” Seiler said. “People were dying around me in other rooms. Quite frankly, it was quite scary, and I knew that time was short.”

‘I’m Going to Take You Out of There’

On Dec. 14, 2021, Seiler’s husband, a former nurse and U.S. Army veteran, called 911 to have the Plano Police Department perform a welfare check, she said.

When the police officer arrived, Seiler said she attempted to explain to him what she had experienced.

“I told him they’re going to murder me,” she said. “He said, ‘We don’t have a protocol for this,’ and he left.”

Having exhausted all other options, Brad Seiler and Seiler’s daughter—who had been contacting politicians for help—came up with a plan to get her out of the hospital and take her home.

Brad Seiler set up oxygen and obtained medications with the help of a home consultation service and Dr. Richard Bartlett’s protocols, which emphasize the use of budesonide, she said.

On Dec. 15, Brad called and told her, “I’m going to take you out of there.”

Brad arrived with a cease-and-desist letter and two pieces of patients’ rights legislation, written to allow access to at least one visitor: Texas Senate Bill 572 and Senate Bill 2211.

The state’s House and Senate bills prohibit hospitals from denying visitation, including clergy visitation, during disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seiler said Quach found a loophole in the House bill where it says the doctor can write an order for five days limiting visitation to one person, and then renew that order.

“And that’s what Dr. Quach had done to keep me isolated,” she said. “Still, Quach broke the premise of that bill, because I wasn’t allowed any visitors.”

The Senate bill, which was written by state Sen. Bob Hall, permits a spiritual counselor, she said.

This was written to include family members, which is why Brad was brandishing the legislation—to invoke himself as the spiritual head of the family, Seiler said.

Epoch Times Photo
Gail Seiler’s progress in getting off the mask, 2022. (Courtesy of Gail Seiler)

‘I Anticipate There Will be Future Hearings’

Hall, who was involved in making calls to the hospital to petition for Seiler’s care, has been outspoken against “the commandeering of medical practices by the government.”

In June 2022, the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services held a hearing where families testified about their loved ones’ experiences with the medical system during the pandemic.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, Hall said he anticipates future hearings after the committee heard the personal testimonies.

“Patients and doctors must be empowered to make decisions on treatment protocols without fear of threats and intimidation if they differ from government-mandated procedures,” Hall said.

It was the persistence of Seiler’s husband and daughter, Hall said, that made Seiler “one of the few hospital COVID patients to get out of the hospital in time to survive.”

Echoing Seiler’s earlier statement, Hall said “more people died in hospitals like Medical City Plano because of hospital policies, than died of COVID.”

In a statement to The Epoch Times, a Medical City Plano spokesperson said that “like other hospitals in our area, our hospital relies on licensed, independent physicians who use their extensive training and experience to assess patients’ needs and determine the course of treatment. We support our physicians by giving them information and resources, including the latest research to help them provide the best possible care to our patients.”

Of the many consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, the erosion of confidence in the medical profession’s “best possible care” has been the most damaging, Hall said.

“The circumstances triggered a number of egregious policies and practices never before seen in our modern hospitals,” Hall said. “Patients were isolated from their families and loved ones, intimidated or coerced into receiving medical protocols with which they disagreed, and in some cases, outright neglected. Government-mandated protocols, which did more harm than good, added fuel and distrust to the fire.”

‘I Know for Certain I Will Die at Your Hands’

Brad Seiler had gone beyond the stage of distrust when he entered the hospital and somehow charged his way into the ICU as security chased him, Gail Seiler said.

When told to leave, Brad told staff, “You’re not going to murder my wife. She’s coming home with me,” Seiler said.

From there, it became almost like an all-day hostage negotiation, Seiler said, with six police officers who were there not to help them, but to make Brad leave.

Hall got involved, telling Brad not to resist if officers were to arrest him, Seiler said, while one of the doctors told her that if she were to leave with Brad, she would die.

“I told her that if I died tonight, ‘I’d prefer it be with Brad trying to save me rather than die at your hands because I know for certain I will die at your hands,’” Seiler said.

Epoch Times Photo
Police were present when Gail Seiler’s husband negotiated with the hospital so Gail would be allowed to leave Medical City Plano hospital in Plano, Texas, in 2021. (Courtesy of Gail Seiler)

Seiler needed a wheelchair because her legs didn’t work due to a lack of physical therapy, she said.

When she was packed and ready to leave, Seiler said the floor nurse led them out through what he called “the shortcut,” which turned out to be the way through the morgue where the funeral homes pick up bodies.

“I think it was to send us a message,” Seiler said.

‘A Medical Matrix’

Despite the physician telling Brad Seiler that his wife wouldn’t make it 24 hours if she left the hospital, she lives today to tell her story.

It wasn’t easy, Gail Seiler said, and her healing at home had more to do with recovering from her experience at the hospital than from the virus itself.

However, it was Bartlett’s treatment that saved her life, she said.

“Everything he put in place works,” she said. “I started to improve right away.”

The Seilers later contacted their state representative who contacted Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct an investigation, Gail said.

HHS assigned the investigation to the hospital, which concluded that the hospital had “done a stellar job,” Gail said.

“No one contacted us, and they certainly didn’t look at our medical records because—if anything—even making someone a DNR when they tell you they aren’t a DNR is against the law, right?” Sieler said.

The Seilers were sure no one would believe their story, but as they continued to tell it on podcast and radio interviews, more and more people contacted them to share their own experiences.

Seiler managed to escape the hospital and recover, but she said most of the stories she hears from other people don’t have happy endings, leaving those families wracked with guilt when they realize what took place.

The majority of the cases have ended in the death of the patient, Seiler said, with the family only realizing they had been gaslit after it was over.

“What we’re seeing is doctors aren’t being honest with the patient, and by the time you realize they’re harming you, you’ve not only been harmed, you’ve also been gaslit, and you can’t just leave,” Seiler said. “You’re on a high flow of oxygen and you’re told if you leave, you’ll die. If you get intubated, the only way out is to be transferred to another hospital.”

Patients have generally had the right to advocate for their own medical treatment, and even deny recommendations, but with the emergency declarations related to COVID, hospital staff have been given authority over patients they’ve historically not had, Seiler said.

In some cases, patients have been given remdesivir and other medications not only without informed consent but also after the patient had put in writing that they didn’t want the drug, Seiler said.

Despite this overreach being exercised in hospitals, Brad and the Seiler’s daughter was able to bring enough attention to the case through networking with Hall and Lt. Col. Allen West, Seiler said.

West had also been treated there and—in addition to Hall—made several calls to the hospital on the Seilers’ behalf, which Seiler said she suspects is why staff had to eventually acquiesce to letting Brad remove her.

There have been cases in which people have just walked out, but they are rare, Seiler said.

“Once you enter the hospital, you’re in this medical matrix, and the only way out is through death or if someone comes and takes you out,” Seiler said.

Today, Seiler’s mission is to bring awareness by sharing her story and the stories of others, she said.

“My goal is to keep people out of hospitals because this truly is a hospital holocaust.”

Matt McGregor

REPORTER
Matt McGregor covers news and features throughout the United States. Send him your story ideas: matt.mcgregor@epochtimes.us

17 States Urge Supreme Court to Review Texas Bid Challenging Election Results in 4 States

17 States Urge Supreme Court to Review Texas Bid Challenging Election Results in 4 States

December 9, 2020 Updated: December 9, 2020

Seventeen states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Texas’s request to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states.

The states, led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 9, underscoring that the case filed by Texas is of great public importance and requires the attention of the nation’s top court.

Texas on Dec. 7 filed a motion asking for permission to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an attempt to protect the integrity of the 2020 election.

The Lone Star state alleges that the four key battleground states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot integrity measures.

In the brief, the 17 states argue that the Texas lawsuit warrants review by the high court as it presents important constitutional issues under the Electors Clause. It also raises concerns about election integrity and public confidence in the handling of elections, they added.

The states said they have a strong interest in protecting the separation of powers in how elections are regulated. When election officials made changes to the rules governing elections, these non-legislative actors may have encroached on the power given to state legislatures by the Electors Clause in the U.S. Constitution, they assert.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections” may only be prescribed by the state “legislature” and “Congress.”

“Encroachments on the authority of state Legislatures by other state actors violate the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty,” the states wrote (pdf).

Meanwhile, the changes made by the defendant states to mail-in voting rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 17 states argued, would have likely enhanced the risk of election fraud, since they strip away safeguards protecting against fraudulent behavior.

They added that the relaxation of safeguards for mail-in ballots create “needless vulnerability to actual fraud and undermined public confidence in the election.”

Some of these changes include removing signature verification, extending the deadline to receive mail-in ballots, and failing to implement consistent statewide standards for the handling of mail-in ballots, the Texas lawsuit alleges.

“These changes removed protections that responsible actors had recommended for decades to guard against fraud and abuse in voting by mail,” the states claim in their brief.

The states supporting the Texas suit, all of which have Republican attorneys general, are Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Texas is hoping to obtain a declaration from the Supreme Court that the four states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. It is also asking the court to prohibit the count of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the defendant states that have already appointed electors, it asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors, in line with the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the state is also seeking a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order to block the four states from taking action to certify their election results or to prevent the state’s presidential electors from taking any official action. The presidential electors are scheduled to meet on Dec. 14.

The court has ordered the defendant states to respond to Texas’s motions by 3 p.m. on Dec. 10.

Following the filing of the brief, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich later in the day filed a request to the top court for permission to file his own brief in support of Texas (pdf).

President Donald Trump’s campaign has also asked the court to allow it to join Texas in the case as a plaintiff. The president on Dec. 9 has described the case as “the big one,” adding that the “Country needs a victory.”

Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.

Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan
Zero Day                  

This is the Case we have been waiting for

This the one

Sen. Cruz Agrees to Argue Pennsylvania Election Case If Taken Up by Supreme Court

Texas SCOTUS Case Highlights Non-Legislative Election Rule Changes in Battleground States

December 8, 2020 Updated: December 8, 2020

Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed an election lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that the states used the pandemic to unlawfully change their election laws and urging the top court to have the election results declared unconstitutional.

Paxton argued in the filing (pdf) that the states used the outbreak of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus as an excuse make non-legislative changes to their election rules “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.”

He is requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court rules to prohibit the counting of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states and for those states that have already appointed electors, he asks the court to direct state legislatures to appoint new electors.

“While investigations into allegations of unlawful votes being counted and fraud continue, even the appearance of fraud in a close election would justify exercising the Court’s discretion to grant the motion,” Paxton argued, and called for the high court to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of Electoral College electors “to allow these investigations to be completed.”

In seeking a determination by the court that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution, Paxton detailed actions taken by these states to modify election rules.

Philadelphia
A poll watcher monitors the counting of ballots at the Allegheny County elections warehouse in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Nov. 6, 2020. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

Pennsylvania

Paxton argues that Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar unilaterally and without legislative approval modified several state statutes requiring signature verification for absentee and mail-in ballots.

After several voter advocacy groups sued Boockvar in August claiming existing signature verification procedures for mail-in voting were unlawful, the Pennsylvania Department of State settled with the plaintiffs, issuing revised guidance stating, “The Pennsylvania Election Code does not authorize the county board of elections to set aside returned absentee or mail-in ballots based solely on signature analysis by the county board of elections.”

Paxton argues this move violated Pennsylvania law and that it “unconstitutionally did away with Pennsylvania’s statutory signature verification requirements.”

These claims mirror those made in an earlier lawsuit against Boockvar ahead of the election, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling unanimously to prohibit counties from rejecting a ballot if the voter’s signature on it does not resemble the signature on the voter’s registration form.

Another claim Paxton made in the complaint to the U.S. Supreme Court was that, while Pennsylvania’s state legislature enacted bipartisan election reforms in 2019 that set a deadline for receiving mail-in ballots for 8:00 pm on Election Day, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later extended that deadline to three days after Election Day.

He also noted in the complaint that, prior to the election, Boockvar sent an email to local election officials urging them to provide opportunities to contact voters to “cure” defective mail-in ballots, which he said violated the state election code.

“This blatant disregard of statutory law renders all mail-in ballots constitutionally tainted and cannot form the basis for appointing or certifying Pennsylvania’s presidential electors to the Electoral College,” Paxton wrote in the complaint.

The Pennsylvania Department of State declined to comment on the suit.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, in a statement on Twitter, denounced Paxton’s complaint: “These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless—they are a scheme by the President of the United States and some in the Republican party to disregard the will of the people—and name their own victors.”

“These factless, baseless ‘lawsuits’ to stir confusion and doubt in our systems are un-American and we should not allow this circus to continue,” Shapiro said in a separate statement.

Pennsylvania’s certified election results put Democrat Joe Biden ahead of President Donald Trump by over 80,000 votes.

The number of votes affected by the various alleged constitutional violations exceeds this margin, according to Paxton’s complaint.

Epoch Times Photo
Gwinnett county workers begin their recount of the ballots in Lawrenceville, Ga., on November 13, 2020. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Georgia

Paxton argues in the Supreme Court filing that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, unilaterally and without legislative approval, abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.

The statute prohibits the opening of absentee ballots until after polls open on Election Day, but in April the State Election Board adopted a rule issued by Raffensperger that authorized county election officials to begin processing ballots up to three weeks prior.

Another change Paxton objected to was an agreement Raffensperger entered into in settlement of a lawsuit brought against him by the Georgia Democratic Party, which changed the statutory signature verification requirements. The settlement made it more difficult to reject questionable ballots by requiring a registrar who suspected a defective signature to seek a review by two other registrars, a majority vote to discard the ballot, and additional obstacles like all three registrars having to sign their names on the rejected ballot and write down the reason for its rejection.

Paxton argued this change, which was not ratified by Georgia’s legislature, made it less likely to reject questionable ballots and “materially benefitted” Biden as the former vice president received nearly double the number of absentee ballots than Trump.

“The effect of this unconstitutional change in Georgia election law, which made it more likely that ballots without matching signatures would be counted, had a material impact on the outcome of the election,” Paxton wrote.

Georgia state Sen. William Ligon, a Republican, told The Epoch Times that the consent order was not approved by the legislature. “That’s contrary to law and the federal Constitution,” he said.

In an emailed statement, Jordan Fuchs with Raffensperger’s office said: “The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible. Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.”

According to certified results, Biden leads Trump in Georgia by over 12,000 votes.

Epoch Times Photo
A worker with the Detroit Department of Elections celebrates after hearing the nearly final number of 167,000 absentee ballots that were counted is announced over the loudspeaker at the Central Counting Board in the TCF Center in Detroit, Mich., on Nov. 4, 2020. (Elaine Cromie/Getty Images)

Michigan

Paxton alleges that Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, unilaterally and without legislative approval, abrogated Michigan election statutes relating to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.

While the Michigan constitution provides for “no excuse” mail-in voting, Benson announced in May that her office would send unsolicited absentee-voter applications by mail to all 7.7 million registered voters, in violation of Michigan Election Law, which does not give the Secretary of State the power to distribute absentee ballot applications, Paxton argued.

Moreover, Michigan law requires that applicants sign an absentee ballot application form, a rule that Paxton argued was violated when Benson launched a program in June that allowed absentee ballots to be requested online, without signature verification.

“These non-legislative modifications to Michigan’s election statutes resulted in a number of constitutionally tainted votes that far exceeds the margin of voters separating the candidates in Michigan,” Paxton contended.

According to Michigan’s certified results, Biden leads Trump by a margin of over 146,000 votes.

The Epoch Times reached out to Benson’s office for comment, but did not receive an immediate reply.

Responding to the complaint, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a statement: “The motion filed by the Texas Attorney General is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”

“The Michigan issues raised in this complaint have already been thoroughly litigated and roundly rejected in both state and federal courts—by judges appointed from both political parties,” she continued, adding that Paxton’s actions “are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas.”

Epoch Times Photo
Residents drop mail-in ballots in a ballot box outside of the Tippecanoe branch library in Milwaukee, Wis., on Oct. 20, 2020. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Wisconsin

In his complaint, Paxton argues that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws in a way that weakened or entirely removed established safeguards to ensure absentee ballot integrity.

One of these modifications involved the establishment of hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots, including ones that were unmanned.

“However, the use on any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute,” Paxton argued.

He also alleged that the WEC and local election officials encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” so that they could, under Wisconsin law, avoid security measures like photo ID requirements and signature verification when applying to vote absentee.

Paxton cited guidance issued by Dane County and Milwaukee County clerks indicating that all voters should mark themselves as “indefinitely confined” due to the pandemic.

Further, he cited a directive issued by WEC to Wisconsin clerks prohibiting removal of voters from the registry for indefinite-confinement status even if voters were no longer “indefinitely confined.”

He also alleged that the WEC issued guidance permitting clerks to add missing addresses from certifications on absentee ballots, in violation of Wisconsin election laws.

Wisconsin Assemblyman Ron Tusler, a Republican, told The Epoch Times this week that the commission guidance went against state law.

“State law says one thing and they’re doing something else,” he said.

Certified results in Wisconsin put Biden ahead of Trump by a margin of over 20,000 votes.

A WEC spokesman told The Epoch Times via email that the commission doesn’t comment on lawsuits.

Paxton argued that the actions he outlined in his complaint “constitute non-legislative changes to State election law by executive-branch State election officials, or by judicial officials” and, as such, votes cast by Electoral College electors pursuant to these actions should not be considered constitutionally valid.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

 

Perhaps the following States Attorneys General will be joining in the case. I think #WeThePeople should demand it 

 

%d bloggers like this: