Re: Tea Party Response to Diaz Other Voices column

 

From: Nevada County Tea Party NCTP <nctpinfo@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 10:41 AM
To: Brian H <bhamilton@theunion.com>
Subject: Tea Party Response to Diaz Other Voices column

 

Brian,

 

On March 21st the Nevada County Tea Party sent our response to the above.  As of this date it has not been published in The Union.  We are curious as to why.  Can you let us know when The Union might be publishing our response - attached below.

 

Jan Collins

Nevada County Tea Party

​

​

From: Brian Hamilton

Mon, Mar 25, 1:29 PM (13 days ago)

To: Nevada County Tea Party NCTP <nctpinfo@gmail.com>

​

Hi Jan,

​

Thanks for sending this over. I’m checking to see when it came in (as I’ve not seen this). 

You said you sent on March 21 (that was Thursday), and not sure what time, but we did pretty much have our opinion pages set for Saturday and Monday at that point.

​

I’m sure we can accommodate the request for Wednesday’s edition, though. 

Thanks for following up. I’m trying to call you by cell, too.

Talk soon.

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

​

From: Brian Hamilton

Mon, Mar 25, 2:41 PM (13 days ago)

To: Nevada County Tea Party

​

Hi Jan.

 

Good talking with you. And thanks again for writing. 

 

Can you provide some sourcing for the following statements (hyperlinks would be great, so that we can include them with the online version):

 

“They also proved that, in California, county and state voter rolls are woefully littered with duplicates, deceased, and inactive “ineligible” voters entries to the tune of three to four million.”

—  I couldn’t find a reference to 3-4 million ineligible voters, according to  EIPCa. 

 

"In March 2016, an audit by Institute For Fair Elections determined there were 1,223 “ghost ballots” (number of votes exceed number of registered voters) cast in Nevada County.”

—  I couldn’t find any reference to ghost ballots in Nevada County, though did see seven other counties listed at http://instituteforfairelections.org

 

"Despite a formal Public Records request, you, Mr. Diaz, wouldn’t allow the Voter Integrity Project Nevada County to audit the ballots from the 2018 primary, even though the audit was approved by your office and the County Attorney and most of the requested information had been provided.”

 

— I cannot locate any record of this request, or the denial of the request. The group’s Facebook page doesn’t seem to have mention: https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community-Organization/Voter-Integrity-Project-Nevada-County-CA-1810934032283483/

 

"Public records reveal that you requested 253,000 ballots for 68,000 registered voters for the June 2018 primary. That’s almost four ballots per registrant. Why order 185,000 more state ballots than we have registered voters? Are you able to account for all of these ballots? Could the extra ballots be the reason for Nevada County’s highest voter turnout ever?"

​

­ — According to the elections office that number (253,000) is a preliminary number of pages they could need depending on the size of the ballot; the printer destroys what the county does not need from the preliminary number, and mails the printed ballots directly to voters. 

Was that number provided and explained through the public records request?

 

Also, the vote-by-mail change was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Is that not the people’s permission?

 

Thanks for any help you can provide will help us publish your submission.

 

All the best,

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

​

From: Brian Hamilton

Tue, Mar 26, 10:22 AM (12 days ago)

To Nevada County Tea Party

​

Hi Jan.

Just making sure you saw this, so we can move forward with the Other Voices.

Please let me know. 

Thank you!

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

​

From: Nevada County Tea Party NCTP <nctpinfo@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 12:05 PM
To: Brian H <bhamilton@theunion.com>
Subject: Re: Tea Party Response to Diaz Other Voices column

 

Brian

 

Sorry for the delay I have a real job that takes a lot of my time.

 

I am attaching the sources you requested.  The March 2016 report from Institute For Fair Elections is no longer on their website, however they will provide a statement that it was in fact there and has only recently been taken down due to a new report coming out.  I am attaching a copy of the 2016 report along with the Public Records Request, Request for Extension from Diaz's office; Response to the PRR setting a Date for the audit, Cancellation of Audit, Invoice from ballot provider. Here are links to the sources for the 3 to 4 million

 

Monday, 07 January 2019

Judicial Watch Settlement With California: Election Fraud Tip of the Iceberg? https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/31116-judicial-watch-settlement-with-california-election-fraud-tip-of-the-iceberg

​

Georgetown Gazette,  News Judicial Watch wins voter roll lawsuit in LA https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/judicial-watch-wins-voter-roll-lawsuit-in-la/  Judicial Watch estimates there are 3.5 million more names on different county voter rolls in the state than there are citizens of voting age with the settlement potentially cutting that number in half.

 

Judicial Watch JANUARY 03, 2019https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/california-and-los-angeles-county-to-remove-1-5-million-inactive-voters-from-voter-rolls-settle-judicial-watch-federal-lawsuit/ California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls – Settle Judicial Watch Federal Lawsuit   “Prior to this settlement agreement, Judicial Watch estimated that based on comparisons of national census data to voter-roll information, there were 3.5 million more names on various county voter rolls than there were citizens of voting age. This settlement could cut this number in half.”

 

I do have to tell you that I have written articles for the Other Voices column in the past and have read numerous articles by others and this is the only time anyone has heard of the paper wanting sources for an opinion piece.  

 

I would also add that the question: "Why order 185,000 more state ballots than we have registered voters? Are you able to account for all of these ballots? Could the extra ballots be the reason for Nevada County’s highest voter turnout ever?" Should be something Mr. Diaz would want to respond to which he can do by contacting us at nctpinfo@gmail.com or calling me personally at 530-913-5827.  

 

The same goes for the question: About how did we become a Vote By Mail county, is something I would expect he would want to explain rather than your responding to it.

 

Please let us know when we can expect to see the article in the Union.  Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Jan Collins

Nevada County Tea Party

530-913-5827 personal cell

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

From: Brian Hamilton

Wed, Mar 27, 3:52 PM (11 days ago

To: Nevada County Tea Party

 

No worries on the delay. Totally understand!

Thanks Jan. I’ll read through and let you know when the piece will be planned to run.

All the best,

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

​

NCTP Response to Diaz Other Voices Article

To: Brian Hamilton

From: Nevada County Tea Party Patriots <nctpinfo@gmail.com>

April 7, 2019 9:48 AM

​

Brian,

 

I have been checking every day since I sent you the requested source information on March 27th to see if you had published the tea party response to Greg's article.  

​

Since it is now April 7th and I have not seen it in the paper I can only assume that you have no intention of publishing it.  If that is the case, I would like to know your reasoning.  I have never known The Union to not print a response to an article. I regularly see opposing opinions in the Other Voices column.

 

Jan Collins

Nevada County Tea Party

​

Brian Hamilton bhamilton@theunion.com              Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:19 AM

To: Nevada County Tea Party Patriots nctpinfo@gmail.com

 

Hi Jan,

 

Thanks for contacting me. We do intend to work with you on publishing the piece, and I appreciate your patience (when you responded last week, we were in the thick of relaunching TheUnion.com and are now in the same with SierraSun.com up the hill). We do have to refer the supporting material when someone is making allegations you’ve submitted.

 

I appreciate you sending over the communications on the request for info and the audit. That does clear those matters up. I will also seek to publish the source material with the op-ed online.

 

— They also proved that, in California, county and state voter rolls are woefully littered with duplicates, deceased, and inactive “ineligible” voters  entries to the tune of 3 to 4 million ineligible voters.

 

As to the claim though that the EIC CA has identified 3-4 million ineligible voters, I cannot find that anywhere. The EIC refers to "As many as 1.5 million inactive registered names on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County alone are being contacted for potential removal, after the recently-announced settlement of a lawsuit against the state of California and Los Angeles County initiated by Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa) and Judicial Watch.”

 

— Public records reveal that you requested 253,000 ballots for 68,000 registered voters for the June 2018 primary. That’s almost four ballots per registrant. Why order 185,000 more state ballots than we have registered voters?  Are you able to account for all of these ballots? Could the extra ballots be the reason for Nevada County’s highest voter turnout ever?

 

Finally, on the number of ballots requested, printed or shipped. In conversations with the Elections Office, we learned the larger number (253,000) is essentially an initial order of all the pages that will be required for printing and not the number of ballots. (As they are initially not clear the number of pages that will be required for each ballot, as some ballots vary in size by voter — depending on what races will appear on each voters ballot). We learned the actual quantity shipped was much lower — 168,948 — which is clear on the document you provided to the right of the “Ballot Release Request.” 

 

We were told by elections office personnel that this information, and explanation, had been shared with those filing the California Public Records Act request. That’s what we were told. Whether or not you received the explanation, the document provided shows both numbers. However, only the larger number is included in the op-ed, without the actual number shipped or any explanation as to the 253,000 number. 

 

Thanks again for your patience. I would like some clarity on how you’d like to address the two issues highlighted above, as we do need a source for the 3-4 million you say EIC CA proved to be ineligible, and also how you’d like to edit the portion on the ballots requested and actually shipped, per the document you provided and the explanation we heard from the elections office.

 

Thank you,

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

​

Other Voices clarification    Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:30 AM
1 message

Brian Hamilton bhamilton@theunion.com

To: "nctpinfo@gmail.com" nctpinfo@gmail.com

 

Hi Jan,

Just wanted to make sure you saw this response, as I have not heard back since yesterday.

Thank you,

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

The Union/Sierra Sun

​

Re: Other Voices clarification

From: Nevada County Tea Party Patriots  4:07 PM (0 minutes ago)

​

To: Brian Hamilton

​

Brian,

 

I appreciate your saying that you do intend to work with us on publishing our response to Diaz’s Other Voice Column.  But I have to tell you it certainly is not looking that way to us and frankly at this point it really is a mute point.

 

On the Union website and in the actual paper there is a section entitled “Opinion” – the Other Voices Column falls under that heading as does “Letters To The Editor”. 

​

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion) the definition of “opinion” is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

People refute op-eds because they have different opinions.   

 

You say that,” We (obviously meaning the Union Newspaper) do have to refer the supporting material when someone is making allegations you’ve submitted.”

​

First off, I did not make “allegations” I merely stated facts and asked questions. I concede that the wording in the following paragraph could be misinterrupted if not read carefully.

​

Years of research and irrefutable documentation by EIP-CA and others produced insurmountable evidence in federal court proving non-compliance with voter regs that could theoretically lead to fraud. They also proved that, in California, county and state voter rolls are woefully littered with duplicates, deceased, and inactive “ineligible” voters  entries to the tune of 3 to 4 million ineligible voters

​

Though I have provided you with source information I would be willing to re-write this paragraph to read as follows:

​

The Lawsuit settlement supported, by years of research and irrefutable documentation by EIP-Ca and Judicial Watch produced insurmountable evidence in federal court proving non-compliance with voter regs that could theoretically lead to fraud and in California, county and state voter rolls are woefully littered with duplicates, deceased, and inactive “ineligible” voters  entries to the tune 1.5 million ineligible voters in Los Angeles County alone.  Prior to this settlement agreement, Judicial Watch estimated that based on comparisons of national census data to voter-roll information, there were 3.5 million more people on U. S. election rolls than are eligible to vote.

 

I previously provided you with the following information regarding the above:

 

Monday, 07 January 2019

Judicial Watch Settlement With California: Election Fraud Tip of the Iceberg? 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/31116-judicial-watch-settlement-with-california-election-fraud-tip-of-the-iceberg

 

Georgetown Gazette,  News Judicial Watch wins voter roll lawsuit in LA 

https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/judicial-watch-wins-voter-roll-lawsuit-in-la/  Judicial Watch estimates there are 3.5 million more names on different county voter rolls in the state than there are citizens of voting age with the settlement potentially cutting that number in half.

 

Judicial Watch JANUARY 03, 2019

California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls – Settle Judicial Watch Federal Lawsuit   “Prior to this settlement agreement, Judicial Watch estimated that based on comparisons of national census data to voter-roll information, there were 3.5 million more names on various county voter rolls than there were citizens of voting age.

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/california-and-los-angeles-county-to-remove-1-5-million-inactive-voters-from-voter-rolls-settle-judicial-watch-federal-lawsuit/ 

 

Here is additional source info on this topic:

 

Ghost Voters

By DEROY MURDOCK NATIONAL REVIEW  August 11, 2017 7:52 PM

At least 3.5 million more people are on U.S. election rolls than are eligible to vote. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/election-fraud-registered-voters-outnumber-eligible-voters-462-counties/

​

Investor’s Business Daily 8/16/2017

U.S. Has 3.5 Million More Registered Voters Than Live Adults — A Red Flag For Electoral Fraud

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/u-s-has-3-5-million-more-registered-voters-than-live-adults-a-red-flag-for-electoral-fraud/

​

Tom Fitton on CBN: 3.5 MILLION ‘Ghost Voters’ on Voter Rolls–‘That’s where you get fraud’ OCTOBER 18, 2018 https://youtu.be/LzIqSdWIKFo

 

California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls – Settle Judicial Watch Federal Lawsuit   “Prior to this settlement agreement, Judicial Watch estimated that based on comparisons of national census data to voter-roll information, there were 3.5 million more names on various county voter rolls than there were citizens of voting age.

 

Brian, you state that you need a source for the 3-4 million that you say proved to be ineligible.  I believe that I have provided sufficient information and along with the offer to revise the paragraph on this topic to be eligible.

 

Second, again regarding your statement, “We do have to refer the supporting material when someone is making allegations you’ve submitted.”  If this is in fact the case, why was the Nevada County Tea Party not contacted for information before the Diaz op-ed piece attacking the Tea Party for suppressing the vote? Where are your requests to Diaz asking for supporting documentation to his statements in his Other Voices Column?

​

Why didn’t the Union Newspaper – or you specifically – call the NCTP before you published the following from Diaz: "Their true intent: make it more difficult for folks to vote."

​

 (And then the Union printed it bigger:)

​

(The Tea Party’s) true intent: make it more difficult for folks to vote.

​

Just how does Diaz know the true intent of the NCTP? Answer: he doesn’t, and he can’t. Where is his source information? Again,where is your request to him for his source information?

​

Where is Diaz’s proof/source of this statement: "Whether you vote in person at one of our Vote Centers or mark your ballot in the privacy of your home and then drop it in the U.S. mail or an official ballot drop box or return it directly to the Nevada County Elections, that vote will be counted by your elections department exactly as you — and only you — cast it."

​

I'd like to know why wasn’t this statement of Diaz's subject to the same ,” We (obviously meaning the Union Newspaper) do have to refer the supporting material when someone is making allegations you’ve submitted.” that you now are demanding the NCTP provide? 

​

Brian you stated:  "Finally, on the number of ballots requested, printed or shipped. In conversations with the Elections Office, we learned the larger number (253,000) is essentially an initial order of all the pages that will be required for printing and not the number of ballots. (As they are initially not clear the number of pages that will be required for each ballot, as some ballots vary in size by voter — depending on what races will appear on each voter’s ballot). We learned the actual quantity shipped was much lower — 168,948 — which is clear on the document you provided to the right of the “Ballot Release Request.” 

 

Number of pages and number of ballots are getting mixed up here. 

 

The document in question (Secretary of State Elections Division -Request for State Ballot Release Activity Report)  says"Ballot Release Request."  It doesn't say pages, as the Elections office told you. If you read the fine print you will see that “Upon receipt, Requester shall report independently of the finisher’s report, the quantity of ballot cards of each format and tint received from the finisher (Pursuant to Title 2, California Code of Regulations Section 20257) 

​

The Ballot Release Request clearly shows that 253,000 ballots were the requested quantity ordered by the Nevada County Elections Office.

 

Diaz’s office did in fact order 253,000 ballots- which is what I said in my response.  I stated a fact.  Even with only receiving 168,948 that is still approximately at least 2 ballots per registered voter which still seems excessive and it would seem reasonable to ask if those ballots can be accounted for. I see no reason to edit the portion of the number of ballots requested because 253,000 is the exact number of ballots he requested – whatever the reasoning – and the proof is in the order.

 

 

Jan Collins

NCTP

​

FW: Questions regarding ballot

From: Brian Hamilton <bhamilton@theunion.com>

Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM

To: Nevada County Tea Party Patriots <nctpinfo@gmail.com>

Hi Jan,

 

Thanks for the to follow-up message and the links provided in your response. We’ll include the links on the 3-5 million ineligible voters point you reference.

 

One point that remains, however, is your assertion that the Elections Offie ordered 253,000 ballots. As I mentioned earlier, we were told that number is not total ballots, but total pages needed to create ballots.

The updated number on the document you provided that shows the 253,000 number, also includes a number of 168,948 that were actually shipped and received. Again, according to the Elections Office, these are not total ballots, but total pages needed to create ballots. 

 

After receiving your latest email, I circled back with the Elections Office to again clarify.  Below is an email from the office on this point, and attached is the previous response from Elections we’d received (portion of which is copied here):

​

"In preparing for the June 2018 election, the Nevada County Registrar of Voters estimated, based on the number of candidates and propositions, that a full ballot was going to be comprised of three pages of ballot cards. Because each page of ballot card stock is printed with an official seal and banner, the Request for State Ballot Release Activity Report form accounted for every page of official ballot card stock — whether or not those cards are actually printed with final ballots."

​

"The County’s vendor prepared 253,000 sheets of official ballot card stock paper; however, the vendor did not actually print 253,000 ballots. When the County Registrar of Voter learned the election would be carried out as a two-page ballot rather than a three-page ballot, the printing order was adjusted accordingly.

​

​

"The County ordered 168,948 pieces of printed official ballot card stock, which would have resulted in 84,474 complete two-card ballots. The County had 68,000 registered voters for the June 2018 election. "Therefore, the County had a surplus of 16,474 preprinted official ballot card stock for the June 2018 election. Some of the excess ballot card stock was used for the printing vendor’s test prints jobs, and others were spoiled during the printing process. In addition, the County has pre-printed official ballot stock for use in the Registrar of Voters’ offices, including eight Vote Centers and three supplemental mailings to newly registered voters who registered after the initial first mailing, which occurred 29 days before Election Day. Finally, the County orders preprinted official ballot stock for use in case of a power outages to be able to serve Nevada County voters in an outage for a short period of time, as well as for those registered voters who opt to cast a ballot, in person, at the Registrar of Voters’ office or a Vote Center.

"I hope this explains the apparent discrepancy. Please let us know if you have further questions."

​

Considering this response, I see three options moving forward with the op-ed:

​

You can rewrite the piece including this information. 

I can include this information in an editor’s note when the piece is published. 

Or we can decide against publishing the piece.

 

While I do understand the definition of opinion, as you shared in your response, the assertion that the county’s Election Office ordered 253,000 ballots is incorrect, according to the county. 

​

And we will not knowingly publishing incorrect information.

 

Please do let me know how you’d like to move forward with the submission.

 

Thank you,

Brian

 Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

From: Frederick Garcia <Frederick.Garcia@co.nevada.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM
To: Brian H <bhamilton@theunion.com>, Alan Riquelmy <ariquelmy@theunion.com>
Subject: RE: Questions regarding ballot

 

Good Afternoon Brian,

 

I believe your question was answered in a previously submitted letter from our office (see attached).  I highlighted sections of the letter that address your questions regarding the difference in numbers between the Quantity Requested and the Quantity Shipped on the Request for State Ballot Release Activity Report provided to the Secretary of State’s Office.  As to your question regarding pages or ballots—the numbers reflect the number of blank, watermarked card-stock paper to be used for creating official ballots.  As you can see from the letter, the difference in numbers occurred when the County Registrar of Voters Office learned that the election would be carried out as a two-page ballot rather than a three-page ballot.  The order from the printing vendor was adjusted accordingly.  I hope this has answered your questions about ballots?  Please let me know if you have any further questions.

 

Sincerely,

 

Frederick Garcia

Assistant County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters

Office 530-265-1227

​

To: Brian Hamilton

Saturday, April 20, 2019 2:28 pm

From: Nevada County Tea Party Patriots <nctpinfo@gmail.com>

​

Brian,

 

I think another source for the information the election office provided regarding the ballots is appropriate under the circumstances.  Also if they subsequently ordered fewer ballots then why did they not provide that record when responding to the Request for Public Records filed by Voter Integrity Project Nevada County? 

 

Article 2.   Definitions

​

20201.   Ballot Card.

​

Ballot card means ballot paper processed to final form for use by voters to punch, slot, or mark their choices in California elections.

Note: Authority cited: Section 13004, Elections Code. Reference: Section 13004, Elections Code.

​

20202.   Ballot Card Dimension.

​

Ballot card dimension means the length and width of the ballot card in inches.

Note: Authority cited: Section 13004, Elections Code. Reference: Section 13004, Elections Code.

  

20203. Ballot Content.

Ballot content means the printed information for a specific election required by California Elections Code, Division 13.

​

Note: Authority cited: Section 13004, Elections Code. Reference: Division 13, Elections Code.

​

20205.   Ballot Paper.

Ballot paper means blank paper either in rolls or sheets cut to size that contain no election specific information including tint and watermark.

​

 

Note: Authority cited: Section 13004, Elections Code. Reference: Section 13004, Elections Code.

​

Brian, you stated that you will not knowingly publish incorrect information, and that is commendable. 

 

But on March 11, 2019, you published an op-ed by Greg Diaz stating, "(The tea party's) true intent: make it more difficult for folks to vote." That is a false statement published by the Union. Moreover, you also published it as a callout to attract attention to it. 

​

Clearly the only people who know the true intent of the Nevada County Tea Party (NCTP) is the NCTP Board. 

​

Since the Union is now taking responsibility for incorrect information in their guest editorials, we feel it is appropriate for you to issue a retraction in a prominent place on the editorial page, perhaps boxed with a heavy line. For example:

​

Correction:

 

It has come to the attention of The Union that a couple of statements in an op-ed written for The Union by Greg Diaz, Nevada County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters are false.The article claimed that the true intent of the Nevada County Tea Party (NCTP) is to make it more difficult for folks to vote and to suppress the vote. In fact, NCTP’s sole purpose in encouraging qualified voters to vote in person, rather than by mail, is to protect their vote; and to ensure that only legitimate votes are counted. The article also stated that “groups like the Nevada County Tea Party…are ramping up efforts to actively suppress voting.” The Union regrets having published incorrect information.

 

Brian, at this point in time, this retraction will serve as an adequate replacement for our response to Mr. Diaz's guest editorial. 

​

Thank you for your attention to the facts.

 

Sincerely,

​

Jan Collins, President

Nevada County Tea Party

​

​

Re: Questions regarding ballot

From: Brian Hamilton

Mon, Apr 22, 8:51 AM

To: Nevada County Tea Party

 

Thank you, Jan.

 

Thanks for the definitions provided. But after speaking with elections office representatives, they’ve provided the explanation to your allegations that they ordered far more ballots than the number of voters.

​

As to the request for a correction, there’s no correction to publish as what you’re discussing is the opinion of Greg Diaz, which we neither endorse or oppose. As you know, you are able to respond in your submitted op-ed, in which you have and we hope to soon publish.

 

On the status of that op-ed, I mentioned there are two options to having it published at this point that essentially boils down to you rewriting the submission to include the actual factual information shared by the elections office to us when asked to explain what you’re alleging. Or we can add that in an editor’s note at the end of the piece. 

 

Without that explanation, the piece is likely to mislead readers to believe the elections office ordered four times as many ballots as registered voters, when in fact they explained that the numbers shown in the report provided are page stock needed to create ballots, and not the number of ballots itself. We won’t knowingly publish inaccurate information.

 

Please do let me know which you’d prefer. Thanks Jan.

 

All the best,

Brian

 

Brian Hamilton

Editor

​

​