top of page
  • crowsden

"SUMPTER HAW" - To the Left, Mule!

Updated: Jun 1, 2022

“SUMPTER HAW” Summary & Narrative

What exactly does “Sumpter Haw” mean?

Let me break it down for you. Sumpter is a pack animal, such as a mule. Haw is a command you give to a mule when you want it to go – Left! (Gee is when you want it to go Right! And GeeHaw, when you want the mule to go straight ahead). Do I have to explain the title any further? No? Then GeeHaw!


>>>OUR CURRENT INVESTIGATION HAS INCLUDED 6 COUNTIES TO DATE. (They include: Howard, Carroll, Frederick, Montgomery, Calvert & St. Mary’s).


But lets focus on Howard for THIS REPORT ONLY……..

·PIA’s were sent to BOTH the Maryland State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Howard County Board of Elections (HoCo BOE). The HoCoBOE requests for information was referred to the HoCo Government.

NOTE - (Early on, we established a very long chain of emails by and between Maryland 20-20 Watch and the various government entities –….usually, with government representatives denying knowledge, claiming they were NOT in possession of the information being requested under the Freedom of Information Act, often referring us to another department or to the SBE who in turn, referred us back to the County that “tossed” our inquiries to the other departments in government including the County attorney). ALL of these emails are retained by us as demonstrative evidence of either incompetence or their intentional “run-around” and subterfuge - showing us the “Fallacy of Transparency”). Some copies of these are provided later in this report as corroborating evidence


It is confirmed that Howard County accepted $688,226.00 from CTCL. That’s not denied. In fact, that was even after the SBE requested and received an ADDITIONAL $20 million from the State in Covid relief funds to defray the added costs to conduct the 2020 in-state election.

Please keep in mind throughout this report the following authorities, laws and statutes and that it is a violation of the Maryland Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 to: “give, or offer to give, directly or indirectly, any bribe, present or reward, or any promise, or any security, for the payment or delivery of money, or any other thing, to induce any voter to refrain from casting his vote, or elector of President, and Vice President of the United States, or Representative in Congress or for any office of profit or trust, created by the Constitution or Laws of this State, or by the Ordinances, or Authority of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the person giving, or offering to give and the person receiving the same, and any other person who gives or causes to be given, an illegal vote, knowing it to be such, at any election to be hereafter held in this State, shall, on conviction in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now or hereafter to be imposed by law, be forever disqualified to hold any office of profit or trust, or to vote at any election thereafter. But the General Assembly may in its discretion remove the above penalty and all other penalties upon the vote seller so as to place the penalties for the purchase of votes on the vote buyer alone. (originally Article 1, sec. 3, thus renumbered by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978. As sec 3, it was amended by Chapter 602, Acts of 1912, ratified Nov.4, 1913).

{Research by William Newton} / v Who has authority over Local County Boards (LBE)?

Maryland Code, Election Law § 9-216 - (a) Consistent with the regulations adopted by the State Board for the voting system or systems used in the county, and subject to the approval of the State Board, each local board shall establish and maintain a system to account for, and maintain control over, the ballots from the beginning of production through post election storage and disposition. (b) The State Board shall monitor and periodically review the performance of the local boards in their compliance with subsection (a) of this section.

v Maryland Code, Election Law § 2-102 – relevant citing to question are: (a) The State Board shall manage and supervise elections in the State and ensure compliance with the requirements of this article and any applicable federal law by all persons involved in the elections process. (b) In exercising its authority under this article and in order to ensure compliance with this article and with any requirements of federal law, the State Board shall: (1) supervise the conduct of elections in the State; (2) direct, support, monitor, and evaluate the activities of each local board; (4) adopt regulations to implement its powers and duties; (5) receive, or in its discretion audit, campaign finance reports, account books and records kept under § 13-221 of this article, independent expenditure reports filed and records kept under § 13-306 of this article, electioneering communication reports filed and records kept under § 13-307 of this article, and statements filed and records kept under § 14-105 of this article; (8) canvass and certify the results of elections as prescribed by law; (9) make available to the general public, in a timely and efficient manner, information on the electoral process, including a publication that includes the text of this article, relevant portions of the Maryland Constitution, and information gathered and maintained regarding elections; (10) subject to § 2-106 of this subtitle and § 13-341 of this article, receive, maintain, and serve as a depository for elections documents, materials, records, statistics, reports, certificates, proclamations, and other information prescribed by law or regulation…….

The question regarding the authority of the Executive Branch to provide special or emergency funds as when the State Board of Elections requested “emergency funds” for increased costs to conduct elections in 2020 due to “Covid”…. by William Newton /

v Maryland State Finance and Procurement Section 7-209 Article - State Finance and Procurement. (2) This subsection does not prevent a transfer that: (i) is part of a reorganization under § 8-301 of the State Government Article; (ii) is needed to comply with federal law or a policy directive of a federal unit that relates to the use of federal funds; (iii) because of an emergency declared by the Governor, is needed to protect the health, welfare, or property of the public; or (iv) is specifically authorized by the budget bill or other law.

American Rescue Plan Act FUNDS (ARPA)…… One component of the ARPA allocation is – the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Relief Fund (SLFRF). This fund totals $360 billion nationally. Maryland’s share is over $6.3 BILLION! The recipients of the funding are the state government, the 23 counties, and over 150 municipal governments (including Baltimore City).

SO taxpayers and voters alike might wonder WHY the various counties felt the need to accept CTCL/Zuckbucks? Those reasons will be disclosed in this report.

CTCL Floods States with Election Funding

Private funding played a huge role in the 2020 election. Many believe that the funding— much of it provided by Zuckerberg—tipped the election unfairly in favor of Biden and the Democrats. While CTCL’s 2020 income tax return form indicates that it is a 501(c)(3) and did not participate in lobbying efforts, one could argue that the grants effectively manipulated elections because of the inequities in how and where the funds were used.

With many of the grants going to Democrat strongholds, the funds went to multiple initiatives, many of which would have had to be initiated by state legislatures in any other election. The pandemic was used as cover to justify the installation of drop boxes, mass mail-in ballots, and changes in all manner of election rules and laws, to name just a few. Influence Watch, the brainchild of Capital Research Center, examined CTCL’s role in the election and found numerous areas where the grants were utilized.

Influence Watch also used CTCL’s “2020 IRS Form 990 disclosure to report the actual number of grants paid by state including the sums, while preserving the preliminary number reported by CTCL.” An updated look at the grant totals ranked by State I found in an April 11, 2022 Capital Research article on states that were “flooded” with CTCL funding RANKS MARYLAND #15 receiving the highest dollar amount of money, $6,177,224!


Senate bill 0747

BPW weighs in on new funding


SUMPTER HAW narrative fact and summary
Download PDF • 722KB

From the journal pages, log entries provided through PIA requests we have discovered the money originating from the CTCL "grant" was paid out to 760 individuals (many receiving multiple checks). Here you see some of the highest single payments issued. There was 35 people receiving over $2000 and there was 523 people who received $600 or more with 861 total checks issued to individuals for services. Those services have been identified as GOTV efforts (Get Out The Vote), advertisements, grassroots street-level initiatives in minority neighborhoods and is clearly an activity by a Board of Elections that is considered biased and violates state law as it enhanced Democrat voter turn out.

(Note: "SAP" stands for System Analysis Program, an accounting software firm with main headquarters in Germany. The Board of Directors consist of approximately 98% Germans residing in Germany and the remainder Chinese living on the China mainland. It was a curious observation to us that Howard County government found it prudent to use an accounting firm in Germany with all the resources located nearby in and around Washington D.C.).





Howard County CTCL Grant PIA request(s) timeline and the Fallacy of Transparency .

*(Note the chain of custody is secured regarding all published and unpublished

original emails, PIA requests, research, investigative findings and verified sourced material....our evidence archive is maintained in several locations including "cloud", password protected, encrypted and also held as hard copy and computer images).

12/6/2021 – A PIA was submitted to HoCo BOE inquiring how the $688K received from the Center of Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) was spent.

01/06/2022 – Guy Mickley, Director of Howard County Board of Elections, responded via email that the money was spent to pay for “election judges in addition to short-term employees”. Mr. Mickely communicated the short-term employees “logged all the applications in for mail-in ballots and the received ballots when they were returned to the office.”

  • (Of course that was the claim but it differs from the stated purpose/agreement from CTCL for the grant. In April 2020, CTCL stated their 2020 election strategy priority was to “push mail ballots”. Money from the Zuckerbergs pushed mail ballots, advocated changes to election laws and rules that never went through a legislative process and some very questionable activities documented in numerous states; for example GOTV initiatives in minority communities. The mainstay of CTCL).

Jan 2022 – Communicated via email with the State Board of Elections about the CTCL grants and by return response was informed no contract existed between the State of Maryland and the CTCL for the total of $6,117,224.00 received across the state from the CTCL.

  • (This is contrary to CTCL’s “2020 IRS Form 990” disclosure that reported the actual number of grants paid to each state was under “agreement”. Maryland ranked #15 highest by amount received).

04/18/2022 – An email was sent to Guy Mickley inquiring about the following questions:

1. Did a contract exist between HoCo and CTCL?

  • (According to CTCL, an “agreement” did exist).

2. What were the provisions of the contract/agreement?

3. Please provide a copy of the check received from the CTCL.

4. Did the CTCL specify how to spend the money?

  • (In truth CTCL did….. so a response to this question should be interesting).

5. Who in HoCo requested/applied for the $688K amount from the CTCL?

  • (As an application was required according to CTCL from the “point person”..…that would have been Mr. Mickely).

6. Was there any communication about the CTCL “grant” by and between HoCo and the State BOE?

04/18/2022 – Email from G. Mickley stated the check was made to HoCO. The BOE requested the money. Fund distribution was handled by HoCO. Was told to communicate with HoCo if there were additional questions.

05/03/2022 – Email to Calvin Ball to request to see a copy of the check received from the CTCL and a detailed list of how the $688K was spent. It was not replied to however it was forwarded to another person in HoCo government.

05/10/2022 – Email to Calvin Ball for an update. (Still no response).

05/11/2022 – The following day after our second “unanswered” email to County Executive Calvin Ball an email was received from Alexandra Bresani

(from the Office of Public Information, Howard County Government. That’s viewed as a PIA) with a copy of the check and a detailed list of how they claim the $688K “grant” from the CTCL was spent.

05/22/2022 – Email to Guy Mickley requesting answers to the following questions:

1. How were people recruited to perform the tasks and were the positions advertised publicly?

2. What did the people actually do?

3. How many people were hired?

4. Where did they perform their tasks?

5. What is the timeframe of when they performed their tasks?

6. Were the people paid based on a specific job or a per hour basis?

7. Who authorized their compensation?

8. Was their compensation in the form of a check or cash?

5/23/2022 – Email from G. Mickley requested at this point that we file a PIA asking the above questions.

  • (Sounds pretty defensive since our inquiries have always been in the form of a PIA seeking transparency from the County Board of Elections Director).

SOME ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY from CTCL recipients in other states-

“Without the grant, my office had no funding for voter education and outreach. With the grant funding, we created a simple but highly effective media campaign to drive voters to the official election websites. The websites provided crucial information in our vote-by-mail environment and newly implemented same-day voter registration.” (source: CTCL website).

“We implemented a robust voter education and outreach campaign. We utilized paid media such as digital, radio, and TV ads, as well as earned media such as social media posts, newspaper ads, and speaking engagements… We believe this effort contributed to record voter participation in this county and fewer rejected ballots.” (source: CTCL website).


AS YOU CAN SEE in the above letter from "KO Public Relations LLC.....Maryland State Board of Election's Administrator Linda Lamone is being thanked for "providing....the opportunity to......." Run a statewide (paid) outreach campaign to incite minority voters to VOTE using media/ TV/ radio/ and digital advertising....."approved" BY HER!

THAT'S ILLEGAL TO FAVOR ANY GROUP OVER ANOTHER and where did the money come from? GUESS?


(I'd like to point out that the last person on the list is Henry Fawell. He was Governor Ehrlich's "PR" spokesperson and most recently was appointed BY LARRY HOGAN to the Board of Directors of a "Public/Private partnership" to promote the state, headed by Maryland Department of Commerce, Secretary Kelly Schulz, who is now running for Governor).

699 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page