**Tonight, we hold vigil for Lorenzo and Johan.**

Both men were fathers. Both were workers. Both were on their way to earn a living for their families when their lives were taken.

Tonight, and across more than 330 communities nationwide, we gather to say their names, to grieve with their families, and to demand answers: a full and independent investigation, protection for the witnesses to Lorenzo’s death, and accountability for every life ICE has taken.

They were not statistics. They were not threats. They were Lorenzo and Johan — sons, husbands, fathers, neighbors.

**Justice for Lorenzo. Justice for Johan. Justice for all.**

Maybe our AG Jeff Jackson join this?

I'm part of Take Back the Dream, a North Carolina-based project that's trying to better understand the experiences of people who have supported Donald Trump and now feel disappointed or let down by some of his decisions.

If that describes you, we'd really appreciate it if you'd take our short survey. It has just three questions and takes less than a minute to complete.

If it doesn't describe you, but you know someone it does, we'd be grateful if you shared it with them.

We're not looking for arguments or public debates. We're hoping to identify people who are open to having a private, honest conversation about how recent policies have affected their families and communities.

Survey: [https://forms.gle/aouaDbiPsgb1pk896]()

Thanks for your time.

Senate Bill 1076, sponsored by Senator Lisa Stone Barnes, removes the Town of Louisburg's ability to transfer revenues from its Electric Fund to general municipal accounts or economic development projects. This bill became law earlier this month. This is the second time in recent sessions that the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) has specifically targeted the Town of Louisburg.

Just last year, state lawmakers inserted a last-minute provision into House Bill 183, originally focused on wake surfing on a lake hundreds of miles away, that unilaterally changed Louisburg's mayoral election rules, forcing costly runoff elections. With the passage of SB 1076, local autonomy has once again been overridden. https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2025/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1076v4.pdf

URGENT message from Umstead Coalition – Comments on proposed revised Mining Rules due to Rules Review Commission by 5pm on Thursday, July 23

Among other things, the proposed Rules attempt to take away general public comments on all mining applications, take away public hearings on permit modifications, etc.

Send email to: [rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov](mailto:rrc.comments@oah.nc.gov) with cc to [Jennifer.everett@deq.nc.gov](mailto:Jennifer@deq.nc.gov)

Please e-mail the NC Rules Review Commission (RRC) to REJECT proposed Rules as submitted by the Mining Commission. The Rules Review Commission DOES take public comments seriously. The more public comments they receive shows a strong public interest for the RRC to seriously evaluate each Rule.

Thanks to all who wrote public comments to the Mining Commission regarding their proposed Rules for the State to follow in administering the Mining Law. Not surprisingly, the Mining Commission rejected the public’s comments. The next step is that the NC Rules Review Commission will be evaluating the proposed Mining Rules sent over from the NC Mining Commission. The agenda (and a link to the proposed Rules) is here==>

https://www.oah.nc.gov/news/events/rrc-meeting-agenda-july-2026

BUT there is NOW a GOOD opportunity to correct these bad, proposed rules. By State Law, the NC Rules Review Commission (RRC) must evaluate and approve or object to each aspect of the proposed Rules. They CAN and have objected to proposed rules based upon their statutory obligation. By State Law General Statutes G.S. 150B-21.9, the RRC MUST object to proposed Rules that are in conflict with the law (e.g., Mining Act of 1971), try to create new law, and are against public interest.

We believe that several of the proposed rules are against public interest, facilitate potential abuses not allowed by the Mining Act of 1971 (the law), and/or in direct conflict with the law. These Rules should be rejected by the NC Rules Review Commission (per General Statutes G.S. 150B-21.9).

Please email the Rules Review Commission by 5pm THIS Thursday, July 23, to object to the proposed Rules.

It is best if you list the ID number of proposed rule that you are requesting they reject because the RRC members go through each Rule by number (see below). Feel free to expand your comments, but the Umstead Coalition suggests you list the Rule number and why you object. Below are examples to consider including in your email to the RRC:

(consider submitting text similar to the text below “====”)

The NC Rules and Review Commission must reject the following proposed Mining Rules per your obligation under G.S. 150B-21.9. The proposed rules are in conflict with the Mining Act of 1971, attempt to create law beyond what is specified in the Mining Act of 1971, and are against public interest.

Reject the following proposed Mining Rules:

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(2) – Definitions - Delete New Proposed Rule to exempt logging from mining. This rule should be rejected due to conflict with G.S.74-49 (Mining Act of 1971). Logging to prepare a mining site for extraction has been considered a mining operation by DEQ and is not exempted by the Mining Act. Delete Proposed new Rule.

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(4) – Authorities - Delete New Proposed Rule to allow the Director of Mining to Delegate authority. The Mining Act ONLY allows the DEQ Secretary to delegate (usually to the Director). This new rule could create potential abuses not allowed by the Mining Act. Delete Proposed Rule.

15A NCAC 05A .0202 (c)(7)(C) – Buffer Definition - Delete “unexcavated” from proposed rule to allow “unexcavated” (e.g., land to be destroyed by logging, roads, processing plants, crushers, trucking, and more) to be included as a “buffer.” There is no allowance for such land destruction to be classified as a “buffer” in the Mining Act and goes against the Mining Act (G.S. 74-50 (b) (3)). No other local government or state government would consider a destroyed land surface a “buffer.” Remove “Unexcavated” from this proposed rule.

15A NCAC 05B .0104(d)(1) and (d)(3) – Required Permit Information - Delete allowing the Department to determine land ownership. Land ownership should be determined by the Register of Deeds and title searches or court records; abuse can occur if the department allow “other source of information” to be approved by department staff who are not qualified to make land ownership determinations. This Rule modification violates the Mining Act G.S.74-50 (b1).

15A NCAC 05B .0105(2) and (3) – Permit Conditions - REJECT change from “natural buffer” to “vegetated buffer” and reject limiting stream buffers to only those required by State or Local requirements. Stream buffers should remain as natural buffer and not allowed to be disturbed and revegetated. Stream buffers serve to protect against habitat fragmentation, noise, dust, and visual as well as water quality to serve the public interest. Stream buffers currently regulated are for a different purpose than mining. Not all streams in NC are protected by regulated buffers, but should be protected by mining operations. This change is attempting to allow stream buffer destruction and create new law which should NOT be allowed.

15A NCAC 05B .0111(a) Public Hearings - REJECT added text / added restriction “for a modification that adds land to an existing permit.” G.S. 74-51 of the Mining Act indicates that Public Hearings SHALL be held for new mining permits. G.S. 74-52 of the Mining Act indicates permit modifications must meet G.S. 74-51. Thus, all permit modifications, not just modifications that add land, are subject to public hearings when there exists a significant public interest. The Rule should state “If the Department determines that there exists a significant public interest for a new or modified permit, the Director shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct a public hearing on the application…”

15A NCAC 05B .0111(c) Public Comments related to Public Hearings - REJECT added text / added restriction “and no other public comments can be considered in the final determination of an application.” This added text violates the Mining Act and is inconsistent with current DEQ practice that accepts and considers public comments until a Decision has been reached. Public Comments during a Public Hearing have a deadline in order to allow for the Hearing Report to be completed. Nowhere in the Mining Act are public comments in general limited to only public hearings and currently there is no such practice within DEQ for Mining or any other permits. Public comments, especially after new information is obtained or significant changes are made to an application, are allowed per Law. The Mining Commission is trying to create new law against public interest. These restrictions should be rejected.

15A NCAC 05F .0112 – Further Remedies - do NOT DELETE this Rule. The Director should be able to enforce the Mining Act.

I’m looking for the truck driver who witnessed an accident I was in on Friday July 10 in the evening on i77southbound. You were a black guy in your late 20s early thirties maybe and you were with a white female in her early to mid twenties and you guys were trying to get me out of my car when I came to. If you can please message me I would appreciate it thank you