All posts by admin

Begin with Election 2020
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

Why the people of South Carolina should care about our elections

Most of us know that future elections – including the most local – are basically useless until the Election 2020 mess is solved and remediated.

At this point, it’s less important to know who did it as opposed to how it was done. We have examples of the methods too. And by recognizing them (universal mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, counterfeit ballots, ghost voters, duplicate ballots, corrupt officials) we can take action to limit and eliminate them.

Break the habit.

But before we can do all of that, as a state we must admit that we have a problem here. Think of a forensic study of our November 2020 election as an intervention in the addiction of greed. Yes, greed. Money and power. Not for us, the electorate. Rather, to indulge the uniparty ruling class. Just as substance abuse harms the abuser’s family, so does the rulers’ drive to control us harm South Carolina’s people. We pay for their fun.

Interventions are uncomfortable, and they reveal to the abuser his own destructive behavior. If he has a conscience, he can admit his wrongdoing and take steps to correct it. But he may have to be transported to rehab against his will.

So, now, what should be our first move? Demand a thorough forensic compliance study of our entire election process in South Carolina, beginning with November 2020.

What is a compliance study?

On the official election website of South Carolina, audits for every election are proudly touted. But closer inspection reveals that these ‘audits’ are simple recounts, to match the number of votes to the number of voters. This presupposes that each election is fair and honest.

People, we haven’t had a fair and honest election for over 20 years. Listen to Clint Curtis tell about being hired to rig elections. Just because President Trump won in SC, that just means that either it was planned, or he got a big enough landslide to overcome the voting machine algorithms.

Think of the basic difference between a simple audit and a forensic study in this way.

Look at the photo of a tray of ‘apples’. It appears that you have 16 edible apples. They’re all more or less the same shape, though some differ in color.

Count them. You have 16 apples. You can use your apples – or whatever — to make a pie, even if you have to make substitutions and have a different kind of pie. It can be compared to, ‘my candidate won, so it’s all good’. This is the countable, verifiable result of a simple audit. If you count correctly, you’ll always get the outcome you want.

Now examine them closely. You have 9 edible apples, 3 more with rotten spots, a tennis ball, an orange, a lemon, and a decorative marble egg. So, in reality, you have 9 apples. And you may even find a plastic one, in which case you end up with 8 apples. Is that enough to make your pie? Would that even be possible, with the apples you really have? Which candidates actually won?

This is the result of a compliance study, where you compare each ‘apple’ to the standard of ‘perfect, edible, genuine apple’.

Trump won, so what’s the problem?

It’s true, in South Carolina the results put Donald J. Trump in the win column for our state. But maybe the count would have been far more of an advantage in a fair fight. And what about the down-ballot results? Who really won their respective races? Maybe some NASCAR drivers would have something to say about dirty tactics and apparent finish line outcomes. This issue is a nonpartisan one. Citizens of all political affiliations should be concerned if a race was won through nefarious means and their vote was stolen.

All politics is local. And it goes all the way down to the precinct level. A forensic study of the ballots may reveal election rigging in every precinct of a county. Or just some. And that begs the question: Why is there such determined resistance to even the mention of an inspection of our voting system and votes? If there is nothing to hide and if our elections are open, honest, and properly conducted, what’s the harm in a study to reassure us that our individual vote really does count?

What should a compliance study of Election 2020 include?

The following information is adapted from the wording of a resolution demanding the complete forensic audit of select counties in South Carolina for the 2020 election–primarily Lexington, Greenville, and Horry as they were identified as being potentially fraudulent by Seth Keshel’s analysis. This resolution has been adopted by Lexington county and is being considered by additional counties as of this writing. Unfortunately, GOP leadership in some SC counties refuse to even entertain discussion in their county leadership meetings. Why is that?

A study should be public, live-streamed, available to poll watchers, candidates or candidate representatives of any party to witness. None of this business of pizza boxes covering the windows, or fake water main breaks. And the examination should include (but not be limited to):

All paper ballots (from the 2020 General Election and the pre-election system test ballots):
  • Kinematic forensic analysis (utilizing high speed, high definition, digital forensic police cameras, and optical character recognition) of paper ballots
  • Digital forensic analysis of ballot images both computer and human created, and any and all image codes,
  • Forensic analysis of the paper and the print system utilized
  • All possible ballots:
    • How many versions of ballots were there?
    • How many of each version could be counted?
    • How many of each version were counted?
    • How did the digital images of each affect the operation of the election equipment?
    • Was there any forensic variation within each ballot version?
    • Did the handling of ballots alter the effect of the ballot’s interaction with any election equipment?
The tabulator tapes:
  • Kinematic forensic analysis of the tabulator tapes
  • A forensic analysis of their correlation to the equipment used, the software and the paper ballots
  • The machines all equipment and software utilized before during and after the 2020 General Election:
  • Nationally recognized computer forensic analysts to find, extract, analyze and document all electronically stored information found on the counting/tabulator machines, pollbook machines, disability abled machines, routers, thumb drives, SOS laptops, and any other equipment not listed
  • Forensic and kinematic analysis of all equipment used
The networks:
  • Full forensic network, and packet analysis of all connectivity
  • Canvassing of precincts to measure rates of phantom and lost votes
  • Verification of the voter rolls

And all of the results and reports derived from them should be fully transparent and available to all citizens of South Carolina. According to our own state Constitution, Article 2, Sections 1 and 2:

Section 1

“All elections by the people shall be by secret ballot, but the ballots shall not be counted in secret. The right of suffrage, as regulated in this Constitution, shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence from power, bribery, tumult, or improper conduct.”

Section 2

“No power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage in this State.”

Election officials claim that they already conducted audits after the election but apparently they only reviewed the smaller local races in the state and only small samples were hand-counted. From the Freedom of Information Act response that the we received from the SEC, it appears that there was no audit of the federal races!

We do not trust our elected officials.

That’s what this all comes down to. From the time we had electronic voting pushed on us, we haven’t had an honest election. Our own SC state director of the Election Commission (for 18 years!) worked for Unisys Corporation sales from 2000-2003. She was ‘responsible for public sector accounts in GA, SC and NC in the areas of justice and public safety, imaging, and environmental permitting.’ In 2001 Unisys jumped into voting systems with Microsoft and Dell. Guess they saw a great opportunity from the Bush v Gore hanging chad debacle: Hide the cheating electronically.
So, knowing that Marci Andino was responsible for sales to state agencies, and knowing that SC installed its first electronic voting machines around 2004, it’s logical to assume who engineered the sale. And why not hire that person to oversee the Palmetto State’s voting using that system? Makes sense, right? Especially since Andino sits on the ES&S advisory board. No conflict there. And now, she’s climbing the ladder again, resigning her position early to become director of the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center. That should inspire confidence.

Authored by Barbara Williams, Spartanburg county SC Safe Elections member

AZ audit continued… Where do we go from here?
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

The Maricopa County audit resulted in more questions than answers. There were numerous criminal acts that were committed and it appears that the Arizona AG is poised to indict those involved. The findings indicate that other states need to be evaluated. South Carolina should be particularly in the spotlight as data from our state was allegedly contained on demo hard drives.
Overall, there were 57,734 ballots with major issues that were identified as part of the audit reports.


To wit, according to Patrick Byrne:

  • The day before complying with the subpoena, Maricopa deleted > 1 million election files (each deletion carries 1 federal and state charge);
  • What remained did not reconcile;
    • 255,326 Early Votes have no provenance (they just “appeared”) and another 284,412 have digital images that have been corrupted (with no viable explanation for how that might have happened);
    • There are at least 57,734 ballots with sourcing that is illegal (they were mailed to someone who actually moved out of state 10 years ago, but were voted anyway);
    • There are over 17,000 ballots which are simply photocopies (which is unambiguously illegal);

There were 15 other felonies whose impact on the ballots is impossible to quantify

If we turn a blind eye to all that, Biden wins by 10,800 votes. But if we acknowledge these inconsistencies, we see that Trump won by at least 5 times the margin of victory.

From the Cyber Ninjas report,

• 27, 807 ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election;
• 9,041 more mail ballots returned and recorded than the official number sent;
• 3,432 more ballots cast than the list of people who show as having cast a vote;
• 23,344 people voted via mail-in ballot even though they showed as having moved and no one with that last name shows as living at that address;

  • 2,600 excess duplicate ballots;
  • 2,382 people voted in person after having moved out of the county;
  • 5,047 voted in more than one county for up to 5,295 votes;
  • At least one batch of 50 ballots were tabulated twice;
  • 255,326 Early Votes show in the VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry;
  • 282 votes from deceased;
  • 393 with incomplete names

Furthermore, it was found that:

• The state did not use the paper that was recommended by manufacturers and that could not be properly verified.
• The ballot printers were not calibrated
• Machines were connected to the internet and cybersecurity protocols were not followed at all. There were no security patches to the operating system since the original purchase (2 years prior to the election) and no antivirus updates were performed since purchase.
• There was intentional overwriting of the files and security logs

We hope that the Arizona AG acts swiftly as this would mean that eventual decertification of the election and possibly create momentum for other states with similar issues to follow suit—think GA and Wisconsin.

cyber ninjas forensic audit maricopa county az 2020
The AZ audit is the beginning of nationwide audits
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

Based on the AZ audit findings, it is imperative that all other states move forward with a forensic audit. Here are just a few highlights from the audit report:


The cyber ninjas presentation had criminality all over it.

  • 1 million records were deleted 1 day prior to audit—this is a felony and each record is considered a separate charge of a federal crime carrying 1 year in jail and a fine; 16 people had the administration password which was the same so it was an “anonymous” login.
    • However, they were able to capture the visuals of the person or persons via video!!! NABBED
  • Up to 300,000 ballots in question due to phantom and lost voters (Liz Harris canvassing results)
  • Many of the ballots were received after the deadline
  • 284,412 ballot images were corrupt or missing
  • There were duplicate ballots, ballots received from deceased voters, etc.
  • 23,344 voted mail in and 2,382 voted in person even though they had moved from Maricopa
  • 5,047 voted in more than one county
  • Their paper ballots were fake; not one ballot was on vote secured paper; they only used non-vote secured paper for all of the ballots!!!! This was done to obscure the differences in the paper. These ballots are illegal.
  • The machines were not EAC certified!!!!! Software patches for the operating system as well as antivirus software were not installed since installation thus they were not complying with regulations. There is no way these machines would have been certified based on their lack of proper updates and protocol.
  • There were 2,592 more duplicates than original ballots
  • There were 9,041 more ballots returned by the voter than received
  • There appeared to be intentional churning of logs and overwriting data- that violates the 22-month federal rules for retention; all the data from the 2020 election appeared to be fully cleared
  • There were insufficient and grossly negligent if not intentional cybersecurity weaknesses
    • A universal password was used for admins and all users and this was not changed since the system installation
  • There were envelopes with blank signatures
  • Multiple ports allowed for interconnectivity

OTHER FINDINGS

NOTE: SC voter data was found in their system suggesting that they were “borrowing” phantom voters from us to fill their system! Was there collusion across state lines?

Furthermore, the county refused to comply with subpoenas asking for routers, voter roll systems, provisional ballots, and undeliverable ballots.

What are the risks of not doing an audit in South Carolina?

Our rights have been violated and those who want to move on are essentially agreeing that the illegitimate rigged election was valid (your constituents know otherwise) and they are complicit with the following:

  • Thousands of illegals pouring into the border many with criminal backgrounds and communicable illnesses resulting in massive increases in human and drug trafficking as well as kids being abused
  • Large spending increases on pork laden bills that serve as vehicles for money laundering
  • Continued abuse of our children and as they are forced to wear masks in schools and neglect of parental rights and preferences
  • Forced vaccine mandates and digital tracing of identities
  • Confiscatory tax rates that will stifle the economy

All from not only an illegitimate president but now all races should be called into question from the 2020 election.

Will you be part of the problem by ushering in a new world order that creates a social credit score system, continued lockdowns and business closing, lost constitutional rights, or will you be part of the solution to returning our country to the principles it was founded on?

FAKE NEWS: The auditors counted the paper ballots and confirmed the total but just because the count is accurate doesn’t mean the election was legitimate. That statement by the press is misleading in that it does not mean that the ballots were authentic! This is where the media is being extremely misleading. If you count 5 twenty-dollar counterfeit bills you will think you have $100 but it doesn’t mean they are valid. The recount of fraudulent votes will always result in a proper recount.

Meeting the Experts
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

On August 21st our team met with our national experts who we have been working with to analyze the election data for our state. It was a great night which started with a speech from state senator Amanda Chase from Virginia who is fighting a trifecta of liberals and though outnumbered is using the power of We the people and affidavits to hold her state legislature accountable. Then Seth Keshel steps through his heat map and the surprising trends that suggest that Biden may not have been quite so popular in the 2020 election both in South Carolina and nationwide. Finally, Dr Frank shows how each county in South Carolina was highly correlated to his calculation of predicted ballots and how each county had the same key or equation that described the ballots cast by age. “That ain’t natural buddy!” We appreciate Captain K, Senator Chase and Dr. Frank’s time that they volunteered and for all the work they have done and continue to do for us. We look forward to seeing them back in the Palmetto state soon. See the full video below.

The path towards free and fair elections
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

On September 13th Laura Scharr, our team leader, presented information regarding the potential for election maladministration to the Lexington GOP leaders. She also made a motion to vote on a resolution for a full forensic audit or study to be conducted in Lexington County. The meeting was spirited, to say the least, but ultimately the ECs (Executive Committee) members voted to send a letter to our legislature asking that the resolution be voted on and that they approve the funds for this study. The resolution passed in Horry, Charleston, Spartanburg, and Anderson as well.

We continue to proceed with work that uncovers data to legislators showing significant issues with our voter rolls and machines. We hope to get a study funded to investigate the accuracy and veracity of our 2020 elections.

The evidence needs to be preserved so that the 22 month window isi extended for paper ballot retention.

Grassroots Canvassing uncovers startling facts
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

Revelations could overturn the election

Liz Harris is a fearless fighter as she coordinated grassroots canvassing efforts in Arizona to uncover potential problems with the voter rolls. She recently appeared on Bannon’s War Room to share her results. What they found was that there were 173,104 “Lost votes.” This occurs when the person they speak to voted but it doesn’t show up as being counted. They cast a vote but there is no record of it nor is it counted in the reported totals for the election. Where did their vote go? Hmmm. This screams of potential disenfranchisement.

In addition, the grassroots canvass found 96,389 “Ghost votes” aka phantom votes. These are ineligible votes of people who have moved out of the state, are deceased, or could even be commercial addresses or empty lots. These votes were cast under the names of “registered” voters who were either unknown or moved away prior to October 2020 or perhaps never even voted. Due to these findings, her report claims that the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County is uncertifiable.

The presidential race was decided by only 10,457 votes statewide and the US Senate election was decided by 78,886 votes statewide. This suggests that not only the presidential race was affected but also other down-ballot races that would affect the distribution of power in the Senate.

Here is a copy of her report:

Liz-Harris-report-1Download
About ERIC and its influence over South Carolina Elections
SC General Election Day Nov 5th, 2024
Years
0
:
Months
0
:
Days
0
:
Hrs
0
:
Mins
0
:
Secs
0

In November of 2018, the Founder of Engage The Right and EFAC team member, Laurie Zapp, with the help of volunteers, began researching South Carolina’s active registered voter logs. Their focus was on deceased individuals whose names remained on these logs as active registered voters. To date, they have found 4,000 names, and some of these individuals passed away as far back as 2010!


On April 8, 2021, Laurie testified to the SC House Legislative Oversight Committee about these findings. After her testimony, Executive Director Marci Andino testified. During Ms. Andino’s testimony, she was asked what tools or programs the South Carolina Election Commission (SEC) uses to remove names of deceased voters, as well as names of individuals who move, from the voter logs. She replied that South Carolina uses an organization called Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), records from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), as well as The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).


After the testimony on April 8, Laurie researched information on ERIC. The mission of ERIC is “assisting states to improve the accuracy of America’s voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens.” States enrolled in and using, ERIC receive reports identifying voters who have moved within their state or out of state, voters who have died, duplicate registrations within the state, and potentially eligible voters not yet registered.


Reading about ERIC, most would probably agree their mission is an important and valuable one and this would be a great organization to be a part of. But is it? Further research prompts the question: Is the purpose of this organization to help maintain voter logs, or is this just another political organization with multiple ties to Democrats and organizations in power?


The links below are provided for you to learn more about ERIC. If your state uses ERIC, we suggest you do further research. Some important questions to ask:

  • When did your state join ERIC? Use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and request the signed agreement between ERIC and the Board of Directors on the ERIC website.
  • How much has your state paid to use ERIC?
  • How much of a grant was provided to your state from The PEW Charitable Trusts?
  • how many people are removed from active voter logs due to information provided from ERIC (ie,people who move out of the state, deceased individuals, people registered in more than one state)?


About ERIC

https://ericstates.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Registration_Information_Center

ERIC was created in 2012 by the Brennan Center for Justice from a grant provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts. ERIC is a nonprofit organization. As a member, each state gets one member who becomes a Board of Director and governs ERIC within the state.

To research Brennan Center for Justice and its ties to Democrats and liberal organizations, go to https://www.brennancenter.org.


When ERIC first launched in 2012, 7 states joined: Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. As of April 2021, these states have also joined: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (the District of Columbia is also a member).

Developers


John Lindback, currently retired, was the first executive director of ERIC and part of the working group that created ERIC. He was a senior officer for Elections Initiatives at The Pew Charitable Trusts, Director of Elections in Oregon’s Secretary of State’s office for eight years, Chief of Staff for the Alaska Lieutenant Governor, President of the National Association of State Election Directors, and served on the US Election Assistance Commission Advisory Board. He was also a lobbyist for The Pew Charitable Trusts.


https://electionacademy.lib.umn.edu/2017/08/04/electionlineweekly-exit-interview-with-johnlindback/
https://lobbying.wi.gov/Mobile/LobbyistInformation/2009REG/PrincipalsRepresented/4618


Jeff Jones, a data scientist, created ERIC’s software. Prior to this, he is credited with solving complex big-data problems for companies and governments. In 2005, he sold his company to IBM where he then worked as an IBM Fellow and Chief Scientist of Context Computing. At IBM he “led a team focused on creating next-generation AI for Entity Resolution technology, codenamed G2.” “At IBM, G2 was deployed in many innovative ways, including modernizing U.S.
voter registration through a joint effort with Pew Charitable Trust.” In 2016, Jeff started a new company called Senzing where he is CEO and Chief Strategist. According to the Federal Election Commission website, Jeff has given donations to the following Democrat candidates: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Obama for America, and Bernie Sanders to name a few.

http://www.jeffjonas.com/bio.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-jonas

David Becker is the Executive Director and Founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR). Prior to founding CEIR, he was Director of the elections program at The Pew Charitable Trusts. As the lead for Pew’s analysis and advocacy on elections issues, David spearheaded development of the innovative Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC. He also directed Pew’s partnerships with state government agencies, and with private sector partners like Google, IBM, Facebook, and others. Before joining Pew, David worked for the Department of Justice where he served as a trial attorney. David is still listed on ERIC’s website as a non-voting Board Member. During his time at the DOJ, he was accused by coworkers of being unable to be nonpartisan in his job. This quote appears in the following
article, “In his role with the DOJ, he was supposed to be nonpartisan,” van Spakovsky said of Becker, “but his emails uncovered in the Boston investigation revealed nasty, disparaging remarks about Republicans. Very unethical and unprofessional. I would never hire or trust him.”


https://legalnewsline.com/stories/555822683-mark-zuckerberg-beneficiaries-promoting-fairelections-not-exactly-non-partisan-as-advertised
Becker’s feelings regarding the 2020 election: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-securityexpert-david-becker-on-trumps-election-challenges-amid-assault-on-capitol/
https://theamericanleader.org/leader/david-becker-making-elections-more-secure/
https://electioninnovation.org/our-team/david-becker/
https://electioninnovation.org

Funding


ERIC has been provided grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts. They were given a grant of $794,527 in 2012, $138,879 in 2013, and $19,691 in 2014. According to the website, the states fund ERIC. Once signing on to use ERIC, the state pays a one-time membership fee of $25,000. Thereafter, they pay required annual dues.

Understanding Pew


Established in 1948, The Pew Charitable Trusts is a “global nongovernmental organization that seeks to improve public policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life.” Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that “informs the public about the issues, attitudes, and trends shaping the world. They conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research.” This organization states they do not take policy
positions. In 2004, The Pew Charitable Trusts established the Pew Research Center as a subsidiary to house its information initiatives. Pew Research Center is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization and a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, their primary funder.


The Pew Charitable Trusts Donations
The below screenshots and information came from:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/pew-charitable-trusts/totals?id=D000055375
In 2020, PEW gave 99.5% of their money to Democrat candidates and not even 1% to
Republican candidates