Why Do a Compliance Study on the 2020 Election?

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, there seemed to be more questions than answers. We the People are concerned that our vote was controlled, not counted. Massive increases in absentee ballots increased the opportunity for fraud.

Current Main Areas of Concern

1. Phantom voters

Illegitimate voters were found on the voter rolls and we have seen disturbing information that indicates that deceased people and people who no longer reside in the state voted in the 2020 election. Excess registrations in many counties suggest the presence of phantom votes that were used to move votes to preferred candidates. What is a phantom voter? Someone who has moved or died and is still on the active registration list. Some PO boxes, commercial addresses, or even empty lots can be registered. This short video by Dr. Douglas Frank provides a nice explanation of a phantom voter.

2. Unbelievably high votes for Biden seem to defy historical trends.

The “phantom” votes end up as increases in Biden votes that are uncharacteristically high compared to previous election cycles.

Former US military intelligence officer and statistical analyst Seth Keshel analyzed the trends of voter registrations and actual votes for the past five election cycles for South Carolina. He designated each county in the heat map below as red, yellow, or green, based on whether the 2020 vote totals aligned with the expected trends (as past decades demonstrate they typically do) or if they diverged in statistically unlikely ways.

This heatmap of South Carolina shows the divergence between long-standing trends and votes counted as stated by Seth Keshel.

Red = Stong/Rampant fraud. Unexplainable divergence from trends

Yellow = Potential fraud

Moderate divergence from trends

Green = Likely clean

Aligns with voter trends as expected

See Seth’s presentation (49 mins.)

Here we see the increases in total votes for each candidate in the presidential elections since 2008. Note the huge increases for Biden in the far column. Does this seem realistic given the trends and the fact that he did very little campaigning? This defies logic given that many of these counties lean Republican as well.

Spreadsheet provided by Seth Keshel highlights counties with a high likelihood of fraud correlating with heatmap

3. Our voter rolls, mail in votes, machines, and reporting systems are vulnerable and hackable.

In fact, South Carolina was the victim of the hack. See the video below that captures the activity from our voting systems and out of our state. This represents pcap (packet capture) traffic which measures the voter data going to and from the IP addresses. US Cybercommand was aware that the machines could be compromised and they were ready and waiting to measure the traffic.Over 66% of this traffic went to China nationwide. (3 minute video)

The picture above shows real time traffic captured in and out of South Carolina from 11-2 to 11-6. Source: US Cybercommand

If voting machines aren’t supposed to be connected to the internet, then why did Michigan find a modem in one of their ES&S DS200 ballot scanners? One of their DS200 scanner machines was found to have a wireless 4G modem installed internally within the enclosure of the machine. The printed tapes that summarize the activity during the election show that the 4G modem was used to send the results to a central listener server via secure file transfer. South Carolina also uses ES&S DS200 scanners. We also know that ES&S admits to selling 14,000 of the DS200 scanners with modems despite the fact that their website states that their systems are not connected to the internet. According to our IT specialists in our EFAC team, this 4G modem can be hacked from 10 miles away.

4. Outside money influencing registration and votes without oversight

Mark Zuckerberg through his non-profit organization, Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) contributed over five million dollars to several SC counties possibly influencing registration and votes in those areas.

41 of 46 South Carolina counties applied for and directly received grant money from CTCL totaling over $5 million dollars, without any state regulation or spending oversight. The only counties that did not accept the funds are Georgetown, Greenwood, Lexington, Newberry, and Saluda. Fifteen grants were over $100,000. Berkeley, Charleston,
Dorchester, Richland and Greenville received over $500,000 each. Most other counties with more conservative profiles received smaller grants resulting in 5-15% increases in new Democrat registrations. What was the upshot of all this private money showered on the counties through public/private partnerships? New registrations skewed heavily toward Democrats clearly designed to favor Democratic candidates. Grant amounts here correlate highly with Democratic registration increases averaging 33% from 2016 to 2020.

IRS prohibits a 501(c)(3) nonprofit like CTCL from “voter education or registration activities” that “have the effect of favoring a candidate.” The non-profit structure affords a convenient way to shield donors. When you look at the CTCL IRS filing, all donors are blacked out. Some states forbid this kind of funding. South Carolina should too. This private “dark money” must stop influencing our elections.

You can see how much money each county spent below.

CTCL funds or “Zuck bucks” that were donated per county

Additional non-profit organizations, funded by massive corporations, such as ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) which received its funding from PEW Charitable Trust, continue to have influence over South Carolina elections with little-to-no oversight.

We The People of South Carolina want to ensure that all legal votes are counted.

The most fundamental right we enjoy is a free and fair election.  It ensures that all other rights we enjoy are protected.  We must have confidence that our ELECTIONS are LEGAL AND ACCURATE.

We generated over 11,000 affidavits from our canvassing efforts in 8 counties.

How do we ensure that our elections are fair and free of issues?