Secrets Of Electronic Voting Manipulations And CounterMeasures
While speculations abound as-to relatively similar age-old adages attributable to yet other people surrounding the manipulation of votes cast by populations worldwide, even more important information has surfaced.
For more than the past decade, a plethora of questions surround ‘high-technology’ issues in-to ‘voting manipulations’ ( counterfeiting, liquid chemical matrix compound copying, fraudulent templating, etc. ), ‘security countermeasure features’ and ‘anti-security counter-countermeasure features’ having remained hidden from public view; a few of which, are now briefly outlined within the following list ( immediately below ):
– Voting Ballot Machines;
– Electronic Programmable Read Only Memory ( EPROM ) integrated circuit ( I-C ) ‘chips’ ( plugged in-to an electronic circuit board or soldered into a plug-in module;
– Voting Ballot Light Sensitive Paper;
– Voting Ballot Embedded Magnetic Media Paper;
– Voting Ballot Optical Character Recognition ( OCR ) BarCode Imagery Paper;
– Voting Ballot Embedded WaterMark Imagery Paper;
– Voting Ballot Printing Chemical Matrix Compound Inks;
– Voting Management Systems; and,
– Voting TeleCommunication Networks;
Much further below, this report provides details into some of the majority of the aforementioned items, which will be quite amazing to most people.
Communist People’s Republic of China Financially Captured Collateral Of America’s Dominion Voting Systems, Machines And Security Software Application Holdings –
The information source of origination came well-documented from the U.S. federal government as mentioned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ), and elsewhere, including:
The proprietary Original Equipment Manufacturer ( OEM ) DOMINION VOTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED ( DVS ) financial collateral owner ( in CANADA ) was HSBC interalia interalia the HONGKONG SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION of CHINA that was ‘officially assigned eighteen ( 18 ) different Patents’ listed within one ( 1 ) Patent Assignment’ on September 25, 2019 that belonged to DOMINION VOTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED ( DVS ).
The ‘Security Agreement’ pertaining to all Intellectual Property Rights pursuant to those 18 Patents listed in ‘Schedule A’ was signed by, Michael McGee, Authorized Signor on behalf of DOMINION VOTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED ( DVS ).
Pertinent Patent Numbers –
DOMINION VOTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED Patent Assignment to HSBC ( U.S. Patent Office, Assignments ): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAssignee?assigneeName=HSBC BANK CANADA, AS COLLATERAL AGENT &
U.S. Patent 8, 910, 865 B2 – Ballot level security features for optical scan voting machine capable of ballot image processing, secure ballot printing, and ballot layout authentication and verification ( See, e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8910865B2/en?assignee=”Dominion+Voting”&oq=”Dominion+Voting”
Research References ( Relative ) –
‘Stolen Election: Ongoing Links To Evidence’ by, Kerry Cassidy ( Project Camelot ): https://projectcamelotportal.com/2020/11/05/the-sting/ &
‘Election Fraud’ by, Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot ( Twitter ): https://mobile.twitter.com/projectcamelot/status/1325829750976249856
U.S. Footprint Of Dominion Voting Systems Incorporated
Actively deployed throughout America’s states wherein a plethora of voting districts in precincts Dominion Voting Systems Incorporated ‘hardware’ equipment with ‘software’ applications exist within what is referred to as its “United States Footprint.”
More information as-to DOMINION and other voting processings becomes even more apparent ( See Further Below ).
Basic History Of Dominion Voting Systems Incorporated –
– DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INCORPORATED [ 1201 18th Street, Suite 210, Denver, Colorado 80303 USA ] ( also known as );
– DOMINION VOTING SOLUTIONS ( also known as ); and,
– DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORPORATION [ 20 Mowat Avenue, Suite 100, Toronto, Ontario M6K 3EB, CANADA ].
DOMINION VOTING SOLUTIONS was founded in 2002 in Toronto, Canada by John Poulos and James Hoover. DOMINION VOTING SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED [ of Denver, Colorado is 1 of the 3 voting machine companies used in American Presidential Elections ] purchased PREMIER ELECTION SOLUTIONS from a company named ELECTION SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE L.L.C. [ ES&S of Omaha, Nebraska is another 1 of the 3 voting machine companies used within American Presidential Elections ] during May, 2010 plus, SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ( of Oakland, California ) in June, 2010. After DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC. acquired those voting machine companies, it relocated away-from Toronto, Canada to Denver, Colorado in America. Both SEQUOIA and PREMIER voting equipment firms are known as original equipment manufacturers ( OEM ).
As only a point of reference, the third ( 3rd ) voting system machine manufacturer ( used in American Presidential Elections ), is HART INTERCIVIC INCORPORATED ( of Austin, Texas ).
Interestingly enough, all three ( 3 ) of the voting machine manufacturers and private equity firms ( e.g. H.I.G. CAPITAL L.L.C., STAPLE STREET CAPITAL GROUP L.L.C., MCCARTHY GROUP L.L.C., et. al. ) that own the major election equipment and software manufacturers ( used by 90% of the American voting public nationwide ), that came under investigations into information surrounding security, oversight, finances and ownership ( foreign and domestic ).
Voting Security Feature Secrets
Not many people are fully aware of the extent by which multiple types of security features are served-up for every voting paper ballot used by Americans.
The following information was obtained from the United States Patent Office and excerpted ( below ) as-to some of those security features.
“… [ The ] plurality of security features embedded in the printer stock and / or printed on the ballot, during the process of printing official ballots.
In the case where the security features include plain or encrypted data, the optical scanner is capable of interpreting the data and verifying it.
Further, if the security features printed on the ballot include a pre-assigned ballot serial number, the optical scanner will be able to verify that the serial number present is authorized for that election and has not already been processed.
The features specifically mentioned above can include but are not limited to:
UltraViolet ( UV ) Security Features –
These are features that are ‘invisible’ when viewed under ‘Normal White Light’ but ‘become visible when ‘illuminated’ by Ultra-Violet Light’ sources … [ and can also possess ] features that ‘absorb Ultra-Violet Light’; typically, these are [ ‘specially formulated chemical matrix properties within ] ‘inks’.
InfraRed ( IR ) Security Features –
These are features that are invisible when viewed under normal white light but become visible when illuminated by Infra-red light sources. They can also be features that absorb infra-red light. Typically these are ‘inks’.
Magnetic Security Features –
These are features that have specific magnetic properties; typically, strips of ‘magnetic material embedded in the paper’ however, there are ‘magnetic inks’ also available.
The magnetic properties can be ‘simple – such as a uniform magnetic property – or ‘complex’, such as ‘a strip of material that has varying magnetic intensities along it’ that can represent a ‘pattern’ or ‘data’.
Fluorescent Security Features –
These are features that may be visible or invisible when viewed under ‘normal white light’ and ‘fluorescent light’ with ‘an expected intensity range’ – when illuminated – by certain ‘frequencies of light’ [ lightwave frequencies ]; typically, these are ‘inks’.
Ink ( Visible ) Security Features –
These particular security features consist of ‘very unique visible marks’ easily detectable under ‘normal light’ conditions.
Ink ( Invisible ) Security Features –
These particular security features consist of ‘invisible chemical formula matrix markers’ only detectable using ‘highly specific laboratory methodology equipment’ determining whether a voting ballot paper ink ( itself ) is ‘official’ or ‘fraudulent’.
Watermark Security Features –
Watermarks are typically ‘physical features’ which are ‘imprinted into the paper’, either by ’embedding the layers within the paper’ or by being ’embossed into the paper’.
They are typically visible in normal white light but ‘can not be replicated by printing techniques’.
Watermarks can also, possess:
– UltraViolet Light Features;
– InfraRed Light Features;
– Fluorescent Light Features; or,
– Magnetic Features.
A number of security features can be used in conjunction with each other to further improve security, and make forging or copying ballots even more difficult.
… Scanners ( Detectors ) … are capable of detecting and reading the expected security features on the ballot.
Such detectors are known to be used in [ financial] currency authenticating apparatus.
The definition of ‘which security features to look for’, will form part of the ballot definition for the voting unit so, that the ‘security features’ can be:
– ‘Varied’ between ‘Jurisdictions’;
– [ Varied between ] ‘Elections’; and even,
– [ Varied between ] ‘Precincts’.
That is, ‘a set of security features can be assigned to the ballots’ of each Precinct, Jurisdiction, Election, etc., and the ‘members of the set’ can be:
– ‘Changed’ for ‘different Precincts’;
– [ Changed for ‘different ] Jurisdictions; and,
– [ Changed for ‘different ] Elections’, etc.
One example of a ‘combined set of security features’ would be the existence of:
– Ultra-Violet ( U-V ) Fluorescent Light Features, alternating with Infra-Red Light Features ‘pre-printed on the ballot’.
These features would be detected with both a U-V sensitive and I-R sensitive sensor on the voting unit.
These could also be combined with a human detectable Watermark.
This Watermark can also be detected and processed by the optical scanner provided in the voting unit.
The ‘security features’ ( described above ) can be used, such-that they are grouped into ‘three [ 3 ] basic [ Security Feature ] groups’:
– Static [ Security Feature ];
– Dynamic [ Security Feature ]; and,
– Data [ Security Feature ].
Almost all of the types of [ Security ] Features ( Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, Magnetic, etc. ) ‘could belong to any of the groupings’ depending on ‘implementation’ of the ‘specific security features’.
Paper Security Features –
The group of Static [ Security ] Features refers to the situation, where the:
– [ Security ] feature is placed [ within ] in the ‘paper stock’, and is looked for [ optically scanned ] by the voting unit.
These Static [ Security ] Features ‘do not contain data’, and thus the Security Features solely consist of the ‘Presence of the [ Security ] Feature’ or the ‘Absence of the Security Feature’.
Typically, Static [ Security ] Features can ( for example ) consist of a ‘Mark’ [ within ] in a ‘set Position’ or [ set ] Area’ on the ballot, such that the ”Positioning’ – of the Static [ Security ] Feature – does not change.
Typically, [ Security ] Features are ‘Static’ because they are ‘expensive to alter’.
For example, ’embedding magnetic strips’ [ within ] in ‘paper stock’ is a ‘relatively expensive process’.
Therefore, it is likely that ‘such [ Static Security ] features’ will be ‘incorporated in a large volume of [ paper ] stock’ – at one [ 1 ] time – and not altered frequently; if, at all.
Other Static [ Security ] Features may be selected because of the particular process that is used to create them.
For example, a simple ‘Ink’ ( such as Ultra-Violet or Infra-Red ) [ Security ] Feature could be ‘applied during the paper stock manufacture process’ via a [ print ] ‘roller’ or [ printing ] ‘brush’.
Such an application is relatively difficult to alter so, again would be applied to large batches.
Watermarks are another example of a security feature that is normally Static.
Dynamic [ Security ] Features refer to ‘features that can be varied’, either in Position, Size, Shape or Content.
Typically, [ Security ] Features that are relatively cheap and easy to vary will be used as Dynamic Security Features.
For example, a [ Security ] Feature which is somehow ‘Printed onto the [ Paper ] stock during the manufacture process, such as a ‘Secure Ink Feature ( using Ultra-Violet sensitive or Infra-Red sensitive ) is often a Dynamic [ Security ] Feature.
As it [ Paper ] is printed, at the time of manufacture [ manufacturing ], the ‘Position’, ‘Shape’ and ‘Other Properties’ could be [ for ‘security reasons’ ] ‘Altered’ for ‘different batches’ of ‘paper stock’.
Therefore, the Dynamic Security Features can easily be ‘Varied for different Elections’, [ ‘Varied’ or different ‘Jurisdictions’, or even [ ‘Varied’ for different Precincts ] ‘Districts’ to ‘provide added security’ and ‘prevent counterfeiting of ballots’.
Further, the voting unit can be ‘programmed to detect’ the:
– ‘Specific [ Security ] Feature expected’ [ for the given ‘Election’ and ‘Jurisdiction’ ];
– [ ‘Specific Security ] Shape expected’ [ for the given ‘Election’ and ‘Jurisdiction’ ]; and / or,
– [ ‘Specific Security ] Location expected’ for the given ‘Election’ and ‘Jurisdiction’.
‘Data [ Security ] Features’ are a special group of ‘Dynamic [ Security ] Features’.
They contain ‘data that can be read’ and [ ‘data that can be ] verified’ by ( for example ) the scanner of voting unit.
Typically, the data will be represented in a feature such as a 1-D [ single dimensional ] or 2-D [ dual dimensional ] [ Security ] ‘bar code’.
While the data could be anything, it is preferably a ‘security code’ that can be ‘validated’.
This data can be easily varied for different Elections, Jurisdictions, or even [ Precincts ] Districts.
To ‘further increase the security of the code’, the ‘data can be encrypted’ using a ‘pre-agreed private-public key pair’.
Thus, even if a potential forger managed to create some Paper, with the necessary [ Security ] Feature technology ( for example UltraViolet Ink ) and could ‘reproduce the type of [ Security ] Feature ( e.g. a, barcode ), ‘the forger would have to know the correct security code representing that Election’.
If the ‘barcodes are encrypted’, a scheme can be utilized that would require ‘the forger to also have the public and private keys generated by the Jurisdiction’.
Printed [ Security ] Features, such as those using UltraViolet Ink, InfraRed Ink, Fluorescence Ink, or Magnetic Ink ‘could additionally be applied to each ballot’ – by the ballot [ Paper ] Printer ( e.g. the printer used to print a paper ballot such as the paper ballot shown in Figure 5 ).
This represents a ‘different type of security’ as the ‘Source’ of the Security Feature is not controlled; however, the content is [ controlled] and ‘can be varied’ – at a much lower level of granularity.
For example each [ Paper ] ballot style could have a ‘Printed Security Feature’ that has an ‘Encrypted Code’ representing the [ ‘Specific ] Election’ and ‘Ballot Style’ along with the [ Voting ] Precincts [ Voting Districts ] in ‘which they are valid’.
These Security Features could then be detected and verified by the scanner of the voting unit.
This improvement gives a ‘very fine level of control and security’ to the [ Paper ] ballot ‘Authentication process’.
The Security Features may also be ‘masked by each other’.
For example, a [ Security ] Feature that is Printed using normal visible ‘Ink’ could have a different UltraViolet or InfraRed [ Security ] Feature printed on top of it.
Further, if ‘Paper stock’ and ballot Printer’ [ Security ] Features are ‘combined’, it becomes ‘virtually impossible’ ( and certainly ‘prohibitively expensive’ ) to try to ‘copy’ or ‘forge’ [ Paper ] ballots.
Covert Secure Document Registration ( CSDRS) And Automated Authentication Systems ( AAS )
A method for creating a secure document, registering the secure document and verifying the authenticity of the secure document includes receiving a print object that has content.
A security feature, including an identifier, is created and is associated with the content.
The identifier may be a barcode.
The barcode may represent a character string.
The security feature may include the ‘identifier barcode’ and a ‘decoy barcode’ that is not associated with the content.
The identifier barcode ( or, ‘character string’ represented by the barcode ) and the ‘content’, are ‘transmitted to a storage database .
Once stored, the ‘identifier and the content’ are ‘considered registered’.
A print object, that includes the security feature and the content, is then ‘transmitted to a printer for printing’.
Research Reference –
Methods for Securing Invisible 2D Barcodes and Printed Images
Research Reference –
Dominion Voting Systems Incorporated Ballot Level Security Features –
For optical scan voting machines capable of ballot image processing, secure ballot printing, ballot layout authentication and verification, such can be found within U.S. Patent 9,202,113 B2 and US8910865B2 –
US 8,910,865 B2 –
December 16, 2014
– James Hoover
– Dominion Voting Systems Inc.
– Eric Coomer ( Broomfield, CO, USA );
– Larry Korb ( Moraga, CA, USA );
– Brian Glenn Lierman ( Exeter, CA, USA )
Methods, systems, and devices are described for adjudicating votes made on voter-marked paper ballots. Voter-marked paper ballots may be scanned to obtain optical image data of the voter-marked paper ballots. The optical image may be analyzed to determine the votes contained in the ballot for …
A ballot authentication system uses a plurality of security features embedded in and/or printed on the paper stock used to print a ballot on which election-choice-information is printed and a voting unit that includes at least a scanner that is configured to detect the plurality of security features that are embedded in and/or printed on the ballot and authenticate the ballot based on the read information. The voting unit of the ballot authentication system can be configured to Verify and confirm that the various security features embedded in and/or ABSTRACT (51) Int. Cl. printed on the ballot is correct for a particular precinct of an G07C I3/00 (2006.01) election. The security features of the ballot authentication (52) U.S. Cl. system can include static, dynamic and data security features.
America’s general presidential primary election voting process becomes even more complicated once high-technology applicable to security comes into view.
Secret Reprogrammable EPROM Software Illegally Planted Within DIEBOLD Voting Systems Used Across America
U.S. Election Intelligence ( The Right / Fight To Vote )
In 2012, reports circulated that an incredibly huge quantity of multiple millions of rounds of ammunition for guns were purchased for use by employees of U.S. Post Offices, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Homeland Security, and multiple other government employees too, which no one could make sense of.
People across America are just now beginning to learn that their Constitutional right to vote is being negatively manipulated away-from millions of American citizens who are just now beginning to react by nationwide incidents of protests leading to civil disobedience because the people cannot vote for whom they wish to elect as the new U.S. President for 2016.
The following organization is only one ( 1 ) group attempting to demonstrate voter disenfranchisement and displeasure with the clandestine means by which the American people are having their voting rights surreptitiously removed by the U.S. government in not just one ( 1 ) instance but through a number of means subverting the public election process that is not being fully broadcasted over American mainstream news media television or radio.
What Americans have recently learned, is that not only U.S. Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump is objecting, but Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, and now even more recently Hillary Rodham Clinton too.
What the candidates are objecting-to, and filing civil court lawsuits over, are ‘not all that is going wrong’ with the election process in the United States of America, but ‘only what is negatively impacting them individually’ so, there is a wide disparity of voter problems surfacing of which the American general public only hears little bits and pieces about.
Nothing at all is being broadcasted as to the ‘high-tech computer glitches’ within ‘each and every one of the voting tabulation machines’ manufactured by the DIEBOLD CORPORATION that also produces multiple different bank debit and credit card Automatic Teller Machines ( ATM ) too.
DIEBOLD ‘sensitive locations’, throughout America, remain a closely guarded U.S. national secret security project supervised in buildings shared by contracts with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and other high-tech services too.
In 2008, I stumbled across such a complex in Charlottesville, Virginia where within a very large one ( 1 ) story sprawling complex that appeared to be abandoned, DIEBOLD existed within along with many other clandestine service companies too.
While DIEBOLD and the C.I.A. have numerous problems, the bottomline is so do ‘all American voters’ now just before they elect their President this year so, it’s easy to see both ‘how’ and ‘why’ nationwide civil unrest will erupt in-lieu of the wanton government subversion over the ‘voting rights’ of United States citizens.
I have conducted a fair cross-section of ‘all voting problems in America’, and my ‘short list of video clips’ consisting of ‘all’ are now presented for your review:
Research References –
The fact of the matter is, this is ‘not an isolated incident with DIEBOLD’ because in 2008 DIEBOLD machines were transferred out-of the State of California once it was leaked that anyone ‘pressing ( multiple times ) the yellow reset button at the rear of the machine’ could increase the number of votes for any particular candidate!
Unfortunately, DIEBOLD then ‘moved their faulty machines into other U.S. states for voter use again’, and ‘no one did anything to stop this’!
The only “right” U.S. Citizen voters were ‘never guaranteed’ was the ‘right to violently overthrow’ what they ‘cannot peacefully change through voting’; or, can they?!
Americans take their right to vote very seriously, just like most foreign nations, but just ‘how serious’ is what U.S. law enforcement may soon realize.
Now, do they have enough ammunition? You betcha!
Human Security Breaches Within America’s National Voting System
While performing research in 2020, I learned about America’s systemic voting system problems where, in-addition-to all of the aforementioned, a wide variety of ‘human security issues’ came into view.
America is only beginning to grapple with identifying even more security breaches surrounding American’s ‘right to vote’ moreover this time, by aspects surrounding threats from humankind, which is outlined within the few ‘brief excerpts’ ( below ).
GOP Demands Michigan Vote Count Checks After Glitch Falsely Gives County To Biden
by, Katherine Doyle
November 6, 2020 – 5:16 PM
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
“Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy, a Republican, said the results were skewed after the cards were moved from precincts to county offices and uploaded to a computer. DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INCORPORATED [ ( DVS ) est., at: 20 Mowat Avenue, Suite 100, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M6K 3EB ] manufactures the software.”
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
Antrim County Election Results Investigated After Red Michigan County Turns Blue
by, Paul Egan ( Detroit Free Press )
November 4, 2020 Updated 6:57 p.m. / Originally 2:03 p.m.
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
“[ The County of ] Antrim, uses DOMINION [ DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ( DVS ) ] voting equipment and, ‘does not use cellular modems to transmit [ ballot voting tabulations ] results’ from precincts [ voting facilities ] to [ Antrim ] County offices, Guy [ Sheryl Guy, Antrim County Clerk ] said, instead the ‘data is transported by election officials’.
Guy [ Sheryl Guy, Antrim County Clerk ] said she is in talks with the company [ DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INCORPORATED ( DVS ) ], that maintains the election equipment, but the apparent glitch could also be the result of unspecified ‘human error’.”
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
Former Michigan State Senator Exposes Voting Scandals In Detroit
by, Emily Mangiaracina
November 7, 2020 10:26 a.m.
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
[ former State of Michigan Senator, an aerospace engineer, Patrick Colbeck ] noted, “The poll workers themselves are fairly cooperative. They just want to do the right thing. But, some of the Chief Election Officials seemed to be intent on interfering with actual oversight activities of our officials, which is blatantly against the law. And ‘that interference’ did ‘not start on election day’ [ November 3, 2020 ]. It started well before that.”
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
In addition to being a former Michigan state senator I was also an aerospace engineer. I worked doing cabling design for the space station, and I also am a certified Microsoft Small Business Specialist,” said Colbeck.
“So the first thing that I checked out when I got into the AV counting board was the network topology for the computerized tabulators, the electronic poll books, adjudicators, and the election official computers.”
‘Blatant Lying’ About Internet Connection
Colbeck told Stover he found it very concerning that “every single one of these computers [used for the voting process], except for the electronic poll books, connected to the internet.”
“That’s kind of interesting, because that opens up the door to a lot of people tapping into this network,” he explained. “I don’t care if it’s secure, if the communications are encrypted, if they got a VPN network, it doesn’t matter. There are people a lot smarter than I am that know how to break this in a matter of minutes.”
“When I walked in, one of the first things that I did was I walked around to all the computers. With the exception of the electronic poll books, and they all had that icon saying they’re connected to the internet.”
“I asked the head of the election bureau – his name was Daniel Baxter – I go, are any of these computers connected to the internet? And he told me, ‘No they’re not.’”
“I walked through again, and I heard about what happened earlier in the day, I think it was 10 am, a message had popped up on a computer screen that startled one of the poll workers, that said, ‘Your computer is being hacked.’”
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
“So there’s another election official, the former state representative by the name of David Nathan, and I said, ‘David, are these computers connected to the internet?’” explained Colbeck.
“And he says, ‘No they are not.’ And I go, ‘Well can you verify that for me?”
“And all he had to do was move that little mouse cursor over the land connectivity icon in the bottom right hand corner, and it’ll pop up and say you’re connected to the internet or you’re not.”
“And he said, ‘No, you’re just gonna have to trust me.”
“And I said, ‘Dave, I’m sorry, but maybe somebody lied to you.’ I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. And I’m saying, ‘I’d like to have verification that the computer isn’t connected to the internet.”
“And he said, ‘You’re just gonna have to trust me. And that’s where it was left.”
Commenting on whether there are laws in place prohibiting use of the internet during vote counts, Colbeck said, “There [ are ] laws against manipulating election results. I don’t care if you do it by throwing in a whole bunch of extra ballots or whether or not you decide to be savvy with SQL databases. Either way it’s the same effect and you’re manipulating election results.”
… [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] …
A recent foreign news article, indicated the information ( immediately above ) appeared to partially surround recent adjustment of Antrim County having to hand-count all their ballots where it and other state counties use the DOMINION VOTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED ( DVS ) software for its voting machines so, an American public need exists to more closely examine voting results within several other states using the same DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC. voting machine software to determine similar voting machine software discrepancies.
Trump Flips Michigan County After ‘Error’ Initially Had Biden In The Lead, November 7, 2020 / 08:54 a.m.: https://www.rt.com/usa/505967-michigan-antrim-county-error-trump-biden/
The One Sentence Lesson From U.S. Government Class Professor –
The sad fact is that, for decades very few United States citizens ever came to fully realize all the secret details within America’s selection process of casting their votes ‘for’ or ‘against’ certain ‘legislations that become law’ in-addition-to selecting their political leaders too, all subjected to secret high technology manipulations and security countermeasures.
People of populations really need to at-least take a brief peek into what is going on within their Nation’s election system.
If people do not want to know all about ‘the high technology nuances and anomalies’, that’s understandable.
The very least people need-to-know is where their initial vote goes, on to yet ‘another electoral process’, which for many is a ‘hidden process people know little to nothing about’.
And, that so-called ‘hidden process’, isn’t really hidden; except for the fact, few people have ever even heard of it before or even knew ‘it actually exists’.
‘The System’, automatically takes people’s ‘initial ballot vote’ up the proverbial ladder into yet ‘another voting process’ most people do not fully understand.
Looking back in time, I finally came to honestly admit to my own self that I was an ‘American political dumby’ for at-least 9-years, i.e. during my high school education, military education plus, throughout one ( 1 ) American war too.
I was an ‘American political dumby’, even after beginning a U.S. ‘public high school’ at 13-years old, even after the school Principal presented me with a commendation in mathematics at 14-years old, even after attending junior college at 16-years old while still attending that same U.S. public high school I finally graduated at 17-years old.
By 20-years old, in 1972, after having completed my U.S. military obligation during the Viet Nam War honorably, awarded a national defense service commendation, certified in U.S. National Traffic Safety, attended a Weapons Control Systems Electronics CounterMeasure and Counter-CounterMeasure computer school, and graduated from Air Intelligence Operations school, briefed and debriefed U.S. military officer pilots from the rank of Second Lieutenant up-to Lieutenant Colonel on overseas bombing missions for my Tactical Fighter Wing Squadron, I still remained an ‘American political dumby’.
It wasn’t until 1974, at 22-years old upon re-entering junior college ( this time at’ Fullerton Junior College ), during the first ( 1st ) day of my ‘United States Government’ class, the Professor asked:
“How many of you believe ‘your vote elects the President of the United States of America’?”
Everyone’s hand in our entire class raised their hands up into the air, as though we all unanimously voted on our collective brilliance.
After lowering our hands, the Professor mumbled something to himself about why we were in attendance, and then in a clearly raised voice, instructed:
“If you forget everything else in classrooms, here, you had better remember at-least ‘this’:
The ‘Electoral College’ elects the President of the United States’, ‘not you’; the populace, of the American voting public.”
It was at ‘that particular moment in time’, I finally and quickly came to realize I was ‘not as smart as I thought I was’.
Musing to myself, was then the fact that for the past 9-years, I was an ‘American political dumby’ because of finally learning at-least that one ( 1 ) basic educational lesson about my American federal U.S. government world of politics.
By April 1976, a retired C.I.A. case officer named John V. Lynch ( Tustin, California ) invited me to become his Assistant Campaign Manager for his State Senatorial political race, which I accepted. He later sponsored my membership into the Los Angeles Chapter of the Southern California CounterIntelligence Corps Association ( SCCIA ).
In 1977, at Chapman University, I began a political internship assignment within the State of California at the Orange County Republican Campaign Headquarters whose Director invited me to become his Assistant Director.
And by the time 1983 rolled around, not welcoming all the rude awakenings I had learned, I ventured overseas to Western Europe where I began learning more of which I did not welcome there so, I returned to America trying to make it an even better place.
However, It was upon that additional rude awakening, I began realizing there was a lot more information I needed to learn from studies, observations, collections, research, analysis and operations plus a whole lot more, which would only come after more international experiences, field operational assignments, and keeping my eyes and ears open for bits and pieces of information leading me into more knowledgeability and understandings, which I’ve been publicly presenting through internet report publications since December 1998.
In 2002, I took on yet another government assignment ( this time in Eastern Europe ) where the first 90-days I remained primarily in seclusion working from my desk, afterwhich I ventured out to learn more about the meaning of life from within NATO war torn Third World recuperating nations, and after 4-years, for America’s people government, I returned in late 2006 to try making more people even-better aware of their precise positionings within an entire world that is really unfamiliar to mostly Americans.
By continuing my myriad of research and report topic publishings to-date my goals remain unchanged, from the ground to beneath the sea and above the skies beyond outer-space, always in best regards for all walks of life.
Shockingly, even upon my return in 2006 wherein America as I once was 20-years earlier, I remain being ground asunder while remaining here trying to help others better comprehend some of what I learned for nearly 50-years in the global information business of intelligence.
America’s Electoral Voting Process Basics –
According to the aforementioned rude awakening I underwent in college government class at 23-years old, American Presidential elections are not solely determined by people submitting voting ballots to their state district precincts, as introductorily explained decades ago by my professor.
Presidential elections are basically concluded through the ‘Electoral College’ process by which its ‘Electoral Members’ ( Electors ), whom ‘vary in numbers’ according to ‘their particular political party’ in-addition-to each individual state’s ‘Districting’ voting measures considering ‘voter demographics’ providing a ‘pre-selected number’ of ‘Electors’ whom, ‘submit their votes’ for the “Electoral College” vote tally process to finally determine ‘who’ becomes actually elected as ‘The President of the United States of America’.
Voting ballot measures, on ‘ReDistricting’ has a direct bearing on ‘how many ( more or less ) numbers of political party Electors shall be able to submit their individual votes’ within the Electoral College collective of Electors votes tallied determining who shall become the President of the United States of America.
Clear as mud, right?