For those of you who have been asking about our recent article on Bipartisan Chain of Custody Act and what you need to do to start questioning your election officials, this post contains correspondence and notes among our research team with Washington State election officials. You may find them useful in demanding to know how your elections are operating.

There are questions that we asked in our FOIA requests to Washington State and should definitely be asked of the Utah election board since they use Smartmatic machines and our researchers have found an association with the machines, Mitt Romney, George Soros, and Sir Lord George Mark Malloch-Brown.

Indictable Evidence: Foreign Interference in US Elections Since 2005

.

Is this how Mitt won the Utah 2018 primary? Is this how he plans on beating the Democrat contender Jenny Wilson in November 2018? Someone needs to get this intel to his challenger Mike Kennedy as well as to Wilson.

.

These are questions that our researchers asked the state of Washington. You could ask your state the same questions.

I have not received satisfactory or conclusive evidence that bipartisan chain of custody is possible using the Smartmatic election machines or electronic devices of any kind in WA state’s voting process. It is the ‘people’s’ responsibility to ensure unbroken bipartisan chain of custody, and each ‘voting citizen’ has the right under the Federal and the WA state constitution to know that this is true.

We are not stating that there is ‘voter fraud’, we are asking simply for proof that bipartisan chain of custody is in reality–not broken beyond a ‘shadow of doubt’. Any action taken, whereby the ‘tally’ or ‘counts’ of any voting procedure are ‘hidden’ from observation, which is ‘impossible’ when it is performed and transmitted by ‘electrons’ in a ‘digital form’ fails the test of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody observation as empirical evidence’.

At no time, can bipartisan chain of custody be subject to ‘FAITH’ , ‘law’, ‘vendor certification’, testing’ or any process’ that is ‘hidden from empirical observation’…when this is the basis for ‘certification’, it by logic, and physical law fails the test.

The will of the people cannot be subject ‘FAITH’ from government, the tally count must be ‘totally observable’ at all times, without failure. Electronic devices depend upon ‘failure modes’ or ‘statistical outcomes’ that depend upon ‘software programs’, ’embedded circuitry’, and ‘clean sine wave electricity’, which are ‘hidden from observation, and thus fail the test by default of logic of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody’.

Thus, the WA state election process fails by default to pass the test for certification. It is open to ‘man in the middle attacks’, and corruption. As such, the ‘will of the people’ can be circumvented by sophistication, technology, and conspiracy through electronic means. This is the underlying logic of my FOIA requests.

FOIA request questions:

1. specifically name the 3^rd party tester (and the actually testers themselves) and how that company and those people  are certified by a bipartisan chain of custody committee in WA?

2. When the memory stick is delivered to the county auditor by the vendor what ‘proof exists’, other than a ‘certification piece of paper’ that the ‘correct’ part number has been delivered?

3. Is the ‘memory stick, on which the tally at each county is entered and sent to the state, tested against an encrypted part number sent to the STATE and the AUDITOR by another communication channel such as certified mail to ensure that the proper ‘memory stick’ has been delivered to the auditor by comparison(a phone call recorded)?

4. What programs exist on the memory stick?

5. What circuits exist on the memory stick, and what circuits are ‘blue printed’ as the baseline as the ‘official circuits’, and how is this tested and reported as ‘clean’?

6. Are the ‘memory sticks’ impounded after the election, and are they available for inspection after the election and for how long, or is the evidence ‘erased’?

7. Is there a ‘micro-voltage’ activation ‘count’ embedded in the memory stick’s program, so that when it is received at the county auditor’s site, when ‘plugged in’ the count is visible to attest that it has not been reprogrammed during ‘transport’, by a ‘man in the middle’? (this would make the whole voting procedure a magic act as it exists)

8. Is each county auditor required to create a ‘bipartisan human hand tally’ as well as a PCOS/Smartmatic machine tally to audit each ‘tally count’ against each other, while preserving both tally counts as unbroken bipartisan chain of custody tallies?

Please provide the public records for these questions as a continuance of the original FOIA request as noted by your statement prior to closure. Thank you

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

These were the answers we received. The answer is highlighted in red. The note marked Note:## in blue is a side note from us.

First, thank you for reaching out to our office with you questions. I just want to make it clear that not Smartmatic voting system or equipment is not in use or certified for use in the State of Washington.

1. specifically name the 3^rd party tester (and the actually testers themselves) and how that company and those people  are certified by a bipartisan chain of custody committee in WA?

   a. Independent testing authorities (or commonly known as Voting System Testing Laboratories (VSTL)) are designated by the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

Note:## As stated, FAITH does not translate into ‘bipartisan chain of custody’. There is a total ‘cognitive dissonance’ working in the state’s collective mind; such that they refuse to answer this question with each round. 

2. When the memory stick is delivered to the county auditor by the vendor what ‘proof exists’, other than a ‘certification piece of paper’ that the ‘correct’ part number has been delivered?

a. County Auditors are required to do acceptance testing of their voting system prior to use as well as Logic and Accuracy Testing of the voting system prior to each election to ensure that the voting system, including hardware and software, is the certified voting system. Each voting system can produce a hash value that would correspond to the hash value provided by the Voting System Testing Laboratory. This hash value would show that the software in use has not been changed. (WAC 434-335-240 & RCW 29A.12.130). Logic and Accuracy tests are open to the public and election observers.

3. Is the ‘memory stick, on which the tally at each county is entered and sent to the state, tested against an encrypted part number sent to the STATE and the AUDITOR by another communication channel such as certified mail to ensure that the proper ‘memory stick’ has been delivered to the auditor by comparison(a phone call recorded)?

  a. If the ‘memory stick’ is part of the voting system, then yes that can be done. However, not all voting systems have ‘memory sticks’ as part of the voting system. Each County Auditor can choose the method they’d like to transfer election results from the tabulation system. For example, some counties use one-write media like CDs or DVDs and some use election specific USB drives that are formatted prior to use. In either case, they are secured before and after the election.

4. What programs exist on the memory stick?

a. None. They are only used to transfer files in some counties depending on the voting system and procedures in place for that county.

5. What circuits exist on the memory stick, and what circuits are ‘blue printed’ as the baseline as the ‘official circuits’, and how is this tested and reported as ‘clean’?

Note:## The county auditor lied to me. She specifically stated that the ‘state’ sends the memory stick and it is not up to them to choose the media on which they transfer information to the state! 

       a. This would be county specific based on the ‘memory sticks’  in use for the voting system and procedures in place for that county.

6. Are the ‘memory sticks’ impounded after the election, and are they available for inspection after the election and for how long, or is the evidence ‘erased’?

  a. This is county specific depending on the voting system and procedures in place for that county because not all counties use the same voting system and not all use ‘memory sticks’. All documents related to the election have a retention and must be retained for their entire retention period. (https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/archives/county-auditor-rrs-ver-5.0.pdf)

7. Is there a ‘micro-voltage’ activation ‘count’ embedded in the memory stick’s program, so that when it is received at the county auditor’s site, when ‘plugged in’ the count is visible to attest that it has not been reprogrammed during ‘transport’, by a ‘man in the middle’? (this would make the whole voting procedure a magic act as it exists)

a. Election Results are verified using a paper copy of the results. When results are transported from the tabulation equipment to be uploaded to the state, a paper copy of the results is used to verify the results are appearing accurately. Additionally, that same paper copy is provided to the state to ensure that after the results were uploaded they match the physical copy of the results. There are several methods and opportunities, as stated in our previous response, for auditing during the election canvassing to ensure the tabulation equipment is accurate. 

NOTE##: Here is the problem: the count is still hidden. It does not matter how many tests are run prior to the ballots being entered, if the media is not ‘tested’. Also, if the media is sent by any method other than a bipartisan group of humans, bipartisan chain of custody is lost. There is no mention of a standard method. I guess each Auditor can choose!!!

8. Is each county auditor required to create a ‘bipartisan human hand tally’ as well as a PCOS/Smartmatic machine tally to audit each ‘tally count’ against each other, while preserving both tally counts as unbroken bipartisan chain of custody tallies?

a. Smartmatic voting systems are not certified or used in the State of Washington.

NOTE##: He didn’t answer the question. He simply stated that Smartmatic is not used. However, another machine is used, but they do not volunteer that information. 

Answers in red given by

Stuart Holmes| Voting Information Systems Manager

Office of the Secretary of State

(360) 725-5794 | www.vote.wa.gov

.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

Four questions we asked from Washington State Records/Public Disclosure Officer as a FOIA request and her answers back to us.

Below is information provided by our Elections Division.

1. How do you ensure bi-partisan ‘chain of custody’ on any electronic device that sits between the voter and the ‘county/city/special district’ for local elections, and the ‘state’ for state elections, and the ‘federal election’ for federal positions?

To answer your question, I’m interpreting “electronic device” as an in-person ballot marking system that retains an electronic voting record of each vote cast, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, and the county’s voting system that tabulates returned ballots.

Before any voting system can be used in the State of Washington it first must be tested and certified by an independent testing authority designated by the United States election assistance commission as well as inspected and tested by the Secretary of State’s Office (RCW 29A.12.080). During the Secretary of State’s inspection of the voting system we ensure it meets our requirements for all voting systems (WAC 434-335-040) which include “Secures to the voter secrecy in the act of voting” and “Be capable of being secured with lock and seal when not in use”.

The Secretary of State’s Office requires the use of secure storage which must employ the use of numbered seals and logs, or other security measures which will detect any inappropriate or unauthorized access to the secured ballot materials and must be accompanied by at least two county auditor staff at all times. (WAC 434-261-045, WAC 434-250-110 & RCW 29A.40.110). The seal logs or other measures used by every county document the chain of custody for who accessed the secured ballots which includes electronic voting devices that retain electronic voting records. However, part of our state certification requirements of any voting system is that the voting device must produce a voter verifiable paper ballot.

Additionally, observers may be present during the processing of ballots because the entire process is open to the public.

2. How do you ensure that the ‘electronic devices’ are monitored by ‘bipartisan’ citizens, trained to monitor the ballot tally totals?

Prior to each election, the County Auditor must request observers be appointed by the major political parties to be present during the processing of ballots. Campaigns or organizations may also be requested to appoint observers. The County Auditor can train observers with respect to ballot processing procedures and the vote tallying system (RCW 29A.40.100 & WAC 434-261-020)

3. do you ensure the bipartisan election monitors/judges can affirmatively verify that each vote is entered, reported, and tallied without intervention by unseen software modules whose operations do not appear to be empirically observable?

Prior to certification of the election the County Auditor must audit of results of votes cast on any direct recording electronic voting devices used in the county, if applicable, a random check of the ballot counting equipment, and an audit of duplicated ballots.

In 2019, Risk Limiting Audits will become an option for counties to use to audit their voting equipment. Rules for conducting a Risk Limiting Audit will be in place no later than January 1, 2019. Risk Limiting Audits provide statistical evidence and confidence that the count was accurate while keeping the resources needed by the county to as little as possible.

4. I request the ‘public records’ that prove the above questions regarding the usage of all ‘electronic devices’ used in the voting process…all stages where ‘datum’ is processing in any manner by non-humans, as part of the voting procedure that results in a ‘summation’, ‘addition’, ‘subtraction’, ‘tally’, ‘vote count’ as an ‘official’ record of the voting process. 

If you’re interested in the chain of custody logs, observer procedures, audit procedures, or specific documents about the use of the voting system you’d need to request those documents from the County Auditor because the Secretary of State’s Office does not process any ballots, conduct tabulation, or operate a voting system.

If you’re interested in the Election Assistance Commission testing and certification of the voting systems, those test reports and certifications are available here: https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/system-certification-process-s/

We also have information about the system in use in Washington on our website here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/voting-system-testing-and-certification.aspx

I trust you will find this information useful.  If you have any further questions, please let me know.  Otherwise, I am closing this request today.

Regards,

Brenda Galarza

Records/Public Disclosure Officer

PO Box 40224 | Olympia, WA  98504-0224

360-704-5220 Phone | 360-704-7830 Fax

brenda.galarza@sos.wa.gov

 .

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

Notes from our research team as we were analyzing these comments from Washington State officials in the above correspondences:

This only assumes that the hash value created didn’t change. That doesn’t address the integrity of the underlying software program. If the embedded backdoor program is burned on the firmware, hardware or operating system, then this hash value is not useful. This does not address the problems of lack of VISUAL verification.

These procedures do not address bipartisan chain of custody. They force the chain of custody to accept all this integrity testing in faith.

In fact, this process forces the election judges to LIE when they certify the vote (since they CANNOT know if the underlying software is counting properly). It forces them to break the law.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

I will wait for tomorrow for today’s results. I’m ‘cc’ing all state elected on these request, and two newspapers. I’m trying to call as much attention to this as possible. The only way this will change is to start an ‘Initiative’, which in WA state is the only way the people can really change anything. I am speaking with a person who knows the process. As Levoy Finicum stated, “Its time to stand up against tyranny”.

 

Tested or not does not absolve the bipartisan chain of custody certifiers  from empirically counting themselves. If they don’t, their certification is fraudulent…. a lie by 100% of the certifiers!!! They’re called the election judges in my state.

.

The state says that Smartmatic machines are not used in WA state.

WRONG!

.

Important update (June 30, 2018)

Look what Mitt Romney has invested in:

Hart IinterCivic Group Board of Directors and Ownership

In July 2011, Hart received what Hart described as “a strategic investment” from H.I.G. Capital,^[5] in a transaction that Hart’s advisors called an “acquisition.”^[6]

As of October 2012, the Board has five members: Gregg Burt, Chairman; Phillip Braithwaite, Chief Executive Officer; Neil Tuch, Managing Director, H.I.G. Capital; Jeff Bohl, Principal, H.I.G. Capital; and Amanda Kalin, Associate, H.I.G. Capital.^[7] HIG controls 3 out of 5 board seats.

Two of the H.I.G. Directors that work for H.I.G., Neil Tuch and Jeff Bohl, have previously made contributions to presidential campaigns – Neil Tuch contributed to both the Obama and Romney campaigns prior to H.I.G.’s investment in Hart InterCivic, and Jeff Bohl contributed to the Romney campaign in 2011.^[8] As of October 2012, H.I.G. is the 11th largest of all the contributors to the Romney effort.^[9]

H.I.G. counts Solamere Capital as a minor investor in one of its funds.^[8] Solamere Capital is an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney‘s, son, Tagg Romney, and Spencer Zwick, Mitt Romney’s campaign finance chair^[10] and in which Mitt Romney’s brother, Scott, and Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, and Mitt Romney himself has invested, and which is run by Tagg Romney.^[9] Solamere is not invested in the specific H.I.G. fund that has an investment in Hart InterCivic.^[8]

Mitt Romney is right in the middle of the investment capital groups for Hart InterCivic voting machines, the ones used in Utah where he just won.

.

Mitt violated ethics laws by not disclosing these relationships.

.

Court Fight Between Smartmatic and Sequoia over Proposed Hart InterCivic Take-over of Sequoia Reveals Smartmatic Ownership of VoteCounting Software in Sequoia Voting Machines Smartmatic’s ownership of the voting-counting software in Sequoia voting machines came to light in litigation over an offer by Hart InterCivic to “purchase the outstanding loan and earn-out provision agreement that Sequoia Voting Systems maintains with its former parent company,” Smartmatic.

Counsel for Hart InterCivic represented in court that Smartmatic still owned the software used in Sequoia voting machines and would license that software to Hart InterCivic upon its take-over of Sequoia. According to the court, counsel for Hart InterCivic declared that “Sequoia currently uses [Smartmatic’s] intellectual property [currently found in Sequoia’s machines] pursuant to certain license agreements.”

So, WA state lied indirectly. They stated that Smartmatic machines are not used in WA state….however, the ‘software used by Sequoia solutions, has been licenses to Hart Intercivic….which is what WA uses. So, it is not a direct lie, but it is an obfuscation of a very controversial truth.

SequoiaSmartmaticReport61208

SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS, INC. USES VOTE-COUNTING SOFTWARE DEVELOPED, OWNED, AND LICENSED BY FOREIGN-OWNED SMARTMATIC, A COMPANY LINKED TO THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT OF HUGO CHÁVEZ

.

https://www.accesswire.com/471912/Voting-Technology-Companies-in-the-US–Their-Histories-and-Present-Contributions

A major scandal associated with Hart InterCivic are the reports in 2014 that announced the potential bias and link between Hart InterCivic employees and Mitt Romney. As mentioned above, Hart InterCivic was acquired by H.I.G. Capital, making most of Hart’s board of directors H.I.G. employees. H.I.G. was founded by Tony Tamer, a former employee of Mitt Romney. 21 of the 22 H.I.G. American citizens donated to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

A majority of the Romney supporters on the Hart board of directors were proven to be directly associated with Bain, which fundraised money for Romney. The Hart InterCivic voting machines were in use in key states, such as Colorado and Ohio, and had experienced failures in previous elections. This created a fear that the company would rig future election results in Romney’s favor. The claims against Hart InterCivic refueled the conversation about the 2003 Diebold controversy. The public associated Hart’s potential partisan bias with that of Diebold’s CEO’s public support of the Bush administration

.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/the-black-box-voting-mach_b_8082384.html

“Private companies like ES&S, Dominion (previously of Diebold or Sequoia), Smartmatic, and Hart Intercivic make most of the electronic voting machines. Three of five board members at Hart Intercivic are board members at HIG Capital, a global private equity firm that made a significant investment in the voting machine company.

The Washington Post reported “HIG employees as a whole have donated $338,000 to the Romney campaign this year, according to Open Secrets.” Hart supplied the electronic voting machines that were used in the 2012 elections in precincts in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Colorado and many other states.”

Odd…some sources say Smartmatic, others say Hart Intercivic…however they all have relationships with HIG Capital. I think all roads may lead to London eventually..!

.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/utah-county-reverses-paths-announces-election-will-be-vote-by/article_b1503906-d705-5b31-9934-75cf0f1f6ac8.html

This article says that Utah will vote by ‘mail’ for 2018. It does not say how the ballots are tabulated. All articles focus on the ‘ballot process’, and never discuss the machines. As we know this is where the ‘magic’ happens. So this election cycle, they used their ‘old machines’ which I think are the old Smartmatic/Hart InterCivic software combo, but I can’t find proof yet. I think they use the same as WA state….which is a failure to disclose by Mitt, and surely should invalidate his victory. Who is going to break the news to his opponents? Did another Republican run?

.

I’m sorry guys, the info is changing by the hour. Now Utah has place voting machines in all of the polling places.  This is an instructional video.

https://vote.utah.gov/vote/menu/voter-machine-demo.html

.

https://www.accesswire.com/471912/Voting-Technology-Companies-in-the-US–Their-Histories-and-Present-Contributions

ES&S, the voting machines used in UTAH 2018, is actually Diebold software. It seems to be a hybrid of Premier, Diebold, and Dominion. In every instance, for voting, there are investors tied directly to either Lord Brown or Rothschild…thus the Queen…this is for all voting machines. Between ES&S and Smartmatic’s software, 99% of all voting machines are under some investment control that can be traced back to the Queen for all of the world.

What total effect this has, is unknown. However, I do not want my vote counted by ‘any machine’ let alone a machine tied to the Crown that uses reprocessed software passed on through licenses to all of the voting machine companies. Paper ballots and CCTV cameras are the only way to vote. Give me a purple thumb!

ES&S was formed in 1997 by a merger of Omaha based American Information Systems (AIS) and Dallas based Business Records Corp. (BRC). BRC was partially owned by Cronus Industries, a company with connections to the Hunt brothers from Texas, as well as other individuals and entities, including Rothschild, Inc.

https://rense.com/general32/secert.htm

In 2010, Dominion Voting Systems acquired Premier Election Solutions, Inc., once owned by Diebold and then an owned subsidiary of Election Systems and Software (ES&S). With this acquirement, Dominion Voting Systems gained ownership of all of Premier’s intellectual property, software, firmware, and hardware. To understand the controversy that stemmed from this purchase, we must look at the history of a previous owner of Premier.

.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

Smartmatic Announces Cease of Operations in Venezuela

Mar 7 18

Smartmatic announced that after 15 years of service and 14 elections assisted providing a secure and auditable voting system, Smartmatic closed its offices and ceased operations in Venezuela. The reasons for the closure are widely known. In August of 2017, after the elections to the National Constituency Assembly, Smartmatic publicly stated that the National Elections Council had announced results that were different from those reflected by the voting system. This episode led to an immediate rupture of the client-provider relationship.

National elections Council provided a different tally than the machines….so Smartmatic picked up and left the country! Mot likely before the hangman arrived.

.

Clear Ballot, founded by former Lotus Development executive Larry Moore, provided vote-counting audits in the state of Maryland and several counties in Florida during the 2016 presidential election. Now the technology in the process of being certified at the national level. Clear Ballot also announced a deal with King County in Washington, which includes Seattle, where 1.2 million voters will have their ballots counted by the company’s tech.

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/07/11/boston-election-startup-raises-18m-from-fidelitys.html

Here’s a ‘red flag’ already. Clear Ballot was started by Lotus Notes executive Larry Moore.

.

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/premier-diebold/accuvote-tsx/

What a nightmare this voting machine is from a security perspective. There is no end to how easy it would be to hack this puppy.

.

We are starting to see a pattern develop with all of these elections machines. The more they are used, the more the globalist’s hand picked agents are elected.  All through Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, and most notably, Chicago was the first to adopt and guess who benefitted ….’Obummer’ as Senator. Just in time. If our assumption is true, Smartmatic, Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, Premier, and Dominion are all part of the same conspiracy…they all use basically the same network of people, investors, hardware and software. This may be a key to unlocking some historical issues.

. 

Acquisition and divestiture of Sequoia

In 2005, Smartmatic acquired Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the leading US companies in automated voting products^[144] from the British company De La Rue.^[14] One of the owners of De La Rue, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, “had strong ties with Venezuela” and advised British Petroleum.^[14] Greenstock had also worked beside future board member of Smartmatic, Lord Malloch-Brown.^[145][146]

Following this acquisition, U.S. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney requested an investigation to determine whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee of the United States Department of the Treasury that reviews whether companies in the United States are being controlled by foreign individuals, had followed correct processes to green-light sale of Sequoia to Smartmatic, which was described as having “possible ties to the Venezuelan government”.^[147]

The investigation was prompted after a March 2006 electoral fiasco in Chicago and Cook County, where a percentage of the machines involved were manufactured by Sequoia, and Sequoia provided technical assistance, some by a number of Venezuelan nationals flown in for the event.^[148] According to Sequoia, the tabulation problems were due to human error, as a post-election check identified only three mechanical problems in 1000 machines checked.^[148] Election officials blamed poor training.^[149] Some problems with the election were later blamed on a software component, developed in Venezuela, for transmitting the voting results to a central computer.^[36]

After initially cooperating with the CFIUS investigation in October 2006, particularly to clarify the company’s ownership,^[150] Smartmatic withdrew in December 2006 and sold Sequoia without sharing who may have been involved in the company.^[151]

.

http://infodio.com/content/smartmatic-revisited

Smartmatic is Sequoia and Hart InterCivic is Sequoia. Hart InterCivic simply agreed to not compete with Smartmatic in Latin America, the Philippines, and Belgium. In a convoluted licensing agreement, it appears that Hart InterCivic, the predominant WA state voting machine provide, is Smartmatic in everything but name. WA state directly told me that Smartmatic is not used in WA state.

 

This is sick..President Carter is an investor in Smartmatic through the Carter Center…the sole subcontractor for the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), which visited Venezuela multiple times with IFES to review and make recommendations for the Venezuelan government. Guess who won the next election….CHAVEZ!

 The USAID, IFES, Carter Center, CNE and Smartmatic connection

In June 1998, the National Electoral Council (CNE) of Venezuela contracted the International Foundation for Election Systems IFES to renew and make recommendations regarding proposals for an automated voting system in Venezuela [21, page 27]. IFES has been awarded (award number AEP-I-00-00-00007-00) [link], an “indefinite quantity contract” (IQC) by USAID with the following purpose:

“To support the transition to, and consolidation of, democratic governments through which citizens choose their leaders and participate in all levels of political decision-making, particularly in transition and sustainable development countries” [22, page 30].

According to Carter Center’s America’s Programme director Jennifer McCoy “President Carter had traveled several times to Venezuela, including monitoring the 1998 and 2000 elections, and he and President Chavez built avery good personal relationship” [23]. Such warm relationship may have come about due to the fact that the Carter Center is the sole subcontractor of IFES for the aforementioned purpose.

.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

What’s Up With All of This Election Fraud?

This is what we’ve created to date. There are more companies being formed. The research is exhausting, in terms of complexity. The trend is to form a company, develop, spin off into an investment group, rename, re-license, and form again with new directors and stockholders. Then do it again, purchasing the same tech under a new name from a spinoff. New name, same tech, new hardware, new money from new investors…spin again, until caught…run, hide, spin, start all over again.

We will continue to diagram the history. An entire new set of diagrams can be created just with the investment groups. This would complete the picture.

In the meantime, there are new companies that are trying to make voting secure with jpegs, separate validations, etc. on separate machines. However, no tech of any kind can maintain the ‘multi-party chain of custody’, as the human eye cannot perceive silicon circuits, software induced voltages, and that which is hidden from empirical observation. We can only ‘trust’ the process and the people.

This flies in the face of the entire concept of a Republic, which was formed on the concept that ‘authority’, being given from the ‘power of the people’, who gain it directly from ‘God’, must be ‘separated’ with ‘jurisdictional boundaries’, so that the ‘tendency of man’, with ‘too much authority to ‘oppress’ can be muted by that separation. Centralizing the voting process so that the ‘Fake News’ can report a sensationalized and profitable result is pure idiocy.

We the People, do not have to trust government, and should not. We must insist at all times, under all circumstances, the dual-Federalism is maintained, and the job of the people is to ensure that the ‘boundaries’ are maintained. We must all be mechanics of the Republic.

This message of voter fraud by electronics, must be given to the POTUS ASAP.

WA state systems:

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/voting-systems-by-county.aspx

.

.

.

.