Patriots, please call, email or even show up to rally support for the Otero County, New Mexico county commissioners. Please let them know what they are doing is important, heroic, patriotic and they have the peoples’ support:

Gerald Matherly
(575) 491-4863
[email protected]

Couy Griffin
(575) 415-5782
[email protected]

Vickie Marquardt
(575) 491-3359
[email protected]

Offices:
1101 New York Avenue
Alamogordo, New Mexico 88310

More thoughts on Dr. D's Declaration - CVR data analysis

(Please read this post to get up to speed.)

Dr. D. points out an interesting fact:

"44. Note that this same type of manipulation occurred both in Pima County, Arizona, which used ES&S voting machines (as did most other counties in Arizona), and also in Maricopa County, Arizona, which used Dominion voting machines (as did 23 other states), indicating that the same (or similar) software was responsible."

It is also worth noting that the CVR data plots in Washington state look very similar to the plots shown in Dr. D's declaration. (From all the CVR data we have looked at across the nation, the Washington CVR plots looks the closest to the Arizona CVR plots. 😳)

Yes, even Clallam County, which comes at no surprise because even the "high level results summary" clearly suggest the data was manipulated. (That means Biden did not win even one bellwether county 😱).

Slowly but surely we are categorizing plots and data results in order to build a network of states and counties that show similar manipulation patterns.

Washington has CVR patterns that are very similar to Arizona. (And WA has timestamps to go with it!).

Hawaii has similar voter roll registration patterns to New Mexico.

Hawaii refuses to hand over their CVR data...

Would be interesting to see if the CVR patterns in the largest New Mexico counties look like Maricopa and Pima County AZ. (Yes, Bernalillo County, we are looking at you 👀).

The CVR data is confirming the conclusions we derived from the "high level election results analysis", so even if we are not able to obtain the CVR data we know we can rely on our other approaches to identify fraud.

The fraud is slightly different in different states. Some states rely more on ballot stuffing, others on tabulator "human errors" (as in Antrim and Dekalb County, which never get detected unless someone blows the whistle). Most use a combination of both, as well as a few other (important) techniques. (One of which is discussed by Jeff O'Donnell here.)

The patterns we can extract from the CVR data give us a good idea of which rigging methods are used in different counties across the nation.

# Reference:

- Dr. D's declaration

- CVR video presentation by Dr. Daugherity and Cindy Butler

- Accompanying reports: Report 1 and Report 2

———

(We will be discussing CVR data in a lot more detail in the coming weeks.)

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Fixed it.

The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages 🔎

👉 Debunking absurdities.

Remember the "Dekalb County, GA - Hand Recount vs Machine Count" post?

(If you missed it please click on the link above to read it carefully.)

The hand recount in Dekalb County, shows us what a normal election should look like.

The percentage vote for a given candidate should be roughly the same between all voting methods if the pool of voters within each category is random.

For Dekalb county the numbers are as follow. (We will list absentee, then early-voting followed by election-day for each candidate):

- Lauren Alexander: 25% | 28% | 33%
- Marshall Orson: 33% | 29% | 22%
- Michell Long Spears: 38% | 42% | 44%

The percentage vote for each candidate are roughly the same for each voting method.

If we now look at the original machine count we get the following percentages:

- Lauren Alexander: 26% | 22% | 40%
- Marshall Orson: 36% | 30% | 51%
- Michell Long Spears: 38% | 41% | 9%

⚠️ Notice how the election-day percentages (i.e. the last column) are very different to the other voting methods.

We know the machine count is wrong.

The key point here is that the hand recount shows us what a normal pattern looks like and it agrees with the law of large numbers.

Now that we know what a normal pattern looks like we can compare it to other election results.

Let's look at Maricopa County AZ, 2020 Presidential race.

# Maricopa County AZ, 2020 Presidential Race

We will list the percentage vote for early-voting followed by election-day.

- Trump: 48% | 63%
- Biden: 52% | 37%

There were more than 165,000 election-day votes. More than enough for the law of large numbers to apply.

It would be similar to conducting a poll with 165,000 participants. (In reality less than 1,000 is enough to get very accurate predictions form a truly random pool of voters).

The fact that the early voting percentages are vastly different to the election day voting percentage numbers is a complete violation of the law of large numbers.

🚨One of these voting methods is seriously manipulated!

Let's look at another example: Hawaii.

# Hawaii (State), 2020 Presidential Race

We will list the percentage vote for early-voting followed by election-day.

- Trump: 33% | 72%
- Biden: 67% | 28%

🤯 This is even worse than Maricopa County!

The Hawaii data can be downloaded from their official website here.

If you have the time and interest, please analyze all the races using this approach and post the results in the comments.

👉 Hawaii completely obliterates the law of large numbers. 😱

28,152 people voted on election day. More than enough for the law of large numbers to apply.

Even better: You can download ALL the summary results for Hawaii for all elections going back to 1992 here. If someone wants to do a detailed analysis, please let us know in the comments. We can provide some guidance. You won't be disappointed.

❓Does 2016 follow the law of large numbers?

———

Dekalb County GA, provided us with a "Rosetta stone" to identify voting patterns that indicate the results were manipulated (whether intentionally or by "human error" 😉).

Everyone can use this information to double check the 2020 election results for their own state or county. (Let us know what you find in the comments).

We are just getting started... In the coming weeks we will go much deeper into analyzing CVR data.

———

Do not believe the absurdities the main stream media peddles. Anyone telling you the law of large numbers does not apply to Maricopa or Hawaii don't know what they are talking about.

⚠️ We will make this abundantly clear in the coming weeks.

This information alone should be enough to decertify the 2020 election results and cause every County Commissioners around the nation to pause and verify their own 2020 results. If the percentage votes between voting methods for a given candidate are vastly different, it violates the law of large numbers, and the results should be decertified. It really is that simple.

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Pleads Guilty to Election Fraud Charges | US Attorney, Eastern District of PA | Jun 6, 2022

Democrat Congressman Michael "Ozzie" Myers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deprive voters of civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsification of voting records, and conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election, and for orchestrating schemes to fraudulently stuff the ballot boxes for specific Democrat candidates in the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Pennsylvania elections.

The only reason this particular ring didn't defraud the 2020 election was because they were busted just prior to it. But the pattern of operations has likely continued, if not vastly expanded, since then.

"After receiving payments ranging from between $300 to $5,000 per election from Myers, Demuro would add fraudulent votes on the voting machine – also known as “ringing up” votes – for Myers’ clients and preferred candidates, thereby diluting the value of ballots cast by actual voters. At Myers’ direction, Demuro would add these fraudulent votes to the totals during Election Day, and then would later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate. Myers is also accused of directing Demuro to lie to investigators about the circumstances of the bribes and the ballot-stuffing scheme."

Read | Official Press Release
Watch | Epoch Times' Facts Matter: 2 Election Judges Plead Guilty to Ballot Fraud, Accepting Bribes to Certify False Results (10min clip)
Hat Tip | @SomeB**chIKnow

@ElectionFraud20_org

The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law

This is a continuation from "The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages 🔎"

We wanted to clarify:

The election results for a county or state that violate the law of large numbers should immediately be decertified. A violation of this law clearly demonstrates the results were manipulated.

However, if a county or state does NOT violate the law of large numbers, it doe not mean their is no manipulation. It just means more investigation needs to be done.

The good news is, most fraudulent counties and states will violate this law because it takes a lot of coordination to get all the voting methods for all candidates within a race to agree with the law.

The beautiful thing about this law is that fair and free elections (that are normally random) naturally obey this law. That is why it is a law!

# Analogy

The law of large numbers is as true, repeatable and verifiable as the law of gravity.

If someone was to tell you that they can jump off a plane and safely land on the ground, using only their arms (no parachute or other equipment), you would know that it is absurd. It would violate the law of gravity. No human can survive jumping off a plane, without any assistance and safely land on solid ground.

We know this assertion is absurd.

⚠️ The law of large numbers can equally be used with as much certainty to verify election results claims.

If election results do not respect the law of large numbers they must be immediately decertified. It really is as simple as that. It is a law for a reason!

———

Some people may not fully grasp why this is so clear cut, but they can easily check these assertions for themselves by analyzing historical election results for their state or county.

Most election cycles will have results that conform with the law. Those that don't were manipulated (including 2020).

# Assumptions

There is one critical assumption that applies to this law. It is:

- The pool of voters for each election method must be reasonably large and random

In most counties and states this assumption holds true, despite the media's best efforts of convincing the masses that Republicans are more likely to vote in person, on election day than Democrats, which is not true.

It actually begs the question: How did they know which lies to perpetrate ahead of time to discredit the law of large numbers? 🤔

# Summary

County Commissioners can rely on the law of large numbers to check the 2020 election results and decertify them if they violate the law.

They can also do this for the 2022 primary results and every future election.

It really is that simple.

If you jump off a plane with no safety equipment, you will die on impact (if you weren't already dead before then.)

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Hold the line.

On the Otero County Commission’s decision to withhold certification.

“[Commissioner] Griffin said “his position hasn’t changed since Monday.”

“Whenever I call in my vote, it is going to remain the same and that is going to be a ‘No’ on the certification,” he said.

“[Commissioner] Marquardt, who during the June 13 meeting said she does not trust the machines, said her opposition to certification had nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election, but with if irregularities occurred in last week’s primaries. She cites a race for a then-District 2 seat on the commission where two candidates in the Republican primary are separated by only 11 votes and that three of those votes came from places where there once were homes but are now vacant lots.”

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/otero-county-commissioners-schedule-second-vote-on-election-certification/

IMPORTANT POLARIS UPDATE: If you have applied and not gotten an email, or have forgotten your username or password, use the new "Forgot Password" link under the login information. You will be emailed a link to fix you up. If you don't see the email PLEASE CHECK YOUR SPAM/JUNK FOLDER!

A REMINDER - if you have received or will request a CVR from a county using ES&S PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make another public records request for the "Batch Manifest Report" report which might be called the "Tabulator Batch Report". We have less than 3 months to grab this data before it becomes cosmic confetti. But every bit we get will live forever.

The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1)

This is a continuation from:

- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law

Some people have correctly pointed out that applying the law of large numbers to "voting method percentages" will not result in all percentages being roughly the same for a given candidate if one party is more likely to favor a voting method than another.

Concretely, we have been repeatedly told (cough ... lied to) by the legacy media that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail than in person, on election day. (Most people accept this at face value.)

Our contention is that this is an absurdity.

This post is dedicated to debunking this absurdity, but bear in mind this absurdity has been so effectively used for decades that it comes with its fair share of cognitive dissonance.

- First we need to understand that mail-in voting has been the preferred method for rigging elections for decades. (Please make sure to read the full NYP Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots article.)

- Secondly, the argument that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail is a logical "circular reasoning" fallacy.

It is SO convenient that Democrats prefer voting by mail, when it also happens to be the easiest way to rig an election.

A bad actor could inflate the voter rolls with fake registrants that are affiliated with the Democrat party and manipulate the data to show they voted by mail. (Seriously, how else are they going to vote? 🤷‍♂️)

The same lie will keep being perpetrated over and over again, and no one would know any different.

The fact that it violates the law of large numbers doesn't matter. People have been conditioned to believe this is true and they will never challenge it.

We want to break this vicious cycle and challenge it.

# Counter Arguments

- Does a Democrat who decides to switch affiliation to the Republican party all of a sudden stop voting by mail?

- What about a Republican who switches affiliation and always voted in-person. Do they now decide to vote by mail?

At a physiological level, what are the scientific reasons a Democrat is more likely to vote by mail? (We need better answers than "the media told us so", or "the voter rolls tell us so").

———

The following post will look at some concrete examples.

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 2 - Examples)

(This is a continuation from The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1))

# Examples

## Hawaii 2016 Presidential Race Results

Here are the percentages for Trump and Clinton for each voting method (Absentee Mail, Absentee Walk-in, Election-Day):

Clinton: 71% | 68% | 64%
Trump: 29% | 32% | 36%

Yes it appears the absentee mail percentage vote for the Democrat candidate is higher than the election dat percentage vote.

However:

1 - How do we know for sure that there were no fake mail-in absentee votes?

2 - The gap is relatively small (7%)

3- There were actually more Democrat "walk-in" votes than "mail-ins." (145,710 compared to 121,181 respectively.) That kind of debunks the whole notion that Democrats overwhelmingly prefer voting by mail.

If we compare these percentages to the 2020 Results. A Republican who voted in person in 2016 was 4 times more likely to vote by mail in 2020, but a Democrat was 19 times more likely (!?). This doesn't make any sense. This does not even take into account the extra 100,000 Democrat mail-in votes in 2020. (😳)

## Collier County, FL

The results for the 2020 elections can be found on this webpage. (Please make sure to click on the "detailed" view, to see the votes by voting method for each candidate.)

The results are (By Mail, Early Vote, Election Day)

Trump: 52% | 72% | 74%
Biden: 48% | 28% | 26%

The gap between mail-in and election day percentages for the Democrat candidate is 22%.

We saw that the gap between mail-in and election day percentage for the Democrat candidate in Hawaii during the 2016 elections was 7%. Why is there such a big difference when, arguably the Hawaiian population was even more Democrat in 2016 than the Collier population in 2020?

Let's look at this from another angle.

What if we applied the law of large numbers to Collier County and assume the mail-in votes for Biden amounted to 29% (which is still more than the other voting methods. This will keep the legacy media happy.)

So the mail-in percentage for Biden is still greater than the other voting methods, but when you do the maths, the Democrats potentially have 27,000 extra votes. (😱)

———

There is a lot more we can write about this topic but the post is already too long so will leave it at that for now. Feel free to comment and challenge in the comments.

# References:

- The Law of Large Number And Voting Method Percentages
- The Law Of Large Numbers Is a Natural Law
- The Law of Large Numbers - THE absurdity (Part 1)

———

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

BREAKING NEWS...Indiana First Action just served Indiana's Secretary of State with 44 Notices of Intent to File Against her Surety bond. First in the Nation SOS to be served. GOOO Hoosiers

Did you get your ballot adjudicating fix yet? How about looking at 10 ballots today? Do you have 5 minutes to do that? To make the leader board you need 450 now, it was 250 a few days ago. Let's go!

https://polarisrecount.com/

If you want to know where the fraud is, look into massive early voting periods, combined with lengthy mail-in periods.

It is ELECTION DAY, not ELECTION WEEKS or ELECTION MONTH.

Do not vote early.

https://t.iss.one/patriotpolitics/2599

Trump won Election Day voting in Hawaii 72/28 considering D and R votes only.

Lost early voting and mail 2 to 1.

It’s pretty simple.

Mail and early voting. Get rid of those, you win.

FYI: YUMA
Total votes: 70,594
Election Day: 9,485
Early Votes: 59,895
—> of which 53,779 were mail-ins
Provisional: 1,214

https://t.iss.one/behizy/3311

"Mail-ins" = "Fraud". Period.

Reference: FYI: YUMA by Captain K.

———
My shortest post yet 😉

KN for @ElectionFraud20_org

Williamson County, Tennessee - EAC Report - Part 1

The report is for the municipal election held on October 26, 2021 and can be found on the EAC website here.

Doug Logan does an excellent job of reviewing this report in this video.

There are striking parallels between this report, Halderman's Antrim County report and what happened in Dekalb County, GA.

Here are quotes from the official EAC report followed by our comments:

> Close poll reports from 7 of the 18 ICP tabulators used during the election did not match the number of ballots scanned

The same thing happened in Dekalb County.

How is it possible that the problem only occurs on some tabulators and not all of them?

Why weren't ALL the tabulators updated with the latest configuration files? This is starting to become a trend, almost as if it is intentional... And it is starting to make a lot of sense:

- Mixing good tabulators with bad tabulators makes discovering the error (cough... manipulation) harder

- Before each election cycle a few more tabulators can be "fixed" to gradually change the voting patterns within a county so no one notices.

- Most importantly, they can always blame "human error" and provide a "possible deniable" explanation.

> The central count tabulation was confirmed via hand count of the paper ballot records

If we keep falling back on hand counting to double check the tabulators, why are we using the tabulators at all?

They keep tacitly confirming that hand counting is the most reliable counting method.

> It was discovered that the system was installed with outdated versions of two configuration files when the system was upgraded from D-Suite 5.5 to D-Suite 5.5-B in January of 2021

The version of the configuration files seems to be a major problem in Antrim and Dekalb as well.

⚠️The ballot paper should clearly display (and encode) the version of the configuration files. The tabulator would then check the version on the ballot matches its own internal version before analyzing the ballot image.

The CVR files should also contain the configuration version used by the tabulator, so that when the data is uploaded to the EMS, a check can be made to ensure the version of the configuration files used in the tabulator match the version used in the EMS. (This would have completely prevented the Antrim County miscount).

This is really basic "checks" that are trivial to implement. The fact that Dominion does not perform these checks borders on professional negligence (to put it mildly).

It's pretty obvious why these checks are not performed. We will let you guess why.

> This election definition was imported into the D-Suite 5.5-B system from a definition originally created on the D-Suite 5.5 system.

Think about this for second in terms of timeline. The county is right in the middle of preparing for an election.

Do you really think it makes sense that a county would upgrade their election software when they are right in the middle of preparing for an election?

Regardless, why doesn't Dominion make election definition files produced by an older version of the software incompatible with a newer version, if that is truly the case? Again, that would be trivial to implement.

> Results showed that the anomaly was recreated on each of
the ICP scanners.

This clearly indicates some tabulators were updated with the new configuration files and others were NOT. Why?

How is it possible to miss some tabulators? (i.e. 11 were missed out of 18).

You only have ONE job to do... and you still can't get it right? ... Or is it intentional?

> indicating a QR code misread occurred.

Doug goes into this in great detail in his video. You can't misread a QR code. Either you can read it in full or you can not read it at all. There is no middle ground.

(Cont'd in part 2)