Normally, we strategize elections based on the assumption that all participants will follow the law. Thanks to many revelations in recent years, Americans are aware that election laws are routinely violated.
In past years, the solution was simple: let law enforcement deal with it. Now, we know, or at least some of us believe, law enforcement cannot be trusted. The laws are there, but if ignored and unenforced, they cannot restrain fraudulent activity.
In Texas, something like this is happening at their border. People from other countries ignored immigration laws by crossing the US border at locations that were not official entrypoints. On the US side, the federal government forced border patrol agents to allow the illegal entry of these persons, though it violated laws related to national sovereignty.
Texas Governor Abbott tried to solve the problem by bringing in the Texas National Guard to police the border. The solution appears to have mitigated the problem, but only slightly. Abbott didn’t try to sue the federal government for ignoring the law, he ordered the national guard to defy federal orders because the federal government was itself violating the law. After he did it, the federal government filed suit against Texas (and lost).
Something like this may be needed with elections as well, though the weak success of Abbott’s strategy isn’t encouraging. Apparently, when the federal government decides to violate its own laws, and has the UN cooperating to violate our national borders, it’s difficult to stem the tide even if willing to defy the federal government.
However, our states do have the power to do this. They are sovereign also. Depending on how far Abbott wants to push things, he could forcibly eject any person who attempts to interfere with his border control efforts, regardless whether they work for the government, such as border control agents. He could also close down all migrant processing facilities and deport all foreign nationals, even if they had been granted amnesty if that amnesty was granted without proper authority.
Our elections suffer from a very similar problem: a federal government that seems determined to violate federal and state election laws combined with many collaborators who violate those laws and officials who refuse to investigate or prosecute the crimes. Instead, they persecute people who notice the crimes and ask for investigations.
So, where is our Governor Abbott, and how do we fix our elections so that we can trust them again?
The ideas I’ve heard tend to focus on ways to prove that fraud occurred, if it occurs. This is a retrospective way of dealing with election fraud because it requires the crime first be committed before any action is taken. This is like getting the evidence needed to deport an illegal alien instead of simply preventing entry in the first place. Given how difficult deportation has proven to be, it seems simpler to prevent entry than to try and remove the people after they get here. It should also be less expensive.
My position on this is that it is fine to prepare for the possibility of fraud and to collect evidence if it occurs. However, I do not see that as a workable solution to the problems we face with elections. We need to prospectively prevent fraud so that it doesn’t happen.
Our laws are supposed to do that for us, but fraudsters ignore them. They know law enforcement won’t do anything about it because their superiors mysteriously seem to desire widespread election fraud. Therefore, we should expect two things: 1) fraud will happen, and 2) we won’t be able to remedy it after it happens.
This means that the only option is to prevent the fraud before it happens. This is difficult, at least based on the ideas I’ve heard, because the easiest access point is in person voting. It is at the polls when observers can most easily and legally challenge any irregularities. This can be done on the spot to halt any ongoing fraud.
The reason this may prove ineffective is that the fraud may not take place at that level. Based on the evidence available to us, it appears more likely that the in person vote is largely (but not totally) honest. The large volume fraud seems to occur in the registration databases and vote counting processes. Both are done outside of the public eye.
There is no process for observing registrations as they are made, but they can be challenged before an election. I believe this should be done immediately in as many counties and states as possible. Every voter roll database I’ve looked at has problems. Some are severe, as in New York. Successful challenges should result in the total removal of registrations from the voter rolls. This includes challenging and removing purged records. As long as they remain in the database, the status can easily be changed to active and back again as often as needed. Getting rid of these records can strangle any attempt to stuff ballot boxes with digitally-generated fraudulent votes.
Second, unqualified votes might be counted. These can be either digitally added without a paper ballot to back them up, or based on a fraudulently-generated paper ballot. If based on a paper ballot, they can be caught by poll watchers who can challenge these on the spot and insist they not be counted. Any count that includes such ballots cannot be legally certified, and shouldn’t be, regardless of pressure from officials who want to ignore the law.
It is hard to know what to do with digitally inflated vote count totals. These are effectively invisible to challengers and voters alike. On this basis alone, digital tabulation tools should be illegal because they make audits impossible. If such machines can be removed from the process, fraud becomes more difficult. However, I consider them the least of the three fraud mechanisms described here, where the most dangerous are the voter rolls, then fraudulent paper ballots, and last, digitally-inflated vote counts.
Enter Mike Lindell
In an effort to proactively catch fraud at the polls, Mike Lindell/Cause of America/et al are urging voters, where they can, to request by-mail ballots and not open them or cast them—but rather bring the pristine envelope to your precinct on Election Day—sign in to vote and if you are told you already voted then show your un-cast ballot—take legal action in the moment with police or sheriff deputies present on scene, the voter claims identity theft??
Can the spotlight of truth scurry the roaches? Can the power of the Lawsuit deter or at least dampen the will of the usual suspects.
Will the beat go on in Pennsylvania. They stole it in 2020. They did again in 2022.
Enter Marly:
On Tuesday June 18, 2024, In The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania, United Sovereign Americans filed a Petition For Relief In The Form Of A Writ Of Mandamus.
Petitioners seek relief via the All Writs Act 28 U.S. Code § 1361 - an Action to compel an officer of the United States to Perform His/ Her Duty.
The purpose of this Petition is to stop them from stealing it again in Pennsylvania 2024.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/writ-of-mandamus-final.pdf
The people have Standing to bring this filing under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of The US Constitution—The Necessary and Proper Clause.
Through Article I, Congress passed HAVA, thereby making accurate voting systems a requirement in order to uphold the right of the people to choose their representatives.
Enter Hoopes and Stenstrom:
(And much more to come from these two)
In an effort to, perhaps, keep the machines in the warehouses or at least limit the damage they will do in 2024, they filed suit in US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The federal lawsuit, names Delaware County PA defendant.
https://cloud.patriot.online/s/zM7dwzREQLFJ447
Since this link appears to be broken or tampered with?? Here is some of that brief:
“Plaintiffs have been stripped of their fundamental Constitutional and Civil Rights.”
“Without secure-build validation/hash testing and post canvas activities, voting machine systems can be tampered with.”
“The Pennsylvania 25 P.S. Election Code § 1111 specifically states that the “custodian and deputy custodians of voting machines” are solely responsible for the certification of election machines and sworn attestation of certifications and testing that are provided to the state.”
“The Defendants (and other counties in Pennsylvania) (and the nation), have created political officer “Directors of Elections” and like fictional roles with no statutory authority for the purpose of subverting and violating federal and state election laws, Pennsylvania Act 77, unilateral adjudication of open public records laws for election records, and unlawfully conduct election machine certifications, logic and accuracy testing, and unlawfully sign attestations for the state.”
“Defendants’ selected Marianne Jackson as “Interim Director of Elections” to run the
November 2020 federal election in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, for $20,000 per month with full knowledge that Jackson had absolutely no experience in elections nor any other related experience. Jackson admitted as much, and stated her only experience in elections was as a voter.”
“Marianne Jackson’s role was administrative as evidenced by her not signing sworn attestation of certification and logic and accuracy testing in the November 2020 election.”
“Defendants then hired Director of Elections Allen shortly after the November 2020 elections, who was previously the public Communications Officer for elections in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, who is now providing (or not providing) false attestations of election machine certifications and logic and accuracy testing since.”
“Defendants hired James Savage (hereinafter “Savage”) for the statutory role of custodian of election machines shortly before the November 2020 elections. Savage was the former President of the Philadelphia US Steel Workers Union, Vice Chair of the Democrat Party, and a political activist who had openly advocated for President Trumps removal from office and imprisonment.”
“Savage did NOT conduct, or sign sworn attestation for, certification and testing of election machines, as required by statutory law.”
On November 5th, 2020, Savage inserted dozens of USB v-cards uploading hundreds of thousands of votes into election tabulation servers two days after the election with no chain of custody, or auditable pedigree that those votes had emanated certified election machines (with secure-build validation/hash testing), with no way for the election management system (“EMS”) to electronically determine if they were authentic.”
An excellent statement of the problem. One mitigation effort of which you may not be aware. is the effort of True-the -Vote (TTV). The entire country's voter registration databases have been put online. An application called IV3 was developed that provides a county's data to a county rep (me for Tioga County NY). The app compares the address portion of the voter role to NCOA's current output, produces and flags discrepancies, further, checks the forward registration at the new address and provides the end user with a way to challenge and comment, which are output via CSV. This data is then sent to the county BOE for their use. The downside is that NY does not have a "challenge rule", so the BOE can say "pound salt". Approximately 20,000 people are using IV3 in their respective counties across the country. Large counties may have several evaluators who are managed by ProjectCivica. As an example, Tioga Co (which is relatively clean -- you rated #5/62) had 23,844 registered, 1159 potential challenges, and I challenged 374.