The Duplicity of Election 2020

                                To Save The Republic. Never Again! 

                                                                                   Authored: Michael W. Koontz

I want to thank all sources and those researchers who complied data, interviews, and statistic's that were important to the completion of this report. I have attempted to create a report on referencing the 2020 Election and the questions that have been raised concerning ethics and the results of the election of which many questions go unanswered to date.  Hopefully you will find this report concise and informative but more importantly peak your curiosity to ask your own questions. Last, I want to thank President Trump for his resolve in questioning the results of 2020 election not for his election only, but rather and more importantly for those who voted. It is your sacred vote that must never be compromised. That is true Democracy and how we preserve The Republic.                 

         Thomas Jefferson: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"

This report includes history, events, election details, and solutions to the many alleged voter irregularities, along with the submitted evidence in the 2020 national election. This should be helpful to those who access this report so they might gain a better understanding of the details and concerns of the voting issues and the potential for fraud that is possible in our elections. It is also important to reaffirm and vitally important to underscore that the highest laws of our US Constitution, its Articles, as they relate to State Law. The rules of election laws are determined by state legislators and these laws ultimately determine how our legal votes are tabulated, so we arrive at the correct result. “Remember, a professional auditor counts real inventory and arrives at real number not from printed receipts and inventory records and so should our elections and our secrete vote be protected, real count real totals” Michael W. Koontz

Republic / Democracy

A  Republic: is a government in which the state is ruled by representatives of a citizen body, (the people). A Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all eligible members of a state and typically through elected

representatives. It’s important to note that we are a Republic and Democracy is a system.

In a Republic and a Democracy, there are two important words found in both definitions. Representatives of a citizen’s body and government by the whole population through elected representatives. Citizens and Population. These are definitions that guide all legislation both at the State and Federal levels. State Election Laws are decided by State Legislators, not by Governors, Courts, or other high ranking officials. This is the difference between a fair election and one that is compromised.  

Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, US Constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, several Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senator’s or representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.    

James Madison: (Concluded that the selection of electoral votes must ultimately be selected by the voters of each state that are represented by the State Legislators, who select the process elections in the manner of their choice.) In simple terms Legislators, legislate the Election Laws in manner, time, and place, and no other government department or administrators or high ranking officials of State Government or Judicial Branch have that authority. The Framers were cautious and concerned about decisiveness and potential power grabs by high-ranking officials who might set the rules to control the outcome of an election for partisan gain. A compromised election could be facilitated at the highest levels of government and therefore, we must leave the process in the hands of “We the People” those closest to their state representatives.

Unfortunately, here lies the issue of voter irregularities. If 2020 the election was compromised by executive government officials and judges, rather than maintaining election laws already established and approved or should have changed by the state legislators.

The last electoral conflict occurred in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson beat John Adams 73-65 in electoral votes but tied Aaron Burr 73-73 which untimely through the election into the US House of Representatives where the opposing party the Federalists decided to cast its 36 votes, coming from the house to elect Jefferson, President. It took 6 grueling days and an extreme conflict and debate, but followed the rules of what is considered a “Contingent Election”.     

The concerns that our most basic right, the right of our Sacred Individual Vote, its security, confidentiality, and fair general election process is the greatest of all Constitutional rights. It is the foundation of a free Republic and Democracy. The right to vote was pledged to the citizens of America by the framers of our Constitution and then expanded to all fifty states as our manner of selecting our local, county, statewide and national representatives.

The probable compromise of the election of 11/3/2020 has been validated by over 1000 affidavits, numerous election lawsuits still pending, and eyewitness accounts, video evidence submitted, and State and Federal Election laws that may have been broken. These election breaches are specifically in the following states, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada but not necessarily excluding all 50 states but rather the six listed above known as critical swing states crucial to the electoral outcome of the Presidential Election.

The national election of 2020, especially the Presidential Election, should not exclude the possibility of election worker's mistakes, tabulating, harvesting, curing, falsely duplicating, or forging ballots. This could also be the source of irregularities in other elective categories such as Municipal, County, State, and other Federal levels. Given the reports submitted of widespread voter irregularities, the 2020 election, may be determined as purposeful by an individual voter, party officials, polling workers, polling supervisors, Boards of Election Officials, or high ranking officials of the individual states. This may have compromised their own State Constitution, as it pertained to State Election Laws and Procedures and ultimately the US Constitution. State laws require constitutional changes from legislative bodies such as State Assemblies and Senate that are empowered by the State Constitution and finally Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. This gives power to the state Legislators in determining election law and electoral procedure, in a manner in which electors are chosen. This is not the official responsibility of any executive branch of the state, such as Governors, Secretaries of State, or other high-ranking officials or Judges.   

This report compiles a partial list of known evidence ever-growing to this date and witnessed with signed affidavits, of election irregularities or compromises. We will be disseminating this report and request clear and specific answers to these concerns with oversight in determining a remedy for our election system and its security. The report will be available to publications, organizations of interest, government officials, and voters. Full transparency is important with a proactive approach to election integrity and solutions. We thank all those who review this report and chair your concerns and are encouraged that answers to solutions will be forthcoming.   

Benjamin Franklin summed up his concerns after being asked by Elizabeth Clinton Powell considered by many historians as the First Lady of Politics often left out of our American History Books, “What have you given us” she asked, Franklin, replied “A republic if you can keep it” Keeping the Republic is dependent on the voters whose ballot is legally counted and therefore an honest count. It is then, that the will of the people is decided.

The list below is categories of potential irregularities and a list of evidence as per state to follow. This includes specifically states that have become known as swing states. For additional information on Voter Fraud, you can access a highly creditable list from The Heritage Foundation under the title of Election Fraud Cases, go to Heritage.org. Along with a list of sources found after this report.

1       Focus on absentee and mail-in Ballots

2       Investigate Biden only votes

3       Identify dead people who voted

4       Identify felons who voted

5       Identify illegal aliens who voted

6       Identify children who voted

7       Identify individuals who voted more than once

8       Identify newly registered individuals over 90 years old

9       Identify non-registered voters and review

10   Identify who made the call to stop counting in certain states

11   Disenfranchised voters/ changing voting procedures from county to county

12   Questions about large undetermined quantiles of ballots arriving late

13   Ballots being hidden and then counted without proper observation

14   USB voter files disappearing on camera or are removed by tabulating clerks

15   A manual recount of any state results

16   Dominion Voting Machine Inaccuracies

17   Focus on tally results of closely contested and swing states.

18   Focus on cities (i.e. Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Minneapolis. 

Pennsylvania:

Over a year ago in the state of Pennsylvania, if you sent in a ballot without a signature, the ballot would be discarded. If it was counted, that would be criminal fraud. If you sent in a ballot with a signature that didn’t match the signature on file, that would be discarded, if it was counted, that would be criminal fraud. If you sent in a ballot beyond Election Day, it wouldn’t be counted, if it was, that would be a fraud. Sending in a ballot without a postal date stamped on it, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was, that would be a fraud.

If you sent in a ballot and they couldn’t discern the date or if there was a smudge on the ink, it wouldn’t be counted, and if it was counted, that would be a fraud.
 
But by the 2020 election, all of the above ballot categories were changed and counted in Pennsylvania, and were unconstitutional. These were Illegal changes that were made by officials, not legislators but by individuals in Pennsylvania, and well before Covid. This was a direct violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and finally The US Constitution Article two section one. It was done in preparation for the 2020 Election and inevitably Covid 19 was used as an excuse to cause election chaos and in compromising polling locations and the election. Had they maintained original election procedures there would be little or no election irregularities and all legal votes would be counted under legislative law.

It has been validated that approximately 165,412 mail-in and absentee ballots requested by Republican voters were never tabulated by vote-counters.

The number of ballots requested in the name of a registered Republican, but requested by a person other than voter was between 37,001- 58,914 and the number of Republican ballots returned but never counted were between 38,910 to 56,483 ballots.

Many Pittsburg voters that showed to vote were told that according to poll workers they had already voted. Random citizens were assigned ballots without a name and posted vote selection when receiving a ballot.

1400 ballots were disguised as a residence but used PO Box numbers as a home or apartment.

In addition the Governor Wolf of PA went around Legislators to the PA Supreme court to approve non-signature matching ballots rather than the four point check process including, registration signature, envelope signature, ballot signature and polling log signature making fraud almost impossible. The Governor also extended voting three additional days, another violation of the PA Constitution and US Constitution, in all cases these were violations.

Even worse poll watchers were excluded from ballot review and observation. Even more egregious, thousands of ballots were arriving during night for tabulation. Then a shutdown of tabulation machines at approximately at 2- 3:00 AM 11/4/2020 and restart of the machines at approximately 4:00 AM then tabulating the very same ballots just delivered. This without, a required by law observer review. These are all violations of election law.

Of resent a USPS Mail Transport vendor and whistleblower Jesse Morgan came forward and admitted he was contracted to transport over 200 thousand ballots on Oct. 21 from NY State Bethpage Postal Department driven to Lancaster PA for drop off. Once he arrived he was then diverted to another county and then while taking a break, the trailer of ballots mysteriously disappeared. It’s Illegal to drive ballots over state lines.  This is presently under FBI investigated and still pending.

On 12/29/2020 votes were tallied as a final count and then presented to Lawmakers of PA the result was announced that the final vote dose not add up. Ballots Cast: 6,962,607 and voters who voted 6,760,230, a 202,000 vote difference as final numbers. Excluding the above irregularities and county to county procedural voting differences.   

Michigan:

Affidavits that thousands of ballots were accepted even though the voters named on the ballot were not listed in either the poll roll or the supplemental list of people who had very recently registered. One Witness is former Attorney General for Michigan Zachery Larsen along with 18 other affidavits, filed the same.

Tens of thousands of unsealed and unsecured ballots arrived at 4:30 AM in vehicles with out-of-state license plates. They were brought through a back entrance which is not secure. All the ballots were observed as Biden ballots as many poll workers receiving the shipment of ballots repeatedly are quoted and shouted “Biden Ballots”! Andrew Sitto (witness on affidavit)

In Detroit, Poll workers were told to backdate mail-in ballots (illegal) and not look for mistakes and not ask for ID, on in-person voting. In addition, poll workers were going into polling booths to coach voters on choices. Jesse Jacob (witness who signed affidavit).

It was observed up to 30 thousand ballots being feed into tabulating machines as many as repeat feeds 9-10 times. This witness observed over twenty counts of fraud. (Witness- Jesse Jacob)

Michigan voting was not certifiable because the chain of custody of digitized voting was broken. (Observed by State Senator Patrick Colbeck poll observer)

True the Vote, a voter integrity organization that compares voter rolls in 50 counties found more registered voters than eligible voting-age voters.

Poll watcher whose name is not disclosed for privacy but signed affidavit observed many military ballots which were Identical but had a Xerox paper quality and appearance as though they were simply copy printed. None of these names were registered so they were entered manually with a fake Date of Birth. 

The County Clerk of Wayne County instructed poll watchers like Robert Cushman to write false DOB’s, Dates of Births on ballots without dates the ballot would not be considered. 

Georgia:

The State of Georgia may hold the record of the most diverse voter irregularities including this list. Illegal ballots by or in the name of 2500 felons, 66,247 under-age voters, 2423 unregistered voters, 4962 who failed to register before state voter-registration deadlines, 395 individuals who voted in two states. 20,311 voters who moved out of state, 40,229 who crossed county lines and did not re-register (Secretary of State, “Well maybe they moved back”), Up to 40,000 absentee ballots that lacked valid identification, and 1043 who claimed PO boxes as residential addresses.

Sworn Affidavits were filed, that at various polling districts thousands of un-creased ballots (meaning un-folded) arrived in violation of election laws and tabulated with 98% for Biden. In addition, these ballots were not manually marked by supposed voters but rather uniformly marked by some mechanical means.

This was witnessed by 9 poll workers at different polling districts including polling Manager Susan Voyles. In her affidavit she described the ballots as to perfect, the paper was a different texture and the markings were uniform, maybe a ballot marking device or machine, certainly not manual. By estimate the ballots that arrived were 98% Biden ballots, even if the questionable ballots were legitimate the probability of the Biden percentage would be impossible.

In addition, 96,000 absentee ballots in Georgia were requested and counted but were never recorded as having been returned to the County Election Boards.

More graphic election night video was captured by video surveillance cameras in a major polling facility in Fulton County. This is where poll workers may have directed a ballot tabulation once Republican poll workers and observers were cleared of the tabulation room. The reason, a false report of a water main break which was later described as a stuffed urinal causing a flood. This was a concern and may have been used as a diversion to tabulate ballots that were removed from under a curtained table, stored in ballot cases much like suitcases totaling an estimated 12000 ballots. By 10:50 all personnel had been cleared from the room except 4 Democrat poll workers who tabulated these ballots until 1:00 AM. It was concluded there was never a water main break. Besides the potential for fake ballots in the procedure of tabulation violated election law.   

A sudden spike in votes tabulated at 1:34 AM on November 4 added 136,155 votes for Biden to 29,115 for Trump. These spikes occurred almost simultaneously in other states in and around the same time. The disparity in vote percentages and the time frame are not consistent with normal historical voter tabulation and reports. 

Stacy Abrams, a former Candidate for Governor who lost to now Governor Brian Kemp in a closely contested race and Abrams has still not conceded to date. Abrams asked to have 100 thousand plus mail-in ballots accepted with no laws in place for mail-in, only absentee ballots. The removal of the 100 thousand plus ballots by GA were challenged by Fair Fight Action (Abrams organization) in court and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reinstated 22,000 votes. Lastly, Congressional leaders in GA pushed for early voting, registering online, and voting online. This was planned in 2019 a year before the 2020 election.   

Wisconsin:

At 3:42 AM 11/4/2020, there was a spike of votes 143,376 for Biden and 25,163 for Trump, considered an abnormal tabulation.

After moving out of state, voters who took on other residencies and then voted in Wisconsin would be voting illegally. It’s been verified that 26,673 voted in this way.

A statutory deadline is Election Day is 11/3/2020. (Postal subcontractor Nathan Pease) testified that two postal workers on two separate occasions employed with the USPS in Wisconsin were preparing to backdate more than 100,000 late-arriving ballots on 11/4/2020, this to cover their late arrival. 

Election data showed that approximately 49,000 voted for a Republican House member down-ballot but the same voters did not vote Trump at the top of the ticket, highly unusual given the support for The President by those very candidates.

Data also showed a voter turnout rate in Wisconsin at 88% a historically high number an extreme number, raising concerns of additional vote’s legitimacy. 

James Troupis is the lead attorney for the Trump Legal team in Wisconsin testified in the US Senate on 12/16/2020 that thousands of ballots considered illegal were counted in the state of Wisconsin.

Altered certificates found on each envelope of absentee ballots totaling 3000 which are required to be filled out correctly or disqualified, were found to be counted.

Initialed received ballots, by clerks, are required to validate that the ballots were properly received. 2000 were never initialed.

The Election Commission of Madison Wisconsin broke laws in voting in advance. Wisconsin allows in-person voting or absentee so any voting before Election Day is under Wisconsin Absentee voting only. This was investigated.  What was found was a drop-off system that was created in a city park, with boxes unsealed 5 weeks in advance. The ballots were left to any passerby at random to drop ballots in the boxes. This category yielded 17,271 ballots that are illegal and tens of thousands more co-mingled in this category preventing a true count of illegal ballots.

Another category was Indefinitely Confined referring to illnesses. It was found that many of these voters were cheating the system by claiming the status falsely and were at personnel events such as weddings, vacations out of state all fraudulent by status. Up to 28,395 illegal ballots.

And finally to date the category of application to vote is a requirement in Wisconsin. So they broke the law by considering the certification envelope as the application, although a separate voter application is required by law. Accounting for 170,000 ballots.

In total, 3 million people voted legally, and 200,000 in the recount did not vote legally but those votes got counted. 

Nevada:

Nevada reflects a series of many irregularities and illegal votes 42,284 people are on record as voting twice, 20,000 voters did not have Nevada mailing addresses, 2468 moved to another state and were not eligible to vote in Nevada, 1500 voters were dead, 4000 were non-citizens and nearly 30,000 people were falsely listed at non-residents, vacant or non-existent addresses as their home addresses.

Jesse Banal attorney for the election plaintiff testified to the US senate that expert’s analysis identified at least 130,000 instances of voter fraud. This was calculated not by estimated voter probability but rather by comparing actual voters to public lists readily available.

August 3rd, 2020 just three months before the 11/3/2020 election Nevada Legislature changed the election laws and adopted AB-4, to allow for universal voting, mail voting without strict safeguards to send one ballot to one voter who registered or a resident of a legal address. Nevada was laxest in not clearing voter rolls of illegitimate voters because of AB-4, so the number of ballots went from 70,000 mail ballots in 2016 to a historic 690,000 ballots in 2020 with no checks and safeguards. It was riddled with fraud and the fraud hotline never stopped ringing.

Fraudulent registrations took place at an alarming number in Congressional District 3.They were fraudulently registered in Casinos, RV parks, and homes or mailing addresses. The number of these false ballots was 13,372 in 2020 as opposed to only 68 in 2016. 74% of these fraudulent ballots were created between July and Sept. of 2020, just between 4-2 months before 11/3/2020.

The assessment of fraud was so varied it required Data Scientist, Dorothy Morgan and data review analysts to assist her to categorize and cross-referencing the irregularities with a lower probable total but once calculated against the real number,  was much higher. Morgan concluded her report, “It was a mess”! Etc.

Arizona:

In a traditionally Republican-leaning state, Joe Biden overcame President Trump by just over 10,000 votes. However, a witness reported to state lawmakers that mail-in voting fraud and problems with the Dominion Voting Systems machines could have skewed the results. So a public hearing was scheduled by Arizona State Senator Mark Finchem for the purpose of an inquiry into the integrity of the election that just passed, and to provide a forum to present the evidence and testimony.  

Allegations of 35,000 Democrat illegal votes were added to the ballot count. Retired Army Col. Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert, testified that an anonymous email from a Pima County Tech Provider alleged that 35,000 votes were illegitimately given to Democratic candidates in that county. This coincides with the data analytics at that spike when reviewed.

The candidates impacted include county, state, and federal election candidates, and talked about the alleged 35,000 votes added for Democrats. An anonymous witness also alleged Democratic Party members invited him or her to a meeting on Sept. 10 and outlined a plan to add those votes. 

Information from the Voter Integrity Fund, playing audio at a hearing, of several calls to citizens, recorded and asking the voter if they requested an absentee ballot, obtained from a voter list. Each said they did not do so. There was no request, as listed. However, their names and addresses were listed as requesters.

Shiva Ayyadurai, a former Senate candidate from Massachusetts and engineer offered expert testimony on technology and data. He presented data that concluded that the only way for Biden could have statistically caught up with Trump after trailing him early on was if the registered Democratic votes tabulated were 130% in favor of Biden and a negative 30% for Trump votes cast. He showed a chart on a screen to explain the findings. I find it highly implausible because it shows that only party affiliation matching data graphs can account for votes based on actual ballot tabulation. In other words, the Democratic votes calculated did not match the actual party list.  

Anna Orth, a Pima County resident, and Republican election worker testified to the committee that she was denied the chance to observe about 2,000 duplicate ballots. Duplicate ballots are usually ballots that are somehow unclearly marked and require further inspection, typically by observers from both parties. Anna explains “I was specifically taken out of that room, ushered out, and brought into [another] room,” Orth told the state lawmakers. This is in direct violation of AZ election law. Unfortunately, the Governor and Secretary of State Certified these results as being valid in direct violation of Constitutional law.

Conclusions, General Voting Irregularities, Voting Systems (Dominion), Mail-In:

In this summation, I will highlight notable and creditable specialists and consultants with highly visible and professional backgrounds in electronic data analysis, incumbent candidate predictability, historic trending, and general election fraud with a focus on mail-in ballots. This includes determining abnormal spikes in data processing, algorithms in tabulations, and hacking tabulation in voting machines. Also, expert pollsters and consultants determine the result of an election based on high probabilities and predictors.

A Trump victory was predicted well in advance of Election Day in many categories at a probable 95% success rate with the considerations in policy decisions and events both national and International that could have an immediate impact on election results such as The Covid Virus

Certain predictors that are less sophisticated and short term as in Election Night returns analysis based on reporting districts in states and the probability of a winner on the eve of the election are accurate. This is remembered on election night 2016 when a Fox Broadcast Journalist reported, “It appears from the New York Times analysis that Candidate Trump now has a 95% chance late in the night, of winning after many key districts have now been reported.” This is normal for election night but not in 2020, there was consistent lag or stall in predicting winners early on in the evening when Trump looked like he had won certain states.   

Dominion Voting Systems:

Dominion is now under the scrutiny and request for a forensic investigation including states Wisconsin and Michigan where a substantial error rate was reported was approximately 60% plus, with upwards of six to ten thousand votes that may very well have been transferred to the wrong candidate. Given the close election and shut down of systems and then a coordinated start-up in many states during the early hours of 11/4/2020 it could be concluded that both processing and tabulation may have been compromised. Without properly compiling votes confirmed by signature applications etc. we risk the authenticity of our vote.

While Dominion voting systems have been under scrutiny for concerns in failing to tabulate accurate election results, either by error or manipulation. It should also be noted that these machines or tabulators can be disassembled easily using a simple Flat Head and Phelps Head screwdriver accessing the hardware which can easily be compromised by a savvy technician or in some cases computer science students. According to poll workers, listed in the Dominion user manuals, the tabulators are not online. However it was found later this was not true after technical review, testing, and the use of Wi-Fi access and hacked at a live election hearing. This evidence leaves the tabulating machine vulnerable to hacking. Tabulations could be controlled by outside sources, locally or at some distant international location.

Dominion Machines in a real election scenario. In one of the swing states in the tabulation center, a Dominion machine tabulated 30 ballots as 500 ballots. Once the tabulator observer caught the error, she informed a Dominion Tech who happened to be an advisor in the location. Once alerted he canceled the 500 counts and reentered the 30 ballots to correct the error and arrive at the correct count.

It is important to note that the Observer was present and not asked to leave the tabulation center earlier, as in many cases. In this case, the observer could alert the Dominion Technician of her concerns. This required a manual adjustment and re-entry of ballots by Dominion Tech... The observer noted the ease with which a count can be tabulated incorrectly, 30 real votes to 500 false. In this case, the mistake, becomes a correction however without oversight it could become a subject to error, through tabulation machine failure, lack of oversight, or human tampering.   

Dominion Systems are contracted by 28 states including all the swing states in question. My state, New Jersey also uses the dominion software. The analysis of Dominion and its reliability is still under review but states like Michigan showed that ballot switching could certainly be probable and may have indeed occurred. Hopefully, the allegations will find little or no security risk. However, hacking and programmed data transfer, is still a concern and all safety measures should be examined to ensure a near-perfect tabulation of actual ballots compared to a compromised system of vote changing at any percent.           

 Voter Suppression:

Another Red Flag in election manipulation known as “voter suppression” found in the 2020 election, was inaccurate polling in advance of the election or false polling. In many cases, mainstream media polled Joe Biden at either neck in the neck or exceeding President Trump. In key swing states or as in Wisconsin for example, by as much as 17 points. This final vote now has to be challenged.

The overall vote in Wisconsin was 3,239,920. If mainstream media was believed, then Joe Biden would have been ahead of President Trump by 550,786 votes rather than a realistic poll and comparable final vote count separation of only 20,000 votes equal to 0.0062% versus the media narrative of 17%, this is a form of disinformation and can sway public opinion, to give up, “or why vote”. This must not go unchecked.       

The 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform:

Well known for, 39th President Carter's outreach to many third world countries or dictatorships that controlled citizen population through mostly corrupt voting irregularities: their final summation is below on mail-in ballots.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots. 

Intimidation and vote-buying were key concerns of the commission:

“Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in the church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or intimidation. Vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” A recent investigation of vote-buying is open in a congressional district of Minnesota. The report provides other examples, such as the 1997 Miami mayoral election that resulted in 36 arrests for absentee-ballot fraud. The election had to be rerun, and the result was reversed. This reflects one of the hundreds of fraudulent elections that take place in yes, America, every year.

Solutions: Voter ID etc.

States verify mailed ballots in different ways. For example, Alabama requires a copy of the voter’s ID to be included and either two witnesses older than 18 or a notary public must sign the envelope in addition to the voter. In Maine, a signature by the voter on the envelope is compared to the signature on the absentee ballot application. These are only two verifications. But it is the opinion of many election experts noted in this report that a voter ID card is the best solution. The question is why it has not been introduced into legislation and a bill passed immediately ensuring a secure election process instead of an issue debated by partisan concerns. Voter ID is the best method to assure ballot integrity, for all registered voters and a secure election.

How it might work: Very simply, it would be similar to a Driver's License or State ID card which works perfectly as determining your identity. A voter ID would include a resent permanent address, SS number, and photo. The voter's ID on record can be verified via your assigned card id number on your card and verified either online or in-person on Election Day. In addition, registering and voting would require you to include this information in mail-in ballots, or if you intend to vote in person include a recent copy of a Driver License, Utility Bill, Passport or State ID, etc., for verification. This would assist in verifying your address as current and that you are the John Doe or Jane Doe who is a registered voter or is registering. Just this simple verification process would eliminate 99.9% of fraud. The voter ID card would trigger any changes in new addresses, registering information and therefore the information can be amended immediately or verified as false. 

Cater-Baker Voter Integrity Commission: James Carter was the 39th president. James A. Baker III was the secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration.

“Finally”: We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.)  This Jimmy Carter and James Baker III op-ed was published in the Feb. 3, 2008, edition of The New York Times.

Signature verification: Another added precaution along with ID card is a four-point signature check including A. Signature on ballot B. Signature envelope C. Matching signature on registration D. In-person matching signature roll book. This along with a duplicate photocopy of your ID card in mail-in ballots or presentation of your card in person and a copy document of identification attached to your hard copy ballot or presented at your polling district. That would validate one ballot, one voter. The implementation and procedures would be universal and handed down to the States with clarity on the procedure. It is also not advisable to destroy or shred signature mailing envelopes but rather keeps them stored for at least not less than a year.

Michael W. Koontz

Legislative Authority:

Deadlines, procedures, and manners used in elections on the State level must be legislated by the State Legislators, by State, and backed by US Constitutional law Article 2 section1 and the guidelines for election law and procedures. No other governing branch should have the ability to change election law. If election laws are compromised or not approved by the citizens of the state and through their legislative representatives, it can open a pattern of bias and convenient policy changes favoring special interest groups and political candidates, and government or departments other than the citizen voter. 

Ballot Curing:

Ballot legitimacy is often questioned when Ballot Curing is applied, which is a potential for unchecked voter ballot concerns. Ballot Curing is when a Ballot is submitted that has elements that are unclear on the physical ballot. The poll worker is then in many cases allowed to alter or change the ballot to adjust the ballot document. An example may be a signature that is not clear or a street address number missing on the ballot. Ballot issues and adjustments by poll workers should be approved by the voter or returned in most cases, but often not the rule. In a legal sense, it’s like tampering with evidence. Many experts agree that once you submit the ballot and the ballot is not clear, filled out incorrectly, or damaged beyond recognition then the voter is irresponsible and the vote is not counted. We must assume that the voter is of clear mind and healthy enough to fill out a ballot or ask for help beforehand. Fraud can occur when multiple ballots are cured due to claims the ballot was not clear and edited by someone other than the voter.

Experts, Pollsters, and Predictors:

Helmut Norpoth – Political Scientist, has a method, The Primary Model using data comparison’s going back more than a century. Polling data is completed based on 100 years of incumbency and the primary turnout. This can also be averaged against other Presidential Elections. For example, President Trump received overwhelming primary wins in all states out doing Joe Biden even on averages. Example: In New Hampshire, Trump received 85% of the Republican Vote while Joe Biden only 8.6% of Democrats vote a dismal showing which was consistent in most primaries. Norpoth gave President Trump a 90% chance of winning a second term with a landslide. The court is still out on this one. Read more at the Stony Brook University News, August 3, 2020, called, Maverick Modeler Helmut Norpoth Predicts another win for Trump.

Patrick Basham: Founder and Director of Democracy Institute, subscribes to and is an expert in the Non-Polling Metrics. Brandon sites that it is highly implausible that Biden won the election. However, Basham would not allude to the reason for Trump's apparent loss, whether it was irregularities or an election process fluke but he defended his position. Even if Trump won only 4 of 12 on the major predictability list, Trump would have still won because he held an advantage in the most important categories. Just a few Incumbent Presidents that decrease their popular vote by a substantial margin still win as in Obama 2012 however Trump increased his margin by 20% and increased his demographic base with combined minorities by nearly 12% with an Afro American and Latino vote increase. He also maintained the highest margin of county wins compared to Biden. Trump did better in White Collar, Blue Collar, held the line, suburban voters and women, going against the polling predictions. He increased votes with Catholic and Jewish voters. In a survey of 100 unaffiliated voters isolated on election night 99 out of 100 picked Trump to win. In addition, Trump had the highest primary numbers, his enthusiasm levels charted very high and he gained 12 million more votes than in 2016 which would predict a winner. The election also maintained the lowest ballot discard rate, of false mail-in ballots, at 1% even given the high rate of ballots mailed yet Trump still would win based on all the matrices. Historically Trump would have won but the small numbers separating President Trump from Biden left us with questionable conclusions. Basham metrics theory is by any standard 100% right.  Read more go to Fox News published Dec. 6^th, 2020 by Charles Crietz.

Hans Von Spakovsky: Expert in the election and constitutional law. Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation, Former Commissioner Federal Election Commission, Counsel to Assistant to AG for National Department of Justice, Civil Rights Voting Rights Laws. Spakovsky agrees 100’s of lawsuits were brought by Democrats well before the election of 2020 to eliminate security voting laws in place. These challenges included absentee ballots witnesses, signature verification, and the implementation of vote harvesting and elimination of voter ID laws. These lawsuits were unprecedented in history and unchecked by their Republican counterparts and State Legislators. PA Supreme Court, for example, ordered a variety of election rule changes listed in this report in the PA section. Courts approved early and earlier voting to suppress in-person voting, before the Presidential debates, so a voter cannot change their mind or their vote. Recanvasing or recount was prompted by close elections to check ballot count reliability and is a legitimate procedure. However, if the outcome is found to be compromised by the plaintiff and litigation is imposed on the election's questionable outcome, then the state should not certify until a remedy is imposed by the court. Hans concluded, in agreeing that the issue of voter integrity needs to be addressed now and states should abide by Legislative laws not changing the rules during the middle of the game. If you can’t determine that the outcome of the elections is secure or is compromised in a Presidential Election and all down-ballot elections for that matter, this will set a standard for years to come that will result in fracturing the election process and ultimately The Constitution. The full interview can be seen on Life Liberty and Levin, November 13^th, 2020. Or go to the Heritage Foundation Library of interviews.

The Average Winning Vote for Incumbent: Predictability for Success.

Michael W. Koontz:

Dating back to Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, William Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama, the average incumbency winning percentage is 12%. President Trump's increased margin was 20% beating the average by 8% points.

Donald J Trump’s vote totals were 75 million votes in 2020, compared to Obamas 66 million in 2012 a total of a 9 million vote difference, and Trump breaking every incumbent's vote totals in history. It is also important to note that President Trump exceeded his original vote count in 2016 by 13 million votes and Joe Biden’s vote count according to tabulators, exceeded both popular political candidates Clinton and Obama by an average of 15 million votes, hardly possible. Trump's average exceeded Clinton and Obama by 10 Million votes and therefore more probable that won Trump the election.

This simple matrix is used in the law of predictable averages and would continue to shed light on an election that will be in question for many months and years to come.   

Accountability of the Court:

Unfortunately, it could be assumed that the courts in all swing states including the Supreme Court were more concerned with their image, fears, and partisan politics rather than a decision based on evidence and data, including signed affidavits that were submitted to the court. In the cases submitted to the courts, the courts applied three decisions in their refusal to hear the cases, Latches, Standing, or Disenfranchised Voters. These positions deflected the arguments of the plaintiff and therefore the courts finding a reason not to hear the cases. In the final judgment, the court referred the plaintiff back to the Election Commission’s, Legislators, and Executive Branches of State Governments.  They dropped the ball. I will in short define the three terms above to help in clarifying the court’s position in denying a hearing. Keep in mind the court decided not to hear the cases that could have been decided against a plaintiff of either party, being the plaintiff, but in any case, the court denied hearing the argument. Deferring it back to the State.

Latches: Is defined as a party not acting sooner to gain compensation for damages. So in the election lawsuits, the Judges used this model to convey that you tried to get remedy after the fact, in other words after the election was over. Of course, it’s not logical since the plaintiff Trump would never have investigated election irregularities or known, had they not challenged the results which they deemed questionable after the election.

Standing: If the party does not show harm, it does not have standing, then the party is not the rightful plaintiff appearing in court. The Supreme Court used this in what became the Texas case with 17 other states signing on. In the Plaintiff’s (Texas) case they claimed to have suffered damages because the swing states had been sued for violation in their election laws, therefore compromising the vote and ultimately the Electoral College. In their opinion, it impacted the outcome of final vote tabulations and therefore plaintiffs (Texas) and 17 additional states electoral votes in choosing a litigate winner.

Dis-enfranchise of Votes: This ruling is based on the Judge's opinion that if a remedy is applied to one issue of voter irregularities and invalidates the election result, then those voters not included in that irregularity have been deprived of their vote.

The above rationales of the court leave the plaintiff in thinking “Dammed if you do dam if don’t” scenario. Therefore the plaintiff was referred back to the State Legislators who failed to check and resist the Executive branches, who used the state court to change laws, in what became a questionable election.

HR-1 Federal Legislation will limit US Conditional Articles on Elections.

The new bill when reviewed would encroach on the state's determination and their citizen's ability to determine the qualifications of voters, an accurate account of voter registration rolls, and the state's right to secure the integrity of the election along with district boundary lines in electing their representatives. In short, it reverses the decentralization of the American election process important to the US Constitution. In addition to the following concerns.

Remove the authority of the state regarding, early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.

Same-day registration making it extremely difficult to allow for time to check identification.

Early voting beyond a normal range time, given an average of two weeks before Election Day, so voters can process candidate debates and changing trends.

Automatic registration using databases such as Diver Licenses, Social Service and Welfare rolls, and other lists restricted to services and criteria not related to voter privilege. Making way for voter fraud.

Massive voter registration online can be suspect to hackers who can either compromise the individual voter registering or mass hacking.

Allow votes to be counted outside the election precinct rather by poll workers, election officials, and fraud protection personnel in the precinct the vote generated from. Also no-fault rules on Absentee Ballots.

Removing US postal service address verification to check if voters are registered in multiple states and are voting more than once.

Removing state ID cards in those states that require ID and substituting a verification form for a voter ID card at the time of voting.

Interfere with 1^st Amendment right that makes coercion of a voter very vague and open for intimidation.

Online censorship of Candidates, Non-Profit Groups, or Organizations. This infringes 1^st Amendment rights and limits the facts or philosophies of these candidates or organizations. 

Reduce the number of Federal Commission Members from 6 to 5 leaving way for a majority policy-making group rather than 6 members with equal authority.

Prohibit state election officials from participating in federal elections and imposing heavy ethical rules and restrictions that are unconstitutional.

Restrict states from legislation setting a time frame for felons to be granted a voting right. HR-1 would permit felons to vote upon release from prison creating political bail and financial intensive by dark money.

Remove redistricting from state citizens and legislators to non-elected federal commissions. Leaving the way for partisan favoritism.

Violation of separation of power by eliminating appointed department heads such as an Attorney General etc. that can intervene in lawsuits against Presidential Executive Order or other authority that is challenged. 

This is a short review of HR-1 appears to take more authority from the states to administer election law and procedure and places, it hands the rules to a Centralized Authority. This is in direct conflict with Constitutional Law. Hr-1 on the surface proposes more access to the voting process but on further review, it leaves the voting process to Committees and non-elected representatives of the state once again expanding government with less protection. I would advise against this bill and rather alternative legislation that would enforce the US Constitutional laws on the election and work directly with each state's election legislative committee to help in ensuring integrity in voting and honest tabulation of only registered voters. In other words, leave the process to the County Election Committees with oversight and verification guidelines. Follow the rules.

The Secret History of the Shadow campaign That Saved the 2020 election.

Lastly: A final article titled The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, Published by Time on February 4, 2021, reveals a coordinated effort by Social Media, Main Stream Media, voting justice committees, and their attorneys, who were used to challenge state election laws, funded by Pac-groups and with the blessing of the DNC., Corporations CEO’s who had little to lose and used their political philosophy influence to support protest groups, etc. Finally, local election boards had a history of election corruption.

However, once this article was released it revealed a more nefarious intention including using the Covid 19 and George Floyd incident to create a scenario of violence and vulnerability welcomed by all of the above including Blue states and cities where most of the violence took place. It was obvious that both outbursts of social justice groups burning down cities and attacking law enforcement and the inclusion of a paid group of agitators known as Antifa, paid with dark money to add more Chaos to BLM protests in traditionally left-wing cities was to sell the misery concept to the nation while most Democrats denied the riots were happening. A case in point is Jerry Nadler who called the riots “A Myth”. Three Billion in damages is no myth nor 2000 injured citizens including over 1000 police and 11 dead.

To appreciate the complete story, it is better to read the entire article that exposes an organized group of power brokers that simply hated Trump including Mark Zuckerberg who met with 10 civil rights groups where he assured them that over 300 million would be allocated to defeat Trump in various ways a number that was closer to 416 million.

Needless to say, this Time article when released drew criticism from similar media organizations who hate Trump, such as CNN,

MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. for revealing how and ways they conspired.

Unfortunately for the left, the event of 11/3/2020 has emboldened a huge backlash of both Trump supporters, Independents, and Democrats that believe that the election was stolen. To this day polls show 50-52% of voters concur with a stolen election belief. It’s estimated that 75% of Republicans, 30% of independents, and yes over 10% of Democrats believe that the election was rigged. The Lasted poll released as of 2/15/2021 shows Trump hovering at 57% Popularity and Biden between 48-50 % with 79% of Republicans ready to vote for a return of Trump. It is also uncustomary for a losing Presidential candidate to poll higher than a winning candidate, especially one that accumulated 80 million votes. 

IN CONCLUSION:

In the end, the efforts of these groups that plotted to stop President Trump still needed high tabulation and election law violations to secure the election. Although Rudy Giuliani became President Trump's lead investigator and was maligned and denigrated as the likes of a carnival ringleader, the facts and evidence he investigated were acquired and confirmed, paving a way for a Trump revival and potentially proving a case of fraud. Even independent political Academics and Constitutional Experts have concluded that on review if evidence was authentic but scarce it might fall into the category of expectable irregularities. But in this case, once supplied with thousands of evidence documents, signed affidavits, and after analyzing the quantity of these documents they conclude that something was wrong and laws had been broken. I encourage all to read the Times article titled above.                                     

In Final Review: By Mike Koontz

As the preparer and researcher of this report, I found it clarifying, challenging, thoughtful but concerning while delving into an issue that has not yet found, a sound solution and addressing our most cherished right, our vote. This should not be a politically partisan issue but a constitutional issue that has grave repercussions on our Republic. It needs to be investigated and resolved as new evidence may surface. The election of 2020 will remain under scrutiny for months even years to come. The issues in question are supported by more than 50% of the polled registered voters who have doubts about the election results of 2020. All the legitimate inquiries submitted regarding the outcome of the 2020 election by the voters of America must be reviewed and researched with public transparency. Americans must be assured by a legitimate count and investigation with oversight that elections are secure, or this issue will take on grave consequences for Americas future. More importantly if the election of 2020 was found to be different than the conclusion’s reached on 1/6/2021, then we need to re-set details and announce the findings and proclaim a new outcome . I hope this report has been helpful to many, both to American Citizens and the Officials that we entrust to defend the legitimacy of our legal vote.

God Bless America and Protect Our Legal Vote. 

              Michael W. Koontz

       Michael W.Koontz

               Civic Advocate / Political Researcher / Journalist

Credits to research: New York Times, Epoch Times, American Thinker, Americas Real Voice, Famous Quotes, Democracy Institute, Heritage Foundation, Stoney Brook University News, Life Liberty and Levin, The Guardian, and contributing members of Bergen County NJ for Liberty.

“Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”

George Washington

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and The Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

 Abraham Lincoln

MORE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING AN ELECTION IN QUESTION:

LETTER FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE DAYS BEFORE

CERTIFICATION OF 2020 ELECTION SHOWING THAT THE

ELECTION HAD BEEN COMPRIMISED AND THE ELECTORS

SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFED BASED ON THE US AND STATE

CONSTITUTION. READ THIS IMPORTANT

January 4, 2021

Honorable Mitch McConnell The Majority Leader

United States Senate

317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Honorable Kevin McCarthy Republican Leader - US House of Representatives

2468 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Leader McConnell and Leader McCarthy,

As members of the Pennsylvania Senate, we believe In the integrity of the election process. After speaking with our colleagues, a majority of the State Senate is troubled by the many inconsistencies that happened in our Commonwealth during the 2020 election.

Due to numerous unlawful violations taken by Pennsylvania Governor, Tom Wolf; Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar;and the rogue State Supreme Court, the balance of power was taken from the State Legislature, who by the U.S. and PA Constitutions, set the time, place and manner of holding elections.

Act 77 of 2019 that was signed into law, provides the following clear provisions:

• All mail-In ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. election night

• Officials at polling places must authenticate the signatures of voters

• County Election Boards may begin pre-canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots after 8:00 a.m. on election day

• Poll watchers selected by candidates and political parties are permitted to observe the process of canvassing absentee and mail-in ballots.

• No provisions were made for drop boxes or "curing" of ballots

Seven weeks before the 2020 General Election the PA Supreme Court overstepped their bounds by ruling that:

., Mail-in ballots could be received and counted up to three days later

• Ballots mailed without a postmark would be counted

• Signatures on mail-in ballots would not need to be verified

Secretary of State, Kathy Boockvar also usurped legislative authority by:

• Allowing for a proliferation of unsecured drop boxes in key Democratic areas

• On the day before the election, encouraged some counties (not all) to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained disqualifying defects and allowing them to "cure" these defects

In addition to these inconsistencies, certified Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia were prohibited from overseeing the canvassing of ballots. After a court ordered these poll watchers to be allowed to observe, they were "corralled" so far from the canvassing of ballots, that they could not view the activities.

Requests from legislators for independent investigations have been ignored by the administration.

Due to these inconsistent and questionable activities, we believe that PA election results should not have been certified by our Secretary of State.

Members, we ask for more time given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear Trump vs. Boockvar in the coming days. We ask that you delay certification of the Electoral College to allow due process as we pursue election integrity in our Commonwealth.

Very respectfully ,

Members of the PA Senate

cc: Republican US Senate Members Republican US House Members

Jake Corman

President Pro Tempore

Kim Ward Majority Leader

Judy Ward

Senator. 3Q1h District

Kristin Phillips-Hill Senator. 281h

RESENT DEVELOPMENTS

ARIZONA PROPOSED DE-CERTIFICATION OF 2020

ELECTION AS A LAW. HCR2033

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION DECERTIFYING AND SETTING ASIDE THE 2020 ARIZONA ELECTORS. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) HCR 2033 - 1 - 1 Whereas, a declaration of the results of statewide electoral 2 contests in the 2020 general election is in dispute with probable cause to 3 believe that multiple discrepancies exist, both criminal and noncriminal 4 in nature, and that so many questionable ballots were commingled with 5 legitimate ballots across the State of Arizona that significant voter 6 disenfranchisement has occurred, making the election irredeemably 7 compromised; and 8 Whereas, the Constitution of the United States provides for 9 enumerated powers of the federal government; moreover, the Tenth Amendment 10 specifies such enumerated powers as negative rights of the federal 11 government, while protecting vast unenumerated powers for the state 12 governments, stating, "The powers not delegated to the United States by 13 the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 14 States respectively, or to the people"; and 15 Whereas, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States 16 Constitution empowers state legislatures, including the Legislature of the 17 State of Arizona, to prescribe the "Times, Places, and Manner" of 18 conducting elections; and 19 Whereas, the definition of "manner" is at the sole discretion of the 20 Legislature; and 21 Whereas, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States 22 Constitution empowers state Legislatures, including the Legislature of the 23 State of Arizona, to direct the manner of appointing electors for 24 President and Vice President of the United States; and 25 Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, 26 known as the "Guarantee Clause," guarantees each state a republican form 27 of government, the foundation of which is self-governance through free and 28 fair elections accurately reflecting the will of the people; and 29 Whereas, the fifteen counties within the State of Arizona conducted 30 an election on November 3, 2020 for federal offices, including selecting 31 electors for President and Vice President of the United States; and 32 Whereas, the Legislature of the State of Arizona has exercised its 33 authority to establish election administration procedures for the state 34 under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) title 16, commonly known as the 35 Arizona Election Code; and 36 Whereas, title 3, section 2 of the United States Code further 37 empowers state legislatures to appoint electors if the election failed to 38 produce a clear winner of an election due to tampering; and 39 Whereas, the A.R.S. section 16-121.01, subsection B, paragraph 2 40 specifies conditions to be a qualified elector and disqualifying factors 41 from being such, including "That the registrant has not resided in this 42 state for twenty-nine days next preceding the election or other event for 43 which the registrant's status as properly registered is in question"; and 44 Whereas, the Arizona Election Code requires that all persons voting 45 in an election must be registered to vote twenty-nine days before an 46 election by law, and voter registration was extended by the federal HCR 2033 - 2 - 1 judiciary to October 23 in direct conflict with A.R.S. section 16-101, 2 subsection A, paragraph 3, a violation of the separation of powers; and 3 Whereas, the Arizona Election Code requires election officials at 4 polling places and points where ballots are received via United States 5 Postal Service to authenticate the signatures of in-person voters; and 6 Whereas, pattern analysis of early voting ballot return envelopes 7 revealed that of 34,448 such ballot return envelope images there were 8 2-copy, 3-copy and 4-copy duplicates originating from 17,126 unique voters 9 while no duplicates were reported in Maricopa County's canvass report; and 10 Whereas, Maricopa County reported 1,455 ballot envelopes having no 11 signatures, yet they were counted contrary to A.R.S. section 16-547, 12 subsection A, which requires the following: "I declare the following under 13 penalty of perjury: I am a registered voter in [fill in the county name] 14 county Arizona, I have not voted and will not vote in this election in any 15 other county or state, I understand that knowingly voting more than once 16 in any election is a class 5 felony and I voted the enclosed ballot and 17 signed this affidavit personally unless noted below"; and 18 Whereas, the requisite audit agent signatures for sixteen Maricopa 19 County early voting ballot transport statements are missing, thus breaking 20 the requisite chain of custody; and 21 Whereas, the count of ballots contained in a transfer box for 22 nineteen Maricopa County early voting ballot transport statements are 23 missing, thus breaking the requisite chain of custody; and 24 Whereas, the requisite chain of custody for twelve Maricopa County 25 early voting ballot transport statements was broken by missing one sealed 26 signature; and 27 Whereas, the requisite chain of custody for fifteen Maricopa County 28 early voting ballot transport statements was broken by missing one 29 received signature; and 30 Whereas, the requisite chain of custody for fifteen Maricopa County 31 early voting ballot transport statements was broken by missing two sealed 32 signatures; and 33 Whereas, election day poll workers and observers testified to 34 observing discrepancies in ballot handling, that ballot chain of custody 35 was breached in case after case, that poll watchers and observers were not 36 allowed to be on site or close enough to observe whether poll workers were 37 following proper identification processes, that poll workers were made to 38 stay seated or in a particular area far away from where voting activity 39 was occurring, that poll workers were reprimanded for asking questions and 40 that poll workers observed bias in voting; and 41 Whereas, some voters were made to vote a provisional ballot while 42 others were instructed to simply retrieve proof of residence, showing 43 improper and biased voting center activity when, in certain circumstances, 44 workers were instructed to call the Elections Department for voter 45 authorization as opposed to following standardized protocols applicable to 46 all voters; and HCR 2033 - 3 - 1 Whereas, testimony was given describing the following observations: 2 trays of mail-in ballots were brought into tabulating rooms to be properly 3 and independently checked and counted by processing teams of two different 4 parties whose envelopes had already been pre-opened in the "mailroom"; 5 batches and trays of ballots by the thousands in one 4-5 hour shift were 6 carried to rooms and offsite where they were not overseen; workers in the 7 ballot processing room were allowed to retain their personal purses and 8 backpacks and were observed rummaging through them, presenting opportunity 9 for ballot tampering; ballots were moved to rooms where there were no 10 independent ballot watchers; signatures on absentee ballots did not match 11 and thousands more in a 4-5 hour period were not verified before being 12 counted or "run through" electronic signature adjudication, which alone 13 could comprise hundreds of thousands of ballots in Maricopa County, in 14 which 1.875 million out of 2 million were cast by mail; there was 15 inadequate and improper oversight in which only one independent ballot 16 observer from two different parties was assigned to observe the ballot 17 processing activities of 90 tables at one time and from a distance; and 18 Whereas, election observers witnessed the following: computers and 19 laptops with internet connection capability in the tabulation centers; 20 over-votes for candidate Trump were not counted even when voter intent was 21 clear; some ballots were changed from candidate Trump to candidate Biden 22 but observers were never provided answers regarding how or when they were 23 to be rectified; 30 of the same signature on 30 different ballots but the 24 Attorney General's Election Fraud Unit was not notified; and 25 Whereas, an election volunteer testified to observing 100,000 votes 26 per day in the adjudication room over three days being improperly 27 processed and a Dominion employee making a copy of an entire voter file 28 and taking it off the METEC with him, thus breaking the requisite chain of 29 custody; and 30 Whereas, evidence was presented that individuals were permitted to 31 vote in violation of A.R.S. section 16-122, which states, "No person shall 32 be permitted to vote unless such person's name appears as a qualified 33 elector in both the general county register and in the precinct register 34 or list of the precinct and election districts or proposed election 35 districts in which such person resides, except as provided in sections 36 16-125, 16-135 and 16-584"; and 37 Whereas, the Arizona Election Code authorizes poll watchers, 38 selected by candidates and political parties, to observe the process of 39 canvassing absentee and mail-in ballots in certain counties in the state, 40 but the watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the 41 precanvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in 42 ballots; and 43 Whereas, the Arizona Election Code is silent on contested elections 44 in which proof of fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of an election is 45 predicted and testimony detailing the fraud is taken; and HCR 2033 - 4 - 1 Whereas, on November 30, 2020, members of the Legislature of the 2 State of Arizona sitting as an ad hoc public fact-finding hearing on 3 election integrity ("the Panel") heard testimony and received evidence 4 that through extraordinary means the vote count in some counties was 5 electronically altered to award enough votes to a candidate that did not 6 actually receive said number of votes in such a volume so as to alter the 7 outcome of the election; and 8 Whereas, it is well settled civil rights law under the Equal 9 Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that to protect 10 individual franchise of sovereignty commonly known as suffrage, the legal 11 doctrine of "one person, one vote" shall apply to all elections; and 12 Whereas, the Arizona Legislature has the duty to ensure that no 13 citizen of this State is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections be 14 conducted according to the law and to satisfy the general public that 15 every legal vote is counted accurately; and 16 Whereas, mathematical modeling evidence was presented to the Panel 17 to explain how the slope of tabulation for the presidential candidates 18 could only be explained by a vote count of 130% of one party's registered 19 voters, revealing the violation of "one person, one vote"; and 20 Whereas, on November 30, 2020, the Panel was shown evidence that, 21 while tabulation of votes using vote tabulation equipment was intended, 22 through extraordinary means fractional vote calculation occurred, awarding 23 more than one vote to one candidate and less than one vote to another; and 24 Whereas, evidence related to the matching of signature records made 25 by voters predating the election to those found on paper ballot envelopes 26 was provided; and 27 Whereas, evidence was received by the Panel that votes for candidate 28 Trump were intermittently, and in some cases immediately, assigned to 29 candidate Biden, and votes for candidate Trump were not tabulated; and 30 Whereas, the Arizona Senate Forensic Audit revealed key 31 cybersecurity failures of the system necessary for electronic tabulation 32 of votes, including the failure to perform basic operating system patch 33 management and the failure to update antivirus definitions, despite the 34 claim that the system was not configured to access the internet nor 35 capable of accessing the internet, which represents a significant security 36 risk as reported by the Senate's qualified cyber forensics analysis 37 provider; and 38 Whereas, Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Certification Defense 39 is not valid in view of the evidence the 4 ".exe" files were created after 40 Dominion software install, that 45 ".dll" files were modified after the 41 Dominion software install, that 377 ".dll" files were created after the 42 Dominion software install, that 1053 ".dll" files were modified after the 43 Dominion software install and that there was a failure to preserve 44 security logs as reported by the Senate's qualified cyber forensics 45 analysis provider; and HCR 2033 - 5 - 1 Whereas, 865 directories and 85,673 election-related files (scanned 2 ballots, .dvd files, slog.txt files, etc.) were deleted between October 3 28, 2020 and November 5, 2020, 9,571 directories and 1,064,746 4 election-related files were deleted between November 1, 2020 and March 16, 5 2021, 304 directories and 59,387 files containing election data were 6 deleted from the HiPro scanner 1 on March 3, 2021, 1,016 directories and 7 196,463 files containing election data were deleted from the HiPro scanner 8 3 on March 3, 2021, and 981 directories and 191,295 files containing 9 election data were deleted from the HiPro scanner 4 on March 3, 2021 as 10 reported by the Senate's qualified cyber forensics analysis provider, all 11 showing an illegal destruction of election records under 52 United States 12 Code section 20701; and 13 Whereas, there is clear evidence of intentional remote overwriting 14 of the security logs by the Elections Management System Administrator 15 (EMSADMIN) Account where on February 11, 2021, 462 log entries were 16 overwritten, on March 3, 2021, 37,686 log entries were overwritten and on 17 April 12, 2021, 330 log entries were overwritten as reported by the 18 Senate's qualified cyber forensics analysis provider, all in direct 19 violation of 52 United States Code section 20701; and 20 Whereas, Maricopa County Supervisors admitted on the Congressional 21 Record that general election results were purged from the Election 22 Management System (EMS) as evidenced by a February 1, 2021 SQL Log entry 23 that the RTRAdmin Account purged the general election results from the 24 database, with no corresponding Windows Access Log entry, as reported by 25 the Senate's qualified cyber forensics analysis provider; and 26 Whereas, Maricopa County records reveal a failure to maintain chain 27 of custody and properly document ballot retrieval and transport, which 28 makes it impossible to verify the origin of the ballots counted in the 29 election under scrutiny; and 30 Whereas, Arizona statutes set out specific requirements for secure 31 ballot retrieval and chain of custody procedures of the transfer of voted 32 ballots from drop boxes and vote centers; and 33 Whereas, Maricopa County officials violated Arizona statutes and do 34 not have the required chain of custody for at least 740,000 ballots; and 35 Whereas, the United States EAC advocates for thorough, detailed 36 chain of custody as a standard of care, stating, "keeping a proper chain 37 of custody is more than best practice…chain of custody documents provide 38 evidence that can be used to authenticate election results, corroborate 39 post-election tabulation audits, and demonstrate that election outcomes 40 can be trusted; and 41 Whereas, the Arizona Legislature understood the need for ballot 42 chain of custody and included that requirement in A.R.S. title 16; 43 moreover, the Secretary of State, Governor and Attorney General agreed on 44 the requirements for voted ballots deposited in Early Voting locations in 45 the 2019 Elections Procedure Manual (EPM); and HCR 2033 - 6 - 1 Whereas, Maricopa County reported that 923,000 early voter ballots 2 were accepted at vote centers or drop box locations and that the county 3 lacks chain of custody documents for at least 740,000 of those early voter 4 ballots; and 5 Whereas, of the 1,895 Early Voting Ballot Transport Statements 6 (EVBTS), eighty percent have defects that violate Arizona statutes; and 7 Whereas, violations of Arizona statutes include documents with no 8 record of the number of ballots retrieved and documents that reveal a 9 failure to assign two couriers for each ballot retrieval; and 10 Whereas, the Maricopa County Recorder, who is responsible for 11 enforcing the chain of custody of all ballots, failed to enforce the 12 counting of ballots and record the number of ballots retrieved from each 13 ballot drop box location. Arizona law was disregarded by the Maricopa 14 County Recorder's Office, specifically the EPM requirement that when the 15 secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in 16 charge of elections or designee, the number of ballots inside the 17 container shall be counted and noted on the retrieval form. These 18 violations of Arizona statutes are so egregious and so widespread that 19 they demand referral to the Arizona Attorney General's Office under the 20 Arizona Election Code, which states, "An officer of an election who 21 knowingly fails or refuses to perform any duty required of him under this 22 chapter is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor unless another classification 23 is specifically prescribed"; and 24 Whereas, 1,514 EVBTS forms out of a total of 1,895 forms have no 25 ballot counts and 48 out of 1,895 unique EVBTS forms have either one 26 retriever signature where two are required or have no signatures at all; 27 and 28 Whereas, 23,344 voters voted via mail-in ballot even though they 29 show in the Melissa Commercial Database as having moved and no one with 30 the same last name living at the address of record for the voter; 2,382 31 voters voted in person even though they show in the Melissa Commercial 32 Database as having moved out of Maricopa County; 2,081 voters moved out of 33 state during the 29 days before the election and were given a full ballot 34 instead of a presidential-only ballot; and 255,326 early votes show in the 35 VM55 that do not have a corresponding EV33 entry, in total showing that 36 the margin of error far exceeds the margin of victory by candidate Biden; 37 and 38 Whereas, there is additional evidence of similar crimes of 39 compliance and manipulation of votes in Pima County and of "ballot 40 harvesting" in violation of A.R.S. section 16-1005 in Yuma County; and 41 Whereas, the State of Arizona's general election results were 42 certified on November 30, 2020 when the Arizona Secretary of State, the 43 Governor of the State and the Attorney General of the State prematurely 44 certified results of the November 3, 2020 election even while a hearing 45 was underway revealing election discrepancies and fraud, herein HCR 2033 - 7 - 1 enumerated, knowing that such action would deprive one or both candidates 2 due process in the ongoing litigation regarding presidential electors. 3 Therefore 4 Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, 5 the Senate concurring: 6 1. That the Members of the Legislature recognize that lawful voters 7 expect that election officials and state legislators will do their duty to 8 ensure that lawful votes of the people as cast are honored and not diluted 9 or debased by acts classified by the Arizona Legislature as criminal acts. 10 2. That, in the words of constitutional expert Alexander Hamilton 11 in Federalist 68, "Nothing was more to be desired than that every 12 practicable obstacles should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. 13 These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally 14 have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, 15 but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper 16 ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by 17 raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But 18 the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most 19 provident and judicious attention." 20 3. That when a state legislature exercises this plenary power to 21 determine the manner in which electors are chosen, that power is governed 22 solely by the federal Constitution, the jurisprudence memorialized in 23 Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922) (function of state legislature 24 in carrying out a federal function derived from the United States 25 Constitution "transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the 26 people of a State") and that no state constitution, state law or state 27 court can alter or constrain that grant of power. 28 4. That the appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely 29 and wholly with the legislatures of the several states, that this power is 30 conferred on the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the 31 United States and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state 32 constitutions; and that whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by 33 the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no 34 doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for 35 it can neither be taken away nor abdicated, the jurisprudence memorialized 36 in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34–35 (1892). 37 5. That the legal doctrine Ex Dolo Malo Non Oritur Actio, a right 38 of action cannot arise out of fraud and that "No court will lend its aid 39 to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. 40 The maxim lies at the foundation of a general rule of public policy, the 41 rule that the courts will not sustain an action which arises out of the 42 moral turpitude of the plaintiff or out of his violation of a general law 43 enacted to carry into effect the public policy of the state or nation." 44 Marshall v. Lovell, 19 F.2d 751, 755 (8th Cir. Minn. 1927). 45 6. That substantial irregularities and violations of A.R.S. title 46 16 elections law are specifically classified as criminal behaviors. HCR 2033 - 8 - 1 7. That significant irregularities associated with the illegal 2 practice commonly known as "ballot harvesting," a class 6 felony criminal 3 offense under Arizona law, affected mail-in balloting, precanvassing and 4 canvassing and occurred during the November 3, 2020 election. 5 8. That there was infringement on the Legislature of the State of 6 Arizona's authority pursuant to the United States Constitution under 7 legislative plenary power and the "Supremacy Clause" to regulate 8 elections. 9 9. That the selection of presidential electors and other statewide 10 electoral contest results in this State involving federal offices is in 11 dispute. 12 10. That, based on the clear and convincing nature of the evidence 13 cited in this Resolution, there remains an irreconcilable controversy that 14 cannot be resolved with the declaration of a clear winner, and as such is 15 irredeemably compromised. 16 11. That the Office of the President of the United States is in 17 fact the Chief Magistrate of these United States, charged with the duty of 18 care under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution as such to maintain 19 impartial and fair elections. 20 12. That Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States 21 Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "Each State shall appoint, 22 in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of 23 Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to 24 which the State may be entitled in the Congress." (Emphasis added.) The 25 Supreme Court has described the constitutional authority of the state 26 legislatures to determine the manner of choosing electors as "plenary." 27 See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892); see also Bush v. Gore, 28 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000). 29 13. That the Supreme Court of the United States has even noted 30 that, "whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state 31 constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the 32 right of the legislature to resume the power at any time." McPherson, 146 33 U.S. at 35 (emphasis added, quoting with approval Sen. R., 1st Sess. 43rd 34 Cong. No. 395); see also Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. at 104 ("The State, of 35 course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, 36 can take back the power to appoint electors"). 37 14. That the Members of the Legislature hereby notify the President 38 of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of 39 Representatives and the Members of Congress from the State of Arizona that 40 it is the justifiable position of the Arizona State Legislature that we 41 set aside the results of the Maricopa, Pima and Yuma County elections as 42 irredeemably compromised and reclaim the 2020 Presidential Electors due to 43 the irredeemably flawed nature of these elections that prevent the 44 declaration of a clear winner of said presidential electors.

Tenney, Kustoff, and Banks Introduce PROTECT Act to Defend the Constitutional Integrity of Elections

July 29, 2021, CREDIT TO TENNEY CONGRESS WEBSITE

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-22), co-chair of the House Election Integrity Caucus, along with Reps. David Kustoff (TN-08) and Jim Banks (IN-03) introduced the Protecting the Right to Organized, Transparent Elections with a Constitutionally Trustworthy (PROTECT) Electoral College Act today. This bill ensures state election laws are driven by elected state legislators who are accountable to taxpayers, and not judges and partisan bureaucrats who seek to unconstitutionally alter election laws. Further, the bill prohibits federal financial assistance from being used to aid states that modify their election procedures in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is clear that elected, accountable state legislatures—not activist judges, election officials, commissions, or partisan bureaucrats—have the sole responsibility for setting the presidential election rules in their states. Yet, in several battleground states in the 2020 election, non-legislative actors changed the election rules in the middle of the year, despite having no Constitutional authority to do so.

"As co-chair of the House Election Integrity Caucus, I'm continuing my fight to restore voter confidence and ensure that every state conducts free and fair elections, consistent with the Constitution. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for states that establish voting procedures and policies in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution. I am honored to introduce this bicameral legislation with Congressmen Kustoff and Banks. It is a commonsense bill that upholds the law, protects the integrity of elections, and safeguards our Constitution," said Congresswoman Tenney.

“Following the 2020 election, many Americans lost faith in our democratic process. We cannot allow that to happen again. This bill will help restore Americans’ confidence in our free and fair election system,” said Rep. Kustoff. “As Democrats are trying to nationalize our elections, the PROTECT Electoral College Act ensures that states can rightfully oversee their elections--not the federal government. This is a common sense measure and I am proud to join Rep. Tenney in supporting this legislation.”

“Federal taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to prop up unconstitutional state election law changes. Reps. Tenney, Kustoff, and my legislation will ensure integrity in federal elections and trust in our democratic process," said Rep. Banks.

This legislation has also been introduced in the Senate by Senators Hagerty (R-TN), Rubio (R-FL), Cramer (R-ND), Lummis (R-WY), Marshall (R-KS), and Braun (R-IN). 

“When I introduced the PROTECT Electoral College Act, I indicated that I was fighting for the rule of law and invited others to join me. I am pleased that today the U.S. House version of my legislation is being introduced by Congresswoman Tenney, Congressman Kustoff, and Congressman Banks. Congress must safeguard future elections and the sanctity of the Electoral College by ensuring that no federal election funding is given to states that engage in unconstitutional election procedures so that every American’s vote is protected and all Americans can be confident in the results.” - Sen. Bill Hagerty

Background on the PROTECT Electoral College Act:
The legislation would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to condition future election security grant awards on certification by the state legislature that:

• If they allow unsolicited mail-in balloting or vote harvesting they must have their methods and processes used to verify the validity of mail-in votes clearly established in state law;
• Emergency COVID-19-related election procedure changes will end once the public health emergency is over unless the changes are explicitly added into state law;
• Ballot counting observation laws are closely followed; and
• The state has rectified any previous noncompliance with these provisions or departures from their own state election statutes.

This legislation would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to submit a report on whether, in each state, the following occurred in the 2020 election:

• Increased unsolicited mail-in balloting, changes to mail-in voter verification procedures, ballot harvesting, or material alterations to election procedures;
• Specific allegations of failing to comply with ballot counting observation laws or failing to enforce other election laws;
• Use of federal election security funds for such activities;
• Compliance with all conditions on receipt of such funds; and
• Any subsequent action by the state legislature on these matters.