Election Integrity Issues in Kansas - A Citizens' Call for an Election System Investigation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Election Integrity Issues in Kansas
A Citizens’ Call for an Election System Investigation
Presentation to the
Kansas House
Elections Committee
1 February 2022
Election Integrity Issues in Kansas
PREFACE
This report and the 18 months of research behind it is the result of a great concern for the future of this
country. As a 25-yr career Air Force officer with a long follow-on technical career, I have always been
disinterested in politics, particularly in getting involved with its inner workings. However, this preface
explains why election integrity is consuming what should be my retirement years.
I am an Air Force Academy graduate steeped in its honor code and the military and scientific training it
gave me. I believe in honesty and facts. As a fighter pilot, I flew 350 combat missions to destroy the
advance of communism. Later, as an A-10 pilot and war planner I trained to stop the Soviet hordes that
threatened to sweep Europe and eventually the United States. So I was extremely dismayed to see
Marxism come out from the closet and seep into then take over my country. To do what little I could, I
started writing newsletters to enlighten family and friends, and eventually anyone who would listen, to
what I was learning in constantly reading and analyzing history and political trends. Having planned the
deployment war plans of A-10s for what became the Iraqi war, I started realizing and teaching the
strategy being used to subvert this country.
But when the 2020 election took place, my technical background kicked in with what I recognized as an
apparent manipulation of our elections. I had obtained degrees in space physics, astrogeophysics,
biomechanical engineer, business administration and military-political affairs. I had taught math and
physics at the college level. I had been a military satellite engineering manager and the Air Force Director
of Engineering for the Space Shuttle at Johnson Space Center where my team engineers of five major
corporations resolved many of NASA’s technical problems for 14 Shuttle launches. I had owned
companies in Korea, the Philippines and the U.S. most of which were software development companies.
And I had business associates who were the best in the business in software. So it was clear to me how
clever and nefarious elections were being manipulated, especially with voting machines, and yet being
covered up so that most state and federal officials were either naïve about the problem or too politically
timid to address the prospect that their elections might be fraudulent.
I have come to one simple conclusion. The right to vote is the most important treasure we citizens have. It
determines who we elect to represent us. Those elected officials control much of our lives with the rules,
regulations and laws they create. If those votes are controlled by a maleficent faction, then ultimately they
will control us. Thus, this document was written to do one thing – to wake up our legislature to the fact
that we are under attack, that our votes are being stolen across the country, and possibly in Kansas. Thus,
if you, our legislators are to serve us by your oath of office, then it is incumbent upon you to do anything
and everything to ensure there are absolutely no vulnerabilities in nor exploitation of our election process.
This document explains why you should not assume our elections are secure.
Gregory N. Shuey, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret)
Liberty Lions League
5
Election Integrity Issues in Kansas
A Citizens’ Call for an Election System Investigation
INTRODUCTION
This document is provided as a tutorial intended to dispel the vast amount of disinformation being served
to: 1) Suppress actual facts about the many methods that have been used and are still in place to commit
election and voter fraud; and 2) Convince lawmakers that election systems and processes are safe and
secure. Sources of disinformation have much to gain by preventing investigations and dissuading
legislators from questioning the integrity of elections. In many cases, their claims of safe and secure
elections are not only unsupported by their lack of investigations but are shown to be false by
investigations that have revealed just the opposite.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Despite a national coordinated disinformation campaign to deny such, the 2020 Presidential election was
conducted with a massive amount of election fraud perpetrated to a greater or lesser extents in all 50
states. Fox News contributor and author Molly Hemmingway’s investigation, documented in her book
Rigged, revealed this has been going on as a well-orchestrated process for at least 40 years. Peter
Navarro’s national investigation exposed 36 different methods used to corrupt elections. Jovan Pulitzer’s
analysis of Arizona and other states’ ballots confirmed violations of state laws that allowed large amounts
of fraudulent ballots to be counted. Dr. Douglas Frank’s analysis of counties across the U.S. proved there
was an algorithmic process that illegally flipped or added ballots so as to cause a preferential outcome.
Several forensic analyses by expert cyber groups exposed the fact that voting machines and Pollpad
devices used across the country have Internet connections that are illegal; and that hacking into these
devices was not only a trivial matter but was done routinely during elections. Bev Harris showed in 2002
that software in election machines use an algorithm that fractionalizes votes, retains and later releases
them flipping enough of these fractional votes to the selected candidates to give them a late night win.
Seth Keshel’s analysis of election trends showed that election outcomes (e.g., abnormal numbers of
registrations, abnormal numbers of votes, and election outcomes) were so outside of historical patterns as
to be statistically highly improbable. Mike Lindell revealed cyber captures of large foreign vote insertions
into state elections, enough to flip elections in some cases. Finally, massive numbers of reports of
irregularities, the totality of which if properly adjudicated would easily flip certain election outcomes,
have been reported and documented across the country since election night.
It is highly probable that at least some violations of election laws witnessed and recorded in other states
have occurred in Kansas, possibly to the extent of affecting the outcome of our elections, not only in the
2020 election but perhaps in previous elections and potentially in future elections. Citizens have a
constitutional right to know their votes and only the votes of constitutionally authorized citizens count.
An enormous amount of evidence now available raises questions as to whether Kansas election integrity
is intact. This is a call for the Kansas Legislature to:
1) Create an Elections Integrity Commission to investigate the entire Kansas election system and
make recommendations for all necessary changes to absolutely secure our elections;
2) Authorize a full forensic audit of the Kansas voting system, its voting equipment, and the 2020
election results;
3) Authorize the capture of forensic images from voting machines and prohibition of any updates to
election machines until such data is captured;
4) Take measures to secure all data in election machines and all communications regarding the 2020
election across the state until after audits are completed.
ELECTION INTEGRITY ISSUES
National Investigations: A great deal of suspicion about election integrity began long ago from both
parties as well as with many private citizens. Thousands of “irregularities” during the 2020 election not
only caused serious concerns but prompted some investigations, all of which were opposed and even
attacked or even thwarted by officials from both parties. The question always left unanswered is why
would anyone oppose an investigation into election fraud if they were confident there was none? In every
case where investigations preceded, serious violations of election laws or procedures and, in certain cases,
outright fraud were discovered corroborating early suspicions.
Since the election there have been many who have taken the position that the 2020 election is over and we
should move on. That position is to ignore history which is the basis by which facts regarding election
integrity can be and must be derived and necessary changes must be made to guarantee free and fair
elections. Though this document includes only a sampling of the many serious election irregularities that
have been revealed, it describes some of the 36 different processes that have been discovered in national
investigations that are used to fraudulently manipulate our elections at all levels.
Multiple investigations by independent parties and highly experienced technical teams have proven we do
not have safe and secure national elections. It is currently unknown to what extent that problem exists in
Kansas. However, to take a piecemeal approach and legislate election law changes here and there without
conducting an extensive overview of our state’s entire election process, and without consideration of the
many problems now being identified in other states, is imprudent at best. Furthermore, to believe that
Kansas will not be a target for increased efforts to subvert and manipulate our elections is naïve. This
document intends to give ample reasons for that investigation.
DISINFORMATION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY
The political consequences of exposing hard evidence proving the 2020 election was won by fraud would
be overwhelming on a national scale. The country would be turned upside down in political turmoil and
public confidence in our elections would be all but destroyed. In addition, it would create a constitutional
crisis of how to deal with fraudulently elected candidates on a national level, with the possibility of
overturning many legislative and executive actions that have already taken place. Yet can election fraud
be allowed to remain in place if it is truly proven? To do so would undermine the very basis of our
constitutional republic and would establish a precedence by which no future election could be trusted as
being fair and accurate.
Since the election, there has been a vast amount of factual information and evidence that points to that
very conclusion. And to protect those who may have been installed by election fraud, there has been a
coordinated, nationwide effort to: 1) Deny that election fraud was committed or its potential exists; 2)
Attack and politically destroy anyone who questions election integrity; and 3) Stop by all means possible
any investigations into election results and processes. To indirectly quote Hamlet, why would those so
adamant about the security of elections be so vehemently opposed to proving election integrity is robust
through investigations? Perhaps those protests hide a prior knowledge that all is not as professed.
Thus, this document suggests that much of the insistence of pristine election integrity comes from those
who prefer to believe affirmations based upon presumptions and the uncorroborated words of others,
rather than proven facts; or their comfort in the security of the election process is based upon superficial
checks of the election process with preconceived assumptions of security biasing their opinion rather than
on thorough investigative analysis using discoveries from other investigations as starting points. In short,
if serious flaws and election fraud have been discovered in other states where similar denials were
professed since the last election, is it safe to assume those same problems are absent in Kansas because
people want to believe so?
7The following is offered as just some of the reasons why it is prudent to launch a thorough investigation
into the Kansas election process to ensure, once and for all, none of the problems experienced in most if
not all of the other states exist in Kansas.
ELECTION HISTORY
Federal Efforts to Control Elections: Congress has long sought to gain control over all aspects of
national elections whose responsibility was placed in the hands of state legislatures by the Constitution.
Recently, two bills in Congress that would fundamentally strip most authorities from the states including
control over election laws and redistricting were narrowly defeated. These efforts to nationalize elections
fly in the face of the intent of the Constitution which gives states authority over elections with one
exception which proponents are using to take state authority away. Though temporarily defeated, we can
assume that efforts will be made to resurrect the bills in the future. Meanwhile, states must already
operate under two laws that have provided ample opportunity to subvert the election process. They are
listed below.
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter Act): One of several means Congress began its
efforts to gain control of elections was with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. As a means to
ostensibly ensure that all Americans were able to register to vote, Congress enacted this law to dictate
requirements making it easy for citizens to register to vote, possibly with an ulterior motive to enhance
voter rolls for one party. In any case, state laws were ultimately enacted so that people registering for
vehicle licenses would automatically be registered as voters. This opened up an opportunity for non-US
citizens to automatically become illegally registered voters. While it is incumbent upon governments to
ensure citizens have the right to vote and to require registration to ensure only those with that right are
allowed to vote, the registration process has been and continues to be a convenient method for fraudulent
registrations or the fraudulent use of dead, seldom, never, or relocated voters’ registrations. Failure to
clean registration rolls, even if demanded by law, continues to be one way fraudulent votes have been or
may be inserted into the system and counted.
Help Americans Vote Act of 2002: Under the rationale that it was benefitting citizens and protecting
their rights to vote, Congress passed the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002 and then gave the states $3.9
Billion to eliminate paper ballots and install voting machines. Absent what may have been a nefarious
scheme to illegally use an electronic voting system to control election outcomes, this would have been a
great idea. However, as history shows (and as evidenced below), electronic voting became an excellent
opportunity for machines to be used to ultimately control election outcomes. It continues to be a major
problem today as issues noted below prove.
ELECTION MACHINES
History of Voting Machine Companies: Voting machines used in Kansas come from Dominion Voting
Systems, ES&S (Election Systems and Software) and Premier Election Solutions. There is a long,
incestuous relationship with these companies since electronic voting was launched with the Help America
Vote Act of 2002. At one point Dominion and ES&S were owned by brothers. Also, there is a history of
buyouts and consolidations which raises the question of software collaboration. However, most
concerning is that Dominion and ES&S, and 75% of voting machines used in this country, are reportedly
owned by a Chinese government-owned company. If true, this means that our elections are potentially
compromised just by voting machines alone.
Contracts: Dominion and ES&S have contracts that forbid any investigation or analysis of their
equipment or software. While protective provisions of a contract are reasonable when trade secrets are
involved, scanning, summing, recording and reporting accumulating votes are trivial software operations
that a first year computer science student could write. The egregious terms of these contracts seem to be
designed to prevent the investigation of software that may go beyond mere accumulation and reportingvotes. In fact, from forensic audits and results performed to date and even company confessions, it is all
but certain these egregious contract covenants are included to prevent discovery of software that is
believed to manipulate votes.
Voting Machines: Electronic voting generally involves one machine (e.g., ES&S ExpressVote machine)
where the voter touches a screen to record his votes. After confirming the machine has recorded all votes
correctly, the voter selects a record button after which the machine prints the votes on a strip of paper
along with a QR code. The paper is then recorded by a second tabulating machine which reads and logs
the votes defined in the QR code. There is no way to tell if any votes were flipped and recorded as such in
the QR code. Likewise, as there are numerous servers involved in the national election system ranging
from this tabulating machine all the way to the servers located in the Secretary of State offices, Barcelona,
Spain, and Frankfurt, Germany, all of which are involved in our election, there is no way to know if or to
what degree any votes have been destroyed, added or changed somewhere in that chain. This is because
the whole process is deemed to be secure but without forensic investigations proving such. To suggest it
is not brings massive condemnation from those defending the process, a signal that something not kosher
is being protected. The 2020 election results suggest our election system is embedded with vote
manipulation capabilities that are being used on a massive scale. (Note: Johnson County uses 1,000
voting machines at 195 polling places.)
The machine industry has created an electronic voting system sold as a convenience to the voter; yet the
election process in which these machines are integral has many points of potential entry or sites of
potential manipulation that make the entire system ripe for election fraud. Great efforts by the
manufacturers, the media and political players have been made to absolutely confirm these systems are
safe. Yet numerous reports, forensic audits, and direct evidence from election results indicate exactly the
opposite. A fundamental question is why expensive voting machines are needed when a paper ballot and
pencil accomplish the same thing at much, much lower cost. The only reasonable answer is that machines
speed up the counting process. And yet, many states do not certify their results until days after the
election. So is the risk of machine fraud worth the perceived time saved when, in some cases, it is not?
ES&S DS200 Election Machines: ES&S confirmed in congressional testimony that it has a Tellit
LE910-SV1 modem on the motherboard of its DS200 machines (These are used in Kansas.). As
confirmed in the following referenced document, this provides Internet capability between voting systems
and election servers which is NOT authorized by Kansas law. (See: ES&S DS200 Motherboard with
Tellit LE910) Johnson County election officials adamantly assert JoCo machines are not connected to the
Internet. This may be true with respect to hardwire connectivity. But if a modem is resident in these
machines, there is no guarantee they have not nor will not be connected wirelessly. And there is no way to
confirm the existence of these modems without a forensic analysis.
Concerns that suggest a forensic audit is warranted come from a number of sources. Here are only three
of many that have been documented for a number of past elections:
• In a letter to the EAC (U.S. Election Assistance Commission) ES&S confirmed its modem is not
certified by the EAC. By this letter, the company confirmed the Tellit modem was on the DS200
motherboard. There are also questions as to when or if Kansas machines were certified in the last
election. (See: ES&S Confirms DS200 Modem Not Certified)
• The fact that cyber experts intercepted and recorded a total of 56,354 vote changes in Kansas
votes alone due to foreign interference suggests that somewhere in the election process (which
extends from the ES&S ExpressVote machine up through the Edison system) votes were
manipulated.
• Lawsuits, investigations and analyses just of ES&S machines since 2014 revealed a disregard by
the company for basic security measures. In May 2019, as an example, one of many software
vulnerabilities was found that allowed easy remote access to gain administrator control of the
software thus compromising machine operations. This is only one of many vulnerabilities
discovered with ES&S and other machines in the last ten years, the most egregious being a single
9password being used for all machines in all states. (Ref: ES&S Machines are Threats to
Election – Testimonies by Experts)
ES&S ExpressVote XL Hybrid: UC Berkley Professor of Statistics, Philip B. Stark, analyzed the
ES&S ExpressVote Hybrid system (which Johnson County purchased right before the 2018 gubernatorial
primary). He determined the system “could be maliciously programmed or hacked to create an entirely
fraudulent machine-marked ‘paper ballot’ because the machine includes an option that allows the voter to
‘AutoCast’ the ballot without first printing and inspecting it.” Princeton University Computer Science
Professor Andrew Appel also corroborated this and dubbed it ‘Permission to Cheat.’ Appel found that
Dominion’s ImageCast Evolution had the same defect. “Moreover, even if ‘AutoCast’ is disabled so that
all voters must print and inspect their ballots before casting them,” Appel said “these machines could still
be programmed or hacked to fraudulently fill in undervotes (races that voters left blank) with no
possibility of detection in a manual audit.” According to Appel, “This is because the machines again route
the machine-marked ‘paper ballots’ under the printer head (the part of the machine that marks the ballots)
after they have been reviewed and cast.” This additional defect is called a ‘Ballot Stuffing’ defect and has
been confirmed by Professor Richard DeMillo, Georgia Tech’s former Dean of Computing and Director
of its Information Security Center. These independent confirmations of this one vulnerability alone
compromise the entire Kansas election system if it exists in Kansas election machines. The only way to
confirm this is by forensic audit by competent independent experts. (Ref: Hybrid Voting Systems Great
for Fraud.)
Dominion Machines: Dominion machines are also used in Kansas. The following are just some of many
problems identified in numerous reports concerning Dominion machines:
• The Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG) analysis of Antrim County (MI) Dominion
machines revealed that the Dominion software had a 68% chance of errors (federal limits are
.0008%). In 2020, this resulted in a staggering number of adjudicated ballots. (Note:
Adjudication is one process where ballots may be easily flipped to greatly increase votes for one
candidate.) Investigators concluded the machines were intentionally designed to increase
adjudication rates. Multiple states have reported adjudication rates of rejected ballots being much
higher than normal and well over allowable limits. Considerable efforts have been made by
voting machine companies and their supporters to deny this. But in a number of reports in recent
elections, losing candidates had just enough votes come in at the last moment to flip elections and
adjudicated ballots were often a suspicious source. (Ref: Forensic Audit of Antrim, MI by
Allied Security Ops Group)
• Dominion’s RS232 port allows easy root level access without a password. This is an unacceptable
vulnerability identified in past analyses.
• Solarwind software, banned by the federal government, is believed to be used in these machines;
this software is a significant security vulnerability.
• QSnatch software, also a significant vulnerability, has been reported to be used in Dominion
machines.
Without forensic analysis, election officials are taking the manufacturers’ or their defenders’ word that
these systems are secure. However, election results and various investigations suggest otherwise.
Data-deleting Software Updates: Reports have been made that voting machine companies are sending
IT specialists or third party contractors to install “system updates” which are deleting all 2020 data
records federally mandated to be retained for 22 months. This was formally documented by the County
Clerk Tina Peters in Mesa County, CO where before and after screen shots she personally took showed
that Dominion-installed updates wiped out all 2020 data thus eliminating the opportunity to discover if
there were fraudulent ballots recorded. This cannot be allowed to happen in Kansas.
System Configuration: Another reason to question the hardware and software configuration of voting
machines is the following discoveries. The Maricopa County (AZ) audit disclosed that inspectedmachines had two hard drives installed. Also discovered was that both drives were bootable to different
configurations, a decertifying configuration. The 2nd hard drive contained non-Maricopa data for some
unexplained reason. While backup redundancy or other valid technical reasons may exist for a second
drive, one consideration should be given. It is quite simple to have two operating systems in a voting
machine. The first could be instructed to operate as the operating system up through midnight before
Election Day. This system might be instructed to perform exactly as required during any tests conducted
to check for vote processing integrity. Then with a time/date stamp trigger, the operating system on the
second drive could be instructed to take over using vote-manipulating software (as those described
below). After the election, a destruct code could then erase the 2nd software leaving no trace of its
operations. If such a system were installed, contractual requirements preventing forensic analysis would
keep it hidden by denying forensic analysis. Also, post-election updates (as are now occurring around the
country) could erase the second system deleting any chance of discovery if a self-destruct code was not
integral to it. Though this is theoretical at this point, in the absence of forensic analysis there is no
guarantee this situation does not exist in Kansas. Nor is taking the word of sources who have political and
financial reasons to deny this theory acceptable since they have provided no forensic evidence disproving
it.
PollPads: KNOWLINK Pollpads (electronic poll books) are used to confirm that a voter presenting at an
election station is properly registered. These units have a modem and are connected to the Internet so that
the voter’s ID can be compared and validated at the polling station from the county Voter Registration
Database. However, there are at least two concerns with these units. First, there seems to be no
certification on file for these devices. Second, these are not secure systems as validated by a test
conducted by the Jovan Pultizer group which hacked into the Georgia Pollpad system to prove it was
connected to the Internet and that two-way communications was constantly occurring in real-time. The
same conclusion was drawn in a Security and Telecommunications test done for California by SLI
Compliance. In addition, the Kansas Legislative Research Department concluded there were six
vulnerabilities in these devices which they noted in their August 8, 2018 report. Finally, private citizens
both in Johnson and Sedgwick counties took screen shots of Pollpad WiFi connections in operation near
election stations.
One reason this is important is the following possible scenario: 1) By connecting to Pollpad
communications, hackers could monitor when voters of each party in a given precinct were presenting to
vote. 2) By tallying the respective party voters, hackers could determine how their preferred candidate
was fairing; 3) If fraudulent votes were being used, they could then determine how many needed to be
added for a victory. As a recent report in Georgia showed, mail-in ballots were being used to pad
precincts in need of votes for one party. In similar fashion (as shown below), various vote-manipulating
software can be set to flip or add sufficient votes throughout the day and towards the end of the voting
day to ensure a victory for the preferred candidate. If voting machines are Internet-connected, then
theoretically votes needed for victory could be added given knowledge of voter turnout from Pollpad
monitoring.
Software Issues:
Smartmatic Software: Smartmatic software was designed by a Venezuelan company in 1997
specifically to give President Hugo Chavez a guaranteed election victory. The software does this by: 1)
Creating ballots for the preferred candidate; 2) Flipping votes; and 3) Rejecting ballots at a high rate
allowing for fraudulent adjudication of votes. In August 2017, Smartmatic Director Antoni Mugica
admitted that his company’s software created at least one million phantom votes in the Venezuelan
election, thus guaranteeing a Chavez victory. His successor, President Nicloas Maduro also used this
software to win his elections. The CIA reportedly acquired this technology around 2006. Both
Dominion and ES&S licensed this software and supposedly have been using it since 2006. If true, then
voting machines used in Kansas need to have forensic audits to determine what software is used in
them. (Ref: Smartmatic Director Admitted in 2017 Their Machines Created One Million
Phantom Ballots)
11Fractional Voting: Kansas is one of 27 states where the GEMS election management system is
reportedly employed in Dominion, ES&S and Premier voting systems. According to analysis by
researcher and author of a major book on election fraud, Bev Harris, an algorithm is embedded in the
GEMS application that invisibly stores, decimalizes, fractionalizes and distributes fractional portions
of votes in a pre-set distribution plan. This is illegal and unconstitutional. The process can be applied
across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds and is undetectable except by forensic analysis. All
evidence of the software can be removed instantly by a setting in the GEMS software. Fractionalizing
occurs in: 1) The Summary Vote Tally; 2) The Statement of Votes Cast; and 3) Undervotes. The
reference below describes how this process works in manipulating vote counts for a preferred
outcome. Without a forensic audit, it is impossible to determine if this is a problem in Kansas. (Ref:
Fraction Magic – Part 1, 2)
System Vulnerabilities:
Software Vulnerabilities: Numerous reports indicate that ES&S software is poorly written and
extremely vulnerable to intrusion and thus potential manipulation of data. (Ref: ES&S Machines are
Threat to Election – Testimony by Experts)
Internet Vulnerability: Several demonstrations and the 2020 Election have proven that voting
machines are easily accessed by hackers. This could not happen if: 1) There was no Internet
connectivity; and 2) The systems were ultra secure. However, numerous examples over recent years
seem to prove otherwise. Here are just a few recent examples:
• At a hackers convention, teen boys successfully broke into a voting machine in only 15 minutes.
This is one of many examples that demonstrate the physical vulnerability of election machines.
• At the Lindell Symposium in 2021, hackers were invited to electronically attack a machine
intentionally setup as if it were ready for an election. The first hacker broke into the machine’s
operating system and logged on as an administrator in merely five minutes using only his
cellphone.
• During the 2020 Election, cyber experts logged intrusions from 68 different countries flipping a
total of 13,405,062 votes. They reported that Kansas had 112,708 votes flipped. This would not
be possible if somewhere in the system there was not a vulnerability via Internet connectivity.
(See further details below.)
PCAPS and Internet Connectivity: Cyber experts enlisted to monitor foreign Internet intrusion of
the 2020 U.S. election, captured and recorded what was said to be millions of lines of packet captures
(pcaps) each one of which included the geospatial coordinates of the attacking and the attacked
servers, data of whether it was an attack or merely a test pulse, and how many (if any) votes were
flipped. The results of this tracking showed that in Kansas Trump actually received 826,998 votes as
opposed to the recorded 770,644 (a margin of 313,144 instead of the recorded 200,436). While this
does not change the outcome of the Presidential election, the fact that such large numbers of illegal
votes by this one method is of great concern. (Ref: PCaps Recorded During 2020 Election)
Edison (Decremented Votes): Election results are cumulative in nature. Votes are machine tallied as
they are received, recorded and batch-dumped periodically. In an election, there can be no instance
where votes are decremented from a candidate as machines are merely supposed to tally and report
votes, not make adjustments. Yet on multiple occasions as seen on national television and recorded by
many, President Trump had votes decremented from his total. In every case noted, the exact same
number of votes removed from Trump’s total were added to Vice President Biden’s total in the very
same update. This can only happen by machine manipulation. And that is illegal.CERTIFICATIONS
EAC Certifications: Significant questions and lack of required documentation suggests that Kansas
ES&S machines may not have been certified in the 2020 election. Lack of certification means that an
election that uses uncertified machines cannot be certified. Numerous similar situations have been found
in other states. For instance Texas found that E&S was conducting its own testing and that its hash-
validation testing had not been validated as required by EAC. In an April 17, 2020 letter from ES&S to
the Election Assistance Commission, ES&S admitted that the “EAC had not certified its DS200 with its
modem.” The bottom line is that failure by EAC to arduously ensure compliance provided a number of
opportunities within the system for intrusion and manipulation by insider threats. Instead EAC was taking
the manufacturer at its word, that is, letting the fox confirm all the hens were safe in the hen house. (Ref:
EAC Investigate ES&S Voting Systems; ref: April 17, 2020 ES&S Ltr to EAC)
State Certifications: County election offices go through a testing process to validate the security of
voting machines before elections. Cases have been reported where manufacturers or their contractors
provided updates after these tests were run. The questions are: 1) What were these updates for and is it
possible an algorithmic update was included if SMARTMATIC or other vote-manipulating software was
installed? 2) Were additional tests run after these updates to ensure machine integrity? 3) Did these
happen in Kansas, specifically in its five largest counties?
OTHER ISSUES
Voter Registration Files: Various issues have been discovered and addressed without adequate
resolution over the years regarding voter registration and election results databases. While the issue seems
to be with county control over certain elements (some as simple as precinct names), lack of database
uniformity makes it difficult to perform desired data analysis on registrations and election results. It
would seem to be a simple process for the Secretary of State’s office to work with Kansas counties to
resolve issues that have been identified but left unresolved in the past. This issue should be reviewed and
resolved to ensure that Kansas registrations and election results are as transparent as possible. Several of
these are noted and recommendations are provided at the end of the document.
Voter ID and Voter Registration: Kansas law requires valid identification for voting and provides a
robust number of measures to ensure that registration rolls are maintained current and accurate. However,
with some jurisdictions (e.g., Kansas City, KS) giving ID cards possibly without proof of citizenship,
there are concerns that responsible officials and/or employees may not follow procedures arduously to
preclude abuse of the process, and that non-citizens may be given IDs allowing them to vote.
Also, surges in voter registrations have been seen right before elections in most states, including Kansas.
While “Get out to vote” campaigns are common and may be the cause of at least a good portion of these
spikes, that does not mean that vulnerabilities, failures or circumventions in the registration system may
not still be occurring. It is therefore prudent for independent investigations be conducted to confirm that
Kansas law is being followed to the letter.
Absentee vs. Mail-in Ballots: The 2020 Election reported a massive number of mail-in ballots sent out
wholesale in a number of states, in some cases to every registered voter in that state. This made it
convenient to use phantom, dead, seldom-voting, never-voting, and relocated voters for fraudulent votes.
Numerous reports were of voters presenting at the polling stations only to find someone had submitted a
mail-in ballot using their registration data, essentially confirming a fraudulent vote had been submitted.
While mass mailing of unrequested ballots is supposedly not an issue in Kansas since it only uses
absentee ballots (which require voter request and an ID), there are still cases that raise questions about
mailed ballots. For instance, there have been reports of Kansans who have received unsolicited ballots by
mail; in one case, ballots were constantly received for a deceased family member dead for years; in
others, people reported presenting themselves at polling stations only to be told they had already voted.
13Since we have not conducted a survey, the extent of these issues is not known. However, they should not
be occurring in Kansas at all.
Drop Boxes and Ballot Harvesting: Kansas law allows for voters to drop off advance ballots at
authorized drop box locations. While Kansas may not have the same issues, at least to the same extent, as
other states, it is instructive to look at what has happened with drop boxes nationwide to preclude future
problems in Kansas. For example, many states deployed thousands of unsupervised drop boxes, many
used to specifically aid in getting ballots for one party because many were located in an area heavily
populated by that party. In many cases, there was no monitoring of these boxes. This was not the case in
Georgia, however; which discovered from the admission of a ballot harvester that he had accepted
$45,000 to fill out and deposit 4,500 fraudulent votes. In addition, 241 other ballot harvesters were
identified dumping backpacks of ballots late at night on repeated occasions. Estimates suggest their
fraudulent ballot stuffing could result in as many as one million fraudulent votes in Georgia alone.
Using the excuse that COVID required the deployment of mail-in ballots for voter safety, ballot
harvesting (using drop boxes) has become a productive means in many states to flip elections.
Uncontrolled or poorly controlled drop box procedures and massive mailings of mail-in ballots were used
to create what has been seen as a convenient means to pad election results. While the problem may not
exist to the same extent in Kansas, it remains one of concern since recent changes to Kansas law allow for
individuals to “harvest” and submit up to 10 ballots to an election office. This is an opportunity for fraud
considering that precincts may have an election victory flipped by as few as 100 votes. It may be prudent
to eliminate ballot harvesting by anyone altogether except in rare cases of a family member submitting a
ballot for another physically unable to vote. Likewise drop boxes should be limited to election locations
only and monitored with 24/7 cameras.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
Fraudulent Methodology (Navarro Analysis): Trump Trade Representative, Peter Navarro conducted a
national investigation of election fraud methodologies used across the fifty states. He discovered and
categorized 36 different methods into six groups 1) Voter fraud (bribery, fake ballots,
ineligible/dead/ghost/out-of-state voters, multiple votes); 2) Ballot mishandling (No ID, signature
matching abuses, missing outer envelops, broken chains of custody, no postmarks, backdating, accepted
late votes); 3) Process violations (denying/limiting viewing by opposite party monitors, mail-in/absentee
rule violations, illegal personnel working, curing violations, voting by illegals); 4) Equal Protection
(different ID standards, curing ballots, treatment of poll watchers); 5) Voting Machines (inaccuracies,
high adjudication rates, ballot switching, decremented votes); and 6) Anomalies (High ballot rejection
rates, abnormally high voter turnouts, statistically improbable vote totals, unusual vote surges, number of
voters exceeding number of registrations). Many of these violations were seen in all states but were
particular evident in key battleground states. The uniformity and massive extent to which they occurred
suggests that there is a national campaign of election corruption perhaps with some degree of centralized
control and orchestration. Complaints received in at least Johnson and Wyandotte counties suggest that
Kansas has at least some of these issues.
Historically Abnormal Statistical Election Results - Keshel Analysis: Elections are historically and
statistically similar in that a large portion of the population tends to vote the same way over time.
Determining the winning party usually depends upon the degree of voter in enthusiasm (i.e., interest in
voting in a given election) and the preference of Independent voters. Generally, trends do not vary much
from election to election. And certain bell weather measures seem to hold true every election. However,
when registration and voter numbers exceed historical trends, and when election outcomes counter bell
weather norms and predictions, a possibility of election fraud exists. The 2020 election is replete with
abnormal numbers in both categories (Ref: 10 Indisputable Facts That Argue for Audits).
Seth Keshel, former U.S. military intelligence officer and statistical analyst, identified statistically
significant problems in all 50 states. His analysis of Kansas indicated a potential fraud estimate of 8.4%,or 48,000 questionable votes. Though this type of analysis is not evidential, meaning it is not sufficient to
serve as evidence in a court of law, it is indicative of a serious problem for which analysis is warranted.
No state should have 8% of its votes be suspect. This is one of numerous analyses that warrant
investigation into the Kansas election results. (Ref: Keshel 2020 Election Analysis)
Pulitzer Analysis: Pattern recognition, technology expert and holder of dozens of patents, Jovan Hutton
Pulitzer analyzed election results in many states including all battleground states. In addition to proving
many ballots were probably fraudulent by virtue of the fact they were prepared by ballot producers rather
than being sent to and from legitimate voters, he also showed the statistically improbable massive
infusion of votes in major states that occurred all at the same time, and all for one candidate (Two of
many examples are shown below.). This indicates that infusions of large numbers of votes were
fraudulently made by software to flip the election after all battleground states had temporarily closed
down vote counting and the election was all but won by the other candidate. (Ref: Jovan Pulitzer
Election Fraud Investigation) (Note the statistically improbable spikes in votes for one candidate.)
Frank Analysis: Dr. Douglas Frank analyzed the 2020 election results of every county in every state.
His investigation discovered the implementation of an algorithm which he tested and proved to be
operating by accurately predicting the exact election results in Florida before he analyzed Florida election
data. As a test of the validity of this discovery, a canvassing team found that 500 of 1,600 voters Frank
identified were phantom voters. Though his results are indicative of election fraud rather than being
evidential, the fact that his results show the exact same process being used in nearly every county in every
state says that the statistical probability that the election results occurred by fair and un-manipulated
means is astronomically small. This conclusion is supported by the large number of counties that had
inordinately high (often 100%) voter turnouts relative to registered voters (in many cases more voters
than registered voters) and with the highly unlikely but extremely high correlation between his model and
actual 2020 voter data. A description of how this process works and the results Frank found in Kansas are
in the following: (Ref: Dr. Frank Shows Election Fraud with Phantom Voters; ref: Kansas County
Voter Analysis)
IMPLICATIONS TO KANSAS ELECTIONS
15Election Vulnerabilities (KS Legislative Research Department Report): In an August 8, 2018 report
by the Kansas Legislative Research Department, an extensive list of vulnerabilities to election systems in
Kansas were identified. While much effort and money is spent on election equipment and processes,
perhaps the greatest vulnerability and one not necessarily adequately addressed is the bad actor. No matter
how good a system is, someone seeking to circumvent it can find a way. We recommend readdressing the
vulnerabilities in this report in light of the many instances of fraud discovered in the 2020 election. (Ref:
Status of Election Security in Kansas, Report by Kansas Legislative Research Department, August
8, 2018)
SUMMARY
Historic evidence and extensive investigations and analyses by a multitude of independent but expert
technologists and investigators more than prove organized election fraud has been perpetrated in U.S.
national elections for at least 40 years. An extensive disinformation campaign has been orchestrated
nationwide, particularly in the media, to convince the public, lawmakers and government officials that the
2020 Election was fraud-free and that our election process is secure. It is anything but. No state is free
from election “irregularities” It is only a matter of degree as to which of the 36 identified methods for
vote manipulation have been used to affect national, state and local elections.
To believe that Kansas has been, is and will be immune from such violations is to be the proverbial
ostrich with its head in the sand. To look at the end results of the election process (i.e., comparing election
results recorded from the very few authorized audits to those received by the Secretary of State office)
cannot discover any of the above problem areas if they exist in Kansas. It is merely recounting beans in a
jar.
Costs aside, the prudent individual would want a full forensic audit if for no other reasons than to confirm
once and for all there are no vulnerabilities in the Kansas election system and processes. But to arbitrarily
accept statements from sources who have not conducted extensive investigations into all aspects of the
election process and systems, especially in light of the many identified problems noted herein and in
countless other reports not documented due to space, is to gain little more than false comfort that may
mask potentially serious election issues if they exist. A list of only a few of the plethora of documented
cases of election malfeasance listed in the Appendix supports this.
All Secretaries of State certified the 2020 election results, some doing so despite known questions about
election integrity in their respective states. Subsequent investigations and resulting evidence obtained by
various local investigative groups indicate that there is more than sufficient reason to question many of
these certifications.
The current list of out-of-state requests for Kansas registration lists suggest there is a disturbing number
and growing interest by outside elements who may be targeting Kansas in upcoming elections. To believe
that Kansas is safe from the employment of nefarious means to fraudulent manipulate our elections is
naïve at best. Given that many election problems have occurred and are continuing to occur, it is not just
prudent but necessary to assume a highly precautionary position to protect Kansas voters in the 2022
election and beyond.
RECOMMENDATIONSWe are therefore calling for the Kansas Legislature to:
1) Create an Elections Integrity Commission to investigate the entire Kansas election system and
processes and make recommendations for all necessary changes to absolutely secure our
elections;
2) Authorize a full forensic audit of the Kansas voting system, its voting equipment, and the 2020
election results;
3) Authorize the capture of forensic images from voting machines and prohibit any updates to
election machines until such data is captured;
4) Take measures to secure all data in election machines and all communications regarding the 2020
election across the state until after audits are completed.
We also offer the following initial recommendations:
1) Voter registration files, which are electronic records available on line but have increased in cost
from $100 to $200, are public records and should be available for free.
2) Reports provided to the public are public record and should not have vendor copyrights as they
contain no proprietary content.
Finally, we recommend the following changes to the law:
1) The Secretary of State each month shall publish online county registered voter totals by party and
also show what percent are “active” (known addresses) vs. “inactive” (invalid addresses). This
data will be provided in a non-proprietary file format (e.g., tab or comma-separated fields) for
convenient analysis. Counts of records added or purged shall be included.
2) In all statewide elections, the Secretary of State shall record a snapshot of all voters eligible to
vote (voter registration files) immediately after the registration deadline (three weeks before the
election) to include the ballot history for all such voters in the election. This election ballot
snapshot shall be electronically available online at no charge.
3) The Secretary of State shall provide consistent precinct names for all counties in voter files and
the election results to aid in the analysis of an election. (Note: The census-based VTD from
election results could be added to the voter file for consistency between voter files and election
results.)
4) The Secretary of State shall publish county and precinct election results in a consistent format for
all counties (i.e., voter registration files and election results files shall have consistent precinct
names and numbers.) The results shall be provided in a non-proprietary file format (e.g., tab or
comma-separated fields) for convenient analysis.
5) Lists of all voters “purged” from the voter file shall be an open record (in the same format as the
voter file) published online within 30 days of purging and available at no cost.
6) All National Change of Address (NCOA) lists provided to the counties by the Secretary of State
to identify voters no longer living at an address shall be an open record available on line at not
cost.
Note 1: References cited in this document are available upon request at: leo@libertylionsleague.com.
Note 2: Information reported in this document are from various publicly available articles and reports.
The author does not purport that data contained in them is necessarily evidential but taken as a whole is at
least indicative of serious election integrity problems. It is instructive to note that even with all the
documentation noted herein, this is a minute amount of the vast number of serious irregularities found and
documented from the 2020 election. Finally, while there is little appetite among politicians to relitigate
the 2020 election, a true evaluation into the security of any election process cannot be done if lessons (and
the identified irregularities) of the last and previous elections are not considered.
17APPENDIX
EXAMPLES OF 2020 ELECTION IRREGULARITIES
The following is only a sampling of possibly thousands of documented irregularities that should not have
occurred if election systems across the country were truly secure.
AZ:
§ 5,000 absentee ballots lost or destroyed; replaced with blank ballots filled out by workers or Third
party;
§ Disputed ballots: 300,000.
§ Counting rooms closed in 3 counties to remove counting monitors; then counting continued;
§ Between 36,000 and 237,000 non-citizens voted;
§ 21,000 voters did not provide proof of citizenship;
§ Pitton analysis indicated between 160,000 and 400,000 phantom voters;
§ Audit was restricted to recounting ballots, not doing a forensic audit to determine fraud; still more
than 16 serious issues were discovered that should decertify the election;
§ 73,243 mail-in ballots have no record of being sent;
§ 18,000 who voted were removed from rolls after the election (Note: This is an established
fraudulent technique: Registrations are inflated before elections with illegals, out-of-state voters,
etc.; mail-in ballots are produced using addresses of vacant lots, dead voters still on rolls, and
seldom- or never-voters: then voter rolls are purged after the election to eliminate evidence and
any ability to trace fraud);
§ 173,104 votes were “lost;”
§ 96,389 ghost mail-in votes were found;
§ In response to fallacious claims by the Maricopa Board of Supervisors who insisted no evidence
of fraud was uncovered, Cyber Ninjas (who conducted the forensic audit), revealed the
following:
a) There were more returned mail-in ballots than sent out; 24% of the 9,041 ballots in question
had multiple image scans;
b) There was evidence that some voters voted in multiple counties;
c) Official results do not match the list of those who voted;
d) Data files that should be maintained were erased under the excuse that more storage was
needed;
e) The Board refused to allow audits of machines and yet released clearly fallacious claims about
the audit;
f) Machines were connected to the Internet despite claims to the contrary. (Ref: Maricopa
County Forensic Audit: Maricopa Cty Grassroots Canvass Report; Cyber Ninjas
Response) (Note: Presidential victory margin was only 10,457 votes.)
§ CO: County Clerk Tina Peters was aware that Dominion technicians were erasing voting data under
a “Trusted Build” update that was really an excuse to destroy evidence of fraud. She took a forensic
image of her voting machines before this “update” and again afterwards. She was correct in that the
update destroyed all federally mandated files required to be maintained for 22 months. When she
reported it to the Secretary of State, she and her staff were fired, charged with destroying evidence
(which only the SecState had control over), and had all of her machines confiscated. This obvious
cover-up of criminal election fraud is now in a lawsuit. (Ref: Mesa County Dominion Crime
Report; tale of Tina Peters and the Cark Days Ahead for Whistleblowers)
§ GA:
§ 51 Fulton Cty precincts gave Biden 90-93% of votes; 51 precincts gave him 94%; 36 gave him
95%. All used Dominion machines;
§ GA adjudicated 105,000 ballots. Federal law requires no more than .0008% of votes to be
adjudicated;
§ 1.2M mail-in ballots were questionable after SecState made deal w/ Stacey Abrams to reduce
signature verification requirements (Trump and both Republican senators lost);§ 20,000 ghost votes were discovered (voters moved out of state) - votes were submitted by
operatives from rolls and those bussed in;
§ Kamala Harris photographer worked as election worker counting ballots – not legal;
§ Multiple state investigations by a private group found massive ballot harvesting. They GPS-
tracked and video surveilled 242 harvesters over a long period during the election. Ballot
harvesters would wear white gloves (to avoid fingerprints) and bring backpacks of ballots late at
night, dumping them in unsupervised ballot drop boxes. One harvester confessed to receiving
$45,000 for stuffing 4,500 fraudulent ballots into drop boxes. Estimates are that as many as one
million fraudulent ballots may have been harvested by this group alone.
§ NV:
§ 15,000 mail-in ballots from voters known to have voted in other states;
§ Native Americans were given Visa gift cards, jewelry for votes;
§ Non-registered voters were told to get a DMV appointment slip in parking lot to register, then
come back and vote later;
§ Clark County Registrar of Voters violated the law by allowing a defective signature reading
machine to verify voter signatures instead of a election worker;
§ PA:
§ 100,000 ballots were trucked in from NY;
§ 25,000 ballots were requested from residents of one nursing home, all at same time;
§ 8,000 confirmed dead voters cast mail-in ballots;
§ 695,000+ illegal ballots were found by Pulitzer where Trump was ahead by 700,000 only to have
685K-958K ballots lost. Biden won by 81,666;
§ Poll Workers pulled ballots from under table when counting was mysteriously shut down;
workers were seen counting ballots multiple times; Election workers had been sent home so no
monitoring was done; however, potentially fraudulent conduct was caught on video.
§ SecState (Dem) allowed ballots w/o outer signed envelope to be counted;
§ WI:
§ 500 illegal drop boxes were set up, mostly in Dem neighborhoods;
§ USPS manager illegally told employees to backdate ballots received after election so they would
be counted;
§ Missing and “Unknown” Ballots:
§ The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s study showed some 15 million mail-in ballots that were
unaccounted in the 2020 election across the country:
1) There were 14.7 million “unknown” ballots, along with 1.1 million undeliverable ballots, and
560,814 rejected ballots.
2) Clark County (NV) where Biden won by 33,596 votes had 93,279 ballots “bounced” and
724,708 ballots that were determined to be “unknown”;
3) Los Angeles County (CA) had 1,491,459 unknown ballots;
4) Orange County (CA) (482,940);
5) Riverside County (454,911);
5) San Diego County (317,614);
6) San Bernardino County (274,937);
7) Santa Clara County (251,840); and
8) Sacramento County (241,367). (Ref: 15 Million Mail-in Ballots Missing)
19You can also read
