Closing Signature Verification Loopholes
Closing Signature Verification Loopholes
Using Kari Lake Judge's Ruling As A Guide Post
In this FIREAXE.ACADEMY presentation we are going to take a critical forensic look at the Arizona Courts ruling regarding the Kari Lake Signature Verification Lawsuit and its dismissal.
I have already narrated the complete Judges ruling and you can listen to my narration HERE. However, for the sake of education on this critical matter, for use by a wider audience to understand the importance/relevance of this egregious break in our systems, not to mention those who are interested in assuring our elections in the future are safe and secure… I am making this particular FIREAXE.ACADEMY session open for all to hear and review.
This lesson is great way for you to judge if the teachings of FireAxe.Academy are something you would like to support and peruse and most importantly take back to your voting precincts.
Although I will not dive into the specific legal techniques which can be used to close this egregious election loophole (that is an additional Academy Training Module), you will gain enough understanding to see how important it is that the election integrity movement immediately take up and draft new signature verification laws with detailed operational standards so this never happens again in our United States elections.
1st EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
2nd EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
3rd EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
PLEASE NOTE: My Newest Book “Count Down To Chaos - Silent Federalizing of Elections” has just released!
The finding of this historic and groundbreaking book will rock your world. It will shake your faith in both our government and the sanctity of our elections, but it will also enlighten you as to why our work in Election Integrity are so important to Saving Americ From Socialism!
4th EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
5th EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
6th EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
7th EXAMINATION PARAGRAPH
Thank you Jovan, right now I feel gobsmacked, this needs to fixed asap. I am glad I subscribed to this and am wondering why the attorneys are not as smart as you are. Some of our Legislators are attorney's here in Arizona and I am not confident enough in any of them to even fix a parking ticket. This means they are dumber than dirt or corrupt as hell.
Thank you Jovan.
For the time standard (the geometric or Chain of Custody standards would be separate), my initial thoughts are to analyze individuals for each tier of signature review training. The units (participants) would each be provided a sample from a pool of paired signatures. The measures would be: time to review and if it was a correct decision or not. Because there'd be many quick true-positive or true-negatives like you mentioned (i.e. signature present vs no signature at all being quickly decided correctly) the time variable I suspect would be skewed and would need to be transformed for statistical veracity.
From that I think we could determine a few things to set a few standards. We could analyze all decisions made, only correct decisions made (which I think the standards should be based on) and only incorrect decisions made. We could find the standard, for a given tier and time into work, the average time it should take, the upper control limits (i.e. mean + 2 sd & mean + 3 sd), the lower control limits (i.e. mean - 2 sd & mean - 3 sd), and error rates associated with the decision time and time into work.
I'd want to control for "decision fatigue" so there'd also be a timestamp with each verification decision made. We'd subtract their start time to get that variable. More simply, we could stratify by which hour into work they were in (so stratified by tier and which hour of i.e. "Tier 1: Hours 0-1 Results").
An argument could be made for controlling for years of experience, but one could also be made for getting folks who haven't done it before and randomly assigning them to different levels of training that would represent each signature review tier.
Getting participants from a different state where this is not a politically charged issue may be desirable.
To be more defensible, getting enough participants for each tier for a power of at least 0.8 would be desirable.
...of course a "quick and dirty", and maybe a critical path to get something reasonable, is to conduct a survey of those at different levels of training (including Forensic Document Experts or FDE's) of how long they think it should take then just calculate lower control limits from those responses.