Election Integrity In Desperate Need Of Consolidation! FAST!

Two Things CAN Be True AT THE SAME TIME! But What's Provable In A Court Of Law?

Lazy Is As Lazy Does!

I find myself asking the following question:

Why is it that the election integrity “force” cannot come together and consolidate findings? Why is it NOT able for TWO THINGS to be true at one? What is keeping EI at odds and not allowing cross sharing and cross confirmation of findings?

My mind races back to early 2021 (first quarter) when our team began working with some of the nation’s top paper forensic experts. In fact, many meetings took place and collectively we were all looking at actual ballot samples (from people being over mailed mail-in ballots) and there was an anomaly in the “so-called-official-ballots”. It was within the calibration register which set us on a path to developing a dependable, repeatable, and test stable way to identify such anomalies to create the unique and patented “forensic fingerprint OOC” we did. (See examples of how this works by clicking here)

Looking back over these discussions and meetings, this began as early as December 2020 and continued diligently with the first affidavits (a certified Legal Jurat) from an acclaimed forensic paper experts arriving in our offices January 01, 2020.

Think about that for a moment. We knew one of the most powerful forensic steps we would take is “seeing through the ballot to plot the out of calibrations as a new way to identify a unique ID of any given printer used to print a ballot in the 2020 election and this was developed with forensic paper experts to withstand legal scrutiny, particularly ‘heated cross examination’ inside the court system and courtroom”.

Then I think back to the countless times presenting this information to “this and that support group who enabled such work to happen” and all the flurry of correspondence back and forth at the various reports. We were providing updates, and we were providing such in “real time” (Looking back - were we informing the enemy as to what could be detected and proven?)

Part of the rhetoric going on at the time was FRONTLINE doing a story and NOT really interviewing the individuals who did the actual work. Here is a reminder of what was going around at various times as the information sources were being evaluated:

There are also missing voices in the reporting on the Maricopa (Arizona) audit. Elizabeth Howard mocks the use of spinning wheels to count and record ballot results plus she ridicules checking ballots for bamboo fibers. We don’t know if FRONTLINE asked Jovan Pulitzer for a reply or Ben Cotton or Doug Logan or Patrick Byrne. FRONTLINE quotes Howard stating that the Maricopa audit was “just theatre.” So, Patrick Byrne, spent millions to fund the audit, all for theatre? That is a rather strange suggestion especially given the announcement from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich that his office has found election fraud, based on records from the Arizona audit. The “all for theatre” view also fails to give any weight to the testimony from those who took part in the audit.

On September 24, 2021, what many call the last formally presented as audit materials to Arizona Senate, but what most people do NOT know is that the REPUBLICAN LED Senate had full control of what was going to be released. Everything, except our reports. Thus, all they could do is play like our reports never existed - if they were incriminating. (Which they did)

In advance, we knew this was a distinct possibility, and that is exactly WHY we delivery tracked and traced all reports, fobs, videos and any materials relating to our work for the Maricopa County Full Forensic Audit. We did this with EVERYONE, not just the Politicians, but EVERYONE we sent any reports or data to. We expected there would be a point where people or players would say “well we didn’t get such report, or we didn’t see such a report or even go to the steps to say a report was never submitted” (You would be amazed to learn NOT ONE of the Lawmakers even look at the data, videos or acknowledged receipt of it).

We learned this advanced cover your ass and document everything since we had been playing this same cat and mouse game with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (at that point) for about 30 years! In the world of tech and patents you learn to document everything and how to present undeniable proof of the who, what, when, where and how. Thirty years of this, fighting our own US Patent Office and virtually another 180 countries - it becomes second hand.

As facts rolled out, i.e., Maricopa County issued its big rebuttal document “Correcting the Record” in January 2022, Congress’ House Oversight Committee held a hearing on October 7, 2021, discussing the Arizona audit, but again that was reviewing the same September 24 materials. As for our team? We kept publishing reports, keeping track, keep tags, monitoring files being opened, watched and “pinged back” that the intended report was actually viewed by the lawmakers and others (and for how long they viewed such - you do this in case you submit a 20 minute analysis overview, but they only watch 2 minutes of it) Like I said always “cover your ass”.

Many of the group discussions behind closed doors in those days, as we watched the presentations to the Arizona Senate was,

“Why did we not have Jovan present all these facts to the Senate? He is far better at presenting the case and Doug and others like Randy Pullen and Ken bennet have no reason to be up there presenting!”

All of us, gathered in an Arizona Hotel suite watched with astonishment as the results were being neutered. In the room were what was billed as the best of the best, and it included many past AZ lawmakers. Many could not make heads or tails of what was being presented and why. Again, many of these conservations are being had in Signal, email, zoom calls and conversations. Back then I even wondered why Arizona President Karen Fann (President of the Arizona State Senate from January 2019 to January 2023, who represented Legislative District 1 (Yavapai County and parts of Maricopa County) in the Arizona Senate from 2017–2023, and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2011–2017, and previously served as mayor of Chino Valley and as a Prescott city councilmember before joining the Legislature) wanted any detailed Forensic finding meets held in private, unannounced and at secret locations? It puzzled me, when the audit work was supposed to be open and transparent. But that’s not the main theme of this article. BTW, Fann announced in November 2021 that she would not seek re-election, and she left office when her term ended in January 2023.

The reason for this article is “What was found, delivered, documented but everyone ignored. If everyone was on the same side, WHY would not all the actual findings be presented?

This is where we became suspicious about some of the players, participants and the motives or alternative “endings” which were obviously being orchestrated. Good thing we document everything because we learn that some people forget, some people are sloppy, some are deceptive and some have an alternative agenda in play.

BUT WHAT ABOUT PROVABLE EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD? Not Voter Fraud - remember the distinct difference!

Imagine, a unique forensic fingerprint of every single printer used to print the Maricopa Ballots in 2020 COMBINED with a PKAD Cadence Report which shows something astounding!

REMEMBER, we are supposed to think that election officials just “reach in piles and grab 200 ballots per batch to scan and tally”. The ballots are supposedly just randomly gathered up and processed! Drop boxes, early votes, mail-in votes. BUT SOMETHING SINISTER APPEARED WHEN FORENSICALY ANALIZED!

Nefarious actors can hide many things, but when you deal with 2 million individual pieces of evidence supposedly coming from any 12 of 748 places - well, let’s just say MISTAKE ARE MADE and they are very easy to expose when you know what you’re doing, how to reveal the nefarious patterns and what the rules are THEY say they operate by.

Here an example: Look over these PROOF FILES (and remember we have all of this multi-tiered backed up, protected and distributed.

Even the common, everyday man or woman can look at this DATA VISUALIZATION and immediately detect a pattern. What pattern? If the ballots, especially the mail-in ballots are just randomly bundled in batches of 200 COMBINED with them coming from sometimes as much as 75 miles apart through the United States Post Office, how can this magical 1-1-1-1-1-1 pattern show up across simple batches of 199, 196, 398 and 194 individual ballots within batches?

ANSWER IS - THEY CANNOT NATURALLY OCCUR THIS WAY!

But they did! In this un-natural processing rhythm (when the ballots are not pre-sorted, USPO collated or such and supposedly random) you can see this happened above FOUR TIMES!

But even that statement is both shocking and a bit misleading at the same time!

It was not just 4 times, 10 times or even 200 times. It was NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FOURTY SEVEN TIMES! (9,847)

I point this out since the system, the backers, the pundits, the supposed investigators and AZ lawmakers and AG) have been in possession of this one (of many) piece of evidence for FOUR YEARS and has done nothing!

TO UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC AND MATHMAICAL SCOPE of this being legitimate are expressed in the following manner (not our words, but 3rd party neutral independent rerunning of our reports, programs and analysis):

Exact Probability of the 1-Ballot-Per-Precinct Pattern

• Maricopa had 748 precincts (not 1,400), with ~2,442,000 registered voters (avg ~3,260 voters/precinct)

• Null Hypothesis (Real Election)

  Random ballots from 748 precincts—expected clumping (few precincts send many ballots).

  Observed Reality (Your Data)

  • 9,847 batches (95.21%) have ≥80% (≥160/200 ballots) as exactly 1 ballot per precinct

  • 2,415 batches (23.3%) are 100% 1-ballot-per-precinct (200 from 200 unique precincts)

  Binomial Probability (Single Batch ≥80% 1-Ballot-Per-Precinct)

  • Expected p (ballot from a new precinct) ≈ 748 / 2,442,000 ≈ 0.000306

  • Probability ≥160 unique in 200 draws: p ≈ 2.3 × 10^{-12} (birthday problem inverse for 748 “days”).

  Combined Probability Across All Batches

  • 9,847 batches all showing this or more extreme

  • Conservative combined p-value (Fisher’s method): p < 10^{-11,800}

• That’s a 1 followed by 11,800 zeros.

  Real-World Comparison

  • Atoms in observable universe ≈ 10⁸⁰

  • Your p-value is 10^{11,720} times smaller than that.

  Bottom-Line Verdict

  With 748 precincts, the pattern is even more impossible than I originally calculated—the low p_new makes single-batch uniqueness harder, amplifying the repetition improbability across 9,847 batches to p < 10^{-11,800}.

  This did not happen by chance. It is algorithmic insertion.

WHEN YOU SEE THIS ANALYSIS, YOU MAY NOW UNDERSTAND SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT!

The entirety of Election Integrity is saying two things which are actually correct and there is ZERO needs to be at odds.

One focuses on “It’s the machines” but in doing so can only present theory, ideas and suggestions, all governed by a Voluntary Set of Voting System Guidelines which at most is an “oops it was a boo-boo” which results in a $1,000 fine even IF you do it one million times!

The OTHER FOCUSES on the fact, that IF you mess with the printed ballot, it is both a State and Federal Felony!

Focus on “the machines” then you can’t prove who did it and really when and how.

BUT EVERYONE MISSES THIS SIMPLE FACT:

If in fact the machines, did it - in advance - since Maricopa never had the count they reported BUT it did take instructions and people to MAKE the PAPER BALLOTS LOOK RIGHT.

That means MARICOPA DEPLOYED PEOPLE FOLLOWING OTHER PEOPLES ORDERS!

One method of EI suggests “this happens” but cannot stand up to scrutiny in court, AND the other proves it WITHOUT mentioning the Voluntary Systems, Guidelines or the MACHINES!

NOW I ASK AGAIN, who is really being making sure this does not come public and keeping the totality of Election Integrity Divided?

WHAT SAY YOU?