How a Federal District Court Judge Weaponized Secret Algorithms to Stop Election Fraud Hidden in State Voter Rolls
How a Federal District Court Judge Weaponized Secret Algorithms to Stop Election Fraud Hidden in State Voter Rolls Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. On September 27, 2024, Federal District Court Judge Michael T. Liburdi rendered a decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes that weaponized algorithms surreptitiously embedded in various state boards of elections official voter registration database as a tool to block the certification of elections that bear the modus operandi of mail-in ballot election fraud. In his decision, Judge Liburdi referenced a provision in the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) issued by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, that required the Secretary of State to certify an election by excluding the votes of any county that refused to certify an election. Justice Liburdi quoted the EPM language that became known in Arizona as the “Canvass Provision.” The quoted EPM language, including the parenthetical remark included in the original EPM document, reads as follows: If the official canvass of any county has not been received by this deadline, the Secretary of State may proceed with the state canvass without including the votes of the missing county (i.e., the Secretary of State is not permitted to use an unofficial vote count in lieu of the county’s official canvass). Judge Liburdi characterized the rule as “probably unprecedented in the history of the United States, gives the Secretary of State nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Americans.” Therefore, he ruled that the Canvass Provision was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment: The right to vote is fundamental. Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966). “A state law or practice that unduly burdens or restricts that fundamental right violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Election Integrity Project Cal., Inc. v. Weber, 113 F.4th 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2024). Plaintiffs agree that the plain terms of the Canvass Provision require the Secretary to nullify a county’s votes if the county board of supervisors fail to timely canvass. Courts have routinely recognized that disenfranchisement is a severe burden on the right to vote. See, Fla. Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 16-CV607, 2016 WL 6090943, at *6 (N.D. Fla. October 16, 2016) (“If disenfranchising thousands of eligible voters does not amount to a severe burden on the right to vote, then this Court is at a loss as to what does.”). Judge Liburdi’s ruling is a bulwark against secret algorithms in the state voter databases that create a pool of hidden “non-existent voters.” Beyond just creating “non-existent voters,” the cryptographic algorithms assign legitimate state voter IDs to the “non-existent voters.” This last step enables the criminal perpetrators to vote these “non-existent voters” as apparently “legal” mail-in votes in what could be sufficient quantities to steal otherwise losing elections. State election boards do not conduct field canvassing efforts to verify that mail-in voters exist, confirm that they live at the registered addresses, or verify that they are legally qualified to vote. This failure allows criminal perpetrators to interject a cryptographic algorithm scheme into the database that allows the perpetrators to create “non-existent voters.” The only way to address the problem of these phantom voters is to halt certification and analyze the database. However, Fontes’s “rush-rush” EPM made doing so impossible. It forced Arizona counties to hustle out certifications even if they believed they were invalid or else risk disenfranchising every voter in the county. Nor is this a hypothetical risk. To date, as reported on GodsFiveStones.com, computer graphics expert Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. has found algorithms in the boards of elections’ official voter registration lists of the following states: New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin, with reports on algorithms found in Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Jersey in progress. Dr. Paquette is now examining the state voter rolls in Arizona and Georgia. Judge Liburdi’s ruling means that a county where an algorithm is found may safely refuse to certify its results on the suspicion that phantom voter fraud affected election outcomes in that county. Likewise, a candidate who lost a close election after a late surge in mail-in ballots for the candidate’s opponent may have a legitimate argument that an algorithm was used in an election fraud scheme designed to benefit the opponent’s political party. By analogy, if an investigation finds a casino has been using marked cards at the “21” tables, it would be impossible to prove that any gambler ever had legitimately lost a hand. In the same way, if an algorithm that can be used to cheat is present in a voter registration database, it is impossible to determine an honest outcome for that election. However, with the decision in American Encore v. Fontes, the algorithms are no longer a weapon for cheating. Instead, their presence becomes a shield by which honest county supervisors can impede a rush to judgment to certify a possibly stolen election. The point of embedding secret algorithms in state boards of election voter registration databases appears to be to create and certify votes cast by fictitious voters. If the goal of the algorithms is to certify election fraud, then American Encore v. Fontes provides the antidote, provided one county in a given state refuses to certify that county’s election results. In conclusion, all it may take to expose election fraud should the voting counting patterns seen in the 2020 election be repeated in the 2024 election is for one county in a battleground state to refuse to certify the election. The rush to certify a fraudulent election is a necessary part of the algorithm/mail-in ballot scheme. Slowing down certification, even in one county, may gain the time needed to conduct a forensic examination to determine if the algorithm was used to trigger the mail-in votes in the objecting county and how many of the mail-in ballots cast in that county were fraudulent. Validation that a cryptographic algorithm permitted decisive mail-in ballots in one county would then lend credence to all states where similar cryptographic
Paquette Has Found Algorithms in the Wisconsin State Voter Registration Database
Paquette Has Found Algorithms in the Wisconsin State Voter Registration Data Base, Plus Illegal Clone Voters Article Published on Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has discovered the presence of cryptographic algorithms in the Wisconsin State Board of Elections voter registration database. Similar to what Paquette found in New York and Ohio, the Wisconsin Board of Elections assigns voter identification numbers (IDs) in three different methods: incrementing voter ID numbers by 1, according to the order of voter registration (considered the normal way of assigning voter IDs); incrementing voter registration numbers by variable multiples of ten; and an increment method designed to appear random. As we have noted previously, renumbering voter registration databases so that voter ID is not a function of the date the voter registered appears to be the first step in an encryption scheme resembling the ciphers card cheats utilize to insert marked cards into a fresh deck of cards. Paquette explained that an indication that cryptographic algorithms were present in the Wisconsin voter registration database were various county scatterplots in which voter ID was assigned by undisclosed algorithmic reordering (not by the chronological ordering of their registration dates). For instance, Paquette noted the scatterplot of voter IDs for Wood County, Wisconsin (Figure 1) “shows a clear shift in ID number assignment around 2016. From 2006 to 2015, there’s a pattern of ascending ID numbers. In 2016, there was an abrupt change, with new registrations receiving ID numbers similar to those used a decade earlier. This pattern continues through 2024, suggesting a significant reset or change in the ID assignment system in 2016.” Figure 1, Wood County, Wisconsin, ID numbers, close-up Table 1: Dane County, Wisconsin 50 gap frequencies compared Paquette stressed the covert nature of cryptographic algorithms placed within voter registration ID databases: A fundamental rule of database management is that all data should be transparent, traceable, and used only for its intended purpose. The algorithms found in various state databases violate this rule by introducing what amounts to undocumented attributes into the database. This makes it untraceable by normal means and can enable manipulations that violate the intended purpose of the databases. In what he terms “gap analysis,” Paquette found a pattern in which sequential voter IDs in various Wisconsin counties were incremented by multiples of 10. “The order of the numbers appears randomized,” he observed, “leading to sequences like the following: 20, 120, 50, 120, 430, 190, 50, 489, 40, 570, 10. Analysis of Dane County, Wisconsin, showed the most significant number of gap frequencies occurred with increment of subsequent numbers by 10 (65,898 occurrences in the first 50 gap frequencies compared), by 20 (25,907 frequencies), by 30 (15,389 frequencies), etc., as demonstrated in Table 1. He was particularly alarmed at the exceptionally high number of clone voters (duplicate registrations for the same voter) he found in Wisconsin. Paquette reported that in a Wisconsin voter registration database numbering 7,744,986 records, he found 874,455 suspicious records, with at least 437,227 likely clones. He explained: While I haven’t discussed these findings with Wisconsin officials, I have conferred with multiple county Board of Elections (BOE) commissioners in New York about similar findings. Two commissioners explicitly acknowledged that the records I presented were either real and existed in their database or were similar to records they knew of in their databases. They both told me that clone records violate state and federal law. One commissioner explained that preventing cloned records was beyond his control due to multiple legal sources for registration applications, claiming it was impossible to prevent simultaneous processing of forms for the same voter. However, this explanation fails to account for cases where multiple ID numbers had photographic reproductions of the same signature, indicating a single origin rather than disparate sources. Table 2: Clone registrations by year, Wisconsin An even more significant concern was that the number of new clone records generated yearly has rapidly increased since the passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002. Until 2002, new clone registrations never exceeded 3.00 percent of the total registrations in any given year (Table 2). Paquette explained his concern: “In 2003, clones crossed the 3.00% barrier to 3.41% for the first time. From then on, the number of clones increases year over year, with spikes in presidential election years. The highest number recorded to date is 35.82% of all registrations in 2021, and currently rests at 20.06% for the still incomplete year 2024.” He concluded: “These findings indicate potentially unethical management of Wisconsin’s voter roll records. Regardless of intent, the algorithm’s use creates a hidden classification system for data segregation, posing a security risk. The large number of cloned records exacerbates this risk, as such records would be of particular interest to those seeking to misuse voter rolls—a concern recently realized when Wisconsin mailed absentee ballots to inactive voters.” Donate to Support God’s Five Stones
Andrew Paquette Finds Cryptographic Algorithms in the Pennsylvania State Board of Elections Voter Registration Data Base
Andrew Paquette Finds Cryptographic Algorithms in the Pennsylvania State Board of Elections Voter Registration Data Base Article Published on Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has found an algorithm in the Pennsylvania State Board of Elections (SBOE) voter registration database. Having previously found an algorithm in Wisconsin’s SBOE voter registration database, Paquette has no discovered cryptographic formulas embedded in two of the 2020 battleground states. Paquette has now found similar algroithms in a total of seven states: New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, as well as Texas and New Jersey (final reports in progress). Paquette stressed the importance of finding these various algorithms: A fundamental rule of database management is that all data should be transparent, traceable, and used only for its intended purpose. The algorithms found in various state databases violate this rule by introducing what amounts to undocumented attributes into the database. This makes it untraceable by normal means and can enable manipulations that violate the intended purpose of the databases. His analysis demonstrated that algorithms are in nine of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, including Allegheny County (that includes Pittsburgh) and Philadelphia County (that includes the city of Philadelphia): Initial results reveal 115,434 cloned records in Pennsylvania’s current database, a number sufficient to justify ID-tracking algorithms. Nine of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties employ a complex algorithm mapping Legacy ID (LID) number to SBOE ID numbers. Notably, the counties where algorithms are present include Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, which together account for 22.45% of all registrations. Once again, Paquette found thousands of voter records that should be removed but are still present in the SBOE voter registraton database. Pennsylvania’s voter database contains 8,846,634 records, of which only 9,924-19,846 (about 0.11%) are potential clones. These were identified by matching last name, first name, and date of birth – a method aligned with many state election regulations for initial duplicate checks. While this identification method may produce some false positives, the combination of full name and complete birth date sharing is statistically rare. The most common exception involves immigrants with missing birth date information who are assigned default dates. The number of clones in Pennsylvania, while problematic, may not alone justify the implementation of a complex voter tracking algorithm. However, this doesn’t preclude other reasons for such a system: There may be additional suspicious records not identified by this analysis. The system could be preemptively positioned for future use or expansion. Other administrative or operational factors unknown to outside observers might necessitate this complexity. Analysis of Pennsylvania’s voter records revealed several anomalies: 26,453 registrations predate the voter’s birth 29,707 voters with recorded votes before their 15th birthday 85 cases where the last vote date precedes the birth date These anomalies are primarily concentrated in Blair, Dauphin, and Venango counties. Of greater concern are 228,997 active records with no activity since 1/1/2018. Pennsylvania law requires inactive status for voters after missing two successive federal elections. Since 2018, three such elections have occurred (2018, 2020, 2022), meaning these records should be inactive or removed. These outdated active records are mainly found in: Philadelphia: 39,856 Allegheny: 24,065 Montgomery: 12,619 Bucks: 11,170 Delaware: 9,217 Ignoring voter status, 514,422 records show no activity since 1/1/2018. While Pennsylvania lacks a strict removal timeline, federal law allows removal after two federal elections without activity, following an unanswered confirmation notice. The persistence of these records through three election cycles raises questions about list maintenance procedures. Donate to Support God’s Five Stones
Dr. Jerome Corsi’s Writing
Dr. Jerome Corsi Biography and Writing Career Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D, has worked as a Senior Staff Reporter for WND.com. For over 25 years, Dr. Corsi worked in banking and finance, establishing investment programs for banks in the United States and worldwide to create financial planning services for their retail customers. From 1968-1981, he worked at universities where he conducted research on federally funded grants. In 1981, he published “Terrorism as a Desperate Game: Fear, Bargaining, and Communication in the Terrorist Event” in Journal of Conflict Resolution, a mathematical game-theoretical model for predicting the outcome of terrorist events. This resulted in a top-secret clearance by the State Department’s Agency for International Development. Since 2004, Dr. Corsi has published over 25 books, seven of which were New York Times bestsellers. In 2018, NewsMax published “Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump,” a New York Times bestseller. He has written a first-hand account of his experience with the Mueller Office of Special Counsel in his book “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘Witch Hunt.’” His most recent book, “Coup d’État: Exposing Deep State Treason and the Plan to Re-Elect President Trump,” was published March 5, 2020. Dr. Corsi graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Case Western Reserve University in 1968 and received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University in 1972. Websites: godsfivestones.com antiglobalistalliance.com thetruthcentral.com Books: The Antiglobalist Manifesto: Ending the War on Humanity The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis Who Really Killed Kennedy? How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush Killing the Deep State The Truth about Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner of Mueller’s ‘’Witch Hunt’’ Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders Showdown with Nuclear Iran Why Israel Can’t Wait Atomic Iran America for Sale Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada Black Gold Stranglehold The Obama Nation The Shroud Codex The Great Oil Conspiracy Bad Samaritans What Went Wrong: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 Hunting Hitler We vote in massive numbers, making the election “TOO BIG TO RIG!” We must make the Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election “TOO CLEAR TO QUEER!” Donate to Support God’s Five Stones
A Winning Strategy to Stop the Democrats from Stealing the 2024 Election
“Too Big to Rig!” “Too Clear to Queer!” A Winning Strategy to Stop the Democrats from Stealing the 2024 Election Article Published on Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. In 2020, the Democrats’ audacious techniques to rig the election in their favor surprised us. In the four years since 2020, diligent investigators have revealed the various methods the Democrats have utilized to steal elections they cannot win in a fair and honest vote. Not only do we make the 2024 election “Too Big to Rig!” by voting en masse, but we also make the Democrats various schemes to steal the 2023 election “Too Clear to Queer!” The ongoing revelation that rogue actors have placed cryptographic algorithms in various state boards of election voter registration databases is particularly alarming. These algorithms allow rogue actors to create, hide, and vote and certify “non-existent voters” (i.e., fictitious people)—a particularly troubling reality. But forewarned is forearmed. In 2024, we must fight back and win. In any state where algorithms or other voting irregularities have been discovered, lawyers must prepare to challenge election processes and procedures immediately, even while the voting is underway. The telltale signs are evident: Weak Democrat candidates begin surging in vote tallies. Board of Election officials halt the counting of votes. A vast number of mail-in ballots suddenly appear. Lawyers must prepare legal challenges in battleground states in advance: Poll watchers must demand the opportunity to conduct field surveillance of mail-in ballots to determine if the voter is an actual person at the address registered with a legal right to vote. The very existence of an algorithm should be a red flag that rogue actors plan to implement fraudulent voting schemes. Lawyers should file voter fraud charges even while counting the votes is in progress. Large numbers of clone voter registrants (i.e., multiple voter registrations for the same voter), registrations without registration dates (or with suspicious dates, such as January 1), or registration dates before the person registered was born are likely targets for use in voter fraud schemes. Why weren’t these records removed from the state voter registration files before the voting started? If Democrats think they can get away with stealing another election without a fight, we must prove them wrong. The critical point is to file legal challenges both with secretaries of state and the boards of election, as well as in the courts that demand proof that all who voted were real people, not algorithms, multiple mail-in votes from clones, or “ghost voters.” We have a right to demand proof that all who vote on November 5, 2024, have a valid registration and a legal right to vote. We vote in massive numbers, making the election “TOO BIG TO RIG!” We must make the Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election “TOO CLEAR TO QUEER!” Donate to Support God’s Five Stones