Are Intelligence Agencies Planning to Make Voters Obsolete?
Are Intelligence Agencies Planning to Make Voters Obsolete? Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Here’s something for you to contemplate as you consider concerns about election integrity: Do the algorithms that Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has found surreptitiously embedded in current state board of election voter rolls suggest intelligence agents have decided to bypass voters to vote election simulations? As documented on GodsFiveStones.com, Paquette has found secret algorithms in the board of election voter registration databases in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Texas, with ongoing examinations underway in Arizona and Georgia. The algorithms appear designed to hide critical voter attribute information, allowing the people who developed the scheme to create and hide “non-existent voters” capable of being assigned legitimate state voter IDs. Once created, the algorithms can vote certifiable mail-in ballots for enough “non-existent voters” to steal an election from an opponent who won through legitimate votes. In his analysis of the algorithm found in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database, Paquette detailed how the algorithm could be used in a mail-in ballot scheme to steal an election. The data uncovered by NYCA’s (New York Citizens Audit) research suggests systemic election fraud is built into New York’s electoral process. The current working hypothesis is that: 1. False voters were introduced into the voter rolls. 2. The algorithm covertly tagged these records for easy retrieval when needed. 3. False registrants requested absentee ballots. 4. Ballots and ballot envelopes were gathered at central collection points. 5. Fraudulently generated ballots were cast in fraudulently obtained ballot envelopes. 6. False voter records were updated to reflect false votes. 7. After certification, false voter records were manipulated to disguise their purpose and history. In that paper, Paquette estimated there were approximately 338,000 illegally generated registrations in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database active for the 2020 General Election. To succeed, the scheme requires that the certification process does not involve any forensic attempt to go into the community to investigate whether the mail-in ballots cast belong to legitimate voters. The scheme also depends on lax checking of the signatures on the outside cover of mail-in ballots to ensure they are matched for accuracy with the voter’s signature placed on file at the time of registration. With tens of thousands of nonexistent voter registrations thanks to the algorithm, the criminals accessing the Board of Election computers could easily ask how to structure an election. “Should our Candidate X (the algorithm-chosen winner) win by 1 percent, 3 percent, or more? Should our Candidate X lead throughout election day, surge late in the voting, or require a stoppage of vote counting to produce enough ‘non-existent voters’ to cast mail-in ballots to steal the election?” The point is that these hidden “non-existent voters” could be activated to cast a certifiable mail-in vote as needed, provided the algorithm assigned legitimate state voter ID numbers to the “non-existent voters.” The problem with the algorithmic mail-in ballot election fraud scheme is that if you know about the algorithm, the patterns become apparent. In mail-in ballot fraud, we see candidates who are losing the in-person vote surge at the end of the election, when the mail-in ballots are counted. For example, if a candidate through legitimate, in-person voting has a larger lead than anticipated, vote counting stops overnight, followed by a surge of newly discovered mail-in ballots that heavily vote for Candidate X. How close are we to intelligence agencies deciding that with advances in AI and the statistical analytic skills of modern political science, voters are obsolete? This is not a far-fetched question. In an exchange preserved on video from a 2017 World Economic Forum meeting, Klaus Schwab suggested that voters have become obsolete given advances in computer technology. Schwab said, “But since the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what, predict, and afterwards you can say, ‘Why do we need the elections?’ Because we know what the result will be. Can you imagine such a world?” The World Economic Forum quickly attempted to control the damage, issuing a corrective statement insisting that Schwab’s comments were not “a call for action” but a hypothetical musing based on the anticipated predictive capabilities of computer technology in the future. The academic modeling of presidential elections has advanced to the point where a group of scientists in Peru and Brazil have developed a predictive mathematical model that utilizes machine learning (ML) and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to predict presidential election results (PER) with 100 percent agreement with actual elections in Brazil, Uruguay, and Peru. Conceivably, a computer model could run a simulation of a presidential election that would model a victory for the preferred candidate X. But for the computer simulation to be substituted for the actual vote credibly requires that the simulation matched reasonable anticipations of voter preferences. That conclusion that intelligence agencies are involved in placing algorithms in the state boards of election databases is supported by the complexity of the cryptographic mathematics and cipher intricacy that Dr. Paquette has demonstrated to be characteristic of the voter registration databases that he has discovered. Developing and placing the algorithms into the computer systems of the state boards of elections would require either confederate actors within the state board elections or a covert intelligence operation to penetrate the various state boards. However, stealing elections to be credible also involves successfully implementing a psychological operation involving control over mainstream media narratives. For example, consider that Joe Biden, after a disastrous debate with Donald Trump, demonstrated diminished mental functioning that disqualified him from being a credible contender. Vice President Kamala Harris was a more credible challenger, provided intelligence agencies could get the mainstream media to report questionable “surveys” that showed her challenging President Trump neck-to-neck despite her history of unpopularity and failure to advance in previous presidential attempts. That Schwab was
Archbishop Vigano’s Open Letter to America
In an Open Letter, Archbishop Viganò Strongly Urges Catholics to Vote for President Trump Article Published in Gateway Pundit by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has issued an open letter to American Catholics urging them to vote to re-elect President Trump as a moral imperative. “In this election you must choose between two radically opposed ways of conceiving the government of your Nation: you are called to choose between democracy and dictatorship, between freedom and slavery,” the Archbishop wrote. Catholics still are “the largest single religious denomination in America,” with an especially big presence in the large industrial states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio. Even more important the majority of Catholics tend to vote for the winner in presidential elections. At the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City (named for Al Smith, the first Catholic president) last Thursday, Trump asserted that he was “leading big” among Catholics. He characterized Trump as a protector of faith: “In Donald Trump’s America, every Catholic can practice their Faith and educate their children in it without interference from the State.” In contrast, Archbishop Viganò cautioned that Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party have become hostile to the Catholic Church: On the other side we have a candidate and a party that promotes everything that directly opposes the Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church. In Kamala Harris’ America, Catholics – but also Protestants – are considered fundamentalists to be marginalized and eliminated, and their children are considered the property of the State, which arrogates to itself the right to lead them astray from an early age in both body and soul. Trump’s America can become great and prosperous again. Harris’ America is destined for invasion and for moral, social, and economic destruction: the most ferocious dictatorship. Archbishop Viganò’s letter resonates with criticism of the “woke” globalist Left that he associates with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris: We are talking about two diametrically opposed and irreconcilable worlds, in which Trump fights against the deep state and is committed to freeing America from its tentacled grip, while on the opposite side we have a corrupt and blackmailed candidate, an organic part of the deep state, who acts as a puppet in the hands of warmongers like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, of self-proclaimed “philanthropists” like the criminals George Soros and Klaus Schwab, or of characters like Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs. Their program is that of the Global Left, the World Economic Forum, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and ultimately the program of Vanguard, BlackRock, and StateStreet. He railed against the LGBTQ+ agenda that he sees as violently anti-Christian: You have seen what the Democrats, that is, the woke far Left, have been capable of in four years. Imagine what they will be able to do if, instead of Biden’s numerous stand-ins, his Vice President is elected – in the most scandalous and unimaginable fraud – with her entourage of LGBTQ+ Ministers, rigorously woke, sold out to China or the World Economic Forum, sponsored by George Soros or Bill Gates, manipulated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He characterized this leftist cabal as demonic: Behind these people – by now we should know this – are people devoted to evil, united by the satanic hatred against Our Lord Jesus Christ and those who believe in Him, mainly against the Catholic faithful. We want Christ to reign, and we proclaim it with pride: Christ is King! They want the Antichrist to reign, whose tyranny is made of chaos, war, disease, famine, and death. And the more emergencies and crises planned and created by the globalist elite increase, the more that elite has a pretext to impose new limitations, new restrictions of fundamental rights, and new social controls. Last July, Pope Francis excommunicated Archbishop Viganò for his opposition to Vatican II and his sharp criticism of Pope Francis’s support for the LGBTQ+ “woke” agenda. In response, Archbishop Viganò published a statement “J’Accuse,” accusing Pope Francis as the one guilty of schism for deviating from “the true Catholic faith.” Archbishop Viganò stressed that Donald Trump was ” the only possible choice to counter the globalist coup that the woke Left is about to implement definitively, irreparably, and with incalculable damage for future generations.” He concluded by insisting Catholics had a moral imperative to vote for Trump: I repeat: the choice is between a conservative President, who is paying with his very life for his fight against the deep state, and an infernal monster who obeys Satan. For a Catholic, there can be no question: voting for Kamala Harris is morally inadmissible and constitutes a very grave sin. Nor is it morally possible to abstain, because in this war declaring oneself neutral means allying oneself with the enemy. [Emphasis in original.] Donate to Support God’s Five Stones
Officials in States with Cryptographic Algorithms in Voter Rolls Are Not Taking the Problem Seriously
Officials in States with Cryptographic Algorithms in Voter Rolls Are Not Taking the Problem Seriously Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Andrew Paquette Research published on GodsFiveStones.com has uncovered secret cryptographic algorithms in the official voter registration databases of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Unreported findings indicate similar algorithms exist in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Despite this, Secretaries of State across these jurisdictions are reluctant to acknowledge or address the issue. While Ohio’s Secretary of State agreed to investigate our claims, no official corrective action has been announced. Our investigation into New York’s voter registration database revealed well-hidden algorithms potentially violating several state and federal laws. This cryptographic scheme is a dual-use technology: while it might have legitimate applications, it can also be used to satisfy malicious objectives. We believe one such nefarious use could be to facilitate mail-in ballot election fraud. In disclosing the existence of the algorithm in the New York State Board of Elections voter registration database, we stressed the following: The algorithmic sort order creates the appearance of compliance with public disclosure laws while concealing attribute information. The attribute information is uniquely available to keyholders, much as a card cheat has unique access to a straight flush. Concealing information in plain sight, as was done in New York’s voter rolls, is called ‘steganography’ (Kaur & Rani 2016). In combination with known fraudulent registration records, The Spiral algorithm presents the possibility that it has been inserted into voter roll software, or used to alter the NYSBOE voter roll database, for nefarious reasons. The Spiral can be used to identify fraudulent records quickly and covertly by repositioning records into key positions. Records of interest can then be extracted by software designed to recognize the algorithmically modified data structure. Our evidence of cryptographic algorithms in voter rolls raises serious concerns about the inaction we’re seeing from state election officials. This could constitute negligence—potentially criminal negligence if officials were involved in creating these algorithms or if their inaction deliberately preserves them for election fraud. We distinguish this “election fraud”—a systematic effort to embed voting rolls with sophisticated ciphers to facilitate election theft—from “voter fraud,” which refers to individual voters attempting to cheat. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has suggested focusing only on identifying specific voters who committed fraud, a particularly troubling idea because it mischaracterizes systemic “election fraud” as individual “voter fraud,” allowing Ohio to ignore the undisputed presence of a cryptographic algorithm in Ohio’s voter registration file that can (and has) methodically altered data. The algorithm’s presence is analogous to the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry—a fundamental principle that serious students can neither ignore nor dismiss once it’s been postulated. Our analysis of New York state voter rolls revealed nearly 2 million “clone” (duplicate) records and thousands of excess votes assigned to individuals with multiple ID numbers. We also identified a list of suspected “ghost” (likely fabricated) voters, each with ten or more registrations. Through canvassing, we confirmed three cases of “ghost” voters, accounting for 57 ID numbers. Importantly, we uncovered the presence of cryptographic algorithms within the voter rolls. It’s impossible to imagine a legitimate purpose for these products of the implanted algorithm. However, voter rolls alone cannot prove fraud in mail-in or absentee voting. To identify fraudulent mail-in ballots would require additional steps beyond voter roll analysis. These include forensically investigating individual ballot cover sheets to authenticate voter signatures and field canvassing to verify the existence and eligibility of voters at addresses associated with mail-in ballots. State authorities typically don’t take these steps, creating a gap between what voter rolls reveal and what’s needed to prove fraud conclusively in mail-in voting. We object to the Ohio Secretary of State’s inaction regarding the algorithms discovered in their official voter registration databases for the following reasons: Misunderstanding of Preventative Measures: The Secretary’s stance demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of preventative measures in maintaining election integrity. Waiting for evidence of voter fraud before investigating system vulnerabilities is akin to waiting for a security breach before fixing known weaknesses in a computer system. Circular Logic: There’s a circular logic problem here. If the algorithms could potentially be used for covertly manipulating voter data, any fraud resulting from such manipulation might be undetectable through normal means. Requiring proof of fraud before investigating the very system that could be hiding such fraud is paradoxical. Ignoring Systemic Risks: The presence of unexplained, complex algorithms in a critical system like voter registration databases is itself a significant concern, regardless of whether fraud has been detected. These algorithms introduce unnecessary complexity and opacity into a system that should be transparent and straightforward. Legal and Ethical Obligations: Election officials have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and transparency of all aspects of the election process, including voter registration systems. The presence of potentially manipulable algorithms should be enough to trigger an investigation, as it relates directly to the security and integrity of the voting system. Public Trust: The existence of these unexplained algorithms, once known, could erode public trust in the election system. Refusing to investigate without proof of fraud could further damage this trust. Proactive vs. Reactive Approach: The Secretary’s stance is reactive rather than proactive. In matters of election integrity, a proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities is crucial. The U.S. District Court decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes established that a secretary of state cannot certify an election if even one county refuses certification. This ruling heightens the responsibility of election officials in states where algorithms have been found in official voter registration databases. If a single county refuses to certify the 2024 election due to these concerns, it could trigger civil or criminal investigations, potentially exposing various state officials to serious legal liabilities. GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible 501(c)3 foundation created by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., and Karladine Graves, M.D., managed by Capstone Legacy Foundation. Donate to Support God’s Five Stones
Who Added an Algorithm to New York State’s Voter Registration Roll, and Why?
Who Added an Algorithm to New York State’s Voter Registration Roll and Why? Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Dr. Andrew Paquette, who serves as research director of the all-volunteer citizens’ group New York Citizens Audit (NYCA), has proven that New York state’s voter registration roll now contains an algorithm designed to facilitate election fraud. One must understand how voter registration data works to appreciate just how serious this is. All registration data is predicated on algorithms, which are basically equations added into the registration in chronological sequence to transform a voter identification number (“Voter ID No.”) into a code. In an honest system, the voter who registers first gets Voter ID No. 1, the second voter to register gets Voter ID No. 2, etc. In other words, there’s a direct correlation between the date order of registration and the ID No., with the ID Nos. increasing by increments of one. However, Dr. Paquette has discovered a different algorithm. This one changes the Voter ID No. assignment so that the ID Nos. no longer increase by increments of one that are tied to the order in which voters register. Instead, the ID Nos. appear scrambled, with no linear sequential order. Why would someone do this? To begin, please understand that altering voter registration data with an algorithm is prima facie evidence that someone committed a crime. In an honest world, voter registration rolls are supposed to be honest. When criminals who want to commit election fraud control state boards of election, any algorithm that’s added to the voter registration database to alter the orderly flow of accessible information is presumptively fraudulent. “The algorithm that is still added to the New York state voter registration database is a complex mathematically driven cryptographic scheme that involves National Security Agency-level of complexity,” claims Dr. Paquette. Paquette describes the algorithm as a “Spiral Cipher” recoding of the New York state voter registration voter roll. Table 1 below shows the problem (red column numbers added for clarity). Column 1 has registration dates. Column 2 has the County Voter ID No. (“CID”), which is assigned when people register by county. Column 3 has the State Board of Election No. (“SBOEID”), which reflects the state’s translation of the CID into its own database. The first problem is that the CID and SBOEID numbers bear no relationship to each other, although they should. The second, more serious, problem is that the numbers bear no rational relationship to the order in which the registrations were supposed to have taken place. For example, the numbers in column 2 climb sequentially. The numbers in column 3 (the SBOEID numbers) do not, something spelled out in columns 5 and 6. Even registration dates from the 1800s have been altered so that the CIDs and SBOEIDs assigned to those voters appear randomly assigned. After all, in 1850, 22 million voters were not registered in New York state. More importantly, two voters registered on the same date, 1/01/1850, should not have CIDs or SBOEIDs so numerically distant (see columns 5 and 6). Nor would voters registered from 1902-1907 have lower CIDs and SBOEIDs than those registered in 1850. Table 1 New York State, Jefferson County; Voter Registration Date versus County Voter Identification Number (CID) and State Board of Election Voter Identification Number (SBOEID) In summary: This particular Spiral Cipher scheme would appear to explain why bad actors want to suspend vote tabulations on election nights when a preferred candidate is losing. During the tabulation pause, they can obtain enough of the mail-in ballots with fraudulent SBOEIDs to throw the election. When tabulation resumes, the preferred candidate will suddenly overtake the opponent, a pattern that can be repeated until the election is a lock for the preferred candidate. The election fraud would be difficult to challenge legally precisely because the fraudulent mail-in votes were certifiable. Paquette concluded that the Spiral Cipher’s purpose, by separating registration dates from logically ordered ID Nos., makes it possible to hide and, when needed, track the fake voter registrations. This is because, while the ordinary reviewer cannot figure out how to track voter IDs, the Spiral Cipher creator knows where the falsified records are in the database. When those who need more votes for a specific candidate than legitimately exist, they can surreptitiously have mail-in ballots sent to fraudulent SBOEIDs. These absentee ballots can lie in reserve to be called upon when needed. Then, they can be certified for the election because they’ll have an apparently legitimate SBOEID. Placing an information-tangling algorithm into a state voter registration roll appears to be a clear violation of state election laws. That’s because American election laws invariably specify that state boards of elections have a responsibility to maintain voter integrity, in relevant part, by making the voter rolls fully transparent and publicly auditable. Using a cryptographic cipher to confuse the data in a way that resists auditing would clearly appear to violate these requirements. In a 2023 article entitled “The Caesar Cipher and Stacking the Deck in the New York State Voter Rolls,” published in the Journal of Information Warfare, Paquette explained his hypothesis that the algorithm systematically builds the potential for election fraud into the New York State Board of Elections voter registration roll. In his 2023 paper, Paquette noted the following: There are hundreds of thousands of illegally generated registrations in the official NYSBOE [New York State Board of Election] voter rolls. The exact number is unknown, but it is not less than about 338,000 for registrations active for the 2020 General Election (NYCA 2022). If other elections are included, the number of apparently illegal registrations jumps to between 1.2 and 1.4 million. Since then, Pacquette has upgraded his original estimate registration jumps from between 1.2 and 1.4 million to closer to a minimum of 2 million. None of the arguments presented here “proves” that Joe Biden “stole” 2020’s general in New York or anywhere else. The point of this article is to raise questions about voter integrity, especially because similar algorithms
Why Placing Hidden Algorithms in State Board of Election Voter Registration Databases is Suspicious and Possibly Illegal
Why Placing Hidden Algorithms in State Board of Election Voter Registration Databases is Suspicious and Possibly Illegal Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. Research published on GodsFiveStones.com has uncovered secret cryptographic algorithms in the official voter registration databases of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Unreported findings indicate similar algorithms exist in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Our investigations have revealed similar algorithms embedded in nearly every state examined. Despite this, Secretaries of State across these jurisdictions are reluctant to acknowledge or address the issue. While Ohio’s Secretary of State agreed to investigate our claims, no official corrective action has been announced. Our investigation into New York’s voter registration database revealed well-hidden algorithms that potentially violate several state and federal laws. This cryptographic scheme is a dual-use technology: while it might have legitimate applications, it can also be used to satisfy malicious objectives. We believe one such nefarious use could be to facilitate mail-in ballot election fraud. In disclosing the existence of the algorithm in the New York state Board of Elections voter registration database, we stressed the following: The algorithmic sort order creates the appearance of compliance with public disclosure laws while concealing attribute information. The attribute information is uniquely available to keyholders, much as a card cheat has unique access to a straight flush. Concealing information in plain sight, as was done in New York’s voter rolls, is called ‘steganography’ (Kaur & Rani 2016). In combination with known fraudulent registration records, The Spiral algorithm presents the possibility that it has been inserted into voter roll software, or used to alter the NYSBOE voter roll database, for nefarious reasons. The Spiral can be used to identify fraudulent records quickly and covertly by repositioning records into key positions. Records of interest can then be extracted by software designed to recognize the algorithmically modified data structure.” Our evidence of cryptographic algorithms in voter rolls raises serious concerns about state election officials’ inaction. This could constitute negligence—potentially criminal negligence if officials were involved in creating these algorithms or if their inaction deliberately preserves them for election fraud. We distinguish this “election fraud”—a systematic effort to embed voting rolls with sophisticated ciphers to facilitate election theft—from “voter fraud,” which refers to individual voters attempting to cheat. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s suggestion to focus only on identifying specific voters who committed fraud is particularly troubling. This stance mischaracterizes systemic “election fraud” as individual “voter fraud,” while downplaying the undisputed presence of a cryptographic algorithm in Ohio’s voter registration file. Once deciphered, such an algorithm’s existence is irrefutable due to its evident and methodical alteration of data. This is analogous to the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry—a fundamental principle that once postulated cannot be ignored or dismissed by serious students. Assuming the algorithms in voter registration databases were placed with nefarious intent, it’s reasonable to believe the perpetrators aimed to avoid detection. Our analysis of New York state voter rolls revealed nearly 2 million “clone” (duplicate) records and thousands of excess votes assigned to individuals with multiple ID numbers. We also identified a list of suspected “ghost” (likely fabricated) voters, each with 10 or more registrations. Through canvassing, we confirmed three cases of “ghost” voters, accounting for 57 ID numbers. Importantly, we uncovered the presence of cryptographic algorithms within the voter rolls. However, voter rolls alone cannot prove fraud in mail-in or absentee voting. To identify fraudulent mail-in ballots would require additional steps beyond voter roll analysis. These include forensic investigation of individual ballot cover sheets to authenticate voter signatures and field canvassing to verify the existence and eligibility of voters at addresses associated with mail-in ballots. These steps are typically not made available by state authorities, creating a gap between what can be observed in voter rolls and what would be needed to conclusively prove fraud in mail-in voting. We object to the Ohio Secretary of State’s inaction regarding the algorithms discovered in their official voter registration databases for the following reasons: Misunderstanding of Preventative Measures: The Secretary’s stance demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of preventative measures in maintaining election integrity. Waiting for evidence of voter fraud before investigating system vulnerabilities is akin to waiting for a security breach before fixing known weaknesses in a computer system. Circular Logic: There’s a circular logic problem here. If the algorithms could potentially be used for covert manipulation of voter data, any fraud resulting from such manipulation might be undetectable through normal means. Requiring proof of fraud before investigating the very system that could be hiding such fraud is paradoxical. Ignoring Systemic Risks: The presence of unexplained, complex algorithms in a critical system like voter registration databases is itself a significant concern, regardless of whether fraud has been detected. These algorithms introduce unnecessary complexity and opacity into a system that should be transparent and straightforward. Legal and Ethical Obligations: Election officials have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and transparency of all aspects of the election process, including voter registration systems. The presence of potentially manipulable algorithms should be enough to trigger an investigation, as it relates directly to the security and integrity of the voting system. Public Trust: The existence of these unexplained algorithms, once known, could erode public trust in the election system. Refusing to investigate without proof of fraud could further damage this trust. Proactive vs. Reactive Approach: The Secretary’s stance is reactive rather than proactive. In matters of election integrity, a proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities is crucial. The U.S. District Court decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes established that a secretary of state cannot certify an election if even one county refuses certification. This ruling heightens the responsibility of election officials in states where algorithms have been found in official voter registration databases. If a single county refuses to certify the 2024 election due to these concerns, it could trigger civil or criminal investigations, potentially exposing various state officials to serious legal liabilities. GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible
Secretaries of State in States with Cryptographic Algorithms in Official Voter Rolls May Face Civil and Criminal Charges
Secretaries of State in States with Cryptographic Algorithms in Official Voter Rolls May Face Civil and Criminal Charges Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. Research published on GodsFiveStones.com has uncovered secret cryptographic algorithms in the official voter registration databases of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Unreported findings indicate similar algorithms exist in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Our investigations have revealed similar algorithms embedded in nearly every state examined. Despite this, Secretaries of State across these jurisdictions are reluctant to acknowledge or address the issue. While Ohio’s Secretary of State agreed to investigate our claims, no official corrective action has been announced. Our investigation into New York’s voter registration database revealed well-hidden algorithms that potentially violate several state and federal laws. This cryptographic scheme is a dual-use technology: while it might have legitimate applications, it can also be used to satisfy malicious objectives. We believe one such nefarious use could be to facilitate mail-in ballot election fraud. In disclosing the existence of the algorithm in the New York state Board of Elections voter registration database, we stressed the following: The algorithmic sort order creates the appearance of compliance with public disclosure laws while concealing attribute information. The attribute information is uniquely available to keyholders, much as a card cheat has unique access to a straight flush. Concealing information in plain sight, as was done in New York’s voter rolls, is called ‘steganography’ (Kaur & Rani 2016). In combination with known fraudulent registration records, The Spiral algorithm presents the possibility that it has been inserted into voter roll software, or used to alter the NYSBOE voter roll database, for nefarious reasons. The Spiral can be used to identify fraudulent records quickly and covertly by repositioning records into key positions. Records of interest can then be extracted by software designed to recognize the algorithmically modified data structure.” Our evidence of cryptographic algorithms in voter rolls raises serious concerns about state election officials’ inaction. This could constitute negligence—potentially criminal negligence if officials were involved in creating these algorithms or if their inaction deliberately preserves them for election fraud. We distinguish this “election fraud”—a systematic effort to embed voting rolls with sophisticated ciphers to facilitate election theft—from “voter fraud,” which refers to individual voters attempting to cheat. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s suggestion to focus only on identifying specific voters who committed fraud is particularly troubling. This stance mischaracterizes systemic “election fraud” as individual “voter fraud,” while downplaying the undisputed presence of a cryptographic algorithm in Ohio’s voter registration file. Once deciphered, such an algorithm’s existence is irrefutable due to its evident and methodical alteration of data. This is analogous to the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry—a fundamental principle that once postulated cannot be ignored or dismissed by serious students. Assuming the algorithms in voter registration databases were placed with nefarious intent, it’s reasonable to believe the perpetrators aimed to avoid detection. Our analysis of New York state voter rolls revealed nearly 2 million “clone” (duplicate) records and thousands of excess votes assigned to individuals with multiple ID numbers. We also identified a list of suspected “ghost” (likely fabricated) voters, each with 10 or more registrations. Through canvassing, we confirmed three cases of “ghost” voters, accounting for 57 ID numbers. Importantly, we uncovered the presence of cryptographic algorithms within the voter rolls. However, voter rolls alone cannot prove fraud in mail-in or absentee voting. To identify fraudulent mail-in ballots would require additional steps beyond voter roll analysis. These include forensic investigation of individual ballot cover sheets to authenticate voter signatures and field canvassing to verify the existence and eligibility of voters at addresses associated with mail-in ballots. These steps are typically not made available by state authorities, creating a gap between what can be observed in voter rolls and what would be needed to conclusively prove fraud in mail-in voting. We object to the Ohio Secretary of State’s inaction regarding the algorithms discovered in their official voter registration databases for the following reasons: Misunderstanding of Preventative Measures: The Secretary’s stance demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of preventative measures in maintaining election integrity. Waiting for evidence of voter fraud before investigating system vulnerabilities is akin to waiting for a security breach before fixing known weaknesses in a computer system. Circular Logic: There’s a circular logic problem here. If the algorithms could potentially be used for covert manipulation of voter data, any fraud resulting from such manipulation might be undetectable through normal means. Requiring proof of fraud before investigating the very system that could be hiding such fraud is paradoxical. Ignoring Systemic Risks: The presence of unexplained, complex algorithms in a critical system like voter registration databases is itself a significant concern, regardless of whether fraud has been detected. These algorithms introduce unnecessary complexity and opacity into a system that should be transparent and straightforward. Legal and Ethical Obligations: Election officials have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and transparency of all aspects of the election process, including voter registration systems. The presence of potentially manipulable algorithms should be enough to trigger an investigation, as it relates directly to the security and integrity of the voting system. Public Trust: The existence of these unexplained algorithms, once known, could erode public trust in the election system. Refusing to investigate without proof of fraud could further damage this trust. Proactive vs. Reactive Approach: The Secretary’s stance is reactive rather than proactive. In matters of election integrity, a proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities is crucial. The U.S. District Court decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes established that a secretary of state cannot certify an election if even one county refuses certification. This ruling heightens the responsibility of election officials in states where algorithms have been found in official voter registration databases. If a single county refuses to certify the 2024 election due to these concerns, it could trigger civil or criminal investigations, potentially exposing various state officials to serious legal liabilities. GodsFiveStones.com is a
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