Is The Deep State Pushing Nuclear War To Prevent A Trump Presidency
Is The Deep State Pushing Nuclear War To Prevent A Trump Presidency? Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 21, 2024 On November 18, 2024, Politico reported that London and Paris had given Ukraine their Storm Shadow/SCALP long-range missiles to Ukraine. As of this writing (Wednesday, November 20, 2024), Reuters reported that Ukraine fired a volley of up to twelve Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles into Russia’s Kursk region, a day after Ukraine fired six U.S.-manufactured ATACMS missiles into Russia’s Bryansk region. That Ukraine fired a UK missile today makes evident that Biden must have permitted Kyiv to launch NATO long-range missiles into Russia. The redefinition of Russia’s policy on nuclear deterrence that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed this week, makes clear that Russia now considers the United States, the UK, and NATO at war with Russia. Lobbing a few NATO-manufacture long-range missiles into Russia is unlikely to make any tactical or strategic difference in the war, not when Russia controls much of the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, including the Crimea as well as Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in eastern Ukraine. As I wrote in a previous essay, the Biden decision is best explained by what appears to be a preemptive military coup in which U.S. generals fearing prison terms and possible convictions for treason prefer the risk of triggering a global thermonuclear war rather than allowing Donald Trump to take office on January 20, 2024. For months, Putin has left no doubt that he will launch a retaliatory tactical nuclear response if Ukraine launches NATO-manufactured long-range missiles into Russia. On May 6. 2024, Moscow summoned the British ambassador to the Russian Foreign Ministry to issue “a warning that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory with British-supplied weapons could bring retaliatory strikes against British military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere.” Then, on September 12, 2024, former Russian President and current Deputy Chair of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev threatened the UK following a meeting between Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Ukrainian President Zelensky in Ukraine. During that meeting, Lammy promised Ukraine 100 years of British support. In a post on X, Medvedev claimed, “So-called Ukraine will not last a quarter of that time. The island called Britain is likely to sink in the next few years. Our hypersonic missiles will help if necessary.” On Wednesday, November 20, 2024, the U.S. and several Western embassies in Kyiv closed after receiving “specific information of a potential significant air attack.” Just a few days before that, on November 17, 2024, NATO member Poland scrambled fighter jets close to Poland’s border with Ukraine “after Russia launched ‘a massive’ aerial attack on Kyiv’s energy infrastructure overnight.” The Deep State initially had available only three strategies to keep Trump from returning to the White House. All three have failed, requiring a more extreme strategy—nuclear war. 1 . The Department of Justice, along with prosecutors in Georgia and New York, did everything possible to bring criminal legal indictments against Trump to diminish his financial resources with the goal of imprisoning him. The criminal prosecution strategy has failed so far, with Judge Merchan postponing sentencing indefinitely in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s cases winding down. 2. Trump survived two assassination attempts. On July 13, 2024, Trump turned his head to the right to look at a chart, causing the bullet to miss his skull, hitting only his ear. Trump’s survival appeared to many to be an act of God. 3. Embedded algorithms were discovered in the State Board of Election voter registration databases that permitted certifiable votes to be cast by “false voter records” created by a cryptographic scheme that assigned legitimate state voter IDs to “non-existent votes.” As reported on our website, GodsFiveStones.com, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., discovered cryptographic algorithms in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, with algorithms yet to be reported also found in New Jersey, Texas, and Hawaii. With these efforts having failed, what’s left is to escalate the weaponry that the U.S. and various NATO partners supply to Ukraine to provoke a nuclear response from Russia. Fearing that Trump would fulfill campaign promises to dismantle the “woke” Deep State, the New World Order military/industrial/intelligence complex prefers to risk nuclear war rather than allow Trump to return to the White House. Even a limited Russian nuclear response would hamper Trump’s ability to end the war in Ukraine quickly after his inauguration. Should a Russian nuclear response lead to a global thermonuclear war, the World Economic Forum’s depopulation goals would only be achieved much sooner than anticipated. It’s important to remember that Vladimir Putin does not have a history of bluffing. Putin appears to speak consistently and calculatedly, carefully choosing his words to have a particular desired effect. Since his interview with Tucker Carlson on February 6, 2024, Putin has been telegraphing that the two eastern provinces in Ukraine are closely allied with Russia, explaining that, from Russia’s perspective, the greatest threat to Russian national security was the possibility that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO. The disclosures that the CIA had secret spy bases established on Ukraine’s border with Russia, along with Russian claims that the U.S. has operated gain-of-function biological laboratories in Ukraine, are obvious threats to national security. Putin has pleaded to have them verified by credible international investigations. In an overabundance of caution, Trump’s senior advisors have prevented him from meeting with foreign heads of state, respecting concerns Trump would be accused of violating the 1799 Logan Act that criminalizes unauthorized American citizens attempting to negotiate a dispute between the United States and a foreign government. But with the world on the precipice of nuclear war, what is desperately needed is a reliable backchannel within which Trump can begin negotiations with Putin over terms and conditions to end the war in Ukraine. Given that Trump is officially President-Elect, his status is arguably elevated above that of an unauthorized citizen. Clearly, members of President-Elect Ronald Reagan’s senior advisory team had back channels with Iran to release on Reagan’s inauguration day the 444 American hostages Iran had held in captivity since November 4, 1979. Reagan managed to communicate to Ayatollah
Biden authorizing Ukraine to fire long-range missiles
Biden’s Authorizing Ukraine to Fire Long-range Missiles Smells Like a Preemptive Military Coup Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 19, 2024 Biden’s surprise decision on Sunday, November 17, 2024, to authorize Ukraine to utilize long-range U.S. missiles capable of reaching 186 miles into Russia requires explanation. (As of this writing, Ukraine has already fired a missile into Russia.) Does the U.S. military believe that allowing Ukraine to fire a few U.S.-manufactured Army Tactical Missile systems (“ATACMS”) into Russia will win the war for Ukraine? Or is Biden’s decision evidence that the United States is in a military coup d’etat aimed at escalating the war in Ukraine so Donald Trump will not be able to settle the war should he manage to be inaugurated in approximately two months, on January 20, 2025? Biden made this decision despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s explicit warning that he would consider Russia at war with the United States and NATO if the White House lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range Western weapons. Putin has also made clear that a decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missile systems such as ATACMS could trigger a nuclear response from Russia. In making the decision, Biden ignored President-Elect Donald Trump’s repeated statements that once inaugurated, he intends to negotiate a settlement with Putin to end the war in Ukraine. When Biden’s decision was announced, Putin immediately called a meeting with Sergei Shoigu (former Russian Defense Minister who heads the Russian Security Council), Andrey Belousov (Russia’s current Defense Minister), and Nikolai Patrushev (an intelligence officer who served as the secretary of the Security Council)—all three close and trusted Putin allies. The meeting rejected an option that Russia should launch a preemptive strike on Ukraine rather than wait for Ukraine to hit Russia with a barrage of missiles. Still, Putin made clear that weapons like ATACMS require intelligence data from U.S. or European satellites while stressing that Ukrainian troops lack the training needed to operate high-precision, long-range, Western-made weapons. “This is not a decision about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not,” he said. “It is about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries—the United States and the EU—in the war in Ukraine.” So, the question is why Biden, in his final days as president, took steps that could lead the United States into a thermo-nuclear WWIII? In 2020, the U.S. military command made its bias clear: groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa had legitimate First Amendment “protest rights” that justified military insubordination should President Trump choose to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell pre-election domestic violence. On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper went to the department’s press room to deliver a statement that revealed a memo he had sent to all DOD personnel the day before. The memo announced that Esper was unwilling to deploy the military at President Trump’s order because he felt he had a duty under oath to defend the Constitution and the American people’s First Amendment rights of speech and peaceful assembly. Next, General James Mattis echoed Esper’s words. Mattis is the retired United States Marine Corps general who served as U.S. Secretary of Defense from January 2017 to 2019, when he disagreed with President Trump over Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. In a written statement published in the Atlantic on June 3, 2020, Mattis objected to Trump’s suggestion that he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. “Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society,” Mattis wrote. “Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.” The disagreement between Trump and U.S. Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began with a heated discussion in the Oval Office on Monday, June 1, 2020, when Milley objected to Trump’s suggestion that he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. Milley argued that the few scattered fires and minor looting in U.S. cities over the previous days were dwarfed by the more common peaceful protests the states should handle. On Friday, June 5, 2020, John Kelly, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general who served as Trump’s chief of staff from July 31, 2017, to January 2, 2019, did a live-stream interview with embittered, Trump-fired former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, during which he mouthed off about Trump. “I think we need to look harder at who we elect,” Kelly told Scaramucci. “I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter: What is their character like? What are their ethics?” This statement went to the heart of the 25th Amendment, with Kelly suggesting that Trump was “unfit for command.” The military’s insubordination over the Insurrection Act is only the tip of the Deep State’s “woke” ideology that has turned rogue elements within our military away from their allegiance to the Constitution and their willingness to submit to civilian rule. The statement should emphasize that if Zelensky uses ATACMS against Russia, the USA will stop all aid to Ukraine and will not move a finger to halt Russian armed forces from attacking Kyiv in a move to annex Ukraine. Rubio’s statement should advise NATO (and, in particular, Great Britain and Germany) that the United States would prefer to pull out of NATO than to participate in a nuclear war that NATO and Biden started out of stupidity. In conclusion, the generals who know Trump is compiling a list of generals for court-martial will stop at nothing to avoid this threat. The military is the muscle of the Deep State the intelligence agency and justice system unelected officials who rightly fear Trump will investigate thoroughly their criminal and
The Deep State War Against Donald Trump Begins
The Deep State War Against Donald Trump Begins Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 13, 2024 In a video posted on X on November 7, 2024, two days after the election, Trump detailed a plan to dismantle the Deep State. In this three-minute video, Trump explained how he would take a series of measures to “shatter the Deep State.” In this video, Trump made the same mistake JFK made when JFK said he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By announcing his intention in advance, JFK signed his death warrant. Trump has now declared war on the Deep State as president-elect. Because he spoke before he was inaugurated, giving him the power to act, Trump alerted the Deep State that he represented an existential threat to its survival. The bottom line is that the Deep State cannot afford for Trump to become president on January 20, 2025. Trump put the Deep State on notice that his first order of business was to investigate and prosecute in three areas: 1. The two assassination attempts on his life, with its indisputable charge that some in the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security showed criminal negligence, forcing those individuals to cooperate with the special counsel; 2. The weaponization of the DOJ, the FBI, and certain intelligence agencies against President Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns and Trump personally, going back to 2015, with emphasis upon exposing the truth about the “Russia collusion hoax” and the Mueller investigation farce; and 3. The voter fraud that stole the 2020 presidential election, based on the discovery of secret cryptographic algorithms embedded in State Board of Education voter registration files to facilitate the creation, hiding, and voting of falsified “voters” to be available for use in various election fraud schemes, with particular focus on mail-in ballot irregularities. Furthermore, one of the biggest threats to the CIA and the intelligence agencies is Trump’s unyielding determination to declassify documents that will jeopardize many agencies’ existence, including the DOJ, FBI, DHS, CIA, and NSA. The documents released will reveal many hidden intelligence agency conspiracies, including the effort to hide the Hunter laptop story from damaging Biden’s chance of victory in 2020, in particular, the statement by more than 50 former intelligence agents that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. Exploring intelligence agency misdeeds and failures back to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack would be a horror show for scores of top intelligence agency officials, as well as Obama and Biden administration senior officials. The Deep State alternatives are limited: either devise a scheme that denies Trump the presidency, hopefully eliminating the Electoral College in the process, or, if nothing else works, the only other alternative will be to utilize the entire law enforcement and military power of the Deep State to assassinate Trump. On November 10, Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump’s motion to stay the November 12 hearing at which he was to decide whether the Supreme Court’s July decision on presidential immunity requires him to vacate the guilty verdict in Trump’s criminal hush-money case. The judge’s order also put a stay on the November 26 sentencing date in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case. Trump’s lawyers argued that granting a stay for both dates was “necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.” Judge Merchan’s order did not specify new dates for either the decision on immunity or the sentencing. Given that a New York County court is outside the reach of the DOJ’s policy against prosecuting cases against sitting presidents, Department of Justice’s jurisdiction, Judge Merchan can dismiss the case, delay it until Trump leaves the White House, or order Trump to appear for his sentencing and, if he does not, put out a warrant for his immediate arrest and imprisonment. Trump’s attorney, Mike Davis, made the last possibility less likely by openly challenging New York Attorney General Letitia James during a November 7 interview. “I dare you to continue your lawfare against President Trump,” Davis said. “In his second term…because, listen here, sweetheart, we’re not messing around this time. And we will put your fat ass in prison for conspiracy against rights. I promise you that. So, think long and hard before you want to violate President Trump’s constitutional rights or any other American’s constitutional rights. It’s not going to happen again.” If Judge Merchan ignores Davis’s warning, his decision to proceed with the sentencing, could trigger Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots that would rival or exceed 2020’s street violence. The mainstream media, parroting CIA narratives, would exploit the Trump incarceration with a frenzy of news stories pressing the electors in the Electoral College not to cast their votes for imprisoned felon Donald Trump. With the CIA blackmailing some 40 electors to vote along with the anti-Trump electors, the Electoral College will be unable to cast enough votes to elect either Trump or Kamala Harris. The election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, with the proceedings rapidly devolving into a circus. With the Electoral College in limbo and the House of Representatives in turmoil, the mainstream media would begin pushing for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. If you think getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to vote for the amendment is hard, think again. A panicked Congress faced with a country burned by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, street brawls, chaos in the cities, and, eventually, martial law may find enough GOP members of the House and Senate to reach the two-thirds vote required to send the amendment to the State legislatures for ratification. A CIA willing to blackmail Electoral College electors would undoubtedly be willing to blackmail members of Congress and senators. Trump can take steps to prevent this worst-case scenario from becoming a reality. First, Trump can fire his entire New York legal team—a team that did not defend Trump successfully at trial—the same team that has no legal strategy to block Judge Merchan from going ahead with
Jerome Corsi: A District Court Opinion Directly Challenges a Fulton County Judge’s Order That Election Officials MUST Certify Voter Counts—Even If They Suspect Fraud
Jerome Corsi: A District Court Opinion Directly Challenges a Fulton County Judge’s Order Order That Election Officials MUST Certify Voter Counts—Even If They Suspect Fraud Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. October 16, 2024 As reported yesterday (October 15, 2024), a Fulton County Superior Court Judge has ruled that county election officials must certify vote counts in the 2024 election even if they suspect voter fraud or errors. Judge Robert McBurney insisted in his order that disputes over voter or election fraud should be settled in court. This ruling ignores the difficulty dozens of lawsuits have faced challenging the 2024 election. The reality is that, once an election is certified, the bar for challenging alleged fraud becomes almost insurmountably high. Judges have an easy out by ruling that plaintiffs alleging fraud in a certified election lack standing to have their cases heard. Judge McBurney’s order is in direct contrast with a recent Federal District Court judge’s opinion. On September 27, 2024, Federal District Court Judge Michael T. Liburdi rendered a decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes that upheld the right of a county supervisor to refuse to certify an election based on suspected fraud. In 2022, county supervisors in Cochise County, Arizona, refused to certify the mid-term election because they suspected fraud. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes invoked an Arizona State Board of Elections that allowed Fontes to ignore Cochise County in a final count to certify the election in Arizona. Judge Liburdi ruled that by ignoring Cochise County, Fontes had violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution by disenfranchising the voters of that county. Judge Liburdi characterized the Arizona Board of Elections rule as “probably unprecedented in the history of the United States” because it “gives the Secretary of State nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Americans.” While leftist judges seem determined to permit election officials to act, making election fraud easier to commit without criminal consequences, at least one court has recently ruled that would allow conscientious county supervisors to conduct investigations of possible fraud before being forced to certify a stolen election. Judge Liburdi’s decision empowers county supervisors to stop the rush to certify that has become an all too apparent essential part of mail-in ballot fraud. If a state supervisor cannot challenge a voter count because of suspected voter or election fraud, what is the point of having state supervisors certifying elections? Judge McBurney’s order reduces the county certification of an election to a rubber-stamp process that encourages criminals to proceed without fear their illegal election schemes will ever be seriously investigated or contested.” 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” efforts to certify the 2022 mid-term election in Arizona suggest the Arizona Board of Election ruling was designed to prevent investigation and detection of mail-in ballot fraud.. 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, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania with reports on algorithms found 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. 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. 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. In conclusion, under Judge Liburdi’s ruling, all it may take to expose election fraud in 2024 should the voting counting patterns seen in the 2020 election be repeated in this election is for one county in a battleground state to refuse to certify the election. For more information on algorithms added to the state board of elections official voter registration databases, please visit Corsi’s 501(c)3 website at GodsFiveStones.com. 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
Jerome Corsi Reveals Dr. Andrew Paquette’s Report Has Been Filed with Ohio Secretary of State on Cryptographic Algorithm Secretly Embedded in Ohio’s Board of Election Voter Registration Database
Oklahoma Added to the List of States with Irregularities in Board of Election Voter Registration Databases Suspected of Fraud Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. September 17, 2024 The Gateway Pundit reported earlier on Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., meeting with the official Ohio Secretary of State’s Inquiry regarding alleged evidence of secret algorithms encoded into the Ohio State Board of Elections official Ohio voter registration database with a presumed purpose of facilitating mail-in ballot fraud. In a one-hour-and-twenty-minute meeting, Corsi and Pacquette presented to Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office a series of voter ID scatterplots for various counties. Corsi and Pacquette told The Gateway Pundit that these scatterplots revealed undeniable evidence that mathematical formulas had been secretly applied to create a cryptographic assignment of State Board of Election Voter ID numbers in Ohio, a fact previously unknown to the Ohio Board of Elections. On Monday, a complaint was filed with the Ohio Secretary of State — with all the documentation on the CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHM that Dr. ANDREW PAQUETTE found embedded in the Ohio Board of Elections Official Database. GodsFiveStones suggests that the preliminary report submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Attorney General on Monday, September 16, 2024, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., identified a complex cryptographic algorithm embedded in the voter identification numbers of three counties in the Ohio State Board of Elections voter registration that he believes were designed “for the purpose of covert data manipulation.” In his 22-page heavily illustrated mathematical analysis, Paquette has allegedly discovered that an algorithmic scheme based on modular mathematics was employed, likely unbeknownst to Ohio State Board of Election officials, to determine the assignment of voter identification (ID) numbers in three Ohio counties: Franklin, Lucas, and Montgomery. Paquette explained the principal question of his investigation in Ohio: “Do Ohio’s voter rolls exhibit evidence of algorithmic manipulation for covert tagging or selective data obstruction? Paquette answered both questions in the affirmative. He stressed: “For this paper, the issue isn’t whether ‘algorithms’ were used to assign or modify Ohio voter roll identification numbers. Literally, they were. The real issue is whether the algorithms used were unnecessarily complex, performed hidden or inexplicable tasks, or exhibited any unusual characteristics.” Further, Paquette allegedly discovered that a modular algorithm encryption scheme was embedded in the ID numbering in Franklin, Lucas, and Montgomery counties by first finding a pattern where ID numbers were incrementing unusually by “gaps” divisible by 8, such that the following ID assigned was +8 the previous, with gaps of 8, 16, and 24, such that ID number 27is incremented next to ID number 35 (+8 from 27), next to 43 (+8 from 35), next to 51 (+8 from 43), to 59 (+8 from 51). The arithmetic algorithm then assigns the following numbers in an offset from ID 59 to ID 65 (+6 from 59) before reverting to another sequence of +8 offsets. Originally, Paquette called the algorithm the “octagon” before realizing he was dealing with modular arithmetic—a realization that caused Paquette to relabel the algorithm “Modulus 8.” Read Attorney Thomas Connors’ letter of transmittal to Brian Katz, the Ohio Public Integrity Division Director in the Office of Frank LaRose, Ohio’s Secretary of State: For more information on algorithms added to the state board of elections official voter registration databases, please visit Corsi’s 501(c)3 website at GodsFiveStones.com. 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
Jerome Corsi: Oklahoma Added to the List of States with Irregularities in Board of Election Voter Registration Databases Suspected of Fraud
Oklahoma Added to the List of States with Irregularities in Board of Election Voter Registration Databases Suspected of Fraud Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. September 6, 2024 TULSA, OKLAHOMA. Oklahoma has now been added to the list of states in which Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has raised serious voter integrity questions in recent results in the Tulsa mayoral race. The states currently on GodsFiveStones list include New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. In a highly suspicious August 27 run-off mayoral election in Tulsa, two relatively inexperienced political operatives with pedigree-quality, radically woke Democratic Party credentials beat a conservative Republican CPA, attorney, businessman, and pastor with a long history of community service, in Oklahoma, by the narrowest possible margins Paquette has charged that State Board of Elections official voter registration databases may contain cryptographic codes of intelligence agency complexity that enable rogue actors to obtain official state voter ID numbers for non-existent fraudulently created voters in an apparently criminal scheme designed to facilitate the certification of fraudulent mail-in votes. In an August 27, 2024, mayoral election in Tulsa, the conservative Republican candidate, Brent L. VanNorman, led voting through much of election day, only to end third, some 428 votes short of a run-off election (with 31.84 percent of the votes cast), in a contest won by Monroe Nichols, an extremely leftist Tulsa House Representative (with 33.12 percent of the votes cast), and Karen Kieth, a married graduate of Oklahoma State University with a B.A. degree in radio, TV news, and public affairs (with 32.60 percent of the votes cast), and an equally leftist political agenda. In a hearing on Thursday, September 5, Tulsa District Judge Dawn Moody granted VanNorman a recount. But in an overnight report to GodsFiveStones.com, a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to educating the public on issues of voting integrity, the problem in Oklahoma involves Oklahoma’s Board of Elections certifying voters Paquette believes the Oklahoma Board of Education is unaware of systematic irregularities within the official state voter registration database. In a preliminary report on the Oklahoma State Board of Election voter registration database, Paquette found that there were approximately 3,500 problematic “clone” registrations, i.e., two registrations assigned to the same voter last name, first name, and date of birth, multiple registrations that could possibly lead to illegal double voting. Because Oklahoma’s State Board of Election does not maintain purged or delated records in their voter registration rolls, Paquette concludes “all clone records could be used to double vote.” He further noted that the number of clone votes in a state with a small population like Oklahoma, “is enough to affect close races where the margin of victory is less than 3,500 in staate races, or less than 332 in a county like Tulsa, which has 664 possible clones.” Paquette also noted that statewide, Oklahoma’s official State Board of Election voter registration database has 179,598 out of 2,381,508 (7.54 percent) voters with a registration date that is earlier than the date of birth listed in the state voter record. “Either the registration or birth dates are false,” Paquette commented. “False data though common in many state voter roles, violates HAVA.” The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 in Section 303(A)(4) of HAVA (52 U.S.C. Section 1083(A)(4) mandates as follows: “The state election system shall include provisions to ensure that voter registration records in the state are accurate and are updated regularly … ” Furthermore, Section 303(A)(2)(A)(II) requires the statewide voter registration list be “accurate, complete, and current.” Paquette emphasized a corrupt State Board of Election voter registration database fraught with secret codes and other irregularities that would permit fraudulent votes to be certified cannot possibly be used to certify an election, especially not an election in which Mr. Brent Van Norman lost by such a razor-thin margin. Paquette also noted that surges in voter registration spikes coincident with recent elections dating back to 2016 may indicate suspiously over-aggressive “registration harvesting.” Paquette’s concern involves voter rolls that spiked by 10 percent or more. The Oklahoma State Board of Education appears to have done none or minimal independent verification to check the identities, addresses, or voter qualifications for names political parties harvested this aggressively. The potential in such vote harvesting efforts to obtain from the Oklahoma State Board of Election legitimate Oklahoma voter IDs without independent verification that false or unqualified voters were being rejected appears heightened. Paquette’s concern is that the type of voter fraud he is finding at the State Board of Election voter registration level may be designed to give non-existent or other fraudulent “voters” legitimate state voter IDs that would permit fraudulent votes to be certified Final election results from the August 27 mayoral election in Tulsa showed Brent VanNorman’s rivals benefited disproportionately from mail-in votes, with Nichols receiving 771 mail-in votes and Keith 1,636 mail-in votes to VanNuman’s 571 mail-in votes. Based on Paquette’s preliminary analysis, GodsFiveStones.com is working to develop an official request to the Oklahoma Secretary of State to conduct an independent inquiry into the Oklahoma Board of Elections official voter registration database, similar to the inquiry opened at the request of GodsFiveStones.com in Ohio by Ohio’s Secretary of State Frank LaRose. For more information on algorithms added to the state board of elections official voter registration databases, please visit Corsi’s 501(c)3 website at GodsFiveStones.com. 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
Corsi and Paquette Presented to the Ohio Secretary of State’s Voter Integrity Inquiry with Evidence of Secret Algorithmic Codes Embedded in Voter Rolls
Corsi and Paquette Presented to the Ohio Secretary of State’s Voter Integrity Inquiry with Evidence of Secret Algorithmic Codes Embedded in Voter Rolls Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. August 23, 2024 On Wednesday this week (August 20, 2024), Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., accompanied by attorney Thomas Connors of the Mendenhall Law Group in Akron, Ohio, met with the official Ohio Secretary of State’s Inquiry called to investigate Corsi’s claims that Dr. Paquette had found indisputable evidence of secret algorithms encoded into that the Ohio State Board of Elections official Ohio voter registration database with a presumed purpose of facilitating mail-in ballot fraud. “This apparently criminal scheme appears to be the work of clandestine rogue intelligence agents who have surreptitiously embedded themselves within the Ohio State Board of Elections to create nearly undetectable false voting records that can be certified as legitimate mail-in votes in the upcoming presidential election even though they are voted illegally,” Dr. Corsi said. In a one-hour-and-twenty-minute meeting (originally scheduled for half an hour), Corsi and Pacquette presented to Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s office a series of voter ID scatterplots for various counties. Corsi and Pacquette told Gateway Pundit that these scatterplots revealed undeniable evidence that mathematical formulas had been secretly applied to create a cryptographic assignment of State Board of Election Voter ID numbers in Ohio, a fact previously unknown to the Ohio Board of Elections. When Brian Katz, Ohio’s Public Integrity Division Director, asked Josh Jaffe, the Ohio SOS technical expert, if he could explain the apparent algorithm alteration evident in the charts exhibited by Dr. Corsi, Mr. Jaffe admitted he had no explanation of what appeared to be voter ID numbers in the Ohio Board of Election that were generated and controlled by mathematical formulas imposed on the database from the outside. Corsi stressed to The Gateway Pundit that Paquette has found similar secret algorithms in the official state board of elections voter registration databases in several states. Illustrated here are two scattergrams that indicate County Voter ID numbers were mapped onto State Voter ID numbers for Marion County (near Toledo) differently from Lucas County (that includes Toledo) in Ohio Figure 1 is a scattergram that maps Fairfield County, Ohio, county voter ID numbers onto Ohio State Voter ID numbers which are maintained as the official Ohio State Voter ID number under the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. Figure 1 makes clear that the Ohio Board of Election maps the County Voter ID (CID, x-axis) number onto the State Board of Election (SID) Voter ID Number (SID, y-axis) legitimately. In a roughly straight-line pattern (expected to extend from the graph’s point of origin to the upper right corner of the graph in straight line pattern, suggesting that voters registering in Fairfield County tend to get SIDs and CIDs that match the chronological order of their voter registrations. Figure 1Fairfield County, Ohio, County Voter ID Numbers Mapped onto State Board of Election Voter ID Numbers Fairfield County is a largely rural, sparsely populated county south of Licking, with a 2020 census population of 158,921, with a history of voting Republican. Modifying the Fairfield County CIDs to accommodate fraudulent voter records to be used in a mail-in ballot criminal scheme to “elect” Democratic political clients would be suspiciously obvious to any seasoned professional observer of Ohio voting behavior. Figure 2 is a scattergram that maps Lucas County, Ohio, county voter ID numbers onto Ohio State Voter ID numbers that are maintained as the official Ohio State Voter ID number under the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. Lucas County is a largely urban, more densely populated county that encompasses Youngstown with a 2020 census population of 431,279, with a history of having voted for Democrat Sherrod Brown for U.S. Senate (assumed office 2007), and for Democrat Tim Ryan for U.S. Senate (assumed office 2023). Lucas County contains a large proportion of Democratic voters such that modifying Mahoning County CIDs to accommodate fraudulent voter records to “elect” Democratic political clients would be a reasonable (but highly illegal) strategy obvious to any seasoned professional observer of Ohio voting behavior. Figure 2Lucas County, Ohio, County Voter ID Numbers Mapped onto State Board of Election Voter ID Numbers Figure 2 makes clear that algorithmic assignment (i.e., the application of a mathematical formula) has been applied from within the Ohio Board of Election to map the County Voter ID (CID, x-axis) number onto the State Board of Election (SID) Voter ID Number (SID, y-axis) illegitimately. This is apparent visually in that the pattern of individual voter IDs not in a straight-line pattern from lower left to upper right of the graph. Instead, the CID is mapped into a cluster of SID numbers that bear no relationship to assignment chronologically to match date of registration. There is also no apparent logic to the cluster of SIDs assigned in a “fragmentary” loose pattern that again bears no relationship to chronological assignment matching the date of registration. Dissociating State Board of Election Voter Registration ID numbers in this Ohio cryptographic scheme matches the same essential first step Paquette discovered in the algorithmic alteration of the New York State Voter Registration database in an apparently criminal scheme to facilitate mail-in ballot fraud. For more information on algorithms added to the state board of elections official voter registration databases, please visit Corsi’s 501(c)3 website at GodsFiveStones.com. 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
Does Georgia’s Algorithm-Assisted Massive Documented Election Fraud Rise to the Level of a Treasonous Coup d’État?
Does Georgia’s Algorithm-Assisted Massive Documented Election Fraud Rise to the Level of a Treasonous Coup d’État? Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. We now have proof that the Georgia State Board of Elections (SBOE) creates illegal cloned voter IDs in the thousands, capable of being activated to create certifiable voters in an election fraud scheme consistent with embedding cryptographic codes in SBOE voter registration databases. As reported on our website, GodsFiveStones.com, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., discovered these algorithms in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona and will report on New Jersey, Texas, and Hawaii. A group known as theGANerds_Real on “X” (“The Georgia Nerds”), headed by Kim P. Brooks, has published a series of podcasts on Rumble documenting how the Georgia SBOE has been creating and voting illegally cloned records. Because the Georgia SBOE gives the illegitimate clone voters legitimate Georgia SBOE ID numbers, the cloned votes are certifiable. Clone voter records duplicate voter records with different SBOE voter IDs copied from an authentic original voter ID. The original voter IDs come from a combination of deceased voters, voters who have moved from the state, voters who have been “inactive” (i.e., not voting for several years), and felons. The state ID numbers of the illegally cloned records are typically removed from the Georgia SBOE voter registration database once the fraudulent vote has been counted. Illegally cloned records appear legitimate until you search the SBOE databases, past and present, to see if any other voters with the same name and database appear with different state voter IDs. Election fraud is a systemic scheme to defraud voter integrity conducted by a criminal group that, in Georgia, appears to have access to the computers on which the Georgia SBOE voter registration database resides. We define voter fraud to mean when an individual voter casts a ballot (or multiple ballots) illegally. While Paquette has yet to analyze the Georgia SBOE voter registration file mathematically for cryptographic algorithms similar to those found in the other states, the Georgia Nerds have discovered a pattern of voter record manipulation consistent with the previously found algorithms. The massive scale and complicated mechanics of illegal clone voting in Georgia would be nearly impossible to operate clandestinely without embedding complicated cryptographic algorithms in the Georgia SBOE voter registration database. In a recent video, the Georgia Nerds disclosed a list of over three thousand absentee votes cast by voters who are not in the Georgia SBOE voter registration database. Voting without being registered is prima facia evidence of election fraud. The Georgia Nerds found the illegal three thousand absentee votes by comparing the Georgia SBOE absentee voter file with the Georgia SBOE voter history file and a current October voter role. As documented in the same video, the Georgia Nerds found over 8,700 non-reconciled votes in Georgia in the 2020 election that were credited via absentee voting but are not in the absentee file. Among the three thousand illegal absentee votes, the majority suggested that the voter had voted “early in person” rather than through an absentee ballot. Conceivably, none of the absentee ballots found among these three thousand illegal votes were mailed, just as none of the “early in person” votes existed. With illegal clone votes that are ultimately disposed into purged or inactive records, the election fraud may have been committed entirely within the Georgia SBOE computer. Given that the cryptographic algorithms that Paquette has found so far are of intelligence agency complexity, it is conceivable that the criminals may have accessed the Georgia SBOE computers from the outside. However, it strains credibility to believe the massive volume of illegal voting activity could be successfully conducted without the collaboration of SBOE employees or the Georgia Secretary of State. Kim Brooks explained in a recent video how the Georgia Nerds had found a case in which the Georgia Secretary of State had not removed duplicate votes, as required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 15483 Sec. 303 (a)(2)(B)(iii)). Instead, the Georgia SBOE (or the criminals operating the algorithms) created them purposefully, but only after the original voter ID was canceled and removed from the SBOE voter registration. Once the clone ID was voted, the original ID was canceled, only to be reinstated and voted—a legerdemain database manipulation that doubled-voted both the clone and the original voter ID. The Georgia nerds had previously documented this double-voting phenomenon, but they’d previously seen it only in the Georgia SBOE list of deceased voters, not in living voters’ files. In this case, the cloned voter showed up in the voter history file as having voted. Kin Brooks explained that the voter involved in this clone-voter scam was most likely a resident of South Carolina. The Georgia Nerds have demonstrated that 24,000 old, purged voter records were subsequently poured back into the Georgia SBOE database of active voters. They also established that the number of purge voters restored into the Georgia SBOE database of active voters was in excess of 50,000. Kim Brooks pointed out that Georgia law requires that a voter who has failed to vote and with whom there has been no contact in five years must be placed on the inactive voter list (Georgia Code Section 21-2-234). A voter is removed from the inactive list if there is no contact in the subsequent two November general elections (Georgia Code Section 21-2-235). Brooks claims the reinsertion of inactive voters into the active voter’s registration list appears to be “sheer criminal manipulation, padding the voter role with inappropriate phantoms to steal the 2024 election.” In effect, the Georgia SBOE has two voter registration databases—one legal and the other illegal. However, maintaining a double voter registration risks detection. Thus, a system of cryptographic code algorithms must be embedded in the SBOE computers to allow criminals operating the illegal voting the ability to hide the illegally created votes until needed. Retrieving the hidden votes for use demands a cryptographic scheme of intelligence-agency complexity because the algorithms that hid the illegal
Why Hidden Algorithms in State Board of Election Voter Rolls Disqualifies Certification
Why Hidden Algorithms in State Board of Election Voter Rolls Disqualifies Certification Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. Those who want to diminish the importance of finding cryptographic algorithms embedded in state boards of election (SBOE) voter registration databases typically demand proof the algorithms have resulted in fraudulent votes or suggest that legitimate purposes can explain the algorithms. However, they’re focusing on the wrong things. This article argues that cryptographic algorithms in SBOE voter registration databases may violate state and federal laws, potentially indicating improper practices or even criminal activity. Election officials who fail to investigate and address unauthorized algorithms once discovered could risk civil and possibly criminal liabilities, depending on specific circumstances and applicable laws. Consider the following legal requirements that secretly embedded algorithms appear to violate: The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires states to implement a computerized statewide voter registration list that is uniform and nondiscriminatory. The algorithmic structure would lack the required uniformity and may be discriminatory if used to treat certain voters differently. Specifically, Section 303(a)(4) requires that voter registration records be maintained in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. If the algorithm is used to tag or treat certain records differently, this could be problematic. On September 16, 2024, attorney Thomas W. Connors of Mendenhall Law Group, Akron, reported to the Ohio SBOE about an algorithm found in the Ohio voter registration database: Dr. Paquette’s initial review of the Ohio voter rolls, attached, shows that voter identification numbers in certain counties are assigned by an algorithm that permits a hidden means of tracking voter registrations. His work, while preliminary and not comprehensive, is consistent with his extensive review of the New York voter rolls that showed an algorithm that also permitted such tracking, which his analysis showed was tied to false registrations. This hidden tracking structure effectively functions as a third ID number in New York and appears to present a significant election system risk. It also appears to violate the requirements of the Help America Vote Act and related Ohio statute which provide that all election officials be able to obtain immediate access to the information contained in statewide voter registration lists. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) mandates accurate maintenance of voter registration lists. In New York, Voter ID numbers were apparently assigned to known purged records, contradicting the NVRA’s core principle of maintaining accurate eligible voter lists. The NVRA requires removing ineligible voters, not retaining them as ‘purged’ with new IDs. This practice risks accidental reactivation and compromises voter roll integrity. While not explicitly prohibited, it potentially violates Section 8’s spirit, which requires states to remove ineligible voters from official lists. Retaining purged records with new IDs, instead of removing them, undermines the Act’s goal of list accuracy and creates potential for errors. The 2021 New York State Election Law contains several relevant sections. Section 5-614 outlines requirements for the statewide voter registration list. Section 3-103 mandates minimum standards for computerized record keeping systems, including ‘system access and security, the format and content of the data to be recorded and stored.’ A hidden algorithm structuring voter IDs might not align with these standards, particularly regarding data format and content. Moreover, the state-level implementation of this algorithm may conflict with NY Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 9, Subtitle V, §6217.1, which gives County Boards of Elections ‘sole responsibility for adding, changing, canceling, or removing’ voter records. Section 3-103 also limits the use of voter registration information to election purposes, which could be relevant if the algorithm’s purpose extends beyond election administration. The following considerations mitigate against the likelihood that cryptographic algorithms found in SBOE voter registration databases have legitimate explanations: Simplicity and Efficiency: The preferred approach is to keep the process simple and efficient when dealing with ID number assignments. Using a complex algorithm adds unnecessary complexity to the system, making it more difficult to understand, maintain, and troubleshoot. Transparency: Voter rolls are public records, and the process of assigning ID numbers should be transparent and easily understandable. Applying a complex algorithm that obscures the relationship between the County ID (CID) and State Board of Elections ID (SBOEID) numbers goes against the principle of transparency and can raise questions about the intentions behind such an approach. Scalability and Performance: Complex algorithms can be computationally intensive and may impact the scalability and performance of the system, especially when dealing with large datasets like voter rolls. Simpler mapping techniques, such as sequential assignment or straightforward hashing, are typically more efficient and scalable. Maintainability and Futureproofing: Implementing a complex algorithm ties the system to that specific approach, making it harder to modify or update in the future. It can also make it challenging for new developers or administrators to understand and work with the system, leading to increased maintenance costs and potential errors. The following factors suggest that the placing and maintenance of complex cryptographic algorithms in SBOE voter registration databases may indicate serious irregularities or potential legal violations: Deviation from Best Practices: Using such a complex algorithm for mapping CID to SBOEID numbers in voter rolls significantly deviates from established best practices in election management and IT in general. Best practices prioritize simplicity, transparency, efficiency, and adherence to industry standards, none of which are apparent in cryptographic algorithms found in New York, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. Lack of Justification: Given the context of public voter rolls and the requirements for transparency and accessibility, there seems to be no clear and justifiable reason for employing such complex and obscure algorithms. The complexity appears unnecessary and counterproductive to the goals of maintaining accurate and transparent voter records. Potential for Misuse: The opaque nature of the algorithm raises concerns about its potential for misuse. The lack of transparency and the difficulty in understanding the algorithm’s workings could be exploited to manipulate or obfuscate data, intentionally or unintentionally. These obfuscations are particularly concerning in the context of sensitive voter information. Absence of Precedent: Using a highly complex algorithm in the context of voter rolls lacks precedent or justification in existing state and
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, turning them into a tool to block elections that bear the modus operandi of mail-in ballot election fraud from being certified. In his decision, Judge Liburdi referenced a provision in the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, had issued. That provision 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” because it “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. 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. 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. 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 algorithms were found. GodsFiveStones.com is