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
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