New York City deliberately kept 441,083 people on the voter rolls even though they had died or moved away. A lawsuit forced them to obey the law, and remove their names.
New York City deliberately kept 441,083 people on the voter rolls even though they had died or moved away. A lawsuit forced them to obey the law, and remove their names.
Before the lawsuit, only 22 names had been removed during a period of six years.
I agree with this lawsuit. I agree with removing the names of people who died or moved away.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/jw-and-nyc-settle-lawsuit/
Judicial Watch and New York City Settle Federal Lawsuit on Voter Registration Clean-Up after City Removes 441,083 Ineligible Names from Voter Rolls
December 28, 2022
Judicial Watch announced today that it is settling a federal election integrity lawsuit against New York City after the city removed 441,083 ineligible names from the voter rolls and promised to take reasonable steps going forward to clean its voter registration lists
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in July against New York City after it failed to clean voter rolls for years. The lawsuit, filed under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), pointed out that New York City removed only 22 names under the federal law over six years (Judicial Watch v Valentine et al. (No.1:22-cv-03952)).
The Judicial Watch lawsuit detailed that New York City’s “own recent data concedes that there were only 22 total” removals under this provision “during a six-year period, in a city of over 5.5 million voters. These are ludicrously small numbers of removals given the sizable populations of these counties.” Moreover, the “almost complete failure of Kings, Queens, New York, Bronx, and Richmond Counties, over a period of at least six years, to remove voters” under a key provision of federal law “means that there are untold numbers of New York City registrations for voters who are ineligible to vote at their listed address because they have changed residence or are otherwise ineligible to vote.”
Today’s announced settlement details how the city responded to Judicial Watch’s notice about its voting roll deficiencies with a massive clean-up:
[The Board of Elections] notified Judicial Watch that, in February 2022, they removed, pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B) of the NVRA, 82,802 registrations in Bronx County, 128,093 in Kings County, 145,891 in New York County, 66,010 in Queens County, and 18,287 in Richmond County, for a total of 441,083 registrations.
[The Board of Elections] notified Judicial Watch that going forward they intend to cancel registrations pursuant to Section 8(d)(1)(B) in each odd-numbered year in the months following a federal election.
Specifically, the city also agrees to track in detail report its voter roll maintenance efforts through 2025:
For both 2023 and 2025 … the [Board of Elections] will notify Judicial Watch … on or before March 31, by means of separate excel spreadsheets for Bronx County, Kings County, New York County, Queens County, and Richmond County, of the number of removals, including removals pursuant to … the NVRA, made during the previous two years.
The NVRA requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove” from the rolls “the names of ineligible voters” who have died or changed residence. Among other things, the law requires registrations to be cancelled when voters fail to respond to address confirmation notices and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. In 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that such removals are mandatory (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst. (138 S. Ct. 1833, 1841-42 (2018)).
“This historic settlement is a major victory for New York voters who will benefit from cleaner voter rolls and more honest elections. Judicial Watch is pleased that New York City officials quickly moved to remove 441,000 outdated registrations from the rolls. We look forward to working together under this federal lawsuit settlement to ensure New York City maintains cleaner rolls for future elections,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Judicial Watch is a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of its work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.
California settled an NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.
In February 2022, Judicial Watch settled a voter roll clean-up lawsuit against North Carolina and two of its counties after the North Carolina removed over 430,000 ineligible names from the voter rolls.
In March 2022, a Maryland court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch’s challenge to Maryland’s Democratic legislature “extreme” congressional redistricting gerrymander.
In May 2022, Judicial Watch sued Illinois on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two other registered Illinois voters to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law.
Robert Popper, Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.
Ethan Leonard, Esq. and Neal Brickman, Esq. of The Law Offices of Neal Brickman, P.C. in New York City assisted Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
On January 6, 2023, SCOTUS will have a meeting to consider hearing a case that could overturn the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. The mainstream media has been silent on this so far.
On January 6, 2023, SCOTUS will have a meeting to consider hearing a case that could overturn the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
The mainstream media has been silent on this so far.
The case is called Brunson v. Adams.
Sources:
https://womenimpactingthenation.org/brunson-v-adams-scotus-election-integrity-case/
AG Shapiro Announces Charges Against Philadelphia Man for Orchestrating the Forgery of Signatures on Election Nomination Petitions in Municipal Primary Races
AG Shapiro Announces Charges Against Philadelphia Man for Orchestrating the Forgery of Signatures on Election Nomination Petitions in Municipal Primary Races
November 16, 2022
Defendant is Alleged to Have Conspired to Forge Thousands of Signatures to get Candidates’ Names on the Ballot for the 2019 Democratic Primary Races in Philadelphia
PHILADELPHIA – Attorney General Josh Shapiro today announced the arrest of Rasheen Crews, a Philadelphia political consultant, for charges related to forging signatures on nomination petitions to get his clients on the ballot for the 2019 Democratic primary races in Philadelphia.
“In advance of the 2023 municipal elections, this arrest is an important reminder that interfering with the integrity of our elections is a serious crime,” said AG Shapiro. “By soliciting and organizing the wide scale forgery of signatures, the defendant undermined the democratic process and Philadelphians’ right to a free and fair election. My office is dedicated to upholding the integrity of the election process across the Commonwealth, to ensure everyone can participate in Pennsylvania’s future.”
An investigation by the Office of Attorney General found that in 2019, multiple candidates hired Crews to help them obtain the requisite amount of signatures needed for their nomination petitions for the Democratic primary races. Crews recruited individuals to help with the petition work, bringing them to a hotel room and asking them to write names, addresses, and forged signatures on multiple petitions. Crews then had these petitions notarized and filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on behalf of his clients.
Of the petitions that were reviewed, over one thousand signatures were determined to be duplicated. Many names and addresses were found repeated on various petition pages, some pages appeared to be photocopied entirely, and some of the listed individuals claimed to have never signed the petitions in question.
Due to the questions around the petition signatures, some candidates chose to withdraw entirely from the election.
Crews was charged with Criminal Solicitation to Commit Forgery and Theft By Failure to Make Required Disposition. This matter is being prosecuted by Senior Deputy Attorney General Thomas Ost-Prisco. All charges discussed are accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
City Officials In Flint, Michigan Disproportionately Hired Democratic Poll Watchers In Violation Of State Law
City Officials In Flint, Michigan Disproportionately Hired Democratic Poll Watchers In Violation Of State Law
By Victoria Marshall
September 6, 2022
A letter sent to the city of Flint, Michigan, on Tuesday reveals how the city disproportionately hired more Democrats than Republicans as poll watchers in violation of state statute.
According to a demand letter filed by the attorneys of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections, Michigan law requires equal representation of Republican and Democrat poll workers at polling locations. During Michigan’s August 2 primary, however, Flint hired 422 Democrats compared to just 27 Republican poll watchers. Additionally, for Flint’s Absent Voter Counting Board, only 4 Republican inspectors were hired compared to 56 Democrat election inspectors.
This is in direct violation of Michigan state statute, which stipulates that “the board of election commissioners shall appoint at least [one] election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party.”
Despite multiple attempts by GOP representatives urging Flint election administrators to hire qualified Republican poll watchers leading up to the August 2 primary, the city of Flint remained unresponsive to their requests.
“As you know,” the letter states, “for the last [six] months, the Republican Party has been presenting you with a list of 122 Republicans who want to serve as election inspectors to bring Flint into compliance with the legally-required party balance for election inspectors.”
The letter finishes by threatening litigation if Flint fails to balance its number of Democrat and Republican election inspectors. The city has seven days to respond to the letter and 63 days to hire 240 Republican poll watchers before the November general election.
Flint must “cease and desist spending taxpayer funds on its election inspector operations until the city comes into legal compliance,” the letter demands.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says ballot drop boxes aren’t allowed in the state
The Wisconsin Supreme Court says ballot drop boxes aren’t allowed in the state
By Barbara Sprunt
July 8, 2022
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that most ballot drop boxes aren’t allowed in the state and that a voter can’t have someone else return — in person — their completed absentee ballot on their behalf.
The high court’s ruling Friday, which comes one month before the swing state’s primary elections, is a loss for voting rights groups and disability advocates.
The decision is the latest in a legal battle that began in January, after a Waukesha County judge sided with a conservative legal group in a lawsuit, declaring state law doesn’t allow for unstaffed ballot drop boxes and requires that voters physically return their own absentee ballots.
Although an appeals court temporarily blocked the order for contests in February, the ban was in effect for local elections in April.
“The key phrase is ‘in person’ and it must be assigned its natural meaning,” wrote Justice Rebecca Bradley for the conservative majority, referring to the state statute governing ballot returns. “‘In person’ denotes ‘bodily presence’ and the concept of doing something personally.”
Bradley wrote that absentee ballots must be delivered in person at a clerk’s office and cannot be returned by someone else. The ruling did not address whether someone must physically put their own absentee ballot in the mailbox if voting by mail.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (no relation to her colleague) wrote that the court’s decision “although lamentable, is not a surprise.”
“It has seemingly taken the opportunity to make it harder to vote or to inject confusion into the process whenever it has been presented with the opportunity,” she wrote. “Without justification, [the majority] fans the flames of electoral doubt that threaten our democracy.”
In a statement Friday afternoon, the group Disability Rights Wisconsin noted the court “declined to address the question of whether an elector may receive assistance with mailing their completed absentee ballot.”
“The right for voters with disabilities to have assistance from a person of their choice is protected by federal law. Nothing in this decision changes federal protections for people with disabilities,” the organization’s Barbara Beckert said in a statement. “Voters with disabilities who need ballot delivery assistance may want to contact their municipal clerk to ask for a disability related accommodation.”
“Applying the law as written”
All eyes were on Justice Brian Hagedorn as the case made its way through the courts. Hagedorn, who sided with the high court’s conservative justices on this case, was elected with the help of the Republican Party but has sided with the court’s liberal justices on several occasions.
In a concurring opinion, Hagedorn stressed that “judicial decision-making and politics are different.”
“This case is about applying the law as written; that’s it,” he wrote.
“Significant questions remain despite our decision in this case, especially as absentee voting has become increasingly common,” he wrote, adding: “The legislature and governor may wish to consider resolving some of the open questions these statutes present.”
The majority’s ruling rebuts guidance from the Wisconsin Election Commission.
“WEC’s staff may have been trying to make voting as easy as possible during the pandemic, but whatever their motivations, WEC must follow Wisconsin statutes,” Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote. “Good intentions never override the law.”
Rick Esenberg — president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which represented the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit — cheered the ruling.
“Wisconsin voters can have confidence that state law, not guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission, has the final word on how Wisconsin elections are conducted,” he said in a statement.
Esenberg argued before the high court that the statute governing ballot return is explicit that only voters themselves can return their absentee ballot to the local clerk.
“I think [the court] ought to read the law as it is written, and say that the law means what it says,” he said in an interview with NPR in May.
Esenberg said if people think the law is unfair, it’s up to state lawmakers to change it.
But disability rights advocates have said a strict interpretation of state law leaves many voters with disabilities who rely on ballot return assistance fearful they won’t be able to lawfully vote.
“We heard from people who were concerned, confused and, frankly, shocked by such an extreme restriction,” Beckert of Disability Rights Wisconsin told NPR after the Waukesha County judge’s ruling.
Scott Thompson of Law Forward — which represented the appellants in the case, including Disability Rights Wisconsin — told NPR the initial ruling conflicted with federal protections for voters with disabilities, like the Voting Rights Act, which in part grants voters with disabilities the right to receive voting assistance from a person of their choosing, other than that person’s employer or union representative.
The court’s decision stands to significantly affect the upcoming elections in the swing state, where about 2 million residents voted by absentee in the 2020 general election, a record number.
According to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, there were 570 absentee ballot drop boxes being used across the state by last spring.
My review of 2000 Mules
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
June 30, 2022
In 1993, I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh with a bachelor’s degree in math, and a minor in computer science. Sometime during my four years at the school, I attended a speech by Dinesh D’Souza. The thing that I remember most about his speech was that he said he immigrated to the United States because he “wanted to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”
On the one hand, I did not vote for Trump. I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2016, and Libertarian Jo Jorgensen in 2020. So I’m not a Trump fan.
On the other hand, I don’t hate Trump the way so many Democrats do. I certainly don’t agree with their claim that he’s a Nazi. In fact, Trump supports the right of gun ownership by all law abiding adult citizens, whereas Hitler banned Jews from owning guns in 1938. So at least in that one regard, Trump is the exact opposite of a Nazi.
It seems to me that a lot of people are rating 2000 Mules based on whether or not they agree with its basic premise, which is that the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was stolen.
But that’s not how I’m rating this movie.
Instead, I’m rating this movie based on how good or bad it is, regardless of my own personal thoughts on its premise.
Now, in order to be transparent, I want to state that I do indeed believe the election was stolen. I first started thinking this on election night, when the mainstream media reported that election workers in Fulton County, Georgia, had “stopped counting votes for the night” due to a “burst water pipe.”
As soon as I first heard them say that, I knew they were cheating.
And here’s my proof that they were lying.
On the night of the election, CBS News aired a TV report called “Pipe burst in Georgia delays vote counting.”
You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25DAAHZdEw
Also on the night of the election, ABC News tweeted: “The election department sent the ballot counters at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta home at 10:30 p.m., Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, tells ABC News.”
Here’s that tweet:
https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1323846118208376834
However, official security video footage shows that after the Republican poll watchers and news reporters left the room where votes had been counted, a few election workers stay behind and continue counting votes.
And there is no visible water leak in the video.
You can see that video footage here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rPqQKvuFk473/
There’s only one reason for the election workers to lie about a bogus “burst water pipe,” and use that as an excuse to get the Republican poll watchers and news reporters to leave, and then the election workers themselves go back inside and continue counting the votes while no one else is in the room. They were cheating.
If you want to see me presenting a lot more evidence that the election was stolen, you can read my writing about it here:
https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2022/06/23/stop-the-steal-6/
So, I very much believe that the election was stolen.
But guess what?
I didn’t like 2000 Mules.
My biggest criticism of the movie, is that despite its repeated claims that these 2,000 “ballot traffickers” each put mail-in ballots into many different dropboxes, the movie never actually shows video footage of even one of these people depositing ballots into more than one dropbox.
Do you realize how ridiculous it is that they never show this?
If each of these people really did deposit ballots into many different dropboxes, then the movie should show us video footage of some of these people depositing ballots into multiple dropboxes.
But the movie never shows even one person doing that.
I’d like to see video footage of at least 20 different “ballot traffickers,” each depositing ballots into at least 10 different dropboxes.
And I’d like to see their faces.
Even when the movie did show some of these people dropping ballots into a single dropbox per person, they always blurred out their face. Apparently, they were worried about getting sued for defamation. But when someone is sued for defamation, the only thing they need to do in order to prove their innocence, is to show that what they said is true. So if they are so sure that this cheating happened, then why did they blur out their faces?
And since they have video footage of their faces as well as their license plates, and they also have their cell phone location data, they should know the names of these “ballot traffickers.” But they never, ever revealed any of their names in the movie. Again, if they are so sure that this cheating actually happened, they should not be afraid to show the names of the people who cheated.
So, thumbs down for me.
On the other hand, there are some smaller things that I did like about the movie.
The fact that these people are shown wearing gloves, which they remove immediately after depositing the ballots, suggests that they did indeed cheat. So that’s a point in praise of the film.
And some of these people are shown taking pictures of them holding their ballots right before depositing them in the dropboxes, so they can get paid. That’s another point in favor of the film.
And the single biggest evidence of cheating that’s shown in this movie is the nursing home patients who are obviously too sick to either vote or request an absentee ballot, and yet their relatives claim that the official government records show that they had indeed voted.
So there are some things in this movie that do show evidence of cheating.
But those things all receive only a small amount of the movie’s overall time.
The movie’s main premise is that each of these 2,000 “ballot traffickers” deposited ballots into multiple dropboxes. But despite this claim, not once in the entire movie, do we ever see video footage of any of these people dropping off ballots into more than one dropbox.
In other words, the people who made this movie are refusing to show us any video evidence whatsoever that backs up their primary claim.
And that’s why I can’t recommend this movie.
Oh yeah – another criticism that I have is that they never give equal time to their opponents. They never interviewed any experts who believe that there was no cheating. Because of their refusal to present the opposing point of view to any substantial degree, I have to say that this movie seems more like an infomercial than a documentary. I’ve seen a lot of documentaries. And I’ve seen a lot of infomercials. And I know how to tell the difference between the two. When a bunch of people all in the same room all have the exact same opinion, that’s not a documentary – it’s an infomercial.
So, while I believe that the election was indeed stolen, I think that 2000 Mules does a very bad job of making its case, and that this movie is, overall, a failure.
-
You can buy my books at amazon
-
You can support me at PayPal
Here are many examples of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election that, as far as I’m aware, have not been debunked. Updated for June 23, 2022.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
June 23, 2022
The mainstream media continues to insist that there is “no evidence” of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
They are lying.
Here are many examples of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election that, as far as I’m aware, have not been debunked:
Russell James Ramsland, Jr. audited 22 Dominion voting machines that were used in Antrim County, Michigan.
This is his conclusion from his report on his audit:
“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.”
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Michigan Judge Kevin Elsenheimer all tried to prevent the public from seeing Ramsland’s report on his audit.
Why did they try to prevent the public from seeing the audit?
What were they afraid of?
Also, after the audit was ordered, but before the audit actually took place, Benson ordered the memory in the voting machines to be erased.
Why did Benson order the memory in the machines to be erased before the audit?
What was she afraid of?
Sources:
https://g1nbc.com/howell-mi/files/2020/12/Recount-Release-of-Security-Memo-Nov-2020-General.pdf
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RMJ7vx1tyFls/
Mainstream media reported that Fulton County, Georgia, “stopped” counting ballots for the night because “a water pipe has broken,” and “sent the ballot counters home.”
Video shows Republican poll watchers and media reporters leaving the building.
The same video shows a few people remain, and continue counting votes without Republican poll watchers or media reporters.
Video shows an election worker scanning the same ballots three times.
There is no visible water in these videos.
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25DAAHZdEw
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MkqNtENpjyii/
https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1323846118208376834
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rPqQKvuFk473/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/v3qUNQRKJyH5/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fv1BUbsk1mSW/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6Bvf8xq1CsoJ/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiREC3Zy20E
Video: Here are some of the Wisconsin nursing home patients who “voted” in the 2020 election, even though their relatives say they were far too sick to vote or to request an absentee ballot. The “voter” turnout at these nursing homes was between 95% and 100%.
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
March 12, 2022
A study of Wisconsin nursing homes showed that they had voter turnout between 95% and 100% in the 2020 election. Relatives of many of these “voters” say they were far too sick to vote or to request an absentee ballot.
On page 90 of the study, it cites a bunch of nursing homes in Wisconsin where the voter turnout was between 95% and 100%. Here’s an image of that:
The video at this link shows some of the Wisconsin nursing home patients who “voted” in the 2020 election:
How can the New York Times possibly read and “debunk” a 136 page report on voter fraud, all on the same day that the report was published?
This is a New York Times article that was published on March 1, 2022. The article is called, “Wisconsin Republicans’ Election Report Endorses Debunked Legal Theories.”
The New York Times article starts out by saying: (the bolding is mine)
“A Republican report on the 2020 election in Wisconsin endorsed a host of debunked claims of fraud”
Note the word “debunked.”
The New York Times article includes this link to the report.
The report is dated March 1, 2022.
The report is 136 pages long.
How can the New York Times possibly read and “debunk” a 136 page report on voter fraud, all on the same day that the report was published?
On page 90 of the report, it cites a bunch of nursing homes in Wisconsin where the voter turnout was between 95% and 100%. Here’s an image of that:
Here’s a video about the report. We see that evil, scumbag, immoral, corrupt, lawbreaking Democrats took advantage of nursing home patients who were not capable of moving, getting out of bed, voting, speaking, or requesting an absentee ballot. Even their own relatives are saying that these patients were not physically capable of voting or requesting an absentee ballot. And yet, somehow, these people allegedly managed to vote:
The New York Times article makes no mention whatsoever regarding these claims about the nursing homes having voter turnout between 95% and 100%, or about people who allegedly voted even though they were too sick to move, get out of bed, vote, speak, or request an absentee ballot.
In fact, across the entire internet, I cannot find even one “debunking” of the specific claim that these nursing homes had voter turnout rates between 95% and 100%, or that people voted even though they were too sick to move, get out of bed, vote, speak, or request an absentee ballot.
And yet the New York Times has the nerve to say the claims in the report have been “debunked.”
Even since the election, the mainstream media has been “debunking” claims of voter fraud, without actually mentioning what those specific claims are. And this is a great example of that.
You can read about a lot more specific claims of voter fraud that have not been debunked at this link.
EXPLOSIVE: Justice Gableman Reveals MASSIVE Voter Fraud in Wisconsin Nursing Homes — 100% Turnout in Zuckerberg-Funded Wisconsin Cities! – SHOCKING VIDEO
The video is at https://rumble.com/vw62ew-justice-gableman-reveals-massive-voter-fraud-in-wisconsin-nursing-homes.html
EXPLOSIVE: Justice Gableman Reveals MASSIVE Voter Fraud in Wisconsin Nursing Homes — 100% Turnout in Zuckerberg-Funded Wisconsin Cities! – SHOCKING VIDEO
By Jim Hoft
March 1, 2022
This morning the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections held an informational hearing on the Gableman 2020 Election Report featuring invited speakers Special Counsel and Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and Attorney Eric Kaardal.
Justice Gableman played video of several victims of voter theft. Several brave Wisconsin families reached out to Gableman and his committee after they discovered someone had voted for their loved one who is in a nursing home. This happened all over Wisconsin.
Justice Gableman disclosed during the hearing that the nursing homes in the Zuckerberg-funded cities had 100% turn out. This is clear voter fraud they discovered.
The video that played during the hearing today was heartbreaking.
It takes a special kind of evil to abuse disabled seniors.
This is today’s Democrat Party.
Zuckerbucks at Work: 91 Nursing Homes in 5 Wisconsin Cities Had 95% to 100% Voter Turnout Rates – They Abused Disabled Seniors and Stole Their Votes
Zuckerbucks at Work: 91 Nursing Homes in 5 Wisconsin Cities Had 95% to 100% Voter Turnout Rates – They Abused Disabled Seniors and Stole Their Votes
By Jim Hoft
March 2, 2022
On Tuesday morning the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections held an informational hearing on the Gableman 2020 Election Report featuring invited speakers Special Counsel and Former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and Attorney Eric Kaardal.
During his presentation, Justice Gableman played video of several victims of elderly abuse and voter theft. Several brave Wisconsin families reached out to Gableman and his committee after they discovered someone had voted for their loved one who resides in a nursing home. This happened all over Wisconsin.
Justice Gableman disclosed during the hearing that the nursing homes in the Zuckerberg-funded cities had a 95% to 100% turnout. This is clear voter fraud they discovered.
The video that played during the hearing today was heartbreaking.
It takes a special kind of evil to abuse disabled seniors.
On Wednesday Just the News published more information on the nursing home voter fraud.
The special counsel investigating suspected irregularities in Wisconsin’s 2020 election has found that 91 nursing homes in the counties of Milwaukee, Racine, Dane, Kenosha, and Brown had voter turnout rates ranging from 95% to a 100% in 2020 — as compared to overall nationwide participation rates of 67% in 2020 and 60% in 2016.
The nursing home data only reflects voting at the facilities that the special counsel “has been able to vet to this juncture,” according to the report compiled by retired state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman for the state Assembly. “There are more facilities in these counties, and after auditing the votes from other facilities, the above percentages may change.”
The Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life gave $8.8 million towards the administration of the 2020 election in Wisconsin.
One of Sinkula’s colleagues knew ahead of time “how the outcome was going to come in November,” Sinkula claimed, because the colleague knew people who had registered nursing home residents who didn’t normally vote and apparently voted for them.”
Slowly we are learning the full picture on the 2020 election steal.
And what we learn from Wisconsin was likely duplicated in state after state.
Wisconsin special counsel bombshell: 91 nursing homes had 95-100% voter turnout in 2020
Wisconsin special counsel bombshell: 91 nursing homes had 95-100% voter turnout in 2020
Election integrity watchdog Phill Kline said: “And now we have videotaped depositions and interviews with their family members saying, ‘My loved one hasn’t been able to vote for years and has been deemed to be incompetent.'”
By Natalia Mittelstadt
March 1, 2022
The special counsel investigating suspected irregularities in Wisconsin’s 2020 election has found that 91 nursing homes in the counties of Milwaukee, Racine, Dane, Kenosha, and Brown had voter turnout rates ranging from 95% to a 100% in 2020 — as compared to overall nationwide participation rates of 67% in 2020 and 60% in 2016.
The nursing home data only reflects voting at the facilities that the special counsel “has been able to vet to this juncture,” according to the report compiled by retired state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman for the state Assembly. “There are more facilities in these counties, and after auditing the votes from other facilities, the above percentages may change.”
Last November, the Racine County Sheriff’s Office requested that the state attorney general investigate alleged illegal directives issued by the Wisconsin Election Commission to bypass the state’s Special Voting Deputy process, under which the clerk of each municipality brings “enough ballots to each residential care facility to vote” and “assist the voters with the voting process.”
Instead, the commission had absentee ballots sent to nursing home residents by mail. The sheriff found that facility staff, under the guise of “helping” residents to vote, coaxed votes from some whom family members believed incapable of voting.
Phill Kline, director of conservative election integrity watchdog The Amistad Project, which conducted its own investigation into nursing home turnout rates on behalf of the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, told the “Just the News, Not Noise” TV show on Tuesday: “It’s quite remarkable: There’s private money flows in, government-hired voter navigators go after nursing homes, and suddenly, 90-some-odd nursing homes in Wisconsin have 100% turnout, even if people — who, unfortunately, due to their health conditions — are unable to read, think, or contemplate voting.
“And now we have videotaped depositions and interviews with their family members saying, ‘My loved one hasn’t been able to vote for years and has been deemed to be incompetent.'”
On Tuesday, the Amistad Project, released an interview from last year with Wisconsin election clerk Linda Sinkula, who recalled her fears that the 2020 election “wouldn’t be a fair election” because of private funding of public election administration.
The Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life gave $8.8 million towards the administration of the 2020 election in Wisconsin.
One of Sinkula’s colleagues knew ahead of time “how the outcome was going to come in November,” Sinkula claimed, because the colleague knew people who had registered nursing home residents who didn’t normally vote and apparently voted for them.”
Michigan nursing home worker gets jail time for voter fraud
Michigan nursing home worker gets jail time for voter fraud
By ANNA LIZ NICHOLS
February 24, 2022
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A nursing home employee in metro Detroit will serve jail time for making false statements in absentee ballot applications after she forged signatures for residents of the facility she worked at it, the state attorney general’s office said Thursday.
In October 2020, Center Line’s clerk alerted the Michigan Bureau of Elections to about two dozen absentee voter applications with signatures that didn’t match what was on file for those voters.
While working at Father Murray Nursing Home in Macomb County, Trenae Myesha Rainey forged signatures for residents who hadn’t given staff indication that they were interested in voting in the November 2020 election, according to investigators.
Rainey had originally faced six charges for three of the applications, all five-year felonies, but pleaded guilty on Wednesday to three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement in an absentee ballot application. A Macomb County judge sentenced Rainey to 45 days in jail and probation.
An Associated Press review of election fraud in six battleground states found state officials identified a total of 56 potential instances of voter fraud in Michigan, a number which represents less than 1% of President Joe Biden’s margin of victory in the state.
Rainey and three other individuals were charged after state investigations showed attempted voter fraud.
Carless Clark pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor earlier this year after she admitted to forging her grandson’s signature on his absentee ballot envelope in Wayne County.
Nancy Williams, who investigators say attempted to obtain absentee ballots and have them sent to the same place for multiple legally incapacitated persons under her care, faces trial in five courts in Wayne and Oakland counties with court dates scheduled in the coming months.
Video from Georgia shows election cheater making video of his cheating so he could get paid $10 for each vote
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
January 30, 2022
In Georgia, this guy made a video of himself illegally dropping other people’s ballots into dropboxes so he could get paid $10 for each vote.
The organization that made the video of the guy making the video says it has enough videos of enough people dropping off enough of other people’s votes, illegally, in enough states, that the total number of these votes is big enough in enough states that if they were all rejected due to their illegality, Trump would be the winner of the election.
Here’s the tweet where I got the video from:
https://twitter.com/GAballots/status/1487209392915288064
And in case Twitter deletes the video, I have uploaded it to my BitChute account at this link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zfZWXlX6u4EQ/
Credit to Gateway Pundit for bringing the video to my attention.
NEW VIDEO: VoterGA Releases Video of Georgia Ballot Trafficker Holding Up His Ballots and Taking a Photo Before Dumping Them in Ballot Dropbox
NEW VIDEO: VoterGA Releases Video of Georgia Ballot Trafficker Holding Up His Ballots and Taking a Photo Before Dumping Them in Ballot Dropbox
By Jim Hoft
January 29, 2022
https://twitter.com/GAballots/status/1487209392915288064
On Friday, VoterGA investigator David Cross released a sample of Gwinnett County drop box surveillance footage that his group acquired via FOIA request.
In the video, you can clearly see the man snapping a photo of his hand filled with ballots before he dumped them in the ballot dropbox.
Now, why would he do that?
Via The Storm Has Arrived.
This ballot trafficker was just one of 242 alleged ballot traffickers identified by the True the Vote investigation. There is a possibility of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ballots that were stuffed into the ballot boxes in Georgia alone.
Heather Mullins from Real America’s Voice commented on her Telegram page.
According to Heather, “He fans out ballots, takes a photo, and places them in the dropbox. “It’s been reported that illegal ballot harvesters were paid $10 per ballot, and had to show proof.”
Liberty Overwatch added: True the Vote has compiled layers of evidence of organized ballot tracking in 6 states. In Georgia, they allege there were 242 traffickers who made 5,662 trips to ballot drop boxes between the early morning hours of 12 AM and 5 AM, potentially unloading hundreds of thousands of illegally harvested ballots over the course of several weeks.
Reminder — As TGP has reported earlier this week we recently signed an agreement with True the Vote that includes never before seen ballot dropbox surveillance video, 24 Terabytes of footage, with the election integrity group in their ongoing investigation.
Prosecutors Find Mail-In Jury Votes At 3AM, Rittenhouse Now Guilty [Satire]
https://babylonbee.com/news/after-prosecutors-find-mail-in-jury-votes-at-3am-rittenhouse-now-guilty
Prosecutors Find Mail-In Jury Votes At 3AM, Rittenhouse Now Guilty
November 20, 2021
KENOSHA, WI—In a stunning reversal, Kyle Rittenhouse awoke this morning to discover that he had been found guilty after all.
Prosecutors explained that during the night, they had found dozens of mail-in jury votes declaring the defendant guilty on all counts. Apparently, boxes of these mail-in votes arrived in a truck at the courthouse around 3:00 am.
Attorneys for Mr. Rittenhouse were dumbfounded as to how such a thing could have happened, raising questions as to the validity of mail-in jury voting. They stated: “We’ve never heard of this. This isn’t part of the legal system. Where did these votes even come from?”
“How DARE you question the sanctity of our criminal justice system!” cried the prosecuting attorneys. “There is no justice until EVERY vote is counted!”
Prosecutors then explained that it was a new COVID measure they had just instituted. “But given how well it’s worked out,” they said, “we’re planning on making it permanent.”
Far Left Judge Marie Avery Moses Issues Protective Order on Eric Coomer’s Deposition After He Comes Across as Completely Unhinged – But Not on Defendants Including The Gateway Pundit
Far Left Judge Marie Avery Moses Issues Protective Order on Eric Coomer’s Deposition After He Comes Across as Completely Unhinged – But Not on Defendants Including The Gateway Pundit
By Jim Hoft
September 30, 2021
What double standard?
The American left is out to destroy the justice system in the country today.
Attorney Sidney Powell announced during an interview last week that her legal team will depose Dominion’s Eric Coomer for questioning later in the day.
Coomer sued several Trump supporters, media outlets and media personalities following the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michelle Malkin, Joe Oltmann, The Gateway Pundit and Jim Hoft, among others.
Eric Coomer was deposed for an hour by Powell’s attorneys last week.
From what we are hearing it was a complete disaster. The Dominion executive came across completely unhinged and angry.
That’s when far left Judge Marie Avery Moses stepped in to protect Eric Coomer.
Judge Moses issued a Protective Order that only grants secrecy to Eric Coomer’s deposition – but not anyone else’s.
According to our confidential source, “The Judge issued this order sua sponte, which means that no one asked her to do this. She just did it on her own the day after Coomer gave a train-wreck deposition in which he was very clearly emotionally unstable, arrogant, and repeatedly failed to give direct answers to questions. He was clearly playing games and his testimony is simply not credible.”
The media is now blocked from downloading his testimony.
One wonders how the Judge came to this conclusion – the day after Coomer’s deposition – that his deposition transcript needed to be sealed.
What happened to integrity, honesty and justice in America?
Here is the court order by Judge Moses.
CORRECTION: Fact check: Deviation from Benford’s Law does not prove election fraud
Link to my original post: https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2020/11/07/joe-bidens-votes-violate-benfords-law-mathematics/
And here’s the correction, which I have also added to my original post:
Fact check: Deviation from Benford’s Law does not prove election fraud
By Reuters Staff
Social media users have been sharing posts that say a mathematical rule called Benford’s Law provides clear proof of fraud in the U.S. presidential election. However, research papers and academics consulted by Reuters consistently say that deviation from Benford’s Law does not prove election fraud took place.
Benford’s law says that in many naturally occurring sets of numbers, the first digits of these numbers (eg. the ‘1’ in ‘15’) are not evenly distributed. Measurements with a lower first digit occur more frequently: 1 is the first digit in a number about 30 percent of the time while 9 begins less than 5 percent of numbers. In certain data sets ranging from rainfall amounts to town populations, the numbers follow a Benford’s Law distribution. Deviation of data from Benford’s law has been examined in areas such as finance to detect if something is not right, for example fraud, mistakes or misstatements (here , here) .
The posts, such as those here and here , show graphs that compare candidate’s vote tallies by leading digit to the expected distribution according to Benford’s law in order to contend that Biden’s vote tallies do not follow Benford’s Law but Trump’s do. Posts state that Benford’s law is a test that has been used before to detect fraud (here) . Captions on the posts include, “Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law”; “It’s easy to win if you cheat”; “Statistically impossible odds […] now MATH doesn’t even agree with their faux victory.”
Reuters sought comment from experts regarding these claims.
Theodore P. Hill, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, Atlanta, cautioned that regardless of the distribution uncovered, the application of Benford’s Law would not provide definitive evidence that fraud took place.
“First, I’d like to stress that Benford’s Law can NOT be used to “prove fraud”,” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud.”
Nevertheless, Mebane’s article also said, in the Discussion: “In any case, the 2BL test on its own should not be considered proof either that election fraud has occurred or that an election was clean. A significant 2BL test result can be caused by complications other than fraud. Some kinds of fraud the 2BL test cannot detect.”
On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (here). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement.
“It is widely understood that the first digits of precinct vote counts are not useful for trying to diagnose election frauds,” he writes.
Elsewhere, a study called “Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud”, published in 2011 by Joseph Deckert, Mikhail Myagkov, Professor of Political Science at the University of Oregon (here) and Peter Ordeshook, Professor of Political Science at Caltech (here), found that Benford’s Law was “problematical at best” when applied to elections: “We find that conformity with and deviations from Benford’s Law follow no pattern. […] Its “success rate” either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst.” (here)
Dr Jen Golbeck, Professor of the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland (www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/), said in a thread on Twitter (here) that the claims in the social media posts are false, citing the above article. She told Reuters, “There is just not solid evidence that Benford works in elections at all. The results are profoundly mixed. Which means it’s not evidence of anything.”
Golbeck points out that the numbers on some graphs being cited by social media users are not even labelled, whilst the law “works on very specific types of numbers”. She added that none of the research that analyzes the Benford Law is as simplistic as the analysis people are posting: instead, research uses “quite advanced statistical techniques”, often looking at the second digits which have their own expected distribution.
The specific case of the Milwaukee results was also examined by Professor Boud Roukema of Poland’s Nicolaus Copernicus University. Roukema considered the application of Benford’s Law to the 2009 Iranian elections (arxiv.org/abs/0906.2789) . He told Reuters by email: “A major flaw in applying Benford’s law to the Milwaukee results is that the logarithmic distribution – how many “powers of tens” there are – in the numbers of votes per ward in Milwaukee is very narrow. In other words, half of all the wards have total votes from about 570 to 1200, and the logarithmic average (mean) is about 800.
“Biden overall got about 70% of the votes in Milwaukee. So the most likely vote for Biden (in the simplest model, assuming no falsification) in a typical Milwaukee ward is something like 0.7 times 800, which is 560 votes. We expect about half the Biden votes to lie between about 400 and 850 in typical Milwaukee wards.
“So the most popular first digit of the votes for Biden should be 5 – the first digit of 560 – and 4s and 6s and 7s should also be reasonably frequent.
“This is just what we see in the blue vertical bars in top left figure in the diagram at (here). So Benford’s law reasoning, applied to the real data, shows no reason to suspect fraud here.”
The academic and digital research coalition Election Integrity Partnership also cautioned against the conclusion that deviation from Benford’s Law is evidence of election fraud (here). It pointed out that for the law to hold, all numbers must be equally likely to appear and the numbers must span multiple orders of magnitude (eg. Range from 100 to 10,000,000). They say that one of these conditions is not met in the election: “For vote tallies, all numbers are equally likely, but not all states meet the second assumption. In the state of Nevada, Esmeralda County has around 900 people while Clark County has over 2,250,000 people. In the state of Vermont, the bounds are much narrower.”
VERDICT
False. The degree to which Benford’s Law can be used as an indicator of electoral fraud has been debated by academics, but the application of the rule to the leading digit of local vote tallies is problematic and apparent deviation from the law cannot be used alone to prove electoral fraud, experts say.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.
Here are some early results from the audit in Maricopa County, Arizona
Election workers counted 74,000 mail-in ballots that had never actually been mailed out to anyone.
11,326 people voted in the election but did not appear on the voter rolls on November 7, but did appear on the voter rolls on December 4.
3,981 people voted even though they had not registered to vote until after the October 15 registration deadline.
18,000 people who voted were removed from the voting rolls after the election.
Sources:
Atlanta’s biggest newspaper and Fox News are both reporting that ballots were scanned multiple times in Fulton County, Georgia
New article from Atlanta’s biggest newspaper:
New report from Fox News:
Older info:
CBS News, Nov 3, 2020: “Pipe burst in Georgia delays vote counting”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C25DAAHZdEw
ABC News, November 3, 2020: “The election department sent the ballot counters at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta home at 10:30 p.m., Regina Waller, the Fulton County public affairs manager for elections, tells ABC News.”
https://twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/1323846118208376834
Video from that same night shows that after Republican poll watchers and news reporters went home, election workers stayed behind and continued counting the ballots. There is no visible water leak in the video.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rPqQKvuFk473/
Video shows Fulton County election worker scanning the same ballots three times after Republican poll watchers and news reporters went home because of a “water leak.”
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 