“You Cannot Catch Any Fraud in Fractions” – Jovan Pulitzer Clarifies Why You Need Full 100% Forensic Audits to Catch Election Fraud

1. You have to include 100% of all ballots in your forensic audit. This is because the fraud may be hidden in only one area out of a hundred. You will miss identifying the total amount of fraudulent ballots if you sample [i.e. statistical sampling]. He provided a picture to show what he means. If only one out of a hundred or 6 out of six hundred cases are fraudulent, you will likely not capture the full amount of fraud when sampling.

If you audit using sampling or fractions, the fraudulent cases may never be captured, especially if your sampling approach is biased (i.e. the selector knows which cases not to audit).

2. The reason the above is so important also is because the law states that you have no standing if you don’t provide more fraudulent cases of fraud than is the difference between candidates in a race, and the courts may shut you down. You need to show that there are enough cases identified to overturn an election. This is why you have to look at all ballots to identify the fraudulent ones.

2. When you audit a bank you don’t go to one teller’s cash drawer and audit only the number of $10 bills. You audit every drawer and the safe and agree that to what is reported.

3. Ballots are like money and should be audited in the same manner you audit money.

The ruling elites have removed citizens from counting the votes, or even meaningfully witnessing the vote count. According to SCOTUS, the citizens, or even other states have no standing to object to a fraudulent vote tabulation or canvass. Audits must be ordered by the legislature. The AZ audit is the model for all that follow. Fractional checks on the cheap don’t do the job and shouldn’t be called audits, just more propaganda. People must demand 100% of ballots audited, or else its just a waste of tax dollars.

In a sense, that ability of the legislature to appoint electors can override the will of the majority.

That ability definitely does not justify fraud, breaking state (or federal) election process laws, exceeding of authority by other members of government, suppression of observers, and so on.

And I doubt that ability even justifies the legislature (or any other part of the government) keeping the people from knowing the true results, because that seems to me to fall under the umbrella of “government by the people and for the people”; it probably also relates to free speech.

In a sense, that ability of the legislature to appoint electors can override the will of the majority.

SCOTUS has held that appointing the presidential electors is a "plenary" power of the state legislatures. They can appoint the electors contrary to the governor's election certification if they want. (The Florida legislature was ready to do this in 2000 if Gore won the state somehow.) However, even though they set the rules for the federal elections for Congress, they cannot appoint Congresscritters if they don't like the election results as they could with the presidential electors.

That ability definitely does not justify fraud, breaking state (or federal) election process laws, exceeding of authority by other members of government, suppression of observers, and so on.

The problem is that our federal courts have refused address such problems, opining that only the state legislatures acting as a body have the right to object to such illegalities. In short, the citizens have rights to vote without remedies for when that right is denied, diluted, etc. The remedies for election fraud and state actors conducting illegal electors need to be reformed promptly.

And I doubt that ability even justifies the legislature (or any other part of the government) keeping the people from knowing the true results, because that seems to me to fall under the umbrella of “government by the people and for the people”; it probably also relates to free speech.

Computerized voting machines, that magically declare a winner in an election without the ability of people to witness the actual vote count, is something relatively new in the U.S., and it has been banned in Europe. Arguably, the right to witness the vote count, examine the ballots, etc. is a Ninth Amendment vote retained by the people. Previous generations of Americans would have taken up arms in protest had they been denied this right, and some did in places, i.e., the Battle of Athens TN. It falls under the category the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Sec. 4, in the Constitution, guaranteeing a "Republican form of government">

Thank you, Dr. Franklin!

> Previous generations of Americans would have taken up arms in protest had they been denied this right, and some did in places, i.e., the Battle of Athens TN.

It falls under the category the GUARANTEE CLAUSE of Article IV, Sec. 4, in the Constitution, guaranteeing a “Republican form of government”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.