How a Federal District Court Judge Weaponized Secret Algorithms to Stop Election Fraud Hidden in State Voter Rolls

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.”

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 Adrian fontes 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.”).

I’m confused. Someone please explain why a county that used fake voters to help Kamala would refuse to certify its count.

~~~

I think that’s kindof the point. In theory (legally), it probably shouldn’t matter who the county delegates are or the canvasers nor who (or what party) the secretary of state is, there shouldn’t be a way to assign voter IDs to algorithmic non-voters, and there shouldn’t be a law to allow the SOS to disenfranchise entire counties

Arizona needs to fix their corrupt s**t

Catastrophic “Loss of Control” Data Breach in NY Elections (5-25-2023)

https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/05/25/catastrophic-loss-of-control-data-breach-in-ny-elections/

Scrolling down the page to a Rumble video from May 1, 2023, where the NY Citizens Audit presented their evidence of cryptographic algorithms secretly embedded in state voter roll databases - to the NY State Legislature Election Committees in Albany. Video is a little over 50 minutes, well worth it (right before the video, there is also a link to it at Rumble website).

Link below to a letter from the NYCA

https://auditny.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Letter-of-Introduction-to-NY-Citizens-Audit.pdf

excerpt..

"Through auditing the voter roll databases, obtained directly from state and local boards of elections, we have uncovered millions of invalid registrations, hundreds of thousands of votes cast by legally invalid registrations, hundreds of thousands of votes cast by legally invalid registrants, massive vote discrepancies, and the clear presence of algorithmic patterns we reverse engineered from within the state's own official records.

To be absolutely clear, there is no known innocent purpose or explanation for why these algorithms exist. I am told by cyber-intelligence experts they indicate a 'Total Loss of Control' data breach, the most severe kind of data breach recognized by our federal government. The law says it renders the affected NYSVoter database completely untrustworthy."

Adrian Fontes:

Adrian Fontes, “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.”

1 posted on 10/15/2024,

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.