Agenda 2030 cannot be realized if there are - anywhere on earth - free elections. Totalitarian world government could still operate in stealth mode - as long as it has complete control over all worldwide “elections.”
These “lawsuits” will give the msm cover for ignoring any and all derogatory information about electronic voting.
Fox News settled Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against it Tuesday for $787.5 million, avoiding an anticipated six-week trial in the case and bringing two years of litigation to an end—but Dominion and rival company Smartmatic still have numerous other cases pending against right-wing defendants over fraud claims involving the companies’ machines, including a separate pending case against Fox News.
Those numerous other cases involve:
Rudy Giuliani
Sidney Powell
Lou Dobbs
Maria Bartoromo
Mike Lindell
Patrick Byrne (former CEO of Overstock.com)
Newsmax
OANN (One America News Network)
In most cases Dominion and Smartmatic have mirrored lawsuits. Tag team! This is a coordinated attack.
BIG SCAM.
That is OK because the list is not supported by Rupert Murdoch. At least one of those on the list will actually hold Dominion’s feet to the fire. Truth IS MORE powerful than lies, eventually.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/washington/29ballot.html
Smartmatic was a little-known firm with no experience in voting technology before it was chosen by the Venezuelan authorities to replace the country’s elections machinery ahead of a contentious referendum that confirmed Mr. Chávez as president in August 2004.
Seven months before that voting contract was awarded, a Venezuelan government financing agency invested more than $200,000 into a smaller technology company, owned by some of the same people as Smartmatic, that joined with Smartmatic as a minor partner in the bid.
In return, the government agency was given a 28 percent stake in the smaller company and a seat on its board, which was occupied by a senior government official who had previously advised Mr. Chávez on elections technology. But Venezuelan officials later insisted that the money was merely a small-business loan and that it was repaid before the referendum.
With a windfall of some $120 million from its first three contracts with Venezuela, Smartmatic then bought the much larger and more established Sequoia Voting Systems, which now has voting equipment installed in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
But the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less visible in public documents as the company has been restructured into an elaborate web of offshore companies and foreign trusts.
Since its takeover by Smartmatic in March 2005, Sequoia has worked aggressively to market its voting machines in Latin America and other developing countries. “The goal is to create the world’s leader in electronic voting solutions,” said Mitch Stoller, a company spokesman.
https://www.worldtribune.com/eyewitness-how-hugo-chavez-stole-the-august-2004-election-in-venezuela/ (article November 2020)
One of the first things the regime understood was that it had to completely control the electoral system, but never leave any traces of fraud.”
From 2004 to 2017, the Smartmatic system was used in 14 elections in Venezuela. Machado said the fraudulent activity got more sophisticated as the years went on.
“Indeed, if these criminal systems learn anything, it is not to make the same mistake twice,” Machado said. “With each process, they become more sophisticated and more difficult to detect. Soon after, we realized that there was no single reason that explained all the fraud, but that it was a sum of events and mechanisms. Each one brings a component of the fraud, and together, the result is devastating.”
It almost seems as if Latin America was ground zero for testing methods and procedures for elections using electronic voting, providing the necessary learning curve, and delivering a blueprint for the future.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Venezuelan_recall_referendum
Allegations of electoral fraud
After the preliminary results were broadcast, the opposition Coordinadora Democrática declared that fraud had taken place, stating that its own data (the Penn, Schoen & Berland exit poll, which was performed by volunteers from Sumate, the NGO which had organized the referendum) put the "Yes" vote at 59% and the "No" vote at 40%. Their exit poll showed the opposite result to the official voting data, predicting that Chávez would lose by 20%, whereas the election results showed him to have won by 20%. A poll company representative, Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".
Election observers insisted that no fraud had taken place, but scholarly analyses published over the years to come disagreed. A statistical study by Maria M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo Márquez was published in 2006 in a peer-reviewed academic statistics journal. The study used cluster analysis to review differences in vote patterns between voting certificates on the basis that voters were randomly assigned to certificates (each voting center had on average 2 or 3 certificates, typically for computerised and manual voting systems). It concluded: "[The] Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence." They estimated that 56.4% had voted yes to recall Chavez, as opposed to the official result of 41%.
The presence of systemic election fraud was also supported by six analyses in a special section in the November 2011 issue of Statistical Science. Raquel Prado and Bruno Sansó examined the exit polls; Luis Raul Pericchi and David A Torres examined the no-votes against the Newcomb-Benford law; Isbelia Martin discovered anomalous patterns in telecommunications; Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto I. Rigobón analyzed patterns related to exit polls; Raúl Jiménez examined the distribution of valid votes, null votes, and abstentions in each precinct; while Gustavo Delfino and Guillermo Salas reported on the anomalous relation between signatures requesting the recall, and the yes-votes. The section is introduced by an article written by Alicia L. Carriquiry. One of the papers, by Hausmann and Rigobón, was a later version of a paper disputed by the Carter Center, and contains a response to that criticism.
Some individuals have disputed the center's endorsement of the electoral process in the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004. Fox News' Doug Schoen told Michael Barone at U.S. News & World Report, "Our internal sourcing tells us that there was fraud in the Venezuelan central commission. There are widespread reports of irregularities and evidence of fraud, many of them ably recorded by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in The Wall Street Journal last week. Carter is untroubled by any of this, and declares that Chavez won 'fair and square.'" The Carter Center looked into the allegations and released a paper and statistical analysis reaffirming their original conclusions.