En dommer giver hende ret i 3 af 4 krav , så hun nu kan undersøge 3 * 50 tilfældigt udvalgte typer af stemmesedler ! “Thompson granted three of Lake’s four demands, allowing the inspection of 50 random ‘ballot-on-demand’ printed ballots, 50 random early ballots, and 50 random BOD ballots marked spoiled. The judge denied her bid to inspect 50 random early ballot envelopes,”
Alene det faktum at maricopa county nægtede at give hende lov ( før dommeren tvang dem), viser at de er bange for at deres snyd skal blive afsløret …
Taget herfra
Hold da op.
Det har vi ikke set noget til på DR – Steffen Kretz og TV2 – Jesper Steinmetz
Arizona State Senate
May 12, 2021
Maricopa Board of Supervisors c/o Chairman Jack Sellers301 West Jefferson Street, #10Phoenix, Arizona 85003Dear Chairman Sellers: I am writing to seek your assistance and cooperation in the resolution of three (3) serious issues that have arisen in the course of the Senate’s ongoing audit of the returns of the November 3,2020 general election in Maricopa County.
I. Ongoing Non-Compliance with the Legislative Subpoenas
The first issue concerns Maricopa County’s apparent intent to renege on its previouscommitment to comply fully with the legislative subpoenas issued on January 13, 2021, which,as you know, Judge Thomason found were valid and enforceable. To date, attorneys for Maricopa County have refused to produce virtual images of routers used inconnection with the general election, relying on a conclusory and unsupported assertion that providing the routers would somehow “endanger the lives of law enforcement officers, their operations, or the protected health information and personal data of Maricopa County’s citizens.”If true, the fact that Maricopa County stores on its routers substantial quantities of citizens’ andemployees’ highly sensitive personal information is an alarming indictment of the County’s laxdata security practices, rather than of the legislative subpoenas. Similarly, the County’s assertionthat producing the internet routers for inspection would cost up to $6,000,000 seems at odds with Deputy County Attorney Joseph La Rue’s prior representation to Audit Liaison Ken Bennett thatthe routers already had been disconnected from the County’s network and were prepared for imminent delivery to the Senate.
Nevertheless, in an effort to resolve the dispute regarding production of the routers, we proposethat agents of CyFIR, an experienced digital forensics firm and subcontractor of Cyber Ninjas,review virtual images of the relevant routers in Maricopa County facilities and in the presence of representatives of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Such an arrangement would permit Maricopa County to retain custody and monitor the review of router data, while ensuring that theSenate may access the information it requires—and to which it is constitutionally entitled—tosuccessfully complete its audit. The Senate has no interest in viewing or taking possession of any information that is unrelated to the administration of the 2020 general election.Separately, Maricopa County has refused to provide the passwords necessary to access vote tabulation devices. Its attorneys’ insistence that the County does not have custody or control of this information is belied by the County’s conduct of its own audits, which, if they were as comprehensive as they purported to be, almost certainly would have entailed use of the passwords to examine the tabulation devices, and it strains credulity to posit that the County hasno contractual right to obtain (i.e., control of) password information from Dominion.
II.Chain of Custody and Ballot Organization Anomalies
As the audit has progressed, the Senate’s contractors have become aware of apparent omissions,inconsistencies, and anomalies relating to Maricopa County’s handling, organization, and storageof ballots. We hope you can assist us in understanding these issues, including specifically thefollowing:
1.The County has not provided any chain-of-custody documentation for the ballots. Doessuch documentation exist, and if so, will it be produced?
2.The bags in which the ballots were stored are not sealed, although the audit team has found at the bottom of many boxes cut seals of the type that would have sealed a ballot bag. Why were these seals placed at the bottom of the boxes?
3.Batches within a box are frequently separated by only a divider without any indication of the corresponding batch numbers. In some cases, the batch dividers are missingaltogether. This lack of organization has significantly complicated and delayed the auditteam’s ballot processing efforts. What are the County’s procedures for sorting,organizing, and packaging ballot batches?
4. Most of the ballot boxes were sealed merely with regular tape and not secured by anykind of tamper-evident seal. Is that the County’s customary practice for storing ballots?
5.The audit team has encountered a significant number of instances in which there is adisparity between the actual number of ballots contained in a batch and the total denotedon the pink report slip accompanying the batch. In most of these instances, the total onthe pink report slip is greater than the number of ballots in the batch, although there are afew instances in which the total is lower. What are the reasons for these discrepancies?For your reference, please see several illustrative (
i.e., not comprehensive) examples inthe table below:
PalletBallot TypeBatchPink Slip TotalActual TotalDiscrepancy5EV2104200198-25EV9276200165-3515EV9278200187-1315EV1643200218187EV6359197187-10
For your convenience, images of the corresponding pink report slips are attached in Exhibit A
.
III. Deleted Databases
We have recently discovered that the entire “Database” directory from the D drive of the machine “EMS Primary” has been deleted. This removes election related details that appear tohave been covered by the subpoena. In addition, the main database for the Election Management System (EMS) Software, “Results Tally and Reporting,” is not located anywhere on theEMSPrimary machine, even though all of the EMS Clients reference that machine as the locationof the database. This suggests that the main database for all election related data for the November 2020 General Election has been removed. Can you please advise as to why thesefolders were deleted, and whether there are any backups that may contain the deleted folders? The image below shows the location of the files known to be deleted. In addition, the main database for “Results Tally and Reporting” is not present.
* * *
I am hopeful that we can constructively resolve these issues and questions without recourse to additional subpoenas or other compulsory process. To that end, I invite you and any other officers or employees of Maricopa County (to include officials in the Elections Department) who possess knowledge or information concerning the matters set forth above to a meeting at the Arizona State Capitol on
Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.in Hearing Room 109. Chairman Petersen, former Secretary Bennett and I will attend the meeting, which will be live-streamed to the public. Please let me know at your earliest convenience whether you accept my invitation and, if so,which Maricopa County personnel will attend. Thank you for your cooperation on these important issues of public concern.
Respectfully,Karen Fann, PresidentArizona State Senate
Mere her: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/exclusive-truth-behind-2021-maricopa-audit-ballot-counting-review-ended-three-days-confirmed-results-uncertifiable/