| Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Oct 15, 2024 |
by
Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
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 as a tool to block the certification of elections that bear the modus operandi of mail-in ballot election fraud.
In his decision, Judge Liburdi referenced a provision in the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) issued by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, that 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, gives the Secretary of State nearly carte blanche authority to disenfranchise the ballots of potentially millions of Americans.”
Therefore, he 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.”).
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.
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.”
The only way to address the problem of these phantom voters is to halt certification and analyze the database. However, Fontes’s “rush-rush” EPM made doing so impossible. It forced Arizona counties to hustle out certifications even if they believed they were invalid or else risk disenfranchising every voter in the county.
Nor is this a hypothetical risk. To date, as reported on GodsFiveStones.com, computer graphics expert Andrew Paquette, Ph.D. has found algorithms in the boards of elections’ official voter registration lists of the following states: New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin, with reports on algorithms found in Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Jersey in progress. Dr. Paquette is now examining the state voter rolls in Arizona and Georgia.
Judge Liburdi’s ruling means that a county where an algorithm is found may safely refuse to certify its results on the suspicion that phantom voter fraud affected election outcomes in that county.
Likewise, a candidate who lost a close election after a late surge in mail-in ballots for the candidate’s opponent may have a legitimate argument that an algorithm was used in an election fraud scheme designed to benefit the opponent’s political party.
By analogy, if an investigation finds a casino has been using marked cards at the “21” tables, it would be impossible to prove that any gambler ever had legitimately lost a hand. In the same way, if an algorithm that can be used to cheat is present in a voter registration database, it is impossible to determine an honest outcome for that election.
However, with the decision in American Encore v. Fontes, the algorithms are no longer a weapon for cheating. Instead, their presence becomes a shield by which honest county supervisors can impede a rush to judgment to certify a possibly stolen election.
The point of embedding secret algorithms in state boards of election voter registration databases appears to be to create and certify votes cast by fictitious voters. If the goal of the algorithms is to certify election fraud, then American Encore v. Fontes provides the antidote, provided one county in a given state refuses to certify that county’s election results.
In conclusion, all it may take to expose election fraud should the voting counting patterns seen in the 2020 election be repeated in the 2024 election is for one county in a battleground state to refuse to certify the election. The rush to certify a fraudulent election is a necessary part of the algorithm/mail-in ballot scheme. Slowing down certification, even in one county, may gain the time needed to conduct a forensic examination to determine if the algorithm was used to trigger the mail-in votes in the objecting county and how many of the mail-in ballots cast in that county were fraudulent. Validation that a cryptographic algorithm permitted decisive mail-in ballots in one county would then lend credence to all states where similar cryptographic algorithms were found.
GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible 501(c)3 foundation created by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., and Karladine Graves, M.D., managed by Capstone Legacy Foundation.
