Reports
Suspecious Chester County Election Data
-
508 USPS National Change of Address Request and Voted in Nov 2022
-
More Ballots cast than voters voting
-
3332 backfilled registrations vote in Nov 2020 election
-
13,810 registrants with date errors
-
3,300 Registrants with Apartment building resident with no apartment number
-
32 Residence address with registrants in 2 precincts
-
56 Registrants with No Residence Address
-
13 Registrants in Commercial office buildings
-
50 Registrants at USPS Post Office addresses
-
19 Registrants at mail forwarding services
-
46 Registrants at Hotels
-
3 Registrants with invalid Zip codes
-
1409 Registrants with Mail Address NOT Registration Address
-
3,366 Provisional ballots
Look Ahead America Finds Huge Discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s Official Election Records
May 2023
"Washington, D.C. – After comparing data on the state of Pennsylvania official website for election results against the official county election results, Look Ahead America (LAA) found a number of glaring discrepancies in these records. In several state races these surpassed the margins of victory and margins of recounts.
​
Ian Camacho, Director of Research, made a formal statement:
​
We have reached out to the State Open Data Officer twice for an explanation, and have not heard anything back. Why has the Department of State had these records for years and yet its officers don’t know (or won’t explain) a single one of these discrepancies?
​
Our goal was not to overturn any prior elections, but rather to investigate and understand the data to provide clarity and increased transparency for the general public. We did not expect the state’s official data to conflict with county sources, especially when considering that the state gets its material from the counties. This raises serious questions about the integrity and accuracy of PA election records. Worse, it raises questions about state and local races where the differences in the records surpassed the margin of victory or recount.
​
We hope that the counties and state seriously consider our three recommendations to improve data transparency in the report."
​
The Fingerprints of Fraud: Evidence and Analysis of a Multi-State Conspiracy to Defraud the 2020 General Election
May 2023
"The General election of 2020 was perhaps the most contentious election in our country’s history. It was certainly the most contested and displayed the most concerning irregularities. Since the election, many researchers, election experts, and concerned citizens have performed an unprecedented evaluation of the election procedures and data. Many have found hard evidence of manipulation and
fraud at the state, county, and local levels. To date, the judicial systems of those locales have been unwilling or unable to give a fair hearing to the findings, leaving our country in a divided condition where a majority of the population no longer trusts the election system.
As a computer and data expert with 40 years of professional experience, I began examining available data in December 2020. In August 2021, I performed a forensic evaluation of the Mesa County, Colorado election system. The findings of this evaluation can be found in Mesa County Report #31. That report, and my subsequent research, showed evidence of ballot and vote manipulation by the county’s Dominion Voting Systems election software in both the 2020 General and 2021 Municipal Elections. These findings included an observation of unnatural voting patterns in the county’s Cast Vote Record that coincided with my originally discovered internal database manipulation. That spurred me to examine other counties. From that time, I have encountered hundreds of counties spanning the nation, utilizing all major computerized election software vendors, that display shockingly similar and unnatural patterns to what was observed and documented in Mesa County.
Based upon these and other findings, which will be detailed in this report, it is my expert opinion that the United States of America was the victim of a coordinated multi-state conspiracy to defraud the 2020 General Election."
Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General's (DAG) Performance Audit of the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) Administered by the PA Department of State (DOS)
December 2019
"Regrettably, we were surprised and disappointed that DOS’ response contained in this report indicates that it strongly disagrees with many of our findings and mischaracterizes the information that was provided or not provided to us during the course of our audit. We address management’s disagreements and mischaracterizations in the Auditors’ Conclusion section of this report. We are concerned, however, with its attempt to refute our findings. DOS does not seem to understand that a primary objective of our audit was to assess the accuracy of records maintained in the SURE system. Our audit procedures disclosed internal control weaknesses related to input and maintenance of voter records, and our data analysis revealed examples of potential inaccuracies, all of which should be properly investigated by forwarding the information to the counties for further review. We are concerned that DOS, and therefore the counties, will not utilize the information provided to them in the audit because it is assuming that the data in the SURE system is accurate. Our data analysis strongly suggests otherwise. We hope that despite these written disagreements DOS seriously considers all of the management control weaknesses identified and works conscientiously with the counties to address all of the potential voter registration inaccuracies noted in the SURE voter registration records prior to migrating this data into the new replacement system."
THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON PENNSYLVANIA’S ELECTION SECURITY STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
University of Pittsburgh January 2019
"Yet because even the most secure voting machines are still at some risk for hacking, replacing the vulnerable paperless voting systems would be insufficient if not coupled with robust, post-election audits. Such audits, if conducted properly after every election, can ensure that officials are able to detect machine tabulation errors that might affect the outcomes of elections. Pennsylvania’s Election Code does require some post-election tabulation auditing (a flat-rate audit); however, only counties that use paper ballots can meaningfully comply with the Election Code’s requirements."
EVEREST: Evaluation and Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards and Testing
Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and WebWise Security, Inc.
December 7, 2007
"The evaluated systems included those designed and developed by Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic (Hart) and Premier Election Solutions (Premier, formerly Diebold)."
"All of the studied systems possess critical security failures that render their technical controls insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election. While each system possessed unique limitations, they shared critical failures in design and implementation that lead to this conclusion:
• Insufficient Security ...
• Improper Use or Implementation of Security Technology ...
• A visible lack of trustworthy auditing capability. …
• Software maintenance practices of the studied systems are deeply flawed. "
​
Election Security in Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Carnegie Mellon University May 10, 2018.
"Following the revelations of the 2016 Presidential election, election security has been a hot-button issue throughout the country and at all levels of government. This paper aims to contribute towards these efforts by focusing on Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Through targeted research and analysis, we have not only been able to discover important data points that can help decision makers focus their efforts and budgets on the security of election systems and processes, but also provide overall risk analysis for their entire election ecosystem. By focusing on the swing state of Pennsylvania and, in more detail, Allegheny County, our methodology can be extrapolated to a higher level for a more wide-reaching impact. With an initial objective of determining the vulnerabilities, attack paths, and associated risks within the election system of Allegheny County, our results provide an overall risk analysis for leaders of Allegheny County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
Voter Identity Theft: Submitting Changes to Voter Registrations Online to Disrupt Elections
Harvard University September 05, 2017.
"Results summary: We found that in 2016, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states had websites that allowed voters to submit registration changes. These websites determined whether a visitor was an actual voter by requesting commonly available personal information. Some websites gave multiple ways for a voter to self-identify. Of these, {name, date of birth, address} was required in 15, {name, date of birth, driver’s license number} was required in 27, and {name, date of birth, last 4 SSN} was required in 3. We found that an attacker could acquire the voter names, demographic information and government-issued numbers needed to impersonate voters on all 36 websites from government offices, data brokers, the deep web, or darknet markets."
Pennsylvania SURE Solicitation, SURE Vulnerability Assessments, and the WebAPI Portal August 10, 2021.
•SURE Contract and RFP
•SURE Architecture
•2019 SURE Audit Report by PA Attorney General Pasquale
•SURE System Vulnerabilities – Carnegie Mellon and Harvard Studies
•SURE WebAPI Portal
•Summary of SURE Issues
•Amistad Project and Pennsylvania CTCL Grants
•Act 77 Summary – Counties were forced to buy new voting systems in 2019, dumping millions into corrupt companies like Dominion and ES&S, and giving them control of our election systems.
​
The Parallel Election - A Blueprint for Deception
Leah Hoops and Gregory Stenstrom 2022
"This book documents, in great detail and with irrefutable evidence, the massive election fraud that was perpetuated against the citizenry in the November 2020 General Election, which resulted in the installation of an illegitimate government. We show you, close up, how it was done and by whom. We call it a "parallel election" because obtaining the fraudulent results, they manufactured, required the wholesale substitution of fake ballots for the authentic ones."
Also See: A digital privacy ecosystem and social media platform
