For those of you who have been asking about our recent article on Bipartisan Chain of Custody Act and what you need to do to start questioning your election officials, this post contains correspondence and notes among our research team with Washington State election officials. You may find them useful in demanding to know how your elections are operating.
There are questions that we asked in our FOIA requests to Washington State and should definitely be asked of the Utah election board since they use Smartmatic machines and our researchers have found an association with the machines, Mitt Romney, George Soros, and Sir Lord George Mark Malloch-Brown.
These are questions that our researchers asked the state of Washington. You could ask your state the same questions.
I have not received satisfactory or conclusive evidence that bipartisan chain of custody is possible using the Smartmatic election machines or electronic devices of any kind in WA state’s voting process. It is the ‘people’s’ responsibility to ensure unbroken bipartisan chain of custody, and each ‘voting citizen’ has the right under the Federal and the WA state constitution to know that this is true.
We are not stating that there is ‘voter fraud’, we are asking simply for proof that bipartisan chain of custody is in reality–not broken beyond a ‘shadow of doubt’. Any action taken, whereby the ‘tally’ or ‘counts’ of any voting procedure are ‘hidden’ from observation, which is ‘impossible’ when it is performed and transmitted by ‘electrons’ in a ‘digital form’ fails the test of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody observation as empirical evidence’.
At no time, can bipartisan chain of custody be subject to ‘FAITH’ , ‘law’, ‘vendor certification’, testing’ or any process’ that is ‘hidden from empirical observation’…when this is the basis for ‘certification’, it by logic, and physical law fails the test.
The will of the people cannot be subject ‘FAITH’ from government, the tally count must be ‘totally observable’ at all times, without failure. Electronic devices depend upon ‘failure modes’ or ‘statistical outcomes’ that depend upon ‘software programs’, ’embedded circuitry’, and ‘clean sine wave electricity’, which are ‘hidden from observation, and thus fail the test by default of logic of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody’.
Thus, the WA state election process fails by default to pass the test for certification. It is open to ‘man in the middle attacks’, and corruption. As such, the ‘will of the people’ can be circumvented by sophistication, technology, and conspiracy through electronic means. This is the underlying logic of my FOIA requests.
FOIA request questions:
1. specifically name the 3rd party tester (and the actually testers themselves) and how that company and those people are certified by a bipartisan chain of custody committee in WA?
2. When the memory stick is delivered to the county auditor by the vendor what ‘proof exists’, other than a ‘certification piece of paper’ that the ‘correct’ part number has been delivered?
3. Is the ‘memory stick, on which the tally at each county is entered and sent to the state, tested against an encrypted part number sent to the STATE and the AUDITOR by another communication channel such as certified mail to ensure that the proper ‘memory stick’ has been delivered to the auditor by comparison(a phone call recorded)?
4. What programs exist on the memory stick?
5. What circuits exist on the memory stick, and what circuits are ‘blue printed’ as the baseline as the ‘official circuits’, and how is this tested and reported as ‘clean’?
6. Are the ‘memory sticks’ impounded after the election, and are they available for inspection after the election and for how long, or is the evidence ‘erased’?
7. Is there a ‘micro-voltage’ activation ‘count’ embedded in the memory stick’s program, so that when it is received at the county auditor’s site, when ‘plugged in’ the count is visible to attest that it has not been reprogrammed during ‘transport’, by a ‘man in the middle’? (this would make the whole voting procedure a magic act as it exists)
8. Is each county auditor required to create a ‘bipartisan human hand tally’ as well as a PCOS/Smartmatic machine tally to audit each ‘tally count’ against each other, while preserving both tally counts as unbroken bipartisan chain of custody tallies?