JULY 14, 2022 – MESA COUNTY, CO. On Thursday morning, Judge Matthew D. Barrett of Colorado’s 21st Judicial District issued an arrest warrant for Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters. He also revoked her $25,000 cash bond and called for her to be held in jail pending a hearing. Peters is facing multiple indictments for the actions she took to preserve election evidence last spring.
Earlier this week, on July 12, Peters spoke at a Nevada event hosted by the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). Peters discussed the asymmetrical treatment she has received from the Colorado justice system, affirmed that she has not conceded from her race, and delivered a scathing rebuke of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (CD3). A spokesperson for Congresswoman Boebert denied all allegations.
District Attorney Dan Rubenstein, the Mesa County DA investigating Peters, said that her request for travel was denied by the court. Counsel for Peters, a Gold Star Mother and cancer survivor, says the issue was a clerical error. The judge sided with the state and it appears for now that they are going to put Clerk Peters back in jail.
The ongoing political persecution of Peters is tyrannical and unjust – just a couple years ago it would have been unthinkable for a sitting elected official to treat their political opponent in a reelection campaign in the manner that Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold has treated Clerk Peters.
The New York Times led the dishonest legacy media on this story, and it’s clear that this is simply the latest attempt by Griswold and the establishment to distract from the fraud-ridden Colorado Primary Election on June 28.
Statistically Impossible Results
In the two weeks since the primary, clerks and commissioners are hearing calls for decertification and forensic audits across most, if not all, Colorado counties, and they are coming from candidates regardless of which race, from US Senator to County Coroner.
Griswold needs a distraction and she needs one fast.
The outrage began the moment that election night reporting data dropped from Edison research via AP News. According to Edison, the competitive races Colorado Republican races show a controlled system that maintains the margin of victory for the selected candidates throughout election night. The results show the same evidence of a controlled system regardless of how you filter the data; in other words, the manipulation shows at the county AND state levels. This is not statistically improbable. It’s impossible.
Edison reporting data doesn’t extend to local races in Colorado, so the only way for county and city races to be evaluated is to get the Cast Vote Record from the clerk. El Paso County Republican Chair Vickie Tonkins requested this record from Clerk Chuck Broerman earlier this week. Clerk Broerman responded that she could obtain the record in September, long after the deadlines for challenge. This is absolute despotism on full display by the uniparty Republicans, many of them incumbents who are obstructing transparency into their own reelection campaigns!
The Cover Up is Always Worse
They have to obstruct. The only reason that has been provided by the wholly corrupted and illegitimate government in Denver – and their preferred election outsourcing provider Dominion – is that all of us just don’t understand.
Batches of ballots are reported at intervals. As each candidate gains votes from each batch, the lines go up (number of votes) and to the right (over time). Sometimes in these graphs, as in Garfield County, the lines go down. It’s unclear why candidates are losing votes that were already tabulated. If you ask this question, you’re an “election denier.”
The only answer provided to the hundreds of data, engineering, cyber, math, and other domain specialists that have been asking, is that they are getting this wrong because it’s election data. They don’t understand what happens inside the machines — and no one does because the source code is proprietary and forbidden — and so they aren’t election experts.
Nowhere to Run
They have to obstruct because they are faced with damning evidence – from the same data used by the media to officially report results that we are not allowed to question. This damning evidence proves that our elections are predetermined selections and the entire process is an exercise in uniparty theater.
Welcome to the complexity of modern elections. The only election experts that are acceptable are the vendors. Per the Colorado Election Security Act (SB22-153) that Griswold just put in place, only her people are allowed to become election experts, and thus gain access to the magical knowledge that reveals the secrets of how they tabulate our votes in a way that looks like fraud but totally isn’t fraud.
Elbert County Judge rules 2020 election records be turned over to CO AG Weiser. Citizens immediately submitted open records requests for hard drive data. SecState and AG obligated by law to comply within three days.
[Denver, Colorado, May 5, 2022] – Today, Elbert County Clerk and Recorder turned over two hard drives containing the only remaining copies of Elbert County’s 2020 digital election records, including voting system log files to Colorado Secretary of State Griswold. The handoff took place through Attorney General Phil Weiser. In the case, Griswold sued Clerk Schroeder to obtain the backups of Elbert County’s 2020 election records. The unfounded premise in Griswold’s case was that Schroeder and his election record backups were a threat to election security. A baseless claim given the fact that Schroeder had taken extra measures to preserve the election records on the two hard drives mandated by federal and state election law.
Prior to the hearing, Schroeder agreed to let the SecState inspect both the hard drives one at a time. Griswold declined the option and pursued the case claiming she needed simultaneous possession of both backups to examine either for “evidence” of security breaches. Griswold also claimed that she needed to keep both hard drives post investigation. Griswold offered no reason for her odd demands.
AG Weiser and SecState Griswold are now responsible for the Elbert County 2020 digital election records and have been ordered by the court to preserve and protect the hard drives, the election records, and the election data including all log files. Log files are critical for understanding who accessed the electronic voting equipment, when, and what actions took place. The log files are key to understanding if there was record destruction, manipulation, or mishandling of election records as were found in Mesa County.
By law, Griswold and Weiser are now required to comply with open records requests for the data, given the information on the hard drives is public information that pertains to an essential government function. Citizens have a legal right to request and obtain all the data on the hard drives.
The Department of Justice has confirmed that the Federal statute for preservation of election records applies to digital records. Colorado’s state officials are bound by federal standard. The reason the federal law includes electronic records is so a full forensic audit can be conducted at any time after the election, within 22-month Federal minimum requirement for election records preservation. An adequate audit would be conducted by independent experts. By allowing the independent auditor to reconstruct the election process, including investigating every event taking place on the voting systems. This is the only way citizens can objectively verify an election was legal, free, and fair according to the law. In a tweet, Griswold made it clear she despised citizens’ rights to audit their elections, going so far as to publicly mock the law and election audit process.
It’s anticipated that Griswold and Weiser will try to obstruct any open records requests using a range of false claims. The testimony by Griswold’s legal team indicated the types of arguments the public can expect. Below is a fact-check of Griswold’s and Weiser’s likely claims.
1. There is un-releasable proprietary data on the hard drives. FALSE. Clerk Schroeder explained under oath how he backed up the election records. The technical method Schroeder used made it highly unlikely for any proprietary data from the voting equipment to be transferred to Schroeder’s backup hard drives.
FACT: If there happened to be any data Dominion Voting Systems claimed to be proprietary on the hard drives, the Secretary of State would be obligated to review and release it, under CORA.
2. Schroeder’s backups may include private voter information. FALSE. No private voter data is ever entered into the voting system.
FACT: In the past election officials have attempted to deny public access to voting records based on the rare situation that a voter ignored ballot instructions and may have written something personally identifiable on their ballot. Those markings may then appear in the scanned ballot images. This can’t be used as a reason to prevent public access to the paper ballots or ballot images because marks can be redacted.
3. Information on the hard drives will expose who a voter voted for.FALSE. According to Federal and CO law, both the scanned images of cast ballots and paper ballots are election records. Neither has information on them identifying a voter or how they voted. Election records only show the purported votes of Colorado voters.
FACT: Once a ballot is removed from its mail-in envelope prior to the counting process, it’s called a “naked ballot”. This means the cast ballot is now anonymous. There is no way to ever connect the identity of the voter to their naked cast ballot – even digitally.
4, The election data on the hard drives could expose security vulnerabilities. TRUE. And that’s a good thing. The Secretary of State has repeatedly told Colorado voters, the General Assembly, and the press that Colorado elections and election systems are secure. It’s incumbent on the SecState to prove her claims. If she’s now saying that she believes there may be security vulnerabilities on the voting systems, she should be asked to explain why, under oath in front of the General Assembly and a criminal prosecutor.
FACT: The public has a right to know if there are any security vulnerabilities in their voting systems, and no obligation to trust a public official’s now-questionable assurances.
The question remains, why is Griswold so fixated on obtaining both hard drives simultaneously and keeping the Elbert County election record backups even after she inspects the drives? The answer likely resides in Mesa County.
The now famous Mesa Forensic Audit Reports generated from the analysis of the Mesa County election records backups exposed a range of problems with the electronic voting system software and hardware used in Mesa County. Evidence includes: Griswold deleting 29,000 election records in Mesa County, CO voting systems are out of regulatory compliance making them illegal to certify in the first place and illegal to use, numerous system security vulnerabilities, a backdoor intentionally built into election machine software, plus 36 wireless devices found embedded in the election equipment. All these issues (many blatantly illegal according to federal and state law) were found by analyzing the hard drives of Clerk Peters’ election records backups that were conducted before and after Griswold’s Trusted Build.
Griswold and her team haven’t yet been able to issue any substantiative or technically accurate response for what was found in the Mesa County voting systems. Griswold has repeatedly issued ineffective and inaccurate talking points through surrogates like the Colorado County Clerks Association. Instead of calling for an independent investigation of the illegal and corrupted voting systems in Colorado proven by the Mesa Technical Reports; Griswold has resorted to attacking Peters and now Schroeder. Curiously they’re the only two clerks (that have come forward to this date) who backed up their election records from their election management servers in the most technically robust way.
Griswold claims that Peters and Schroeder had somehow breached election security due to the way they backed up their county election records. However, the facts show the exact opposite.
In the spring of 2021, every county clerk and recorder (CCR) were told by the Secretary of State to back up their election projects, prior to Griswold’s Trusted Build. Griswold’s only instructions for the clerks were, “Backup any election projects on your voting system to removable media before our arrival.” When questioned about the lack of instruction, training, and tools for the CCRs; The Secretary of State’s staff described this guidance as “detailed.” To emphasize, there were no specifics for how clerks should conduct their backups. This left the CCRs, who have little to no cyber expertise to their own judgement for how to back up their election records to comply with state and federal election laws. It should be noted that Griswold herself has no cyber or technical expertise; yet she speaks publicly as an election security expert including her (now former) leadership position on the National Association of Secretaries of State cyber committee.
Griswold claims the 2020 elections were the safest and most secure. Yet Griswold’s actions, are in direct contradiction to her rhetoric. If security was a top priority for Griswold, why then didn’t Griswold provide all Colorado clerks with specific backup directions focusing on security and legal compliance before the Trusted Build? Griswold’s lack of leadership, direction, and cyber expertise exposes gross violations of her sworn duty as Colorado Secretary of State.
While the judge in Elbert County refused to hear the defense’s argument that events and evidence from Mesa County impacted Schroeder’s defense, it becomes glaringly obvious the judge either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand the full picture. By refusing to entertain the context of the case, including Griswold’s own conduct in illegally destroying so many of the Colorado election records that are mandated by law to preserve; the answer to why Griswold is desperate to control Elbert’s hard drives remains out of the public record to the detriment of Colorado citizens.
Griswold’s legal team is chalking-up the ruling in Elbert as a victory. The reality is that the judgement may end up backfiring on Griswold. Griswold’s legal team relied on the argument that Griswold is the Chief Election Official in the state, and that all Colorado County Clerks are subordinate to her. (The judge seemed to miss the fact that County Clerks and Recorders are duly elected officials, and do not report to the Secretary of State). Griswold’s lawyers also asserted that Griswold has plenary authority for election security, meaning she has complete and absolute power with no limitations to act on behalf of Colorado’s election security. Where this is likely to come back to haunt Griswold is by her own assertions of power, she must bear all responsibility for turning over the election records she is so desperate to keep secret; plus answer for the mounting evidence of insecurity and uncertainty in Colorado elections and election systems.
The third forensic report analyzing Mesa County electronic voting systems exposes, proof of changing vote counts, multiple unauthorized databases discovered and used in two separate elections, and more. Public calls for immediate federal and state law enforcement to investigate evidence of crimes.
[Denver, Colorado, March 22, 2022] – The third official forensic Mesa Report #3 analyzing Mesa County electronic voting systems was made public today. The report shows that the Mesa County electronic voting system contained multiple databases, which should not have been present and also indicates manipulated vote counts. The multiple databases in the voting system show ballot and ballot batch records were moved and changed, breaking the chain of evidence, leaving the true vote count unknown. This makes the vote count in Mesa County’s voting system impossible to authenticate, or prove accurate, voiding the legal certification of Mesa’s election. The report goes on to explain that this illegal activity happened in two different elections and there is no possible way this manipulation was an accident.
The first forensic report analyzing the Mesa County electronic voting systems showed that at least 29,000 election records had been deleted at the direction of Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. The second Mesa forensic report exposed numerous system vulnerabilities including firewall and security rules that would allow any computer in the world to connect to the voting system server, and 36 separate wireless networking devices in the voting system. Between the wireless devices, the insecure configuration, and the destroyed election records, the voting system could have been undetectably connected to the unauthorized devices, networks, and the internet, directly, or indirectly. In the third report, there is undeniable evidence that vote counts were changed and manipulated.
According to systems testing expert Col. Shawn Smith (ret.) USAF, ”In contrast to Voting System Testing Lab personnel, who ‘claim no specialized knowledge or background in cybersecurity,’ the computer experts who authored the ‘Mesa 3 Report’ have 80 years of combined experience and expertise, including degrees in computer science and mathematics, defense and national security experience, and are making all evidence available to the public and other researchers.”
The evidence of destroyed election records, unauthorized software installation, multiple manipulated vote counts, databases, and unmonitorable wireless networking equipment exposes numerous federal and state crime violations, including civil rights violations. None of these violations would have been detectable to local election officials without this report. The public is calling for immediate criminal investigations by both federal and state law enforcement.
In a desperate attempt to cover-up evidence of numerous serious crimes, Griswold introduced a bill in the Colorado Senate that among other egregious attempts to seize election power from local election officials, and leaves oversight of Colorado elections solely in the hands of SecState Griswold. In fact, the bill makes it a crime for election officials to criticize how the state runs elections and bans public audits of elections. SB22-153 appears to be designed to cover-up all evidence of the crimes committed in Mesa County, and to suppress citizen discovery of new evidence. Colorado citizens are outraged at the bill and are taking a strong stand with elected officials urging them to vote no, especially in light of the “Mesa Report 3”.
In a separate legal case, Sec State Griswold is suing the Elbert County Clerk and Recorder in a desperate attempt to seize hard drives containing Elbert County election record backups. Once the Elbert County backups are forensically analyzed, it’s highly likely that the same evidence of Griswold’s illegal conduct in Mesa County will be found in Elbert County. State law enforcement officials, including CO Attorney General Weiser, are expected to demand access to those backups in support of a thorough criminal investigation.
Key findings in the Mesa Report #3
Creation of multiple databases: The Mesa County voting system server should have had three databases in its election project for each election. But in Mesa County’s system, two additional databases were found for two separate elections. The existence of those additional databases, and the movement of ballot records between them, breaking the chain of evidence needed for ballot and vote authentication is proof of voting system non-compliance with Federal Voting System Standards mandatory under Colorado law, and proof of manipulation. This is akin to having two sets of accounting records in a business, to hide fraudulent and illegal financial transactions.
A pattern of multiple illegal databases in separate elections:Multiple databases were found in both the 2020 election records, and in the 2021 election records. Slight variations in the method of ballot and batch record copying between databases reinforces the conclusion that the manipulation was deliberate.
Ballot and election records chain of evidence broken in multiple ways: Once ballot images and records were moved, deleted, manipulated, and re-copied, the chain of evidence was broken. Digital files required to verify ballot image authenticity simply did not exist in the new databases. It makes it impossible to verify the authenticity of so many ballot records. Now election results cannot be determined from the voting system records.
No accident: There are no listed, authorized features and procedures, or even the ability through a combination of features and procedures on the electronic voting systems to instruct or enable election officials to manipulate ballot records and vote count databases in the manner discovered. This activity was unauthorized, and could have been conducted in any number of ways, including combinations of unauthorized software, remote access and/or malware introduced through a removable device (USB drive).
Illegal certification of Colorado electronic voting systems: Because the electronic voting system in Mesa County, Colorado was not only vulnerable and exposed to manipulation, including the systematic destruction of election records, and proof of actual manipulation, the voting system could not possibly have met the requirements of the Federal Voting System Standards mandated by Colorado statute.
The first two of three Mesa County voting system forensic reports were prepared by Doug Gould, the former Chief Cybersecurity Security Strategist for AT&T. Mr. Gould is considered a foremost expert in the cybersecurity field and holds CISSP and CAS certifications. He is also a faculty member at the World Institute for Security Enhancement. The third Mesa County voting system forensic report was prepared by Jeffrey O’Donnell, a Full Stack software and database developer and analyst, with degrees in Computer Science and Mathematics, and 40 years’ experience in software, database, and analytics for large private sector corporations, and by Dr. Walter C. Daugherity, a computer consultant and Senior Lecturer Emeritus in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M, earning his Master’s and PhD’s in mathematics from Harvard, attending on a National Science Foundation Prize Fellowship, prior to his 37 years’ experience teaching computer science and engineering, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, programming and software design, and cyber ethics.
# # #
Below is the Mesa 3 Report Download with additional documentation in a zip file.
Generated after months of volunteer voter canvassing to verify state public election records, The USEIP Colorado Canvassing Report exposes massive irregularities, anomalies, and numerous law violations.
[Denver, Colorado, March 10, 2022] – A report published today by the U.S. Election Integrity Plan (USEIP) found that hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters were impacted by election irregularities and anomalies in the 2020 elections. The report analyzed canvassing records from multiple Colorado Counties. Volunteers went door-to-door verifying public voting records. The election data that was verified is public, maintained by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold.
Professional statisticians, mathematicians, retired military officers, software engineers, and corporate training specialists came together on a completely volunteer basis to design the canvassing program from start to finish. The peer-reviewed, statistical sampling method used for the canvassing was designed so that results can hold up in court. This strict and rigorous approach produced statistical significance in the canvassed counties. More importantly, it allows for statistically sound assertions on voting irregularities to be made for the state as whole. Those assertions are stunning. Extrapolating the canvassed county findings to the entire state, the number of impacted voters in Colorado is between 210,091 and 462,201.
The USEIP report exposes shocking types of widespread problems with the Colorado election system. A sample of the top irregularities in the report include:
Fake voters. The voter did not cast a ballot, but County Clerk and Recorder and Secretary of State managed records show a ballot was cast in the voter’s name.
Lost votes. The voter did cast a ballot but records show no ballot was cast.
Illegal votes. The voter did not live at the address indicated at the time of the 2020 election.
Voter data manipulation. The voter’s party affiliation changed without their authorization.
Voter database manipulation. The voter did not reside at the documented address in the voter database at the time of canvassing, but months after canvassing the voter was registered at the same address in the voter registration database.
Explaining or rationalizing these anomalies and irregularities will be extremely difficult for elected officials. It’s anticipated that county clerks, commissioners, and Secretary of State Jena Griswold will dismiss the Colorado canvassing report with flimsy excuses like the anomalies are not widespread, or no election is completely without some irregularities, or clerical errors can happen due to data and record transferring between databases.
Unfortunately, the data is overwhelming in USEIP’s Colorado Canvassing Report. The findings obliterate tired excuses historically used for dismissing objective evidence and dodging responsibility.
It’s anticipated election officials will shift blame to the public, claiming voters don’t understand how elections work, to dismiss legitimate public concerns. In fact, Secretary Griswold is joined by Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerks Association Matt Crane, numerous Colorado clerks, including Carly Koppes (Weld), and Chuck Broerman (El Paso), in parroting the tired and inaccurate trope, “Colorado’s elections are the gold standard!”
Clerk Broerman went so far as proudly claiming his voter rolls in El Paso are “pristine” after the 2021 local elections. In that same election, in cooperation with Secretary Griswold, El Paso’s election results were manually changed after a discrepancy was discovered between the state and county-reported results. The Colorado Canvassing Report exposes El Paso County as having an anomaly / irregularitity rate ranging from 7.5% to 13.5%. This translates to a range of 54,359 to 69,829 El Paso County voters.
“The 2020 voter data told a story. We found patterns in the data which signaled the results in Colorado’s 2020 election had serious, unexplained problems. The only way to unequivocally verify what we saw was to manually verify the publicly available information from the voters themselves. What this report proves is shocking. Every voter and elected official needs to immediately take action to investigate in order to understand how to fix our obviously broken election system.” States Jeff Young, the chief author of the report.
Given the slim margins deciding local races and measures, numerous elected officials and counties in the state have been impacted. There are many legal cases that serve as precedent for remedying illegal elections. In fact, it’s surprisingly common to have elected officials removed from office even after they’ve taken office, and after more than a year has passed since the certification of the race.
This should give Colorado voters confidence that they do not have to live with election results that have not been verified to their satisfaction to be error-free and legitimately run. Election officials have balked in the face of concerns presented by voters since election day 2020, claiming elections passed the required Risk Limiting Audit. The Risk Limiting Audit is only capable of verifying the electronic voting systems ability to count the paper ballots. By design The Risk Limiting Audit is incapable of detecting fake votes, lost votes, illegal votes, or voter database manipulation exposed in the CO Canvassing Report – along with other ballot and data anomalies.
USEIP’s canvassing program has been distributed as a model for numerous states in the nation. USEIP continues working on restoring free and fair elections in Colorado. A media contact for USEIP stated, “Elections belong to the people. We will not stop finding and exposing the truth until we restore free and fair elections for the people of Colorado and the United States of America.”
Watch the USEIP Colorado Report presentation with Col. Shawn Smith (ret.) USAF and chief report author, Jeff Young. Following the presentation is a Q and A with Ashe Epp and Holly Kasun. Canvassing volunteers share their first-hand stories about what they found during canvassing…
Prowers County has a long rich history in Colorado. Located in the south east corner with only one other county to the south (Baca). The county was founded by Native Americans, Cowboys, Farmers and a spirit of adventure. The history of Prowers has all the elements of the history of much of the west. The county’s name sake John Prowers owned much of the land and ran 100,000 head of cattle ranch. He was known for fair dealings and his beautiful Cheyenne bride Amanche. Her reputation for bravery was such that a 100 years later when a Japanese internment camp was established near Granada the interned people named the camp after her to channel her spirit of resilience. The internment camp is a historic site and came be visited. Prowers County will never forget what war hysteria can do.
Prowers is still a small county by population standards. For the last 100 years Prowers has hovered around 12,000 residents with approximately 4000 voters. Most of the commerce is agricultural as it has always been. The political makeup has been solid Republican since a single year that the county went for Jimmy Carter in 1976. The county has even produced one of Colorado’s governors from Holly, Roy Romer, 1987-1999.
The people in Prowers county also want to believe in the integrity of our election systems. Gaylen W resident of Prowers, says a tenant in one of her rental properties never received a ballot. When he went to vote in person he was told that he had already voted. This is a story that many of our canvassers are familiar with when talking to voters in other counties. What percentage of the vote would it take to shift the direction of our state? If there is 10% unreliability in the Colorado elections, it would effect over 35% of Colorados ballot issues and elections. For small towns and counties, this would have a big impact.Stay tuned for the results of the voter canvassing effort. See for your self what the error rate is in our “gold standard” election system.
FORENSIC REPORT PROVES CO ELECTION SYSTEMS ARE INSECURE, CONTAIN ILLEGAL SOFTWARE, CAN CONNECT TO THE INTERNET, HAVE A “BACKDOOR”, ARE CONFIGURED TO AUTOMATICALLY DELETE ELECTION RECORDS, AND WORSE
Damning forensic analysis report on the Mesa County election system delivers black-and-white proof of numerous intentionally designed vulnerabilities that violate state and federal laws.
[Mesa County Colorado, March 5, 2022] – The second in a series of Mesa County election systems forensics reports was obtained through a Colorado open records request. The report exposes a troubling array of serious election violations stemming from the electronic voting systems used in Mesa County. Given the electronic voting systems used in Colorado mimic systems used across the country in hundreds, if not thousands of counties, it’s anticipated that the Mesa 2 Report will serve as the predicate for numerous investigations across the U.S. Some are already in progress and some are criminal.
The Mesa County electronic voting system is similar or identical to nearly all Colorado counties. This means almost the entire state used illegally certified, insecure electronic voting systems for elections dating back to at least 2017 (Griswold was elected SecState in 2018). These undeniable facts fly in the face of an obstinate and highly partisan Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold who has repeatedly stated that Colorado’s election system is secure, and “The Gold Standard”.
A sample of key findings from the Mesa Report:
The electronic voting systems contained 36 separate wireless devices. These devices allowed connections to the internet and/or other outside devices that can connect to the internet. This obliterates CO SecState’s Griswold’s unsubstantiated claims that the electronic voting systems could not connect and were not connected to internet. Griswold has never produced any report or documentation proving that the electronic voting systems were not connected to the internet. This leaves the Mesa County Report(s) standing as the unchallenged truth about the systems.
2. The Dominion system was set up to automatically delete audit records. Plus, the electronic voting system was designed to delete, and systematically deleted required system log files during the “Trusted Build.” Griswold ordered the Trusted Build, making her responsible for the deletion of election records. This adds to the proof from “Mesa Report 1” that exposed 29,000 election records were deleted from the Mesa system in violation of federal and state laws. The intentional deletion of these records and log files prevents Mesa County citizens the ability to legitimately audit their past elections. This is the right of Colorado citizens to audit their elections for 25 months. Given Griswold and her vendor performed the “Trusted Build” in May 2021, the deletion of these records falls well within the legal timeframe that election records must be preserved. Investigations, including criminal, against Griswold and her staff are imminent given the severity of state and federal election law violations.
3. Uncertified software was illegally installed on the Mesa County election server. Griswold was the CO Secretary of State in 2019 when she certified Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite version 5.11-CO, used in the 2020 election. That certification did not include Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio, but that software was installed on the voting system. According to the Colorado statute, the presence of this illegal and uncertified software renders the entire electronic voting system illegal for use in Colorado elections. Griswold had numerous opportunities to identify the presence of the illegal software, notify the public, and to remedy the situation. That never happened. Griswold must now publicly present her case as to why the illegal software existed in her officially certified voting systems, how the illegal software got installed, who was responsible, and why did Griswold certify a system with this egregious breach of security and certify an election using the illegally-certified and illegally-used voting system.
Given the bulk of Griswold’s notoriously rotating staff has no cybersecurity, technical, or computer experience, it’s expected Griswold will lean on her vendor, Dominion, to help explain. Unfortunately, relying on the vendor who potentially shares legal liability and who’s lobbyists donate to Griswold’s re-election campaign it likely won’t stand with the public. The conflict of interest is overwhelming. It appears the only way forward for Griswold is to conduct a full investigation by an independent third-party.
This raises serious ethical and legal issues for the SecState. Why did Griswold ram through emergency rules banning third party audits in Colorado this past summer? The timing of her panicked action aligned perfectly with Griswold discovering the Mesa County election system forensic backups. With the Mesa 2 report, it appears Griswold was advised to try and get ahead of the inevitable.
4. The Mesa County electronic voting system is configured to allow any computer in the world to connect to the Election Management System (EMS) server. Predictably election officials with little to no cyber or tech expertise will claim that there is no proof of any other computer accessing this system. The claim is somewhat accurate given the fact that the Dominion voting system is intentionally designed to obliterate mandatory audit logs “both election records and evidence of access to the EMS server.” Election officials are now faced with taking a serious risk if they continue to defend Griswold, and an obviously corrupted and illegal election system. The best these officials can hope for with this specific violation is that there may be no proof that other computers accessed the system.
Each forensic report out of Mesa County has been accurate and the substance of the report has gone unchallenged by technical experts from SecState Griswold’s office or otherwise. Is it wise for these election officials to defend a technical system with no way to check, or verify what is true for themselves? With the legal backing of Marc Elias and Soros, Griswold has a defense for herself. What about the local election officials who are legally liable for their elections? Are they prepared to assume legal responsibility for Griswold’s illegally approved election system they were told was secure, and “The Gold Standard?”
5. The Mesa County electronic voting system violates the federal Voting System Standards (VSS). These standards mandate that the system be designed to prevent “changing calculated vote totals”. This indicates that the voting system CO SecState Jena Griswold violated Colorado law by certifying and allowing a completely illegal voting system to be used in Colorado elections.
In El Paso County’s 2021 election, Clerk Chuck Broerman conducted a severely botched election in cooperation with SecState Jena Griswold that resulted in a public admission that vote totals had to be manually changed. Elected officials must now answer for why they are using a system that allows manually changing vote totals. Who can change vote totals? How? When? Why?
Both Mesa reports were prepared by Doug Gould, the former Chief Cybersecurity Security Strategist for AT&T. Mr. Gould is considered a foremost expert in the cybersecurity field and holds CISSP and CAS certifications. He is also a faculty member at the World Institute for Security Enhancement. We reached out to Mr. Gould to ask if there were more reports coming. As of the time of this release there was no response.
At an election integrity meetup Col. Shawn Smith USAF (ret.) presented evidence of electronic voting system vulnerabilities. Crane, former County Clerk lacked facts in debate – humiliated again.
[Arapahoe County, Colorado, February 28, 2022] – During a meetup in Araphahoe County where citizens gathered to discuss Colorado election integrity topics. Col. Shawn Smith USAF (ret.) a well-known state and national election systems security expert spoke on his expertise. Smith’s experience is rooted in over 25 years experience in the military, testing and defending the nation’s most complex and high security computerized defense systems. Crane attempted to match wits with Smith in defense of proven corrupted CO elections systems. Crane left humiliated, disgraced.
During Smith’s talk, attendee Matt Crane the Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerk’s Association (CCCA) attempted to refute Smith’s facts about the proven vulnerabilities in computerized electronic voting equipment in the state. Crane continually interrupted Smith with flimsy and inaccurate claims that Smith easily debunked. Understandably, Smith became more direct in his communications with Crane due to the rude disruptions challenging Smith’s credibility. It was proven an unwise move on Crane’s part given Smith’s depth of knowledge and experience far outweighed Crane’s.
This is not the first time Crane has engaged with Smith to defend proven vulnerable election systems. In spring of 2021 at a meeting of GOP elected officials at The Independence Institute, Crane was presenting and Smith was in the audience. Smith challenged Crane to a point where Crane buckled, having to admit there were wireless modems in the Dominion equipment. Crane’s admission was in complete contradiction to his longstanding claims to the contrary. In a desperate attempt to save face; Crane stated, “the modems were not turned on.” A ridiculous excuse given Crane had no way of knowing according to Smith.
Smith openly states that his motivation to be involved in election integrity is, “To find the truth. If I’m wrong about our election sytems being vulnerable, and able to be compromised, I’ll be the first to admit it.” Smith has a perfect track record, being proven right about election system security vulnerabilities multiple times. Adding to Smith’s clean position is the fact that Smith’s work goes unpaid. He works pro-bono.
On the other hand, Crane has a vested interest in defending Dominion voting systems, electronic voting equipment, the security, and accuracy of the Colorado election system. His wife is a decades-long employee of Dominion Voting Systems, even during Crane’s tenure as Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder which made him a financial beneficiary of Dominion Voting Systems.
Since the 2020 election, Crane has fortified his ill-fated position on election integrity by appearing by the side of CO SecState Jena Griswolds’ press conference in August. Crane backed a visibly panicked Griswold as she attempted to debunk Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peter’s rationale for fully backing up Mesa County’s 2020 election records. Peters backups proved Griswold erased 29,000 Mesa County election records in a peer-reviewed forensic report generated by a world-renowned cyber expert in violation of state and federal election law.
Crane has problematic connections to election activists. He is employed by the DC based Lafayette Group (TLG). TLG is billed as a security consulting group, although almost none the 150+ employees have a technical background or skillset that matches the company’s claimed core capabilties. Job descriptions for TLG looks to hire people with “strategic communications experience”. “Strategic communications” is a way of saying misinformation communications, propaganda, and disinformation communications. Given the Lafayette group lists DHS as a client, that connects them to CISA. CISA handles critical infrastructure including U.S. elections systems.
Another employee of TLG is Ryan Macias a well-known election activist. Macias was outed as attempting to sabotage the Maricopa audit. Crane invited Macias to a CCCA meeting this past summer to speak. A Colorado Clerk who asked to remain anonymous stated that during Macias’ presentation, he admitted his organization was going to discredit the election audit in Maricopa.
Crane’s problematic connections continue. It appears Crane got the CCCA Executive Director position based on his friendly relationship with Pam Anderson a former Colorado County Clerk, current Republican Secretary of State candidate, and Director of The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). The CTCL is the notorious non-profit funded by Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife Pricilla Chan. The CTCL is embroiled in a number of high-profile lawsuits across the U.S. for funneling an estimated $400 million dollars to key counties in the form of grants allegedly designed to buy 2020 election results with private funds.
Crane keeps problematic company. Pam Anderson testified in a hearing in front of the CO Legislative Audit Committee on behalf of Jena Griswold in December of 2020. Shortly after that hearing, Anderson mysteriously vacated her position as the Executive Director of the CCCA (Crane filled that vacancy). It then emerged that Anderson was named as a defendant in a mega-lawsuit against the CTCL (ongoing). In a strange twist, Anderson apparently scrubbed her Linkedin page. Missing is her role at the CTCL which she is still listed as Director. Also absent is Anderson’s role as a board member of The Center for Election Innovation and Research that dates back to as early as 2018. The partisan non-profit is dedicated to defending the idea that U.S. elections are free from any fraud or malfeasance. Dozens of professional reports and the Maricopa audit proves otherwise. Why isn’t Pam Anderson’s full professional history on her Linkedin page? What is she trying to hide? And, why is Crane so closely connected to an election fraud denier, Anderson?
It appears Crane is knee-deep in the election fraud melee especially given his personal and professional connections. Based on his outbursts and desperate attempts to defend what is now known to be a vulnerable Colorado election system; it seems Crane has no other choice but to double-down on his ill-fated position.
Douglas County originally stretched from the Rockies to the State of Kansas border. It is a little smaller today in area but has found a loud voice in Colorado during the last couple of years.
Douglas is also one of only a few counties in Colorado that does not use Dominion voting machines in their elections. Even so, they have been pulled into the same controversy as Mesa and Elbert Counties because the Douglas County Clerk, Merlin Klotz, also backed up the election data prior to “Trusted Build” updates done by Secretary of State, Jena Griswold. Just like with Mesa and Elbert County, this enraged the SoS and she had less than kind words for the hard working clerk. Griswold has stated that she is just trying to ensure people have access to voting by suing County Clerks for saving election data. What is in the election data that Ms. Griswold is so worried will get in “the wrong hands”? If the data is by law to be preserved for 48 months then how is it wrong for the clerk to save it?
Despite the moves by Griswold to sue the clerks, they remain confident they are doing the duties of their office. Now that Elbert Clerk Dallas Schroeder has also been sued by Griswold, will he also be harassed by the FBI for his decision to back up election data? After being detained by sheriffs during a fiery dust up over serving a warrant, Tina Peters has decided to run for Colorado Secretary of State. If Griswold was hoping to scare clerks into submission, it seems to have backfired.
Remember Caucus is coming up on March 1. USEIP is nonpartisan so choose which ever party you think has the best chance of fighting for election integrity. We encourage all our readers to get involved at the caucus level. It is the place where the people’s voice can be heard and have state wide influence. https://conta.cc/3GXEQLv
How to get through to these people.
Winning the fight for free and fair elections is the first rung of climbing our way out of cultural pit in which we find ourselves. We need people to see the truth but how do we make head way with people if they seem to go crazy when we even bring up the topic?
If you have heard of Mass Formation Psychosis, then it is probably related to Dr. Robert Malone’s interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast. It is the process by which the “masses” or crowds become hypnotized by an ideology and fall prey to bad ideas and religious zeal directed at a priest-like elite class. Dr. Malone was specifically talking about people who seem to be under the spell of certain aspects of the COVID narrative in our culture. Election Integrity advocates have had similar experiences with strangely hypnotized people who seem to have a cult-like devotion to not just denying any possibility of irregularities in the 2020 election but become overly emotional and even aggressive when discussing the topic.Understanding the problem is the first step. Dr. Mattias Desmet, the Ghent University researcher and clinical psychologist referred to by Dr. Malone as the most knowledgeable in this field, gives us not just the diagnosis but a prescription for how to approach talking to a person who may have fallen prey to mass formation psychosis.
1. Keep speaking out! Your everyday courage to speak to your family and neighbors is the only voice that will combat the psychotic voice of deception they are hearing. 2. Help people find connection in the real world. Lack of real connection left a huge portion of our society vulnerable to the influence of elite “expert” types. Being genuinely connected to each other is the root solution. Invite them to your house or to do social things together. Zoom at last resort. 3. Do NOT invoke “back to normal” phrasing. People susceptible to mass formation are in psychological pain in that old “normal.” Help them see a path to a new place where they are connected and can find meaning through healthy honest means. 4. Check the aggressive posture. Mass formation people are looking for an outlet for their own aggression, if they see someone talking about election integrity with aggressive language or behavior it will elicit a negative reaction to everything presented. Stay calm. Truth will set you free.
WARNING, Dr. Desmet himself says it is VERY difficult to reach people caught in the mass formation lies. These are our friends, family and neighbors, Love is the only reason to keep trying.
The hit piece penned by Quentin Young raises serious questions. Was the paid propaganda attack on Col. Shawn Smith USAF (ret.) requested by Griswold or her legal handlers and carried out by Young? Smith’s months-long work has exposed alleged crimes by SecState that are now required by law to be investigated. Is the press smear meant to build a case for law enforcement action as retaliation against Smith?
On February 13, 2022 Colorado Newsline editor contacted Col. Shawn Smith USAF (ret.) for comment on a video Young had surfaced from “Sedition Hunters” showing Smith at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Smith mentioned he did not know which video Young was referencing, Young did not initially send the video to Smith, so Smith made an agreement with Young that he would watch the video and prepare comments to be submitted the morning of Feb. 14th.
Young acknowledged the exchange, yet a few hours later, Young published his article without Smith’s comments. Young’s headline reads Jan 6 videos said to show Colorado election denier Shawn Smith clashing with Police. The article’s subhead Activist on Thursday called for Colorado Secretary of State to hang. Interestingly, Quentin Young had numerous exchanges back and forth with Smith on the 13th. Clearly Young was penning the article, yet the byline of the piece credits NEWSLINE STAFF. Obviously Young avoided taking personal or public responsiblility for the piece.
Through creative editing, conflating bits of information some true, some false, failing to include Smith’s full quotes; the piece is so riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, there’s no way to correct the record effectively. In Smith’s words, “Young states that I am an ‘election denier,’ ‘clashing with police’ on Jan. 6 videos, and that I ‘called for CO secretary of state to hang.’ THESE ARE LIES.” To remedy the situation, Smith has requested the entire article be fully removed from the internet and all social media platforms. Given it’s a specifically crafted hit piece based on “lies” designed to discredit Smith and pin him as a violent, threatening individual Smith’s demands are reasonable.
The 30,000 foot view
Smears and attacks from the press against anyone working on restoring free and fair elections are common and predictable at this point. The latest announcement from the DHS posted last week ratchets up the pressure by outlining more specifics on identifying domestic terrorists and linking anyone who questions the U.S. election process. This latest release signals the DHS and DOJ are serious about pursuing “domestic terrorists” associated with election integrity. With the DHS announcement, this now gives the press more power to vilify anyone speaking out about election integrity. Lies, falsehoods and smears in the press can now be used to build cases against citizens who are simply exercising their first amendment rights.
The curious confluence of events suggest the timing of the hit piece and the false accusations is no accident. Young writes a hit piece on Smith based on video more than a year old, yet tells Smith its “breaking news”. Coincidentally, DHS release had just been published. Meanwhile, in the background SecState Griswold is facing a serious lawsuit filed by election officials in Colorado (Hanks et al vs. Griswold.) A lawsuit on which Smith has been publicly commenting.
The connection between the DHS announcement and Young’s press hit job on Smith seems plausible, but weak. However the backdrop of the events that unfolded over the past few weeks in Colorado show the connection is hard to dismiss. The question is what role is Quentin Young and CO Newsline playing in building a potential case against Smith, and why?
Follow the money
It’s important to understand how Colorado Newsline and Young is funded. Links have been discovered starting with George Soros, et al, through Arabella. That connects through 1630 dark money fund, links through North Fund, through States News, which supports Colorado Newsline. In addition, North Fund also supports Democracy Docket LLC/-Action Fund/-Legal Fund. These are Russiagate/Clinton lawyer Marc Elias’ funds.
Why is the funding critical? Marc Elias formerly of Perkins Coie now has his own law firm Elias Law. Elias has a strong staff of former Coiers and substantial financing backing his firm. Elias has been in the news most famously for playing a key role in the Transition Integrity Project which is widely known for wargaming how to ensure Biden emerged victorious in the 2020 election. Most recently, Elias is all over headlines associated with the Durham Report. Earlier this year, Elias’ Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussman was indicted for lying to the FBI for his role in Russiagate.
Marc Elias emerges across the U.S. in activity attempting to change election laws, working on lawsuits focused on redistricting, attempting to block the disclosure of public information related to elections etc. Elias is also defending CO Secretary of State Griswold in Judicial Watch v. Griswold, an ongoing case in Colorado. To recap so far, Young of Colorado Newsline is funded by Griswold’s attorney, Elias; who works for Soros, who backed Griswold in her first bid for Colorado Secretary of State.
Team Griswold essentially has a wholly owned propaganda outlet and a running dog “reporter” at their disposal. Handy, given Griswold is running for office and taken around 30 campaign donations from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, the lobbyists for Dominion. Griswold is currently navigating a multi-dimensional legal hellscape of her own making; and showing obvious signs of sheer panic. Her wild actions against CO County Clerks based on rumors from fringe social media chats about the existence of more forensic backups. Griswold has got to be sweating the publishing of additional expert forensic reports that are proving Griswold’s claims that Colorado elections were the most secure in history are false. Griswold is visibly cracking under the pressure based on her tic-riddledpress appearances on friendly corpo media. Is Griswold finally realizing that for all she’s done to toe the party line as the youngest sec state, she may be set up to be the patsy?
Smith fuels Griswold’s and Weiser’s nightmares
It’s well known that Smith, a retired Colonel with 25+ years service in the U.S. Air Force has emerged as one of Colorado’s leading experts in election integrity. In fact, he is known nationwide as an expert in election systems, processes, security, laws, and testing. Smith has earned the reputation as being a formidable opponent of election fraud and is relentless in his pursuit of truth when it comes to U.S. elections. So far, the substance of Smith’s work has yet to be debunked.
Smith has challenged Sec. State Griswold, her staff including Chris Beall, Trevor Timmons, and Judd Choate on their command of election law, ethics, ability to follow their own laws and emergency rules. Its rumored that for election officials fighting against free, fair, and transparent elections, Smith fuels their nightmares.
Smith’s open records requests (CORAs) have shined the light on numerous infractions originating from the Sec State’s office. Griswold, AG Phil Weiser, and DA(s) in Colorado as of this week have received affidavits and supporting evidence of Griswold’s crimes from Smith. By law affidavits submitted to the AG and DAs showing evidence of crimes MUST be investigated.
Smith states he has more affidavits and evidence. He plans to submit a bevy of these official notices to the proper authorities. Smith has taken measures to secure his information in the event there is any law enforcement retaliation action, attempting to seize Smith’s records caused by Young’s false reporting. Smith is on the record as a whistleblower, affording him whistleblower status. Now Griswold and the Elias/ Soros sponsored press have to deal with the fact that any attacks on Smith will likely raise legal issues of retaliation. In fact, Griswold has already made a false claim to law enforcement based on Newsline’s false reporting. Making a false claim to law enforcement is a crime in Colorado.
The key issue to be tracked is how AG Weiser will cope with his numerous conflicts of interest. Right now he’s defending Griswold in the Hanks et al vs. Griswold case. Weiser has also rubber stamped Griswold’s emergency rules designed to ensure only the state can audit the state elections. This particular rule is being challenged in the Hanks case. How is this going to work? Are Colorado citizens to believe that Weiser is going to honestly investigate his current client’s alleged crimes? How is it possible that Weiser can be involved in the defense of Griswold given Weiser has supported Griswold’s emergency rules that may be found illegal? It seems as if Weiser should be investigated for his role in Griswold’s legal dumpster fire via independent counsel. Even those who take issue with the topic of election integrity are questioning Weiser’s obvious conflicts of interest including funding Griswold’s SoS campaign and taking funding himself from Dominion lobbyists – same as Griswold.
Griswold loses it – goes HAM. Eats crow.
Adding to Griswold’s troubles, are the forensic backups that Tina Peters made of the Mesa County election systems to preserve election records in order to uphold her oath of office. It turns out that in legal filings in the Hanks et al vs. Griswold case plaintiffs (county clerks) made the same complete backups of their systems in order to comply with the law. Ironically, they also followed Griswold’s own instructions thatshe disseminatedprior to the infamous Dominion “Trusted Build.”
Upon learning of the additional system backups, Griswold went absolutely HAM (means giving it all you got – as the kids say), demanding information from the plaintiffs in the Hanks case. In court submissions, the plaintiff’s lawyer presented the judge with a strong case showing Griswold went far beyond her authority by engaging in illegal pre-discovery. The lawyer also effectively called out Griswold’s attempt to use inapplicable laws to justify her actions. In the end, Griswold was forced to eat crow. She admitted after her reckless and lawless witch hunt, that there are no problems with the security of any election equipment. Curiously this story was not covered in the Colorado Newsline. Why?
There’s no question that Griswold is panicked, backed into a corner, and lashing out in all directions to protect herself from the inevitable accountability she shoulders for all types of election infractions. We don’t know how all of the cases, evidence and affidavits are going to work their way through the system. We do know that Griswold, her handlers, and her media lapdogs are all-in on fighting against the truth coming out. They are employing all tactics and willing to hit below the belt, including using the owned media to lie about a vet, Col Shawn Smith USAF (ret) who is on Team Griswold’s radar. Need more proof? Griswold just moments ago posted this release announcing she’s suing another Colorado County Clerk who is following the law by backing up and preserving election records. Guess who is named in the press release… Col. Shawn Smith. Why? For speaking on the phone to the County Clerk Griswold is suing.
What just happened in Weld County? Another County Clerk, Carly Koppes, is in the news but this time for rejecting poll watchers. Fortunately, there are laws around how elections are run. “Elections belong to the people.” – Abe Lincoln. NOT the politicians, even though the elitist political types would not like you to know that. State and Federal laws protect the right of citizens to monitor the polling places for funny business. Clerks are subject to these laws and cannot over rule them. Through ignorance or malice poll watcher were kept from doing their duty of overseeing the election process during the 2021 election.
Certified Poll Watcher, Shelley Rowe said when contacted by USEIP, “I was not allowed to be in close proximity to have access to the election process such that I could attest to the accuracy of election related activities.”
Colo. Const., art. II, § 5. The Statute, 8 Colo. Code Reg. 1501-1 Rule 8.10.2, states: “Watchers must be permitted access that would allow them to attest to the accuracy of election-related activities. This includes personal visual access at a reasonable proximity to read documents, writings or electronic screens and reasonable proximity to hear election-related discussions between election judges and electors.”
The Constitutional Notice, Complaint, and Demand states that the poll watchers were not allowed to witness essential election processes and so there fore had their rights violated. All USEIP and everyone who supports election integrity wants is free and fair elections. Whether it is one party or the another we want transparency so we can rebuild the public trust in our election process.