BREAKING: Fulton County, GA ADMITS Over 3,000 Illegal Duplicate Ballots!

The truth is coming out!

And it’s starting to come out in waves!

Earlier today we had Mike Lindell vindicated and a scathing 135 page Order issued by a Judge condemning the voting machines in Georgia!

It was indeed a “monster” ruling:

You can read the entire 135 pages here for anyone interested.

Jack Posobiec and Chuck Callesto, who normally do excellent reporting, actually got the story wrong in these tweet:

That citation is what the Plaintiffs are alleging….not what the judge ruled.

But that’s ok, because the ruling is even better!

So what does it actually say?

Start here:

And from local 11Alive:

A federal judge has ordered the Georgia secretary of state into court to defend the state’s use of computerized voting, due to take place in a presidential primary four months from now.

Judge Amy Totenberg has ordered a non-jury trial to decide whether Georgia’s computerized voting system is safe enough from potential hackers to keep using next year.

Critics of Georgia’s computerized election system point to a security breach in south Georgia’s Coffee County – documented on surveillance video – where unauthorized people spent hours with computer systems, scanning and copying secure software, then posting some of the material on the internet.

Totenberg writes in the trial order that the “2021 Coffee County election equipment breach … presents a substantial risk that … votes will not be counted as cast.”
Breaches like that, critics say, can lead to Georgia ballot marking devices going haywire – as happened earlier this month in a local election in Pennsylvania, where voters using Dominion ballot marking devices printed paper ballots with QR codes that didn’t match the candidates’ names chosen by voters.

Numerous cybersecurity experts have contended in and out of court that hackers can undermine or alter the outcomes of elections dependent on computers and that election officials may not be able to identify when such hacking takes place.

In her order putting Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office in a civil trial in January, Totenberg writes the “defendants fail to identify a single cybersecurity expert who endorses the current configuration of Georgia’s (ballot marking device) system.”

“There is this very long, extensive and frankly alarming record of him not addressing election security, and not understanding it, and not wanting to understand it,” said Susan Greenhalgh, a consultant for plaintiffs whose suit has been in court since 2018.

Backers of Georgia’s computerized voting system say there’s been no evidence of any security breaches in the 2020 and 2022 elections. They lump cybersecurity experts who are critical of Georgia’s voting system with conspiracy theorists who echoed Donald Trump’s debunked complaints about a stolen election in 2020.

That is very damning!

Here’s a lot more:

• Federal Judge Totenberg’s (JT) ruling is monumental in the election integrity movement and for the future of constitution based elections and outcomes. As such, I will be providing a thread on her opinion and order which can be found in this link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1705.0_1.pdf
• JT starts off strong by saying this case is about the constitutionality of the case and whether the current lack of cybersecurity standards infringe on the plaintiff’s 1st and 14th amendment rights.

• JT then goes through the history of the of the case and its different iterations as it has evolved since it was first filed.

• JT then drops this bomb in the footnotes validating those of us who have been screaming from the rooftops that the electromechanical voting systems are not secure and wholly unreliable. “…evidence does not suggest that the Plaintiffs are conspiracy theorists of any variety.”

• JT then breaks down the broad evidentiary scope of the case. She highlights the June 2022 report from CISA based on Dr. Halderman’s report calling out the robust failings of the Dominion ImageCast X system and software. This was and is largely ignored by most, unfortunately.

• JT rightly points out the the remedy the plaintiff’s seek is not within her constitutional power. The time, manner and place of elections are vested in the Legislative branch. HOWEVER, if she does rule the machines are unconstitutional, the default voting method is paper.

• JT lays this out in more detail. Here she addresses the QR codes– where the “magic” happens. Anyone who follows @gatewaypundit knows the QR codes and text of the paper don’t always match. This was the case in Cherokee County, KS in 2022 when a hand recount revealed this.

JT then addresses the plaintiff’s burden to survive any motion to dismiss and proceed to trial. IMHO, the evidence in favor of the plaintiff’s claims in this case are overwhelmingly in favor of a trial.

• JT then introduces the “Cast of Characters” in this case. Dr. J Alex Halderman get his much deserved “expert” designation. His report on the security failings of Dominion is what forced CISA to issue their damning report on referenced in this case.

• Next, JT covers the “Glossary of Terms”. Good way to familiarize yourself with election machine jargon. Most notably is the part on QR codes where JT points out humans cannot read these which at at the heart of the argument on the constitutionality of the voting systems.

• After a brief summary, JT breaks down the Direct Recording Electronic voting machines (DRE’s). Here she addresses the plaintiff’s violative nature of the DRE’s on the plaintiff’s 1st & 14th amendment rights. If this is upheld, it will have nationwide ramifications.

• JT then addresses the internet accessibility of the voting systems (I thought they weren’t connected to the internet?

• Here JT ruminates about her previous order where she said using a “technologically outdated and vulnerable voting system would be intolerable.” Yet, here in KS, and most of the country, our voting systems are only certified to VVSG 1.0– a 2005 cybersecurity standard. 

• JT points out plaintiff’s previous claim of “data reliability and accuracy problems” in the voter roles. These are a mess everywhere. We found a voter in Kansas who hasn’t voted in 10 years who cast a vote in the 2023 election. NOTE: Obituary says she died in January of 2008.

• This part is important because it highlights the fact voting machines we use are unsecured, commercial off the shelf (COTS), Windows computers wrapped in a shell. If you’ve ever owned a Windows computer, you know how unreliable they are and prone to viruses #ControlAltDelete

• Again, addressing the importance of clean voter databases. With mail ballots, it’s easy to steal and cast votes when the ballots go to to the wrong place. This was very apparent in Dines D’Souza’s movie “2000 Mules” based on the great work by TrueTheVote.

• NOTE: A lot of this case is specific to Georgia. I won’t address those issues and will stick to the broader implications nationwide instead. The next section is very specific to new legislation and actions by the Georgia SOS.
• JT then covers the voting system based on the new Ballot Marking Device (BMD) and the QR codes that are unreadable to human eye and are also NOT encrypted.

• Now we get into the Constitutional claims by the Plaintiffs and the ❤️ of this case. If a voter can’t verify their vote was cast the way they wanted and the ways in which the votes are cast and counted are different, the system shouldn’t be used.

• This case is groundbreaking and on par with Missouri v Biden that @tracybeanz has been covering. The national security and constitutional implications of this case cannot be overstated. Plaintiffs allege BMD’s are violative of 1A, 14A, Equal Protection and Due Process clauses

• Plaintiffs reiterate problems with QR codes vulnerability to manipulation. The litany of problems with these BMD’s cannot be overstated.

• Dr. Halderman makes another appearance when he rightly points out the fallacy that these voting systems are secure and impenetrable to malware/ cyber attacks

• The issue most people have with the electronic voting systems is that We the People cannot view the source code, we cannot audit the votes ourselves and we cannot trust these for-profit, third-party companies to do it for us.

• We have the same problems in KS. We cannot audit these machines or elections. This is/was the issue with using digital images vs the original paper ballots– it’s the machine auditing itself. Plus, as Dr. Halderman says here, only 6.5% of the errors are caught by the voter.

• At the Special Committee on Elections in September of this year, State Elections Director Bryan Caskey said they cannot update the software to VVSG 2.0 until AFTER the 2024 election… Why not?! We were supposed to be updated to VVSG 1.1 on July 6th, 2017 so the law is already broken.

• Despite all of this applying nationwide, the SOS’s are doing nothing to make sure these cybersecurity shortcomings are addressed. Makes you wonder how many of them are in on it. In Kansas, our SOS is the President of the NASS. Why wouldn’t he push for more security?

•  What Halderman found was damning to all electronic voting systems. To my knowlege, most, if not all of this, has not been addressed by the SOS’s and AG’s continue to sit on their hands and allow them to break the law all over the country.

• Again, this is what you have to audit the PAPER BALLOT and not the digital image. They can be altered. And votes CAN be flipped as was evidenced in Cherokee County, KS in 2022. The outright denial by the Kansas SOS, AG and most of the legislature shows their complicity.

• The biggest and most voluminous points of failure are the workers and elections officials. They are people who are susceptible to corruption just like anyone else. That’s why we need full transperancy in our elections.

• Here, JT acknowledges CISA’s attempts to clean up the mess they created by not doing their jobs and if not for Dr. Halderman’s report, they would have done nothing. Then CISA says “no evidence” of exploitation. Helps when you don’t look or investigate anything.

• Gotta love this. Dominion knew of the security vulnerabilities but didn’t issue any sort of alert or push for security updates to their systems and none of the states or SOS’s seem particularly interested in doing this any time soon. Wonder why?

•  NOT digital images– PAPER BALLOTS

• JT then covers the case in Coffee County, GA where forensic investigators got access to the election systems to determine if any malfeasance had occurred. This is an ongoing case and there are a lot of moving parts.

• JT discussed the issue of standing for the plaintiffs. The judge rightly grants them standing and says they have “continued to satisfy that burden for purposes of summary judgment.” Win for the good guys.

• JT addresses plaintiffs claim of harm from having to divert resources to combat illegal activities by the defendants. This part right here will help anyone injured by these electronic voting systems to have standing to sue. This is HUGE!

• Another win for “conspiracy theorists” here. Dr. Halderman testified that the out-of-date security measure in the voting systems pose a security risk “because they frequently contain known, publicly documented vulnerabilities that have been corrected in later versions.”

• 2016 election wasn’t safe either (NEWS FLASH– none of them are) and hacked in 18 states and the 2018 midterms were targeted as well.

• Dr Halderman concurred with the DNI who issued a report stating foreign adversaries (Russia, China & Iran– all tied to Joe Biden via his son) were going to interfere in the 2020 election and that the voting system were ill-equipped to deal with that. #SafestElectionEver

• Another precedent setting part for anyone who wants to file suit that there vote will not be counted as cast here.

• CISA’s recommendations for remedy of the security failures are on the forefront again. Most states, including Kansas, have ignored this and done nothing to fix these security failing.

• Defendants cannot identify a SINGLE cybersecurity expert who will testify to the relaiblity of the voting systems. “Conspiracy theorists” just racking up wins here.

• Defendants argue, unsuccessfully, that these security failing are irrelevant given the need for physical access to the machines. But, due to the “breach” of the Coffee County systems and circulation of the materials online, this is simply not true.

• It’s hard to imagine a scenario where this judge does not issue an injunction against using these machines. She wouldn’t be determining the time, manner or place of elections– as prescribed to the Legislative branch– but simply on the constitutionality of the voting system.

• The plaintiffs/We the People have standing to have our votes cast and counted. It’s as simple as that.

• JT then addresses the “traceability” of the plaintiffs claims to the State Defendants and the Fulton County Defendants. She dismisses claims against Fulton County and places the blame squarely on the State’s shoulders specifically tied to their illegal conduct.

• JT then address “Redressability” and the defendants claims that no election system is perfect so therefore an inherently flawed one is ok to use. JT isn’t having and of that…

• Plaintiffs aren’t arguing for perfection, simply that their particular vote is counted as cast.

• JT again reiterates she cannot change the voting system, but that the current one has resulted injury to the plaintiffs and “the Court finds that the redressability requirement is satisfied.”

• All three facets necessary for summary judgement were satisfied by the plaintiffs and JT ruled in their favor for “standing for purposes of summary judgement.”

• JT rules the additional plaintiffs in this case have standing under the “One Plaintiff Rule”.

• JT rules the claims by the plaintiffs against the DRE’s are moot with the exception of “evidence involving the voter registration database as a component of the existing voting system and the policies and practices regarding matters such as updating of software patches”.

• JT now address the constitutional claims by the plaintiffs. This whole section is 🔥 and will certainly be used as the basis for many election related lawsuits to follow.

• JT explains she will measure the plaintiffs claims against the “Anderson-Burdick test”.

• This is the point many in the election integrity movement make. It is not the electronic voting systems themselves that are unconstitutional, it is their “configuration and implementation” with which we have a problem. 1) Not secure 2) Not auditable 3) Not trustworthy.

• JT again rightly defers to the Legislature’s plenary power over elections. She cannot order a new system to be used, but if they existing system is ruled unconstitutional then the default is hand-counted paper ballots. #CheckMate♟️

• JT mentions the injunctive relief to the plaintiffs. Since Georgia only uses one system, if that system is unconstitutional, it cannot be used. This case goes to trial in January of 2024. If she does grant the injunction, Georgia might be using HMPB’s in the 2024 election.

• JT address defendants claims that were refuted by the 11th Circuit that someone could just vote absentee instead and drops the 🔨. #SevereConstitutionalBurden

• Under “Anderson-Burdick Step Two” JT refutes the defendants claims that the “slight” constitutional burden on the Plaintiffs is justified. To put it simply, it is NOT. It is both laughable and offensive the government would even argue this.

• JT denies the plaintiff’s “ballot secrecy” argument.

• JT then addresses the plaintiff’s argument against scanner settings (see: @KariLake’s case against Maricopa 👀). But, in this case the judge says “this Court cannot grant relief on this issue as part of the proceedings in this case.”

• Next up is the Pollbooks/PollPads. While these are a main vector of attack for bad actors, the plaintiff’s were unpersuasive and JT says they can present evidence at trial, but she won’t give them summary judgement they seek.

• JT sums it all up nicely here. The constitutional claims, while valid, will need to be proven at trial. Here’s hoping the plaintiff’s attorneys have the chops to get this case over the finish line. The national security implications of this case cannot be overstated.

• 64) Our voting systems are a black box of uncertainty wrapped in a facade of undeniable veracity. We the People should have full control of our elections. God willing this case will be a bellwether for the trust and transparency that is currently lacking in our voting systems.