By Patrick Colbeck

I’m not sure how you have spent your day today, but I spent mine reviewing contracts and system overview documents related to voting systems. Why is that? You may have heard about the 6,000 votes in Antrim County, Michigan that were flipped via software from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. No one denies the veracity of this claim. The only differences between various parties involved revolve around explanations for exactly how that happened.

The media has already projected that Michigan’s 16 Electoral College votes will go to Joe Biden. This projection is based upon an assertion that Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by 146,123 votes. Any attempt to assert that Michigan is “in play” would have to account for that large of a deficit. As it turns out, we can. Against the backdrop of the 6,000 vote “flip” in Antrim County, we have also identified evidence of algorithmic data manipulation in three other counties that could account for as many as 140,000 votes being switched from Donald Trump to Joe Biden in Michigan…and that is through examination of only 3 out of the 83 counties in Michigan. In the wake of election fraud allegations, a Federal Lawsuit has been filed that addresses 1.2 Million ballots cast in Michigan. The bottom line is that the election fraud observed to date can indeed impact the election results in Michigan and potentially the nation as a whole.

Key findings:

  • Dominion Voting Systems are designed to connect to the internet including wireless internet connections which could be accessed outside of a vote counting facility. Introduces significant chain of custody concerns regarding vote tallies.
  • My personal attempts to discern the chain of custody regarding how vote tallies were to be transferred from the counting board tabulation machines to the county were met with deflection and avoidance by one of the Senior election officials, Chris Thomas.
  • According to Dominion, there are two methods available to users of the Dominion Voting system to transfer vote tally data to election officials: 1) physical transfer via flash drive or 2) over a network connection.
  • The inability to verify which method is used obstructs the statutory duties of a poll challenger and puts election integrity at risk.
  • According to the Detroit Elections Manual, flash drives were to be used to transfer the data, but it was obvious from review of the network configuration that network connections were in use including Wi-Fi connections.
  • If memory cards were indeed intended to be used, it would have raised additional chain of custody concerns regarding these cards. In Philadelphia, an election laptop and encrypted flash drives were stolen from an election machine warehouse in September.
  • A forensic audit of the voting system configuration in Antrim County revealed that an open port had been accessed in the Dominion voting machines putting chain of custody at risk.
  • If a computer is connected to the internet, all resources on that computer, including voting data, is vulnerable to remote manipulation. See my Election Integrity Solution Podcast for more information on this risk.
Page 112 of 161: Exhibit 4 Dominion-SOM CONTRACT #071B7700117
Page 114: Dominion-SOM CONTRACT #071B7700117
Detroit AV Counting Board Wi-Fi Networks

Why is internet connectivity a big deal? It enables top-down manipulation of vote tallies.

Some of you may have seen examples of “vote flipping” on live news network feeds in which thousands of votes were added to Joe Biden while the exact number of votes were subtracted from Donald Trump.


Remember, these “flips” have already been confirmed to have happened in Antrim County.

At the end of the night, though, any electronic vote switching must be reconciled with other ballot records such as the poll books and physical ballot counts. All precincts must be balanced to ensure the integrity of that precincts vote tally.

Many of you may recall news stories of a cessation of voting activities across many of the major cities in battleground states between Midnight and 4:00am on November 4. According to Politifacts this assertion is FALSE.

“At no point has the counting process stopped since it began at 7 a.m. yesterday morning, which was when, per Michigan election law, it could begin,” said Tracy Wimmer, director of media relations for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, referring to the morning of Nov. 3.

SOURCE: Politifact

I was on the floor of the AV Counting Board in Detroit between midnight and 4:00am. Counting activity had indeed stopped during that time period. In fact, the only apparent ballots available to count at that time were around 12 boxes of military ballots. Rather than count these ballots during overnight quiet period, Detroit Election Officials chose to wait until they had prohibited access to the AV Counting Board by Poll Challengers such as myself. I had left to train our next wave of poll challengers in a break room upstairs only to find that my re-entry to the counting board was prohibited.

SOURCE: Cardboard on Windows at Detroit AV Counting Board by Patrick Colbeck

So, why would the ballot count be stopped if there were ballots remaining to be counted? The end of shift for the poll workers on duty was 5:00am. Well, one could make the claim that they were waiting for word on the number of votes they needed to win the state. Perhaps coincidentally, a Detroit Elections Bureau vehicle arrived at the back entrance of the AV Counting Board with 61 mail bins full of ballots at 3:45 am. I witnessed ballot after ballot being placed upon staging tables after a very quiet night. Could it be that this was an attempt to ensure that the paper trail matched with the electronic vote tally?

Is it even possible to modify the electronic vote tally? According to Dominion Voting Systems Officer of Strategy and Security, the answer is yes.

Dr. Coomer’s statement brings to light a very serious issue all voters should understand. Voting systems must be re-certified each time they make changes to the hardware or software. Recertification is an expensive and time consuming process. What Dr. Coomer told the Board is that Dominion Voting does not go back for recertification of software when threats to their code are discovered. Rather, they rely on post-election audits and providing advice to election jurisdictions about security. I have reviewed all of the recertification documents produced by Dominion, and I do not recall any software adjustments for security purposes.

This is the reality of the security of your vote. Software systems that count and record the vote across Illinois and throughout the USA are not updated to address security problems, and even if they were, the software can be completely bypassed by going to the data tables that drive the systems.

SOURCE: The Gateway Pundit

So, if vote tallies were electronically manipulated, what records need to be preserved to verify that it happened? In order to answer that question, let’s take a closer look at the design of the Dominion Voting System.

Functional System Diagram
Physical System Diagram
Key Voting System Communications Components

Upon review of the design of the Dominion Voting System, what components merit further examination?

While ALL equipment and records need to be secured as soon as possible, I believe the security of our election boils down to the secure retention and examination of the following key artifacts:

  • ImageCast Listener Module: “The ImageCast Listener module is responsible for receiving and tracking encrypted results file transmissions from any ImageCast Election Day tabulator.”
  • Image Cast Evolution Memory Card: “The ICE memory card has only one partition that holds the ballot images, election database, audio files, etc” (Very curious as to what “etc” might entail)
  • EMS Audit Log: “From the initial state of the election project, until the deactivation state, the EMS system maintains an activity log within the EMS Database. This activity log contains every action that any of the users have performed within the system and represents a detailed audit log that can be analyzed and printed in the form of an audit report. The audit record information cannot be modified or permanently deleted using the EMS client applications. It can, however, be exported for archiving purposes as part of the record retention policy. Keeping in mind that audit log information can contain a significant amount of information, it is the responsibility of the administrative user to perform regular archiving of the log. During the voting phase of the election event, ImageCast devices also keep an activity audit log which tracks events happening on the device itself.”
  • Event logs from the Election Official, Electronic Poll Book, Tabulator and Adjudicator computers

There are numerous lawsuits in progress through the state and federal court systems which allege election fraud. It will take time to gather and evaluate all of the artifacts cited above. The Dominion Voting System is complex. This complexity is compounded by vote tally chain of custody concerns enabled by the connection of this system to the internet. It will take weeks, even months potentially, to reveal the truth of what caused software “glitches” such as the Antrim County vote flip and other “flips” observed throughout the early morning hours of November 4th.

NOTE: 52 USC Section 20701 requires that election records are retained for 22 months from the date of the election. Furthermore, willful destruction of these records would likely be seen by courts as justification for issuing orders to redo the election.

Share This Info With Your Fellow Patriots
28 thoughts on “Dominion Voting Systems Unwrapped”
  1. I watched the election all night on fox news, I seen the votes being flipped, Trump’s votes was flipped to Biden and Biden number flipped to Trump so I know the numbers was flipped. Trump won this election, Joe Biden is trying to steal this election, him and obama and other demon-rats.

  2. Hey Pat,

    This is good work. I am a db coder looking at this process and your page is the first that I have seen that has detailed look at flow. I was a ‘ballot processor’ in my county and ‘chain of custody’ and timestamps, is a serious problem. Thanks for the work.

  3. Just seen interview on x22report, thank you for your patriotism, courage, and fortitude. God Bless America

  4. I heard you on Wall Builders Live the other day. Thank you for pursuing this.

    Would you explain something a bit further please?

    I don’t understand how the fraud can be proven. Isn’t the condition of thngs sort of like a contaminated crime scene, or have the paper ballots and electonic devices been secured in some manner?

    At this point in time, how can one prove that a truck load of ballots “appeared” and aren’t legal ballots; and isn’t much of it all mixed together now?

    A recount including fraudulent ballots won’t result in a fair election and the perpetrators of fraud seem to have had a lot of time to tamper with the evidence.

    Can the real/legal results of this election accurately be extracted from all of this mess, or is the goal simply to demonstrate that the results have been contaminated with fraud to the extent that the resultant mess cannot be untangled and a new election is required?

    Thank you.

  5. I am a new subscriber to your website. Just watched your very interesting interview on X22. Can you elaborate at all on how this fraud issue in MI and other states will progress up to the supreme court? I am from Arizona and we saw the same trend in election results.

  6. Wow. Super thorough information and graphics. Im from Mn. and I wish someone was doing this work here. I refuse to believe that burning down a city is an effective campaign strategy.

  7. I don’t know why or how these election officials are allowed to control one of our most Important freedoms to vote,I don’t think half of them could pass a back ground check,And yet they control who we elect to office,I guess corrupt money controls who get put in office.It has to stop or we cease to exist. It’s like it’s carved in stone and they say they have integrity. Something has got to give and this is the time to do it.

  8. Very interested in the outcome of this type investigation, my concern is the paper printout that gets fed into the counting machine afterwards, during a recount do they count those paper printouts, if so, how does the electronic match vs. the paper count?

      1. It doesn’t sound like they in any way matched the actual vote cast, to a total count. They used basically a ticker tape from Election Day results to manually input into a stand alone computer with some kind of election software tabulator. Where I live, it was a touch screen, which you inserted a card into, made your selections, verified on screen, a printer at each screen printed out a paper copy, on card stock, machine ejects your card, I verified that what printed was who I cast votes for, you then turn in your card, and feed the paper into, a counter, I presume? But how do I know, that counter counted my votes accordingly? What’s the card for? I presume they erase the card after every use, so what’s its purpose? In a recount do they take all those paper ballots and just feed them back through those same machines? The whole process leaves one feeling unsure their vote is accurate or even counted. Very distressing.

    1. My guess would be, most Americans don’t have their fingerprints on file anywhere as a means to verify who they are, unless you have a high security job, or have been arrested, where would your fingerprints be on file at?

  9. Re Antrim County, it was a column mismatch in 9 out of 16 precincts: Trump got Jorgensen’s votes, and Biden got Trump’s – etc! On the face of it, looks more like a technical hitch than deliberate cheating, though it does raise questions about the reliability of the system. It also casts into question the official explanation. The two largest precincts exhibited different behaviour, Biden again gaining at the expense of Trump. The other 5 seemed to behave normally, assuming the final results are more or less correct (which they may or may not be, I don’t know).

    1. Mr. Chapman,

      This may be a case where the cover-up is the crime. Your analysis seems to provide a reasonable explanation for the cascaded election reporting errors from Antrim County. If it is as straightforward as you outlined, there may be good reason why the details were neither mentioned nor stressed as part of the official ‘explanation’ for the errors. If in fact the ‘CF data cards’ from 7 of the precincts were NOT ‘mismatched’ with the ‘reporting software’, then those CF data cards must have already contained the updated tabulator configuration software. The ASOG forensic audit report outlined that some CF cards were programmed with updated software, but did not specify how many. The Antrim Clerk reported that only two of the precincts had received updated CF card software, and those precincts subsequently repeated the required ‘public accuracy’ testing (as is required by law). If a total of 7 precincts had received the updated software, then ALL 7 should have repeated the ‘public accuracy’ testing BEFORE the tabulators were used in the election. Put another way, not completing additional testing with the updated software should render all results from those tabulators as ‘contestable’ if not invalid (i.e. not just for the presidential race for which there eventually was a hand re-count). This testing is clearly required per statute and SOS election guidelines.

      MCL 168.798(1) makes it clear that that tabulators are required to be tested for accuracy before being put into service. If new ballot configurations are to be used as part of the processing (i.e. new software configurations contained on the CF cards), then the ‘logic and accuracy’ testing should have be re-run.
      “…Before beginning the count of ballots, the board of election commissioners shall test the electronic tabulating equipment to determine if the electronic tabulating equipment will accurately count the votes cast for all offices and on all questions. Public notice of the time and place of the test shall be given at least 48 hours before the test by publication in a newspaper published in the county, city, village, township, or school district where the electronic tabulating equipment is used…”

      MCL 168.798(2) makes it clear that that ‘tabulators’ and ‘programs’ are to remain ‘sealed together’ upon completion of accuracy testing until after the election ballot counting has ended.
      “…On completion of the test and count, the programs, test materials, and ballots arranged by precincts shall be sealed and retained as provided by this subsection and rules promulgated by the secretary of state pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969. If the electronic tabulating equipment that is tested and certified to by the board of election commissioners will be used to count votes at the precinct, a memory device containing the tested programs, if any, shall be sealed into the electronic tabulating equipment. Upon completion and certification of the count of votes, the memory device containing the program and the vote totals shall remain sealed in the electronic tabulating equipment or, if removed from the electronic tabulating equipment, shall remain sealed in a container approved by the secretary of state, delivered to the clerk, and retained in the manner provided for other voted ballots…”

      SOS Training Materials (ELECTION OFFICIALS’ MANUAL, Michigan Bureau of Elections, Chapter 10, Updated February 2019, CHAPTER 10 PREPARATION OF ELECTION EQUIPMENT, page 4) make it clear that ‘logic and analysis’ testing is required for all equipment, although ‘public’ testing is only required on a representative sample.
      The conduct of Pre-election Logic and Accuracy Testing of all tabulators and voter assist terminals (VAT) prior to each election is the responsibility of the local election commission.

      A preliminary accuracy test is required for all tabulators and VAT prior to each election. In addition a public test of one or more selected tabulators must be performed as discussed below. A public test of the voter assist terminal is not required.

      The preliminary accuracy test should be conducted for both the tabulator and the VAT as soon as the program(s) and ballots are received by the clerk. The public accuracy test for the tabulator must be conducted no later than five days before the election. In addition, a notice of the test must be published in a newspaper or journal of general circulation at least 48 hours prior to the conduct of the test.

      All election materials used to conduct the pre-election logic and accuracy testing (including the test deck, chart of predetermined results, zero tape and accuracy test results) must be secured in an approved ballot container for the duration of the retention period…”

      The SOS training manual provides more explicit detail of how the machines are to be sealed with the ‘program memory devices’ installed after the ‘logic and accuracy’ testing is completed.

      It is a bit troubling why the ‘shifted’ data in the original reports do not perfectly align with the ‘official’ data from the final reporting (i.e. it is off by a few counts in several precincts). Does this imply that printed tabulator tapes (i.e. the source of the printed ‘official’ election results) used to update the ‘final’ postings was not exactly the same as the data contained withing the CF flash cards?

      I would point out that the SOS separately posted the ‘official’ and ‘hand count’ tallies for the presidential race. This may answer some of your question regarding the reporting anomalies with the results from ELK and MILTON townships. Although these were reported as individual precincts in the results posted at the Antrim County web site, they are split into separate ‘precinct’ and ‘counting board’ tallies at the SOS posting. Along the lines of your analysis, it seems that one of the tabulators from these two communities would have have received the software update, and the other did not. The SOS Antrim County hand-count data posting is at:

      A few final notes regarding Antrim County, the ASOG report mentions a total of 15,676 event logs captured by the Antrim County tabulators. If there were 16,047 ballots cast, should there be at least 16,047 tabulator event logs (i.e. one log to recognize each counted ballot), in addition to any ‘error’ event logs? It is also interesting that in Star Township, there were a total of 635 ‘official’ ballots cast per tabulator results, but the hand-count indicated a total of 644 ballots. How could the two total ballot counts be off by this much (i.e. >1.7%) without ballots being ‘added’ to the hand-count?

      Louis Avallone

  10. I just want a good flow chart on how dominion voting machines work.
    For instance–Are there actual paper ballots that are cast. What happens when you adjudicate a ballot. Are the ballots sent to a different location to be tabulated.
    Who counts the votes? who adds the votes. It seems that BIDEN won far less counties than Obama won—yet Biden has the most votes EVER in history? While Trump has gains in minority counties around the country. How is this even possible.
    How did we ever put our trust in a system were we the people are demonized for questioning the vote counting process?
    Elections should not be open to fraud in the USA. We need verifiable ways to ensure election integrity. And I can go to a website–if its conservative–it says the machines are wrought with fraud and abuse. If I go to a liberal site, it says the exact opposite.
    how do I make a decision if I can’t find the way it works.

Comments are closed.