By Patrick Colbeck
So, how exactly did President Trump lose 138,339 Michigan votes in the matter of a screen refresh? At this time, I can’t say for sure, but I have my suspicions after serving as a Poll Challenger for the Election Integrity Fund from 5pm, Tuesday November 3rd to 5:30pm, Wednesday November 4th.
COVID policy played a significant role. Governor Whitmer and Secretary of State Benson leveraged the crisis to fan the flames of fear and introduce policies that obfuscated election oversight. Detroit Election officials embraced these policies in a concerted effort to interfere in the effective oversight of the election.
Lead Detroit Election officials:
- Daniel Baxter, Detroit Director of Elections
- Chris Thomas, Senior Advisor to Detroit City Clerk, Janice Winfrey
- David Nathan, Assistant Director of Elections
NOTE: Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey made a brief appearance, but was otherwise non-existent.
What are some examples of election integrity subversion?
- Pre-Election stonewalling by Detroit election officials as to what election procedures would be followed during the 2020 election as well as unfettered access to witness the following activities:
- The arrival at DDE of ballots from the USPS and satellite locations throughout Detroit
- Ballot storage procedure in the satellites and Detroit Department of Elections
- Observance of the Relia-vote system (if it were to be used in the November 3rd election)
- Sorting of ballots by precinct
- Transferral of ballots to the TCF AV Counting Boards
- Pre-Election drop boxes distributed throughout Democrat communities with little or no oversight leveraging grants from $250 Million donation to the Center for Tech and Civic Life organization by Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg.
- Suspicious Pre-Election ballot-size box drop offs at side door of Detroit Election Bureau. When confronted with camera rolling, suspect put boxes briskly in car and sped off without answering questions directed at them.
- Suspicious ballot drop offs and pick ups at senior centers.
- Election day stonewalling. When Chris Thomas, Senior Advisor to Detroit City Clerk, was asked the fundamental question about how vote tallies were to be transferred to the County, he refused to provide that information until after election day.
- Repeated examples of poll challengers being denied the ability to execute their duties in violation of MCL 168.733. One systemic example includes the rollout and subsequent post-lawsuit retraction of six foot distancing rule that would have impaired ability of poll challengers to effectively monitoring election processes.
- Multiple poll book instances tracked in separate physical locations enables a single voter to vote twice. Absentee Ballots were tracked at TCF Facility while Poll Ballots were tracked at Ford Field. Poll books at both facilities were not synchronized. Therefore, a voter could vote absentee within a specific timeframe and their voting status would not be updated in the in person poll book to prevent voting again. Multiple observers reported people actively exploiting this loophole.
- Roughly half of Election Poll workers left before 8pm on Tuesday, November 3rd in violation of Detroit Elections Bureau rules.
- Duplicate ballots being completed while Republican poll worker not present. Violation of MCL 168.765a(10)
- Ballots whose ballot numbers do not appear in e-Poll book or paper supplemental poll book were treated as potential ballots for tabulation. Indications were that senior Detroit election officials intended to find justification to have these ineligible votes counted.
- Only a handful of Republican poll workers hired despite the Detroit City Clerk being provided with an extensive list of candidates. Per MCL 168.765a(10), “At all times, at least 1 election inspector from each major political party must be present at the absent voter counting place and the policies and procedures adopted by the secretary of state regarding the counting of absent voter ballots must be followed.” This statute was violated throughout the activation of the Detroit AV Counting Board for all but a handful of the 136 AV Counting Boards.
- Roughly 38,000* ballots arrive via a Detroit Elections Bureau van with MI license plate 090×063 at around 3:45am after more than three hours of little to no precinct activity. Origin of ballots unknown but primary candidate is drop box collections AFTER 8pm poll closure. Likely would have been known if it weren’t for previously mentioned stonewalling.
- Roughly 10 boxes of military ballots not counted until poll challengers were prevented from entering AVCB. Ballots were available to count during period of little to no precinct activity between midnight and arrival of 38,000* ballots yet no action was taken. Why? Poll workers were idle.
- Tabulation, adjudication, and election official computers all connected to routers which were connected to the internet. When I asked Daniel Baxter if computers were connected to the internet, he replied “No”. When I requested verification that the computers were not connected to internet, David Nathan said “Trust me” and refused my request to verify no connectivity to the internet. For the record, every tabulation and every adjudication computer screen observed showed the Windows icon that represents an ACTIVE internet connection. In addition, ethernet cable connections were traced to confirm physical connectivity of tabulation, adjudication, and election official devices. Internet connectivity equals significant exposure to vote manipulation fraud.
Key questions:
- Why would Election Official computers need to be connected to adjudicator and tabulation computers?
- How would election vote counts transferred to media prior to balancing and closing any Counting Boards (i.e. Precincts)?
- How did a 300,000 vote lead disappear in the flash of a computer screen?
Related Stories:
Opinion: COVID can’t be an excuse for subverting election integrity
NOTE:
*Unconfirmed total. 61 mail trays in total delivered resulting in estimated 38,000 ballots.
Is it possiblle the Michigan legislators are not stepping up because they are complicit in the steal and don’t want to be ousted and criminally charged? They better step up or 73 million plus of us are going to believe they are also corrupt.
Also, in regards to the dem legislators that brought up problems with the Dominion machines… The question. Is didn’t they already know Hilary stole the primary election (and planned to steal the prresidency from Trump) right from Bernie, ergo which means they were asking to have the machines not used bc of that? That would explain their silence now.
The apples are falling… Any push back from any one in government (Romney,we know who you are now) against transparency should tell us they are also dirty, Republicans and Democrats alike!
These so-called “Republicans” are plants, if there is no pushback. The only way to recuse yourself as a legislator is to step up and speak out forcefully against voter fraud!
Sidney Powell, each legislator who doesn’t cooperate fully, criminally, go after them first please!! They are actually showing their hand of who they are by not doing so
Two and a half minute segment of Senator Colbeck’s ‘Precinct 13’ interview, where he explains why it is very concerning that the military ballots were not processed until the morning of 4th November, at a time when there were few if any Republican poll challengers to observe the process, despite poll workers being available to do the job at the earlier time when observers were also available: https://youtu.be/jx2jVg655Mc
They knew damn well few people in the military would vote for Biden. They were running some ballot switch software that only affects the president candidate box. Would be the only logical explanation.
Agreed.
What amazes me most is that I only know 2 people that brag about voting for Biden out of the thousand plus people I know. Yet Biden had more than 50% no way.
Mr. Colbeck,
The numbers just do not add up. Testimony recently given to the (Dec 8) Michigan Senate Oversight committee indicated that there were only two shipments of ballots to the TCF center. The first was on Sunday afternoon Nov 01 2020, and included 140,000 absentee ballots. The second (and last, per testimony) was for a maximum of 16,000 absentee ballots at 3:30am on Wednesday Nov 04 2020. I may need to have my math double-check, but that would be only 156,000 absentee ballots. Per Wayne County official results, the total TCF Center (AVCB) reported number at the end of counting was 174,384. This would mean there were >18,000 more ballots cast than shipments into the TCF Center, per testimony. I realize that it is possible that the military ballots were not included in the ‘second absentee ballot’ shipment number. I found some data online that indicates that there are ~26,000 military affiliated people in michigan. Even if 10% were from detroit, which seems like it might be a high estimate, I would imagine, that means there would only be ~2,600 military ballots to process. Where did the ‘extra’ >15,000 ballots come from?
Additionally, the Detroit City Clerk was interviewed at the TCF Center at 7:30pm on election day. The Detroit Free Press cited her as saying that 120,000 ballots were received at the TCF center at that time. This would make the numbers even more questionable. Remember that Senate Hearing testimony was that 140,000 ballots were brought to the TCF center on the prior Sunday afternoon. This suggests that depending on which leader is cited, there were either >15,000 ballots or >35,000 ballots cast at the TCF Center, compared to the number of ballots that were cited as being shipped to the TCF Center.
As far as I can tell, the military data is from 2017 at the following site:
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/military-civilian-active-duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html
The Detroit Free Press Article was online at:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/03/detroit-voter-turnout-highest-decades-election-officials/6152193002/
It is possible my analysis is fatally flawed, and it definitely deserves further scrutiny. Just wanted to pass it along in case the discrepancy is real and as of yet has been overlooked. I was going to scour through the Wayne County official precinct by precinct results to see if there was more info that could help substantiate it.
God Bless Michigan
God Bless America
Sincerely,
Lou
Mr Colbeck,
I listened to the testimony at the MI Senate Oversight Committee again. I may have jumped the gun with the previous message. I missed a claim that additional shipments were made to the TCF Center on Monday and Tuesday, before the ‘final’ shipment of 16,000 absentee envelopes early Wednesday morning. The size and number of these shipments was not specified. However, it still does not align well with the Free Press citation of the Clerk’s statement on Election Night (Tuesday) at 7:30 PM (i.e. 120,000 ballots received at the TCF Center at that time).
Sorry for the false alarm,
Lou
Mr. Colbeck,
First a disclaimer – my analysis may be fatally flawed, and should be subject to scrutiny and verification. If some of the material (i.e. screenshots) does not make it through to the post, I will try to email the rest. I think it is an important set of observations….
I think it can be argued that many of the ‘Republican Challenged’ ballots at the TCF center were processed unlawfully. To paraphrase statements from the Detroit City Clerk’s Senior Advisor Testimony at the recent (Dec 08 Michigan Senate Oversight election hearing – “there is no reason to not count any absentee ballots whose outer envelopes had been signature verified by the clerk”. This may be consistent with training material provided by the SOS (see screen shots below), but I believe it is contrary to statute. The issue is in the handling of absentee ballots received with incorrect or missing (numbered) stubs. The SOS guidance is that they are to be processed as ‘challenged’ ballots – which essentially means a note is to be made in the EPB, and the ‘voter number’ is written in pencil on the ballot before the stub is removed and the ballot is further processed and tabulated. I guess it is unclear if the SOS guidance was followed in all cases, but it is more important to note that this guidance is contrary to statute.
The screenshot is from YouTube training found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhUddpcDns (9:41/17:20)
//:0
Per MCL 168.765a(8), ballot processing at the AVCB is supposed to be consistent with that of paper ballot precincts
“…168.765a Absent voter counting board.
…(8) The absent voter counting boards and combined absent voter counting boards shall process the ballots
and returns in as nearly as possible the same manner as ballots are processed in paper ballot precincts. The
poll book may be combined with the absent voter list or record required by section 760, and the applications
for absent voter ballots may be used as the poll list. The processing and tallying of absent voter ballots may
commence at 7 a.m. on the day of the election…”
MCL 168.745 provides guidance on how to process challenged ballots
“…168.745 Ballot of challenged voter; endorsement, rejection.
Sec. 745. Whenever at any election the ballot of any person who has been challenged as an unqualified
voter and who has taken the oath provided by law in such case to be taken shall be received by the inspectors
of election, said inspectors shall cause to be plainly endorsed on said ballot, with pencil, before depositing the
same in the ballot box, the number corresponding to the number placed after such voter’s name on the poll
lists without opening the same: Provided, That in case a ballot shall be so folded, defaced, printed or prepared
that such number cannot be legibly and permanently written on the back thereof, said inspectors shall refuse
to accept such ballot…”
MCL168.797a states that ballots with incorrect or missing stubs are to be rejected, not processed as challenged ballots
“…168.797a Instruction in method of voting on electronic voting system; use of ballot
processed through electronic tabulating equipment; procedure; detached stub; spoiled
ballot; processing of challenged voter ballot; removal of ballot.
Sec. 797a. (1) Before entering the voting station, each elector shall be offered instruction in the proper
method of voting on the electronic voting system. If the elector needs additional instruction after entering the
voting station, 2 election inspectors from different political parties may, if necessary, enter the voting station
and provide the additional instructions.
(2) If the electronic voting system provides for the use of a ballot that is processed through electronic
tabulating equipment after the elector votes, the elector shall transport the ballot to the ballot box, or other
approved ballot container, without exposing any votes. An election inspector shall ascertain, by comparing the
number appearing on the ballot stub with the number recorded on the poll list, that the ballot delivered by the
voter is the same ballot that was issued to the elector. If the numbers do not agree, the ballot shall be marked
as “rejected”, and the elector shall not be allowed to vote. If the numbers agree, an election inspector shall
remove and discard the stub. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the election inspector shall
deposit the ballot in the ballot box or other approved ballot container. If electronic tabulating equipment that
deposits the voted ballot into the ballot box or other approved ballot container is used at the precinct, the
election inspector shall return the ballot to the elector, and the elector shall then deposit the ballot into the
electronic tabulating equipment. The electronic tabulating equipment shall be arranged so that the secrecy of
the ballot is not violated. If required for the proper operation of the electronic tabulating equipment, 2 election
inspectors from different political parties may periodically open the equipment to rearrange voted ballots and
may transfer voted ballots to another approved ballot container.
(3) A ballot from which the stub is detached shall not be accepted by the election inspector in charge of the
ballot box or other approved ballot container. An elector who spoils his or her ballot may return it and secure
another ballot. The word “spoiled” shall be written across the face of the ballot, and the ballot shall be marked
and secured for later return.
(4) A ballot of a challenged voter that has the names of candidates and questions printed directly on the
voted ballot shall be processed in the manner prescribed for challenging a vote cast by paper ballot. A
challenge to a voter voting on an electronic voting system that does not use an individual hard copy ballot
shall be processed in the manner prescribed for challenging a vote cast on a voting machine.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in this act, an election inspector shall not allow any portion of a ballot,
including a ballot stub, to be removed by any person other than an election inspector from the polling place.
(2) If the electronic voting system provides for the use of a ballot that is processed through electronic
tabulating equipment after the elector votes, the elector shall transport the ballot to the ballot box, or other
approved ballot container, without exposing any votes. An election inspector shall ascertain, by comparing the
number appearing on the ballot stub with the number recorded on the poll list, that the ballot delivered by the
voter is the same ballot that was issued to the elector. If the numbers do not agree, the ballot shall be marked
as “rejected”, and the elector shall not be allowed to vote…”
I guess the key point is that per the Clerk’s Senior Advisor’s testimony, and challenger observations, numerous (invalid) ballots with incorrect or removed stubs were allowed to be tabulated. Keep in mind that even if this were to affect ‘thousands’ at the TCF Center, it would not be nearly enough to call into question the overall election results. However, as these are SOS instructions given to all counting boards, and the absentee volume was so much higher this year, it is possible thousands if not tens of thousands more could have been improperly processed state-wide.
The other inconsistency is with respect to voters that had to have their names ‘added’ to the EPB. This is an acceptable practice, but requires that the Election Inspector first call the Clerk to verify the validity of the ballot. This is how they are supposed to be handled in precintcs, and is stated in training material (EPB_Manual_Win10_526477_7.pdf). The key point is that a clerk is supposed to be consulted before the ballot is processed. In most cases, it is the result of a voter being registered after the EPB was created on Sunday afternoon (Dec 01).
The screenshot is from YouTube training found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EhUddpcDns (9:13/17:20)
//:0
Mr Colbeck,
If the assertions from my previous post are correct, it should be relatively easy to identify the state-wide impact. Under an assumption that SOS guidance was followed for the bulk of the affected ballots, the electronic poll book (and QVF paper supplements) used in each of the counting boards would provide a record of all of the ballots challenged for missing or incorrect stubs. Additionally, all of the tabulated ballots (i.e. currently sealed in ballot boxes) should have ‘voter numbers’ written on them – per challenge ballot handling instructions. It should be noted that the presence of correct ballot stubs is one of the few ‘chain of custody’ verification mechanisms available for absentee ballots. If not, why would they they be there in the first place.
God Bless Michigan
God Bless America
Sincerely,
Louis Avallone