By Patrick Colbeck

I first met Tina Peters at Mike Lindell’s CyberSymposium in August 2021. At the symposium, I learned that she had taken an image of her Dominion Voting System Democracy Suite v5.11-CO Election Management System before (May 23, 2021) and after (May 26, 2021) Dominion personnel came in to “service” her equipment. Frankly, this is the ONLY way any clerk could reasonably discern whether or not digital election fraud occurred on their watch.

In “appreciation” for her efforts to ensure the integrity of election records under her responsibility, she was indicted on 10 counts related to tampering with voting equipment. Her home was raided by the FBI. She has served time in jail.

We now know why authorities sought to make an example of her. By quietly capturing images of her election equipment before and after it was serviced by Dominion vendor personnel, she exposed that the the “servicing” resulted in the clear destruction of evidence that could be used in an audit of an election. Furthermore, she enabled a detailed forensic analysis of the electronic data from the 2020 general election. This detailed analysis has yielded clear evidence of the manipulation of election results.

The forensic reports are available for your review by clicking on each of the images below.

Report #1	Report #2	Report #3
KEY FINDINGS	KEY FINDINGS	KEY FINDINGS
Election records needed to support a post-election audit were deleted in violation of state and federal law	Demonstrates Dominion Voting System vulnerabilities and the presence of non-certified software capable of changing election results without detection. 36 wireless devices were found in County EMS system in violation of law and certification requirements.	Shows manipulation of votes. New election results databases were created during the middle of voting without any direction from clerks. Digital vote records were “reloaded” into new databases faster than any possible scan of ballots. Not all previous vote records were “reloaded”.

These reports are fairly technical in nature. My attempt to consolidate the observations found in these reports proceeds below.

Process Anomalies

Security Vulnerabilities

• A password was not necessary to access the EMS server
• Testing confirmed that an outside party could use a separate computer as well as a cell phone, with publicly available and widely used free software (none of which were part of the DVS D-Suite), to easily change election results.
• Non-certified software (SQL Server Management Studio) was found to be installed with Dominion Voting Systems in Mesa County, CO and Antrim County, MI
• SQL Server Management Studio provides unauthorized users with “back door” access to election results databases. The addition of this software is not necessary to the election process and allows any party with access to the EMS server to alter cast ballots, tallies, databases, ballots, and audit records.
• 36 wireless devices were found installed
• The wireless device installations were found to have negligible firewall protections
• Wireless device encryption can be easily broken
• The EMS server motherboard was manufactured in China. Chinese motherboards feature a well known “back door” that provides unauthorized access to equipment.

Certification Violations

• Federal certification requirements:
  • Per EAC Testing & Certification Program, August 11, 2021, Page 7 “wireless systems are disallowed”
  • 2002 VSS, para 3.2.1 specifies “d. For central-county systems…: Consolidation of vote selection data from multiple counting devices to generate jurisdiction-wide vote counts, including storage and reporting of the consolidated vote data…a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions.” A ballot position is each and every choice (e.g. a “bubble” which can be marked or filled-in) on a ballot selectable by a voter to convey their voting choices.
• State certification requirements:
  • The Federal Election Commission’s 2002 Voting System Standards are defined in CO state law as the mandatory minimum standard for certification of voting systems.
  • Colorado state statute § 1-5-601.5., specifies that a voting system which “…provides access to incomplete election returns and interactive inquiries before the completion of the official count…shall:
    • a. be designed to provide external access to incomplete election returns only if that access for these purposes is authorized by the statutes and regulations of the using agency…
    • b. Use voting system software and its security environment designed such that data accessible to interactive queries resides in an external file, or database, that is created and maintained by the elections software under the restrictions applying to any other output report, namely, that:
      • 1) The output file or database has no provision for write-access back to the system.
      • 2) Persons whose only authorized access is to the file or database are denied write-access, both to the file or database, and to the system,” and states that the Standards are “intended to address…risks to the integrity of a voting system…,” including “…Changing calculated vote totals;…” and “Preventing access to vote data, including individual votes and vote totals, to unauthorized individuals;…”
• The reports obtained show clear violations of both the federal and state certification requirements
• Any election conducted using non-certified election equipment should be decertified

Election Privatization

• Contrary to popular conceptions, clerks and their staff have very little access to and oversight of key election processes managed by electronic voting systems
• During the 2020 general election in Mesa County, CO, there was an unauthorized creation of 2 new election databases after voting had already started (CO allows early voting)
• It is apparent that private entities, either manually or via an automated script, modified election records without direction from clerks
• The CO Secretary of State ordered the destruction of election records by private entities
• During the 2021 municipal election in Grand Junction, CO, there was also an unauthorized creation of 2 new election databases after voting had already started (CO allows early voting)

Help Desk

• After the new databases were created and reloaded, election workers noticed repeat adjudications of the same ballots and issues with ballots in process of being adjudicated
• When election workers called the Dominion help desk, they were told that there was no solution to their issue. Yet, after receiving this communication, there were no more duplicate ballot adjudications from that point forward. This seems to suggest that the help desk call set off a chain of events that resulted in the modification of configuration settings for the Election Management System.
• Since the help desk personnel were not on site, these configuration settings must have been modified by someone with remote access to the EMS. Remote access requires internet connectivity.
• Since there were no suspicious duplicate adjudications in the 2021 election, it appears that any script used to create and populate the new databases was updated to preclude such duplicate adjudications in the future.
• The Dominion help desk appears to operate more like a quality assurance team during software testing. They take bug reports and refer them to software engineers to update their script to remove the “bug”.

Statutory Violations

• The reports cite evidence of violations of the following federal statutes:
  • 52 U.S. Code § 10307 prohibits any person acting under color of law to “…willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report…” the vote of any person entitled to vote.
  • 52 U.S. Code § 10308(a) prescribes penalties for any person depriving or attempting to deprive any person of voting rights under Federal statute.
  • 52 U.S. Code § 10308(c) prescribes penalties for conspiring to violate or interfere with secured voting rights.
  • 52 U.S. Code § 20701 mandates the preservation of all election records for 22 months after an election for Federal offices.1,2
  • 52 U.S. Code § 20702 prescribes penalties for theft, destruction, concealment, mutilation, or alteration of § 20701 election records.
  • 52 U.S. Code § 21081 requires that voting systems used in elections for Federal office meet the standards of that section, including that the voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system, and that “the error rate of the voting system in counting ballots…shall comply with the error rate standards established under section 3.2.1 of…” the Federal Election Commission 2002 Voting System Standards (VSS).3
• The reports cite evidence of violations of the following CO state statutes:
  • CRS §1-5-601.5 requires that voting systems and equipment in Colorado meet 2002 VSS standards, at minimum.
  • CRS §1-7-802 requires the preservation of election records for 25 months after elections.
  • CRS §1-13-111 prescribes penalties for destroying, removing, or delaying delivery of election records.

Record Anomalies

Ballot Records

• During the 2020 general election, 20,346 ballot records were “reloaded” into new election databases. 5,567 ballots in 58 batches were NOT reloaded in the new election database.
• During the 2021 municipal election in Grand Junction, 2,974 ballot records were “reloaded” in new election databases. Overall, 4,458 ballots in 46 batches were not reloaded in the the new election database.

Tabulation Rates

• The scanners used to read ballots in Mesa County, CO have a maximum capacity of 100 ballots/minute.
• According to election database records, the initial 10 batches containing a total of 941 ballots were processed through a single tabulator (Tabulator 10) in just 47 seconds.
• 941 ballots would take at least 9 minutes 41 seconds using the scanner
• This indicates that the ballot records added to the election database were not the result of the standard process of scanning a ballot. It would seem to indicate a direct insertion of ballot records into the election database. A direct insertion of ballot records corresponds to a direct manipulation of the vote tallies.
• In his analysis submitted in King v Whitmer, Russ Ramsland observed a similar anomaly across 4 counties in Michigan. Michigan election officials tabulated 384,733 votes in four precincts whose machinery could not possibly have counted more than 94,867 votes during that time. This indicates that as many as 289,866 ballots were cast in a fraudulent manner in Michigan.

Log Files

• The following log files were deleted by DVS vendor personnel from the May 23, 2021 configuration as a result of the updates made on May 26, 2021:
  • Server Microsoft SQL Server Installation Log Files Missing
  • Server Microsoft SQL Server Log Files Missing
  • EMS Server Dell Server Updates Missing
  • Server ‘Administrator’ WebCache Log Files Overwritten
  • Server ’emsadmin’ WebCache Log Files Overwritten
  • Server SQL Server Management Studio Log Files Overwritten
  • Server CBS Log Files Overwritten
  • Server Election Databases missing
  • Server Event Logs Missing/Overwritten
  • Server System Users are Missing
  • Server Virtual Directories Log Files Missing
  • Server Windows Defender Log Files Missing/Overwritten
• The deletion/overwriting of these log files adversely impact the ability to perform a full forensic audit in the wake of any election.
• The deletion of these records as a result of vendor maintenance activities is likely not isolated to Mesa County, CO. Clerks should be wary of any attempt by voting system vendors to “update” or “perform maintenance” on their systems without any oversight by technical experts they trust.

Influence Operations

Intimidation

• The CO Secretary of State sued to ensure that Tina Peters would not oversee the 2022 elections as the Mesa County, CO Clerk
• The FBI raided her home
• The Grand Junction police arrested her

Big Tech Bias

• Google “Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters” and you will not find any links to the actual reports or TinaPetersforColorado.com website where they can be found. All you will find is links to stories attempting to smear her character.
• Google “Mesa County Forensics Report” and you will not find any links to the actual reports or TinaPetersforColorado.com website where they can be found. All you will find is a smattering of stories designed to be dismissive.

CONCLUSION

The information provided as a results of the data obtained by Mesa County, CO Clerk Tina Peters provides grounds for the decertification of both the 2020 General Election in Mesa County and the 2021 Municipal Election in Grand Junction, CO.

The anomalies observed in Mesa County, CO were similar to those observed elsewhere in the country during the 2020 general election and others. What is unique about Mesa County, CO is that Tina Peters was courageous enough to stand up to significant intimidation from federal authorities and the CO Secretary of State to perform her statutory duties regarding the preservation of the integrity of election records.

Tina Peters is a hero. She is now running to replace the current CO Secretary of State.

There should be an immediate injunction issued regarding the use of Dominion Voting Systems in future elections not simply in CO but also in other states featuring Dominion Voting Systems. The integrity of the voting systems provided by other manufacturers should be immediately reviewed with similar rigor and possibly result in an expanded injunction to include them as well.