Analysis of FL DMV & voter data reveals ~350K non-citizens potentially registered statewide, with ~123K already voting in 2024. Flagler/Hernando counties show ~0.85% of active voters are non-citizens, with 35% voting in current election.

Indepth technical analysis. If you're in IT, you will understand this fully on the security breakdown and understand there are different threat models. Jason made a simple statement, he trust his smart fridge before he'd trust the voting sustems.

RT @ZoomWalter: x.com/i/article/206913382511…

Attorney General James Uthmeier Charges Canadian Citizen for Illegally Voting in Multiple Florida Elections - myfloridalegal.com/newsrelea…

I've written 6 published peer-reviewed studies on voter roll irregularities for the Journal of Information Warfare. JIW is focused on cyber security and the use of information to conduct war. The fact that their reviewers decided to publish my papers tells you something: their cyber security experts consider the threat posed by corrupted voter rolls to be so serious that it could be classified as an act of war. And what are the findings? In brief: 1. Count of voters who voted changes with every snapshot for old elections (can't tell who or how many people voted in any election) 2. Presence of substantial numbers of illegal records makes it impossible to know how many qualified voters exist in any state surveyed. 3. Unusual algorithms used in some states to assign ID numbers can be used as covert data channels. 4. Photographically identical signatures on registration applications evidence forgery and identity theft. 5. Backdated registration dates indicate falsified data pertinent to question whether votes made were legal. 6. Presence of purged records creates large pool of records that can be used to generate illegitimate ballots. There is more, but the bottom line is this: The rolls are the heart of any election, yet they are so compromised they aren't fit for use. Would you board a plane with its engines on fire because the airline painted "Completely Safe" on the fuselage? That's what voting with these rolls is like.

🚨Florida found 118,615 voter records that didn’t exist in the Oct 22, 2024 snapshot — but suddenly appeared by Nov 12. 61,711 of them claim they registered before Florida’s Oct 7 deadline. These “new” voters popped up after Election Day, with registration dates going back to the 1950s — artificially spread across decades to look natural. Exactly like the 60k+ sudden dump in CA District 28 during vote counting.

After finding double votes across clone groups, I had a follow-up question. If there are X double-voting clone pairs in the 2021 snapshot, why does that number increase in 2022? And again in 2023? And again in 2025? Elections don't change after they happen. A vote cast in 2016 is a vote cast in 2016. That record should be fixed. But it isn't. With every new snapshot, more clone records are showing votes assigned to them — including votes in elections that happened years earlier. Someone is going into the official voter history and writing in votes after the fact. That raised a second question. If votes are being added to some clone records, are votes simultaneously being removed from others? This image answers that. 382 people — real names, real dates of birth, real state ID numbers — had their double-vote records scrubbed from the database between snapshots. They showed up as having voted twice. Then that evidence disappeared from the official record. At the same time, other clone records that previously showed no votes suddenly had votes written into their history. These are not database errors. Someone looked at records showing that a person had voted twice under two different ID numbers and changed the official history so it no longer showed that. And someone looked at other clone records and added votes that were not there before. The voter roll is supposed to be an immutable historical document. What we are seeing is active, ongoing rewriting of the official election record — after the elections are over.

Dr. Daugherity: "I consider this a much more dangerous attack because it doesn't even require manipulation of the State Voter Rolls." (Because the KnowInk System can simply add Counterfeit Voters on the fly) rumble.com/v777gfk-this-scar…

Q: Can you have the firmware that allows the modem to remain on even when the (election) software thinks that it's off? A: Yes ... through the operating system I can enable that component. U.S. court testimony under oath ... 👇

I'm catching a flight to Texas in a few hours. Before I go: the Bexar fraud machine has one more moving part nobody's reported yet. The precinct field was being written by the same algorithm that generated 4,110 fake voters — and I can now describe exactly how it decides what number to write. This is what deliberate fraud looks like from the inside. Read it before I board 🔽 @ZoomWalter @WestonMartinez @Lorionafarm @PeterBernegger @CivilRights @PamBondi @FBIDirectorKash @KenPaxtonTX

@AbsoluteWithE @EmeraldRobinson Here are the Reports and the full article.

TEXAS IS BREAKING ITS OWN ELECTION LAWS — RIGHT NOW During the 2026 Primary, Texas failed to follow its own Election Code. Not slightly — systemically. Texas law, Section 87.121 of the Texas Election Code, mandates that early voting clerks maintain a daily public roster of voters: In-person voting: Updated daily, published by 11:00 a.m. next day Mail-in ballots: Published by 11:00 a.m. the day after receipt This data must be posted online and include: Name Address (unless confidential) VUID Precinct Date voted During early voting, Texas released data in FOUR different formats. Only ONE met legal requirements. The other THREE were missing County or Precinct data or BOTH. Why This Matters 1. The law wasn’t followed. “Just obey the law” didn’t happen. 2. It blocks real analysis. Our 2024 data showed voters appearing in multiple precincts and counties. That pattern can only be detected with complete, consistent data. This made that far more difficult. When required data is: Incomplete Inconsistent Constantly changing …it doesn’t look accidental. It looks like obfuscation. And nothing signals wrongdoing more clearly than making verification harder. When the law requires transparency — and the State delivers confusion — that’s not compliance. Texans, and all Americans, deserve better Because without verification… there is no trust.

In Texas, this manipulation is happening in BOTH R and D primaries. Democrat primary: • 37,039 voter IDs appearing, disappearing, reappearing • 35,169 injected ballots • 10,558 deleted voter records Republican primary: • 87,336 voter oscillations • 35,772 injected ballots • 66,146 deleted voter records Let that sink in. Votes appear. Votes disappear. Votes multiply. That does not happen in a lawful election system. These are not “glitches.” They are impossible patterns unless someone is inside the system manipulating records in real time. And notice something important: It’s happening to both parties. Which means this isn’t Republicans cheating Democrats. It isn’t Democrats cheating Republicans. The American people are being cheated. Someone inside our election infrastructure has the ability to add votes, delete votes, and alter voter history during the election itself. That means the will of the voter is no longer the controlling force in our elections. The controlling force becomes whoever has access to the system. This is why the endless distractions about algorithms, machines, or personalities miss the point. The evidence shows something far more dangerous: The breach is inside the system. And until this is confronted directly, Americans are being forced to participate in what increasingly looks like a “trust me bro” election system instead of a verifiable one. The data does not lie. And the American people deserve to know who is doing this.

What can happen next after a HAVA complaint is filed by a citizen in any state or county:: A HAVA complaint (under the Help America Vote Act) is initially an administrative civil process, but the facts uncovered during that process can reveal violations of other federal laws. When that happens, the matter can move beyond administrative review and into civil enforcement or criminal investigation. Here is the progression in simple terms. 1. Administrative Complaint (HAVA §402) Under HAVA, any voter can file a complaint with a state alleging violations of federal election requirements. The state must provide: a. A hearing on the record b. A written determination c. A decision within 90 days At this stage the process is fact-finding and administrative, not criminal. 2. Discovery of Federal Election Law Violations During the hearing or investigation, evidence may show violations of other federal statutes governing elections, such as: a. National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) – improper removal of voters from registration rolls. b. HAVA §303 – failure to maintain accurate statewide voter databases. c. Record-keeping and retention obligations under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (which requires preservation of election records) If records appear altered, destroyed, or manipulated improperly, the issue moves beyond administrative compliance. 3. Referral to Federal Authorities HAVA specifically allows for escalation. Evidence uncovered in the complaint process can be referred to: a. The U.S. Department of Justice b. The Election Assistance Commission c. A U.S. Attorney’s Office At this point the issue can become a federal investigation. 4. Potential Criminal Statutes If investigators determine that records were intentionally manipulated or destroyed, several criminal statutes could apply, for example: a. 8 U.S.C. §1519 – destruction or falsification of federal records b. 52 U.S.C. §20511 – election fraud involving voter registration records c. 18 U.S.C. §371 – conspiracy to defraud the United States d. Civil Rights Act election record provisions requiring preservation of federal election records. Intentional falsification or destruction of election records can carry significant criminal penalties. 5. Why the Administrative Process Matters The HAVA complaint system functions as a gateway mechanism: a. Citizens identify potential violations b. The state must create a formal record and investigation c. Evidence generated can trigger federal oversight or criminal referral In other words, a HAVA complaint itself is not a criminal charge, but it can uncover facts that lead to civil enforcement actions or criminal investigations if federal election laws or record-preservation laws were violated.

Why all of a sudden the made-up bullsh*t attacking @DNIGabbard? CAUGHT! Because the Deep State/Leviathan/Matrix is in a state of total panic! Yes, the Dominion Systems have modems that can connect to the internet, but they are disabled by election officials who dutifully test to ensure they are switched off. Venezuelan Engineer Testimony: That doesn't matter. They can be remotely switched on by us. lindelloffensefund.org/wp-co…

Amazing! All physical ballots from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County All tabulator tapes for every voting machine used in Fulton County; including, but not limited to; ZERO TAPES, opening tapes, closing tapes and any other tabulator tape printed from a voting machine utilized during the 2020 General Election in Fulton County All ballot images produced during the original ballot count beginning on November 3, 2020, THE RECOUNT, and any other ballot images All voter rolls from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County from absentee, early voting, in person, and any other voter roll that indicates voters: to whom an absentee ballot was issued, from whom an absentee ballot was received, or who participated in advanced voting or election day voting

BREAKING: During a subsequent logic and accuracy test in Tarrant County for the upcoming Texas primaries that will take place in March, which contains local, state and federal races, four witnesses from both political parties signed an affidavit, declaring that the Tarrant County Hart machines created a vote out of thin air. And again, the system manipulated the associated electronic ballot image to show a voting square had been filled in, when the paper ballot had no mark on it at all. Read all about it here: professordavidclements.subst…

In 2023 I was tasked by two committee chairs in our GOP super majority state House of Delegates (WV) to investigate reported anomalies and potential vulnerabilities in our voting and election systems. About six months into that work, we were ordered to stand down and I was told I could have no contact with the WVSOS or the county clerks. Interestingly, this order came shortly after we started making inquiries with WVSOS and the Kanawha County clerk’s office (where our stare capital is located) about ES&S’s 8/3/23 letter to all state SOS and county clerks requesting that they NOT produce system and audit log data in response to FOIA. After the stand down directive, I wrote up a report for the chairmen on the 9 anomalies/evidence of vulnerability that I had uncovered to date and advising that a full, independent forensic investigation would likely be the only way to confirmor deny any breach or corruption of the voting/election management processes. We heard anecdotally from some House members that “the party” (i.e. GOP) did not want this matter looked into. At the time we couldn’t figure out why that would be the case. @PeterBernegger ‘s later work showing the massive evidence of widespread donation smurfing in both parties seems to me the most likely motivator for their not wanting this rock turned over. To date, nothing was ever done in repsonse to my report. Several WV and out of state election integrity investigators can confirm what I have said here, including @BasedDataWV , @GuySmith1713057 , @prr_ei and @SophieAnde49073 , all of whom I had interactions with for purposes of joint research and information sharing on this subject.