BC Election: Demand A Manual Recount Due To Questionable Practices & Fraudulent Tabulators

Demanding an Independent Review
Questionable Practices | BC Election Act Current to Oct. 29/2024 |
Guide to Voting and Counting (Version) Feb. 2024 | Guide to Voting and Counting (Version) July 2024
Staff Took Ballots Home | $50,000 Reward Upon Successful Criminal Charges | CanadaPoli News
CIA Whistleblower Dominion Voting Systems | Dominion Voting System History
Did Dominion tabulators and phone voting compromise B.C’s election?
Dominion Machines Can Be HACKED | Damning Forensics Report of Dominion Tabulation System
Panel Highlighted PRC’s Impacts on Canada
UPDATES On BC Provincial Election
Ballot Box Containing 861 Votes Wasn’t Counted | Judicial Recounts: Kelowna Centre & Surrey-Guildford

B.C. Election Integrity? Join Others in Demanding an Independent Review!

In the wake of BC’s 43rd general election, serious questions are swirling about the process’s integrity. From uncounted ballots to troubling allegations of foreign interference linked to networks potentially acting on behalf of Communist China, British Columbians have every right to demand answers.

This election, one of the most contentious in recent memory, has been plagued by unreported votes in key ridings and the failure to count an entire ballot box in Prince George-Mackenzie. These issues raise serious doubts about transparency. To make matters worse, BC’s new voting systems — including electronic voting tabulators with unverified source codes and the widespread use of phone voting — leave many questioning the security of these methods.

Join hundreds of other concerned citizens in urging BC’s elected parties, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the BC Ombudsperson to demand an independent review of how Elections BC handled this election. An internal review is simply not enough. British Columbians deserve a truly independent investigation to restore trust and ensure future elections are free from error, manipulation, and outside influence.

Send this comment, or edit it, and send it to the following people:

Anton Boegman, BC Deputy Chief Electoral Officer: Anton.Boegman@elections.bc.ca
Phone: 250 356-2713

John Rustad, Leader of the BC Conservatives: john.rustad.mla@leg.bc.ca
Phone: 250 387-3011

David Eby, Leader of the BC NDP: premier@gov.bc.ca
Phone: 250-387-1715

I am joining other citizens to express our serious concerns regarding the integrity of BC’s 43rd general election and to demand immediate action. Despite the hard work of BC Election officials during what was an exceptionally close race, the election process has been marred by several irregularities, including uncounted ballots, procedural violations, and troubling allegations of foreign interference — specifically potential networks linked to Communist China that may have sought to influence the election’s outcome.

The discovery of unreported votes in key ridings and the failure to count an entire ballot box on time, only deepen these concerns. Additionally, the introduction of voting tabulators with unscrutinized source codes and the broadly available phone voting raises significant questions about the security and fairness of this election.

While Elections BC has admitted to mishandling certain aspects, it is clear that an internal review is insufficient given the gravity of these issues. British Columbians deserve a thorough, independent, and impartial investigation to ensure the integrity of our electoral system and restore public trust.

I urge you to support the immediate launch of an independent review to examine how Elections BC handled this election and to investigate whether foreign influence or vulnerabilities in the new voting methods compromised the electoral process.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Shared from https://www.rebelnews.com/bc_election_integrity

Links to other review campaigns:

Action 4 Canada
https://action4canada.com/call-to-action-demand-a-re-election-in-bc-and-for-boegman-deputy-chief-electoral-officer-to-resign/

Questionable Practices

Concerns over British Columbia’s electoral integrity, it has come apparent that the handling of ballots during the recent election cycle was fraught with questionable practices orchestrated under the watch of Anton Boegman, the chief electoral officer.

The process by which Elections BC managed advance and mail-in ballots during the election period from October 10 to 16, and the subsequent days up to the final count from October 26 to 28, revealed a series of operational decisions that can only be described as deeply flawed and potentially corrupt.

Firstly, the practice of storing ballots at the homes of election officials, as confessed by Andrew Watson [Andrew.Watson@elections.bc.ca], Elections BC’s senior communications director, is nothing short of an administrative travesty. This was not described merely as an occasional necessity but as a standard procedure in rural areas where driving back to district offices was inconvenient. The notion that “secure storage” equates to someone’s personal residence is a gross understatement of the security risks involved. Such a policy invites skepticism about the sanctity of the electoral process, suggesting that significant gaps in security protocols exist, which could easily be exploited for nefarious purposes.

Moreover, the handling of mail-in and absentee ballots brings to light another layer of election mismanagement. The claim that initial unofficial tallies, which showed races within a hundred votes, could be considered close or indicative of the final outcome, is laughable. The inclusion of mail-in ballots often shifts the results significantly, making any pre-final count statements not only premature but misleading. This speaks volumes about the lack of foresight and understanding of electoral dynamics by those in charge, particularly under Boegman’s leadership.

The process described by the (July Version) Elections BC guide, where ballots are transferred to new boxes and stored off-site, either at district offices or supervisors’ homes, underlines a concerning laxity. While the guide mentions scrutineers [may] observe/ing the process, the practical application and effectiveness of such oversight in all instances remain dubious. The integrity of an election hinges on the transparency and security of every vote, and allowing ballots to leave the secure confines of official election offices, even for supervisors deemed trustworthy, undermines this principle to an alarming degree.

The rejection of recount requests without substantial justification, as seen in the case of Surrey-Guildford’s Garry Begg, further fuels the narrative of potential corruption or at least severe administrative oversight. Elections BC’s dismissal of these requests on the grounds of lack of evidence when the very handling of ballots was so amateurishly conducted, points to a system not just flawed but possibly designed to favour certain outcomes.

Anton Boegman’s role in overseeing these practices, whether through direct authorization or passive acceptance, places him at the center of what can only be described as an electoral debacle. The security measures described as being in place do not match the gravity of protecting democratic processes. The penalties for tampering might exist on paper, but when the system itself is riddled with such vulnerabilities, the law seems more like a deterrent for show rather than effective protection.

The handling of the BC election under Anton Boegman’s leadership is not just subpar; it was a direct assault on electoral integrity. The practice of taking ballots home, the non-transparent and potentially game-changing treatment of mail-in votes, and the questionable decisions regarding recounts paint a picture of an election process that is not only old-fashioned but also steeped in what can be perceived as intentional or negligent corruption. The people of British Columbia deserve better; they deserve an electoral process that is beyond reproach, not one that skirts on the edge of farce and potential foul play.

Shared from https://x.com/VoteCanadaCom/status/1850205579979186452

Guide to Voting and Counting (Version) Feb. 2024

.

Guide to Voting and Counting (Version) July 2024

Elections BC allowed staff to take ballots home during advanced voting week

Briefly: Elections BC spokesperson said ballots and other documents were stored off-site during the advance voting week, including at the homes of Elections BC officials. Several security measures were in place to protect electoral integrity.

Bob Mackin

When B.C.’s early voting polls closed at night, did you know where your ballot was?

Elections BC reported a record of more than one million people voted in advance between Oct. 10-16.

A member of one candidate’s team showed theBreaker.news correspondence with an Elections BC local official about a case of unmarked ballots being taken home for safe-keeping. The candidate asked not to be identified in print.

“Supervisors have the options of keeping sensitive documents and ballots either at my district office or at a safe place off the polling place over night (i.e. their home but not left in their cars),” the district returning officer wrote. “The key point is keeping them off-site.” 

The email said that all election officials “have made their solemn declarations to maintain the integrity of our voting process” and routinely bring all ballots back to specific polling sites prior to opening each day.

An Elections BC spokesperson confirmed that storing ballots at home is an option.

“At the end of each day of advance voting, cast ballots are secured in a ballot box that is sealed and signed by election officials and scrutineers,” said senior communications director Andrew Watson. “In urban ridings, unused ballots and ballot boxes are returned to the district office for secure storage. Where this is not possible, for example in rural ridings, where it is too far for a voting place supervisor to drive back to the district office at night, the unused ballots and sealed ballot boxes will be securely stored at the senior election official’s home. This maintains the chain of custody.”

Watson said ballots are reconciled at each station so that officials know how many ballots have been issued, cast by voters and remaining

Watson called the security of all ballots, whether unused or cast, “essential for electoral integrity.” A $10,000 fine, year in jail or both are maximum punishments should an election official be found guilty of breaking the oath to uphold the Election Act by tampering with ballots and other election materials.

The Elections BC “Guide to Voting and Counting” contains a section on procedures for the end of each day at advance voting.

It says to ensure the official record of the votes is kept secure, ballots cast will be transferred from their original ballot box to a transfer ballot box that is sealed and labelled with the voting place name, date and tabulator identification.

“The transfer ballot box will be stored off-site at the district electoral office or at the home of the voting place supervisor,” the manual said.

Scrutineers are encouraged to observe the process. [but it’s not mandatory]

The David Eby-led NDP won 46 seats on Oct. 19, one more than John Rustad’s Conservatives, but one shy of a majority.

Elections BC’s final count is scheduled for Oct. 26-28, with some 65,000 mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted around the province. Automatic recounts will take place in Surrey-City Centre and Juan de Fuca-Malahat, where NDP candidates won by fewer than 100 votes.

Elections BC rejected requests for recounts by one Green and three NDP candidates. One of those was Surrey-Guildford NDP runner-up Garry Begg. An Oct. 24 letter to Begg from District Electoral Officer Rana Malhi said Begg provided no evidence of ballot counting errors.

Shared from https://thebreaker.news/business/elections-bc-home-box/

$50,000 Reward Upon Successful Criminal Charges

Did election fraud happen in BC? We are offering a $50,000 reward! If you have any creditable evidence or information that could help ensure the integrity of our electoral process, we encourage you to come forward. Your identity will remain anonymous. In light of serious concerns regarding the integrity of British Columbia’s recent election, it has become evident that the handling of ballots was marred by questionable practices of Elections BC and it’s employees which is overseen by Anton Boegman, the chief electoral officer.

The management of advance and mail-in ballots from October 10th to 16th, and the subsequent counting period from October 26th to 28th, revealed numerous operational flaws that raise alarm about potential corruption. First, the practice of storing ballots at the homes of election officials, as admitted by Andrew Watson, Elections BC’s senior communications director, is an egregious lapse in administrative standards. This was not an isolated incident but a standard procedure in rural areas, where convenience was prioritized over security. Equating “secure storage” with personal residences significantly underestimates the risks involved and invites skepticism regarding the electoral process’s integrity. Furthermore, the treatment of mail-in and absentee ballots exposes further mismanagement. The initial unofficial tallies, which suggested races were close and are misleading by the media. Mail-in ballots were primarily used during the pandemic and now often lead to significant shifts in results. This reflects a troubling lack of understanding of electoral dynamics by those in charge, particularly under Boegman’s leadership. The Elections BC guidelines on transferring ballots to new boxes for off-site storage raises additional concerns. While scrutineers are mentioned as observers, the effectiveness of this oversight is questionable. The integrity of elections relies on transparency and security, and allowing ballots to leave official election offices undermines these principles. The least we can do is utilize video camera surveillance on all ballot boxes and the rooms where elections are held to insure the security of the voting and counting process. The dismissal of recount requests, such as that of Surrey-Guildford’s

@GarryBeggBC, further compounds these concerns. Elections BC’s refusal to grant these requests due to a lack of evidence—despite the questionable handling of ballots—suggests a system that not only fails to protect electoral integrity but may also favor certain outcomes. Anton Boegman’s role in these practices, whether through direct involvement or negligence, places him at the heart of a troubling electoral situation. The purported security measures in place do not reflect the seriousness of safeguarding our democratic processes. While minimal fine and penalties for tampering may exist, the vulnerabilities in the system render these protections ineffective. One also has to question, who is

@ElectionsBC recruiting with salaries of only $21-$26 per hour in 93 ridings across British Columbia? Where is the list of names for these part time employees, have they been screened and can they be trusted? The handling of the BC election under Boegman’s leadership is not merely substandard; it constitutes a direct threat to electoral integrity. The practices of taking ballots home, the questionable treatment of mail-in votes, phone-in votes, and the decisions surrounding recounts paint a disturbing picture of a process that borders on the farcical & potentially corrupt. The people of BC deserve an electoral process that is above reproach, and we must ensure that their voices are heard and protected to help uphold our democracy. This is a joint-venture by increasing the reward, please post your contribution amount in the comments below. All money will be rewarded.

Shared from https://x.com/JaymeKnyx/status/1850584332681052422

CanadaPoli News Source On Rigged BC Election

CIA Whistleblower: Weaponized Voting Machines: Venezuela, USA, Dominion Election Systems, Toronto

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Gary Berntsen: Hello, my name is Gary Berntsen. I’m a veteran of the United States Air Force and a retired Senior Operations Officer and Chief of Station of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For over three decades, I served in the US National Security apparatus in various capacities.

Shortly after the attacks of 11 September 2001, I entered Afghanistan and commanded CIA paramilitary forces, helping seize the cities of Talaqan and the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul.

I was the driving force and architect of the Battle of Tora Bora. I held the position as Chief of Hezbollah Operation in CIA’s Counterterrorism center for several years and concluded my service in CIA as a Chief of Station in Latin America, combating narco-terrorists.

Approximately six years ago, a business associate and I began working together as whistleblowers for the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). Our target was the largest and most well-funded transnational criminal organization on the planet called the Cartel del Sol, “Cartel of the Sun”.

The Cartel del Sol is the Venezuelan government and is led by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Diosdado Cabello, Minister of Defense Vladimir López Padrino, President of the National Assembly Jorge Rodríguez, and former Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence Hugo Carbajal, who was detained in Spain several years ago and extradited to New York. He is currently awaiting trial for narco-trafficking.

Venezuelan President Maduro has a US indictment and bounty of US $15 million for his capture. Diosdado Cabello has US indictment and a $10 million bounty on his head. At least six other Venezuelan cabinet members and senior officials are indicted.

In the last 20 years, the Cartel del Sol has stolen $1 trillion US dollars from Venezuela’s national oil company, PDVSA, and embezzled $500 billion US dollars from its national treasury. It not only has – but continues to produce and smuggle – 25 to 40 metric tons of cocaine every month, out of its country into the world.

The Cartel del Sol is a $2 trillion transnational criminal organization and the most well-resourced criminal syndicate in history. Through bribery and investments of its funds, it controls a dozen countries and world leaders. It has massive investments in the US and European financial markets and institutions.

As we conducted investigations against the Cartel del Sol and presented them, one after another to the US Department of Justice, we noticed and pursued leads from the Cartel’s money-laundering operations to the world of non-governmental organizations and election companies.

After witnessing election irregularities associated with the 2020 US Presidential Election, we decided to direct time and resources to Cartel del Sol links to US and global election fraud.

After an exhaustive three-and-a-half-year investigation, it is indisputable: Smartmatic Election Systems was created at the direction of now-deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, and its source code, the basis of its operating system developed jointly by Venezuela’s Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) and Smartmatic, was designed to allow election results to be altered without the knowledge of voters and the public.

Additionally, the Venezuelan CNE holds ownership of Smartmatic’s source code. Each time the Venezuelan CNE and Smartmatic update the source code, a copy of it is stored at the vault at the Venezuelan Central Bank.

In 2005, the European Union Electoral Observation Mission to Venezuela published a report, stating the Venezuelan regime owns Smartmatic’s source code. The Venezuelan government signed that report as factual.

Smartmatic’s first election in Venezuela was the 2003 Recall Election of Hugo Chavez. The CNE director at the time, Jorge Rodriguez, at the direction of the Cuban Directorate General of Intelligence, DGI, hired three Venezuelan-American computer engineers that were graduates of Simon Bolivar University, a Venezuelan university linked to the US University, MIT.

They had already registered a software company in Delaware and opened an office for it, in Boca Raton. The engineers, Antonio Mugica, Roger Piñate, and Alfredo Anzola, established Smartmatic at the direction of the Venezuelan regime, built the source code, and flew off to Italy to buy lottery machines from Olivetti to serve as election hardware. They succeeded in altering-up votes to ensure Hugo Chavez’s victory in the recall election.

Secure in power, President Chavez decided to weaponize this capability beyond Venezuela’s border. Smartmatic would enter into the US election market in Cook County, Illinois and the state of New Jersey for Democratic Party Primary races in 2006.

In 2005, Smartmatic orchestrated the purchase of Sequoia Voting Systems Inc, a US company. Sequoia was a company that had conducted elections in the US for over 100 years and had a 22% market share of the US electoral market.

Approximately 18 months later, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, CFIUS, began investigating the ownership of Smartmatic, because of Smartmatic’s Venezuelan connection.

Smartmatic immediately put its source code in the machines, in the Sequoia machines. Smartmatic tried to conceal its Venezuelan connection by hiring a former US Naval Officer, Jack Blaine, to set up a holding company, SVS Holding, to place its ownership of Sequoia in stock.

In December 2006, Smartmatic entered into an agreement with CFIUS to sell Sequoia in six months.

Antonio Mugica, one of the three original founders, then found a little-known election company in Toronto, Canada, Dominion Election Systems, that had only managed one small local election in Toronto. He arranged for Dominion to purchase Sequoia.

Dominion, owned by John Poulos, with that purchase of Sequoia would inherit the licensing agreement for Smartmatic’s source code, the source code owned by the Venezuelan regime, i.e., the Cartel del Sol.

To be clear, Smartmatic and Dominion would ultimately sign an agreement that provided Dominion with the US market and Smartmatic with the international global market. The only two exceptions are that Smartmatic does elections in Los Angeles County and Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was an issue they ultimately settled in court.

In Caracas, in a building owned by the CNE, the Concejo Nacional Electoral, more than 100 software engineers, half in the CNE and half in Smartmatic, worked side-by-side. Their effort for more than a decade was to perfect the techniques of altering elections and defeating audit.

In 2018, Smartmatic publicly, and with the approval of the Venezuelan regime, broke with the regime, the Cartel del Sol, because the Venezuelan CNE’s theft of an election was so egregious.

The techniques of the source code and machine operate and conceal a theft of an election when the spread of the candidates is between three to five percentage points. As sophisticated as the machine is, it can be defeated with significant turnout against it. The recent 2024 election in Venezuela was also so blatantly stolen and the machine could not conceal that massive spread, either.

In its place, a company called Xclay [?] took Smartmatic’s place as the election provider in Venezuela. Allowing Smartmatic to exit Venezuela in this fictitious manner allowed the regime to retain its power and influence over the global electoral market.

Smartmatic built a production facility for electronic voting equipment hardware just outside Beijing, China, and then shipped the hardware to a warehouse in Taiwan. In violation of US Law, the hardware was marked as “Manufactured in Taiwan” and shipped to both Smartmatic and Dominion, for use in US elections.

Dominion Voting Systems manages elections in almost all the Swing States in the US, which determines who wins the Presidency. We have evidence and witnesses that can prove the source code operating the election machines of both Smartmatic and Dominion and other election companies are owned by the Venezuelan NARPA regime.

We have evidence and witnesses proving the machines are manufactured in the People’s Republic of China.

Every citizen needs to be asking, “Where is the DOJ, FBI, CISA, and where is the CIA? Is anyone in the national security apparatus defending our democracy or enforcing the law?”

And if that isn’t enough to convince you there’s a major problem, Dominion, in an additional step to conceal its manipulation of US elections, moved its research and development and servers, which store Swing State voting information, to its office in Belgrade, Serbia!

In the Belgrade office, Venezuelan, Chinese, and Serbian software engineers maintain system administrative status over swing state elections and alter elections, as directed by the Cartel del Sol, the Cuban DGI, and the Chinese CCP.

The facility and its personnel are protected by Serbia’s counterintelligence service. Swing State voter information is saved on Huawei servers in Dominion’s Belgrade office. These servers are linked to Huawei servers in Hong Kong, China.

For years, the US National Security apparatus has identified Huawei and its technology as a threat to US National Security.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for cybersecurity and infrastructure, across all levels of government.

CISA has 3,100 employees and a $2.9 billion budget. In 2020, when faced with calls to address election irregularities, CISA did a conference call with Smartmatic and Dominion, in order to better able to address the public’s concerns and assure everyone that there had been “No irregularities”.

Yes, it’s shocking. CISA decided to consult the criminals in order to respond to the American public’s outcry.

In August 2024, three current and former executives of Smartmatic were indicted in Florida, in connection with bribery during the 2016 election in the Philippines. Among those arrested executives is Roger Peñate, one of the three founders and current President of Smartmatic. Roger Peñate paid $8.5 million in bail.

What the public will soon learn is that the bribery paid in the case was not to obtain a contract. The bribery was paid to alter election results.

We have the CNE source code, the source code employed by Smartmatic, Dominion, and others. We will surrender it to appropriate authorities.

Source code, like DNA, can easily be matched with other systems to prove that they are from the same family. In this particular case, it is a family of altering elections.

Two years ago, we briefed a senior FBI agent in Washington, DC. That agent, after seeing our three-hour presentation with corporate ownership documents, engineering specifications, and witness statements, told us to flee Washington, DC, that the FBI would actively work to destroy our efforts and seek ways to prosecute us, in order to stop our investigative efforts. That was a stunning moment, hearing those words from a 20-year veteran of the FBI.

Seven months ago, with our attorney, we briefed a US Attorney and two Assistant US Attorneys, Federal Prosecutors from the Department of Justice. The US Attorney told us he would forward the information to the Office of Public Integrity at the Department of Justice. That US Attorney followed up with us months later, to see if the Office of Public Integrity had contacted us. They never did.

Smartmatic, Dominion, and their media allies will immediately point to the fact that FoxNews settled with Dominion, paying US$787.5 million, and that Newsmax just settled with Smartmatic, this past week in a defamation case as, evidence of “Smartmatic and Dominion innocence”.

In FoxNews’ against Dominion, we briefed Fox News trial attorneys. Our lawyers were present when we did that. FoxNews corporate officers refused to be briefed directly for that case. They wanted plausible deniability.

FoxNews corporate knew we had significant evidence – and, more importantly, witnesses. When all the facts are known, Fox News executives and Board will have to explain why they went down on their knees for enemies of the U.S.

We briefed Newsmax’s corporate attorney, as well. Though their settlement with Smartmatic is not public, any settlement with either company and their masters, the Cartel del Sol, the Cuban DGI, and CCP, makes it more difficult for those of us trying to defend the country and our democracy.

I ask everyone to go to the website StolenElectionsFacts.com. That’s StolenElectionsFacts.com. Here, you will find articles and original source documents supporting the claim that Smartmatic and Dominion are employing a source code created and owned by the Venezuelan regime, with hardware manufactured in China that alters election results.

I will follow with other videos and statements to inform and educate others.

Best-selling author Ralph Pazullo has written the book, ‘Stolen Elections, the Plot to Destroy Democracy’. It will be released in late October. Mr Pazullo interviewed my whistleblower associate and I and several of our key witnesses. This is a must-read, to understand one of the greatest crimes ever committed against the United States.

This is an assault on our democracy.

Again, go to the website StolenElectionsFacts.com. Look at the timeline, the documents, and the original sources that are attached. Thank you for your time.

God bless America. We go forward.
https://stolenelectionsfacts.com

https://gazetteller.com/cia-whistleblower-confirms-rigging-plans-vote-rigging-machines-uncovered-white-hats-fighting-to-expose-massive-fraud-as-deep-states-plan-to-rig-2024-election-is-exposed

Dominion Voting System History: Ballot Fraud From Communist Venezuela?

By Kelly O’Connell ——Bio and Archives—November 19, 2020

INTRO: Dominion Voting System – Americans now realize voting, our most important undertaking, is mishandled byprivate companies. Dominion casts a long, troubled shadow over democracies, with 69 client countries and 28 US states. Dominion sits accused of massive US voter fraud. Overall, US e-vote machines are very vulnerable. For example, NBC reported in 2020 they found 35+ state voting systems online. 
Kelly O’Connell’s Dominion/Smartmatic Vote Fraud Series: • UNBELIEVABLE: George Soros Employee Owns Defective Switch-Vote Biden Machines • SHOCK: US Vote Machines First Used in Communist State to Throw Election by Subterfuge! • Dominion Voting System History: Ballot Fraud From Communist Venezuela?

Dominion Weakness: Little is known about the security of Dominion’s own IT systems

US Election Companies: Wharton asserts US elections are “characterized by a consolidated, highly concentrated market dominated by a few vendors, where industry growth and competition is consolidated.” Three companies rule, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Dominion, and Hart InterCivic, used by 92% of US voters, as Dominion services 40%. Smartmatic is another big US player. Dominion History: Dominion, founded by Canadian John Poulos in 2000, is now owned by Staple Street Capital LLC, says Bloomberg. Writes Forbes, “In 2009, Diebold Election Systems was sold to its competitor, ES&S, and in 2010 selling to Dominion Voting Systems”  gaining “all intellectual property, software, firmware, and hardware.” Dominion and Smartmatic contracted for 2010 and 2013 Philippines elections where claims of malfunction and fraud abounded. In 2016, seventy-one million voters in 1,635 jurisdictions used Dominion, also tied to the Clinton Foundation, and a $2.25 million project together. Robert Mueller’s firm Wilmer Hale was their agent in 2004. Dominion outsources components to China “…down to the chip component level.”  Dominion Weakness: Little is known about the security of Dominion’s own IT systems. Becker lists Dominion problems in 2020. Writes Forbes:

“How can a vendor sell a voting system with this many vulnerabilities?”

“Former WH Cybersecurity Coordinator, Michael Daniel, notes voting machine companies aren’t known for cybersecurity expertise. Jake Stauffer, AF cyber analyst tested Dominion voting systems for CA, observing: “I’ve found for voting systems, security isn’t taken very seriously.” Testing, Staufer found vulnerabilities in Dominion’s Democracy Suite (DDC) voting equipment enabling remote code execution, denial of service attacks, and off-line ballot tampering. “How can a vendor sell a voting system with this many vulnerabilities?” he asks.” Texas Rejects 2020: Washingtonwatch reported, “Texas rejected Dominion 3 timesfor elections.  “The examiner identified multiple hardware & software issues precluding Office of Texas Sec of State from determining DDC system satisfies each voting-system requirement set forth in TX Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns whether DDC system is suitable for intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.” Dominion Glitches: Of failures Brietbart states: “The election software “glitching” in GA & MI, which incorrectly gave Joe Biden thousands of votes, is used in 28 states, according to the software company’s website.” When Dominion blamed a day-before “update,” Politico wrote, “Supervisor, Marcia Ridley of Spalding County Board Elections says records show no such update occurred…That is something that they don’t ever do. I’ve never seen them update anything the day before the election.” Dominion then corrected this, admitting last update was Oct 31. Does this reveal fraud? 

Tainted companies threatening to destroy Trump’s original blowout victory over feeble Joe

Dominion Source Code Origin: The origin of Dominion’s source code is especially problematic, given Smartmatic being “adopted” by Hugo Chavez in 2004, subsidized, trained to build vote machines and code, then used to rig an election. And then Smartmatic acquired Sequoia in 2005, using it to evolve their software until selling in 2007 to Dominion. Smartmatic even went to court to preserve their right to use the code they developed. In other words, everything that was developed by Smartmatic and Sequoia, including the software allowing ballot fraud in Hugo Chavez’ failed recall, was passed onto Dominion.  CONCLUSION: Dominion Systems Hidden Power: Smartmatic machines were created for 2004 Venezuela elections, organized and funded by recipient Hugo Chavez. Then Dominion inherited it all. But questions still swirl  regarding if Dominion is just a front for Smartmatic, It’s no surprise a massive fraud envelops all these tainted companies threatening to destroy Trump’s original blowout victory over feeble Joe. Was the 1 million ghost ballot dump by Smartmatic in Venezuela’s 2017 election an accident, or vote fraud?  Here is the key question: If the engineers who ran Dominion wanted to commit massive ballot fraud against a US candidate, based on everything we know – Is there anything that could have stopped them? 

Kelly O’Connell——Bio and Archives

Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.

Shared from https://canadafreepress.com/article/dominion-voting-system-history-ballot-fraud-from-communist-venezuela

Did Dominion tabulators and phone voting compromise B.C’s election? Here’s what we know so far

PROOF Election Voting Machines Can Be HACKED | Elijah Schaffer

Michigan Judge Orders Release of Damning Forensics Report of Dominion Vote Tabulation System, Full Forensics Report

December 14, 2020 | sundance |

After considerable legal filings intended to block the release of a forensic report of Antrim County Dominion vote tabulation systems, a Michigan judge has lifted a gag order allowing the plaintiff, Allied Security Operations Group, to publicly release the findings.

The results of the forensic audit [Full pdf below], while limited only to the vote tabulations in Antrim county, are damning for the Michigan system of elections.

According to the audit:

“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.

The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud.

Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.

[…] The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

[…] It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch.

[…] A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail. Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years.

[…] Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable.

Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan.” (source)

Shared from https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2020/12/14/michigan-judge-orders-release-of-damning-forensics-report-of-dominion-vote-tabulation-system-full-forensics-report/

OP/ED: Panel Highlighted PRC’s Impacts on Canada

Insight from Garry Clement, Former Senior Mountie, on Foreign Interference Panel with MP Kevin Vuong, Charles Burton, Michel Juneau-Katsuya, and Sam Cooper.

By Garry Clement

The exposure led by The Bureau’s founder Sam Cooper and a panel of experts on politicians favoring relations with China has brought significant change, driving a critical reevaluation of foreign influence in Canadian domestic politics. Cooper’s investigative work, illuminating Chinese interference and the wider implications of foreign investments, has spurred public awareness and scrutiny, particularly around political figures engaging closely with China.

As this narrative unfolds, several pivotal effects are emerging:

1. Increased Accountability: Politicians now face heightened pressure to clarify their positions and associations with Chinese entities. Cooper’s findings have made transparency and integrity central concerns for voters, especially where national security is involved.
2. Shift in Political Discourse: The conversation around China has evolved from primarily economic opportunity to include concerns over human rights, cybersecurity, and geopolitical stability. Politicians must navigate these nuanced issues, balancing economic ties against shifting public sentiment.
3. Bipartisan Concerns: The panel’s findings have created a rare moment of bipartisan agreement on the risks of Chinese influence. This consensus could pave the way for stronger legislative measures to counter foreign interference, spanning campaign finance reform to trade policies.
4. Electoral Consequences: Politicians perceived as overly aligned with China risk electoral backlash. With growing public wariness of foreign influence, campaign strategies and candidate platforms may increasingly emphasize sovereignty and national security.
5. Policy Implications: This exposure may prompt a re-evaluation of trade, investment, and technology policies regarding China. As public opinion shifts, politicians may adopt tougher stances, influencing diplomatic relations and economic strategies.

In summary, Cooper’s work and the panel’s revelations serve as a catalyst for change, urging politicians to reassess relationships with China under increasing public scrutiny. This could signal substantial shifts in political behavior and policy as leaders respond to the rising emphasis on integrity and security.

The Impact of U.S. Congressional Decisions Regarding China on Canada

The ripple effects of U.S. Congressional actions on China have multifaceted implications for Canada. Key areas of potential influence include:

1. Trade Relations: With Canada and the U.S. economically interlinked, shifts in U.S. China policy—such as tariffs, trade restrictions, or new regulations—could alter Canada’s trade landscape, forcing Canadian businesses dependent on U.S. exports to adapt swiftly.
2. Supply Chain Adjustments: As Congress addresses supply chain security, Canada may find itself drawn into reshoring discussions or encouraged to diversify supply sources. While this could open new avenues for Canadian industries, it may also introduce challenges if alignment with U.S. priorities becomes expected.
3. Geopolitical Positioning: A firm U.S. stance on China could pressure Canada to align its foreign policy accordingly, impacting not only Sino-Canadian relations but also Canada’s rapport with other allies. This may necessitate a strategic re-evaluation of Canada’s broader foreign policy.
4. Investment Climate: Changes in U.S. investment policies regarding China may affect capital flows within North America. Canadian firms could benefit from redirected investments, though they might also encounter greater scrutiny if linked to Chinese entities.
5. Security Cooperation: A stronger U.S. posture on China could deepen Canada-U.S. security collaboration, from intelligence sharing to joint military exercises and cybersecurity initiatives, enhancing Canada’s role in North American security.
6. Public Sentiment and Domestic Politics: U.S. actions may shape Canadian public opinion on China, influencing domestic political debates. Rising public concern could pressure Canadian politicians to adopt tougher positions, reshaping electoral dynamics.

In conclusion, U.S. Congressional decisions regarding China could significantly impact Canada’s trade, security, and foreign policy. These shifts may prompt Canadian leaders to re-evaluate priorities and strategies within an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

Garry Clement consults with corporations on anti-money laundering, contributed to the Canadian academic text Dirty Money, and wrote Undercover, In the Shady World of Organized Crime and the RCMP

Shared from https://www.thebureau.news/p/oped-panel-highlighted-prcs-impacts

UPDATES On Recent BC Election

Judicial Recount of One Ballot Box in Prince George-Mackenzie, Corrections to Results Reported at Final Count

Elections BC says it has discovered that a ballot box containing 861 votes wasn’t counted in the recent provincial election, as well as other mistakes including 14 votes going unreported in a crucial riding narrowly won by the NDP.

The election agency says omission of the ballot box did not affect the result in the riding of Prince George-Mackenzie, while the unreported votes in Surrey-Guildford were discovered during preparations for a judicial recount in the riding, where Garry Begg’s 27-vote victory gave the NDP a one-seat majority.

More coming.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/WeAreWestCoastProud

Statement from the Chief Electoral Officer: Judicial Recount of One Ballot Box in Prince George-Mackenzie, Corrections to Results Reported at Final Count

This afternoon Elections BC is applying for a judicial recount for one ballot box in the Prince George-Mackenzie (PRM) electoral district, after discovering that votes from that ballot box were not counted or reported on election night. The ballot box contains approximately 861 votes and will not affect the outcome of the election in PRM.

I have also issued an Order of the Chief Electoral Officer to correct several errors in results reporting at final count. Election officials in five electoral districts erred by not reporting out-of-district results that had been recorded on 11 tabulator tapes (part of the ballot account). These errors were discovered during preparations for the judicial recounts in Kelowna Centre (KEC) and Surrey-Guildford (SRG) and were the result of human error. None of these results reporting omissions affect the outcome of any electoral district contest.

In both cases, the unreported votes represent less than 0.08% of all results reported. For context, across 93 electoral districts, there were approximately 2,500 ballot accounts in total. These reporting omissions impact a small number of votes in 69 electoral districts but comprise only 0.05% of total votes in those districts.

Final count for the 2024 Provincial Election concluded on October 28. Following the conclusion of final count, judicial recounts were confirmed in KEC and SRG because of the close margins in those races.

In BC elections, voters can vote anywhere in the province. This meant that ballots for KEC and SRG could be in any other district. To prepare for these recounts, election materials needed to be sent to KEC and SRG. These materials included ballots and tabulator tapes (from the associated ballot accounts). Elections BC began gathering these materials for shipment to KEC and SRG on October 29.

Election officials used data from Elections BC’s Electoral Information System to identify the location of the ballots and other election materials that needed to be shipped. During this process, an anomaly in the data for SRG was discovered. Upon investigation we determined that an election official data entry mistake had resulted in 14 votes for SRG not being reported.

My office immediately initiated a comprehensive province-wide review to determine if any other errors or omissions had occurred. The review occurred from October 30 to November 3.

The review identified the data entry omissions in five electoral districts. As noted, although the omissions affected results reporting in 69 electoral districts, the number of unreported votes per district was small and did not affect the outcome in those districts, or any requirements for judicial recounts. On Friday November 1 we disclosed this information to the Justices and parties involved in the judicial recounts and advised that we were continuing our review to ensure that any additional omissions were identified.

During this further review Elections BC determined that a single ballot box in Prince George-Mackenzie had not been counted and reported at initial count. This box contained approximately 861 votes, seven of which were out-of-district ballots. We are making application for a judicial recount for this ballot box to ensure that these ballots can be counted and added to the already reported votes in the districts. As previously stated, the addition of these results will not affect the outcome of the election in that district, or in the judicial recount districts.

The Order of the Chief Electoral Officer that I have issued will enable districts impacted by the data entry omissions to update their results before the end of the election period. This will ensure that the results reported in these districts are accurate and match what is recorded on the ballot accounts.

All parties and candidates affected by these omissions have been notified and informed of the measures being taken to address them.

Once judicial recounts are completed in SRG, KEC and PRM, we will update official results from those contests on our website and issue the report certifying the results of the election.

Our elections rely on the work of over 17,000 election officials from communities across the province. Unfortunately, unintentional human errors do occur in administering the vote. The use of Chief Electoral Officer Orders and the judicial recount process enables such errors to be corrected. These steps are critical to ensure all votes are accurately counted and reported prior to the end of the election period.

Shared from https://elections.bc.ca/news/statement-from-the-chief-electoral-officer-judicial-recount-of-one-ballot-box-in-prince-george-mackenzie-corrections-to-results-reported-at-final-count/

Judicial recounts in Kelowna Centre and Surrey-Guildford scheduled for November 7 and 8

The BC Supreme Court has confirmed that the judicial recounts in Kelowna Centre and Surrey-Guildford will take place on November 7 and 8.

Judicial recounts are conducted by the Court and led by a Supreme Court Justice. The Court determines when judicial recounts take place and how they are conducted.

Elections BC will report the results of the judicial recounts once they are complete.

Shared from https://elections.bc.ca/news/judicial-recounts-in-kelowna-centre-and-surrey-guildford-scheduled-for-november-7-and-8/

Kelowna Centre & Surrey-Guildford Ridings

Plans for Kelowna Centre’s Nov. 7 and 8 judicial recount are taking shape, while details about an election-night error have become more clear.

In a Monday morning hearing, BC Supreme Court Justice Alison Beames was told about a voting anomaly that became known at around 2 p.m. Oct. 30, by Elections B.C.

The organization spotted a data entry error, where 14 votes were counted but not entered into the voting system. A subsequent review that carried on until Nov. 3, found that 11 tabulator tapes from voting locations in five different electoral districts incompletely reported votes from those who cast a ballot outside their own electoral district. Through that process 780 votes had been counted but not reported were found.

Of all those votes found, only three impact the Kelowna Centre area, Beames was told. Those three votes will be returned to Kelowna in time for the judicial recount.

The Chief Electoral Officer issued a statement later in the day about the bungle, saying these errors were the result of human error and will not effect the election outcome.

“In both cases, the unreported votes represent less than 0.08 per cent of all results reported,” the statement read.

Although the omissions affected results reporting in 69 electoral districts, the number of unreported votes per district was small and did not affect the outcome in those districts, or any requirements for judicial recounts.

During the review another issue was discovered. Elections BC determined that a single ballot box in Prince George-Mackenzie had not been counted and reported at initial count.

The Chief Electoral Officer said the box contained approximately 861 votes, seven of which were out-of-district ballots.

“We are making application for a judicial recount for this ballot box to ensure that these ballots can be counted and added to the already reported votes in the districts,” the electoral officer said.

“As previously stated, the addition of these results will not affect the outcome of the election in that district, or in the judicial recount districts.”

As for the Kelowna recount, Beames was also told that the location of the recount was being firmed up and details would be revealed later in the week. Conditions for accredited media attending are also being discussed now.

In addition to Kelowna Centre, the Surrey-Guildford riding will also see a recount take place on Nov. 7 and Nov. 8.

Both ridings saw the margin of victory within the threshold to trigger judicial recounts after the final tally of mail-in and absentee ballots from the Oct. 19 election.

The NDP candidate is leading his Conservative opponent by 27 votes in Surrey-Guildford, while the margin between the Conservative candidate in Kelowna Centre over her NDP opponent is 38 votes.

Surrey Guildford was the only riding where the winner changed during the final ballot count, giving Premier David Eby’s NDP party the narrow majority of 47 seats.

Shared from https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/515540/Three-votes-headed-back-to-Kelowna-Centre-for-recount

.