colinnew
A majority of Americans are experiencing distrust in our elections in the United States according to recent polling data. What should be simple counting machines are hidden behind extravagant coding, “intellectual property” claims, and ownership by complex private equity firms.
The federal government hasn’t updated their guidelines for these machines and their “security” since years before the iPhone was in existence. And now we find out that one federal agency may actually be fabricating documents to cover for their inadequacies. This should not be a partisan issue: these machines must go.
The fact that the Elections Assistance Commission Commission (EAC) did not have a valid accreditation certificate for voting machine testing laboratory Pro V&V prior to the 2020 election has been disclosed in numerous court cases and testimony to state legislatures. Yet, somehow, they seem to ignore this incredible fact. The Gateway Pundit reported on this previously while also talking about the conflict of interest that exists with these “testing” labs being paid by the companies they are “testing” for.
But last month, a new discovery was made by citizens investigating the disastrous 2020 election that was riddled with fraud, violations of state and federal laws, chain of custody violations, and destruction of evidence. Citizen investigators Kevin Moncla and David Cross discovered that not only was Pro V&V not properly accredited, the coverup to make it seem like they were involved the falsification of documents by EAC Testing and Certification Director, Jerome Lovato.
According to an official complaint submitted by Moncla and Cross to the Georgia State Elections Board in August, their investigation “has uncovered evidence which calls into question, not only the validity of Georgia’s voting system certification, but the accreditation of the Voting System Testing Laboratory, and the credibility of the EAC itself.”
- Pro V&V’s EAC Voting System Testing Lab Accreditation expired in 2017.
- EAC officials have falsely misrepresented the accreditation status of
Pro V&V and have gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the fact
that Pro V&V’s accreditation was expired for an extended period of
time.- Records and analysis strongly suggest that the EAC fabricated
documents on behalf of Pro V&V then posted those documents
on the EAC website. Seemingly this was done in an effort to
make it appear as though the required documents had been timely
submitted. - Following the 2020 General Election, the EAC falsely claimed
that the reason Pro V&V’s accreditation certificate(s) had not
been issued was because of:- Delays caused by COVID-19
- Administrative Error
- Accreditation wasn’t revoked
- Georgia’s current voting system was not certified in accordance with
the Help America Vote Act. The voting system Georgia purchased
was not tested by an EAC accredited Voting System Testing Lab as
required thereby rendering the EAC certification invalid based upon
the established requirements.
- Records and analysis strongly suggest that the EAC fabricated
The significance of the EAC fabricating documents on behalf of Pro V&V not only further exacerbates the public distrust in this federal organization, it also calls into question whether the Dominion machines in Georgia were ever certified, seeing as how they are brand new and were never used prior to Pro V&V’s last certificate of accreditation.
According to the Complaint:
On September 11, 2019, an attorney representing the Coalition for Good Governance in a
pending federal lawsuit (Curling v. Raffensperger) sent an email to Ryan Germany, General
Counsel for the Georgia Secretary of State. The email inquired about the accreditation
status of Pro V&V who had tested Georgia’s Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5A(G) voting
system that the EAC had subsequently certified. Specifically, the email states in part:
“3. Finally, we understand that Pro V+V served as the testing agent for the
EAC and also to provide some functional testing for the State’s certification
of the BMD system. We have been unable to find a current EAC certificate
of accreditation for Pro V+V. The certificates seem to have been removed
from the EAC website, and the latest ones we can locate expired in 2017.
Can you please advise whether Pro V+V is an accredited testing lab,
certified by the EAC?
Under the Pro V&V records page on the EAC website, there was a document posted 6 days after the Ryan Germany letter referenced above. The file with the filename “Pro V&V letter of agreement.pdf” should still be able to be downloaded. This document, unlike the March 2020 one found here, is missing a date and a signature, as required by the EAC.
Another unusual discrepancy with the seemingly fabricated document is the creation of the header. When the header for the “2015” document created on 9/17/2019 by “jlovato” is opened in Photoshop, it is actually two separate images as if someone cut and pasted it together, unlike the 3/10/2020 header that is also pictured below:
And the last glaring discrepancy, besides the misspelling in their address on their “official letterhead” (“boulevards” instead of “boulevard”), is the address listed for the EAC. Even if this document was actually created in 2015 as they claim and not 9/17/2019 as the metadata evidences, the address for the EAC is incorrect. According to the Complaint, the address for the EAC changed to 1335 East West Highway, MD on October 22, 2013, two years before the “original” date and 6 years before the actual created date.
The EAC went on to claim that there was a discrepancy in accreditations due to “COVID-19”. Well, clearly there wasn’t COVID-19 in 2017 when their most recent accreditation certificate on the EAC website was posted. And since the accreditation is only 2 years, the new accreditation would have expired February 2019, which is a full year before the pandemic caused any “outstanding circumstances” in the United States.
So the EAC is not only missing the most current accreditations of Pro V&V, they would also be missing their 2019 renewal documentation as well. Mr. Lovato tries to play semantics in his memo about this topic by stating that “The EAC has never voted to revoke the accreditation of Pro V&V.” No one is making that claim. We are claiming it expired. Expiration and revocation are not the same. One is automatic and the other is a manual action taken, respectively.
We now not only have sufficient evidence that Pro V&V was not accredited for the 2020 election or since Feb. 2017, which also implies not a single machine tested by them in the entire United States should be valid, but we also now have evidence that the EAC Director of Testing and Certification Jerome Lovato fabricated documents on behalf of Pro V&V to retroactively cover their proverbial butts.
I believe Mr. Moncla and Mr. Cross summed it up best:
As we mark the EAC’s 20th year, we must acknowledge that the EAC has failed to develop
and maintain voting system testing guidelines, failed to oversee the accreditation of testing
labs, and failed to test our country’s voting systems to a remotely reasonable standard. The
fact is that EAC has miserably failed to perform not only its core mission, but all missions
for its entire existence.
The actions of the EAC as detailed herein extend far beyond mere failure. The EAC has
fabricated a fraudulent record for Pro V&V and has repeatedly, knowingly, and intentionally
misrepresented the expired accreditation status of a Voting Systems Testing Laboratory to
the American people. The EAC’s deceptive practices have fostered a false sense of security
and materially violated their responsibilities under the HAVA in both letter and spirit of the
law.
The inherit standard of any established institution or industry does not exist with voting
systems in the United States. There is no benchmark, no independent method of testing, no
oversight, and therefore there is no alternative but for the States to perform their own due diligence in testing our voting systems.
Wherefore, the Georgia State Election Board must immediately suspend use of the
Dominion voting systems until a thorough, review by a panel of independent experts can be
performed.
I highly recommend you read the report in its entirety and subscribe to the substack here. Hat tip Kevin Moncla and David Cross.
EDIT:
The EAC has issued a response to our inquiry.
“For your two questions on the ProV&V documents, the created date is likely due to the redesign and migration of the EAC’s website to a new platform in 2019. Additionally, we are often sent word documents that we convert into PDFs and check/correct for 508 compliance prior to posting on our website. That could change the metadata of the file in terms of who created/modified/etc.”
This explanation is bizarre because it seems as though the document was a pdf already and converted to a pdf. And the explanation still does not explain that cut and paste header, the misspelling in the header, the lack of a date or signature (as required by EAC regulation) and the fact that the document was never posted online (as required) until after the 2020 election when inquiries began.
Those questions were all asked as well and the article will be updated as responses come in.
