The Perfect Crime
THE PERFECT CRIME
IS WHEN IT’S YOUR VOTE THAT WENT MISSING!
A man born with the name Michael King Jr., whose name was changed to Martin Luther King Jr., once said these profoundly important words in a letter that he wrote from a prison cell in Birmingham, Alabama, in April of 1963:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
Sixty years later we feel the same way about our votes: Missing votes anywhere are a threat to election integrity everywhere. That is why this article is entitled “The Perfect Crime is When It’s Your Vote That Went Missing!”
Just so you know, our election integrity data experts are at it again, and this time they have drilled down deep into the election data reporting details. You need to know what they have found because whenever votes are being denied or manipulated, the end result is the same – Your vote is affected indirectly.
Let’s go back to the start… Last year our data team discovered that Michigan’s authoritative voting history report, named the Qualified Voter File (QVF), was being manipulated at an alarming rate within the Secretary of State’s office. There is no question about it – it is a fact – and our state-level government elected and appointed persons should have done something about it. But they didn’t.
At that time we were all volunteering our time and talents for an organization called Election Integrity Fund and Force. You can find a series of reports detailing all of the “inaccuracies” in the 2020 election data reporting uncovered by our experts at their website linked here.
Again, we reiterate, we do not think that the men and women who work at local level jurisdictions are necessarily committing crimes, but we do believe that crimes are being committed by the misrepresentation of our votes, our voting histories, the method we use to cast our vote, and the way our votes are being recorded. And now there is even more proof.
You see, our volunteer data analysts learned new skills during the process of discovering how Michigan’s Qualified Voter File (QVF) records were being manipulated in 2020. As a result, for the 2022 election, our analysts were armed with a more highly developed understanding of how to work with Structural Query Language, more commonly known by data nerds as SQL. If it helps you to visualize the concept, SQL is a “specialized programming language designed for interacting with a database.” If you’d like a better understanding of SQL you can find it here.
The important thing for all of us to know is that our educated, experienced, and dedicated data gurus used this SQL functionality to go one step further: They analyzed voting records data from local jurisdictions to see if it matched the Statement of Votes Cast shown in the County reports. Our analysts then matched these results with the Qualified Voter File records provided by the Secretary of State, which is supposedly the official record of all eligible voters and their voter histories.
With this new ability to analyze the data at a deeper level, we can now go back and reexamine the 2020 election results, just one more time. That issue will be addressed at a later date, so that we are prepared to provide the full scope of data manipulation analysis to our law enforcement and judicial communities. We believe that they will need a thorough history of the established and consistent method of election theft that has been perfected over time and is destroying our Republic.
What our experts did discover back in 2020 was that there were 141 jurisdictions with missing votes, but they didn’t know how to do a deep dive into those missing votes. Now they do. And what they have found cannot and should not be brushed under the rug the way that evidence of election tampering in 2020 was allowed to be discredited, denigrated, denied, and destroyed.
We are also told that our data heroes didn’t request the “source data" back in 2020. The “source” that we are speaking of is the local municipalities and the “data” is the voter file information that has now been obtained by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in particular jurisdictions. Understand that, if we attempted to get the source data from the 2020 election today, the data would be completely different than it would have been if it were requested and received back in 2020 or 2021 and that is a crime.
Below is an example of what was discovered in particular jurisdictions across Oakland County for the elections in 2022.
You can see on the chart shown below that there are three rows of data (Reporting, Source Data and Delta) for three different Oakland County jurisdictions: Birmingham, West Bloomfield and Southfield. All of this data has come from verifiable official government documents.
The numbers in the Reporting row are the total city/township numbers that were initially reported by the clerks to Oakland County on or shortly after election day 2022. These are the same Reporting numbers shown on the Oakland County elections results website linked here:
The numbers shown in the Source Data row are the actual individually-cast vote records that were obtained from Birmingham, West Bloomfield and Southfield on January 28, 2023, through costly FOIA requests. It is very important to note that if we go back and pay for another round of FOIA requests in, say June of 2023, the cast vote records numbers will be entirely different. This is by design of our Qualified Voter File system to prevent the auditing of our past elections. Data manipulation of the QVF is a crime.
Michigan Election Law states in Section 168.932 that a person who violates one or more of a list of actions is guilty of a felony. One of those prohibited actions that cannot be violated is found in paragraph (c) which reads as follows:
“An inspector of election, clerk, or other officer or person having custody of any record, election list of voters, affidavit, return, statement of votes, certificates, poll book, or of any paper, document, or vote of any description, which pursuant to this act is directed to be made, filed, or preserved, shall not willfully destroy, mutilate, deface, falsify, or fraudulently remove or secrete any or all of those items, in whole or in part, or fraudulently make any entry, erasure, or alteration on any or all of those items, or permit any other person to do so.” (Bolding added for emphasis)
See Michigan Election Law PA 116 of 1954 Section 168.932 here:
Back to the discussion of the chart above.
The row labeled Delta is the “difference” between the numbers obtained through our January 28, 2023, FOIA requests and the numbers originally reported TO the County by the local jurisdictions and BY the County to the people.
You might be thinking, “Well, only 22 ballots went missing in Birmingham” and you might be inclined to shrug it off – unless you found out somehow that it was YOUR ballot and 21 of YOUR friends’ ballots that went missing. All of a sudden maybe we realize that we shouldn’t really shrug it off. Maybe we must and should demand complete accuracy and transparency. After all, “missing ballots anywhere are an injustice to election integrity everywhere.” And besides, it shouldn’t be that difficult to accurately track something as important as a ballot, should it?
Those missing votes would be bad enough if that were the whole story, but it isn’t the whole story.
The 22 missing ballots is the “delta” (aka difference) between two significantly higher ballot differences – Ballots AV (absentee) and Ballots IP (in-person). Here is the chart again. Please look at the two columns farthest to the right.
Again, the Delta row is the difference between numbers reported at the County level (Reporting row) and numbers reported on January 28, 2023, by the local jurisdiction clerk’s office (Source Data row). We are still waiting for the clerks to provide us with a record of every single cast vote ballot that would support the Reporting number of ballots cast on November 8, 2022.
The data that resulted in the 22 missing ballots in Birmingham City comes from 927 absentee ballots counted by the clerk’s office on January 28, 2023 (Source Data) that were not reported to or by the Oakland County elections personnel. Additionally, there were 949 in-person ballots reported by the Oakland County elections personnel that were not included in the Source Data from the City of Birmingham on January 28, 2023. These wide disparities in the data result in a seemingly insignificant difference of 22 ballots. But clearly, a much larger reporting issue is uncovered when you look below the tip of the iceberg. When looking at the numbers for West Bloomfield and Southfield, the same issue rears its ugly head.
Please understand that this same issue did not occur in most other jurisdictions in Oakland County. In fact, our analysis reveals that only 16 of 52 jurisdictions have the same suspect reporting results.
Why are our voting history records such a moving target and why aren’t our clerks complaining about this chaos? Many ballots are involved in this confusion, and in our example we are only looking at 3 out of the 1,520 cities and/or townships in the State of Michigan.
How could this be happening? And what does it suggest?
Our data gurus also indicated that the local jurisdiction numbers are closely aligned with what is reported in the State’s Qualified Voter File. So, if the jurisdiction data and the State QVF data matches, does it really matter that the County pipeline between the jurisdictions and the State got it wrong? Yes, it matters a great deal. The county numbers are shown as ONE NUMBER that is derived from adding all the voting precinct jurisdiction numbers together. There are 83 counties in Michigan, 280 cities, 1,240 townships and a total of 4,672 precincts in those 1,520 city/township municipalities. The individual data reports are too numerous for almost anyone to be able to look at or compare data from them or back to them, without the help of SQL.
The Secretary of State’s office is only reporting TOTAL numbers based upon the County Reporting data – which is where most people look at a difference of 22 votes in Birmingham City and shrug their shoulders, or they make a phone call to their local clerk who tells them that the number of voters can change on a daily basis because when someone moves to another location outside of the county, their voting history moves with them.
YES, you heard that right – OUR VOTING HISTORIES WHICH ARE STATIC NUMBERS REPRESENTING A CONCRETE ACTION TAKEN ON A DATE CERTAIN IN TIME ARE ACTUALLY BEING MANIPULATED SO THAT WHEN YOU MOVE FROM OAKLAND COUNTY TO MACOMB COUNTY, the number of VOTES CAST in previous elections is moved from Oakland County to Macomb County. (We are sorry for shouting ABOUT IT but THIS is how CHAOS is inserted into the aggregate numbers so that it is impossible for the average citizen to ever know exactly who voted where, when, and in what manner – absentee or in-person – unless your local clerk chooses to provide you with that data – and just so that you know, this information is available to them).
We must insist that this is being done by design; it is as illegal as it can possibly get; and it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Let’s finish this chapter of a very long story as we continue to put these puzzle pieces together (thanks to SQL and our data geniuses) by using Oakland County as an example because Oakland County, to their credit, provides county level data that is easy to analyze. Most counties do not. Our data wizards compared the Oakland County reporting results to the State-level official data results known as the Qualified Voter File (QVF).
Let’s first establish that it is true that we cannot get a QVF report based upon data compiled by the seventh day after an election (which, by the way, is the law in Michigan). It is also true that, within four weeks after the election when we are able to get a QVF from the Secretary of State, there are already built-in problems with the data: People move out of Oakland County (or the State) so their voting histories are altered in the QVF; people move into Oakland County so their voting history becomes a new addition to the local jurisdiction source data, and people can request that their registration information be deleted from the QVF – all are subtle little actions that add up to complete chaos, even though NONE of these actions should change a voter’s history in the QVF.
So again, this built-in chaos makes it impossible to balance our votes to a level of total accuracy with zero differences. Consider the top 3 examples of complete and utter malpractice. The jurisdictions below are not even close to the reported values for ballots cast, in-person, and absentee votes as compared to the QVF for the November 2022 election. In a nutshell, the QVF data does not support the County reporting, and it’s the County reporting that is used by the Secretary of State to determine election results.
