reSee.it - Related Video Feed

When I started recording ballot numbers and names from mail-in ballots, I noticed they were in sequence, which is unusual. The envelopes had no date, just "November 0-2020." When I questioned this, I was told not to interfere. The ballots were all from the same street in Detroit, with similar signatures and no date stamp. They weren't in the system and were being entered manually. It seemed suspicious.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

County technical employees reported independently that the vote counts recorded by machines and stored on USB drives changed overnight after polls closed. Votes seemed to appear and disappear during this time. When we sought to verify the integrity of these voting machines, we were only permitted a superficial visual inspection of the USB drives and denied a forensic examination.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

I found that there were approximately 25,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were not printed from the official Dominion PDF ballot. These ballots had imperfections in the lines and circles, unlike the perfect PDF printing. The imperfections were consistent across all the ballots, suggesting they were not genuine. These 25,000 questionable ballots alone exceed Joe Biden's margin of victory by over double.

A poll worker noticed that absentee ballot numbers were in sequence, which should not occur with mailed ballots. The worker noticed ballot numbers like 2232 next to 2233. The worker asked a supervisor about the envelopes lacking a specific date, showing only "November 0-2020," but was rebuked. The poll worker stated the sequential ballot numbers were all from the same area, Guarded Street in downtown Detroit, and the signatures looked alike. The envelopes had no date stamp and were missing the day of the month. The ballots were not in the system and were being entered manually, even though the details were not in the poll book.

Clark County Technical employees independently found votes appearing and disappearing at night. They were only allowed a visual inspection of a USB drive, not a forensic examination.

The speaker describes irregularities observed in absentee/mail-in ballots. They claim that the ballot numbers and the last names on the ballots were in sequence, which should not happen with mail-in ballots because those ballots are supposed to arrive at different times and cannot be sequential like 2-2-3-2 next to 2-2-3-3. This pattern triggered the speaker’s concern, leading them to think something was wrong. The speaker states they began noticing that the numbers were almost adjacent to each other, with one hovering around the middle. This prompted them to raise questions about the process. They then asked the supervisor for clarification, but the supervisor reacted angrily, saying, “you’re not letting us do our job. You’re disturbing us.” Feeling hesitant to push the issue further for fear of being kicked out and wanting to stay in the room due to a lack of other observers, the speaker chose not to challenge the process more than they already had. They allege that the sequence of ballot numbers came from the same area, specifically Goddard Street in Downtown Detroit, and that the signatures on those ballots were all alike. The speaker notes several additional anomalies: envelopes had no date stamp, only the word “November 2020” without a more specific date, and there was no second or third numbering visible. They observed that none of these ballots were coming up in the voting system; instead, they were being entered manually. The speaker claims that the poll book or the system would not reflect these details, implying that the ballots were processed outside the normal electronic recordkeeping. In summary, the speaker alleges a pattern of sequential ballot numbers and similar signatures associated with absentee ballots from a single street area, envelopes without proper dating, and manual entry into the system rather than through standard digital processing, with the supervisor resisting questions about these irregularities.

During the Arizona audit, Maricopa County made it clear that signature verification was off-limits. However, it's easy to understand why they didn't want us to examine the signatures because, in reality, they don't match.

Signature verification is a process used to determine the legitimacy of a vote by comparing the voter's ballot envelope to the affidavit. In the 2020 election, 420,987 ballot envelopes failed signature verification, and the system was never fixed. As a result, the same issues persisted in the 2022 election, leaving the system vulnerable.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

A scanner can only scan one dollar per second, but there are 4,000 ballots with the exact same time stamp of November 5th at 11:19:40. This suggests that these ballots may have been inserted and cannot be authenticated. The main question is whether this time stamp, which shows an unbelievable speed of scanning, is from the EMS system and not something we created.

I just finished voting, but there was an issue. When I presented my ID, the clerk informed me that their records showed I had requested, received, and returned a mail-in ballot, which I hadn't done. As a result, I had to cast a provisional vote and sign an affidavit stating I never received or returned an absentee ballot. Now, I need to call a number after election day to check if my vote was counted. It makes me wonder how many others faced similar issues, raising questions about the fairness and reliability of the voting system.

I went to vote and found out someone with my exact name and birthday in the same state has already voted. When they scanned my license, it showed I had voted, but I haven't. My name is unique, and the only difference was the address. This seems strange, especially since I'm not registered to vote, which might explain the issue. Overall, it feels sketchy.

In recounting votes, I've noticed that simply comparing hand counts to machine counts doesn't address the origin of the ballots being counted. Often, we don't even know which precinct a ballot came from, especially when dealing with two-sided ballots. We focus solely on the vote itself without considering the front of the ballot. Additionally, the image quality of these questionable ballots in Pennsylvania and Arizona is not being examined during the recount process.

This is the duplication room. I observed the preparation of a new ballot because the original was soiled and wouldn't go through the tabulators. I read a Trump Republican ballot, and when it was entered, the system defaulted to a Biden Democratic ballot. We reported this to supervisors, and others confirmed they witnessed similar issues. We were not informed of any corrective actions taken. The next day, the supervisor reprimanded me for raising concerns about the machines, and I was told I could not discuss the situation. Many were threatened with being removed from the room if they spoke up. I feel it is my duty to share the truth.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the ballot numbers and names on absentee and mailing ballots. The numbers were almost consecutive, and some envelopes lacked a date. When the speaker questioned this, they were met with resistance. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures and no date stamp. None of these details were entered into the system, and they were being manually entered. The speaker suspected something was amiss but didn't challenge further to avoid being kicked out.

During the election, there were damaged mail-in ballots that couldn't be read by scanners. The board decided to duplicate these ballots using pink highlighters. However, the highlighter couldn't be read by the scanners either, so all the duplicated ballots had to be fixed. The solution was to give workers stacks of blank mail-in ballots to individually fill in the correct ovals with a dark pen. This process went on for hours without observation until the observers confronted the deputy commissioner. Eventually, thousands of mail-in ballots were counted this way. This raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

I noticed that the ballot numbers and last names on the absentee and mail-in ballots were in sequence, which is unusual because these ballots should come in different numbers. This raised my suspicion. I asked about the date on the envelopes, but there was only November 0, 2020, with no second number. When I questioned this, the supervisors became angry and accused me of disrupting their work. I didn't want to be kicked out, so I didn't challenge anything further. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures, and there was no date stamp after 0. None of these ballots were showing up in the system and were being manually entered, even though they knew these details wouldn't be in the poll book or system.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

The speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

A senior law enforcement officer witnessed unauthorized individuals inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite demands for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no remedy available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unconscionable. Translation: A senior law enforcement officer saw unauthorized people inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite requests for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no solution available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unethical.

The speaker noticed a batch of absentee ballots that stood out because they were in pristine condition, unlike the others which were worn. These ballots had no folds and felt different. One ballot had a white eclipse in the bubble where it should have been filled. As they sorted the ballots, they realized that a significant number of them were exactly the same, with no folds. One ballot in the stack was also misaligned. Additionally, instead of the usual 100, this batch had 110 ballots, which was unusual.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware of this. The speaker then questions if the person instructed the absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person says they did not. The speaker shows examples of envelopes with and without the clerk's signature, and asks if the one without should have been counted. The person agrees that it should not have been counted. The speaker asks if the person ever checked for the clerk's signature on envelopes, and the person says it never came up in their training.

I sent my concerns to the Secretary of State before the election, expecting them to forward it to the right people. After the election, I followed up with my post-election concerns, but I haven't received a response from the Secretary of State. I attended a Board of Elections meeting last week and planned to testify about securing the ballots. However, I was muted just 15 seconds into my presentation.