reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

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.

Expert testifies that the signature verification process in Maricopa County is flawed. The workers are unable to properly review signatures due to technical limitations. The log data reveals that a large number of ballots were approved in less than 3 seconds each, with one worker approving all signatures at this speed. Eleven workers approved 170,000 signatures in less than 3 seconds with a high approval rate. This process does not constitute a thorough signature review. Maricopa County was aware of these issues and could monitor their workers.

Speaker 0 questions why someone would change their signature after 30 years. They mention that the person has now changed their signature on a website, and wonders if it is strange.

An expert was asked their opinion on the validity of election numbers certified by the secretary of state and the governor. The expert stated that if they were an executive at a publicly traded company, they would never sign off on those numbers, citing the risk of jail time and financial penalties from lawsuits. They concluded that they would never have certified the results and would have resigned instead.

The speaker, Jordan Conrad, questions Miss Hobbs about authorizing additional testing and the signatures on mail-in ballot updates. He accuses her of being unaware that the signatures do not match those of the voters. Miss Hobbs, as the secretary of state, oversaw elections in Maricopa County and Arizona. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker using profanity and asking if Miss Hobbs said something disrespectful.

We provided our data to Dr. Walter Dougherty, a qualified expert in computer sciences and engineering. He reviewed the declarations and analytic data we presented and concluded that there were 99.99 signatures that could have been introduced into the 2022 election due to the broken system. This information is detailed in exhibit 4. Dr. Dougherty will explain the scientific math he used, which is industry standard.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

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.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that there are no records of these required signatures, and it's unknown who used the AutoPen. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

The speaker was contacted to assist with examining ballots during the audit in Maricopa County. However, they were only able to examine photographs of the ballots, not the actual ballots themselves. They noticed that many of the ballots had a counterfeit protection system (CPS) code, but the photographs were not clear enough to determine what the code said. The CPS code is a series of yellow dots that can determine when and where a document was printed. It is visible to a trained eye or with magnification, but not to the naked eye. The code can provide information about the machine and date of printing. However, without access to the actual ballots, the speaker cannot draw any conclusions.

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with experience in over 2,000 cases worldwide. I specialize in examining questioned documents for authenticity, alterations, and ink age. I was called to Arizona to analyze election-related printing processes, machine copied marks, and CPS code with my team.

Signature verification has been a controversial topic in Maricopa County, often avoided in discussions. This was evident during the Arizona audit, where the county firmly opposed any scrutiny of signatures. The reluctance to examine these signatures suggests that there are discrepancies, as they do not match.

The speaker discusses the investigation into Barack Obama's birth certificate. They mention working with forensic document examiners and digital technicians to analyze two birth certificates from Hawaii. The speaker claims that nine points of forgery were found, including copied words, letters, and date stamps. They focus on the similarity of the angles of the date stamps on both birth certificates, suggesting intentional alteration. The speaker concludes that the birth certificate belonging to Johanna Ani was used as a source document for Obama's birth certificate. They emphasize the significance of these findings and the disturbing nature of the situation.

In this video, the speaker presents an example comparing two signatures. On the left is the signature on a valid envelope, while on the right is the signature on a voter registration card. The speaker points out that the signature on the envelope was accepted without being verified. Then, the speaker asks the audience to determine whether the signatures pass or fail.

I believe it was Florence who said that none of us think our signatures are consistent enough over time, especially since getting our driver's licenses. While some senators have shown interest in the process, there seems to be a lack of media attention and interest from the minority party.

I'm Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code used for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the analysis.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that no such signatures exist and the origin of the AutoPen use is unknown. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

Maricopa County has been resistant to discussing signature verification during the Arizona audit because the signatures don't match.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are familiar with the acronym GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). Speaker 1 says they became familiar with it in accounting 101 at Wharton. Speaker 0 asks what they were taught about GAAP, and Speaker 1 says they were taught that it is generally accepted. Speaker 0 asks if there is anything else, and Speaker 1 says that's all they remember. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has told them everything they know about GAAP, and Speaker 1 says basically yes. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been employed in a position that required them to apply GAAP, and Speaker 1 says no, not that they are aware of.

In this video, the speaker discusses the analysis of ballot curing in Maricopa County. They compare the conservative case, where 11.29% of ballots should have been cured, to the county's curing rate of 1.31%. The speaker highlights that the number of ballots that should have been cured is far greater than what the county actually cured. They also mention that based on the extended study, a minimum of 4,965 ballots should have been thrown out due to signature mismatches, compared to the county's 587. The conclusion is that the county's signature verification process is flawed, contradicting their claim of having a rigorous process.

I am Eric Spikin, a forensic chemist and document analyst with extensive experience in examining questioned documents. I have worked on over 2,000 cases across 5 continents and my expertise has been recognized by various media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, America's Most Wanted, Forensic Files, and Good Morning America. Recently, I was asked to investigate election-related matters in Arizona, focusing on printing processes, machine copied marks, and the CPS code for counterfeit protection. I traveled to Arizona with three colleagues from my office to conduct the examination.

Speaker 0 states that whatever a machine tabulates is what it tabulates, and their hand-marked ballot remains the same. Speaker 1 claims ballot images were changed, and that's reflected in the totals, referencing report number 3. Speaker 0 says they've read the reports. Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 knows what they're saying is true. Speaker 1 says their life is on the line. Speaker 0 denies believing Speaker 1 and finds it insulting to have that put on the record. Speaker 1 apologizes, stating that wasn't their intent.

The speaker discusses the discrepancies in the date stamps and other elements of Barack Obama's birth certificate. They explain that the stamps on the document do not match exactly, indicating that it may be a forgery. They conducted extensive investigations and consulted forensic experts who concluded that the birth certificate is fraudulent. The speaker also mentions their attempts to validate the document with the state of Hawaii and Kapiolani Medical Center, but they were met with resistance. They emphasize the need for thorough vetting of documents presented by public officials and call for standardization of security paper for birth certificates.