BREAKING Court Hearing 7/21:GOP lawsuit wants to stop ballot-counting machines in Arizona

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
  • Apr 25, 2022 Updated Jun 3, 2022
GOP lawsuit wants to stop ballot-counting machines in Arizona

Mark Finchem and Kari Lake confer earlier this year on the House floor. Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services


PHOENIX — Two Republicans seeking statewide office are asking a federal judge to block the use of machines to tabulate the votes in Arizona in the 2022 election.

[Update 7/18/22 The court will hear this case on July 21,2022 at 9:00 AM. The hearing is scheduled to last 5 hours with two hours for plaintiffs to present their case and three hours for the defense's refutation. It will be covered live on frankspeech.com as breaking news through periodic interruptions to existing programs] - ED]

Gubernatorial hopeful Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, running for secretary of state, contend that the machines are unreliable because they are subject to hacking. And they say that the use of components in computers from other countries makes them vulnerable.

But attorney Andrew Parker who filed the lawsuit on their behalf said there is something even more basic.

He said that the tabulation of votes is an inherently governmental function. Yet by using machines built and programmed by private companies the state has effectively farmed that out.

And what’s worse, Parker said in his filings, is that the technology is kept secret from the public.

“This lack of transparency by electronic voting machine companies has created a ‘black box’ system of voting which lacks credibility and integrity,’’ he wrote in a copy of the lawsuit furnished to Capitol Media Services.

What he wants is a court order to have the 2022 election conducted with paper ballots which would be counted by hand, calling it “the most effective and presently the only secure election method.’’

Neither Lake nor Finchem would agree to be interviewed on the lawsuit.

But Lake, in a Facebook interview with Trump supporter Mike Lindell, said the litigation is the result of what she believes was a stolen 2020 election.

“We know how tragic it was that this election (was) corrupted the way it was here in Arizona,’’ she said. “And we don’t want it to happen again.’’

The lawsuit also cites what Parker said were “irregularities and evidence of illegal vote manipulations’’ in voting systems used in the 2020 election. While most of the incidents were from elsewhere, the list includes claims from the Cyber Ninjas “audit’’ of Maricopa County’s election process about things like software and patch protocols not being followed and missing files.

County officials responded to each of the allegations months ago, saying those findings were in error and proved that Cyber Ninjas, which had never done such a review, clearly did not understand election equipment, procedures or laws.

[Patently false. Dominion algorithms have already been uncovered in Antrim County. MIchigan's lawsuit. In particular the Antrim County Forensics Report revealed fraudulent Dominion results. The judge refused to allow the case to proceed further. - ED]

But Parker also said the lawsuit is not an attempt to undo the 2020 presidential results in Arizona which gave Joe Biden the state’s 11 electoral votes.

“It is only about the future — about upcoming elections that will employ voting machines designed and run by private companies, performing a crucial governmental function, that refuse to disclose their software and system components and subject them to neutral expert evaluation,’’ he wrote. “It raises the profound constitutional issue: Can government avoid its obligation of democratic transparency and accountability by delegating a critical government function to private companies?’’

At the heart of the complaint are the contentions by some, particularly among those like Lake and Finchem who still deny the results of the 2020 election, that it was stolen. While some of the issues involve unproven allegations that forged ballots were inserted into the system, there has been a consistent litany of complaints that the hardware and software used to tally ballots was hacked or, worse, was programmed to produce a win for Biden.

“The parallels between the statistical analysis of Venezuela and this year’s election are astonishing,’’ wrote Cyber Ninjas owner Doug Logan even before being hired by Senate President Karen Fann to review the results. That refers to claims that there was a link between Dominion Voting System and the family of now-deceased dictator Hugo Chavez.

“I’m ashamed how few Republicans are talking about it,’’ Logan said.

Parker makes no such claims. Instead he wants a judge to prohibit the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona “unless and until the electronic voting system is made open to the public and subjected to scientific analysis by objective experts to determine whether it is secure from manipulation or intrusion.’’

Arizona does have various systems designed to check equipment.

For example, counties are required to conduct “logic and accuracy’’ tests, both before and after the official tally. That process, done in public, involves taking a known set of ballots and running them through the tallying equipment to ensure that the results reported by the machines matches what actually has been marked.

Parker contends those tests don’t prove anything to deal with what he said are “security problems inherent in the use of electronic voting machines.’’

“All post-election audit procedures can be defeated by sophisticated manipulation of electronic voting machines,’’ he claims.

He specifically cited the refusal of Dominion to surrender its passwords to Cyber Ninjas for examination, with Dominion attorneys saying granting such access to the workings of its equipment violated the company’s protections against illegal search and seizure.

But what Parker does not mention is that there was an agreement between the Senate and the county that allowed three independent experts, including one recommended by the Senate, to examine the equipment. They reported that the system was not connected to the internet and that there was no evidence of data deletion, data purging, data overwriting or other destruction of evidence.

In seeking a court order, Parker wants more than just the use of paper ballots in 2022.

He also wants each ballot to have a unique identification number known only to the voter so each can tell if his or her ballot was counted properly. And Parker said each ballot would be printed on specialized paper that cannot be counterfeited.

The Republican-controlled legislature actually mandated the use of “anti-fraud ballot paper’’ in 2021. But it was voided by the Arizona Supreme Court which ruled that the provision was placed illegally into unrelated budget legislation.

A similar measure was introduced this year but has not been approved.

While the issue of voting machines has largely been a Republican talking point, the lawsuit does have at least one indication of bipartisanship: attorney Alan Dershowitz is part of the legal team.

“You have to understand I’m a liberal Democrat,’’ he said during the Lindell Facebook interview.

“I’m happy with the results of the election,’’ Dershowitz said. “This is about whether or not votes are being properly counted.’’


Climate Change Reformulated Gasolines Reduce Mileage and Produce Negligible Emission Benefits

by Staff

The EPA has mandated gasoline reformulation for nine major metropolitan areas throughout the country to control volatile organic emissions, ground level ozone, carbon monoxide ‘CO’ and nitrogen oxide or ‘NOx’ compounds. Fuel formulations can vary significantly depending on where one lives. These regulations have been in effect since the passage of the 1991 Clean Air Act.

Carbon monoxide is credited with triggering ozone alerts and nitric oxide or ‘NOx’ compounds with acid rain so essential for proper nitrification of the soil. Today’s automobiles no longer contribute to the formation of smog removing ground level ozone, as in the past because of the automobile’s catalytic converter, which oxidizes carbon monoxide, i.e. ‘CO’ directly to carbon dioxide or ‘CO2’.

(1) CO + ½ O2 --> CO2

It should be noted that reaction (1) occurs in open atmosphere given sufficient time. However, on hot sunny days, ozone (2) forms to attack and degrade the carbon  monoxide much more readily.

(2) CO + O3 --> CO2 + O2

CO2 does not cause the formation of ground level ozone as carbon monoxide. So, what scientific justification might there be for the EPA to require the use of re-formulated gasoline's? Well, there’s still the issue of NOx compounds, the source of acid rain, so essential for soil fertilization.

Environmental groups have pressured the federal government to institute further restrictions on automobile emissions. What environmentalists try to get the public to believe is that the small quantity of fuel that escapes from the vehicles gas tank, i.e. about 0.1% escapes in automobiles of the past generating smog while they conveniently ignore the hydrocarbon emissions of conifer and deciduous trees which also causes smog. Remember, It was former President Ronald Reagan who first said trees pollute emitting substances known as mono-terpenes.  See Appendix 'G' at the bottom to see how to determine them.. When days contain 12 hours of sunlight or more, a tree produces about a gallon of tree aromatics per year.

1.0 gm/hr  x  10 hrs avg sunlight /tree-day  x 1 lbm/453.6 gm  x  365 days/ yr  x 1 gal tree Aromatics /7.187 lbm  = 1.12 gal aromatics/tree-yr                                                                                                                             

So How effective is ethanol in reducing auto emissions? To answer that question will require the use of a mathematical model and a simplified fuel formulation, which can easily be modified to develop the computations used in exhaust pollutant concentrations and gasoline mileage.

We will demonstrate the negligible environmental benefits of blended gasoline's and debunk the philosophy in which hides a vast network of suppliers and provocateurs anxious to get their hands on public money. We begin by choosing a test model, an older style vehicle without pollution controls to simply the calculations and tabulate the vehicle emissions. A simplified gasoline formulation, one in use a number of years ago, containing lead tetra-ethyl has been selected. The representative gasoline formulation was developed for testing in an EXCEL spread sheet simulator that conserves mass and energy. Each component listed includes its structural formula, weight, molecular weight, density and the number of component moles it adds to overall gasoline composition.

A series of simple alkane hydrocarbons was assumed and adding simple octane, without consideration of any of its18 isomers, to develop simulated engine mileage as close as practicable to actual results obtained by the vehicle manufacturer. An octane number is simply a standard measure of a fuel's ability to withstand compression in an internal combustion engine without detonating (knock). Our test vehicle has a compression ratio of just 6.3 to one so it is not critical to the simulation  Lead  tetraethyl was also added  to give our base formulation more realism. The gasoline performance has to be estimated from its assumed components which are found by trial and error calculations that compare mileage to three actual interval points of real engine data from the Buick manual( Fig. 1) until the best fit is obtained. 

Ethyl alcohol is the oxygenate to be tested as ETBE and MTBE are not taxpayer subsidized as is ethanol. 

Manufacturers have supplemented their reformulated gasoline's with fuel oxidants such as Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, (ETBE) Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) or ethyl (grain) alcohol to develop a cleaner burn with less overall pollutants.  Wikipedia states: "Methyl tert-butyl ether is a gasoline additive that replaced tetraethyllead. MTBE is an oxygenate and raises gasoline's octane number. Its use declined in the United States in response to environmental and health concerns." EtBEeliminates many o the problems with MTBE. According to Wikipedia: Ethyl tertiary-butyl ether, also known as ethyl tert-butyl ether, is commonly used as an oxygenate gasoline additive in the production of gasoline from crude oil. ETBE offers equal or greater air quality benefits than ethanol, while being technically and logistically less challenging.

So just how effective is ethanol? To answer that question, will require the use of a mathematical model in which to test our simplified fuel formulation, which is readily modifiable to develop the computations of exhaust pollutants and gasoline mileage.  Lead d tetraethyl was also added to give our formulation a more realistic flair.

Table 1 Simplified Gasoline Composition

The pseudo-fuel formulation is represented by four simple alkane chain hydrocarbons, C5 to C8 and lead tetraethyl, to avoid the complexity of some 300 compounds including aromatics, olefins and benzene as in real reformulated gasoline. The test formulation shows additions of ethanol in tests of 5 and 10 percent. Additional information on reformulated gasoline is available from EPA at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgvehpf.htm.

The model simulates the operational characteristics of a real motor including rpm, horsepower, curb weight, gearing, fuel consumption and emission quantities in conjunction with reaction stiochiometry to achieve comparable rpm, fuel consumption and speed of the real engine.


Note that the model rpm diverges from the actual engine but is closest at 30 miles per hour. Emission calculations will be based on this 30 miles per hour driving speed.

Table 2 shows how well our model compares to real engine specifications.

  

Ethanol composition results are tabulated on a mole percent basis. Two curves were plotted, one for 5% and another for 10% ethanol demonstrating that ethanol addition decreases mileage at the reference speed.  Figure 2 shows the model and the vehicle’s actual Rpm which matches most closely at 30 mph, so this was selected as the reference speed for modifications to the emissions estimates. This velocity correlates well with the speed limits established by many city municipalities including Overland Park, Kansas, who has noted in their Spring 2005 Overview magazine, that "The average driver spends 443 hours behind the wheel." This corresponds to 15,500 miles per year at 35 mph.

This is the starting point for evaluation of grain (ethyl) alcohol additions to gasoline NO MTBE or ETBE are considered in the ethanol trials.

Figure 3 conducted at 35 mpg suggests a pollutant CO level of 1.207 tons per year: 1.34 times greater than at 30 mph with just a five mile per hour increase. 

Note that water vapor is missing from Figure 3 because it is NOT considered a green house gas. Figure 5 shows how significant water vapor's contribution to atmospheric heating really is.

Assuming that the oxygenates are consumed in a manner consistent with their intended purpose, i.e. organic compounds containing NOx agents, such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), are not formed in or around the catalytic converter.  But, occur outside the vehicle under dissimilar conditions, then a stoichiometric analysis can evaluate the effectiveness of any oxygenate, in our case ethyl alcohol.

Figure 4 shows the effect of ethanol in the mix. In order to calculate the cost of using this oxygenate, we begin by eliminating the difference in mileage at the crossover point between the actual and simulated mileage curves which occurs at about 40 miles per hour. The mileage obtained for comparison is then 17.5 miles per gallon.

At 10% C2H5OH: the loss of mileage is 17.5 - 15.22 = 2.28 gallons.

If the speed were increased to 50 miles per hour the loss in fuel economy would be significantly greater.

The vehicle range from a standard 16 gallon tank:

15.22 miles/gal x 16 gal = 243.2 miles/tank

Driving 15,500 miles at 243.2 miles/tank will consume 63.7 tanks/year compared to just 51 tanks with standard gasoline.

Environmentalists conveniently ignore H20 because it is a far more virulent green house gas. Note that water vapor lies significantly ABOVE carbon dioxide in the thermodynamic chart through all temperature ranges, more than double that of carbon dioxide.  Convective heat transfer is governed by the relationship H = m Cp dt where 'H' is enthalpy measured in Btu/lb and 'm' is the mass involved, 'Cp' is the Heat capacity shown in Figure 5 stated as Btu/Lb-F and 'dt' is the temperature. So water vapor both absorbs and transmits heat far more effectively than carbon dioxide.

Figure 5 - Heat Capacity of CO2 vs Water vapor  (Appendix F)

Note carbon dioxide in 0.26 Btu/lbm-F at the chart's maximum temperature.

One of the inescapable conclusions of this study is that federally mandated gasoline formulations are not intended to meet air quality standards of the Clean Air Act. The notion that 3 to 6% reductions in a non-accumulative pollutant will affect climate change or anything else is simply ludicrous. Federal requirements on fuel formulations unnecessarily burden consumers with the threat of localized fuel shortages and higher gasoline taxes to support the special interests that grow corn and manufacture the alcohol, which neither reduces pollution nor improves fuel economy.  But are more in tune with creating the basis for a global energy and per mile use tax.

A 0.04 ton reduction in Carbon dioxide is not much savings in comparison to the cost of buying an extra 11.7 tanks of gasoline. Regulating water is not as conducive to controlling with emission credits as is carbon since you will never get the public to accept the green house gas characteristics of water.

TABLE 3 - Tons per Year of  Vehicular emissions at 30 miles/hr

                    Old Leaded Gas         5% Ethanol    10% ethanol

CO:                     0.903                         0.893              0.884

NOx:                   0.373                          0.359            0.346 

H2O                    0.907                          0.909            0. 912
Total                    2.18                            2.16              2.14 


Table 3 demonstrates an emission reduction in both CO and NOx from addition of ethanol to the fuel. But also note the corresponding INCREASE of water vapor out the vehicle tail pipe which is never observed except on cold days before the exhaust mixture climbs above the dew point.  Now we see the true reason why water vapor is omitted from Figure 3.

EPA requirements permanently alter the supply and demand curves without public benefit and these regulations are just another means for the federal government to increase control over private industry and property. It is no longer the public that chooses a product but a socialist government that dictates what is or is not acceptable to the consumer with no more than the ‘junk’ science of environmentalism to justify it.





 

References   


Appendix  F - Heat Capacities of liquid and vapors at one atmosphere
                 Himmelblau, Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical Engineering, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, 1967, P- 448

 

Appendix G - Diffusivity of Tree Organics.


Lara Logan

Lara Login, once again, reveals the true nature of today’s fake news and propaganda we are fed day after day by the mainstream media.  Ukraine/Russia conflict, who the players are and where they stand.  It's not what the establishment media is selling.