The Patriots

Update February 22, 11:30pm - This story has been updated with a response from clerk Schroeder's lawyer.

Colorado’s Secretary of State is going to court against a second Republican county clerk over the question of what local election officials are legally allowed to do with their voting equipment.

Multiple lawsuits

The situation with Clerk Schroeder began with a lawsuit against Griswold. Among many things, the suit, which Schroeder is party to, argues that post-election software updates to the state’s voting equipment destroy ‘election records’ that clerks are required to maintain.

The updates, referred to as a ‘trusted build’ process, have become a target of conspiracy theorists pushing false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. They claim Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems used the updates to hide evidence of wrongdoing. Election software experts say data from Mesa County’s hard drive shows no evidence of that.

[Oh. really? Best look at the official report: tha doesn't agree: https://newpatriotsblog.com/bombshell-report-proves-state-and-federal-election-crimes-were-committed-colorado-county-commissioner-leaks-to-press-instead-of-reporting-crimes -ED]

On Thursday, Secretary Jena Griswold announced she is suing clerk Dallas Schroeder in an attempt to seize two copies of the county’s election equipment hard drives he made last year, and to force him to answer more questions.

Griswold is already engaged in a legal case against Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters over her involvement in the copying of that county’s election hard drives. Griswold argues Peters jeopardized election security and should be barred from overseeing this year’s vote. A third inquiry involving the Douglas County clerk was closed last week after he answered the state’s questions.

An affidavit in the lawsuit against Griswold revealed that the clerk made a full image backup of his county’s hard drives the day before the trusted build. In response to questions from the Secretary of State, Schroeder elaborated that he made the copy with only authorized employees of his office present, but had subsequently given it, and a second copy, to two outside attorneys — only one of whom he has identified — for safekeeping.

Since that point, the state and Schroeder have been in a standoff.

Griswold’s office is demanding Schroder prove that the attorneys are allowed, under Colorado election law, to possess the hard drives, and if not, to collect the drives from them; to provide evidence that the attorneys never accessed any of the information on the drives; and to turn the drives over to the state for inspection.

In response, Schroeder argues that Griswold has exceeded her authority in this case, and that the hard drive copies are official election records, which his office is required to maintain and which should be available to the public under Colorado’s open records law.

He has also said that he’s keeping the drives exact locations secret because he fears the Secretary of State intends to seize them, claiming that her office took control of Mesa County’s election equipment during the investigation into that office’s security breach. The Secretary of State decertified Mesa’s equipment after determining that leaked information from the hard drives had compromised their security.

In an emailed statement, Schroeder's lawyer, John Case, defended the clerk's authority to make and preserve copies of the voting hard drives and said the goal is to force the state to explain how the tabulation machines work.

"Computerized voting systems interpret and tabulate ballots within “black boxes” designed by private companies using complex software understood only by those private companies," Case asserted. "Voting should be in secret, but counting the votes should be transparent."

Colorado requires every county to do a hand audit its ballots after each election to ensure the votes on paper match how they were recorded by the tabulation machines. After the 2020 election, Elbert County's required audit of voted ballots found no discrepancies (the same was true of Colorado's other 63 counties).

[Think about this..if a machine perpetrates fraud do you expect the altered votes to be detectable in a hand count? The only way is to look at what the machine did in handling the voting process. Suppose the machine algorithm in candidate A versus B uses the following relationships where total = A+B  and X represents a vote. Then A=X  for A and  B=(X - mX) for B where m = some fractional relationship.  How could the vote totals ever detect anything other than a winner because totals are always the same. You need to know what the algorithn is.   - ED]

by  US Election Integrity

Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters in good faith delivered an initial forensic cybersecurity report covering election machine analysis to County Commissioners. The report proves destruction of evidence. One or more Commissioners misrepresent report to the press -fail to report crimes.

The report proves a simple storyline of events and subsequent implications

1. The Destruction of evidence. Destruction of election records, election-related data that’s required to be preserved under federal and state law.
2. Thousands of election records were destroyed.
3. Secretary of State Griswold and the vendor deleted the election records.
   1. Through the “Trusted Build” hardware and software election systems update.
   1. By way of Griswold’s approved procedures for the updates.
   1. Due to Griswold’s certified election system configuration. Configurations directed by the Secretary of State were designed to automatically overwrite election data.
4. The election system was illegally certified. The report stops short of stating Griswold’s certification of the voting systems complete with an election record-destroying configuration was illegal. However, Colorado statute is explicit that the Federal Voting System Standards are mandatory. The SecState’s certification allowed the use of a non-compliant voting system in Colorado elections.
5. The deleted election records eliminate the possibility of a complete forensic election audit. The type of audit SecState Griswold has sought to prohibit by her controversial election rules which were rubber-stamped into law through CO Attorney General Phil Weiser.

It is unclear whether the Mesa County DA has sole responsibility to investigate the criminal violations. Alternatives include whether the matter must be referred to Federal authorities, the Colorado Attorney General, or every state jurisdiction affected by the technical discovery. The next outstanding question is whether Mesa County Commissioners have any liability for failing to investigate and submit the report’s findings to the authorities as required by§ 18-8-105.

Mesa County Commissioner Rowland now faces a dilemma. On one hand, she is on the record interrogating Mesa County citizens in a hearing where the Commissioners apparently invited both press and anti-election integrity industry insiders.  During the hearing, Rowland aggressively pressed why citizens didn’t “bring the proof [of fraud] to the authorities.” At the time, citizens explained that the production of the evidence Rowland was demanding required an investigation of the machines, which citizens had previously requested.  On the other hand, at the time of Rowland’s irrational demands, she knew access to the voting machines was impossible, given the equipment was sequestered. 

In the County Commissioner’s public hearing on September 20th McInnes stepped into the breach (~25:00) claiming Peters’ report was “anonymous” insinuating there was no official report author. Instead of McInnes successfully bashing the report that clearly is proof of criminal activity, McInnes showed he didn’t completely read; or grasp the contents of the report. McInnes beclowned himself by claiming the “goal posts have been moved” as damning election malfeasance evidence piled-up in succession over months. It appears McInnes lost the plot, or doesn’t care.

In a final attempt to disparage Peters, McInnes repeated false accusations by Secretary of State Jena Griswold.  The false claim is Peters leaked passwords during her legal back up of election systems. McInnes is weak on the facts.  It was Griswold who was in sole custody of the BIOS passwords in question; she bears the responsibility to prove she or her office didn’t lose control of their passwords.  Mesa County Commissioners continue to show their fecklessness, dishonesty, and lack of understanding given the report Peters delivered was a courtesy initial version.  The official report filed in Peters defense pleadings is complete with any information Rowland, McInnes or Davis claim falsely, to be missing.

Since May, citizens across Colorado have been asking Clerks to delay the “Trusted Build” to preserve election records and afford citizens the opportunity to conduct an independent forensic audit. But the shadow emerged of a coordinated campaign by the Secretary of State and the Colorado County Clerks Association (CCCA) leadership, to deprive citizens of knowledge of the “Trusted Build” schedule, and to cajole and coerce reluctant Clerks El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman and Weld County Clerk Carly Koppes, the President of the CCCA. Both claimed in meetings with citizens that the Secretary of State’s and the Colorado Attorney General’s Offices issued formal warnings to them advising against allowing citizen access election records for audits, including electronic records generating from the Dominion voting systems; or they would be “sued.”

The result of forensic analysis of Mesa County’s system backups completely upends the accusations against Peters.  It’s now clear Griswold’s and the media’s initial characterization of Peters was patently false.  Peters acted in good faith, despite immense pressure from Griswold’s false accusations in what appears to be intentional attempts to coerce and intimidate her.

Also destroyed are current and former Secretaries of State Wayne Williams, and Griswold’s claims to “Gold Standard” security for Colorado elections. The expert report proves serious crimes were committed by Peters’ accusers and may save or implicate other Colorado County Clerks. Given this proof, County Clerks across Colorado are at risk of being responsible for election crimes simply for trusting Matt Crane the Executive Director of the CCCA, The Secretary of State Jena Griswold, and electronic voting machine vendors.

The report bears serious legal implications beyond Peters’ defense case and Griswold’s motivations to focus law enforcement resources on Peters. Now voting system vendors, the voting system testing lab, and U.S. Election Assistance Commission officials may have some explaining to do.

Share this official press release in .pdf format: for-immediate-release-9_21-_expert-reportDownload

by Jane C. Timm

Ayyadurai, who participated in Arizona's discredited ballot review, has regularly advanced conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, as well as his own 2020 loss in a Massachusetts Senate primary, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere in the U.S.  [How about Colorado where there are photos before and after Dominion's trusted build, showing over 300 election files deleted..or doesn't that count? - ED]

The House Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into a partisan ballot review in Otero County, New Mexico, where a self-proclaimed “audit force” is going door to door and questioning voters.

The county, which borders Texas and has about 67,000 residents, agreed this year to pay nearly $50,000 to EchoMail, one of the subcontractors involved in Arizona’s partisan ballot review, to review its 2020 election results.

“The Committee is investigating whether your company’s audit and canvass in New Mexico illegally interferes with Americans’ right to vote by spreading disinformation about elections and intimidating voters,” House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the chairman of the subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties, wrote in a Wednesday letter addressed to V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, the founder of EchoMail. [Really?, then why aren't you equally concerned about all the republican poll watchers that were shut out of the election viewing process, in Detroit and Atllanta, and Milwaukee? - ED]

Ayyadurai, who participated in Arizona's discredited ballot review, has regularly advanced conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, as well as his own 2020 loss in a Massachusetts Senate primary, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere in the U.S.  [Dr. Shiva was the first to discover evidence that a Dominion voting machine algorithm was working against him in every MA County except Franklin where paper ballots were in use. In every other county, he lost by exactly a 60 to 40 ratio. And that is evidence of fraud. Don't miss the hidden assumption here that there must be evidence of many participants involved and not a single automated machine to constitute fraud- ED]

Ayyadurai's company agreed this year to examine ballot images in Otero County, evaluate voter signatures and oversee a door-to-door canvass of voters conducted by volunteers known as the New Mexico Audit Force to determine the accuracy of the county voter rolls, according to EchoMail contract materials posted online by the county commissioners who approved the deal.

Former President Donald Trump won Otero County by more than 25 percentage points in the last election.  [And your point is..? Trump won Florida as well but he had a million votes skimmed off the tallies - ED]

In its letter to Ayyadurai, the House panel said, “The canvas may have a particular impact on minority communities in Otero County,” noting that 40 percent of the county’s residents are nonwhite Hispanic.

“Otero County’s diversity makes it susceptible to the same threat identified by DOJ in Maricopa County—that canvasses of this nature, even when sponsored by local governments, can result in intimidation directed at minority voters.”  [Nonsense.!  This is beyond discrimination and electioneering; it seeks to ensure that a one person, one vote count is found. Investigating 10 people reported to have voted from the same address demand confirmation or denial. - ED]

The ballot review in Otero County is similar to the one Arizona Senate Republicans orchestrated in Maricopa County last year. Maricopa County's in-person canvass of voters was eventually canceled after the Justice Department raised concerns that it would violate civil rights laws to prevent voter intimidation.

The House Oversight Committee referred its concerns about the Otero County ballot review to the Justice Department in a second letter Wednesday to Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Civil Rights Division.

The committee asked EchoMail to produce documents and communications about the ballot review and canvass, with a focus on the operation’s policies, procedures and funding, by March 31.

“The reports coming out of New Mexico of EchoMail’s canvassers harassing and intimidating people on their own property in the name of a sham ‘audit’ are truly disturbing. I urge the Department of Justice to review potential ongoing civil rights violations arising from this so-called audit, and I look forward to uncovering the full scope of EchoMail’s actions,” Maloney said in a statement shared with NBC News.

Ayyadurai did not respond to requests for comment.

New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver said at least 20 complaints have been lodged with her office over the canvass operation and that more than twice as many have been filed with the state attorney general's office.

“They’re being asked very personal questions about their marital status, personal, private information that the public doesn’t have access to, how they voted — which literally nobody but the voter can or should know unless they want to share that information," Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "It can have a very intimidating effect." [Really? Then why aren't you after the state insurance agencies because this information is requested by the insurance people. - ED]

Reviewing the county's election results is "completely unnecessary," she said, noting that the state already conducts “three levels of audits,” including a post-election audit that samples precincts from across the state to verify results.[But apparently aren't concerned about illegals, the deceased, minors and out-of-state people voting in the election - ED]

One of Otero County’s precincts was included in that audit, she said.

Toulouse Oliver and state Attorney General Hector Balderas issued an “advisory” this month warning voters that some of the 60 canvassers were falsely purporting to be representatives of the county. The state officials informed voters that they do not have to answer questions from the canvassers.

Otero County's three commissioners, all of whom are Republicans, later urged the canvassers to clearly identify themselves and wear nametags. But they also defended the ballot review.

“The intent of the audit is to restore trust, faith, and confidence in the integrity of our elections,” the GOP commissioners said in a news release. “Election integrity is a non-partisan issue.”

None of the commissioners responded to requests for comment.

One of the commissioners, Couy Griffin, is scheduled to stand trial next week on misdemeanor charges in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Leaders of the New Mexico Audit Force, a volunteer group, according to the House letter, appear to believe fraud occurred in the 2020 election.

One of the group's leaders, David Clements, was reported to have given a speech about the review. “I want arrests, I want prosecutions, I want firing squads,” he said, according to The Daily Beast.

Asked if she believed there was fraud in the 2020 election, Erin Clements, another group leader, told NBC News "this has nothing to do with whether I believe it, I have hardcore evidence from our canvass that fraud occurred."

She claimed there was no evidence that voters were intimidated by her canvassers and said she believed complaints made to state authorities were fabricated as part of a "smear campaign" against their operation.

Toulouse Oliver said the New Mexico Audit Force has pitched its services to at least one other county in the state, Sandoval County, and appears to be seeking to expand its operation.

She also raised questions about whether the group leaders were being paid for their canvassing.

EchoMail's materials say parts of the work will be “funded by EchoMail’s partners.” In Maricopa County, the now-defunct Cyber Ninjas were paid with some taxpayer dollars but got the bulk of their funding from outside groups.

Clements said no one in the New Mexico Audit Force is being paid.