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 JD Heyes

by Jeff Charles

There is a reason why I constantly argue that the primary elections might be even more important than the upcoming midterms. The Senate, including Republicans, passed legislation on Saturday night that would make things harder for gun owners and those attempting to obtain firearms.

Ammoland News reported:

In the middle of the night, the U.S. Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA). Some gun rights groups raised alarm bells when this act passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year with Republican support. At the time, Republicans like Dan Crenshaw said that the anti-gun provisions of the bill would be removed and accused Gun Owners of America (GOA) of fearmongering to fundraise.

Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Jodi Ernst negotiated the bill’s anti-gun provisions.

Many of the GOP senators who vowed not to vote for the bill if it still included anti-gun provisions ended up supporting it. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MI) voted in favor of the measure, which is notable because she released a statement to Ammoland News vowing never to vote for such a proposal. Her office wrote:

Senator Hyde-Smith’s position on the Second Amendment has not changed.  The underlying measure placed before the Senate was one to keep the government operating and help the people of Ukraine fight an unhinged foreign dictator. Senator Hyde-Smith does not support the mentioned VAWA provisions and will continue to fight to protect Second Amendment rights.

Here is a full list of the Republican senators who voted for the bill:

    Barrasso (R-WY)

Blunt (R-MO)

Capito (R-WV)

Collins (R-ME)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Ernst (R-IA)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hyde-Smith (R-MS)

McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Portman (R-OH)

Shelby (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Tuberville (R-AL)

Wicker (R-MS)

Young (R-IN)

If any of these lawmakers belong to you, it might be time to get on the phone or keyboard and let them know what you think. It may also be motivation to make sure you show up during the primary elections and help to send actual conservatives to Washington, D.C.

When you understand what is included in these provisions, you will understand why it is so important to call these people out. For starters, it includes the NICS Denial Notification Act. This would require federal authorities to refer those whose background checks are denied to state and local law enforcement when they attempt to purchase a firearm or obtain a license to carry. This would likely result in these agencies investigating the person who was denied regardless of evidence of wrongdoing. Given that most NICS denials are false, it is not difficult to see how this could be a problem. [This ISN't about curbing violence on women; It's an attack on gun ownership. You WILL be prosecuted for the 'thought crime' - of desiring a gun - ED]

Another part of the bill would allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to deputize members of local law enforcement to do its dirty work. “This provision is a direct attack against states with Second Amendment Protection Acts (SAPA),” according to Ammoland News. These bills prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing federal gun laws. With this provision, the ATF can essentially make local police officers into federal authorities, meaning they can get around SAPA laws.

Another provision would fund research on gun violence, which sounds nice, but is far more insidious than it appears. Ammoland News explains: