Dear Friends and Patriots,

Today I'm forwarding a link I found out about today on RenewAmerica.com. It's to a documentary called '[S]election Code.' Not that actual link, which goes to selectioncode.com, but a link to the same documentary that works a lot better. It's via Frankspeech.com, which is Mike Lindell's site.

Here's that link: https://home.frankspeech.com/video/selection-code-full-movie

The documentary is mostly focused on the Tina Peters / Mesa County, Colorado, case, but there's a lot of important facts regarding voting machines and how they can be manipulated.

I'm a bit charged up about this after hearing from two Alabama county probate judges and my state's Secretary of State, John Merrill. What bothers me is a stunning lack of curiosity on their part when it comes to the actual status of the voting machines used in Alabama.

Alabama does not use Dominion machines. Here, they're from ES&S. That's a fact, but other facts are a bit difficult to come by. Direct questions don't elicit direct answers. There's a bit of a cloud of dust thrown up in the air wherever questions are posed.

Here are a few facts I am certain of regarding Alabama's election process, which SOS John Merrill asserts is the best in the nation:

• Ballots in Alabama do not have unique bar codes on them.

• Ballots in Alabama are identifiable to the county and precinct level only. They are not uniquely identifiable.

• Ballot tabulators (aka The Voting Machines) in Alabama are not owned by the state. They're leased. The lease contract includes hardware and software updates.

• When the voting machines were ordered by the Secretary of State's office, the contract required they not have internet connection capability or internal modems.

• None of the voting machines in Alabama has ever had a single internal inspection by a state government official or a competent third-party computer engineer once they were delivered by ES&S.

• No independent validation and verification (IV&V) analysis has ever been done on the ES&S resident software or of any software on the voting machines’ proprietary flash drives.

• ES&S and their agents are the only ones authorized to fully open a voting machine. No one from any government agency can do so without violating the terms of the contract. ES&S has proprietary claims on its machine configurations, software, and firmware.

• ES&S produces a proprietary flash drive that supposedly contains precinct-level identifications for all activity of each voting machine.

• ES&S voting machines produce a comprehensive paper transaction log that is supposed to be an official recording of everything the machine does during its period of operation. There are three copies of all transactions produced. One is supposed to be posted on the door of the polling site. The other two are forwarded with the ES&S flash drive to the probate judge's office at the end of Election Day. Those three paper transaction logs are official records under law. The ES&S flash drive is a legal record under law. Any files still resident within the voting machine after the paper transaction log is produced and the thumb drive is extracted are also legal records under law.

• All voting files, ballots, etc. that legally constitute the official records of any election are required to be maintained in a secure location, subject to any legal inspection or audit for a period of no less than 22 months.

  Alabama has stored all records for all elections since 2012.

I will assert that all of the above are accurate facts. Now, I'll tell you what I believe to be true.

Neither the state of Alabama, nor any of its counties has ever done a vulnerability analysis specific to voting machines. No guidelines exist to aid in detection of voting machine fraud. No analysis of any kind has been performed on any software associated with the ES&S machines or their proprietary flash drives. The state could have specified that all voting machines be opened for a one-time physical inspection by a state-selected computer engineer to ensure the machines meet the requirements of the specification prior to sealing the machines with serialized car-locks, but that didn't happen. The state could have likewise required ES&S to submit any software, including machine-resident and flash drive-resident software, plus any updates and revisions, to the state for the purpose of performing software IV&V, but that also didn't happen.

State and county election officials appear to take offense at the lack of trust by voters. They seem to "bow up" when questioned directly. My own take on the attitudes I've witnessed is – those officials display a stunning lack of curiosity regarding any truth about the election machines in use. The responses I've witnessed are something new to me. I was in and around the U.S. military for over 50 years. I've been around computers continuously since 1980. I understand how the U.S. military procures and tests both computer hardware and software. There's little about voting machines I don't understand. My own background as a military acquisition professional tells me there are things our election officials don't know or appreciate.

We all should understand what could be. There's only been one case where a voting machine was opened and inspected to see what was actually inside. That happened after the 2020 election in Antrim County, MI, when a judge ordered a Dominion voting machine to be opened and inspected. When the machine was opened, a Wi-Fi modem was discovered, despite the company's assurance that it wasn't there. Alabama is far from unique in not opening its machines. But, common sense should prevail. My common sense tells me unless voting machines are opened and then inspected by competent people – no one knows what's inside. Likewise, unless the software is analyzed, no one knows what it's doing.

The documentary film '[S]election Code' goes into some of those details, but not all. In Alabama's case, my distrust centers around two specific things. The first is – No one can accurately assure us that no voting machine has a Wi-Fi modem inside. If any of them do, then those machines can be compromised by anyone who has a cell phone and the phone number the modem answers to. The second is – No one knows what the software is coded to do. If the machine-resident code is written to allow fractional voting options, then all results are in question. It would be easy to code the proprietary flash drives to enable a resident fractional voting option. The point is – NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS!

Sign me up! I'm among the Army of the Untrusting. The questions are simple. The answers aren't hard to produce. What we keep seeing is bureaucratic intransigence and what appears to be that stunning lack of curiosity. If it's true that "there's nothing to see here," then it should be easily proven. Instead, whenever questioned, election officials resort to dissembling, dialectics as divergence, and belittling the questioners. Their responses of "I've seen nothing to indicate anything of concern" is itself concerning. That response screams "IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!" when in truth, it IS about you. As a citizen and a voter, your trust should be a primary concern for all who are paid by tax dollars.

I'll stop, but I don't want you to. Unless you know as much as I do about the election process and the vulnerabilities of modern technology, I encourage you to keep studying.

Remember, the country we could soon lose used to be a great one – the greatest one ever. It still could be. That's up to us.

In Liberty,

Steve