Cryptographic Algorithms Hidden in State Bureau of Elections Official Voter Registration Databases Appear Designed for Secret Rogue Agents to Facilitate the Fraudulent Voting of Mail-in Ballots

Article by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.

Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has documented that a dark presence has secretly penetrated the state election boards in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio elections, surreptitiously placing cryptographic algorithms into each state's official voter registration databases.
In a series of reports documented on the 501(c)3 website GodsFiveStones.com, Paquette's research revealed complex cryptographic algorithms in state voter databases that could potentially be used to covertly manipulate voter records, raising concerns about possible misuse, including but not limited to facilitating fraudulent activities. The primary algorithm discovered, dubbed 'The Spiral', incorporates techniques resembling both a Caesar cipher and deck stacking. This algorithm has characteristics similar to methods criminals might use in a card marking scheme, potentially allowing for the concealment of specific records (which could theoretically include non-existent voters) in locations that would only be known to those familiar with the algorithm's structure. The complexity and obscurity of this system in what should be a transparent public database raises significant concerns about its purpose and potential for misuse.

Subscribed

First, Erase the Registration Date as the Independent Variable Ordering the Voter Database

The goal of placing secret algorithms in the state voter databases appears to be to create a pool of hidden "non-existent voters" that are available to vote bogus mail-in ballots that yet have certifiable, legitimate state voter IDs. Once the mail-in ballots from the "non-existent voters" are run through the tabulation machines, a certifiable vote is created [because the "non-existent voter's" legitimate state voter ID matches the same legitimate state voter ID printed on the outside envelope of the mail-in vote], even though no such voter exists.

State boards of elections do not conduct field canvassing efforts to verify that mail-in voters exist, confirm that they live at the registered addresses, or verify that they are legally qualified to vote. This failure of the state boards of elections opens the door for criminal perpetrators to interject a cryptographic algorithm scheme into the database that allows for the creation of "non-existent voters." Beyond just creating "non-existent voters," the cryptographic algorithms assign legitimate state voter IDs to the "non-existent voters." This last step enables the criminal perpetrators to vote these "non-existent voters" as apparently "legal" mail-in votes in arguably sufficient quantities "to steal" otherwise losing elections.

Implementing the scheme begins with "shuffling" the official state IDs from their natural order, much like the first step in a card-marking criminal scheme, which consists of shuffling the deck of cards from the order in which the cards are delivered from the manufacturer. Manufacturers generally deliver playing cards in cellophane wrappers. The cards are ordered with the box from the highest card in the highest suit to the lowest card in the lowest suit. Placing marked cards in the deck delivered by the manufacturer would be obvious, as the cards would appear to be out of order. Shuffling the deck scrambles the cards, preparing the deck for the concealed placement of marked cards.

Paquette's research revealed that in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio, voter ID numbers are not assigned in sequential order based on registration dates. This lack of association between registration dates and ID numbers deviates from what is expected in a public database. Such a disconnection makes it more difficult to detect irregularities in the chronological order of voter registrations. This creates an opportunity for unauthorized additions to the voter rolls to go unnoticed, as new entries would not stand out based on their ID numbers or position in the database.

Next, Create Non-Existent “Clones” and Ghost Voters

In other words, the application of the cryptographic algorithm begins by eliminating the date of registration as the independent variable (mapped on the "x-axis" of the graph) that determines the dependent variable, the voter ID number (mapped on the "y-axis” of the graph). In a natural order, the graph of registration dates mapped onto voter IDs would form a relatively straight line beginning at the origin of the x- and y-axis and extending to the far upper reaches of the graph. The first voter to register would receive voter ID #1, the second would be voter #2, etc.

Instead of using the registration date as the independent variable determining voter ID, complex arithmetic formulas (i.e., algorithms) are coded into the software to scramble the voter IDs out of chronological sequence. Thus, in the case of the New York Board of Election, a "Spiral Cipher" using "repunits" (i.e., numbers such as 1, 11, 111, 1111, etc.) are added to a voter ID to create a space between that voter ID and the following voter ID in chronological sequence. In Ohio, Paquette found the algorithm derived from modular arithmetic—a scheme he named "Modulus 8."

By means of analogy, consider that parents know which child was born in which order. The sentence, "Our third child was good with music," refers to a specific child. But in this criminal scheme, the state board of elections numbers your first child as #1, your second child as #12, your third child as #23, your fourth child as #34, and your fifth as #56. You object that you have five children, not 56. In other words, you object that the state has sequenced your children by adding 12 new children between each of your children. The state responds that you are wrong. There are 56 children in your record. The state further explains that 10 of the 12 children added between each of your children are someone else's children, and two are "non-existent children" that the perpetrators have just invented. Because the 56 children all appear to be real children, each child gets an official state number (i.e., voter ID) assigned to them. By creating an unnatural order (creating spaces between naturally sequencing items), room in the database is designed to insert false records that look prima facie legitimate.

Into these spaces, the perpetrators insert voters from other counties (or from the same county but registered at a different time) as well as "non-existent voters" created by "cloning" or "ghosting" voter records. Cloned records are duplicates made from voter records on file (created by altering identifying information such as "middle initial" to create a file for that "voter" at a different address than the original). Ghosting records attribute non-existent persons to addresses at which no such person resides. Once clone or ghost voter records have been used, the perpetrators remove the record from the mainframe computer on which the state's board of election runs (requiring a search of compiled machine language in an attempt to recover the now discarded clone or ghost record that was for a fleeting time the "non-existent voters" electronic lifespan).

Next, Hide the "Non-Existent Voter" Records in the State's Official Voter Database

The perpetrators also proceed to shuffle the marked cards (i.e., "non-existent voter" records) back into the deck (the database of registered voters) in locations known only to the criminal perpetrators. In New York, this is accomplished by utilizing a complex algorithm called “Spiral”. Ignoring the complexity of the algorithm, just understand that it establishes an "algorithm record locater ID" for the position in the database where each "non-existent voter" record resides. Since the algorithm locator IDs are known only to the criminal perpetrators, honest state board of election officials will be unaware that they have created and hidden "non-existent voter" records within the state official voter registration database.

The Perpetrators Vote the "Non-Existent Voters" as Needed

As the voting proceeds, the criminal perpetrators start ensuring mail-in votes are requested by the hidden "non-existent voters." Once requested, the fraudulent mail-in votes for the non-existent voters are printed and run through the vote tabulation machines. [Truthfully, the perpetrators requesting, voting, and tabulating of the fraudulent mail-in votes could accomplish their goals within the state board of elections' mainframe computer, without ever printing or tabulating a physical mail-in ballot. The perpetrators may decide to print and tabulate a paper mail-in ballot if there were concerns that a recount may require a forensic examination of paper ballots.] Because the legitimate state voter ID of the "non-existent voter" matches the legitimate state voter ID of the fraudulent mail-in ballot, a certifiable vote has been cast (even though the voter is fabricated). Because there is no limit as to how many "non-existent voters" can be created by this criminal algorithm scheme, the perpetrators can "win" every election, fixing (i.e., "stealing") it according to the outcome they or their superiors desire.

Even in a forensic recount, the perpetrators can remain relatively safe in assuming the state board of elections will never order a field audit sampling the mail-in votes to see if the voters exist, have correct addresses, and are qualified to vote. State boards of elections typically conduct recounts within state board of elections offices. Once a recount is completed, the state board of elections moves to certify the election. Once certified, elections are difficult to challenge. Most courts consider election challenges to be political. Hence, denial of standing is the most common judicial outcome of lawsuits that challenge elections. Those challenging certified elections face legal complications, including defamation actions, for raising issues of "election fraud" that cannot be proven at law to have happened.

Are U.S. Intelligence Agencies Running U.S. Elections?

Comments