Maricopa Audit Open Forum for Public, Press & Maricopa Election Officials. Join Us! Public

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.

Key Points

• Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD – Inventor of Email, Systems Scientist, engineer, educator – invites Maricopa County election officials, the press and the public to have a discussion, a dialogue on the anomalies and key findings found in our portion of the audit.
• Tim Canova joins in the call to explain what happened in his race against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Showing this has been an issue in Democratic elections as well. Election Systems Integrity affects all parties, Republicans & Democrats.
• The scope of our audit was to look in the signature box only, extract the box and see what’s in the box. It clearly says, “Please sign within the box”.
• The Atlantic called the signature verification process “Witchcraft”, the LA Times that said it’s “Ripe for Error”.
• Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) of all of these processes should be fully disclosed to the public.

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai. Welcome to our open forum where we’ve invited the Maricopa County election officials plus the press and the public to have a discussion, a dialogue on the anomalies and key findings we found in our portion of the audit. I’m also going to be accompanied by one of my colleagues here at EchoMail, Phil Evans, who was very instrumental in managing the project and doing a lot of groundwork on the back end.

We’re also going to be joined by Tim Canova later on, who was a democrat who ran in Florida against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Tim’s gonna be joining us around 1pm. The reason I want Tim to come in is because I want everyone to understand this issue of Election Systems Integrity. I’m gonna use the word systems there. It’s not just election integrity, it’s Election Systems Integrity, affects all parties, Republicans, Democrats left, right, and independents.

This is not just about the issue in Maricopa about the issue of Republicans for bringing up this issue. To Maricopa officials, this is a much broader issue. We have a historic opportunity in Maricopa to address these issues. Because the opportunity Maricopa represents us as this historic opportunity, because we’re taking a Systems Approach. One of the key things that we brought out in our element of the audit is to encourage people to step back and see this as an opportunity to unite this country and really resolve this issue.

And fortunately, it was a great honor for me to be invited by the Arizona State Senate to participate. And I believe the important aspect of what I bring to the table here, which I want to educate everyone on, is taking what we call an Engineering Systems Approach. Phil Evans, who’s joining us is also an engineer, Tim Canova who joined us as a law professor and esteemed law professor down in Florida.

What we want to focus on today is number one, we’ll do a little bit of introductions and myself, Phil. Tim will be joining us later, we want to encourage the Maricopa election officials to join us. Phil Evans has been assiduously trying to reach out to them. We’ll share with you that documentation. Because there’s been unfortunately misinformation in the press stating that we didn’t attempt to reach out to them, we did.

And we’ll share with you that documentation. And Phil will also attest to that. But more importantly, 24 hours ago, we reached out to the Maricopa officials again, in the interest of dialogue, openness and friendliness, as Americans to have this dialogue, and Phil will talk about that. So first, we want to let everyone know we have reached out to the American officials to join us.

Part of the reason for doing this is in my own view, in engineering, and you talk to any entrepreneur who builds anything, makes anything, whether you build a piece of software, or whether you build a building, or whether you make cookies, or whatever it is. My father was a chemical engineer for many years working at a company called Colgate Palmolive where they would make all sorts of different products.

In any Engineering System, whether you’re making a product, whether you have to get an airplane off the ground, from point A to point B, whether you have to produce a piece of software, whether you have to make an iPhone, we live in the world of modern Engineering Systems. You see the 20th century was a world of simple individual inventions.

In the modern world, we’ve interconnected our inventions to very complex other systems. So, we don’t live in isolation anymore. These are called Engineering Systems; an election voting system is an Engineering System. What does that mean? It means that it’s not you just simply going to one place and putting a hand counted ballot in which may be the best way to do it.

We have people sending out mail in ballots to people, we have people getting the mail in ballots we have people responding to through the Postal Service, another very complex system. And then the Postal Service gets those documents, and they send them off to other people that we’ve come to recently find out.

Organizations like Runbeck, who scan and image these envelopes into images. And then those images, which is fascinating – are reviewed by reviewers or volunteers at the election office to compare if the signature that’s on the envelope matches with what’s on file, a very difficult task, and then the ballots are opened.

And then if they can’t match them, there’s a process called clearing where we have now found that they create duplicate return envelope images and the precision in which those processes run is frankly not known. And as we have put forward our anomalies, little by little, we get tidbits of information.

And our intention in doing this open dialogue is we believe the standardized operating procedures of all of these processes should be fully disclosed, which would happen in any type of audit, they have yet to happen. We want to give the Maricopa officials a chance to dialogue and share them with us today or email them with us today.

I’m sure the public deserves to know that. More importantly, we want to encourage people to recognize that we do not need the press disintermediating this or intermediating this for far too long. Those people who work with people like us and Phil and others who have performed the audit should have direct connection with those people who are being audited, or those people who want to work in a collegial environment.

Instead of that process. What’s occurred is vitriol, partisanship, controversy, none of it necessary through media proxies. Who has no interest in really solving Election Systems integrity issues, except in our view, throwing kerosene on something that really doesn’t deserve that, and they discern, they intermediate this process, so we don’t have open dialogue. So, that’s why we organize this.

Let me bring Phil on. And Phil, maybe you can share with us. Phil, maybe you can just introduce yourself, Phil, give your experience on the ground, how long and how you and I connected, and then perhaps share with them your experience in reaching out to the Maricopa officials in the pass back, before when we were doing the audit, and more recently, and you’re essentially extending an invitation to them through phone call plus email. Good to have you, Phil.

Phil: Thank you. My name is Phil Evans, I have been analyzing elections since about 2011. In 2008, last year, in November, or in September, actually, I met Dr.SHIVA. I saw him in a video, and I reached out and I took a look at Dr.SHIVA’s election and figured out what they had and how they had rigged that election. Okay. And so, we started kind of a partnership in election integrity.

After the November election, we got together, we started doing analyses, and we did analyses in Michigan, Georgia, and then in Maricopa County. And that’s kind of the short story. Anything else? May have missed something there.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, Phil, maybe you can share with them? How? In our EchoMail is managing this project, I think on September 20, how you reached out to them to the Election Professionals, and the fact that you didn’t get any response. And we still haven’t gotten a response in your call to them, again, in the interest of having conversation, especially when we saw the duplicate issue. Phil.

Phil: Right. Right. We had a discussion internally within our EchoMail group. And we decided to reach out to do anything we could to dispel any kind of unnecessary claims we did less than we wanted to do was to propagate hysteria about elections. So that’s what we did.

And after a few phone calls, and a few, a couple of messages. We didn’t get any response. And then I think we were told by some other participants in the audit that we probably wouldn’t get a phone call back from them. So that’s when we stop attempting to have any dialogue with them.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, Phil, and then you also reached out to them recently, right? To invite them to this event.

Phil: Yes. reached out yesterday, went through their phone maze. Finally got to their media relations person. I don’t know if that’s her official title. But then we sent them an email and in a special number just for them that they could call into this forum here and we can have an open discussion.

Dr.SHIVA: Thanks, Phil. But the important point here is Phil called several times. The media attempted to put out essentially misinformation, the definition of which is false statements saying that we hadn’t tried.

In fact, we have an affidavit which we’ve also filed with the Attorney General’s Office from another audit team member who tried to reach out to Runbeck, the organization who does the scans and people had asserted that we should reach out to them understand these processes, by the way, which was not the scope of our audit, and we’ll talk about that.

And the Runbeck CEO wrote back to that audit team member and said, I am essentially paraphrasing this, you need to go to the Maricopa County officials. Okay, he couldn’t answer questions directly. So, we want to just level set to everyone in frankness and honesty that our team and I also know the other audit team members have sought to have cooperative discussions with Maricopa County officials. And we still want to do that.

Because if we do not get down to the root cause of the anomalies, and I’m going to review those anomalies, we’re essentially perpetuating a divide a left right divide, which is unnecessary at this point in history, we have a unique opportunity to really bring this country together, if we can take an Engineering Systems Approach.

I just want to review for everyone, and we have John here, John’s, my assistant on my left. John will be opening up the call-in lines, but we have opened up the call online. We have a special line that we set up for the Maricopa officials to call him with a special guest number that they could also call in. And we will shortly be opening up the line for any public press as we’re waiting, because again, we want people to recognize that what we’re looking at is an Engineering System.

When you find a problem, whether it’s smaller, large, insignificant, or monumental. In engineering, you talk to any businessperson, when a customer comes in and says, hey, I didn’t like the taste of this food. Or you know, something doesn’t feel right over here, or the software doesn’t work, you don’t brand them a “conspiracy theorist.” You don’t say they’re, quote unquote, “anti-vaxxer,” you don’t try to write them off as someone who is a fraud, right?

Because you’d be out of business. But it seems like in politics, or in partisanship, you can do that. And that’s unfortunate. And on this issue of Election Systems Integrity, this country cannot go down that path. We need to get the politicians out of the way, we need to get the media, frankly, out of the way unless they want to be supportive of open dialogue.

And it has to be direct channels of communication from people who have looked at the data with people who can answer that. So, to set the level set that what I want to do is, I want to share with you a couple of important things. Just review what we actually went over, I’m not going to review the entire piece, I’m going to give you a summary. And we’re going to highlight some of the anomalies, because our goal here is to get to the bottom of the facts here.

Okay, so hopefully everyone can see this. And Phil, can you see this? Let me just walk people through this. This is the report we gave. And you notice, it’s a very scientific approach we took. It’s called, ‘Pattern Recognition Classification of Early Voting Ballot Return Envelope Images.’

I want to just be clear that we were focused not on the entire audit, but on a piece of the audit to look at the return on envelope images, for signature presence detection. Okay, we’re not doing signature verification. We’re not looking anywhere else on the envelope; we’re looking at a very specific region. And again, you notice the subtitle says an Engineering Systems Approach to identify anomalies, to advance integrity of US election processes.

The key here is that at a high level, the main point I want to make is that the main thing we need to understand for everyone to appreciate is that the envelope is the key here. Okay, that’s the beginning of this process, in many ways. Someone requests a mailing envelope, or a mail-in ballot, and they get a package sent to them, which contains an envelope. That envelope is called the early voting ballot envelope, and on that envelope, they’re supposed to sign their name.

And sometimes they can put their phone number in an area called phone number, and even date it. If there’s any issues, the officials can call that phone number, and we’ll look at one of them. But what we want to understand is that our envelope is a protective sheath in which the ballot travels in. So, the ballot is only as good as an envelope.

All right, so we need to understand that the ballot is only as good as the integrity of that envelope, which means if Phil filled out the envelope, then when it goes to be processed, we want to make sure it was Phil who filled out that envelope not somebody else, okay. So, the envelope is critical here. It’s what we’re sharing in this image here, okay. So that’s called the early voting ballot return envelope. That’s really the protective vehicle.

The next step we want to recognize again, is that the verification of the authentication of the signature on that envelope is critical to the reliability of this process, okay? So that envelope is only as good as your ability to verify that signature. Did this person that Phil Evans send it in? Or did someone else send it in? Okay, again, very simple basics that we want to talk about, because this is a very complicated Engineering Systems process.

The next thing is, what our audit revealed, at a fundamental level, is that the anomalies that we discovered raised questions on the verifiability, no pun intended here of the signature verification process – the entire process. So, there’s a significant opportunity, again, this is not something bad, we have an opportunity to enhance this process.

By understanding the process, getting full disclosure on the standardized operating procedures, how were the signatures verified, and again, we came to this conclusion by the scope of the audit that we were given. So, at a very high level, what my life has been about has been looking at what we call pattern recognition. Let me just explain this field a little bit, Phil knows about this. But in the world of pattern recognition, you are looking at data coming in from the real world.

And then you’re attempting to use that data, to try to classify the thing that you’re looking at whether it’s in an abnormal state of behavior, or what whether it’s in a normal state of behavior. So, when you look at this diagram here, that’s what we’re saying, we have reality, the reality could be the election process, we’re getting data, and we’re attempting to use the signal from this data to understand what’s going on.

So again, to those people, unfortunately, the media through their misinformation disinformation, they frankly do not value the engineering skill that it takes to do this process. My life has been about this for many years. Back in 1978, when I was a 14-year-old kid, I started doing research working as a full-time research fellow at Rutgers University. Looking at sleep patterns of babies, again, this is a signal, this is the actual system, and you’re trying to figure out the abnormal states of sleep, where the baby could have an apnea and the normal states, okay?

Speech, deaf, blind people communicate using their hands on your face. Again, you can understand how they’re doing this, we’re looking at the map of the signals from the mouth, again, these are signals, and you’re trying to understand the reality of what’s going on.

Many years, when I was at MIT, we looked at signals coming from bridges. 50,000 bridges in the United States are falling apart.

You don’t have time to open them all up, but you look at the signals, and you try to understand what’s going on in the bridge without having to blow up the bridge or destroy it, whether it’s the deck is cracking, or whether there’s a rebar having an issue, etc. Same thing with aircraft wings for many years for my master’s work, we would get signals from composite materials, try to categorize them to understand what’s going on in that wing.

Again, this is called pattern analysis. For three years, I worked on a project to do handwriting recognition on bank checks, where you’re looking at the courtesy amount, you’re trying to figure out what’s in there. And here, you have to be very accurate, because if you’re off by a decimal point, you could be taking out more money or less money from someone’s account.

And then some of you may know I won the project for the White House competition for analyzing email when Bill Clinton was in office. And there we were analyzing email messages to understand how to route them if there are threats or those kinds of things. And we built that into the company we have today.

EchoMail, and then more recently with my work with CytoSolve®, where we look at combinations of ingredients, and we can figure out will those combinations alleviate disease or biological processes like inflammation, again, these are pattern recognition processes. But here we’re looking at reality and a model.

Again, if your simple example, in your case, you go to the cardiologist, you have a model of the heart, you have normal states of your heart patterns. And these are abnormal states, okay. Now, when it comes to the EVB, early voting ballots systems. The signal that we have are the EVB return on envelope images, because frankly, we don’t, we didn’t have the luxury of going back to getting the entire process, right, we can’t, there’s no movie here where everything was photographed.

What we’re doing here is trying to understand what took place after the fact by looking at these return envelope images. Alright, and this is one of those return envelopes. this area’s where the phone number goes, this is where the signature goes, the name of the voter is typically up here. Again, these are regions that they’re used for, sometimes people may sign elsewhere, but we’ll talk about that, but it was not in the scope of our exercise.

Again, this is the area that we were interested in. Our scope of our audit was to do your rocket science to find the signature region and then in that signature region, figure out what’s in there and then categorize it. Okay, so the categorization we did was in that again, only in the signature region people may have written elsewhere and the media again spreading misinformation. So oh, there was a signature here, here – you didn’t find it.

That wasn’t the scope of our audit. The scope of the audit was to look in this box, extract the box and see what’s in the box. Because it clearly says, “Please sign within the box”. So obviously there are people who don’t know how to follow directions, or they may have other issues that they may do elsewhere. But that occurs later in a process called curing.

But our job was to look at that signature region. Find out if that region had a signature, okay, and we’ll come back to this process. It could be blank; it could be a likely blank. And it could be a scribble. So, we were asked to categorize into one of these four areas, normal state abnormal state. John, do we have any calls coming in from the officials?

No? Okay. So, by the way, today, Maricopa officials, we invite you to join us. We’re going to be getting to the anomalies shortly. So, this is the signal that we’re looking at. Now, before we go into what we did, let’s look at what the Maricopa official’s data that they had. This is their voter education report. So, what I want to share with you here is after the election occurred, they filed a formal report called a CANVASS Report. CANVASS Report, where they are reporting the actual votes.

Now remember, there were two ways people, multiple ways people could vote actually, they could vote in person, they could do provisional votes. And then we call early voting ballots. And there’s six different ways it could have done these early voting ballots, which we’ll review shortly. But 91% to 92% of all the ballots cast in Maricopa County came through the early voting ballots, again, 91 to 92% of the ballots came through the early voting ballots, quite a significant number over 1.9 million.

When we go to this data here, what you’ll notice here is that you’ll see that this was their voter report that they put out. Let’s look at this. This is in 2020, which they focused on. They had about 80.5% turnout, the total ballots, early ballots that people requested were 2,160,412 million.

The early voting ballots verified and accounted for counted were 1,915,487.

Those are the ones that were counted and verified. But if you want to look at all the early voting ballots they got, you’d have to add 587, 1,455 and 934 – because they had 587, which they said the signatures didn’t match. 1,455, which they said that there were no signatures on the envelope. And late returns were 934.

If you really look at this, to be clear, this is basic counting 1,918,463 – where the total number of unique early voting ballots that were processed, meaning that those are the ones that were included – the verified and the counted. That’s how the numbers look, you may just want to look at that. Phil, do you have any thoughts on this?

Phil: I’m right with you.

Dr.SHIVA: What we see here is the total number of envelopes that came in, total unique would have been this, right. If you just use the math, if there were this many total number of total ballots, we must have had at least this many total unique envelopes. And this would have been, you subtract out the no signature ballots, these were the ones that they went through their verification process. EchoMail was brought in for the signature presence detection. But these are the Maricopa numbers.

At the end of the day, 1,915,487 were verified and counted. Now, let’s review the process. As I mentioned here, this is an Engineering Systems process. stuff comes in, it goes through a process. And at the end of it, you have the ballots, which are tabulated and counted.

What the cyber ninja group was hired to do was to count the ballots, the paper ballots, and to look at how they measured. But just be clear, by that time, by the time you’re counting that you don’t really have a visibility on all the other processes that took place unless you have access to all the standard Standardized Operating Procedures, which should, which is one of the things that we believe should be disclosed from an engineering standpoint.

So, the cyber ninjas team was looking at the numbers here, which they found were frankly close to what was reported. But if we’re looking at anomalies, we need to look upstream in that process. Alright. So, let’s look at what that process is. Well, first of all, the voter submits an early voting ballot, right? And the EVB return envelopes are scanned into images.

Now what’s fascinating is Phil, let me bring you in. I think people need to recognize that Runbeck is the organization which does the scanning, and there may be others. But as we understand that’s an organization we came to find out in the middle of our process. We have an affidavit from an audit team member saying that when they attempted to talk to the CEO of Runbeck, they diverted it back to the Maricopa officials.

When we put out our audit report, we noticed there was a stamp. And we’ll get to this that was occurring behind the triangle. And we also found examples where it occurred in front. So, the press obviously, spreading disinformation, said Oh, Dr.SHIVA is ignorant. He didn’t understand the process, etc. And these are compressed images.

Phil, did anyone tell us these were compressed images before we got the images?

Phil: No.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, in fact, no one in the Arizona Senate, as we know, knew that, in fact, our liaison didn’t know that. But the good news is because we brought that up. Now the world knows that Maricopa officials take the original scans, and they compress them.

And the question now is why aren’t you saving high resolution images? That’s the question. Right? But to assert that, “well, you didn’t know that they were compressed.” I think it is frankly, not in the spirit of trying to understand what’s going on. So, we wrote back 19 other questions to the discovery that they compress images, because their point is that when they compress these images, you get this anomaly where the stamp appears behind.

But we have found examples where the stamp actually appears above some of the small triangles, and we’ll share that. The issue comes in, what is your process? Can the images be altered? Who has access to these images? Why did you do the compression? Why are you compressing? Now the claim is that we want to save money.

Well, I’ve rarely heard, frankly, politicians want to save money. Particularly, every party has their view, but these days, disk drive space is not that expensive. Phil, how much would have been? I mean, we have about 1.9 sum odd images, if they’re compressed versus uncompressed, the amount of disk drive space wouldn’t have been that much more, I’m sure. For a few $1,000 more the citizens of Arizona would have funded that.

But the point is, we don’t have high resolution images, we have the compressed form. Okay. It may be fine. But the issue is, most of the public did not know about this process. I surely didn’t. And many of the people at the Arizona State Senate didn’t either. But anyway, that’s an important point I want to bring up that these are compressed images.

Now there are six different types of return envelope formats. There’s not just one, there’s six different kinds, okay. And then there are the standardized ones. There’s three different kinds for the military and overseas people, there’s one for people who have trouble seeing large print format, and there’s one for people who are Braille.

Here’s, for example, there’s that one, there’s this one for what we call the UOCAVA ballots, or the UOCAVA type A, we call them we call this type B, type C, these are for people out of the country, typically, and these are for large print, and these are for the Braille. So, there’s multiple kinds that what we did is we added up all of the images that were given to us in our disk drive.

Just to be precise here. EchoMail was provided a disk drive from the Arizona Senate who got them from America officials with all the return on envelope images. Okay. All of them. The military, the overseas, a large print plus the majority and what you’re seeing here, is that count, okay. It includes everything. 1,929,240.

Okay, so these are all the odd envelope images. That is associated with the early voting ballots. What we did then was we noticed something interesting, Phil, I think we were a little bit surprised, right? Because when we saw the duplicates, because we didn’t, we weren’t notified that there were duplicates in those images. Sure.

Our team, what we did was we then extracted the duplicates, okay. And so, we identified there were sometimes one person sent, there were two duplicates, and associated with that person to be precise. What we learned is that they do a process called curing, okay, and we’ll talk about this.

One voter could be associated with two envelope images. There were cases where one voter was associated with three envelope images. The return envelope images. There were cases, in fact, I think about four people who are associated with four early voting ballot return envelope images to be precise.

And we’ll come to that. So, in fact, with the two copy duplicates, we noticed that there were 16,934, two copy duplicates. Which would mean 33,868 images. Okay, from 16,934 unique voters. We noticed there were 188 unique voters, which submitted three copy duplicates. So, there would be a total of 376 duplicates, right, but a total images of 564.

And there were four individuals, unique people who submitted 16 images, 12 of them, which were duplicates. Okay. So, the net of it is, to be clear, there were 17,126 unique voters, among which who submitted either two copy duplicates, three copy duplicates, or four. For a total of 17,322, early voting ballot return on envelopes duplicate images, okay. That’s the right precise thing.

What we had to do is obviously, we had to take all the images that we had, subtract out these to get the total number of unique EBV returned envelope images. Alright, so again, to be clear, what we’re looking at here is, we’re just doing basic math, basic accounting, you don’t need to go to MIT for this. But the basic accounting here is that we are finding that when you remove the duplicate images, you find 1,911,918, unique, early voting ballot return on both images.

So, let’s go back to our central principle, right. So, the central principle is we have that number. Okay. We have that number of unique, early voting ballot return envelope images. So, Phil, you’ve been like you’ve been listening like a good student. So, Phil, how many? How many early voting ballots should we then have?

Phil: We should have the same number of ballots as we have envelopes,

Dr.SHIVA: Right? So, we should have, again, very simple, very simple math. Because again, these, all of these images we got from the recorder’s office, if they are following Engineering Systems processes, which means every ballot, every return envelope was imaged, which is what we got. This is what the citizens of Arizona paid us $50,000 to do this.

We don’t want to waste people’s money. But we were given those early voting ballot return envelope images to analyze. And when we pull out the duplicate images, we have 1,911,918 unique onboard, so we should have that many numbers of early voting ballots, right? Everyone agreed? Let’s see if everyone’s listening. Everyone agreed online. All right.

What do we actually have? All right, let’s go back to the numbers here. So, by the way, we remove those and then we did our signature presence detection process, the saffron pieces, what we were hired for, okay, we were hired to do this process.

Okay. Now, we had to determine once for all of these different ballot types, this process, okay, so remember, our scope of our audit was to extract that signature area, apply our algorithms, our detection algorithms to find that and then look in that to see if one of these categories fit in.

By the way, if there were 0% non-white pixel density that was a blank, okay. So blank is there’s nothing in that region 0% it likely blank is anything greater than 0%. but less than or equal to 0.1% of non-white pixel density, okay? The scribble is anything greater than 0.1%, up to 1%. And a signature is anything greater than 1%. So, again, we’re not doing deep signature analysis.

We weren’t hired to do that. But this was just to get a feel of, you know, what’s going on in that signature region. All right. Now, just to again, make it clear when signature verification takes place. A reviewer is literally looking at the envelope signature on a screen. They have, as we understand, again, we’d like to get the processes.

They’re looking at the signature that’s been given to them from the voter registration files, and through apparently a 27-point process. The reviewer, many of them volunteers have to look at this and look at this and find out if they’re the same. I find it quite amazing. They’re able to do it.

Okay. Interesting enough, the Atlantic journal, as well as the, the LA Times have said that this is a witchcraft process. And this is ripe for error. That’s what some people may consider the left magazines, but even people on the right have said this. So, signature verification is quite fascinating. But we weren’t doing signature verification here, we were just looking at, is there a signature present in the box? That’s where it’s supposed to go? Okay, that’s the scope of the audit.

Those in the press need to understand that the scope of the audit, we weren’t looking for signatures elsewhere. The scope of the audit was right in that box. Okay, to be clear, so let’s go back. That’s what we did, okay. And obviously, then it goes into signature verification, all right, and then the envelopes are open. So just to be clear, the envelopes are open and tabulated only if you verify that the signature is associated with that person, there’s not a blank signature and it wasn’t a late return.

All right. So what we did for signature presence detection, I mean, I’m not going to walk you through, but this is sort of the, the capabilities, we did the technology, we looked at the envelope, we classified it and one of the six, we remove the duplicates, then we did the classification, based on there was different classifiers for each one of these envelope types.

And we ended up getting the signature analysis and this is what we found, we found out among the non-duplicates, right, the non-duplicate. All right, there were 2,420 scribbles, 1,771 blanks, and 101 likely blanks, obviously, the majority had a signature or something in them. To be clear. We don’t know if it was a signature because we’re only looking at pixel density, we would love to do the signature verification, all right. So that’s the results of that, okay.

Then we also did duplicate analysis. Remember, there were duplicates, some of them were you had in the duplicate images, there was a signature on one, no signature on the other, or signature and signature. And this apparently, we’ve come to learn is what occurs during the process called curing, in which the Maricopa officials are actually generating these duplicates.

And we will talk more about this.

We had these cases where you could have various combinations of signature, with signature signature, blank signature signature, with a, you know, a scribble. That’s what the C denotes. The L denotes the likely blank. And then you have scribbles which could be a scribble with a blank, scribble with a likely blank in the scribble with the scribble.

S means signature, B means blank. L means likely blank, C means scribble. And then you had examples, which you just said, blank and blank, blank and likely blank, and likely blank, unlikely blank. Okay.

We again hear examples of those. Here’s an example. By the way, when we say phone number, there could have been anything there. Okay, to clarify, there could have been a phone number, there could have been not a phone number there, someone may have written something there, they may have written their initials there, maybe even put a signature there. But we were looking in here, okay.

So, you notice, here’s an example of a duplicate, where it’s a signature, it’s signed and signed. So, there is a signature here and a signature here, there is an example of where you could have a signature, and nothing here, okay.

Again, a duplicate blank. Here’s an example where you have a signature, but a likely blank here. Here’s an example where you have something signed here, but it becomes a scribble over here. Here’s an example you’re looking at it, you have a scribble here and something here.

And again, one of the press tried to do a hit job saying Aha, you’re trying to hide something, there’s something underneath there. Well, that’s where a phone number is supposed to go. That’s why you put your phone number, okay? There may be something there may not be. But again, our job was to look in here. And here’s an example of a scribble here, and a likely blank here, but the scribble was being approved. Again, nothing else is here.

So, you have various cases like this, okay, among the duplicate, so here’s a scribble and scribble. And the scribble here is being approved during this curing process. Here’s an interesting example where you have a blank and a blank, you don’t have phone numbers, you have a date, and this is also being approved. All right.

And then here’s another example where you have a blank and an unlikely blank, so on, you have all these different kinds of examples here. Because there may have been something here which extended here, this was categorized as a likely blank using per this scope of the audit. So, we added all these up, we found out there were 155 scribbles among the two copy duplicates, 45 blanks, no signatures among the two copy duplicates, and those were our numbers.

And then we in fact found some examples of blanks among three copy duplicates. Alright, so the final results that we have are 1,919 blanks, we have 2,580 scribbles. So, when we do our analysis out of the 1,929,240 images that we got, these were the unique images 1,911,918. And if we were to apply our algorithms, you would have ended up with 1,907,419. So, by way of comparison, this is what we have.

Okay? So, I’m on this column here, column two is the EchoMail analysis. column three is a Maricopa, the key thing we notice here is – the Maricopa people did not report duplicates, duplicate images. Okay. We think it’s important to report that, they’re saying that they cured these therefore there’s no reason to report them.

Again, it’s a process that no one else in the world knows except the Maricopa officials. Here we have the unique early voting ballot return envelopes. Okay, how many we have, and they don’t match with the total number of early voting unique ballots that they have. These two numbers Phil? This is what you were talking about, right? These two numbers need to be exact. Right?

Phil: Right.

What we’re finding here, the key anomaly is that the Maricopa numbers have 6,545 more early voting ballots than the envelopes associated with them. Okay, so that’s the big takeaway. You also notice that this is how many bad signatures they have, and we weren’t asked to do this. But you could argue that if you look at our scribbles, and all these scribbles were bad signatures, we’d have about three times more.

Now we’re gonna open up our call-in lines, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to put on our banner, the call-in numbers, so anyone can call in.

We want to invite – we have a special number for the Maricopa County officials. They haven’t called in yet have they? We also have a number for the public and the press. And please call in. And when I go to the phones, we’ll be picking them up.

Okay. But the first thing we want to talk about here is the first anomaly we want to point out is Maricopa officials reported only 587 bad signatures. So, what do we mean by bad signatures? The bad signatures mean that someone is looking at an early voting return envelope, an image. They’re looking at the voter registration image, right. And they’re comparing this image signature with this signature.

Now apparently, they’re supposed to compare here. I think it was 27 points, right? 27 points on this 120 some odd. Now we’ve heard various things. And these are again, we haven’t seen affidavits, but we’ve heard through the grapevine, frankly, that the 27 point was relaxed to 20.4 point because things weren’t matching.

And some people even claimed that it went to nothing. Now, you’re taking a reviewer, many volunteers and after reviewing this signature with this. And according to Maricopa County, when things didn’t match, then they would cure it, they would call the person on a phone or try to reach them.

And after all of those processes, out of the 1.9 million plus early voting return envelopes, they found only 587 as we’re seeing here, where the signatures did not match, which means three one hundredths of a percent. Okay 0.031%. And remember, these are their numbers of the early voting ballots, which are against 6,545 more ballots and envelopes.

So, to give you an idea, this means there’s only one bad signature of every 3,268. And if you took ballots, which were .1 millimeters in height, and you lined them up, that went up, that would go up to 630 feet. And then that would be the size of the arch of St. Louis, Missouri. Phil, we calculate that to be exactly 630 feet, right?

Phil: That’s right. 630 feet. Yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: But the size of this is 587 bad signatures. This is 587. So, everyone knows, make a note of that. But that would be about 2.31 inches, okay? So, we’re looking at a very, very small fraction of bad signatures.

That’s the first anomaly we want to discuss. And this is, I think, a huge opportunity for a Systems Analysis because you are, again, the left, be it The Atlantic go, you can look it up and it’s called the signature verification process “Witchcraft”, the LA Times that said it’s “Ripe for Error”. People on the right have attacked it.

Left & Right – in the mainstream media both agreed the signature verification process is, frankly, very difficult, and it’s a process that we need to scientifically analyze and review. Which means we don’t know what the confidence level is. And now we have the scientific methodologies, we have those tools to allow us to do that.

But this is one of the areas that must be done, and Maricopa offers us the opportunity to do that. We have the images, if we can get the registration signatures, we can compare them and come up with a mathematical metric of the trustworthiness of this process.

That’s the first thing. The second thing we want to talk about is the second anomaly. Maricopa has 6,545 more early voting ballots, which means a ballot, then the envelope images, return envelope images. Phil any comments on this. You need to unmute yourself

Phil: On the previous subject we were talking about. I just wanted to mention something. Okay.

Dr.SHIVA: Let me go to the previous episode. Go ahead, Phil.

Phil: It’s important to note that we may, we may cover this later on in this session, but it’s important to note that in 2019, there was some legislation passed, and there was some they added some curing process, right? Where they actually contact the voters. And so, they are saying that is why there’s such a low rate of ballots that weren’t approved, is because of the new legislation. Okay.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So, if Phil is bringing up an important point. So, we had mentioned that in our report on page 99, we had said this again, we have never accused anyone, we’ve asked for process questions. So, we said Is this because of legislation, and recently, there was a note that came back saying there was some legislation that allowed them to call people, they gave them a little bit more time.

That’s why the rates were low. But again, from a process standpoint, how did they call them? Are these call records stored somewhere? Who did they call in a process like this, where you’re curing a number of votes that could have a significant effect on particularly an election, which was, what 10,500 in that range? Right in the margin of error?

You would want to know, if you call them where the call logs what happened, right? Again, this is a Standardized Operating Procedure. We’re not accusing anyone. Again, from an engineering standpoint, we would love to see those call logs. How did those processes go? Okay. Phil, any other thing you want to add?

Phil: No.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay. So that’s really important here. All right. Let’s continue. So, the other anomaly here is this number. And I think this is probably for me, Phil, this is sort of the heart of the issue here. I mean, there’s many issues here. But this is a very significant point here, because you’re looking at 6,545 more early voting ballots, okay.

Then the envelope images associated with them. So, these numbers have to match. Okay, Phil, you run a business, I run a business, right? We have auditors come in the assets and the liabilities and the equity all better tally up, okay. We are not requesting anything more than to say please let us know why these numbers aren’t matching.

They should match exactly. They should match perfectly. Either. We didn’t get all the images, either. Not all early voting ballots come in images. Okay. But it’s a very simple answer. So, we have almost close to 3,600 people listening today. So, I would urge all of you to just recognize that this is not about left or right.

This is not about attacking anyone. We’re just asking. In the interest of the public in the interest of bringing this country together. Why are there 6,545 more early voting ballots? Then the images? That’s the question, okay. Let me finish the anomaly John and we’re going to take calls.

Phil: Can I say one thing, Dr.SHIVA? Yeah. I just wanted to point out another thing we may cover in the latest round of back and forth between us and the Maricopa elections department, they essentially – I’m paraphrasing here, they essentially said, we’re in the business of counting ballots, not envelopes.

Okay. And so, they dismiss that difference. And I’m not saying anything other than what it is. That is their official position. Is that – maybe it doesn’t really matter, is kind of what their position is.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, and I think this is a very interesting point, though, that you’re making because cyber ninjas counted ballots, right. They counted the paper ballots at the end of a process. So just to give sort of a layman’s way of doing it, let’s say you work in a cookie factory, right?

And you have problems with the cookies at the end of the process, and you’re just looking at the cookies at the end. And, and you’re comparing them to what someone else reported, why everything may match up, okay? But if you want to find what the real issue is, you have to go way upstream.

Where did you know the flour came from? Where did the chocolate chips come from? Right? Did someone steal some of the stuff here? Did they throw in something in this process? Okay. And that’s what I’m talking about. This is an Engineering Systems process. And by the way, suddenly everyone is saying, we’re going to do voter IDs and voter IDs are going to solve it, right? Again, these are quick fixes.

They’re opportunist politicians, right. And, you know, 34 states have voter IDs, which frankly, hasn’t solved it. This is a systems process. You have to, we as a public need to have a transparent understanding of all of these systems processes. And I think, Phil, to your point, to state that we just count ballots, you know, basically “Be quiet”, you know, move along, there’s nothing to see here is not the right attitude.

This is why the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up. Okay. You had Allan McDonald and Roger Boisjoly who said, Hey, thatO ring has never been tested under these cold temperatures. And people said, move along, you know, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And we lost seven people’s lives.

One of them was a, someone I knew, and alumni at MIT, Ron McNair, okay. Little things matter. Anomalies matter. And this is why we need to raise everyone’s consciousness beyond left or right. Beyond republican democrat, we’re talking about if you see an anomaly small or large, you welcome it, you embrace it, you don’t dismiss it.

And that’s why we wanted Maricopa officials here. I hope they come. Or even someone who wants to speak on their behalf. But the bottom line is, the envelopes do matter. And I think Phil, what you’re saying is they’re saying envelopes don’t matter.

Phil: Right. And also wanted to say that, you know, we because all analyses that were done in this report, it just because it could be caused, okay, by legislation, okay? And new processes, okay.

Just because there’s a potential explanation doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look at it under a microscope and get to the bottom of it, it could be, but it could also be caused by something else, it could be a combination of all the different causes, too. But from our perspective, we can’t ignore it. Okay, we can’t just ignore it.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, and someone just wrote Divided States of America, look, when you have people not committed to solving a problem, again, any entrepreneur out there knows this. You get a customer complaining, you can’t say, you can’t call them names and hang up the phone.

And if you have customer service people doing that, you better fire them fast, you’re gonna be out of business. When we have people bring up an insignificant anomaly or a complex anomaly, hey, why are those signature rates so low? Oh, shut the hell up. We had this legislation. That’s why no, we need to understand the process.

And this is the time to do that. Again, Maricopa offers a historic opportunity to bring this country together. Alright, let’s continue. That was the second anomaly. Okay. The next one is, as the early voting ballots increase by 53%, so in 2016 to 2020, if you look at, quote, unquote, mail in ballots, early voting ballots, we increased by 53%. But the bad signatures went down by 56%.

Okay. So, for example, in 2016, you had around 1.2 million early voting ballots, and you had one in about 1,500 signatures which didn’t match. But in 2020, you ‘ve gone up by 50%, and you have less signature mismatch right. Now, Phil, I think you commented earlier, this is because of this new legislation, right?

Phil: That’s what they’re claiming is correct.

Dr.SHIVA: But my concern overall is I believe these are still very low mismatch rates in general. You know, if you talk to people in the industry who do forensic analysis of signatures, they take like six hours to look at a signature we have people spending I understand five to 10 seconds so I find it quite amazing that the signature rates are mismatch rates are this low and that’s why I think we need to do further research to get a metric on what it is independent of humans to do really a deep analysis because the ballot is only as good as the envelope which it travels in.

Right, I don’t want to say that the glove doesn’t fit. But the ballot is only as good as the envelope which it would travel in. By the way, again, right, the signature of the ballots have gone up, the mismatch rates have gone down, and this has gone down again, we consider this in engineering, an anomaly. Maybe it’s fell if we saw this from an engineering standpoint, we’d say Wow, you there’s been some amazing process improvement. Right? Right. We’d still want to explore it right? Why did that occur?

Phil: Absolutely. Absolutely. Shine a light on it. Oh, yep.

Dr.SHIVA: There we go. Let’s go to the next anomaly. Okay. The interesting thing is there was no mention of duplicates in the Maricopa CANVASS Report, right? So, you don’t see mention of duplicates. Okay. And we want to talk about this. To be very clear, we found in the data 17,226 voters sent in two or more ballots, what we call duplicates, okay.

This is, when we say ballots, we’re talking about there’s two or more ballot images, right? So, the return envelope images, and that’s the numbers that we’re looking at to be clear. And just to make it even more clear, okay. Just to make it more clear, this is a timing from October 19. Phil, do you want to describe this right here? Is this sort of this data right here?

Phil: Sure. Um, well, you’ve got a date on the x axis right there, and you’ve got the number of duplicates that came through on the y axis, okay, each day, okay. So, you can clearly see a pattern every seven days, it goes through a cycle, okay. And it kind of continues that way.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, and what you notice here is, but the x axis is a number of early voting ballot return envelopes that we have in our possession by the date stamp that was on them, okay. And you notice that the highest was on October 14, okay, if this date is right, and nothing according to this came in after 11/5.

Five, okay, but there was a peak here. One of the people who put some disinformation out there, stated that, well, you know, all the early voting ballots came in on the date of the election, or after? Well, if you see this graph, that’s clearly not true. Okay. In fact, most of them came in here, this was the highest number.

Now, what we did was, as some of you may remember, we overlaid on this graph, which is this axis here, the blue, which is how many ballots are coming in. On those times, we overlay the blank scribbles in the duplicate on this axis. And you notice it’s pretty, it’s following the pattern except these duplicates, we’re calling duplicates here, okay?

And we find out is if you go in closer and you do the duplicate as a function of the ballots, you get this sudden peak here. Okay? So, what are these duplicates? Let’s discuss these, what we have come to find out that it is the Maricopa officials, when they do curing when things don’t add up, when they’re finding someone signature, and they find a blank, they’re calling the people.

And they have a process, which is quite interesting. They take the original physical envelope. In fact, we’ve heard two things in one response, they said they don’t use a physical envelope. And another they say they use the images, and then they put the stamp on it.

Okay, that’s called curing. What’s fascinating is it looks like most of this curing took place after election day, right? That’s what we see in this graph. So, we have put forward the question, why is curing taking place? Why isn’t curing occurring throughout this process? It looks like the predominant amount of the curing over here. Okay. That’s the question. Phil, do you have any thoughts on that?

Phil: Oh, well, I mean, we knew when we did the analyses that there could be a natural explanation for it. Okay. Again, it doesn’t mean it is or it isn’t. We’re just but it’s an anomaly that we have to explore.

Dr.SHIVA: It’s an anomaly that needs to be explored. And it can be frankly, addressed, if we have the Standardized Operating Procedures, maybe the Standardized Operating Procedure, for the Maricopa officials is, you wait until here and you cure everything, okay?

You don’t do it here, maybe because it’s the manpower, etc. but nearly 25% of the duplicate early voting return envelope images were made here at this period. Okay, where the curing occurred, and I believe it was close to 7,000 votes when you look in this area right here, okay. So, it’s a significant number of votes.

And then the fifth anomalies that we have duplicate blanks were verified and approved. Now again, one of the press said, oh, you know, there were signatures written elsewhere on the envelopes, right? There were signatures in other places. Aha, we got you guys. Well, remember, EchoMail was hired to look in the signature region, not every other place. However, we went beyond the scope of our audit.

And we also looked. We found ballots, envelopes which are completely blank everywhere, which were also verified and approved. I want to share that with people. Again, this is an anomaly that we want to understand. So here is the duplicate: this was probably the original one, they called them, but then they verified and approved this, okay. But there is no signature.

Now, I’m a little bit confused about this Phil because I’ve heard from statute there has to be at least a signature to prove this. Okay. But you see completely blank ones in this. So, this was the original the person did – that apparently, they cured it created the duplicate image and this was approved. Here’s another example of it. Here’s another example. And another example, and so on.

Now, the most interesting one. Again, this was something we discovered. And we weren’t, again, hired to do this, we were very interested in starting to understand other anomalies. But we found various examples. Now we’re up to close to about 22. We have 22, or more examples of this. Think about this situation, you, Phil, live in a household, okay.

Phil Evans is his name. He has an address, let’s say one main street. And he has not only one voter ID, but he has two voter IDs. Quite fascinating. Phil has two voter IDs, exact same name, exact same address. Okay. And what we have is we have signatures that look pretty similar.

So, we now have 22 examples of what appears to be the same person at the exact same address where the signatures match, and both of those voter id votes are counted. Okay. Does everyone understand? Phil, do you want to repeat that to everyone? So, they understand we’re talking about? Yeah,

Phil: You’ve got what appears to be the same person with two different voter IDs. Let’s just get to the point here. Okay. And the reason we think it is the same person is because the signatures either are Dead Ringers or they’re extremely close. Okay, so this is probably as close to election or vote fraud as we’ve seen in all the images that we’ve looked at.

Dr.SHIVA: Yes, so this is like something quite profound. And unfortunately, you know, the media – they know this is there. Phil, I don’t think one news story has even touched this in fact, none of the responsive Americans, they haven’t touched this, they don’t want to touch this one.

Phil: For obvious reasons, okay. Um, but yeah, this, this looks, you know, we could, we could sit here, and we could theorize what could be I mean, I thought, well, maybe it’s a, you know, a mother or a father and a son and, and the father can’t handwrite or something like that. But if one person is signing for both of them, it doesn’t look good. Okay.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay. Yeah, so we can’t reveal these names. But we’ve sent these to the Attorney General of Arizona, so we have you know, it’s so for example, John Doe a signature. In fact, John Doe is a signature here, you have John Doe, his phone number. In fact, we have cases where the phone numbers also match, and the names and the addresses two voter IDs, and we found both were counted because we bounced them against the VM 55’s.

So, we have multiple examples. You have Jane Doe; we can’t show the signatures. Unfortunately, they’re pretty cool to look at, but we can’t show them. The next one. We have his again, this is a verified and approved stamp. Okay, this, this hit the media everywhere, right? We found this very interesting phenomena where the verified approved stamp was behind.

And the press said, ah-ha, we’ve caught you guys are ignorant, you guys are stupid. You don’t understand the signature process. We know we do compression of images; it will always occur behind the triangles. Okay. And that’s, for the first time we knew the images were compressed, which would seem like which everyone should know.

Obviously, we don’t know, the Senate doesn’t know most of the public doesn’t know I don’t think anyone except probably, maybe probably I’m gonna say like 10 people, okay, in the world, probably know, okay. But we also found it and they said, See the stamp will always occur behind the triangle. Well, that’s also not true either.

Okay, because we found a case that appears in the front end and back. So here it appears behind. Here we have an example right here, if you look in the upper left, where it is occurring, above and behind, okay. So again, what we’re talking about is and the anomaly here as well, these were all black. And when you do go into binary format, they’ll go behind, but that’s not appearing to be the case here or here. Okay, here, it’s going behind. So again, this is again, an anomaly.

The point here is, and there are other anomalies. Okay, the great point, the great opportunity we have here is we have identified wonderful anomalies. We have started to expose this very, very hidden process, frankly. And in an audit, you’re supposed to expose all of these processes.

And so that’s what we really wanted to bring. It’s exactly 1:05 Tim Canova should be joining us. We want to make sure that we take in some calls. John let’s take the first person. Okay. Let’s take the first person’s call that the first person who came in hello, who do we have?

Caller: Hello, my name is Dietrich.

Dr.SHIVA: Dietrich. Can you speak a little bit louder? Go ahead.

Caller: Yeah, I don’t know if this is something you’re able to speak on. But you know, in these ballots, signatures and questions tend to favor one candidate over another.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, so your question is does a signature repeat that again, favor? Oh, your time. repeat again?

Caller: Do any of these ballot signatures in question? Does the ballot tend to favor one candidate over another, or does it tend to be 50/50?

Dr.SHIVA: That’s a great question. So, the question here is, did any of these questionable signatures? For example, the duplicates? Did they favor one candidate over the other? I’ll give you my position on this look. It’s a fascinating question.

Because, if we had access to the batches in which those votes were accumulated, we could frankly give you a number, okay. But there was a very interesting article in The New York Post about a guy who says he used to steal ballots, right, envelopes for that was his, quote, unquote, “job”. And he says the key here is the envelopes.

Because once you get the envelopes. So, the envelope, let’s say you have 1,000 envelopes that are written by Democrats, right? And 1,000 on those being submitted by Republicans, but if you can get their envelopes, you can put in whatever you want. Okay? So, it may look like, right, the votes are coming in from this person, because you can only tell the vote by a Democrat or Republican. But once the ballot is changed inside it, you know, if I were cheating, I would probably distribute all the votes for a candidate across all the types of candidates. You follow what I’m saying?

So, if there’s 100, there’s 100. households were Democrat, 100 households or republican and 100. Households or independents, you would technically steal all those on envelopes equally. And you would put let’s say you wanted candidate X to win, okay?

Because that’s how you would hide it. So, the issue is, it’s the envelopes here, in my position, it’s way upstream, if there’s going to be concerns or let’s say fraud taking place, right. So yeah, so I think people would be very smart to distribute that. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Next question, John. Was that Pima? Oh, you should go and take the earliest one, John. She got off, she, Okay. Let’s take the next person.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, who do we have?

Caller: Oh, it’s me. How are you?

Dr.SHIVA: Good. What’s your name? Where are you from?

Caller: I’m from Texas.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, so go ahead. What’s your question? And remember, focus a question. Maricopa audit. Go ahead.

Caller: Yes. Regarding the generalization of the election, if we’re supposed to be adding a non certain state nation, why do we use the term as crap error and nonsensical childish words tossed in to make it sound like were they supposed to use witchcraft to make the elections win?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, that’s a great question. Um, thank you. So let me answer that word. You can Google right now. And I’ll probably Google it. I’ll bring it up for you. That was a word that was used by The Atlantic Journal. And that was the words that were used by the Los Angeles Times in their headline articles. If someone just wants to Google right now, I will probably try to find it for you. They use those terms. It wasn’t you know, the right wing using these terms or the left wing.

These terms were used by the Atlantic to refer to signature verification. Okay. So that is not my terminology. That is a term that was used by The Atlantic when they were saying that signature verification is a witchcraft. In fact, I’ll bring it up for you if you want to see it.

Would you like to see that? Yeah, so that is not my reason. Yeah. So let me bring this up. In fact, I’ll bring up both articles. Coming from The LA Times – ripe for error, if you type it in, signature matching, I’m doing it right now just to let you know this is not a left or right issue. This was the left newspapers who said that signature verification is so let me bring it up right here. So, if you look right here, let me share my screen here. There we go.

Dr.SHIVA: If you can see right here. So, this is right out of the Los Angeles Times, they are saying signature verification is flawed. Everyone says this, do you see that this was not my term. Okay. And so again, this is not right-wing fanatic saying this, these are your traditional mainstream left media saying valid signature verification is flawed, okay.

And then here is from the esteemed Atlantic, a very esteemed newspaper journal saying signature matching, which one expert described as witchcraft could lead to 1,000s of legitimate ballots being thrown out. Okay. So that’s what I want to do. Yeah, you’re welcome.

Yeah. Thank you very much for asking that because I wanted to let everyone know this is not a left to right issue. That’s why I pointed out that because sometimes try to categorize people who want to stop early voting ballots is left wing or right wing. This is not a left journal. Let’s take one more, then we’ll bring Tim Canova. Go ahead. What do we got, John? Hi, who do we have?

Caller: This is Mike in Cleveland.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Mike. How are you?

Caller: I’m doing great. Dr.SHIVA. Thank you. My question is, with regard to the scale. You had blank scribble in the signature, and the signature was anything above like point one. Dark space.

Dr.SHIVA: One prints at 1% 1% 1%? Yeah. So, it’s a very low tolerance. You know, it’s a very low tolerance.

Caller: That’s my question. The blank is zero. There’s nothing in this space. Yeah. And scribble is just basically any kind of one or two pixels. That seems Yeah, so

Dr.SHIVA: We had blank, which is 0%. We did a likely blank. 0% Plus, but less than point 1%. A scribble is 0.1%. but less than 1%. Yeah, so you’re bringing up a great point, we set these thresholds very low. So, for anything to be a signature, we weren’t asked to do signature verification, right, which we can do, right?

You’re bringing a very good point to let everyone know, we were being super, super, super conservative or liberal. And what we considered a signature, anything greater than a pixel density of 1% was considered a signature. You’re absolutely right.

Caller: That’s amazingly low. I mean, some of that, the likely signature is no threshold. Any mark with intent to authenticate is a signature, but just a smudge would qualify.

Dr.SHIVA: Exactly yeah. So, you’re bringing up the point. So too, that’s why I’m saying even if you look at our low threshold, we found nearly 2,500, were scribbles. Okay. In that signature region. Now the officials and others have argued, well, they put the signature somewhere else we fix that during the curing, okay. Again, this needs to be fully investigated.

But the point is, to your point, it’s a brilliant point you’re making. We kept that threshold very low. So that’s why signature verification, that’s why I want to bring up that Atlantic article in the LA Times article. It’s ripe for error. Thank you. Thank you. How many people do we have waiting? Okay, we’re gonna bring in a couple more people because some people have been waiting long. Go ahead. Let’s go ahead.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, how are you? Let’s go next. Okay, we’ll take one other question. We have about four more people waiting. We just want to make sure we’re being respectful to the people waiting. Hi, who’s this?

Caller: Hey Dr.SHIVA. My name is Brian.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Brian. Where are you from?

Caller: Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, great to have you. We’re gonna have Tim Canova from Florida. Yeah.

Caller: Awesome. My question is this. There was testimony during a hearing in Maricopa County where they talked about days after the election, truckloads of ballots coming in from Runbeck. In your testimony, you said that you noticed more anomalies after November 3.

And I was wondering if you look into the processes with Runbeck because we did feel, allegedly, that Runbeck stores the mail in ballots at their facility. Until it’s time to transfer to the med tech. So, I was wondering if you looked into that at all?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, it’s a great question you’re asking, right. So, the answer to that question is, we have not had an opportunity. I mean, we’ve been, you want to just, you want to just cut them down. No, no worries, all answered. So, we haven’t had the opportunity to, you know, go through any of that, okay.

Because, you know, we’ve been heavily involved in this analysis, we would love to speak to Runbeck, but I just want to share with you an interesting note, because one of the audit team members, you know, people were critical, hey, how come you haven’t reached out to Runbeck? Why don’t you talk to them? Okay. And I just want to share with you, if I can bring this up, I can pull this off here. Okay. Let me share with you.

The pushback that our audit team member got when they attempted to reach out to Runbeck. Okay, I think I have it here. So, I don’t know if you can see this letter. And this is for everyone to see, again, we’re being in full disclosure. Okay.

This was a letter that was sent to Jeff Ellington, who is the president and CEO Runbeck. And this says, oh, someone’s saying, try to repeat back questions for clarity. So, the question was, there was some truckload of ballots that came? Have you tried to reach out to Runbeck?

This is what Jeff Ellington or Runbeck said to our audit team member, he goes, this is a confirm receipt of your information request, we’ve been advised that the county’s preference is, is that the elected officers, employees and vendors, which is them, do not speak with other persons concerning the pending audit.

Okay. And I wanted to share that with people because and by the way, here are Phil’s records, trying to reach to the Maricopa officials here, all of his phone records where you tried multiple times, and we’ve submitted this, you know, it’s public information now it’s out there. But the point is that we have not had that time. And we have not made, we have not set aside a lot of time to do that. Because, frankly, of all the pushback we’ve gotten. Thank you.

Let me bring in. So, I want to introduce someone at the beginning of this call. I mentioned that. Oops. Phil, I’ll add you back to the stream shortly. Okay. I want to bring in Tim Canova. Tim Canova is an esteemed professor of law. Tim will introduce himself, but Tim ran for Congress against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in 2016. One of the things I want to point out is, this is not, you know, we don’t want to serve Democrats do this to Republicans and Republicans do this to Democrats.

And, and I want him to speak and I’ll speak about my own race here where it was the Massachusetts GOP Republicans, who, frankly, you know, committed fraud on our own election by all obvious indications to anyone’s saw what happened, the Massachusetts GOP led by a guy called Jim Lyons and we’ll play a video by one of their new governor guys who’s running who denies the election was stolen. It’s quite extraordinary.

This guy, he’s known as Dirty Diehl here, but he denies that the election was stolen from Trump, and he told Donald Trump that you know, this is spilt milk, right, move along. Okay. So, it’s Republicans do it to Republicans, Democrats do to Democrats, Republicans do to Democrats, Democrats to Republicans.

So, I want to engage in a conversation to expand the universe of what’s going on by Tim Canova joining us, and then we’ll bring Phil back and Phil did some of the analysis for Tim’s election. Tim, do you want to just give a background on you and what happened to you, and I actually have the video cued up from that election order. We’re going to hear actually here about how you have an election official stating that the ballots were destroyed, and nothing has happened to her. Go ahead, Tim.

Guest Interview – Tim Canova

Tim Canova: Yes, thank you, Dr.SHIVA. Appreciate it. appreciate all the work you’re doing. I ran in 2016 in a democratic primary against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who at the time was the Chair of the Democratic National Committee. I am a law professor. It’s what I’ve been doing for the past two decades, not a professional politician.

But we ran a very spirited campaign, which went viral pretty quickly, thanks in large part to my opponent, making herself so unpopular among the grassroots of the Democratic Party for trying to tip the scales for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary.

We raised almost $4 million dollars from over 200,000 individual contributions online, which was a record for small donations online for a federal campaign at that time, and we spent the money right here in the district. We had four field offices, had about 200 people between paid staff and volunteers knocking on doors every day for an August 30, 2016, primary.

So right through the heat and humidity of the summer, we were knocking on about 12,000 doors a week, and calling you about 3,000 voters a week. I believe it was the largest grassroots campaign for Congress at the time in 2016. And there were very limited polls that were being done. There was an establishment poll that had Wasserman-Schultz ahead by more than 10 points.

A couple of weeks later, we had our own poll that showed us closing into single digits, with about 20% of the electorate undecided and a lot not knowing who I was, but that started changing this summer. And as the Election Day got closer, as the early voting got closer, our internal numbers showed it tipping in our favor, pretty dramatically.

And a number of things started to raise concerns in the days before the election. We came under denial-of-service attacks, repeated denial of service attacks. The FBI was completely unconcerned. We called them a number of times our lawyers called them a number of times. And then the day before the election, the local NBC affiliate had up on their website a preview of the next day’s elections.

And, you know, none of the votes have been counted yet. And in all the races, whether it’s Sheriff or county commissioner, the races were, you know, 00 with 0% of the precincts reporting, but for our race, they had Wasserman Schultz ahead by about 14 percentage points with 69% of the precincts reporting, which seemed rather strange, we called them up and they took that down but never gave an explanation.

The next day when the polls closed, Wasserman Schultz was declared the winner almost immediately by almost the same exact spread that NBC had been reporting the day before. So, things seem very fishy. And again, what was most important in my mind was that our internal field numbers weren’t based on 600 calls to likely voters by some polling agency that, you know, had conflicts of interest. He’s read 12,000 engagements a day on door knocking in the district, and it had his way ahead of her at the end.

So, I never conceded defeat, and instead, I asked to see the paper ballots we put in, there was an official audit, and the official audit is really a joke. About a week after the election, they choose one precinct in Broward County, it was not even in our district, it was a different congressional district. And they just make sure that the votes match up.

They put them through the same machine with the same software. So, it’s a very meaningless audit. We asked to see first, the digital scanned images and Brenda Snipes, who is then the Supervisor of Elections of Broward County, said to me personally on the telephone that they had no digital scanned images, which seemed very strange to my election lawyer and to me, mainly because it takes nothing to take digital scanned images, it’s like you press one toggle switch at the central location.

And you’ve got your digital scanned images. Here in Florida. People go on paper ballots that are scanned; they’re put through a scanning machine. I should also back up and say another.

Dr.SHIVA: Hey Tim. Yeah, I want to keep it sort of, you know, sort of the key points here. About 3,700 people on here want to keep them focused. The bottom line is you ran for Congress, you had a phenomenal campaign against Debbie Wasserman—Schultz, a Democrat. You were a Democrat. Right, just to let everyone know.

Tim Canova: I’m a Democrat. At the time a Democrat.

Dr.SHIVA: You asked for the ballot images, right? Which are the scans and then you, you got court authority to do an audit, if I’m right?

Tim Canova: Not exactly what they told us. There were no scanned images. We asked to see the paper ballots. This went back and forth for more than six months, and I finally filed the lawsuit under Florida’s public records law to inspect the ballots, paper ballots. All election materials are considered public records. We were three months into the lawsuit with lawyers filing motions back and forth.

Three days after we filed our discovery requests. Brenda Snipes, the Supervisor of Elections, ordered the destruction of all the paper ballots and then did not even inform us or the court for another two months. We confirm this in sworn videotaped depositions of Snipes where she admitted to destroying the ballots

Dr.SHIVA: And I have that, I have that videotape, Tim. Tim, I think, yes, I have that videotape queued up. So, the bottom line is that you were trying to get the ballots in the middle of after you were given access to the ballot. She destroyed the ballots, right? Is that what happened?

Tim Canova: That is exactly what happened. The court ruled that that’s what happened. They granted a summary judgment, which meant nothing except attorney’s fees at that point because the ballots were gone. The judge’s order was a 10-page order which listed all of the statutes that Snipes had violated, including criminal violations of federal and state law.

Dr.SHIVA: Let me play that video, Tim, because I think people seeing the video. So, bottom line is Tim Canova got the right to audit the ballots. They had the ballots in the middle of that acquisition, the way she was Snipes, to say the election director. Tim?

Tim Canova: No, she was the county election supervisor

Dr.SHIVA: And she destroyed the ballot. So, I have this queued up Tim, I found the video. So, this is online. So here is a county supervisor, I think in deposition, admitting that she destroyed the ballots, and her reason is quite extraordinary. So let me bring it up here. Yeah. The reason is quite extraordinary. So here it is. Let me play the video here. Here we go.

So, it’s quite extraordinary. So let me bring back in Tim, and Phil here. So, what’s extraordinary here is, Tim, is this county supervisor election official, who signed orders to destroy your ballots, right? In the middle.

Tim Canova: I’d say they were not my ballots. They were the ballots of all of the voters in Broward County. Every single ballot was destroyed. They were supposed to be held for 22 months. And I think they weren’t even held for a year.

Those are felonies under state and federal law punishable by up to five years in prison for every count, and instead of there being any prosecution of Snipes, by Republicans, Rick Scott was the Governor, a Republican Governor at the time. Instead, Snipes was allowed to retire and is receiving $130,000 a year pension. And I should say, it wasn’t just state prosecutors that failed.

We spoke to the acting US Attorney Benjamin Greenberg. My lawyers met with him for more than 90 minutes. This is a prosecution that a second-year law student could win easily. You’ve got a sworn videotaped confession of the wrongdoing. And Greenberg seemed motivated to bring up prosecution and we were hoping a prosecution would lead to Snipes with his cooperation, we’d find out who else was involved, where this all came from. And Greenberg went to Washington DC for a week of meetings at the Justice Department with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the one who had appointed Robert Mueller to investigate those collusion charges.

And he came back and said they didn’t have the resources to prosecute this case. They usually do securities litigation. I’m telling you; this is destruction of evidence. Again, any second-year law student would win this in half an hour, I would think. So, there was no prosecution. Those were Republicans covering for Democrats.

Dr.SHIVA: Great. All right, Tim. Thank you. I think the reason we want to bring Tim in is the biggest part of what we’re trying to do, Tim, as we talked about last night is we want to engage people to raise their consciousness. And this is really talking about election integrity, the system’s integrity.

And they’ve created enough processes here, that people can get away, touching parts of this system. And it looks like from your case, there’s no enforcement. Here’s a person who destroyed ballots, and nothing has happened to her in those five years. Right, Tim? Nothing has happened to this person.

Tim Canova: It’s right. And Dr.SHIVA, I should say that my attorney who is a very well-connected Republican, I couldn’t find an election lawyer who’s a Democrat, since I was running against the head of the DNC. Yeah, yeah. And my lawyer got back to me, I’d asked him why Republicans from Broward to Tallahassee, were not interested in bringing the boom down on this kind of Democratic Party corruption.

And he got back to me after a couple of weeks, and he said, I could expect no help from the Republicans. And it was because they had the same friends as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the same financial backers, the same political consultants, the same lobbyists.

So, this is not a republican versus democrat issue. This is insider versus outsider. And by having rigged elections like this, we end up with representatives that don’t represent us. They’re representing all kinds of interests in my race, Wasserman-Schultz represents huge corporate interests, who flooded her coffers with millions of dollars. I didn’t take a penny of corporate money.

Dr.SHIVA: Great. Thanks, Tim. Phil, do you want to say anything? You’re muted, Phil, I want to go back to Phil.

Phil: Hey, Tim, how are you?

Tim Canova: Very good. It’s nice to see you fill in through all these years. I spoke on the phone once and I know you’ve done a lot of work on my campaigns, analyzing the statistical results.

Phil Evans: Absolutely. Absolutely. It’s good to finally meet you. Um, I may have missed this. But my recollection is that nobody seemed to care. But in the 2018 midterm elections, went four days in Broward County after the election, and they still couldn’t reach a result. Then the whole nation converged down there, and that and it was finally announced that Brenda Snipes had done that, and then she either resigned or was fired from her position. Is that? Is that how it went?

Tim Canova: That is pretty accurate. I ran as an independent in 2018. And the results of that election were very suspicious because I was kept the same exact low percentage point. In every precinct in the district, the same exact percentage point among every demographic group; Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Republicans, Democrats, Males, Females, didn’t matter.

I got capped at the same percentage. And one expert in computational science, who you might know, Dr. David Bader, very distinguished expert, concluded that the odds of that election results was as unlikely as winning the lottery every day for a year. And what happened in 2018, was one of my campaign volunteers videotaped a long line of cars that were dropping off satchels of ballots in the darkness of night and loading them up to a rented truck.

And that video went viral. Within a couple of days, more than 2 million people have viewed it on Twitter. And that’s when my phone started ringing. I had been blacked out by the media, I think for touching the third rail and questioning election results prior to that, but suddenly because the race for US Senate and the race for Florida Governor were both deadbeats that had crashed landed in Broward County.

And Brenda Snipes was still the Supervisor of Elections who was finding 1,000s of ballots days after the elections were just showing up out of nowhere. Suddenly, I was invited to appear on Fox News. Still blacked out by MSNBC and CNN of course, but Fox News had me on I think three days in a row to hear the story of how Brenda Snipes had destroyed our ballots. And that was the beginning of the end for Brenda Snipes. She was at first fired. But then she sued. I think she got reinstated for a short term and was allowed to resign and get a $130,000/year pension.

Dr.SHIVA: All right, Tim, thank you very much. This, again, to everyone listening. We’re doing an open forum today. Invited the Maricopa audit people to join us. And we brought in Tim Canova because we want to invite people on the left and the right to understand those people, those of you who are Democrats listening, you have you had a fellow Democrat here, and another Democrat, basically attacked his election, by all means, and I know Phil.

We’ve seen some of those numbers are quite extraordinary.

I want to just quickly display; President Trump just issued a statement concerning the forum we’re holding right now. So, I just want to bring it up. So, we bring it up. So let me bring it up right here. I think I got it, stop this screen, one second. Let me just bring it up. It’s a very interesting statement. And I think it’ll hopefully, let’s say yeah, yeah, through Liz Harrington. This was just put up on Twitter. I just got notice of it. So here we go.

It’s from President Donald J. Trump. And he just issued this, he goes, “Today the highly respected Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT, PhD, is having an event on the big findings from the Arizona audit. He has invited the RINO’s on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to participate, if they have nothing to hide, and if this was a most, quote unquote, secure election in history, they would show up and answer the many questions raised by the audit, like how many, like how there were over 1,700 duplicate mail-in ballots, right? We’re talking about the images, right?

And why they poured in after election day? How there were over 6,000 more ballots than there were on envelopes. So that’s to be specific. President Trump is referring to 6,545 or why some were stamped, verified and approved, even though they had no signature which is against the law. Maricopa County has refused to answer these questions and so much more and instead shoots the messenger to an introductory Dr.SHIVA’s open forum from 12pm to 4pm.

We must fix our election to save our country. The massive irregularities and corruption are now in the hands of the Attorney General Mark Brnovich of Arizona. Everybody knows what the right answer is both in Arizona and other places.

So anyway, it’s great to have President Trump’s involvement and to recognize that he’s watching this and interested in this.

I wanted Tim as a follow up to what you just shared. You know, the way that you know I met you if you remember is that we connected because I had gone through election fraud right here in Massachusetts. And in 2018, I ran against you know, Elizabeth Warren, Campaign was “Only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian”.

We ran against a guy called Dirty Diehl, who said don’t even call her out as Pocahontas. Okay. I mean, that’s a campaign and I was not bringing it out as a racial thing, I was bringing it out as an integrity thing. And then we ran in 2020, we had 3,000 volunteers on the ground. 3,000 volunteers, 20,000 lawn signs,10,000 bumper stickers. We put out 2 million fliers all over Massachusetts, which that’s one of our campaign slogans was “stop election fraud”. Okay, we had billboards everywhere. You could not get out of Massachusetts with Dr.SHIVA’s name was extremely well known.

Probably, the most known running at that point in the Republican Primary on September 1, 2020 for US Senate, okay, Republican primary, the Massachusetts GOP led by a RINO called Jim Lyons, who by the way, if President Trump is listening, Jim Lyons, when Frank Licata went to his home and said, I would like to put a lawn sign of Trump. He said, “Get that effing sign off my lawn”, okay. And him and his wife both said that all right, fact. So, here’s a guy who’s running the mass GOP has very little regard for an outsider, like me, who has his own base. He had went and found a lawyer who nobody knew, who, to run in the primary to not support an independent, you know, minded Republican like me.

And what we saw in Massachusetts was quite extraordinary. This guy had no lawn signs. No, you know, volunteers, you know, relative to ours. You know, we have 3,000 volunteers. On the night of election night, September 1, 2020. The word on the street was landslide, landslide, landslide for Dr.SHIVA. We find out in the hand counted.

In Franklin County, which is predominantly hand counted paper ballots, we win by 10 points, nearly 10 points in every other county is very similar to yours. The numbers were 60-40, 60-40, 60-40, 60-40 so the Massachusetts GOP in collusion in our view, with the democrats had committed election fraud. There’s no way this guy won. I mean, he wins in Black counties.

He wins in, you know, Hispanic counties. A guy who nobody knows his name, even you still to this day. No one knows where this guy came from. No one even knows his name. So, remember the name brand, you know, visibility is one of the most important things to winning. So, you had this guy, Dirty Diehl and this guy was KOC. They call him KOC for Senate, an interesting website that he had.

But this was a guy with the Massachusetts GOP of Jim Lyons, who basically attacked a republican, me, who was an avid supporter, you know, who supported President Trump, voted for him, gave money to him, etc. And these guys were RINOS who are faking to be Trumpers. And there’s a lot of these guys out there. Fake Trumpers, we call them.

Okay. So, recently, this guy, Dirty Diehl, by the way, Dirty Diehl with The President, should know stole data from the Office of President Trump here. He did not want President Trump to win. He was a big Cruz supporter. In fact, they were colluding against President Trump in Massachusetts. More recently, this guy has denied election fraud takes place.

He has actually told President Trump he should “Not cry over spilt milk”. So, I want to play that because these are Republicans who do stuff against Republicans. You gave an example, Tim of Democrats doing stuff against Democrats. So, we have to recognize this is about The Establishment, not wanting outsiders, Tim, they didn’t want you.

Right, against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Massachusetts GOP, who is basically, one Jim Lyons here acts like though he’s against Charlie Baker, who’s a RINO of all RINOS, Jim Lyons is also a RINO, but he acts like he’s a fake Trumper. Okay, so let us, I want to play this. It’s a wonderful video that we just saw. There’s a site called New England for Trump, which is a big Trump, and they’re very, very upset that this guy Dirty Diehl is out there.

Even when he’s the one who played this video. This guy is the one who said no election fraud took place, and he’s running for Governor. And I believe some of the RINOS around the President may have manipulated him to give him an endorsement, which should be rescinded immediately. But let me play this. This is what this guy says.

Dr.SHIVA: So anyway, we want to put that out there. Because here’s a guy who President Trump was clearly manipulated to endorse. And recently, for Governor, that statement came out 90 days ago, 100 days ago. So, here’s a guy who sees the real issues with election integrity, doesn’t believe that election was stolen from President Trump.

And also, has said Trump should just move on, you know, not cry over spilt milk. And yet the RINOS are presenting him as a fighter against election, for election integrity. So, what we need to understand is we have RINOS, fake Trumpers running around, then we get to the fake election integrity people on the democrat side, too, because we want to talk about that.

So, election integrity is a big buzzword now. But you have the real fighters for election integrity. And you have the fake fighters this guy doofus Dirty Diehl, as he’s known by a lot of the Trumpers. If the president is listening right now, this endorsement must be rescinded. If there is seriousness about election integrity because this guy believes everything’s fine.

Now we, Tim, you and there’s a guy called John Brakey. Okay, who’s been putting himself out there as a big fighter for election integrity. I asked John to help us with the ballot images. What we found in Massachusetts was that the ballot images were destroyed by the state election director, and we filed a lawsuit.

Now John Brakey, who’s typically a Democrat. He’s a Democrat, right? He doesn’t want to support Trumpers. So, I asked John for an affidavit, and he wouldn’t give it because he’s one of the guys who knows about ballot images. So, you have partisanship taking place on election integrity.

And so, I’m very disappointed in John, I cut off all relations with him. And I know he was involved in the Maricopa audit, trying to say everything was okay.

Nothing to see here. Let’s move along. So, we have fake people who are making money off election integrity. That’s what’s actually going on. You have fake people on the left. And the right I don’t know if you want to comment on that, Tim.

Tim Canova: Well, I was on an election integrity Listserv, with I think about 80 election integrity activists and analysts. And it was clear to me, even prior to the 2020 Presidential Election, that they were highly partisan. It shouldn’t matter whether it’s a challenger or an incumbent winning or a Democrat or Republican, as long as the votes have been counted properly.

I mean, we should all be for fair, and transparent elections. And when it was clear to me that most of the folks or a number of the most vocal people on that Listserv were highly partisan, I simply asked if everyone would just disclose where they were getting their funding from. And there were no responses whatsoever. So, I do believe it’s a real problem.

And candidates, like you, Dr.SHIVA, and like me, who actually try to contest election results, and find out what happened, try to verify the vote, are usually denounced pretty quickly as sore losers. And, you know, things like that are just name calling. You know, like I said, in my race, we had field members that were overwhelmingly final field numbers, overwhelmingly showing us winning.

And then there were analysts like Phil Evans, who were doing some of the hard work of looking at the official election results and informing us that they didn’t make any sense. So that really is what animated me to want to see the paper ballots is to verify the election results everybody should be for verifying election results.

And, you know, I think that’s the spirit of the Arizona audit and other audits, maybe that might come down the road, to verify or not to verify, but you know, to audit those 2020 Presidential Election results.

Dr.SHIVA: Thank you, Tim, I know you have a school to go to, you have to teach. But we appreciate your joining us. Thank you. Thanks for having us again, Tim. It’s really great having you because you give a wonderful example of Democrats doing this to Democrats.

Tim Canova: Well, thank you. Keep up the fight, appreciate it.

Dr.SHIVA: Be well. One of the things I want to talk about is that Congress passed a law 50 years ago called 52 USC 20701, 52 USC 20701. And that law was passed. Specifically, it was passed specifically to encourage audits. It was passed by a democrat majority, 52 USC 20701, because Congress recognized that there could be issues after an election for 22 months after an election. People were rewarded, people were encouraged to conduct election audits, because election audits will, is what can guarantee, One Person One Vote, and to try to say people are conspiratorial, and spread disinformation like that for merely wanting an election audit. That is what is un-American. Frankly, it’s against the law, because the law says that you should be supporting election audits. So, I wanted to make that point, John, if someone else wants to join. Hi, who do we have? Hi, please ask your question.

Caller: Hello, hey, how are you? Am I missing? Oh, good.

Dr.SHIVA: Good. Tell us where you’re from and ask your question. Yes. Tell us. Yep, go ahead.

Caller: My name is Christine. I’m calling from Massachusetts.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi Christine. How are you?

Caller: How are you?

Dr.SHIVA: Good. What’s your question?

Caller: Okay, I have a few questions. My first one is a while back. I can hear like an echo. A while back. There was a slide that shows the number of early voting ballots requested, and I think was about 2 million. Yep. And then there’s a slide that shows 1.9 received, which is a large discrepancy. Yeah. And it seems like back in November 2020, people were pretty firm on whether they want to vote, you know, early or in person on Election Day. And I remember seeing an image from Arizona where a bunch of ballots were thrown under a rock for Trump. So, my question is, does this Maricopa County audit, or any audit in Arizona? How did they gain assurance the status someone mailed in a ballot that it was actually counted or thrown away and is there something shown on envelope ballot if a democrat or republican? Yeah, so my first question,

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so your first question is, does the envelope show if someone’s a democrat or republican? Is that your question?

Caller: Well, I also want to find out, it seems like there’s a large discrepancy between the numbers-Early mail in ballots that were requested and the ones that were actually returned. How do they know that people didn’t mail it in and then get thrown away?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, let me let me bring that up. Okay, so this is what you’re talking about. Right? I have this on the screen. So, we have early voting ballots requested what in Maricopa was 2,160,412. And the early ballots verified and counted were 1,915,487. Right? Yeah. Okay. So, you’re asking that discrepancy? Right, which is almost about 200,000. Right?

Caller: Yeah. And I think there was a CANVASS where people went to houses and they identify people who had mailed in ballots, but their ballots weren’t counted.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So, there’s been an effort or is an effort ongoing by Liz Harris, who has conducted these door-to-door canvassing, and she has put forward that she has found people who said they did in fact vote, right. But according to the Maricopa County officials, their voter ID is not in any of the ballots that was verified and counted. That’s one of the things you’re talking about. Right.

Caller: Right. So, following up on that, exactly, yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: Phil, do you want to follow up on that? Do you know if they’re following what’s affidavits? Right.

Phil Evans: Right. Maybe Liz will actually call in today. I don’t know. And I’m not the expert. But my understanding is that the same people now are collecting affidavits. Okay, that will that are more legal bound. And that before it’s all over with, they’ll have a pretty substantial argument that there was some unexplainable. A lot of unexplainable anomalies.

People saying, they voted, whose ballots were never counted. And then people, the county saying that people voted. But when they knocked on the doors of the address, those people don’t live there, nor have they lived there for quite a while.

Dr.SHIVA: Great. Yeah. So, what we understand is Liz is starting to do some affidavits. She’s trying to get affidavits for legal reasons. What’s your next question?

Caller: Okay, my next question is, and I don’t know if this can really be answered. Okay, so the Cyber Ninjas. They counted the ballots and their saying that agreed to the number of votes that were reported. Right?

Dr.SHIVA: Yep. Near Yeah, it nearly agreed to the votes that were reported in the CANVASS Report.

Caller: Okay. So, if that’s the case, then, like, was Mike Lindell’s packet captures? If they showed any evidence that lives in this county, and the number of ballots that they had would not equal? What was reported? Right? Or did what they do on the flip the vote, and then they dump more about open surviving? I’m not sure how that would have worked. Yeah, so packet captures may not have played a role. In this County? Right?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so the thing is, we don’t want to go there, you know, because these are hypotheses, right? I think the most important thing for us conducting this event was that we have anomalies. These anomalies are revealing to us in need for full disclosure of all of the procedures, right? So, I don’t even think we want to, we don’t even need to be hypothetical.

I think when we want to get to the nuts and bolts of this you have a machine for processing in this case, we’re looking at the early voting ballots. It has a set of processes we’ve found some anomalies and I think the simplest way to end all this and unite this country is release all this Standardized Operating Procedures. And let’s understand the root causes of these anomalies and that’s how we put stuff to rest. So, and frankly, doing that we’ll get a better Election Systems in this country, but it seems like election officials and their media proxies do not want to focus on why they’re 6,545 more ballots and envelopes.

Simple question. Why are the duplicates, sudden surge of duplicates, being you know, in their model that’s being created by them? Okay, for curing purposes occurring predominantly, you know, after Election Day, again, maybe there’s a great reason but please let us know. Why are the media proxies even being used when anyone can pick up the phone and call me, I mean, everyone knows my phone number out there.

And if the American officials are listening, I’ll give you my phone. It’s 617-631-6874, you can call me anytime. We have people calling me okay. So, this frankly, doesn’t deserve this much amount of energy and time. I mean, a company like General Electric to give you an idea, one of my board members said, do you know how long it takes for a major company to do their audit, like a major company like GE, a month, a year? Two years? What do you think?

Caller: I would think auditors would be there year-round.

Dr.SHIVA: They do it in about a week. Okay? Because all the systems are together, everything is properly documented, people come in and out, everything is organized for the auditors, and you’re in and out. Unless there’s anything to hide, etc., right? An audit doesn’t need to be so painful. It doesn’t need to be this much amount of vitriol and attacking and partisanship. And that is why we’re holding this open forum today. It’s really simple.

Hey, we found these anomalies, just answer the questions or show us your procedures. And then we’ll go look at them. They can put us on the defensive by saying here’s their 300 standardized operating procedures, okay, go read it and get back to us. But that’s not what’s happened. So that’s what we want to educate people on. But thank you for your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Let’s take the next question, John.

Dr.SHIVA: We’re coming up on 2pm. And we want to encourage everyone, um, you know, the Maricopa election officials, maybe some people know them. Maybe some people have connections with them. Um, hello, yes. How are you?

Caller: Good. How are you? Thank you for taking my call. Dr.SHIVA, I’m good.

Dr.SHIVA: Where are you from? And what’s your question? Go ahead. Go ahead. Is that better?

Caller: If you aggregated all the ballots affected by the various anomalies? How many would that encompass? That’s been mentioned, I think 6500. More about, more ballots than ballot envelopes. Several 1000 more signatures than you found.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So, you’re asking a wonderful question again. Thank you. What was your name again?

Caller: Amanda. And I have one other question. That’s quick.

Dr.SHIVA: Let me just answer this one. First. Let me just say, so the first question and Phil obviously chime in. So, if you have, so yes, one of the questions is we have 6,545 more ballots than envelopes. Okay. Remember, this election was lost / won at around 10,500 votes. So, 6,500 is, you know, it’s not a small number.

That’s the first thing. The other thing we want to emphasize is, we found 2,580, you know, scribbles about 1,919 blanks, again, we didn’t do a detail, you remember, we were only looking at the signature region. Okay. Now, we just did a very simple signature presence detection.

Okay, we didn’t have the opportunity to compare all the signature-to-signature analysis, which is what we believe should be done, our guesstimate on that would be that would be north of, you know, 50,000, we would think we would find significant differences, that’s just from a guesstimate of doing some statistical analysis, but we haven’t had the chance to do that.

But the point is that you have 6,500 plus ballots, which don’t have envelopes. Very important. We have examples. Again, this wasn’t part of our audit scope, we did this on our own, we at least have, you know, 20. some odd people who have two voter IDs, same person with two voter IDs, both the votes were counted.

So, if we have a chance to expand our analysis, we may find more. But the point is that the image processing that’s done, when they do the curing, you see what I’m saying, the curing is hundreds of 1,000s of votes that were cured, which means word signatures and match, they contacted people, right? To find out why they didn’t match.

That process, in our view, is very, very squishy, because we don’t understand it. So, imagine out of the 1.9 million votes, they said 587 didn’t match, but they cured a number from our guesstimate from looking at it looks like it was maybe about 100 to 200,000. So that means 100 to 200,000 in that range, or less phone calls went out to call people to say, hey, your signatures don’t match. You following me? Now, how was that process done?

How is that adjudicated, right? Because there’s a lot of room for play there. And that is why we need these processes. So especially in a race, which was lost by 10,500 votes, okay, or won by 10,500 votes.

So, it is very important for people on the right to feel comfortable with how the left treated them or the left to feel how the right treated them to just articulate these processes, put it out, so we can all understand it and move forward. But without that transparency, we’re gonna have a Divided States of America. What’s your next question?

Caller: Just as a tack on to that, and then I’ll ask the second question. Have you been asked to do more analysis for America?

Dr.SHIVA: Yes. So obviously, the recommendation we put forward, one of the original analyses we were asked to do, which was put in abeyance, was to look at the ballot images. Okay. There was a contract that was executed, but that’s been held. And we’re just in sort of a status, you know, just in hold on that. But the other was to really look at, I think the next recommendation we made is we really need to do a scientific engineering analysis of looking at all the signatures and matching them up against voter registration files.

Once we do that, and we do it scientifically, we will know exactly the error rate, you see. Let’s say that error rate is 10%. That means that’s 190,000 votes or 200,000 votes, you see. So that’s what I think. Yeah, that’s what we need to do. And I think this will not only, that’s why I think Maricopa stands at a historic point to help the entire country. Phil, do you have anything to add to that?

Caller: Why are the ballot image analysis portion? Why is that on hold?

Dr.SHIVA: I’m not sure, we’re just waiting.

Caller: Okay, do you have, my second question is: Do you have any other election related projects you’re working on or that are coming up? I’d love to see more work by you.

Dr.SHIVA: Yes, do. I, just hold on one sec. Do I just hit that, John? Okay, so I have a wonderful note before I go to that, from World Blessings, which says “Thank you, Dr.SHIVA, and everyone on the audit teams for all your hard work for the highest and best of the good in humanity. Thank you.”

These are some people super chatting with us, and this is something. Do I hit this again, John, or this one? This is from Chef Dan, it says, “Thank you Dr.SHIVA and John, question for you. “Why were we forced to use Sharpies to fill in our ballots out in Mesa? And has that even been addressed? Also, Trump team, we love you, Mesa Arizona. WWG1WGA.” Okay, I’m not sure about the Sharpies? It’s not my expertise. Phil, do you know?

Phil: I’m not the expert on that. Not even gonna comment on it.

Dr.SHIVA: Thank you. All right. So, what was your next question? We have one, we have got couple more people in queue. How many more people on queue? Yeah.

Caller: Do you have any other election related projects you’re working on?

Dr.SHIVA: I mean, as you know, we did analysis on Michigan, where, we just finished some stuff on Pima, okay, which we’re going to be sharing and a lot of this just to let you know, where we’ve been doing on our own, you know, there’s been a lot of people raising money on election integrity.

The first time we were ever even Commissioned, we ever even did this, you know, in a contractual relationship was $50,000 we received but I can guarantee you that if you read your statement from Professor Debbie Nightingale, I think our team did probably 10 times that effort, at least.

So, you know, on their stuff that we have on Pima County, we’d like to share, what we’d really like people to recognize that we’re taking a serious Engineering Systems Approach. We’re not left or right. I think the election of President Donald Trump and what the events that took place has made this a national issue.

But our election, Massachusetts is where we did our own analysis, we were poised to help. The events that took place in the Presidential Election, in the midst of a lot of the RINO’s who did not want to even help us. I mean, we asked the RINO’s in the White House to help us, we ask the RINO’s, the RNC to help us.

We ask the RINO’s in the Trump campaign to give us data, they never gave us data. Phil and I had to cobble a lot of the data by ourselves, you know. So, the reality is the fake Trumpers, Massachusetts GOP, Jim Lyons, Dirty Diehl. For example, the RINO’s and the Democrats, the establishment democrats all, are all hurting this country.

Because when you break this down into the reality, whether your left, whether you’re right, or whether you’re independent, the election processes in this country. In this country, I can tell you unequivocally, as an MIT PhD, who’s looked at many audits, they are not transparent. We’re not saying people are cheating.

But we do know people are cheating in certain elections like mine and what happened to Tim Canova, but not everywhere, right. But the fact that transparency, and that is a real fraud. The real fraud in this country is that we have people who don’t want to talk about the election processes, and we have really numbskull.

Very, very, numbskull, media people who don’t have any training in mathematics, any training in systems, and for example, we expose one of the newspapers, which is funded by Arabella advisors, which is started by Herb Kessler, which is a multi-billion dollar or near billion-dollar unit, which has funded now nonprofit quote unquote “news organizations” all over the country to do hit jobs on people like me.

And, and you know, frankly, as I talked about racist hit jobs because a guy like me is supposed to always be a liberal, democratic, highly educated, Indian guy, right? Dark skinned Indian guy. And if I do an audit in a sincere way, you don’t only do misinformation, disinformation, but you try to, you know, Lynch me back into the box, right.

So, we need the media, frankly, to either come to Cambridge we’ll educate you on Engineering Systems Theory. But if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re really doing a lot of harm. Because you want to control the vitriol. You want to have the partisanship; you want to create a Divided States of America. But thank you.

Caller: Thank you Dr.SHIVA. Yeah.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, so it’s 2pm. Do we have anyone from? Hey, Phil, do you? Do you want to send another email if you can to the Maricopa officials just inviting them?

Phil: Yeah, I’ll do that.

Dr.SHIVA: And do we know the phone number? The Maricopa officials? Should we be able to contact them? It’s a public number, right?

Phil: You can Google it. I don’t. I guess it’s public. Yeah, I’ll get all that.

Dr.SHIVA: Want to go to the Maricopa County officials, let them know that. I mean, Phil’s invited them. There’s been a bunch of news stories, but we need to let people know. Okay, let’s take the next one.

Caller: Hi, Dr.SHIVA. I do have a question regarding the signature verification. Yeah. And also, a concern with the existing process that you’ve described. If I understood correctly, you said that the signature verification is authenticated by volunteers.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, reviewers who go through some level of training, but they’re not professional forensics people. You know, they’re not people you would hire for a courtroom. Yeah, as I understand, again, we would love to see the SOP’s on how you hire reviewers or how you educate them. We haven’t seen those.

Caller: Right. Yeah, exactly. That’s very concerning. I mean, there’s, there’s experts, as you stated that their sole job is to examine signatures and court cases. You know, for the hobbies, sports industry, memorabilia, collectibles, all that is authenticated. But how would you go about doing the signature verification?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, that’s a good question. Yeah. Yeah. So let me answer that question. So, the way. So first of all, if you look at a signature, right, in pattern analysis, a signature has what are called different features. Okay, I’ll give you an example. We just looked at one very low-level feature call, how many pixels are in that signature area? Right? Pixel density.

Another is how many slopes? There are, okay? You know, angles, right? How many contours there are, okay? And like this, when you look at it because basically, you’re looking at a graphic, right? You’re extracting from that what are called features. So, one of the aspects of pattern recognition is you do what’s called feature extraction.

Now, the Maricopa County, one of the writings I read, again, this is through third party says that they do 27 points that they look at on a signature, okay? So, if you take a signature, you literally get 27 points, and you see those 27-points. In fact, let me share, if you’re seeing the screen here, this is an example from the LA Times article that I shared, if I can bring this up. Alright. So, in a signature, this is from the LA Times article, you see the signature here?

Caller: Go ahead Dr.SHIVA.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, so in a signature, it’s got someone’s name, and you got these curvatures you have these, these are called different features of a signature. Okay, so what? Yeah, so this is a, so typically, in handwriting recognition, you extract out what are called feature slopes, and different kinds of contours.

For years, when I used to do stuff for the banks, you know, for bank analysis, right handwriting recognition, um, you extract out these features are called. And then you compare features to features. And that’s through a process called either clustering, and there’s various technologies, okay, but techniques to extract out the features.

And sometimes you may have 60 features, you may have five features. In this case, we just did simple signature presence, just looking for the pixel density. Using that analysis, then you try to do what’s called matching, you run matching algorithms, okay. And then that matching, you can use things like what are called neural networks, you can use clustering algorithms, but typically, when that matching is done, you’ll get a confidence level, how confidence that matches, and typically an error rate.

Okay, so if we did it independently, using technologies like, I’ve developed for many, many, many decades now, we could analyze, you take all the return envelope signatures, you take all the registration because they have those signatures, and we do a full-blown analysis, and it’s never been done for an election of this kind. Okay, 2 million signatures, imagine we are 1.9 million, we would get a confidence level and what’s called an error. Okay? So, let’s say that error is 10%.

Okay, that means 10% of those 1.9 million signatures would be about 200,000. Should be quote unquote, “cured”, you follow what I’m saying? So, the issue is, was 200,000 signatures cured, what a half a million, you see what I’m saying? Because those error rates are very important.

So, to me, from a scientific standpoint, and an engineering standpoint, this is fascinating. Because what we’re saying is, at, I mean, if 90% of the of the election is based on mail in ballots, and we don’t know the error rates, and we’re assuming that it’s only 0.03%, which I find, frankly, very hard to believe, okay, we don’t really have a handle on any of our elections anymore. Because we don’t know the error rates.

Because if they’re using this 27-point analysis, what are the algorithms they’re using. All of this should be disclosed. Until that time, my view is we should go back to hand counted paper ballots, because, you know, by human beings reviewing it in the local precincts, but you’re taking images, you’re, you’re imaging them, you’re compressing the images, right?

Then you’re bringing in people who are not forensically trained people telling them that they should look at these two images, right. So, I think the whole process in my view, the signature verification process, is unverifiable, in my view, but you’re asking a very, very important and profound question.

Caller: Thank you, Dr.SHIVA. I think it’s critical that we look at the signature, I really hope that they do. You know, have you looked at that, and, and Dr.SHIVA, I appreciate your Engineering Systems Approach. I definitely would like to see some more work from you, Dr.SHIVA, like, you know, like, if you can look into the future, what would be your Engineering System Approach to future elections? I mean, if you can put on paper, a book, Dr.SHIVA, I would love to see that.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I’ve been Yeah, we may do a book on this on how to really audit this process. It’s what’s needed, we need an Engineering Systems Approach end to end. And look, what needs to happen is we need to look at the process.

And to end, you know, as I mentioned earlier, when I was growing up, when I was 12 years old, my dad was a chemical engineer, he would, you know, he worked initially for a company called Mennen and remember Speed Stick and Skin Bracer, and baby powder. He used to make all this Okay, he was the plant manager.

And you know, he was also responsible for quality control along that process. And what I got trained at a very young age, and I used to solve problems with them was, it is not the end product, it’s not just counting the ballots at the end, it is the entire process. So, what we need is a, you know, a standardized set of operating procedures on this process.

It should be all made public, it should be auditable. And it should have at each point in that process, that what we call QC, quality control process. And until we have that, in a very, you know, detailed way, I don’t think we’re going to solve this left-right issue on this matter.

And the problem is the election integrity people particularly who’ve been participating, many of the people who are very annoyed that I got involved because I’m the quote unquote, “New Kid on the Block”, when in fact, they’re the New Kids on the Block because they don’t know Engineering Systems.

They don’t understand mathematics, many of these guys, they’re just in it for partisanship reason. And I think the way we win at this is to bring Engineering Systems Approach. This is how we build airplanes, how we build computers, how we build iPhones.

It’s a process and it’s frankly, a discipline that we need to bring to this. And you know, and I think they, frankly, kept it squishy on both sides. So, they have enough places where they can tweak it to their interests as Tim Canova shared in his example, in my example, by the Massachusetts GOP, you know, very, very unethical people here in the GOP Massachusetts, not the republicans on the ground. I’m talking about the GOP officials. They collude.

Caller: John, Thank you.

Caller: Hello, Dr.SHIVA.

Dr.SHIVA: Yes. How are you?

Caller: I’m good. This is Collin calling from South Carolina. How are you? Yeah. I have a high-level question for you. So, a lot of the discussion around election fraud has been kind of segmented, you know, some guys, one of the guys are looking at other, you know, given and I understand that you’re very limited, but obviously you have a feeling complex. If you were to design a full audit of Arizona, let’s stick with Arizona, Arizona elections, what would it entail? And is that what Maricopa did?

Dr.SHIVA: Well, you mean, well, Maricopa didn’t do the audit. Right? What? Yeah, so what occurred in the audit, right? Was not a full Engineering Systems Approach. Number one, okay.

There was so many hindrances, as I understand, because in order to do an audit like that, you need to have the participation of the audit team. And the group that’s being audited. Does that make sense? I’ll give you an example. Yeah, so I guess,

Caller: I guess that’s exactly the point that I’m trying to bring out Doctor is that there was no full forensic audit done. So, language matters. And when, you know, he will always remember things and well, they did a full forensically sound, nothing will in fact, that wasn’t done. Right.

And I think we do need help piggybacked on to the gentleman who called before. I would love to consider binding the templates, or what older ones look like in a different state legislature.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I think I think that’s what, you know, I think that’s what I think the next sort of major contribution that I think that I’d probably like to make this is how do you do these full forensic audits? And before you enter them, right, there has to be an agreement signed with both parties, right? stating that they will do this, you know, court ordered, like they will participate, and they will provide information.

And I think what you’re bringing up is an important point, because, look, we have our data center here, right? Or we have when I do an audit, you know, for example, many years ago, Price Waterhouse audited when we were getting ready to go public, there’s no way they could have done the audit if I said I’m not going to give you any information, right? They came in, they said we’re gonna need all these things, and I had to comply with that. Otherwise, there’s no way they can do an audit.

And I think in this case, what happened was there was a lot of non-compliance and non-cooperation. By the way, Phil just sent me those of you who are interested, for example, the Recorders Office in Arizona, their direct number 602-506-3535, please contact them in a very friendly way, let them know that we’re open to have conversations with them. They’re open from 8am to 5pm. And we encourage them to join us. And we’ve set aside a separate line. And Phil, I think, has also sent an email to them again, but we have a separate line for them. So, I think you’re bringing up an important point. To do a real audit, you need participation, full participation in both parties. You’re absolutely right. Thank you.

Caller: Yeah. And I just one more comment. I just want to say that, you know, I am probably speaking for much of the country for how much we absolutely appreciate, your intellect in our elections department. All the crap, frankly, you have to go through just trying to do it. Just to Thank you.

Dr.SHIVA: You’re welcome. Thank you. What I want to do is I just want to take John, how many people we have, eight people. Okay, let’s just take a second. Yep. So, it’s 221. We have about an hour and a half to go. But we’re gonna keep taking people’s calls. Because this is an open forum.

Dr.SHIVA: Hello, who do we have? Hello. Yes. Hi, how are you?

Caller: I’m doing good. I’m calling from Kentucky. We’re trying to do an audit, you know, do a canvassing here. And we’re struggling getting the voting rolls. And I was wondering if you had any idea how we can get those with the board of elections? Denying it?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so you’re talking about the list of registered voters? Right. Well, you right, have you issued a FOIA to them, a Freedom of Information or what’s called a public records request?

Caller: Yes. And the Board of Education, Board of Elections denied it.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, well, you may need to file a lawsuit then. Because that’s public information they’re supposed to give to you. So, I would, if you want to email me, I will give you some ideas on how to do that. So, my email.

Caller: Okay, I know in like 2017 Judicial Watch did some content over their voter rolls, then got put back on. And in December after the Election, they removed 1,000s.

Dr.SHIVA: Hmm. Yeah, it’s a very important piece, I think, but if you want help, just send me an email and I can help you with that. John here is actually his family from Kentucky. Right, John? Yeah. Well, thank you.

So, we have Gina Burnett, who made a very, very interesting point. She goes Dr.SHIVA, please see my comments later. I have a systems background and understand the needed approach. If it’s explained to the public in a non-political way, some will understand, some will not because they refuse logic and a Systems Approach. Yeah, thank you, Gina. Who do we have next? Hello. Yes, Hi, who’s this?

Dr.SHIVA: Hello. Yes, Hi, who’s this?

Caller: My name is, Matt. I’m actually here in Maricopa County.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay. Hi, Matt. Go ahead.

Caller: So, I just want to tell you, I think you’re brilliant and appreciate your work. The question I had is regarding the adjudication process. Now here in Maricopa, part of the Maricopa part of the Sharpie gate, where you walk in and they actually print your ballot, and these printers that print the ballot were misaligned. Or not. I guess that’s the best way to put it, missed the line.

So, that the bleed through what caused the adjudication and caused that ballot to go into an adjudication process. So, the people doing the adjudication at that point, you know, can put whatever they want on there. Is there someone going back through? Or did anyone go back through the adjudication process to make sure that whoever did that? It was a reasonable conclusion, looking at the actual balance?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so great question. So, the question is on the adjudication process that took place in Maricopa County, let me explain. You bring up a great point. Now, look, I wasn’t involved in that adjudication process. But I can just to educate the people out there. What is adjudication? Adjudication is a ballot goes through, right. And it needs to be counted.

But there’s some question on it, right? Which means when I went through the machines, it could be as simple as maybe coffee was spilt on it, right? Or maybe someone filled in a circle to the right of the circle. You know, there’s all sorts of things where people don’t know, right? So typically, what happens is those get set aside and they’re adjudicated, Phil, if I’m right, in Maricopa, there was about 200,000 that needed to be adjudicated, right. That’s quite a huge number. Am I right?

Phil: Yeah. 11%. But that’s, that’s for all the races, not just for the Presidential race

Dr.SHIVA: But that was considered high, as I understand, right?

Phil: With everybody I’ve ever spoken with. Yeah, yeah. So historically, yes

Dr.SHIVA: It’s, it’s around what feels like two to 3% or two to 4%. It’s an offer like that. Yeah. So, this was, again, don’t but what we do know is from empirically, people have said that 11% across all races was quite high. So, what, what that means is that ballots without, when they went through the machine, were set aside and they had to be reviewed by humans, right.

And then when they review them, in some cases, Phil after they review them, they literally go to a touchscreen, and they type it in. There’s a process, right?

Phil: They create a whole new ballot.

Dr.SHIVA: Doug Logan would be, probably, the best to answer this. I was not there. So, I can’t, you know, any information for me would be inaccurate. But what we do know is that there’s a significantly more number of ballots that need to be adjudicated this time than in previous elections. Phil, I don’t know if you have any other points to add to that.

Phil: Well, this is not definitive. I believe that there are some of the original ballots before they were adjudicated. I believe there’s an issue with those images if I’m not mistaken. Okay. And I’ll just leave it at that.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I think I think there was, there was some concerns that some of those adjudicated images. Again, this is a concern. Someone brought up which we haven’t seen the full evidence on, to be accurate. That’s some I think one thing was that the circles seem to perfect Right, right. Well, right, Phil?

Phil: Were outside the scope of that. Right.

Dr.SHIVA: Right. But anyway, I think Doug Logan are probably the best person to answer that. Maybe we’ll do a session with Doug on with us at endpoint so thank you. Okay, who we got next, John. How many people here? seven, nine. Okay.

Caller: Let’s go. Good afternoon, Dr.SHIVA.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. How are you?

Caller: Very well, thank you. My name is art. And I’m from Florida.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi Art. How are you? What’s your question?

Caller: Fine. Thank you. I have a comment. And then two questions. My observation, as an ex-aerospace engineer, by the way, I’m retired.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, really? What is that?

Caller: Well, what concerns me is we seem to have a corrupt legislative, or a judicial system. How could it be all of those civil cases being denied for lack of evidence or standing? That’s number one. Are you now at a point where only the criminal cases have a chance of really breaking through to find out what the truth is? Or are we destined to a revolution here in this country?

Dr.SHIVA: I think you’re asking a very interesting question, right? I think the question you’re asking is, how do we actually get to an answer? Right? How do we actually get to resolution? Right? Because if 50% of the country now Can’t believe in their elections? Why should we even go vote? Look, it’s an interesting question.

Yes, you know, I never voted in any election, in full disclosure, because I never believed in them. I was an activist for many, many years, you know, on the ground, you can go see pictures of me, you know, organizing food service workers, MIT, whoa, you know, exposing the war in Iraq long before it was, you know, popular to do so right. And I always was of the effort that we need to build a Bottoms-up movement, that was always working people’s movements, who’s ever resolved anything? So, I never voted.

Now, when Trump ran, I did vote for the first time because I saw him hitting the establishment hard enough, I saw him being uncompromising with his rhetoric, you know. And I’ve also had issues with him not addressing certain significant issues, like nothing really happened to Hillary Clinton, though she violated the law in a significant way, by putting a server in her home. And this is you’re talking to me; I gave an interview to the New York Times on this issue.

You know, I did not support Fauci, you know, as a biological engineer, I have serious concerns with the fact that this fast tracking took place. So, you know, I’ve been critical of President Trump also, you know, and in spite of that, you know, he’s still and is very supportive, what we’re doing here. Okay.

Dr.SHIVA: But my point is this, that the court systems we saw in our own lawsuit in Massachusetts, where we uncovered the incident, the entire domestic censorship infrastructure, which I’ll probably talk about later today, that the judge simply wanted me to put me on Twitter, but did not want to expose, you know, the entire real cabal, which created this infrastructure right?

Or in our own lawsuits here. So, I think you’re bringing up an important point, look, when the founders created the legislative department and the executive branch in this country, they did a pretty good job, in my view, but the judicial system when you walk into a court, you’re walking back into the 14th century, okay?

Because many of the founders were lawyers, they didn’t really, I mean, lawyers are still get the, you know, get the title of Esquire, which is one level above gentlemen, one level below Knight, right? They’re still considered nobility. So, I think the legal and judicial system in this country when it comes to the real fundamental issues is completely broken.

Because how the judges get appointed, who their friends are, and all the localities when you go to the central issues of our time right now election integrity, censorship, right? The issues of fundamental issues, violation of civil liberties, I don’t think the judges are capable of addressing this.

So, to your point, the only thing is, it’s been a Bottoms-up movement, and I want to play a video on that, but it’s been the Bottoms-up movement that has always addressed this of working people.

Caller: I’m not sure I understand what that means.

Dr.SHIVA: Well, let me give you an example. You see what’s going on with the Southwest Airlines workers, okay. Them striking, okay. Or in Australia, the construction workers defying their own unions realizing that their unions don’t meet their interests anymore. It is going to be movements, Bottoms-up. That’s going to do it. It is not

Caller: So, it’s challenging the court systems, right. It’s really a suggestion we monitor against the court.

Dr.SHIVA: So, if you look at what’s going on right now, the interests of working people is what’s been attacked. Okay. Since you’re asking this question, let me address it. If you look at what’s going on with the mandates, right? On the jobs or what’s going on with the diapers, people up to where if you look at the outrageous censorship that’s going on, what we discovered in our lawsuit is it is government where government ends and we’re Facebook begins, we’re Twitter begins, nobody knows there is a domestic censorship infrastructure set up in this country, and its government that’s leading it, it came out of sites that Homeland Security, and when you look at the elections are essentially appear to be selections.

These are at the end state of a long process that’s gone on for nearly, you know, 50 years in this country. So, let’s really go back and review how change ever took place in any significant way. In 1886, you know, American workers are the ones who fought right. American workers are the ones in 1886 was the Haymarket movement in Chicago.

Four American workers were hanged for fighting for the eight-hour workday, in the late 1800s, was a great upheaval, there was a revolution taking place in this country, wasn’t the Republicans. It wasn’t the Democrats. It was working people. By the 1900s. What had occurred in this country was something quite profound. That working people black and white were Bottoms-up unions, women led those unions, starting in places like Lowell, Massachusetts.

And what that resulted in the New Deal. It wasn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a nice guy. He was a racist, and he was an elitist. It was those workers movements, which forced the elites to eliminate child labor. Okay.

It was those movements, which gave the eight-hour workday, built the, you know, water systems gave hygiene, right, built sanitation systems, infrastructure. And that infrastructure came out of Bottoms-up movements, the elites never wanted to give those to the working people. So, during 1940 to 1980, the biggest growth of the American infrastructure, and the American Pie happened.

If you look at wages, all wages grew whether you made $100,000, or we made $10,000. Everyone’s wages grew during that period. Everyone and in 1950, what the “right-wing” quote unquote, right wing did this they colluded with the left wing. And what actually happened was the left wing and the right wing colluded in this very interesting way. They never wanted a Bottoms-up popular mass movement. I’m not talking about terrorists, right? Or people going and breaking things.

We’re talking about a popular mass movement. So, the right wing branded anytime you said working people unite as communists, socialists, as those coming out of Russia, you follow, I’m saying the left wing took advantage of that, and they created these top-down unions.

So, by 1970, all the unions were taken over. There was no real vibrant Bottoms-up organic unions. So, if you look between 1940 to 1980, there were nearly 100 million Americans who participated in nearly 11,000 strikes in the United States. That’s when the American workers got what they wanted.

But between 1980 to today, there’s been maybe about 900 strikes with maybe 2 million workers participating. Basically, the right and the left colluded. Bernie Sanders doesn’t give a damn about working people, right?

And what they did was they colluded against the American worker. So, the mandates that we’re seeing the censorship is a part of a long process. 20% of 20 to 25% of Americans are unemployed. During the last 50 years, nearly $50 trillion of wealth got transferred from the American worker upwards to the Jeff Bezos-es, right.

So, you’ve seen right, if you’re making $50,000, today, you should be making about 120k. That’s according to the RAND report that just came out. So, we’ve seen the squeezing of working people. And what we’re seeing with these mandates beat the jab mandates are the diaper mandates, these are part of a long process of power, profit, and control.

And that’s why these elections right, it’s to me, it is one of the most important topics to discuss, because it is openly saying the elites have made a very simple Engineering Systems process which should be so finely tuned by this point, right? I mean, if we can get an airplane from San Diego to Boston, right, nine out of right, nine times pretty much right, without failing.

But we have these fundamental issues and if these election officials ran airport systems or train systems, there’ll be airplane crashes nearly every day. So, we need to get working people, need to be participating in these systems. We need engineers participating and the fact you’ve had such vitriol and attempt to attack the credibility of my work, Phil’s work, other engineers and we have serious PhDs over here, okay?

And it’s not like we’re being paid a lot of money to do this. We’ve been doing this without getting paid any money shows that those in power are using hacks in the media, to forcibly make Americans ignorant of Engineering Systems. That’s what this is about. This is about Systems. You know, I want to play a video for everyone. Okay. Thank you very much.

Caller: And thank you very much for your answer. Bye, bye.

Dr.SHIVA: I just want to play a video for everyone just to hopefully motivate people. I want to play this video for everyone. And it’ll give you sort of the analysis of where I think the last caller asked of where we are. And I want to encourage everyone, you know, one of the things that I’ve started doing is to educate people on a Systems Approach, I’ll put the banner up. I just want to take a quick, almost like a commercial break. But have you guys, listen to this here.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, we have Liz Harris joining us. So, Liz, let’s bring. Listen, go ahead.

Guest Interview – Liz Harris

Liz Harris: Hello, everyone. Thank you for recognizing Great, thank you for recognizing the hard canvassing work of the people of Arizona.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, great Liz. I think what we wanted to do here today was make this an open forum. And we’ve invited the Maricopa election officials. I think I just read out their number again, so people can call them. Why don’t you tell us maybe your interactions with them, Phil? Liz, and, and what you’ve been doing, all the hard work you and your team have been doing on the ground? And you know, the gains you’ve made and some of the challenges. Okay, go ahead, Liz.

Liz: Okay, thank you. Sometimes I wonder why my phone disconnects suddenly. Okay, so what the canvassers of Arizona did is we knocked on the doors, and we asked, “what method did you use to vote?” And then we also found a lot of people that did not reside at these addresses.

What’s very interesting is how the Recorders Office wants to kind of like get into a debate with us on all of these findings and try to basically put together explanations on why this happened. Now there is since this, all the end, there is a vacant lot where one vote came from it.

And they were still today, two registered voters from that vacant lot. And this lot had been demolished in the first quarter of 2020. So again, you know, we have questions, and we want answers, and we don’t want excuses. We want to understand why these major mistakes happen. And it’s not just, just a one off here and there, there are major anomalies.

I just came from the great state of Michigan, and believe it or not, but the errors that we find our voting CANVASS, the same exact errors are appearing in the Michigan CANVASS. So, when I say the CANVASS, I mean the official record of what happened in November 2020.

That’s pretty much where we’re at. And the major anomalies are basically people stating that they voted, there’s no vote recorded, people stating they didn’t vote, there was a vote recorded, people who are voting from addresses and they clearly don’t live there.

And then people who state, I voted in person on Election Day, and yet there’s a mail in ballot for them. So, all of this needs to be explained. And then I also want to let the audience know that we didn’t just CANVASS to the door, we actually took a sample set, and we made phone calls to verify the information.

So, there could be some criticism out there that you knew Liz Harris does not have a PhD in canvassing, well, I do have a doctorate and an MBA in other subjects. So, I do feel I’m very qualified to formulate a questionnaire. And I think at this point, I would like to open it up to any questions that anyone might have on the work that we did from the first week of December up until today.

Dr.SHIVA: Great. Yeah, I called you on my phone. And we have other people logging in. How about this? We keep you here, okay, on my phone, but we’re going to bring in other people, but okay. We have other people calling about other things. They’ve been waiting. Hi, who do we have?

Caller: Hello.

Dr.SHIVA: Yes. Hi. How are you? Where are you from?

Caller: I’m Cindy. I’m from Lake Havasu City, Arizona.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, very nice to have you. What’s your question? Yeah.

Caller: My question is, um, in 2018. They had several states that had recalled that one app like weeks after the election, including Martha McSally, with found ballot, what, how come nobody ever looked into that? The found ballots.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. Yeah. Can you repeat that question again? Just if you can repeat that question came in 2018. Yep.

Caller: After the election, weeks after the election, several republicans lost their races with found ballots, including Martha McSally. She was recalled from freshman orientation. And they gave it to Kyrsten Sinema.

Dr.SHIVA Yeah. Did you say found?

Caller: Was that a trial run for what would work?

Dr.SHIVA: Did you say found ballots? Okay.

Caller: Yes. Found a ballot. They found ballots after the election.

Liz: And based on the data that I have, because understand that we’re analyzing data, not just from 2020, but we’re analyzing data going years back. And I do believe that that caller is correct, that 2018 was a trial run for 2020. Election fraud did not get invented yesterday, it’s probably a couple 100 years old. And I would agree completely with that caller. And this is one of the big reasons that voting really needs to come down to a single day, because there are going to be no mysteriously found ballots. If we can make the precincts smaller. 1,000 registered voters or less and have everyone vote on election day. That is why it’s called Election Day and not election football season.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, Liz, it’s interesting. One of the things that I think you know, is that the, the more decentralized it gets, and I think it should be hand counted. And Election Day should be a holiday, that it becomes a civic event where young people, everyone participates in the hand counting of these paper ballots.

And I think we attempted to do a ballot initiative here on eliminating the machines and having them at the local precincts. And the response was very long, interesting legal response. It said, well, you’re going to affect the American Disabilities Act, right.

Dr.SHIVA: When you know, you can still meet those needs in those cases, right. But I think the precinct, is everything should occur at that local precinct level, it should be hand counted. And I think it needs to go back to everyone participating. It’s got to be a cultural shift. Also, it can’t be like we’re just putting this on a set of people. It’s got to be people participate.

Liz: I agree. 100% Dr.SHIVA

Dr.SHIVA: Thank you. Thank you very much for any… I’m sorry.

Caller: Will anybody be doing an audit of Mojave County?

Dr.SHIVA: You know, you need to go raise some hell.

Liz: Yes, you need to speak up. We still have 14 counties in Arizona left to audit.

Dr.SHIVA: Yes. So, you need to go, you know, organize people, neighbor to neighbor, get people involved, its activism, it’s ground activism that’s going to do it. It’s not going to be waiting for a politician to do it. I think in the case of Maricopa County, because of how close it was, some of these things are so egregious.

It created enough fire for it to occur, but it shouldn’t be that way. Everyone should participate in this process. Let’s go to the next one. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I mean, more people. Okay, we have a full queue apparently, 500-600 people have been trying to get through.

So, so to everyone listening, we’re sorry if we can’t accommodate everyone. You know, we have a capability here. But we were taking everyone as they come in. Go Ahead.

Caller: Hello. Yes. My name. My name is Tom.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Tom. How are you?

Caller: Pretty good. I’m from Maricopa County. Great. And I’m one of the canvassers that’s helped with the Audit Project.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, fantastic. Awesome. Great to have you. How has your experience been? When you go to people, and you speak to them? Or people? How are people’s feedback?

Caller: Most people are receptive to what we’re doing? Yeah. Excellent. There’s a few people that don’t really want to have or don’t want to share their information. But it’s probably maybe one in 10 that are negative for them. Okay.

Liz: So that means 90% of people are illegal.

Dr.SHIVA: Maybe, yeah. You mean one of the things we’ve heard from people is interest in other counties. We have some very Hey, Phil, maybe we should share the Pima County stuff now. What do you think?

Phil: That’s a great idea. I have a couple of questions for Liz if I may.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, go ahead. Phil.

Phil: Liz, hey, this is Phil, thanks for calling in. Um, your methodology has been attacked. I’ve listened to some of the arguments from some of my fellow integrity members. And I just want to know, what do you have to say? What do you think? What’s your response to people that attack your methodology that say that it can’t be trusted? It’s not accurate. Do you have any response to that?

Dr.SHIVA: So the question Phil had is a methodology and I think this to get people back around when you go do canvassing or surveys, there are different methodologies you apply or how you select your sample size, how you ask the questions, who you target, and these define the results because when you get a result, you’re gonna apply that result to a larger population size, but we’ll come back to that or take the next person.

Dr.SHIVA: Hello. Thanks for joining us. This is Dr.SHIVA. And we’re here at the open forum, expecting Maricopa County officials to join us. We’re closing in on three hours straight.

Caller: Yeah, this is Steve Watson. I’m from Polk County, Florida. Yeah, I’ve been bothering quite a bit of things. I’m the secretary for the rec here. I’m the president of a republican club. And also, the leader for the center of Florida here in a county. We’re doing canvassing and got canvassers out now.

And we just started a couple weeks ago and got a lot of people that are out canvassing, we got affidavits. But I ran for City Commissioner two years ago. And I lost the election. And afterwards, we asked for the phone records of the City Commissioners. And in those, some of the text messages we got from the phone call. It said that one Commissioner was asking another Commissioner, do you have any more mail in ballots? And the Commissioner’s response was, “Yeah, I’ll bring them over.” So, we’re getting there from the ground level here.

Dr.SHIVA Wow!

Caller: We’re going to fight base; I call the secretary of the supervisor of elections. He said, you got to call the Secretary of State, call them, you got to call the district attorney. So, they really just run you out and circle, circle after circle after circle until you give up. And that’s basically what I had to do.

You know, I couldn’t. I didn’t have the money for a lawsuit or anything like that. But you know, it’s waiting down here at the bottom, in addition to the city election. And we’ve seen it over and over and over again, this helped try and help other commissioners and other cities around us trying to get elected by and they did. You see it over and over and over again.

No, they manipulated the election. But it’s just a real battle. But what I’m at, what I want to ask is, I know where you’re at there, you’re, you know, you got a lot of work to do. And what we want to see down here to bottom is, no matter what, don’t give up. That’s if it’s good if I can go back and tell my people here in Polk County, that those folks up there, they told me no matter what, they’re not going to quit. I had to quit.

There’s no there’s no there was nobody to step in and help me. No, there was no there was no way that I could turn. But in your case, you’ve got a lot, a lot of heads behind you. A lot of people that you know, people are mad because of this Presidential Election. And we want to hear from you that if this takes 10 years, and you’re not going to give up but you’re just going to keep on fighting for our country.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think I think some people may know that. For me, this has been a long battle. You know, I came from an India which had a caste system, you know, people of my background weren’t even supposed to even ever get educated. The fact that my parents got it. Yeah.

Caller: I actually lived in South America for 17 years.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So, you know, my journey has been always, you know, a deep interest in medicine and systems and politics. So, I never voted until you know when Donald Trump ran. But then when I ran for election here in Massachusetts, we found out that the Massachusetts GOP, which is the center of the swamp in many ways, because they collude completely with the democrat elite, they’re just one.

And they didn’t want an outsider like me, they literally stole the election that the Massachusetts GOP and the democrats colluded together against a, you know, a guy who came Bottoms-up. And they can’t have that.

And in fact, they continue to do that, in fact, their new chameleon is to act as though they’re Trumpers, you know, that they’re also anti-establishment, they’re part of the establishment, and they’re saying they’re against the mandates and against this, when they’re just using it to raise money. So, part of what I wanted, I want to play, you know, the video that I played earlier, is that we need to recognize that we need to build a movement in this country. And the movement has to be about working people not relying on any one individual, not a celebrity, not a billionaire, or billionaires or, you know, not a politician, it’s got to be a Bottoms-up movement.

So, when I keep saying the system’s approach, what I just shared with you, is that Systems Approach. The other thing we’ve done is we now have about 60,000 people worldwide who are getting trained in the Systems Approach.

I took all those 50 years of knowledge I acquired, including my degrees at MIT, and I’ve figured out a way to teach people systems in a very simple way. And then we’ve created a community of people, we’ve made it really, really accessible to everyone.

And we’re doing it on our own infrastructure. So, I want to play a quick video, that is about our Truth, Freedom and Health movement, and then we’ll take people on because everyone’s asking, you know, how can we learn about systems?

So, John, I’m going to just play this video if you don’t mind. No, we’re never gonna give up! We’re here for… to win this in the long haul. This will give an example of what it means to really go and win. So, I’m going to play this video, and It’ll give everyone an idea.

Dr.SHIVA: I just wanted to play everyone that video, we just, we’ve been on now for about what three hours right, John? So, we have a number of callers calling in again to those of you joining us. This is the open forum we’re doing to share with people our findings from the Maricopa Audit, and also to encourage a dialogue. So, we’ve had. I think. we’ve had probably 500-600 people calling in, 2,000 people, I’m sorry. 2,000 people have called in. So, we can’t take everyone so we’re taking people as they come in. Go ahead, John. Let’s take the next person. So, welcome whoever’s calling. What’s your question?

Caller: My name is um, but I have a few comments. And it seems to me that people are not really interested in being transparent these days. So, I don’t think that we’re going to get an adequate ballot count, as far as collecting goes, and we can’t wait 10 years, because by 10 years, our nation will have been lost. So, my question is, what are our options?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so that’s a good question. So, if you saw the video I just played, the only way that things have always changed, if you look throughout the world have been from movements. And movements, meaning the movement of people organizing, particularly working people. And you can look at this over and over again in history, and I want to, and it has been those movements, which have led to even any substantive change in the world.

Okay. And what’s happened over the last probably the last 50 years, is the educational system has made people think that the way you change the world is to vote in an election and, and the election systems, as we know, have serious problems, you use the word lack of transparency.

And that lack of transparency, is how the elections themselves are being run. Because that means you don’t have to be accountable to people, that you can essentially rig elections with this lack of transparency. So, I want to show you an interesting graph that will make this point clear. Can you watch it online?

So, if you see this graph here, what you see here is a very interesting graph. What it is, is on the x axis is the number of years from 1900 to 1990. You know, 1984-99 days, the y axis is the number of deaths by measle per 100,000.

And what you see is, yeah, the number of deaths all the way up until 1948 went down, you know, you know, half a percent or less than that out of 100,000. So, 98% or more of measles mortality fell by 1948. 15 years before the measles jab came around in 1963.

Okay, so 15 years before the measles job came out, nearly 98 to 99% of measles deaths, measles is an infectious disease, was wiped away. So how did that happen? We’re always being told that you got to get the job, you got to get the job, right?

Well, if you go look at this period from 1900, to 1948, what happened during this period? What actually happened, what you find out is this is what was happening during the 50 years before that, first of all, women led massive movements.

Starting in Lowell, Massachusetts, which was the center of the Industrial Revolution, the mill girls started to fight for wage cuts, against wage cuts, women started fighting for the 10-hour workday, right? Women were leading these movements all the way up until the right for it, in fact, human universal suffrage. And it was these movements by the 1900s with the American working class, which had the First Amendment in my view, the First Amendment’s completely been destroyed. And the Second Amendment led these working-class movements.

So, by the 1900s, by the way, it’s interesting, there was a pandemic Around this time, right, when people were rising up all over the world. And in this period, what you find is, by the 1920s, right, the people that were rising up, and the elites were so afraid, it wasn’t Bills in Congress, it wasn’t lawsuits, it was a rising.

I mean, there’s pictures of millions of people protesting in Times Square, for example, okay. Nearly 25% of the American workforce was on strike at one point during this period, okay. And it was these movements that forced the elites to give people the eight-hour workday. That we developed hygiene and sanitation, right, eliminated child labor, got water systems.

So, what really happened during this period was infrastructure. Infrastructure is what brought down infectious disease. So, the plumber and the, and the sanitation worker did a lot more, far more for bringing down an infectious disease like measles, than did the pharmacists or the doctor.

So, the reason I’m telling you this is by the way, if you look forward, you find out during 1940-1980, American workers continued to do you know there were nearly 52 million workers were on the streets striking by during this period, by the way during this period is when America’s economy grew the biggest when American workers wages grew 1940-1980. But starting in 1980, afterwards, what happened?

Well, the elites were so afraid of the American worker rising up that in 1950, they did the McCarthy era, right. They said if you say workers unite, if you’re part of a trading then you must be a communist, you remember this, and they went after all workers, and they cut off the legs of the American workers from rising Bottoms-up and they create a top down unions with idiots like AOC and Bernie Sanders and these people who fool the American people. Okay, they don’t really support the American people, they talk a good game, and they happen to all get elected somehow, okay.

And what happened is during this period from 1940, now we don’t have strikes, only 7 million workers have struck, so we don’t have the vibrant working-class movements anymore. But this is why we’re in the situation today. I hope that gives you an understanding, when you take this Systems Approach, you realize that when we stop fighting, those in power, essentially, become more corrupt.

So, we have to recognize that these election systems have become selections, in my view, right? Because the processes are so squishy. And so, in order to even win, that it’s not going to come through Congress, hopefully, I hope the Attorney General does stuff, right.

But we can’t rely on them, when they see people building a movement Bottoms-up, when they see people really getting angry about this, then the politicians will do something, that’s my view on this, they’re not going to do anything, because we just say, hey, you should do something.

I mean, I’ll keep fighting on all fronts. You know, we’ll keep doing our science. You know, people like Phil, and I will keep doing our engineering and will keep providing information, we’ll keep working in the system. But we’ll also encourage people to build a Bottoms-up movement.

Caller: I have a question. Don’t, there’s so many job openings in my area. One of the reasons that I am reluctant to get a job is because I’m afraid that I, they will fire me back feeling like that. A lot of people won’t or like to get that. And then like the airline, people walking out is like we watch. Is that kind of like the Bottoms-up movement? Yes. Because, yeah, I don’t want to, I’m not going to get a jab. I’m not going to get a job that’s going to require me.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, thank you. I have some more calls. But I’ll answer your question. Thank you. So, the question is the call, do we need to build a Bottoms-up movement, like what happened with Southwest Airlines, you know, people building Bottoms-up, that’s exactly what we need to do.

And that’s why, you know, we created this whole educational program, this community TruthFreedomHealth.com. But the bottom line is, we need to, you know, talk at all levels with people. But we also need to recognize that no changes ever come out without a Bottoms-up Movement.

And so, the Southwest Airlines, right, what’s going on in Australia, working people essentially define their own unions. So, when it comes to Election Integrity, you’re gonna see a lot of politicians suddenly say they stand for Election Integrity, many of whom, like the guy I just played in Massachusetts, who participate in election fraud against our own campaign.

And we can’t be fooled anymore, because there are people pushing Election Integrity, to cha’ching’, make donations, the way we’re gonna get elections not to be selections is through Bottoms-up movement is people starting to demand that election day really be a Holy day, in many ways, we all participate, we get our kids to participate, high school students who participate, and we make it in my view, the processes are so difficult to really get a handle on that we need to, frankly go to hand counted paper ballots.

And all of us need to participate in local small precincts. It can’t be, big is not better, in this case, and more technology is not better. And we need to go small. Phil, do you have a point on this? You’re shaking your head. Let’s take the next. Yeah.

Phil: Just to echo your point is that from an analysis standpoint, it is almost impossible to get any meaningful analysis, if you don’t have a preset small level type data to work with? Okay, if you got one data point, there’s 30,000 people in it. It’s pretty much useless versus 30 data points with 1000 voters in each.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, it’s interesting, Facebook gave $50 million for an organization called the Center for election Innovation Research run by a guy called David Becker, a very, very unethical guy, if you look at his history, okay?

And what they want to do is centralized vote tabulation. In fact, what they want to do is they want to eliminate small precincts and glue them all together. So, you can’t really see any of these anomalies, because when you make it all one big precinct, it’s hard to see the anomalies. So that’s a lot of what’s also going on. Hi, go ahead. Hello. caller who do we have?

Caller: Hello, got Andy from Michigan. But do you mind if we return to the return envelopes?

Dr.SHIVA: Yes, definitely.

Caller: Okay, so if you take a look at an original envelope it compared to the pictures that you have. But you’ve actually have like, blocked red that text above the signature block saying sign within the box. In your pictures, you’ve got like an outline out of it. Now, this could never happen in a simple compression process where you just say, using less resolution than a JPEG. So, something big is going on here. One example of what

Dr.SHIVA: I mean let me bring it up. Let me let me I want you to educate everyone on what’s your background, let people understand your background, Andy.

Caller: So, I have a lot of the same credentials that you do, except from different university and I have been involved in Arizona Audit.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, so let me let me bring up the let me bring up the presentation here. Okay. I have to… let me bring up the images that you’re talking about Andy. Um, so we have Andy from Maricopa too.

Caller: I did work there.

Dr.SHIVA: I am going to bring up the… and he’s going to point out an anomaly that he’s seeing in the images itself. And this is one of the reasons why to do this. Because, you know, the more people we bring into this, so is this. Is this what you want me to bring up here? Is this good?

Caller: Might be a little bit late. Let me give it a second.

Dr.SHIVA: Okay. Yeah. Okay, go ahead.

Caller: Okay, so you’ve got that picture yet. But if you were to actually look at the original ballot envelope, it’s like a green envelope. It’s got red, red writing, and where it says sign within the box, and then has the Spanish translation. That’s all black, red text in the original.

Yep. Here, it’s like an outline. Yep, definitely noticed that the arrow that you have trouble with covering or not covering the verified and approved? Yeah, it’s, it’s like, it’s like an empty triangle. In the original. It’s a solid black. Yeah, yep. This could never change this more, this morphing could never happen, just by changing the number of pixels in the image.

Right, so not just the compression, it’s a wholesale change of the image. In one of the ways that this is traditionally done, you can take, like some command line utilities that allow you to take the raster and turn it into a vector. And I did that, and it didn’t produce this image. The nature of the compression is really complicated.

Dr.SHIVA: Let me bring up the envelope. Here’s the original image, Andy. So, this is what they look like. Okay. So, you have all right, I put up on the screen, the actual one of the images, the green with the red, if you can see it. Yeah, yeah, there you go. Yep. So, the point you’re making is when you compress this, they’re claiming you get this, okay. In a normal binary compression?

Caller: Yeah. And it’s just, it’s just not the case. They have to be doing something extraordinary in their compression. And they’re not going to share that with you. In the point I really want to make about this is that this relatively simple issue becomes really complicated when you go look into it.

This happened 10,000 times in the audit, and everybody wants to know, you know, why did it take so long to get through the audit, and it’s because there’s 10,000 cases of this, that happened over and over and over again, in which there was no cooperation whatsoever.

Dr.SHIVA: When you mean 10,000. There’s more than 10,000 you’re talking about the military.

Caller: I’m nottalking about 10,000 envelopes. I’m talking about this issue of how this was compressed. converted. If one issue, then you have like duplication how things are duplicated, right? You know how things were boxed and numbered and mixed together like a puzzle. Every one of these things extended the audit and made it a horrible, difficult, painful procedure.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, thank you. Yes. So, what you’re saying is, I think, Andy, what you’re bringing out is all of these. I mean, when we brought this up, right. We actually found examples where that stamped on bubble comes above the small triangle. And they actually said, oh, that’ll never occur.

But we have examples of that. And I think the fact that they are doing compression, and never told anyone, is, to me, the transparency of not telling you that and not telling what kind of compression you did is really important. And what are the thresholds you set? Because without having knowledge of that, you can’t really understand how they’re doing the signature verification algorithms, right? Because it’s gonna affect right, algorithms. Yeah, yeah.

Caller: Well, then moving on to a much bigger picture. Yep. You know, I heard one of your people earlier, say, you know, we need an accurate count. In that’s just only a tiny picture of this, you got to look out in scope and say, how does the ballots get to where they are?

How did they get to the draw? Exactly. And you’ve got some people, you’ve got some people now looking into the video footage, surrounding the drop boxes, you’ve got people who are saying, some, some USPS people walked into a precinct, and they didn’t even have a proper uniform on and they jumped at the tray of ballots, there has to be Chain of Custody on these things. And somebody needs to look at this from a much more holistic view, a much bigger picture in order to get to the bottom would happen.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I think look, yeah, I think what Phil and I were saying at the outset of this call, is that it’s Maricopa officials were intimating, not intimating, but essentially directly saying, We don’t really care about the envelopes, it’s the ballots, we just want to count the ballots. And that is a very unfortunate way of misleading and making the public ignorant of this systems process. And it’s the entire process that matters.

So, you have a bunch of people saying voter IDs are going to fix this. Well voter IDs are not going to fix it. Right? Because that’s just something you’re putting in because it’s the process. You could have voter IDs, and you could still have the exact same problems.

And that’s what we need to get over. So, you have a bunch of opportunists now, saying voter IDs, voter IDs, voter IDs, right? Okay. Yeah. But that doesn’t solve this fundamental process issues. It’s never going to solve it unless you actually get down and we make transparent, the processes end to end, and checkpoints are put in. Or you just eliminate this nonsense in some ways because it’s creating so much complexity versus decentralizing it. At the local level.

Caller: You’re exactly right.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. So, they’ve created this very interesting, complicated process of so many points of frankly, vulnerability. And maybe it was designed for that. That’s what you have to start thinking, especially if you don’t share the SOP’s. The standardized operating procedures. It’s great to have complex procedures, but share the SOP’s Thanks, Andy.

Caller: One more thing I wanted to say, is that you know, you and I’ve looked at very complicated Engineering Systems, their child’s play compared to the Arizona audit, it’s the most complicated Rupert Goldberg system you’ve ever seen.

Dr.SHIVA: Wow!. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. I want to as John’s bring up, the next thing I wanted to share with people on October 6, we issued a response to a hit job piece that was done by not really a news organization, but a non-profit, which acts like a news organization. And in the title of that it was very interesting. No one has really talked about this.

Let me bring this up. I wanted to share this to Andy’s point. Andy’s a systems guy is that we had a wonderful letter that came in by one of the esteemed Engineering Professors in the world. Professor Debbie Nightingale. She is a University Distinguished Professor now in Florida.

She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. She is also a retired Professor of Engineering Systems, Aeronautics at MIT. And she’s former Director of MIT Social Technical Systems Research and then she was commenting on the report that we did, and obviously there’s some very nice comments that she says about me upfront, you know, the fact she’s known me, I’m renowned System Scientist, but what she says is very powerful because she says, “I have reviewed Dr.SHIVA’s audit reports submitted to the Arizona State Senate.

The report is stellar, met all of its objectives and more importantly provides the thought leadership of Engineering Systems Theory that is now necessary to move beyond the partisanship. So, we may squarely address the Election Integrity issues.”

So, in this analysis in this letter that she wrote, she says to be clear, she says “I’m a Democrat. I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I voted for Joe Biden 2020. Dr.SHIVA is a Republican, he voted for Donald Trump in 2016.” And she goes to a recent ad hominem attack against Dr.SHIVA by Maricopa County officials effector through their proxy, attempting to box them into a predefined category must be a true address, particularly given the racial subtext. “Dr.SHIVA is a true independent thinker in deeds, not words, he cannot be put into some reductionist box. He has put his life into fighting the swamp”, and she talks about my position. They said, you know, I didn’t invent email. She says look, “He did invent email. It’s a System. We’re not talking about electronic messaging.” But the key point she brings up here is that the Arizona State Senate was wise in commissioning Dr.SHIVA to participate in this audit.

We did it for a bargain, at 50k. But most importantly, she says, “I hope Democrats or Republicans unite around Dr.SHIVA’s thought leadership, which calls for an Engineering Systems Approach that will foster a culture that welcomes those who report anomalies, identifies root causes, and implements solutions so Americans get the fair and transparent elections they seek and deserve. This is how we unite America by solving the underlying systems issues, not as Dr.SHIVA states by perpetuating partisanship, vitriol, and controversy. I believe the state of Arizona and the country as a whole would be greatly served by both examining current operating procedures and adopting the recommendation Dr.SHIVA makes for improvements in the voting systems. As I understand Donald Trump recently praised Dr.SHIVA, his work at a rally in Georgia. Dr.SHIVA has been highly critical of him for not doing enough against the swamp. If Donald Trump can take criticism and even praise a critic. I believe election officials in Maricopa County can do better.” So, I thought this is a wonderful, well-balanced letter.

Dr.SHIVA: Phil, you saw this right? And I mean, here you have one of the esteemed professors of Engineering System Science, saying, look, Donald Trump and I can have differences. I can vote for him. You can vote for a Democrat, you can vote for a Republican, but this is an Engineering Systems problem. And all of us need to unite on this.

We saw Tim Canova earlier, a Democrat, talk about what happened to him by Democrats. Okay. I just spoke about how republicans and mass GOP attacked me, our election against 3000 volunteers, and no one should be supporting these guys for Election Integrity be it Democrat or Republican. It’s going to happen by We the People Bottoms-up. Let’s take the next call, John. Oh, Hi. How are you? Hello, this is Dr.SHIVA. Please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re calling from and your question. Hello?

Dr.SHIVA: Please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re calling from.

Caller: Hello. Thank you. My name is McKellen. I’m calling from Los Angeles County.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, great to have you.

Caller: Thank you. I have a two-part question for you. And I apologize in advance if you already answered this question earlier in your show. But I wanted to find out from you.

Caller: What is the preliminary process that a grassroots group of people should do to be able to make an official request for forensic audit in their county? Because there are so many groups of people that are coming together on a grassroots level, we tend to have infighting within the group on what is the right process? And in order, to get to initiating an official request for forensic audit.

And my second question is this what is your opinion in relation to establishing a review system of the election ballots prior to the election, prior to the election year to kind of help battle with you know envelopes being formally put together to kind of see if you will, for me with recall Gavin Newsome that envelopes had two holes that you can see if it was yes will recall, or no for no recall in the envelope.

Dr.SHIVA: I heard about that, yeah.

Caller: So, my point is what can be done to establish their review system in a year, coming up to an election year, so that we can prevent these types of things occurring in our county.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, so let’s look at… let’s sort of, you’re asking some great questions. Look, the reason Maricopa occurred, if you remember, was Phil and I did a presentation. It was at a public hearing that was held right below, where we tried to re-simulate what would occur and that video went viral. And it really got people concerned that the improbability of the Donald Trump results, you know, against Biden. And in fact, I think President Trump tweeted out, impossible result.

But, you know, he was on Twitter at the time, I was on Twitter. And we had huge reach and people got really upset. Since then, both he and I have been thrown off Twitter. And we don’t have those public hearings. Right. Ultimately, what’s happened is because government and Big Tech are so in bed together, they’re controlling narratives right now, they saw what happened in Arizona, and I don’t think they want an audit to occur anywhere else again.

The only way it’s going to occur is first of all, you know, one of the simple things we did and if you email me at vashiva@vashiva.com, I’ll hook you up with a number of people we have in Arizona, because we have a whole Election Integrity Unit we started creating. Is that in your local towns, or your local precincts, or in your local counties, you can go ask for two numbers in the last election.

And you can issue a FOIA if we have a, if you go to our website, I think it’s at VAShiva.com/cleanelections. If you email me, we teach people how to do this. But you can ask them, how many voters came in to vote, okay. V number of people, and how many ballots were cast? Right? Let’s call that P, right? P being the number of people and V being the voters ballots cast P should equal V, right?

About 1000 people came in to vote, you should have 1000 ballots. Well, when we did this analysis, we have never found P to equal V. Okay? Even in towns you’re asked to it’s the number of votes cast, and sometimes 3,000 more than the number of people. Now you can issue that with a simple public records request. Okay?

And if you can eat anyone listening if you email me at vashiva@vashiva.com. And if you go to TruthFreedomHealth.com you can sign up as a member, there’s no cost or anything, or you can sign up as a warrior. But we’ll, we’re educating people on how to do this, we have paperwork, we actually have created the forms, etc. Okay. So that’s one thing.

In terms of getting an audit done. Typically, you know, this involves bringing in the legislature, right? Or, you know, petitions, you know, it varies based on the local rules, okay. In Maricopa, it was the Arizona State Senate, okay, which got involved, to execute the audit and bring in contractors, etc. But I believe ultimately, this has got to be Bottoms-up movements, you know, at local, local, local, where people got to learn, what is a ballot image, right?

What are these envelopes? So, one of the things we want to do is, we’ve learned a lot, you know, in over the last couple years doing this, but we want to start creating tools for people like you to go demand, get information and essentially give you auditing tools, you say, and we want to decentralize this.

So that’s one of the things that we’re preparing to do. But if you email me, I can give you the forms you can do to issue the FOIA and then I can connect you with people on how to start doing audits in your local counties.

Caller: Thank you.

Dr.SHIVA: So again, vashiva@vashiva.com. By the way, I have a number going out here, it’s been almost four hours. Neither john or I or Phil have had any food or lunch. We’re just going at it as a marathon for four hours. So good. But you see a number I have there. For the American officials.

We’ve invited them perhaps the public should invite them they’re number 6025063535, 6025063535. Please call them and tell them that we want to have an open dialogue. We don’t want the press to be intermediary spreading disinformation, misinformation?

Why don’t, we’ve given them by the way, our call-in number, right? Phil has sent them to that, we gave them their own number, which means they’ll be moved to the top of the queue. So, we’d like them. We invite them, if not today. Maybe they can tell us when they’d like to come on.

We will do another appointment, you know, but we believe as Engineers, as working people, we need to have dialogue working person to working person. We need to eliminate all the middlemen. We don’t need these press people in the middle, you know, selling ads, you know, when they’re very, very, ignorant people. They don’t know, frankly, how to do any kind of reporting except trying to throw kerosene on a fire to split America even more. We don’t need to be split, we can come together, we can look at a problem. mothers do this every day, they have a problem with their baby, they figure out the problem is they take it to the doctor, they solve it, okay?

Phil, you do this in your business, I do this in my business, something’s not working. We don’t scream and yell and call people names, right? And just it ends there, we say what’s the root cause? The key word here is root cause. It’s called root cause analysis. And maybe, we should do a whole video on that. Okay, the stamp doesn’t look like that.

What’s the root cause? Let’s find it. Let’s resolve it. Let’s document it. So, we don’t have to deal with it again. And if you have documentation, release it. Let’s take the next call. And by the way, I want to thank Phil Evans and John Medlar here. Who are helping us. We have been here non-stop. Thank you.

Phil: Thanks for having us.

Dr.SHIVA: You’re live with Dr.SHIVA, please introduce yourself and tell us where you are. And where you’re calling from.

Caller: My name is Bob and I’m from Pima County.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, great to have you, Bob. How are you?

Caller: I have great I’m working on becoming a committee man I love the local Bottoms-up thing you’re pushing and you’re I think you’re right. So, I just wanted to share something I got 3 million ballots for this upcoming 11 three election here to my house.

Dr.SHIVA: Can you repeat that louder, so everyone hears what you said you got three mail in ballots? Go ahead.

Caller: Yeah, I got an email and ballot and one of them is mine. And two of them are someone else. Okay. And so, I noticed on my mail and ballot there’s a postage stamp. You know, it has a flag now QR code says 73 cents us postage, you know when they run it through the mail system. But the other two that I got that have no the names. I don’t know, have no Mail Print out on them. I mean, no stamp. It’s like they didn’t go through the proper mail part system.

Dr.SHIVA: Wow.

Caller: Know what I mean?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. Can you take a picture of those and send them to us?

Caller:Yep. Yeah, let your email Yeah

Dr.SHIVA: Let me give you, my email. V is in Victor, A as in Apple, SHIVA vashiva@vashiva.com, By the way, in Arizona, an election is going on right now. Right? Yeah, so one of them has a bulk rate postage and the other two don’t. That’s what you’re telling me for? Basically, you have the right. You got the mail in ballots? And then you’re supposed to mail them in? Yeah, come on in. And one has, so you can mail it in the other two don’t?

Caller: Yeah, I’m actually came to me that that went through the Postal Service symbol stamp. I have and the other two look like, I mean, they have no stamp on them. So, I’m wondering, I always look at my mail and I get stamps on them, or the ones that are prepaid postage, you know, right. And in this case, it’s not. And it makes me think that the Postal Service is doing something sketchy, like just filling up the boxes and delivered extra ballots.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, why don’t you send that? Why don’t you send them to us? Because it’s fascinating vashiva@vashiva.com. Because, you know, we have been asked on the return on envelopes to submit evidence to the Attorney General, and this is something maybe we should also submit.

Caller: Okay, well, I’d like to support that. Yeah. Just wanted to say I’m a System Engineer.

Dr.SHIVA: Oh, excellent!

Caller: I’m totally into simulations and stuff like that. So, I really enjoy the level at which you teach. And I think you’re doing a great job, sir.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, go to TruthFreedomHealth.com we need people like you because we’ve created the curriculum, but we need more people to learn it and teach it to others. So, we’ve created a decentralized. Yes. So please, please join because we’re creating a Bottoms-up movement, because that’s the only way that we’re going to take back any responsibility for ourselves.

If politicians are not going to do it. We have to recognize that they watch which way the wind blows, it’s going to be us people getting educated. It’s time that American people recognize that we have to take accountability for our lives. And we’ve gotten to this situation because we slept. We can’t really blame anyone. We got to blame ourselves.

Caller: Absolutely. All right. Yep. Thank you. And I just want to say one thing real quick. Yeah, that I get all my knowledge on the MG show on telegram. Okay. I mean great guys there and I encourage everyone to get to the MG show

Dr.SHIVA: The MG show? Okay, well you’re great, thank you. And it just reminds us we’re also on Telegram on Facebook and YouTube. Everyone go there. Go ahead. We still have about two. Wow, 2,600 people still strong on here. Let’s go. We have about 20, 18 minutes left in our broadcast. What do we have?

Dr.SHIVA: Hello, this is Dr.SHIVA live. And with Phil Evans and John. Please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re calling from. Can we get Liz? Trying to get back on? We can try to call her. Hi, how are you? Okay, let’s go to the next person. Hello, hi, how are you? Great to have you please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re calling from.

Caller: This is Ron from California.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Ron, how are you?

Caller: Great. Couple observations. First off, great work and appreciate all that you guys are doing. You’re all coming in off appreciate a lot of what a lot of other people are doing in the audit and getting to the bottom of stuff. What I’m finding out or seeing is that a winner in fracture, like there’s all this use for everyone that has no incentive to get to the bottom of things. Uh huh. So, I haven’t gotten there. Yet.

Dr.SHIVA: So, your point is that many of these people have no intention to get to the bottom of things. Right?

Caller: Correct. So, they use your aha moment to change the outcome of the election.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I think you’re bringing up a good point, what I want to, I think the reality here, right, is first of all, you’re right, we did a portion of the audit, obviously, related to the mailing envelopes.

But you had a tremendous amount of dedicated people from the Cyber Ninjas, people from Liz Harris, as people are still out there. There’s a lot of very, very dedicated people working on this.

And I think what’s happening is, this is actually inspiring, hopefully other people to participate, but to Lori Ann’s question, and to your thing, the reality is, people need to recognize that any anomaly they see all anomalies are good, insignificant, or large, you know, Verner von Braun, who created literally created the American missile program, right, the rocketry program, his culture and engineering was, you could have an engineer who find something really innocuous.

And let’s say they find out, that’s no big deal. You don’t say, hey, you found something that was useless. And it’s no big, big deal. Sometimes you may find an engineer who actually find something big. And it turns out, it’s not a big thing. His view was all anomalies, small or large, right? insignificant or monumental.

They’re all very important. And that’s the culture we need to have. When we look at something like the election voting systems. We need to have a culture where we encourage that. And we need to have a system aka we found that we resolved it, and it was documented like this, like you would do a note any other type of thing. In any other system.

Caller: Everyone vote that is canceled out. Is my vote.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, exactly. And if you have a systems issue, and you don’t resolve that, that could affect 1000 votes, right, or 10,000 votes.

Caller: Absolutely. So, I think there’s no incentive on the Republican side, or the democrat side to change the system. It’s like, I don’t want to rock the boat as a linear system. I don’t want to create a problem that’s going to create a problem for myself by looking at these problems.

Dr.SHIVA: And I think the reason, I think the reason for that, I think the reason in my conclusion that’s been done when you start looking at what occurred to us in Massachusetts here, Tim Canova and all these races, is that one could argue it’s all pre decided this Democrat, Bernie will lose to Hillary in this case, and then he’ll take people off the streets and bring them to Hillary, or Trump will lose to Biden, in this case, or Hillary will lose to whatever you want to say, right?

And that’s all pre-decided. And then they have enough ways because the Systems are so squishy, right? That the job gets done. That’s what it surely looks like to me. And I’m not going to change that opinion until someone gives me the SOP’s because if you really want to resolve this, you would publish the SOP’s. They would be fully accessible, but because you keep everything so opaque. And it seems there’s really an irresolution on the establishment of Republicans or Democrats ever to really resolve this. It’s not to their benefit.

Caller: There’s also two other ways to look at this a very, very simple, simple thing, one person, one vote, I put an X on a piece of paper and someone else counted paper about now it’s full of justification for that. And then the SOP is being, you have a complicated system, but you have checks and balances in the system all the way from end to end to identify any of these inconsistencies.

Dr.SHIVA: Right.

Caller: So, we’re on where either one way or another have been squishy, we’re in the middle of that. Well, the thing is, well, part of the political body that has any incentive to get rid of the squishiness.

Dr.SHIVA: Right. That’s why one way to eliminate the squishiness is to make the process simpler.

Caller: You know, you’ll resonate all the data, paper ballot. I’m all for that.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I think it should be straight up paper ballots, small communities, people count them, they image them right there. And it’s the votes are counted at the end of the period. And it’s Election Day. And it’s just, you just broadcast at every little community. And then you just add them all up. Everything is transparent, then it’s you really. Yeah,

Caller: Thank you. And then that gets the decentralization point. And the decentralization point of DC being the center of the political,

Dr.SHIVA: Political, right, right. You nailed it,

Caller: And, and to get rid of the decentralization of all the money going to the See, quote, unquote, the swamp, right. needs to be eliminated. A simple solution would be to get the agencies decentralized from DC. Yep. And I’m starting with is called dc in, okay. It’s a very simple law, which would say, move all agencies out of DC.

Dr.SHIVA: It’s excellent. Yeah. So, we should connect to go to have go to truth, freedom, health, calm, and let’s connect there. Because you’re,

Caller: I’ve been following you for two years and three years. Okay. And, and as far as this movement, and being part of the system, I’m all for it. But the point of CCN is that it’s one message, okay. In Brexit,

Dr.SHIVA: Okay, let me do this, because we have got 10 other callers, but please email me and let’s touch base. Thank you.

Caller: Will do. Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody working.

Dr.SHIVA: Thank you. Phil, do you have any comments? You’ve been quiet?

Phil: Well, the decentralization that’s going on now, or that the centralization that’s going on now is, is a huge, huge issue. And I think people need to be aware of what’s going on.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, you’re live with Dr.SHIVA. Please introduce yourself. Thanks, Phil. And tell us from where you’re calling.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, this is Dr.SHIVA. Who’s this.

Caller: My name is Jim. I live in Memphis.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Jim. How are you? Good to have you. Hey,

Caller: I’m, uh, I’m really honored. I really want a lot of feedback here. So, it’s gonna be hard to talk, but I really want to encourage everybody to make a sign. Go outside, stand on the corner like I do. And hold up 50 states, Y’all. It’s been done. It’s my idea of Grassroots.

Dr.SHIVA: Excellent! Yeah, so Jim, you’re in Memphis. So, you’re telling people to go out? Hold up a sign. Audit every election, right?

Caller: Yeah, I’ve done that. I actually flew to Phoenix and met Liz Harris. in the CANVASS there. Had a great time, in 105-degree heat. And I know you got to get off the Telegram. You got to go outside. You got to get some women involved. Just go outside.

Dr.SHIVA: Excellent. Let me try to call. Let me see if I can get, Okay, good, John.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, this is Dr.SHIVA, you’re live. Please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re calling from.

Caller: Yes, my name is Larry Carlton, and I’m in Denver, Colorado.

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, Larry. and quick, yep.

Caller:Hi there. Hi. My question is, I have an engineering background and I use a lot of logic and. I was good at my job. And now I look at this election and I saw the Trump rallies and I saw the Biden rallies and it’s obvious that the election was stolen.

Anybody with any kind of logic would see that it… and we see that ends have millions of votes were either added or scraped, or whatever that make the election the way they wanted it. But my point here is that the only way you can steal 10s of millions of old is to do with the machine. And Dominion has been completely taken out of the equation.

And the machines have not been audited. They have not done what they were supposed to do when they were getting subpoenaed. And yet, nothing is done about that. And why hasn’t the source code in the chat? and seeing where there’s funding going on in the machine? Yeah, you bring them good, and why don’t

Dr.SHIVA: you bring up a great question. Look, we were when we did the analysis back, when was it film November? Right. So, the question is, why are the machines being left out of this? We, you know, our conclusion was that there is a feature on these machines called a weighted race feature.

Okay. Now you’ve had the election, quote, unquote, fake election integrity people, I believe, break he’s against this concept, right, though, that weighted races and all these kinds of things go on, right. He In fact, attacked me on this right.

Phil: He has been attacking you on that correct?

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah. People have been sitting on the election integrity movement, who I call the controlled opposition. They only want to talk about election integrity, when they can control, they don’t want the movement to go into certain areas. And this is the unfortunate status of this.

So, they don’t want it to go to the fullness of understanding. So, there’s this, there’s the Mail-in issues, there’s people getting ballots as Liz Harris just came back on that, you know, getting it into places that no one can verify. But one of the fundamental things is that these machines have the capability to multiply votes by a factor. It’s called a weighted race feature.

And in our election in Massachusetts, we calculated that factor was about point six, six rights, two thirds. And you can see this also. So you know, I think the reality is you have the machines which have these features, you have this squishiness in mail in ballots, you have the UPS upstream, efforts that are being done, where people are getting multiple ballots, this color just talked about, he just got three ballots to one ballot looks a certain way the other ballots looked different.

Liz’s canvassing efforts are showing people are getting ballots to places that no one even resides. And in their canvassing efforts are finding that someone said I voted, right. But there is no vote record. So, my view this is they’ve created a system which is not tight.

It has a number of places where you can inject in, quote unquote, “fraud” by the fact that it’s become very loosey goosey in these systems. So, you’re absolutely right, we haven’t even discussed, I mean, I discussed it in our machines, and what happened here in Massachusetts. But the simple way for anyone else, anyone here to go check that you can issue a public records request in your local town and ask for two numbers asked for them for the participating voters list.

How many people voted in your town? Let’s say that’s the, you know, our P the number of people that voted 20 people voted, and then how many ballots were cast. So, let’s say if 10 people voted, there should be 10 ballots. This is a very simple check that you can see this P equal V. And more than likely, I’ve yet to find many of these places where P equals V. But thank you. You’re absolutely right. It’s 3:56. We’ve been on for four hours. Liz, do you want to add anything to that?

Liz: Well, what I want to add, I don’t know if you’ve covered this because I’ve been listening on and off. Yep. We have a special agreement. Did you cover that at all? Where the special Master John Shattuck, a former US Congressman is going to oversee the analysis of the routers and the log files.

I hope that he chooses someone like Ben Cotton of CyFIR to do this analysis because this is what I’m relying on to help confirm the modification of data. We have seen massive modification of data from September 1, up until today. And again, if this special agreement is not honored, and this is we don’t get these routers and we don’t get these log files.

Unfortunately, the Maricopa County audit is going to be incomplete. So, I want to encourage everyone to, I don’t know, John Shattuck is not a public figure anymore. As far as you know, being an elected official, but once again, right now Maricopa County, our audit is not done, and we are, I am very much relying on this data in order to show how these votes got modified. Because I just have to reiterate, data is being manipulated. And it’s not just in Maricopa, but it is throughout the United States.

Dr.SHIVA: Thank you, Liz. We’re going to take one, one more caller. It’s almost 4pm. Let’s take the last caller. Thank you. By the way, I want to thank everyone for participating. Thank you, Liz. Thanks, Phil. Thanks, John. Thank you for all for the great amount of work and dedication everyone’s put in. Thank you. Go ahead. Let’s…

Dr.SHIVA: Hi, this is Dr.SHIVA, please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re from.

Caller: Yeah, this is Victor. I’m from upstate New York, Central New York.

Dr.SHIVA: Well, hi, Victor. How are you?

Caller: Hi, I’m good. I’m also so thankful for everything you’re doing in that regard? Analyzing everything. So, I wanted to ask you, I look at all the results of 17,126 duplicate envelopes that you found. And then there’s 255,000 plus votes that were not in the EV. I believe the son file that you that were not in the EB 33

Dr.SHIVA: Not in the EB 30 threes? Yep.

Caller: I think for a lot of people, when I ask this, why do we not know the count? I know the purpose of the audit was to find fraud and not find a winner. But why don’t we know the count of Biden and Trump in those anomaly ballots?

Dr.SHIVA: In those which ballots?

Caller: Out of the 255,000 per instance. 80% went to Biden, did we not know that?

Phil: Great question.

Dr.SHIVA: That’s a great question. It’s so, I think the key thing that you’re bringing up is, is again, a systems issue. The EB 33 is the one that contains the early voting ballots, those numbers don’t match with the VM 55. That’s where every vote is counted. Okay.

Now everything should tally exactly right. So, if you do a query on the VM 55, on the early voting balance that should match exactly, but they don’t. And, Liz, I don’t if you want to add anything to that, but this lack of, you know, and look at we have 6,545 more ballots than on envelopes, okay, that we have in our possession, everything should tally across the board.

And I think that the key thing that everyone should leave with is that you have system A communicating with system B to communicating with system C, it is a complex system, but at the end of the day, matter cannot be, you know, first law of thermodynamics. matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Ballot should not be able to be created, nor destroyed.

Right? There should be Conservation of Matter. And we’re finding is there is no Conservation of Matter or Energy. Right? You can’t account for matter and energy, transfer. Yeah.

Caller: Sorry, I’m sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to ask you this. There was a lot of talk right after presentation of the audit findings on Friday, that there was a lot of pressure on Doug Logan, and the Cyber Ninjas.

So that being said, was the decision to not release on those anomaly mail-in ballots. They’re on their part that they purposely did not release, that were… they pressured not to release that.

Dr.SHIVA: Yeah, I’m not aware of the I know, Doug was under a lot of pressure for all sorts of reasons. But right now, the Attorney General of the state of Arizona has asked, if you saw the letter issued by myself, Doug, Ben Cotton, and others to provide him data.

So, any, because remember, no one can, I can’t say there’s fraud. You can’t say there’s fraud only. It has to go through a criminal process. Fraud is a criminal term. So, the Attorney General wants data, he wants evidence, right? And then he will take that evidence and data. And, you know, look at where the laws and statutes have been violated.

And that’s the job of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona. So that’s so yeah, we’re right now today we have, we’re going to be submitting evidence. I know Doug submitted evidence, or he’s in the midst of submitting more. So, we have an opportunity now to submit evidence, more evidence to the Attorney General. So, thank you very much in the interest of time, thank you, so we don’t burn everyone out. Thank you, Liz.

Liz: Thank you.

Dr.SHIVA: So, it’s 4pm. We want to encourage everyone to call the Maricopa State Election Officials and let them know that we waited for them for how many hours? Four hours. We are willing to do this again. Today’s Thursday. We are probably going to do a report on Maricopa at 6pm. Phil, if you let Mark Finchem know if he wants to join us live though.

So, I’ll be back at 6pm doing a live of some wonderful analysis. Phil and I put together on Pima County. Okay. And Mark Finchem is a rep there. He and I did it before, frankly, the video came out. Okay, but I think we can do it better live, Phil, is to join us, okay, let him know, we’ll do it, I’m going to take a little break, we’ll do it at six, okay. At that, or otherwise, you and I can just do it at six.

So, we’re going to sort of move the movement forward by giving you some more data on Pima County. And we have a very interesting anomaly, we call it the fishtail. We’ve seen in Pima, and we want to thank Mark Fincher for getting this data for us.

So, Phil, if you let Mark know, we can do that. Okay. We’ll do. All right. Well, everyone, I’ll be back at 6pm. I think Phil, what do you think I think was just do it today, right?

But I want to thank Phil, I want to thank john, I want to thank Michell, who has been waiting here. Liz Harris. And most importantly, we have 2,500 people concurrent here. Hmm. We had 3,000 to 4,000 people to try to call in with, so therefore we know people, this Election Integrity issue has activated lots of people.

We want to encourage people that the ultimate way to resolve this is for everyone to get involved. And to take a Systems Approach. I want to encourage everyone to go to TruthFreedomHealth.com, you can support the movement for a Systems Approach, you can support yourself. And so go there, sign up for one of the courses. Become part of the movement. And we’ll be doing this again.

I want to thank everyone for getting the word out. I actually want to thank, President Trump, who put out a notice, right, he said. We want to thank President Trump, if people didn’t see the letter, but I wish Joe Biden had put it out, you know, I can have my differences.

But I appreciate President Trump doing this. And I think he just put out a notice that no one should even be voting in these elections. Right. So, Thank you, everyone. Be Well, Be the Light and Let’s win this fight. Okay, for America. Thank you Be Well, and we invite the Maricopa Election Officials to call me on my cell phone.

For anyone in Maricopa, Election Officials can call me 24/7. I will be extremely friendly. We will be fully transparent and sharing everything. And I’m sure Liz will, and I’m sure everyone else will. We want to have dialogue. That’s how we unite Americans that have been becoming a Divided States of America. So, it’s really up to both parties. But we’re fully open and the doors always open. Thank you, everyone. Be Well.

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved.