US Election – vote ‘adjudication’ explained: it’s a rort

Cutting through the haze of accusations and denials, US lawyer STEPHEN B. MEISTER, writing in The Epoch Times, examines the prima facie voting evidence from swing states, finding that ‘adjudicating’ humans not the Dominion machines themselves did the dirty work, illegally overturning a Trump landslide.

Let’s begin by looking at some undisputed swing state data. Take Georgia to start. In 2012, Barack Obama won 1,773,827 votes in Georgia. We are now told Biden won 2,473,633 Georgia votes, besting the first black president by a stunning 699,806 votes.

In other words, we’re asked to believe that Biden outperformed his former boss by 39.45 percent in Georgia, though Biden was soundly defeated in the 2008 Democratic Primary by Obama, and that was when Obama’s sole political credentials were that of a Chicago community organizer and Illinois state senator, and before Biden’s obvious cognitive decline. Trump garnered 2,461,854 Georgia votes, and thus would have handily defeated Biden’s former boss.

Now let’s look at Nevada. It presents a similarly incredulous (sic) picture. Whereas Obama in 2012 won 531,373 votes from Nevadans, Biden, we are led to believe, won 703,486 such votes, besting his former boss by 172,113 votes—improving Obama’s performance by 32.39 percent. Again, Trump, who gathered 669,890 Nevada votes, would have soundly defeated a candidate turning in an Obama-level performance.

Arizona is altogether ridiculous. In 2012, Obama won 1,025,232 votes in Arizona. Yet Biden, we are asked to believe, got 1,672,143 votes from Arizonans, a whopping 63.10 percent improvement over Obama’s performance. Once again, Trump, who won 1,661,686 votes from Arizonans, would have handily defeated a candidate turning in an Obama-level performance.

All six swing states still in dispute—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, in addition to Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona—were won by Trump as of midnight on Election Day, and all experienced a massive “blue-shift” in the early morning hours of Nov. 4.

Now we learn, thanks to the court-ordered forensic audit of the Dominion servers in Antrim County, Michigan, that the Dominion software somehow experienced an astounding 68.05 percent error rate in electronic tabulation log events (pdf).

         “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter  fraud organization in the history of American politics.”-
Joe Biden *

The Election Assistance Commission (originally the Federal Election Commission) allows a maximum error rate of just 0.0008 percent (pdf). That is, the 68.05 percent audited error rate for Dominion software in Antrim County is a staggering 85,000 times the allowable error rate.

The forensic report understandably concluded that Dominion software was “intentionally designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”

‘adjudicating’ ballots?

Even more shocking (if that’s possible) is a YouTube video of a Georgia election official showing how Dominion’s so-called “adjudication” function works. Whoever dreamed of such a thing—“adjudicating” ballots? Sounds like a communist election-rigging strategy to me.

The idea behind “ballot adjudication” apparently is this: If a paper ballot is ambiguous—say a voter voted for both Trump and Biden (an “over-vote”) or the circles are filled out incompletely—the software assigns the ambiguous ballot to “adjudication” so that, in theory, an election official or team of such officials can examine the paper ballot and “adjudicate” it, i.e., decide who the voter intended to vote for and input that election official’s determination into the vote count.

In the video, the official first feeds into a scanner a series of paper ballots. The Dominion software then records in one or more “batches” the scanned ballots. In this demonstration, all 16 scanned ballots are put “into adjudication” by Dominion software, even though nothing is wrong with any of the ballots. There is no “over-voting” (e.g., darkening the circle for both Trump and Biden) or incomplete circles, but somehow all 16 ballots are assigned for adjudication.

The election official then demonstrates how she can “adjudicate” any one of the 16 ballots and change the vote from Trump to Biden or anyway she pleases.

This demonstration of Dominion’s “adjudication function” is shocking and explains Biden’s otherwise inexplicable performance relative to Obama in the six swing states Biden somehow won after Election Day ended.

Dominion CEO John Poulos finally agreed to testify at the Michigan legislative hearings. He was dismissive of the claims about Dominion’s adjudication function having been used to swap votes from Trump to Biden in Antrim County, Michigan. Poulos says this was all “impossible” and he had “difficulty even knowing where to begin” because—listen very carefully—Antrim, Michigan, didn’t even license the “digital adjudication” system.

As a battle-tested commercial trial lawyer, my ears are trained to pick up misleading (even if technically accurate) testimony. I’m willing to bet that Dominion offers a “digital” adjudication function whereby ambiguities in a paper ballot are “adjudicated” by the computer “looking” at digital images of scanned paper ballots, and not by “human” election officials looking at the actual papers ballots.

machine sensitivity settings

But that doesn’t mean that Antrim County didn’t have a “non-digital” adjudication function whereby the Dominion software “flags” a ballot for “human” adjudication. Indeed, Poulos made a big deal about the fact that election clerks or committees of them would perform the adjudication, not the Dominion software. And in that regard, he’s being fair and correct. If some corrupt election officials changed votes upon “adjudication,” that’s not wrongdoing by Dominion.

So the real question that remains is this: Was the (non-digital) adjudication function used—by corrupt clerks—to change votes? Here, I’m willing to bet that the Dominion software has a “sensitivity” setting that determines how tiny an error on a paper ballot must be for the computer to assign it to “adjudication” (so that that ballot can then be “adjudicated” by one or more election officials). In typical paper ballots, the voter’s choices are registered by the voter coloring in an oval. Obviously, no voter is perfect on the microscopic level in coloring in the entire oval’s area.

So, the question becomes, were the sensitivity levels of the Dominion software for “adjudication flagging” set—possibly by corrupt election officials or perhaps by Dominion personnel—to flag an enormous percentage of ballots for adjudication (including truly unambiguous ballots), thus paving the way for corrupt election officials to change the votes using the adjudication function?

It’s not now known how many mail-in ballots were sent by the Dominion software into “adjudication,” but reports are circulating that very high percentages—upwards of 80 percent—of the paper ballots in some areas scanned by the Dominion software system automatically were assigned into “adjudication.” Then it was up to election officials to potentially change Trump votes to Biden “as needed” in the early morning hours of Nov. 4.

As Roger L. Simon pointed out, the Michigan lawmakers were not equipped to cross-examine Poulos, and thus reveal the “whole truth”—cross-examination is an art form, and it takes years to develop the necessary skills.

That’s why it’s crucial that the Dominion machines be impounded now under order of President Donald Trump. Only a forensic examination of the machines will reveal the fraud.

The fraudulent use of Dominion’s adjudication function could explain how Trump went from winning all six of the disputed swing states at midnight on Election Day to miraculously losing all six in the wee hours of the following morning.

Dominion’s carefully crafted denial

Millions of votes could easily have been changed through “adjudication,” and this would explain how Biden shattered all previous records and bested his former boss, to whom he lost in the 2008 primary, while “campaigning” from his basement in a state of serious cognitive decline.

This also explains Dominion’s carefully crafted denial of voter fraud emanating from its software. With regard to Antrim County, Michigan, Dominion said (emphasis mine): “The issue with election results reporting in Antrim County was due to user-error.

In other words, Dominion supplied the means for rampant fraud—through its “adjudication function” and the automatic assignment of unambiguous ballots to “adjudication”—but an election official who doesn’t work for Dominion actually committed the fraud.

The adjudication feature is also consistent with the fraud analysis by actuary Ben Turner, whose detailed, controlled analysis of 657 Dominion-using counties and 2,388 non-Dominion using counties, since 2008, concluded that the Dominion-using counties experienced a “Dominion effect” yielding a 2 to 3 percent shift in Biden’s favor.

Mr. President: impound the Dominion machines. Stop the steal!

Latest, 18 Dec. 2020: Peter Navarro, who serves as an advisor to President Donald Trump, on Thursday released a report, in his private capacity, on the integrity of the 2020 election, concluding that the allegations of irregularities are serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to overturn the results.

The findings of the report (pdf), titled “The Immaculate Deception,” support the claim that the election “may well have been stolen” from President Donald Trump.

“If these election irregularities are not fully investigated prior to Inauguration Day and thereby effectively allowed to stand, this nation runs the very real risk of never being able to have a fair presidential election again,” Navarro said in the report.

Latest, 22 Dec. 2020: In a podcast interview yesterday, Navarro said that more than 379,000 possibly illegal ballots were allegedly cast in Michigan. “That’s more than twice the victory margin,” he continued.

During a nine-hour period on Nov. 4, Trump had a significant lead over Joe Biden, he added. Within “five seconds” at around 6:30 a.m. Biden’s “total [votes] skyrocketed by 141,258 votes,” or “30 times the expected vote count,” Navarro said, citing data from the New York Times.

“Within that same time frame, do ya know how many Trump got? 5,968,” he claimed. In another instance at around 3:50 a.m. ET in Michigan, 54,497 votes were provided for Biden while Trump only received about 4,718 votes, he said.

* Andrew L. Urban: I saw Joe Biden make this statement as part of a news report on Fox News; the link shows it on twitter.


This entry was posted in Organisations And Groups. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to US Election – vote ‘adjudication’ explained: it’s a rort

  1. Zane Grey says:

    Adjudication is an actionable cause against those who certify such systems of fraud for use in elections. Title 42, section 1983 enable’s citizens to sue State government in the federal court system by bypassing the State court system. Use it!!
    If a voter screwed up their ballot throw it in the garbage because, that doesn’t give anyone the right to change other peoples’ ballots after they’ve cast them. Nice try democrats!
    Recounts only recount adjudicated ballots. The fact that something like this is even considered for certification in elections makes reason stare.
    If scanners are rejecting ballots torn or mutilated by them, get new equipment. Even a speck of ink or fly puke will cause a ballot to be rejected. One county in Georgia adjudicated 103,000 of 109,000 ballots!
    Punch card tabulators provided secure elections for over 50 years before some crook dreamed up inferior paper punch cards to screw up the tabulators so they could implement these new election stealing scanners from Dominion, ES&S, Premier Election systems, Diebold, etc.
    Over 80% of the vote comes from Dominion and ES&S. Votes go in red and come out blue.
    Critical elections are coming in November and these election stealing machines that have servers in China, Canada, Iran, Germany and other enemy nations are still 100% in use with no changes to the corrupt software inside them.

  2. Everett Sellner says:


    Hi. Brilliant work on the website. I’m writing a paper on the election fraud and there is a critical question I can not find anywhere. Many people I talk to assume that recounts are recounting the original paper mail-in ballot. But I’m not sure this is correct. The Dominion system adjudicate ballots and the post adjudication version is suppose to then become the original result. I’m not clear if recounts are recounting the original paper ballot or a print out of the post adjudication result. This is a critical question because if fraud reports are correct that fake ballots were scanned multiple times then if the recount counted the original paper it would expose this practice as fraud since there would be less paper ballots than adjudicated results. However, if the recount only recounted post adjudication print outs then the recount would not catch any fraud. This is a critical question and I can’t find the answer anywhere, perhaps you can point me in the right direction. Many Thanks! Everett

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *