Death Certificate Mail In Application: Fill & Download for Free

Trump is against mail in ballots because the pool of eligible Democratic voters and Independents likely to vote against him is greater than the pool of eligible voters likely to vote for him. Under those circumstances, making it easier to vote may work to his disadvantage.But first, let’s correct an answer Alex Mann that is simply false:So first let’s start with what this fight is about. It is NOT about the ability to have a mail-in ballot system. Trump hasn’t really said anything about that and most states already do it. The fight is over:1Vote verification: Democrats want to remove signature verification on votes.2.Who ballots get sent to: Democrats want to send ballots to all eligible voters, including inactive ones. This is the entire issue—there is no more complexity behind it (that’s a joke, but this is the basic outline).Alex’s answer initially referenced California’s new vote by mail executive order, which is actually now an actual piece of legislation, and claimed that it wanted to remove signature verification on votes AND send ballots to inactive voters. He then changed it to Nevada’s alleged deficiencies, but has now removed any references to particular states since his claims about specific laws in specific states are either false or so grossly misleading that they are functionally false. But because he initially claimed that CA was removing signature verification and just randomly sent ballots to inactive voters, I will keep the substance of my response.First, it is absolutely false that California’s Vote by Mail legislation, or the predecessor executive order removed signature verification on votes. In fact, the verification process in CA is very strict:Here is the statute:Law sectionCHAPTER 1. Vote by Mail Application and Voting Procedures [3000 - 3026]( Heading of Chapter 1 amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 508, Sec. 11. )3019.(a) (1) Upon receiving a vote by mail ballot, the elections official shall compare the signature on the identification envelope with either of the following to determine if the signatures compare:(A) The signature appearing on the voter’s affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter.(B) The signature appearing on a form issued by an elections official that contains the voter’s signature and that is part of the voter’s registration record.(2) In comparing signatures pursuant to this section, the elections official may use facsimiles of voters’ signatures, provided that the method of preparing and displaying the facsimiles complies with the law.(3) In comparing signatures pursuant to this section, an elections official may use signature verification technology. If signature verification technology determines that the signatures do not compare, the elections official shall visually examine the signatures and verify that the signatures do not compare.(4) The variation of a signature caused by the substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or both, is not grounds for the elections official to determine that the signatures do not compare.(b) If upon conducting the comparison of signatures pursuant to subdivision (a) the elections official determines that the signatures compare, the elections official shall deposit the ballot, still in the identification envelope, in a ballot container in the elections official’s office.(c) If upon conducting the comparison of signatures pursuant to subdivision (a) the elections official determines that the signatures do not compare, the identification envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted. The elections official shall write the cause of the rejection on the face of the identification envelope only after completing the procedures described in subdivision (d).(d) (1) A minimum of eight days prior to the certification of the election, the elections official shall provide notice to all voters identified pursuant to subdivision (c) of the opportunity to verify their signatures no later than 5 p.m. two days prior to the certification of the election.(2) The notice and instructions shall be in substantially the following form:Below, I will reference the new California Vote by Mail amendments. For those of you who don’t regularly review statutes, the new Bill does not alter or amend section 3019 above. It amends 3019.7: AB-860 Elections: vote by mail ballots.In other words, the chief premise for Trump’s opposition, which is that California’s new Vote by Mail provision changes voter signature verification is absolutely false. And there are procedures for challenging a voter’s signature.Second, it is completely false that California will send mail in ballots to all “eligible voters.” Under the new act, only registered active voters will get mail in ballots. Inactive voters, voters who have had materials returned back by mail or have not voted in two elections, represent a small number of registered voters but election materials such as mail in ballots do not have to be sent to them if they are inactive.Under California law, inactive voters are legally eligible to vote but do not receive election materials:"Inactive voter" means a voter for whom a county has received:a returned residency confirmation mailing pursuant to California Elections Code section 2220 without a forwarding address within the same county, orinformation obtained through the United States Postal Service National Change of Address (NCOA) database indicating that the voter has moved outside the county pursuant to California Elections Code sections 2222 and 2226. Per California Elections Code sections 2221 and 2226, such inactive registrants retain the legal right to vote, but need not be mailed election material. Further, inactive voters who do not vote in two consecutive Federal general elections are subject to cancellation of their voter registration pursuant to Section 303(a)(4)(A) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. § 15483(a)(4)(A)).Nothing in the new bill changes that provision of California’s Election code. if there is any ambiguity, the California Secretary of State has stated: “Only active registered voters will be mailed a ballot ahead of the November 3, 2020 General Election. The President’s tweet is completely false.”A registered but inactive voter could show up in person to vote provisionally, but that’s always been the law.The California bill was passed 68-5 by the Assembly, with six members not voting. The opponents were all Republicans. Republicans who backed the bill noted that ballots will not be mailed to so-called inactive voters, who have not participated in recent elections.California Enacts Law Requiring Mail-In Ballots Sent To All Voters For November Presidential Election So, again, the leading answer as of this time is simply false.California has a very strict voter registration verification program including verifying voter roles against felony convictions and deaths. It also cross references motor vehicle records. Statewide Voter Registration Database Further, the vote by mail does not change anything with respect to inactive voters. An inactive voter could always show up at the polls and cast their vote, or request a vote by mail ballot. But the county does not send them ballots automatically.Voting in federal elections is determined by state and local governments. There is nothing inherently fraudulent about voting by mail. It all depends upon the policies and procedures of the vote by mail provisions. Despite the claims of widespread voting fraud benefiting Democrats, there is always a way to verify the integrity of mail in ballots. Just like there is a procedure for maintaining the integrity of in person voting.Historically, due to population density, urban precincts usually have long poll lines while rural precincts basically have walk in voting with no wait. Theoretically, if rural voters have to travel an hour or more to vote, they're would be widespread outrage over the unfairness. There is no similar outcry over urban voters routinely having to wait several hours to vote. Programs to reduce these lines and waits, like early voting, have also been opposed by the GOP because the lines benefit their party and discourage urban folks from voting. My guess is that if there was some feature of in person voting that benefited Democrats and discouraged likely GOP voters to vote, like long travel distances, then the shoe would be on the other foot. The truth is that until Trump disbands the Post Office, vote by mail is the fairest way to ensure an equal opportunity to vote along equal terms. Indeed, the postal service is one of the only federal services guaranteed by our Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"Further, there is no guarantee which party that mail in voting will favor. If the Pandemic is still raging come November, it may be that older people may be more reluctant to vote in person while younger folks are more than willing to face the lines. Trump believes that repeatedly claiming the election will be rigged may power up his base; or give him an excuse if 2020 turns out as bad for the GOP as 2018. He is almost certainly likely to get crushed in the popular vote based upon California alone. This gives him further ammunition to claim it is rigged to deny the significance of the fact that the majority of the country does not think he is fit to be President.Finally, the truth is that swing states are swing states because they a fairly even split between the two parties. Again, there is state and local control over federal elections. The odds of any mail in voting procedure not being hotly debated and fairly constructed in a swing state is almost nil. In a swing state, both parties have reasons to see that the procedures are full and fair and will use the courts if necessary to enjoin unfair election rules designed to favor one party. The trend in most swing states has been that Democrats have worked hard to expand voting opportunities and Republicans have worked hard to suppress votes, usually by shortening early voting or requiring drivers license IDs or the equivalent for folks who often do not drive. This is due in no small part to the demographics of Democratic voters and simple numbers. In most swing states, if Democratic voters come out, then it is a big win for Democrats in state wide elections like the Presidential popular and EC race. If the Cities do not come out for the Democratic candidate in massive numbers than the rural areas of swing states are enough to carry the state. Once upon a time the GOP made serious efforts to court the suburbs but Trump has caused the party to bleed numbers.

This is a long answer that will summarize all the testimonies and rebut most of the misleading information.Most of the people have covered the fact that this wasn’t an official hearing, it was more like a GOP clubhouse meeting with a GOP Pennsylvania legislator. No one was under oath.It seems that they held a similar meeting in Arizona with similar results. It’s performatively trying to look official to give more credence to their conspiracy theories and misinformation since they clearly don’t have the evidence to press forward in court.This was a superspreader event. They attempt to spread misinformation masquerading as official testimony…and no one wore a mask in a small hotel ballroom.Let’s look at Giuliani’s testimony, first.To summarize in advance, it’s full of either lies or ignorance mixed with misinformation.During the course of this election, we’ve come pretty close to losing our right to free speech. There’s been censorship that I’ve never seen before, of an incredible nature by big tech, big networks, big companies.This is utter nonsense. “Big tech” can’t censor you, by definition your right to free speech is protected from the government. Facebook has been removing fake posts, while Twitter has been labeling them as misinformation (but still showing them). This is Victimhood talk, and pathetic victimhood talk on top of it. What I’m reading here is that the Trumpists don’t want government out of business, they want to regulate media companies to only tell their truth.You know there was a fierce debate over whether we should have mail-in ballots in the first place.It’s so bizarre the different factual universes we find ourselves in. We’ve always had mail-in ballots. Every state had a way to mail in ballots for decades. Several states have exclusively mail in ballots. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS VOTES BY MAIL! This narrative has been invented by the GOP who have spend decades stacking the deck through dozens of legalized voter suppression measures.[1] They knew that voter turnout would be increased significantly by mail in ballots and have been eroding public trust in the process that the President himself utilizes in order to stage this last ditch attack on Democracy.Many scholars, many experts, always felt that mail-in ballots were very dangerous because they’re very easy to forge, it leads to more defrauding. We will warned by Justice Souter, among others. We will warned by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, in a report that they did on how to make elections more secure.I couldn’t find what Souter said other than a decision that he would have upheld restrictions in Texas on helping the elderly cast their ballots out of fears of ballot harvesting.[2] Also, The Carter Foundation found the exact opposite thing that Giuliani has claimed.[3]“I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy – the right of our citizens to vote,” said former President Carter.Giuliani continues:Witnesses we present are going to first show you that, in the case of Philadelphia, and in the case of Allegheny County, and one or two other counties, the mail-in ballots that were received, were not inspected at all by any Republican, they were hidden from Republicans. In the case of Philadelphia and Allegheny County, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I do believe the witnesses will show that a Republican never got to see a single ballot.This is directly contradicted by their lawyers:The transcript from one of Trump’s legal challenges is fascinating. The judge trying to get to the bottom of whether they WERE allowed to have observers:Judge : “Are your observers in the counting room?”Trump lawyer: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.” pic.twitter.com/CU4VbqIfj4— Man vs Baby (@mattcoyney) November 6, 2020Not just in this case, but in every one.Giuliani continues to complain about absentee ballots not being a problem normally because it’s acceptable to have a little bit of fraud, in his book (I mean, to be fair, there’s likely always a small amount of fraud, these elections are a big deal).That’s a huge number of votes, 65% of the vote had been cast. Under normal circumstances, like if this were a fair media, your state would have been called for Trump. Virginia was called with 10% of the vote, it turned out to be separated by 1%.I think we may have actually won Virginia, but that’s another battle. Michigan, we were ahead by 300,000 votes, Wisconsin, more. Georgia, we were down to 90% and ahead. What are the odds that they all switched overnight? They just switched by the next day.So the interesting thing here is that he’s playing into the other narrative that the media doesn’t determine the winner.The problem is that he’s he’s right, he’s just digging a deeper hole into reality.Virginia has gone blue for the past decade, and not by a little. The past 3 presidential elections leaned heavily red in the initial counting, because those small precincts all over the state are able to finish and report quickly. The much larger precincts and counties in Northern Virginia (Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William) as well as Richmond and Chesapeake are heavily blue and take much longer to finish processing. That last 1% of precincts has more than half the vote in the state. This is not unusual.With more mail-in ballots than usual, many states accepting the ballots for as long as a week after the election so long as they’re postmarked before the end of election day. It didn’t help that the GOP sabotaged the post office, either, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters.[4] Pennsylvania, in particular, and these legislatures, in particular, made it illegal to validate and count the ballots before the election was over causing this delay in counting.Nothing switched overnight. The ballots were already cast, they were just being counted.The media caused this complaint, and their “calling” of the election doesn’t mean anything, legally. The results are certified by the states and then they send electors to vote officially. Frankly, I think the media should cut the crap with this play-by-play election commentary since it plays right into the hands of those trying to erode trust in the Fourth Estate.We have calculated, and the evidence will show, that there were 682,770 mail-in ballots that were entered into your votes, in just Allegheny County and in Philadelphia, that were not observed by any single Republican.This would be news…if they did have evidence…which they don’t. They’ve repeatedly said they did, but haven’t presented ANY evidence of it. They even removed this part of it (the number of ballots keeps changing daily, as well) from their lawsuits two weeks ago.[5] They’re most likely taking the inch (they found that they were kept too far away) and taking a mile (THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO OBSERVE ANYTHING!).[6]Once again, they’ve presented zero, zip, zilch, evidence that 600,000+ ballots were verified without observation.I’ll give you one other enormously puzzling statistic. You sent out in the State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1,823, 148 absentee or mail-in ballots. You received back 1.4 million, approximately. However, in the count for President, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for that 700,000 difference between the number of ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count. That number, 2,589,242 was on your government website until yesterday. And yesterday, it was removed without explanation.There’s 3 things wrong with this statement:The first number cited was for the primaryThe larger number cited was for the 2020 presidential electionThe numbers weren’t removed from the website (You can see them here: Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results)I’ll repeat, Both of these different sets of numbers are still on the website and you can see them.Fact check: Pennsylvania mail-in ballot claim mixes primary, general election dataHe throws out a bunch of other numbers:22,686 mail-in ballots that were returned on the day they were mailed. (Pennsylvania allows you to request and submit in person early, no issues there)How about 32,591 were returned the day after they were mailed? (same as above)20,000 were returned before they were mailed (this comes from an “anonymous source” at epoch times (a right wing propaganda source) that posted screenshots of a datasource that’s not available and is formatted improperly from the site…My guess is that there was a placeholder or a clerical data entry error)8,021 ballots from dead people (but then he changes it to 30,000 in the next sentence) A number of news sources have looked into these finding no evidence outside of a few small incidents involving registered Republicans.[7]4,984 mail-in ballots that were never requested. (This is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania for parties to request ballots for people)[8]I can go on. Everything Giuliani brings up in his little tirade is either blatantly false, intentionally misleading, or easily explicable but easy to manipulate for people who refuse to listen.Before I continue, let me remind you: this hearing was held after nearly every single lawsuit was thrown out because there was no evidence of anything wrong. That even their assertion that the observers weren’t able to see things that they initially gave an injunction to allow the observers to be closer, was rejected on appeal because they weren’t restricted arbitrarily, they were restricted by a highly contagious virus that kills or cripples many that are infected.The “hearing” continues with different witnesses, mostly volunteers who were observers.Justin Kweder tries to establish they didn’t have meaningful access to observe things, but, again, the access was there, it was just not over people’s shoulders, and nothing was done in secret. His claims apply to all observers, so shenanigans could have occurred for Trump. Nevermind that the counters are also working in teams to prevent mistakes, as well…I find it disturbing that they’d allege that these volunteers would be able to, and willing to, stuff hundreds of thousands of ballots with hundreds of observers in the room.Kim Peterson makes similar allegations, but is inconsistent claiming that she was either 10, 15, 20, or 200 feet away from people, without mentioning that there were people all around the corral which were 10, 15, or 20 feet away from the people on the other side .She also reveals that there was closed circuit TV on so that the observers could see everything from a distance. She was disappointed in the quality — she just wanted to do her civic duty. The precious snowflake.Let’s summarize, briefly the first two. Some observers were far away from some of the counters…but there were cameras and monitors all over so that you can see everything.Leah Hoops says this:Not only was private grant money used from the center for tech and life owned by Google and Mark Zuckerberg, but pop-up voter sites were also approved. These pop-up voter sites were placed in heavily Democrat cities, including Chester and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, in which case the grant money from the CTCL was used to pay for electioneering. It was literally a one-stop shop. Walk in, apply, get your ballot, submit, and you were out the door. But where this didn’t take place was in heavily Republican and independent areas.The reality is that areas with lots of people tend to be blue, proportionately. Areas with fewer people proportionally tend to be red. If you were going to put a pop up location anywhere, why would you put it in the middle of a cow pasture?Her complaints might be true, but they’re founded in nonsense, like arguing that Gravity isn’t fair.We have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, which should be consideration enough to know that this is a very serious issueJust because you tell the truth doesn’t make it relevant. Her claims about not being able to observe were heard but dismissed after initially granting an injunction. The distance was not arbitrary, and accomodations were made for access.She also claims that they weren’t able to see the ballot signature validation room until an injunction was put in place. I found no record of any such injunction, unless she’s referring to the injunction that was put in place requiring them to be allowed within 6 feet, that was then rescinded on appeal.[9]Gregory Stenstrom did his best to be charming, but starts off saying it was his first time. He claims to have memorized the process manual, but he clearly skipped the training session.First, he claims they gave actual ballots instead of provisional ballots to people who claimed that they had requested mail in ballots. He doesn’t understand the process because if they had shown up as requesting mail in ballots, they would have been in the database. They didn’t, so they got actual ballots. Never mind this contradicts what other poll watchers saw regarding the treatment of black voters.[10]Then he claims that he wasn’t allowed into the counting center at first, which is valid because you have to be certified to be allowed in. Remember the chaos in at the Michigan counting facility when people not authorized to be there tried to storm in?He then claims there was a “forensically destructive process” with how the ballots were coming in…making claims that people “weren’t observed” and USB drives were being shuffled around. Ballots being moved around, votes being updated (50,000 for biden…because they organize the ballots and then run them…). He claimed that he spoke with a sheriff and the sheriff did nothing.He constantly makes emotional appeals and seems interested in the process…but rather than actually be a part of the process he’d rather “just ask questions.” — A key tactic in spreading conspiracy theories. His entire testimony seemed to revolve around ignorance of the process and drawing long conclusions from incomplete understandings of what was going on.The star witness seems to be Colonel Phil Waldron. He claimed no expertise or evidence or observation of the counting process, so he had no way to make any real claims about observers, but that didn’t stop him from continuing the claims the other witnesses made. He did claim expertise in information warfare that he took part in towards the end of his 30 year career.Consider a Colonel to be similar to a Project Manager at a very large company. They usually have several teams working underneath them and they’re either happy where they are, they’re not driven enough to advance, or not political enough…or they’re just not good enough. When you get to that point you’re in charge of people that know what they’re talking about and you just have to have a vague sense of it, it’s not required that you actually be or have the qualifications of a white hat hacker…and it shows in his testimony that he’s been at a distance from this stuff.He was clearly brought in by Trump's team and nearly everything he says is irrelevant and speculative. He claims, without evidence, for example, that 600,000 ballots were counted without observation. He insinuates, that the late Hugo Chavez had his undead hands on this election.I know there have been statements to the contrary but I personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first hand knowledge of Hugo Chavez’s family members who told him not to worry about the populous threat against Maduro’s election in Venezuela.Actual people that were able to analyze these things and verify the machines were trustworthy didn’t find anything…but Mr. Waldron personally could talk to people who guaranteed it. And let’s be clear, he’s tracing this “DNA” history back to before 2010…6 years before Trump won in Pennsylvania and many other states that use the same machines.All of this is similarly pointless conjecture since we have the paper ballots that we can audit.He says some things that make someone at all familiar with security wonder about his qualifications:And just so you probably all are aware, on 30 September, an election storage facility was robbed in your state. 30 USB devices were stolen and a laptop. Those USB devices more than likely had encryption devices and you just heard another previous witness talk about the nonstandard use of the USB storage devices.Yes, a facility was robbed. No, the USB devices didn’t have nonsensical “Encryption devices” on them, they had ballot layout templates for the machines to be programmed.[11] The machines are all sealed and those layouts are easily acquired elsewhere. The ballot layouts are also public information that are mailed out to everyone in advance of even the ballots being mailed out for remote voting.As a matter of fact, one of our white hat hackers previously discovered a malware that’s present on the servers that captures every log in and every password of every operator down to the precinct level that logs into one of these systems. That’s just like giving the password to your bank account out, putting it on the dark web. It’s not going to be there very long.There’s no context here. “Previously” could mean any time before hand. It looks like he hasn’t touched these things since 2010…They’ve most likely updated these servers since then, and if they found this “a malware” (No one talks like this in infosec circles) they probably fixed it…but we don’t know. But because of the way that he talks about these things it’s clear that he doesn’t have much insight and is simply trying to “just ask questions”.There’s a manufacturer specified rate of speed that a number of ballots can be imaged and processed. These spike anomalies in this chart really show where for us to look forensically to actually determine what happened with these votes. Our team has looked at these systems and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process, whether it’s mail in ballot manipulations, they can scan and allocate blank votes, whether it was a 70,000 votes left in the back room. There’s just lots of ways to interdict these systems.It’s like he doesn’t understand that:They don’t have to upload them as they run the ballotsThey can have more than one machine goingThey can release the reports whenever they feel like itMost of those votes are mail in ballots which haven’t been used to this extent in previous elections due to obvious circumstances, so this process is going to be differentThese aren’t votes coming in…these are votes that are being counted. There’s nothing unusual about this other than the fact that Pennsylvania didn’t allow early ballot counting to take place.This is just a purported “expert” “just asking questions” and sowing distrust.Gary Phelman says he has a “poll watcher’s certificate” that he says is good in every location in Philadelphia. He said he was denied entry. He claims it’s because his was yellow. He tries to claim they weren’t wearing masks, he definitely wasn’t wearing his bandana properly, however. A video of his encounter was here:A poll watcher in Philly was just wrongfully prevented from entering the polling place#StopTheSteal pic.twitter.com/iJTFtRk0Id— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 3, 2020Even though he is complaining about this now, it was cleared up pretty quickly:(Feeley is a spokesperson for the city commissioners) More on this can be seen here: Right-wing propagandists try to concoct a Philadelphia election scandalThis was an isolated incident that was cleared up on election day…yet here he is testifying about it.Dave Stisogis testified about a few things. He’s a lawyer and worked on campaigns for several candidates as well as running for office several times.First he complained about the processes and rule changes and how difficult it was for him to get people accredited (which applies to both sides).Then he talked about how he was observing the mail in ballot process about how they were separating the secrecy envelopes from the ballots with the cutting machines.His entire testimony can pretty much be summed up with this sentence:We had really no concept of what was going onThe Dunning-Kruger was strong with this one. He uses his credentials to imply that he is familiar with how it should work without establishing that he actually understands how it should work before saying flat out here that he doesn’t and has no intention of learning.At one point he called the fact that they had to “flatten out ballots” “obscene.” Which is a very…bizarre term for it. He says:People would come in with big armloads of ballots from the other room. Apparently with no providence, no explanation of where they came fromThis has been debunked to death. It’s a multistep process with observers at every step. Just because you can’t see everything doesn’t mean there isn’t meaningful access to it. If you did “have a concept of what was going on” you probably wouldn’t have expected it to be narrarrated to you.But there was absolutely no providence to what was going onHe likes the word providence.I had about 25 other affidavits from other folks that had joined me during the time that had been part of this that describe essentially the same thing over there in Allegheny County, most of whom were attorneys and had been versed on the comings and goings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which I might suggest, ultimately, the last decision in recanvassing when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately said that it doesn’t matter how far you’re away from the ballots because you don’t have the right to challenge anything, anyway. I read the opinion, and I said to myself, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just called off elections in the state of Pennsylvania.”Again, a sworn affidavit might mean that you’re telling the truth, but it doesn’t make it relevant. Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean that you have any insight into how elections work behind the scenes…and I’ve linked to the decision [9], and it doesn’t say what he claims.Next we have Elizabeth Preate Harvey who is full of softball concerns about the process, all of which are rehashes of what’s already been said and completely ephemeral.First, the Montgomery County Republican Committee was not provided meaningful view of the mail-in ballots at any time, despite our requests. Second, we were not provided with regular, detailed information about the mail-in ballots over the course of the election, despite our requests. Third, we still lack complete and detailed information about these ballots despite our written requests.I mean, this is, frankly all bullshit. Mail-in ballots are the same as in person ballots, except with secrecy envelopes. Sample ballots are mailed out prior to the mail in ballots.Second, as testified, you have observers all over the place. The “regular, detailed information” is likely not something that you’re entitled to, however much you wish you were.Third, Public information is available on the Pennsylvania secretary of state website.Since the election, we have received many calls and emails from Republicans with questions about whether their mail-in ballot was counted, expressing concerns that they didn’t request a mail-in ballot, but received one, anyway, that they were made to vote provisional when they shouldn’t have, that they have great concerns about the efficacy of this election.They can check that by calling their office. Clerks all over the country are friendly and very helpful.As touched on above, the Republican party likely requested one on their behalf which is completely legal in PennsylvaniaProvisional ballots are counted if they’re deemed legitimate to vote.In order for this country to have trust in the electoral process, elections must be viewed as open and transparent.I agree, and with social media, and media coverage, this has been the most transparent election in the history of the country.Julie Vahey was the Executive Director of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. She claims no one was allowed to see the mail in verification area…yet the lawsuits never make this assertion.[12]They claim they weren’t close enough to see what was going on. (Neither were the Democratic observers if that was the case). They eventually moved the tables to give better visibility, which she doesn’t mention…just complaints about the process.Over the last ten months, in my role, I’ve spoken to thousands of voters firsthand who have lost faith in the election processes and procedures in Montgomery County and across Pennsylvania as a whole.Over the last ten months…That’s waaaaay before Trump started complaining about mail in ballots. That’s back in February even before the lockdowns hit. That’s a really bizarre time frame.Next we have Barbara Sulitka who is basically an elderly voter and her daughter Cheryl Nudo and son-in-law Charles who is helping her testify. Barbara thinks her vote didn’t count since she got a print out that didn’t have Trump on it. Cheryl thinks scantron forms are a form of voter suppression because old people don’t get technology. (seriously).I’ve never gotten a receipt of who I voted for, and the only thing I could find is that if you did a provisional ballot they give you the id of that ballot so you can track it.[13]Then we have Olivia Jane Winters who told a long tale about how the Chief of elections might have voted twice.Finally we had Gloria Lee Snover who testified that Mail-in ballots were new and confusing…She claimed that they didn’t have access to observe them (which would have been illegal, so why they didn’t file suit about that is strange) and that, without evidence, claimed Democrats had more access and information than she did.Then Trump came on and rambled for 10 minutes adding no evidence to the table since he wasn’t there and had no visibility or expertise on the matter.They let the audience chant “Trump” in a cult-like manner for 5 minutes.The Chairman then pats himself on the back:I think what you’ve just heard guarantees that a hundred years from now, that this is the most important public hearing ever held by this Senate committee.and they lob it back to Trump’s lawyers, who botch the numbers to make it seem like they’re going to flip the election because of all of this pretend fraud.This fake hearing was more like cult-ritual. There were no Democrats present, no testimony from the election officials (many of whom were Republicans), no testimony from anyone but the select few that could try to confirm their biases.The people present were not under oath and some of their testimonies were different from their sworn affidavits. Many of them weren’t trained.The numbers provided were wrong. Their experts weren’t experts.The goal of this is to build up a wall of “Just Asking Questions” and pile on more and more innuendo to try to make it seem like there’s smoke, and therefore fire. Upon closer examination, it’s all just steam. These implications are like a hydra, designed so that if you cut one head off, 2 more pop in their place. Such that books have to be written that no one will read to debunk it all.This is like a travelling revival show. The purpose was to sell snake oil.The only thing that will come of it is more donations to help Trump pay back his debts.Some more viral misinformation debunking:Tracking Viral Misinformation About the 2020 ElectionFootnotes[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[7] Man arrested for voter fraud in Luzerne County[8] Your Pa. election questions answered: I received a mail-in ballot application but never requested one. What should I do?[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA

I would like him to find out who Lori Erica Kennedy really was.On Christmas Eve, 2010, Lori drove to her ex-husband’s parents house, stopping her car in their driveway.Then she shot herself in the head.In her house her ex-husband found a strongbox, hidden in a closet: during their marriage, Lori had designated several places around the house she had forbidden him to go. The back of that closet was one of those places.Inside the box, there was a birth and death certificate of a small girl named Becky Sue Turner, a fraudulent application for a Social Security number in the name of Lori Kennedy; documentation related to a name change, from ‘Becky Sue Turner’ to ‘Lori Kennedy’; strange messages, a fake recommendation letter in behalf of Lori from a man who doesn’t exist, and more.Lori ... Becky Sue ... [Social Security Administration investigator Joe] Velling just calls her Jane Doe. He’s paged through the clues to her life over and over.“The reason I can’t find anything prior to 1988 is because she’s very good,” he said.He pulls out a timeline. On one side is Jane Doe’s life as Lori and, briefly, Becky Sue. On the other side is nothing.It took Jane Doe two months to take over the identity of someone she wasn’t. First, she got a copy of Becky Sue’s birth certificate from Bakersfield, Calif. In those days, many counties would just mail a copy to whoever asked.Notably, Becky Sue was born in one state but died in another — it says so in a news clipping. That suggests Jane Doe knew what she was doing, because this kind of separation reduces the chances of being tripped up by some state database.She got an Idaho ID card in Becky Sue’s name in Boise, claiming she was 18 years old.“What this tells me is that Jane Doe was in Idaho in 1988,” Velling said. This tidbit, discovered just last week, strengthens the hypothesis that she was from the Northwest. She also kept a mail drop in Boulder City, Nev., which forwarded her mail to Dallas.After getting the ID, she went to court in Dallas to change her name, legally, from Becky Sue Turner to Lori Erika Kennedy.Next came the most important step: getting a Social Security card, the holy grail of identity theft.Today, most children get Social Security numbers at birth. Back then, you could easily get your card as a teen. That’s what Jane Doe did. She became Lori Kennedy, a blank slate, with government ID.“Once I have that name change and the Social Security number, I’m really a whole new person,” Velling said.The whole process took less than two months.As Lori, she got into college without providing any high-school transcripts. “She took the GED,” Velling said. “No clue there.” She graduated from the University of Texas in Arlington with a degree in business.He tracked down a few friends and colleagues from years ago. One said she had been working as a dancer at a “gentleman’s club” in the early 1990s, according to Velling. A clue, perhaps. But no one he found knew anything about Lori before 1988.In the strongbox there also were letters of reference from an employer and a landlord. And the scribbles: North Hollywood police. 402 months. Ben Perkins, an attorney.Was she in legal trouble? Facing 402 months in prison? Velling chased the leads.The job reference appears to be bogus, signed by someone who never existed.Lawyer Ben Perkins? He had no recollection of her.Velling ran photos of Jane Doe through every facial-recognition database he knew. Nothing. He sent her fingerprints to the FBI. They didn’t match anyone in their criminal files.“If she was facing prison time,” he thought, “you would have thought there would be fingerprints.”He had the fingerprints compared with those on file with the Department of Homeland Security. Nothing.He learned from medical records that she had breast implants. And for a moment, Velling thought he had a solid lead — implants, he learned, have serial numbers, and serial numbers lead to doctors’ records. But it appeared she got them after she had become Lori. And besides, she was cremated.“This case is so difficult,” he said, “because the trail’s dead.”[1]Pictures of the contents of the strongbox can be seen in this gallery of the Seattle Times.Who was she?Footnotes[1] She stole another’s identity, and took her secret to the grave. Who was she?