Colorado Form-B Undertaking Form. Colorado Form-B Undertaking Form: Fill & Download for Free

some of the costliest mistakes ever made in history : Nobody likes making mistakes, especially when there’s money on the line. Even mistakes costing as little as fifty cents can be pretty darn frustrating, so imagine how you’d feel if you had made one of the most expensive mistakes in history. These people made mistakes costing thousands, millions, and even billions of dollars, and some of them even cost people their lives. From causing horrible disasters to disastrous corporate mergers, expensive mistakes come in all shapes and sizes. We’re counting down to the most expensive mistake in history, so hopefully whatever you’ve fudged up lately won’t seem so bad in comparison.Crashing the Titanic : Before she set sail on her maiden voyage, the Titanic was known as an unsinkable ship. It was the largest ocean liner built at the time and was specially designed to make the long journey from England to America. Unfortunately, as we all know, the Titanic did not live up to its unsinkable reputation.The crew ignored warnings of an iceberg ahead, which led to disaster and death for many on board the ship. Titanic’s whole right side scraped the iceberg, and the enormous ship sank. 1,517 people were killed in the accident because the ship wasn’t carrying enough lifeboats for all the passengers.Millennium Bridge : Before it was unveiled to the public, the Millennium Bridge across the river Thames in London was hailed as, “a pure expression of engineering structure,” and “an absolute statement of our capabilities at the beginning of the 21st century.” Unfortunately for the people behind the project, the Millennium Bridge got off to a shaky start.When the bridge opened in 2000, the first pedestrians to cross felt it swaying beneath their feet. Engineers had designed the bridge to withstand wind and weight, but not the simple motion of a crowd of humans walking across. The mistake took $6.3 million and two years to fix.The heavy submarine : In 2013, the Isaac Peral was set to be the first in a new class of diesel-electric submarines when the discovery of an expensive mistake led to a big set back. It turned out that the submarine was 70 tonnes overweight because an engineer had put a decimal point in the wrong place early in the planning process.To offset the weight of the enormous submarine, engineers were forced to make it even longer. By adding about six meters of length to the sub’s hull, they were able to make it more buoyant. Unfortunately, the mistake still cost them $11.4 million.Trains too wide for the rail : In 2014, French train operator SNCF ordered 2,000 new trains for their lines in Paris and throughout France. Unfortunately, the trains were too wide to fit into the platforms at some of the older stations in France. The mistake arose because SNCF officials had measured stations built 30 years ago but failed to account for stations that had been built 50 or more years prior when trains were much thinner.To correct the error, construction was needed to widen the platforms at over 1,000 train stations in France. All told, fixing the mistake cost $68.4 million.Lost bitcoin : James Howells is a British IT worker who made a mistake that cost him over a hundred million dollars. In 2009, Howells began using his personal laptop to mine the cryptocurrency bitcoin. Although his laptop eventually stopped working, he held onto the drive that contained his 7,500 bitcoin, worth $127 million today.Then, in 2013 he mistakenly put that drive in the bin, and it was taken out with the trash. As late as 2017, Howells was still lobbying his city to allow him to search the landfill for his lost bitcoin. Unfortunately, the drive is by now certainly buried under six years of waste, and according to the city undertaking a search would cause a “huge environmental impact on the surrounding area.”Mars Climate Orbiter lost : The Mars Climate Orbiter was a NASA space probe launched in 1998. It was supposed to orbit Mars and study the red planet’s atmosphere and surface, but due to a miscommunication, it was lost in space forever.NASA had two teams working on the project: a spacecraft team in Colorado and a mission navigation team in California. One team worked with navigation data in metric units, while the other team was working with imperial units. They failed to communicate the different units while trying to get the craft into Mars’ orbit, and ultimately lost the spacecraft which cost $193.1 million.Ford Edsel : In 1958, Ford spent $250 million on a new line of cars that they were convinced were going to be the next big thing. The Edsel was a large, gas-guzzling family car that Ford claimed had been built based on extensive customer surveys. Unfortunately, Ford’s team had a tendency to skew their data to match their pre-existing notions of what their customers wanted.After building a car their customers didn’t really want, things got even worse for Ford. The stock market went into decline just as the car was released, leaving their middle-class target market reluctant to spend on big items. All told, Ford spent $250 million on making this failed car.Russia sold Alaska : In 1867, Alaska was a Russian territory that was rapidly bleeding money. Russian merchants and bureaucrats had found some early financial successes there, but demand for higher salaries among officials was making Alaska more costly than it was worth despite newly discovered gold mines.So, Russia made a deal with the U.S. to sell the chilly territory for just $7.2 million. Over time, Alaska would turn out to be more valuable than Russia ever could have imagined. Thanks to Alaska’s rich gold and oil industries, America has made back over $700 million on the deal. That’s more than one hundred times what we paid for the 49th state.Stealth Bomber crashed on takeoff : In 2008, the B-2 stealth bomber was the most expensive plane in the Air Force arsenal. There were only 21 of the bombers made at that time. Despite the plane’s tremendous cost, it could still be brought down by a simple mistake…During a test flight in Guam, a faulty sensor in a B-2 caused the plane to stall during takeoff. It immediately crashed, taking out $1.4 billion with it. Water had gotten into the sensor because a technique to deal with moisture in the engines hadn’t been properly communicated to the right personnel. Luckily the two pilots in the plane were able to safely eject themselves so nobody was killed in the incident.Challenger explosion : On January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger was scheduled to take off. It was supposed to be the Challenger’s last flight, and the mission included scientific objectives and satellite deployments. Unfortunately, unpredicted temperatures caused a tragic malfunction.Frosty temperatures the night before the launch caused rubber parts in the rocket boosters to freeze. The frozen parts didn’t seal the way they were supposed to, and the Challenger exploded, killing the seven astronauts on board. The space shuttle had never been tested at temperatures that cold, and sadly this oversight led to seven lives and billions of dollars being lost.Columbia disintegrated on re-entry : The space shuttle Columbia crash of 2003 will sadly go down in history as another spacecraft accident that should never have happened. The shuttle was torn apart upon re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere because of a piece of foam that fell from the shuttle’s external tank, breaching its wing. All seven astronauts on board Columbia were killed.When Columbia took off 16 days prior, a similar issue with falling foam had taken place, but nothing was done to correct the problem. This tragic incident led to the whole NASA space shuttle fleet being retired in 2011, and NASA bore tremendous public scrutiny for not taking precautions to secure the foam on the shuttle’s tank.Mercedes-Benz buys Chrysler : Mercedez-Benz parent company Daimler Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, intent on transforming the two companies into one international automobile powerhouse known as Daimler Chrysler. With one branch in the U.S. and the other in Europe, the company hoped to dominate the car market on both continents. Daimler Benz paid $37 billion for Chrysler, but unfortunately, the deal didn’t stand the test of time.Due to culture clashes and differences in quality, the two companies struggled to see eye to eye. Then, in the 2000s, a recession drove Chrysler sales into the gutter. Daimler Benz ultimately sold Chrysler in 2007 for $7 billion to Cerberus Capital Management firm, a company whose specialty is restructuring failing corporations.Deepwater Horizon oil spill : The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is considered the worst oil spill in history. 210 million gallons of oil were spilled following an explosion on the drilling rig. Oil threatened marine and wildlife habitats from Louisiana to Florida, and the spill continued for months as workers attempted time and again to stop the flow of oil.Ultimately, an investigation revealed that BP, the British company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon rigger, had cut corners on safety with disastrous effects. Cutting corners turned out to be very costly for BP. Cleaning up after the disaster and paying associated fines and legal fees has stuck the company with a $61 billion bill.Three Mile Island : In 1979, disaster struck at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. A pressure valve in the reactor at Three Mile Island malfunctioned, causing water contaminated with radiation to flood the buildings. Meanwhile, the nuclear core got dangerously close to melting down. In the event of a nuclear meltdown, radiation would have leaked into the earth exposing thousands of people to dangerous levels of contaminants.At one point, a large hydrogen bubble had formed in the plant, which many feared would lead to a total meltdown. Luckily, engineers were able to shut down the reactor and crisis was averted. Containing the radiation and stopping the meltdown wasn’t cheap. The Three Mile Island incident cost $839.6 million to fix.

Re·demp·tor·ist(rĭ-dĕmp′tər-ĭst)n.A member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, a Roman Catholic order founded in 1732 by Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787).[French rédemptoriste, from Late Latin redēmptor, redeemer, from Latin, contractor, from redēmptus, past participle of redimere, to buy back; see redeem.]Redemptorist(rɪˈdɛmptərɪst)n(Roman Catholic Church) RC Church a member of a religious congregation founded in 1732 to do missionary work among the poor[C19: from French redemptoriste, from Old French or Latin redemptor, from Latin redimere, see redeem]Redemptoristreligious orderAlternative Title: C.SS.R.Redemptorist, member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (C.SS.R.), a community of Roman Catholic priests and lay brothers founded bySt. Alphonsus Liguori at Scala, Italy, a small town near Naples, in 1732. The infant community met an obstacle in the royal court of Naples, which tried to exercise complete control over the order. Only after steps were taken to settle in the Papal States and after papal approval was granted by PopeBenedict XIV in 1749 was the success of the congregation assured.St. Clement Mary Hofbauer extended the congregation into northern Europe in 1785, and in 1832 Redemptorists came to the United States, principally to undertake the care of German Catholic immigrants. The congregation has since become established throughout the world.The community’s special concern is the preaching of the word of God, especially to the poor, through various means, but particularly parish missions and retreats. The Redemptorists also administer parishes and foreign missions, serve as chaplains in military forces, and foster scholarship in the field of moral theology. They administer several shrines for pilgrimage worldwide and are the special caretakers of the Byzantine icon of Our Mother of Perpetual Help in Rome.Redemptorists(CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER)A society of missionary priests founded by St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori, 9 Nov., 1732, at Scala, near Amalfi, Italy, for the purpose of labouring among the neglected country people in the neighbourhood of Naples.The Redemptorists are essentially and by their specific vocation a missionary society. According to their rule they are "to strive to imitate the virtues and examples of Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, consecrating themselves especially to the preaching of the word of God to the poor". They take the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and by the vows of poverty they are bound to refuse all ecclesiastical dignities outside of the congregation. To these vows they add the vow and oath of perseverance to live in the congregation until death. Their labours consist principally in missions, retreats, and similar exercises. In order to render these labours most effective, all their sermons and instructions should be solid, simple, and persuasive. On all their missions they are obliged to preach a sermon on prayer and one on the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In order to secure the salutary effects of their missions, they should, after four or five months, return to the places where they have given missions, and preach another, shorter course of sermons. On missions proper the rule obliges them to hear all the confessions themselves. Wherever the Redemptorists have parishes they labour in the same spirit, both in the pulpit and in the confessional. One of the great means of preserving truly religious fervour among all classes of the faithful is the Archconfraternity of the Holy Family, which they establish in all their parishes. They are also most solicitous in providing well-equipped parochial schools, and they take special care of growing youth.Within ten years of the order's foundation, permanent establishments were made at Nocera, Ciorani, Iliceto, and Caposele. In 1749 Benedict XIV canonically approved the work, under the title of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Royalism, however, caused the greatest obstacle to the development of the new congregation. An effort to obtain the royal exequatur to the papal approbation proved disastrous, and brought about a temporary separation of the Neapolitan houses and those which had been founded in the Papal States. In 1793 a reunion was at last effected under the new superior general, Pietro Paulo Blasucci, who governed the congregation until 1817. In the next six years several houses were opened in different parts of Southern Italy and Sicily, and the society flourished, though subjected to many grave trials. It was destined, however, to take on an international character. In 1785 a young Austrian, Clemens Maria Hofbauer, journeyed to Rome with a companion, Thaddeus Hübl. There they were deeply impressed by the fervour of the Fathers of the church of St. Julian, and applied for admission into the community. After profession and ordination, their chief desire was to transplant the congregation to northern countries. They received permission from the general to establish a house in Vienna or in any other Austrian city. But the Government was unfriendly, and Father Hofbauer offered his services to the Congregation of the Propaganda at Rome. He was sent to labour for a time in Courland Russia. In 1786, with his former companion, Father Hübl, he arrived at Warsaw, where the papal nuncio Saluzzo gave them charge of St. Benno's church, whence they were known in Poland as "Bennonites". Their apostolic zeal and untiring efforts procured the salvation of many souls, and effected the conversion of many heretics and Jews, while their church presented the spectacle of an uninterrupted mission.In 1793 Father Blasucci, the rector major, then residing at Nocera, appointed Father Hofbauer his vicar-general with all necessary authority. His first thoughts turned to Germany, though the time seemed inopportune, since Febronianism, Josephinism, Freemasonry, and infidelity held sway all over Europe. He succeeded, however, in establishing three foundations in Southern Germany, at Jestetten, Triberg, and Babenhausen, which he confided to the care of his favourite disciple, Father Passerat. These foundations were eventually suppressed, and the members banished. Father Passerat then betook himself to Switzerland, where in 1818 he organized a community at Valsainte in a dilapidated Carthusian monastery. In the meantime, owing to opposition, the house at Warsaw was suppressed. In 1808 the Fathers were expelled from St. Benno's and deported to the fortress of Küstrin Prussia, where they were disbanded. Father Hofbauer, after directing his companions to work for God's glory whenever and wherever they could, proceeded alone to Vienna, where he became an assistant chaplain and confessor of nuns. His influence was soon felt on all sides, even in the Congress of Vienna (1815), where the destinies of the Church in Germany were then being shaped. He was styled by Pius VII the "Apostle of Vienna". In the meantime he kept up a constant correspondence with his former companions, did all in his power to find for them suitable fields of labour, and predicted that after his death a brighter future was in store for the congregation, a prophecy that was soon fulfilled. He died 15 March, 1820. In accordance with the request of the Emperor Francis I, the first house of the Redemptorists was canonically established in Vienna on Christmas Day, 1820. In May several prominent young men, former disciples of Father Hofbauer, had already received the religious habit.Father Passerat succeeded Hofbauer as vicar-general; the onerous and trying duties of his office were rendered more difficult by the prevalent spirit of Josephinism. The years intervening between 1815 and 1821 found some of the Fathers labouring in Bulgaria, but, owing to the hostility of the schismatics, they were compelled to abandon this field. A number of flourishing foundations were established between 1820 and 1848. In 1826, at the request of the Austrian Government, a foundation was started at Lisbon, Portugal, for the benefit of German Catholics, but it did not last long. In 1820 the Redemptorists acquired the convent of Bischenberg, Alsace. The new community was sent from Valsainte. In 1828 the Fathers exchanged their poorly furnished home at Valsainte for the commodious Convent of Fribourg, which proved to be a fruitful nursery for the congregation until the Revolution of 1848. Prior to 1848 six houses had been established in Austria: Frohnleiten in 1826; Mautern in 1827, the present house of studies; Innsbruck in 1828; Marburg and Eggenburg in 1833; and Leoben in 1834. During Passerat's administration the congregation was introduced into Belgium by Father de Held, and in the course of the next ten years four houses were established: Tournai in 1831, St-Trond in 1833, Liège in 1833, and Brussels in 1849. A foundation was also opened at Wittem, Holland, where, in 1836, an old Capuchin monastery became the house of studies. During the same period another important mission was begun in North America. In 1828 Mgr Résé, Vicar-General of Cincinnati, visited Europe to solicit pecuniary aid and to obtain evangelical labourers. While at Vienna he applied to Passerat, from whom he secured three priests and three lay brothers; they arrived in New York 20 June, 1832. Two other Fathers followed in 1835. For seven years they laboured heroically among the whites and the Indians of northern Michigan and northern Ohio. Though they took charge of many stations in both states, they did not secure a permanent footing in any of these places, with the exception of Detroit. In 1839 the Fathers were called to Pittsburg to assume charge of the German congregation, which was then without a priest, and torn with party strife. In a short time they made it a model congregation. Scattered throughout the surrounding country were many Catholic settlers, to whom they preached the Word of God and administered the sacraments. This species of mission inaugurated by them wherever they were established was the beginning of many a well-organized parish of today. From this time the care of German congregations, often in a deplorable condition on account of factions, became a prominent element of the apostolate of the Redemptorists in North America. Their first concern, however, was to establish, wherever feasible, parochial schools, which are in a flourishing condition to this day. When the success of the Fathers at Pittsburg became known, applications were made to them for other foundations. They were called to Baltimore in 1840; to New York in 1842; to Philadelphia in 1843; to Buffalo in 1845; to Detroit and New Orleans in 1847; and to Cumberland in 1849. In 1837 a German congregation had been organized at Rochester by Father Prost, but the Fathers did not take permanent charge until 1841.Meanwhile the congregation gained a permanent footing in new countries of Europe. In 1841 King Louis I of Bavaria invited the Fathers to the celebrated shrine of Our Lady at Altötting. During this period four houses were founded in France: Landser in Alsace, in 1842; St-Nicolas-du-Port, in 1845; Teterchen in Lorraine and Contamine in Savoy, in 1847. The congregation suffered great losses through the revolution that swept over Europe in 1848. In 1847 the Fathers were expelled from Switzerland and in 1848 from Austria, to which, however, they returned. Important developments were now taking place within the congregation itself. Although the Transalpine portion of the congregation was subject to the rector major at Nocera in Italy, this superior left its government almost exclusively in the hands of a vicar-general resident at Vienna. As the congregation had spread far beyond its original boundaries, it was deemed necessary to create the office of provincial between the rector major and the local superiors. Father Passerat, weighed down by age and infirmities, resigned his office in 1848. After a series of deliberations conducted by the Holy See with the superior general and the Fathers of the Transalpine provinces, Father Rudolph Smetana was appointed vicar-general in 1850. Pius IX was now persuaded that it would be advantageous to have the superior general resident in Rome. Fearing the opposition of the King of Naples, he did all in his power to convince him of the benefits arising from this step, but in vain; thereupon he decided. that the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, to the exclusion of the Neapolitan and the Sicilian houses, should be placed under a general superior, who was henceforth to reside at Rome. At the same time he made special regulations for the Redemptorists in the Kingdom of Naples. On the disappearance of the latter, the Neapolitan houses were united to the body of the congregation in 1869.In pursuance of orders from the Holy See, Father Smetana convoked a general chapter. It was opened 26 April, 1855. The result of this chapter was the election of Father Nicholas Mauron, a native of Switzerland, as superior general. He was the first rector major to take up his abode at Rome. During Smetana's administration, and particularly during that of Mauron, the congregation made rapid progress. The number of provinces in 1852 — not including Naples and Sicily — was four; in 1890 they had increased to twelve. The French-Swiss province, presided over by Father Desurmont for twenty-two years (1865-87), gained admission into Spain and South America. During the presidency of García Moreno two houses were established in the Republic of Ecuador. A few years later the congregation gained a foothold in Peru, Chile, and Colombia. The original Belgian province, having grown very rapidly, was divided into the provinces of Belgium and Holland. The Lower German province found a new field of labour in the eastern part of South America. The province of Holland received charge of the mission at Surinam; South America, a settlement colonized partly by lepers.The American province of the congregation, erected in 1850, has had a striking development. Its first provincial was the Rev. Bernard Hafkenscheid, a fellow-student of Leo XIII. One of his first cares was the establishment of a seminary and the selection of a suitable place for a novitiate. He chose Cumberland, Maryland, for the future house of studies. From this nursery of study and piety many able and zealous missionaries went forth. In 1853 the novitiate, which had been located since 1849 at Baltimore, was removed to Annapolis, Maryland. Here the heirs of Charles Carroll of Carrollton had donated their entire estate to the Redemptorist Fathers. This house remained the novitiate until 1907, with the exception of the years 1862-66, when it was at Cumberland, and the students at Annapolis. In 1858-59 the present church and convent were built at Annapolis. In 1868 the students were transferred to the new house of studies at Ilchester, Maryland, which remained the Alma Mater of the Redemptorists until 1907. In that year the faculty and the students, forty-eight in number, took up their abode at Esopus, on the Hudson, where a more spacious scholasticate had been erected. From the first house of St. Alphonsus in Baltimore sprang other communities: St. Michael's in 1859, St. James's in 1867, and the Sacred Heart in 1878. In 1882, owing to difficulties in the Bohemian parish, the Fathers, at the earnest request of Cardinal, then Archbishop, Gibbons, assumed charge of the Bohemians. In this diocese five other parishes, one in the city of Washington, were originally founded by the Redemptorists. In 1861 the congregation was called to Chicago, Illinois, to take charge of St. Michael's parish. It was not long before a large church and a commodious school and convent were built. The great fire of 1871 destroyed all these structures, but, thanks to the faith and generosity of the people, they were rebuilt.The many successful missions which the Redemptorists had given in the Diocese of St. Louis induced Archbishop Kenrick to ask for a foundation of the congregation in his episcopal city, and in 1866 a mission house was opened at St. Louis. In the same year (1866) another mission house was established in New York, near the little church of St. Alphonsus, which had been erected in 1845 for the convenience of the Germans in that section of the city; it had been served by Fathers of the Third Street community. Though now a mission church, St. Alphonsus's continued to be a parish church for the Germans. Subsequently, two more foundations were made in New York, one for Bohemian Catholics, and the other for the German Catholics in the northern part of the city. In 1871 an important mission house was opened at Roxbury, Boston. It was dedicated to Our Lady of Perpetual Help. Its first rector, the Rev. William H. Gross, was succeeded by the Rev. Leopold Petsch, when the former became Bishop of Savannah in 1873. In 1883, when a new parish was formed in that district, the Fathers of the mission church took charge of it. As early as 1874 the Redemptorists of the American province were called to St. Patrick's Church, Quebec, Canada, the only parish church in that city for English-speaking Catholics. Four years later the American Fathers became the custodians of the miraculous shrine of Ste-Anne de Beaupré, near Quebec; it was eventually transferred to the Fathers of the Belgian province. The same Fathers assumed charge of St. Anne's, Montreal, a large parish in a very poor district of the city. The Baltimore province in the meantime established two other foundations in Canada: St. Patrick's, Toronto, in 1881, and St. Peter's, St. John, N. B., in 1884. In 1876 the congregation was invited to take a second church in Philadelphia, that of St. Boniface. Besides these houses the province of Baltimore founded in 1881 a separate house for its juvenate, or junior house of studies, at Northeast, Pennsylvania. Another house, to be used as a primary juvenate, was purchased in 1886 at Saratoga, New York; this is at present a mission house. In 1893 a new house was opened at Brooklyn, New York.In 1875 the original American province was divided, the eastern under the name of the province of Baltimore, and the western as the province of St. Louis. This latter province embraced the houses of St. Louis, New Orleans, Chicago, and Chatawa. This last-named place was selected for the novitiate and house of studies for the province of St. Louis, but was subsequently abandoned. Since 1875 several new foundations have been established. In 1878 Kansas City, Missouri, was selected for an educational institution. The old house of St. Mary's at Detroit was abandoned in 1872, but in 1880 another house was established in the suburbs of the same city; this is now a flourishing mission and parish church. Two years later the Redemptorists began a second foundation at Chicago. In 1887 a juvenate was erected at Kirkwood, near St. Louis, and in 1888 the Fathers settled at Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1891 a foundation was made at Seattle, Washington, in 1897 a new house of studies was erected at De Soto, Missouri. In 1894 the Fathers went to Denver, Colorado, and took charge of St. Joseph's Church; in 1906 to Portland, Oregon; in 1908 to Davenport, Iowa, and to Fresno, California. In 1910 a new house was founded at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, which will be the future house of studies of the province of St. Louis.Despite the manifold labours and the limited number of Fathers, the preaching of missions, the special work of the sons of St. Alphonsus, was never neglected. In 1850, however, it received a powerful impetus under the first provincial, Father Bernard. Shortly after his arrival in America he organized and trained what may be called the first band of regular missionaries, among whom were the eminent converts, Fathers Hecker, Hewit, and Walworth; these distinguished missionaries afterwards established the Congregation of the Paulists. Since then the work of the missions has increased rapidly from year to year; thus a double activity, parish work and mission work, has become a special feature of the congregation in North America. Some idea of the work of the Baltimore province during the ten years from 1890 to 1899 is conveyed by the following figures: missions and renewals, 1889; retreats, 1071; other exercises, 75; confessions, 2,418,758; converts, 1252. Parish work: baptisms, 54,608; communions, 6,827,000; first communions, 19,077; marriages, 8311; average number of school children, 13,000; converts, 1922.The administration of Father Mauron was rendered memorable by several important events. In 1866 Pius IX caused the miraculous picture of Our Lady of Perpetual Help to be placed in the Redemptorist Church at Rome. The devotion to the Blessed Virgin under this attractive title has since then spread far and wide. In 1871 the pope, moved by the urgent and repeated petitions of bishops and heads of religious orders, bestowed the title of Doctor of the Universal Church upon St. Alphonsus, known the world over by his theological and devotional writings. Father Hofbauer, the Apostle of Vienna, was beatified in 1889, and Brother Gerard Majella, the thaumaturgus of the congregation, in 1893. The latter was canonized by Pius X, 11 Dec., 1904. The eventful administration of Father Mauron ended in 1893. In 1882 he was stricken with apoplexy, and, though he rallied from the shock, a slow decline set in, and he died 13 July, 1893. On 1 March, 1894, Very Rev. Mathias Raus was elected superior general. He was born 9 Aug., 1829, in the Duchy of Luxemburg; made his profession 1 Nov., 1853, and was ordained priest 8 Aug., 1858. After filling various important offices in the order, he was called to Rome by his predecessor to be one of the general consultors. Father Raus's administration is remarkable for the number of Redemptorist causes of beatification introduced, or about to be introduced, in Rome, thirteen in all. Among them are: Ven. John Nepomucene Neumann, superior of the American Province, who died as Bishop of Philadelphia, 5 Jan., 1860; Father Francis X. Seelos, of the American province, who died a victim of yellow fever at New Orleans, 4 Oct., 1867; and Father Peter Donders, the Apostle of the Lepers in Surinam, who died in the leper colony at Batavia, in Dutch Guiana, 14 Jan., 1887. To these may be added Father Alfred Pampelon, who died at Ste-Anne de Beaupré in Canada, 30 Sept., 1896. Father Raus's administration was closed by the happy issue of the cause of Blessed Clement M. Hofbauer's canonization, which took place on 20 May, 1909. In that year the venerable superior, having attained his eighty-second year, deemed it wise to resign his responsible office, and in the general chapter opened on 26 April, 1909, the Very Rev. Father Patrick Murray, superior of the Irish province, was elected superior general of the congregation. He was born 24 Nov., 1865, made his profession 23 Oct., 1889, and was ordained priest 10 Sept., 1890.During the past twelve years the development of the congregation has been very marked. The Roman province was particularly honoured by Leo XIII, when he confided to the Fathers the magnificent new church of St. Joachim in Rome. The French province was divided into three provinces and two vice-provinces in 1900. Spain became a province, having eight houses, to which recently two more communities were added. The French province proper was divided into two provinces, Lyons and Paris. To the former now belong the Southern Pacific vice-province, embracing Chile and Peru, and to the latter the Northern vice-province of Ecuador and Colombia. Since the suppression of the religious orders in France in 1904, some of the Redemptorist communities have undertaken new foundations in Belgium, and others in South America. In 1900 the Austrian province was also divided into two provinces, Vienna and Prague, with a Polish vice-province. The latter was made a province in 1909. Since the division the Viennese opened two houses in Denmark, one in Prussian Silesia, and a fourth at Linz. In 1899 the Belgian Fathers were requested by the Government to take charge of a number of missions in the Congo State; these missions have now increased to six, Matadi, Tumba, Kionzo, Kinkanda, Kimpesse, and Sonagongo. The Fathers are deeply indebted to the paternal Government of the Congo State for the progress they have made since their arrival in 1899. Several valuable missionaries have already fallen victims to the treacherous climate.In Canada, which was made a vice-province in 1894, four more houses were opened. This vice-province, depending on the Belgian province, numbers six houses. In the West Indies, which were also made a vice-province in 1904, there are now six houses. The province of Baltimore opened in 1902 a foundation at Mayagüez in Porto Rico. Before the occupation of the island by the United States the Spanish Redemptorists had settled at San Juan, but at the close of the Cuban War returned to Spain. The American Fathers are now there as missionaries and pastors. A parish comprising some 30,000 souls is confided to their care. Despite all their labours for the benefit of the natives their progress is very slow. On 26 July, 1911, the Belgian houses of Canada were erected into a new province.The Upper German or Bavarian province, which was under the ban of the Kulturkampf, has recovered some of its lost ground. Since its readmittance, it has added another very important foundation. But the historic convent of Altötting has passed into other hands. In 1894 this province opened in Brazil a mission of two houses forming a vice-province. The province of Holland has added to its mission in Surinam a mission in Brazil, forming another vice-province, having under its jurisdiction three houses.A more detailed account of the English and Irish provinces claims our attention.The English province, begun from Belgium in 1843, owes its great progress to the Rev. Robert A. Coffin, one of the band of converts associated with Newman, Manning, and Faber in the Oxford Movement. After his ordination to the priesthood he joined the Redemptorists, and gave missions throughout England and Ireland, until he was appointed first provincial of the English province in 1865. During his administration of seventeen years new houses were founded in various parts of the United Kingdom, the house at Perth being the first convent opened in Scotland since the Reformation. Leo XIII appointed the Rev. Robert A. Coffin Bishop of Southwark. His successor as provincial, the Rev. Hugh McDonald, died Bishop of Aberdeen, Scotland. The activity of the English Fathers is evidenced by their literary labours and their success on the missions, which resulted in more than 16,000 converts. At present the province has eight houses: Clapham, Bishop-Eton, Monkwearmouth, Bishop's Stortford, Kingswood, Edmonton, and the novitiate and house of studies at Perth, Scotland, with a total membership of one hundred and twenty-three. Besides the Rev. Robert A. Coffin, a number of noted converts have joined the congregation, among them Bridgett, Livius, and Douglas.In 1898 the houses in Ireland and Australia, hitherto subject to the English province, were constituted an Irish province, and Australia, a vice-province, as its dependency. The Rev. Andrew Boylan was appointed the first provincial, with his residence at Limerick. On 25 March, 1901, the foundation of the present new juvenate house at Limerick was laid. The province of Ireland comprises four houses: Limerick, Dundalk, Belfast, and Esker; the vice-province of Australia, three houses: Waratah in New South Wales, Ballarat in Victoria, and Perth in Western Australia. The total membership is one hundred and forty-seven. In 1906 the Rev. Andrew Boylan was commissioned to visit the Philippine Islands, and to establish there a colony of Irish Redemptorists. At present there are two Redemptorist Houses on these Islands and one in Wellington, New Zealand. The church at Limerick is celebrated for its Confraternity of the Holy Family for men and boys, founded by the Rev. Edward Bridgett, which the late Bishop of Limerick, Dr. Butler, called "the miracle wrought by the Mother of Perpetual Succour, a far greater miracle than the cure of a blind boy or the healing of a cripple". In 1903 it had the following membership: Monday, division of men, 2722; Tuesday, division of men, 2580, boys' division, 1226; total, 6528. Meetings are held every week, the average attendance being 3992, while the communions received in the confraternity during 1902 numbered: men, 39,860, boys, 8497; total 48,357.The following figures will exemplify the growth of the congregation. The number of subjects in 1852 (not including those of Italy) were: priests, 343; professed students, 75; priests novice, 12; choir novices, 45; professed lay brothers, 175; lay novices, 67; total, 715; houses, 45. In 1910 (including Italy) priests, 2085; professed students, 537; choir novices, 142; professed lay brothers, 962; lay novices, 343; total, 4069; houses, 218; provinces, 19; vice-provinces, 10. The constant and rapid growth of the congregation must be attributed chiefly to the erection of the so-called juvenates. Finding it difficult in some countries and impossible in others to secure a solid future for the different provinces, the Fathers deemed it expedient to receive boys who showed a disposition for the religious and priestly life, and to prepare them while still young for the higher studies. Father Hofbauer adopted this plan, and obtained thereby a number of excellent young men for the order. In the same way Father Passerat was equally successful in drawing young men to the congregation. It was in this manner that Father Mauron, the late superior general, was attracted to the order. But it was only after 1867 or 1868 that a definite scheme of preparing boys for the novitiate was followed. The idea was taken up simultaneously in the French and American provinces. Father Desurmont was the first to organize this preparatory institution in France. For many years it was customary for the American Fathers to select from their parochial schools boys who, in their opinion, would eventually become fit subjects for the novitiate. After having tested their ability, they instructed them personally in the rudiments of Latin, or sent them to a Catholic college until they reached their sixteenth year. At this age they were admitted to the novitiate, after which they completed their humanities. For the benefit of boys who did not belong to Redemptorist parishes or who lived in other cities the provincial, Father Helmpraecht (1865-77), secured a suitable place near his residence at Baltimore. One of the Fathers was appointed director. In 1869 a new method was followed. The young men were to finish their classical course before entering the novitiate. To accommodate the increasing number of pupils, provision was made at Baltimore, then at Ilchester, until finally, in 1881, a desirable college building was purchased at Northeast, Pennsylvania. Here a six years' classical course is pursued, while at the same time the moral and physical fitness of the young men may be easily ascertained. Similar preparatory colleges, with some slight differences, have been introduced into almost every province. After a novitiate of one year, the young members pass to the higher course of studies. This embraces two years' philosophy, two years' dogmatic, and two years' moral theology, with natural philosophy, church history, Sacred Scripture, canon law, pastoral theology, and homiletics. After the completion of their studies the young priests make what is called the "second novitiate" of six months, during which time they are trained theoretically and practically in the special work of the missions.Although the limited number of subjects and the manifold labours of the ministry do not permit the members of the congregation to make a specialty of it, still their literary work is not inconsiderable. Among Redemptorist authors the following may be mentioned: Italy: Januar. Sarnelli, Bl. Panzutti, Anton. Tannoia; France: Achilles Desurmont, Augustine Berthe, Leonard Gaudé; England: Thos. Livius, Thos. E. Bridgett, Cyril Ryder, Robert A. Coffin; Austria: Aug. Rösler, Karl Dilgskron, Gerard Diessel, Georg Freund, Franz Kayker; Bohemia: Emmanuel Kovar, Franc. Blatak, Franc. Sal. Blazek, Aloys. Polak, Theoph. Mateju, Wenc. Melichar; Germany: Michael Benger, Michael Haringer, Andreas Hugues; Belgium: Victor Cardinal Dechamps, Henri Saintrain, Ernest Dubois, Francis X. Godts; Holland: J. Aertnys, Frans Ter Haar, Willem van Rossum, Joh. L. Jansen, Aloys. Walter; Spain and South America: Tomas Ramos, Ramon Serabia; North America: Antony Konings, Joseph Putzer, Michael Müller, Ferreol Girardey, Peter Geiermann.SourcesCURRIER, History of Religious Orders (New York, 1894); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1908), s.v. Redemptoristen; WUEST, Annales Provinciæ Americanæ (Ilchester, 1888); History of the Redemptorists at Annapolis, Md. (Ilchester, 1904); BECK, Die Redemptoristen in Pittsburg (Pittsburg, 1889); ANON, Kurzer Ueberblick, appendix to GISSLER'S St. Alphonsus von Liguori (Einsiedeln, 1887); various lives of Father Hofbauer; various lives of St. Alphonsus, especially those of CAPECELATRO, DILGSKRON, and BERTHS; various lives of Fr. Passerat and Fr. Mauron; Servorum Dei C.SS.R. Album (Rome, 1903); ANON., Fifty Years at Limerick (1903); MADER, Die Kongregation des Allerheiligsten Erlösers in Oesterreich (Vienna, 1887); ANON., Lebensbilder verstorbener Redemptoristen in Nieder-Deutschland (Dülmen, 1896); RATTE, Der hl. Alphonsus und der Redemptoristen-Orden (Luxemburg, 1887); ZAPF, Die Redemptoristen (Erlangen, 1894); Ascetical Works of St. Alphonsus (centenary ed.), XVII, miscellany.

December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 1Position Paper | December 2020Analysis of Recent Navid Keshavarz-Nia AffidavitA Fact Check1. ContextThis is an analysis, requested by several, of the technical veracity of Navid Keshavarz-Nia’s November 25th 2020 Michigan federal lawsuit affidavit (Civil Case No. 20-13134).1While the lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s election results failed in a ruling2 onDecember 7th, the case could be appealed and therefore, the substance of the affidavitwill likely remain at issue—at least in the court of public opinion. Therefore, thisanalysis remains meaningful, relevant, and timely.In sum and substance, the affiant asserts his "belief" that adversaries conducted asuccessful cyber operation on at least one election office's Microsoft® Windows®personal computer system running the Election Management Software (EMS)component of a Dominion Voting System’s product, and used the resulting access to theEMS's data to modify that data, and furthermore, to do so in a way that created a falseelection result. While plenty of media has given attention to this lawsuit and itsassociated affidavits, we focus our analysis on the technical issues of the Keshavarz-Niaaffidavit, due to the affiant’s reference to comments from OSET Institute leadership insaid affidavit.Generally, the affiant’s claim is barely credible in terms of possibility; possibility is notfact; that is, that a cyber attack actually occurred, or that it succeeded in falsifyingelection results.3 Recently, fifty-nine computer scientists and engineers andcybersecurity experts wrote an open letter on these matters that our leadership fullyendorsed. An important point was made in that letter:“Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was ‘rigged’ is making an extraordinaryclaim, one that must be supported by persuasive and verifiable evidence. Merelyciting the existence of technical flaws does not establish that an attack occurred;much less that it altered an election outcome. It is simply speculation.”41 https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf2 https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.62.0_3.pdf3 There are many well-known security vulnerabilities of the Microsoft Windows operating system as wellas of features of voting system products that were not designed for defense against national state adversaries.4 See: Election Security Experts Contradict Trump’s Voting ClaimsDecember 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2If such an "election result falsification" occurred in the manner alleged, the incidentwould not only be a major national security incident, but also an attack on the integrityof U.S. elections writ large.Determining the truth or falsehood of the claimed cyber-attack would be a complexundertaking. However, much simpler methods are available to determine whether thepublicly stated election results are true results from counting paper ballots. The ballotsthemselves can be consulted to determine the true election results, either by a risklimitingaudit with manual inspection of a statistically sound sample of the ballots, or byway of a manual inspection of all of the ballots.If such an inspection concluded that the publicly stated election results are the trueresult from the ballots, then the issue of the alleged cyber-attack becomes moot, withrespect to the integrity of the recent election's results: whether or not a cyber attackoccurred, the election results would be known to be true.In that case, the alleged cyber-attack would remain a very important allegation toinvestigate, as a matter of national security, of the cyber security of our election criticalinfrastructure, and of international policy where a true cyber-attack—regardless of thelack of practical consequences—must be understood for appropriate counter measures tobe undertaken.If the publicly stated result is found to be the true result, then investigation of the cyberattackallegations can be undertaken through normal channels, with no furtherconnection to the integrity of the elections' results.If the publicly stated result does not match the actual ballots, then investigation isrequired both on the cyber-security front and into the detailed records of the elections'operations, where erroneous results could have been created from any of several causesfrom human error, to insider abuse, to nation state adversaries' cyber operations.The main purpose of routinely performing post-election audits is to insist on evidencebasedelections. In the absence of evidence of malfeasance, we must avoid givingcredence to unproven theories that could undermine confidence in U.S. elections, to thebenefit of our adversaries who use disinformation techniques to attack our national unityand sovereignty.2. Executive SummaryThe affiant offers only opinion to support his beliefs. Several of the points simply restatepublic knowledge about voting system technology security vulnerabilities that, by theirexistence alone, do not indicate the occurrence of a successful cyber operation that a)compromised election management systems (EMS) and b) also created a false electionresult. The litany of eleven statements in point #15 incorporates a variety of claims ofDecember 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3misbehavior, none of which appear to involve a cyber operation against a DominionVoting Systems EMS (“Democracy Suite” or other).The affiant is mistaken on a number of matters of fact (notably on the Philadelphiaincident that did not involve Dominion products or services at all) that are restated asessential points of his conclusions. Despite his assertions of credentials and education inpoint #2, affiant also appears to lack basic understanding of:• Cryptography;• Standard IT practices in data backup, archive, and recovery;• Internet Protocol (IP) network traffic recording (logging);• Public information about the Dominion Voting Systems EMS product;• Absentee ballot validation processes and anonymity of counted ballots; and• Legal requirements on the election officials’ duties in locally administeringelections that combined local, state, and Federal contests.In addition to the basic claim of belief in a cyber operation, affiant also makes broad andunsubstantiated claims of malfeasance by election officials (point #15, item “k”), as wellas unspecific election fraud crimes in addition to the cyber-crimes of the believed cyberoperationon the Dominion Voting Systems (hereinafter “DVS”) EMS, both claimed tohave occurred in every “battleground” state, without specifying the states in which theelection fraud occurred.3. Point-by-Point AnalysisPoints 1—3. These are personal assertions about credentials and experience.The only, perhaps threshold issue here is that the affiant’s claimed credential from thecorrespondence university, CalSouthern University: a “Ph.D. in Management ofEngineering and Technology” is a degree not offered by CalSouthern University.Point 4. Reference to pre-existing unsubstantiated theories of “Hammer andScorecard” that have been repudiated by DHS CISA and debunked by several factchecking sites.This is an irrelevant point regardless of its mendacity. Whether or not “Hammer andScorecard” exists, there are other publicly attested methods to attack the Windowsoperating system on which that DVS EMS operates. Indeed, the affiant refers tonumerous of publicly attested “reference attacks” starting in point #10 and later. There isample record of attackable vulnerabilities—although not the use of them in any actualcyber operation against election systems—regardless of the existence of so-calledHammer and Scorecard tools. The affiant’s use of unsubstantiated theories, unnecessaryto support his beliefs, undermines the affiant’s credibility.December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 4Point 5. Personal Assertions/ClaimsPoint 6. Affiant references a “covert backdoor” that is in fact an overt feature forremote-access software support, described on page 33 of “2.02 Democracy SuiteSystem Overview, Version: 5:.11-CO::7” published for public access on the web site ofthe Colorado Secretary of State.It is well known that abuse of remote-access capability can result in unauthorized accessto the Windows OS and hence any application software (including, but not limited to,DVS EMS). “Discovery” of this documented feature is unnecessary to support a claim ofthe possibility—although not an actual cyber-operation—of remote access as a vector forcyber attack. Affiant’s claim to have “discovered” remote access, and mischaracterizing itin a way that is not required and unnecessary to support his beliefs, undermines theaffiant’s credibility.Point 6. Affiant references as a backdoor for “illicit activities” a DVS EMS feature that ispublicly documented in the document he references.Using a public document to support a claim of a cover backdoor, when the capabilitybeing described is really a product feature, undermines the affiant’s credibility.The product feature in question is described on pages 42 and 43 of “2.02 DemocracySuite System Overview, Version: 5:.11-CO::7” and is for the addition of votes—a requiredproduct feature for the data entry of votes that are counted manually, and required to beadded in order to complete the vote totals.The manual count of ballots (typically a very small portion of total ballots) is permittedin several states, and indeed required in at least one, New Hampshire, where manualcount is prescribed for the ballots of military/overseas voters (“UOCAVA voters”) usingthe Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot. The affiant’s claimed “shifting … deleting …adding votes” is required for manual data entry of votes, including editing the data entryof those (shifting, deleting) in the case of operator data entry error. In fact, it would be apoor product feature to allow the addition of manually collected votes by an operator,but not allow the operator to undo or correct erroneous data entry.The claim that such data entry “can take place through the Internet” is predictable,considering that DVS EMS runs on an ordinary Windows PC that could be connected tothe Internet and accessed via remote-access capability. Although such remote access istheoretically possible, it is also against standard election security practices, and in somestates (including California) election law forbids the connection of voting systemcomponents to a network. To point out a technical possibility—but not present anyspecific actual abuse of remote-access—without the knowledge of typical electionsecurity practices, again undermines the affiant’s credibility.December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5Credibility is further undermined by the entirely counterfactual claim that Internetactivity can occur “without a trace” when in fact network monitoring tools routinelyrecord Internet Protocol data. A technology professional, with the credentials andexperience claimed in personal statements #1, #2, #3, and #5 would absolutely be awareof and understand this basic fact of IP networking, which indicates that affiant eitherlacks those claimed capabilities, or is ignorant of basic networking knowledge, or ismendaciously omitting basic facts as they negate the scenario the affiant is attempting toportray.Point 7. Affiant makes allegations about Scytl SOE and data transfers.The Scytl SOE product is not a voting system product, but an unofficial elections resultsreporting product that consumes vote-tally data from any voting system product(including but not limited to DVS) and publishes the data in human consumable form,for public online reporting of unofficial election results.There is nothing remarkable about the transfer of DVS data to an election resultreporting system, nor about the reporting system duplicating the results data in adisaster recovery center. The affiant’s belief that 2020 data was transferred to Frankfurt,is irrelevant to fact that unofficial election results reporting data backup is routine.Affiant’s unawareness of election results reporting practices, and standard data backuppractices, undermines his credibility and highlights unawareness of election operationsand IT operations, despite the capabilities made in the personal statement points #1, #2,#3, and #5.Point 8. This is a recitation of older and debunked conspiracy theories, coupled with theaddition of “intelligence reports indicate…” that is otherwise unsubstantiated.The affiant’s reference to supposed intelligence data that would be classified if it existed,suggests either that the claim is false or that affiant is disclosing classified information,again undermining his credibility. In addition, DVS has stated it has no ties to anyforeign government.Point 9. This is an inaccurate recitation of the evolving history of the corporate structureof Dominion, coupled with a belief that the corporate structure was created to impede“investigators” without stating the topic of investigation or the organization performingthe investigation.In fact, Dominion disclosed its then current corporate structure (which does not includeSmartmatic) in 2017 in response to inquiries by the Senator Wyden in a series of writtenquestion-and-answer that started on 31 October 2017.5 The affiant’s reliance on an5 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-questions-voting-machinemanufacturers-on-security-measuresDecember 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6undisclosed source (i.e., “Reports show…”), and ignorance of public statements, furtherundermine the affiant’s credibility.Point 10. This is another statement of public fact about a certain type of voting systemvulnerability that does not indicate the actual use of the vulnerability in a cyber attack.Point 11. This is another statement of public fact about a certain voting systemvulnerability that does not indicate the actual use of the vulnerability in a cyber attack.Notably, affiant seems unaware that the systems tested at DEFCON 2019 did not includethe DVS EMS—which is the system that affiant believes was the target of a successfulcyber operation. We observe that the DEFCON test results on non-EMS systems is bothirrelevant to a recitation of DVS EMS vulnerability, and unnecessary, since the EMS runson an ordinary Windows PC with well known vulnerabilities.Point 12. This is about the Philadelphia USB memory hardware theft and misuses OSETInstitute leadership comments in an Associated Press interview.Leaving aside affiant’s speculation about the contents of the stolen equipment, affiant’sbelief (i.e., that contents facilitated EMS remote access) displays complete ignorance ofa) how EMS remote access is performed via industry standard remote-accessauthentication; and b) the fact that possession of cryptographic keys from USB devices isnot required, as affiant should know from reading the DVS documentation the hereferences. Affiant’s credibility is further undermined by these facts:• The Philadelphia incident took place in October 2020, not 2019.• The Philadelphia incident did not involve Dominion Voting Systems; it involvedES&S.• According to ES&S, the USB devices use multiple levels of encryption and are“married” to single voting machines during programming. ES&S further stated thatthey immediately cut the devices off from the vendor’s network upon learning of thetheft.• Affiant’s claims (to have analyzed the “contents” of various voting systems’cryptographic keys) indicate a basic lack of understanding of cryptography:cryptographic keys do not have “contents,” but are simply randomly generatednumbers. (This assertion alone disqualifies the credibility of the affiant writ-large.)In addition, examination of the OSET Institute’s Edward Perez’s full remarks6 indicatesthat affiant misconstrued those remarks as being connected in any way to EMS remoteaccess.6 https://apnews.com/article/voting-machines-voting-custodio-elections-philadelphiaf8a6453dc9e211ef20e9412d003511b1December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 7Point 13. This is another statement of public fact about voting system vulnerability thatdoes not indicate the actual use of the vulnerability in a cyber attack.Congressional members expressing concern over DEFCON testers’ finding, is both notremarkable, and in no way suggests that an actual cyber operation occurred.Point 14. Affiants’ claim to have an expert opinion about voting system technology isnot supported by a claim about “the combination of DVS, Scytl/SOE Software/eClarityand Smartmatic.”In fact, these systems are not used in combination at all in the United States. In the U.S.,Smartmatic voting system technology is used by Los Angeles County, which does not useDominion products; and SOE results reporting software is used to present the data fromvoting systems, but does not directly connect to those voting systems (Dominion orotherwise). Affiant claims to have conducted “more than a dozen experiments combinedwith analyzing the 2020 Election data sets” but offered no published results of hisfindings.Point 15. This is a remarkable conclusion that “anomalies are caused by fraudulentmanipulation of the results” rather than a statement of belief or an assertion of factsupported by evidence. Affiant clearly states that he had not been granted access toexamine any of the systems used in the 2020 Election, so how can he reliably reportthat a fraud occurred without any empirical evidence from the machines.Point 15a-c. This concerns analysis of The New York Times datasets and the publicdata on which it is based.Professional journalists, statisticians, and academics performed this analysis. Affiant’sbeliefs stated in points #15a and #15b of “unusual” or “not … normal” behavior does notappear to be based on the expertise of professional journalists, statisticians, academics,and election professionals. In addition, he offers no evidence that software developed bySmartmatic was implemented in DVS machines.Point 15d. This assertion concerns “Reported evidence” that is not cited.It is a counterfactual statement that ballots have signatures; combined by illogic to aconclusion (neither belief nor an assertion of fact supported by evidence) of malicioustampering with DVS configuration data.Point 15e. This concerns a counterfactual claim that absentee ballot verification is doneby the DVS ImageCast.In reality, it is elections office staff that verify the identity and eligibility of the voter ofeach absentee ballot, to determine whether it should be counted. Affiant’s assertioncombined by the same illogic to conclude that “the only way” that the claimed (not cited)December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 8malfunction could occur is via fraudulent manipulation of configuration data. In fact,November 2020 election experience includes instances (notably in Antrim County) ofaccidental use of incorrect versions of configuration data creating malfunctions thatwere detected and corrected.Point 15f. This is a repeat of affiant’s error in point #12 about the Philadelphia incident.This is a repeat of the misunderstanding of the nature of cryptographic keys, bothcoupled to a broad claim (neither a belief nor a claim supported by evidence) that thePhiladelphia ES&S (not Dominion) key data could be used for “massive attacks on allbattleground state” without any explanation of what form that attack might have taken.ES&S keys would not work in DVS devices and general practice in cryptographic systemsis to use different keys for every device used in an election.Point 15g-h. Affiant’s understanding of data variance, and opinions of “not normal” arenot matched by the scrutiny of this highly visible public data by professional journalists,statisticians, academics, and election professionals.Also note that there is no “Edison County” in Michigan or any other state in the U.S.,which completely undermines affiant’s assertions.Point 15i. This is a combination of uncontroversial facts about PC hardware supplychains, coupled with what appears to be a disclosure of intelligence informationyielding a conclusion (not belief nor claim supported by evidence) that “China’sespionage activities” were involved the cyber operation that the affiant believesoccurred.Point 15j. This is an assertion of covert operations that repeats affiant’smisunderstanding of election results reporting systems in point #7.The assertions also display a complete misunderstanding of how Man-in-the-Middle(MITM) attacks are carried out and the circumstances that must be present for theseattacks to work.Point 15k. This is a broad and unsubstantiated claim of widespread malfeasance bylocal elections officials in not performing validation and record keeping function that arelegally required of them.Overall, the several parts of point #15 (a-k) in toto, assert nothing about the affiant’sprimary claim of a cyber operation on DVS EMS systems. Rather point #15 appears to bea recitation of a variety of unrelated theories that attempt to distract from the absence ofany details whatsoever of a successful cyber operation against a DVS EMS that the affiantbelieves occurred.December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 9Moreover, recounts and audits have been conducted in several states that substantiatethat election officials kept adequate records and that the counts were not significantlydifferent from those reported immediately after the election.Point 16. This is a restatement of several factually incorrect assertions in earlier points.Affiant repeats:• A previous a factual error about lost cryptographic keys and their relevance; and• A repeat of the counterfactual claimed combination of DVS, Scytl, SOE, andSmartmatic.The affiant concludes that these created the conditions for fraud, without stating whocommitted what fraud. At the outset of this affidavit, affiant states a personal belief in acyber operation on the DVS EMS to alter vote totals. In this first of two concludingstatements, affiant is additionally leveling an allegation of election fraud by partiesunstated.Point 17. This is a restatement of an initial statement of belief regarding alteration ofvote totals absent sufficient specificity to establish credibility.This is a second conclusion that is simply a restatement of initial belief of alteration ofvote totals by a believed cyber operation that exploited the vulnerabilities that affiantrecited earlier; and again without any specific claim of what specific systems weretargeted “in all battleground states,” or any identification of the “operators.”In summary, points #16 and #17 appear to indicate affiant both:1. Believes that unknown or undisclosed operators successfully breached everyelection management system (EMS) in every “battleground state” by remoteaccess means across the Internet to alter vote totals and change the presidentialelection result, and2. Believes that in addition to the criminality of that cyber operation itself, peopleunknown or undisclosed committed unspecified election fraud.Further, affiant’s beliefs include states in which the EMS is not connected to the Internet,states in which manual inspection of paper ballots confirmed the machine counts, andstates in which rigorous state-level pre-certification “canvass” process exists precisely touncover: the malfeasance claimed in point #15k, election fraud broadly alleged in point#16, and voting system technology malfunction alleged in several places in this affidavit.Notwithstanding: a) rehashing old news from a prior DEFCON computer securityconference; b) similar voting system analyses done earlier, elsewhere on differentmachinery; and c) restating well-known concerns about cyber-attack potential andpotential election compromise from the same, the affiant’s claims appear entirelywithout merit.December 2020 © 2020 OSET Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 10In summary, the claims of “Navid Keshavarz-Nia” makes in his November 25th written legal declaration (Affidavit) lack any direct evidence, are based on speculation (his “beliefs”), and demonstrate a lack of understanding of cybersecurity, cryptography, and election administration processes. This is the OSET Institute’s professional analysis based on the authors’ combined total of 96 years of direct experience in computer and network information security; election administration technology architecture, engineering and deployment; and national digital security.E. John SebesChief Technology Officer, OSET Institute, Inc.7Edward P. PerezGlobal Director, Technology & Standards, OSET Institute, Inc.8William P. CrowellStrategic Board Advisor, National Security Matters, OSET Institute, Inc.97 See: About — OSET Institute - Open Source Election Technology8 See: Eddie Perez — OSET Institute - Open Source Election Technology9 See: Bill Crowell | Alsop Louie Partners