Adjudication

There are a few things Jovan gets wrong here but I'm inclined to think he's right about this. Byrne was on the mark when he said the different people fighting over how the election is rigged and what to do are like blind men feeling an elephant, someone feels the husk and they think it's hard, someone grabs the ear and it's rubbery, someone else grabs the foot or the tail.... I'll get the things he's wrong about out of the way, which I see as the reason some don't listen to him. How are ballots flagged to outstack to adjudication? Read "the audit guys" hit piece on Shiva in Maricopa Index 2 at electionPDFs Locals (EPMs also there in MC Index 1; Dominion manuals will be added after election, there will be a huge war whoever wins the count). There's much spin to see through in TAG but they explain the parameters in Maricopa 2020: an overvote means there's more than one bubble was filled in *over a defined percentage*, and undervote means there's no vote *bubbled in sufficiently* over that percentage but if there's some ink in one but not enough, it might be outstacked for "adjudication" /human review. If there are two sufficient bubbles, it gets outstacked. If there's a write-in, that means SOMEONE BUBBLED IN THE WRITE-IN BUBBLE, as you see in Jovan's example, so the machine doesn't have to detect the marks outside of the bubble to see that. Look at Jovan's other examples and many of those bubbles do not have enough ink INSIDE THE BUBBLE: undervotes. Undervotes aren't outstacked unless there's enough ink to pass the lower threshold but not enough to pass the high theshold and count them automatically. So it doesn't necessarily mean they were flagged because the ink was everywhere. But maybe they were, I don't know, and I WOULDN"T TAKE THAT RISK WITH MY BALLOT. I believe what Parikh and O'Donnell are saying is Maricopa adjudication parameters don't measure outside of the bubble, which matches what I remember from The Audit Guys report and I think they're right. However, what if they change something, or like Jovan says, it doesn't scan right before tabulation.... I don't know what does and doesn't cause this with any confidence, SO I WOULDN"T DRAW A LINE ON MY BUBBLE no matter what the "experts" say. Jeff also says he'd trust the election worker reviewing ballots over the software, this is where he's feeling the wrong part of the elephant. They BULK ADJUDICATE votes, Lenberg found it in Antrim, the batches are outstacked and they can be changed all at once while they're in the adjudication queue then tabulated with the changes. This seems to be a vector where they can swap ballots, after slowing them down to see what vote comes in. So the Halderman vote flips are basically doing click-and-drag photoshop to ballot images. I could literally do that on MS Paint if speed weren't an issue. I could also grab a larger box to include the tail they draw connecting the bubble to the name and I'm not skilled at it, I'd just click and drag like the kids in the video. Basic photoshopping is all that hack is. What I think Clay/Jeff's method does is it makes it take more clicks to switch bubbles because there are different distances between different names and their corresponding bubbles. But also, they're doing the click-and-drag with an algorithm, and they probably haven't adjusted it to grab bubbles that have a tail coming off them, so you'd be ahead of the programmers, potentially. David Cross shows his ballot marks on GA Ballots YT if anyone wants more examples of what they're suggesting, toward the top of page 1. It sounds to me like a dumb idea, unless you have confidence you know what causes ballots to be outstacked and no one can adjust it. Because as Jovan has gone over, a lot of things can happen and have domino effects with each other, like combining a sharpie with lower weight cardstock. The objective should be to get your votes into the tabulator with as few in-betweens as possible. If you trust a random poll worker with your ballot, there's no reason to vote in person anyway.

Lenberg with Oltmann, Apollo and Canncon from 2022. Audio with slides.

It's the same argument up to now, what is flagged for adjudication? The Audit Guys describe Dominion "outstack" (send ballots to adjudication) conditions here: https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/3356264/the-audit-guys-response-to-shiva-image-cvr-audit Undervoted contests (< 14% of bubble filled) even the presidential do not outstack the ballot by themselves (although they classify the race as outstacked on CVR): this does NOT explain any of Jovan's examples, unless he called a ballot modified due to the race being outstacked when the ballot wasn't. "Ambiguous" Marks (14-25% filled) outstack the ballot which COULD explain some of Jovan's example bubbles. If it's over 35% of the bubble filled in and only one bubble (Like the THUMBNAIL), THAT"S AN "IS VOTE": supposed to be no adjudication. But you can see in Jovan's examples with stray ink outside the bubble, that there are bubbles that have well over 35% filled in, and they were adjudicated. The whole ballot (and every other one in the batch) gets outstacked if something is flagged, but there are outstack/adjudication conditions assigned to the individual races, so this couldn't have been caused by a downballot race. The detractors will say Jovan makes everything up and not say more than that: Just let the "experts" do everything, and all of it behind the scenes. I'm not satisfied with that. Jovan's Final Report presentation which was supposed to be the first of 3 but ended up the only one: https://rumble.com/v1av7i6-jovan-ballot-paper-and-kinematics-final-report-1-mesa-cy-az.html Current adjudication dispute is the same thing that's been argued https://rumble.com/v5jp4mb-jovan-1018-why-odonnell-and-parikh-are-wrong-on-how-to-fill-ballots-adjudic.html Hemo report and all others, with vids, preliminary print report and lots of work from Jovan and by others on Maricopa 2020: https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/3412860/maricopa-index-1 Planning to post a dominion manuals section and if I have time a chronology of the letters btwn Brno's AGO, Maricopa & the Senate.

It's the same argument up to now, what is flagged adjudication? The Audit Guys describe Dominion "outstack" (send ballots to adjudication) conditions here: https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/3356264/the-audit-guys-response-to-shiva-image-cvr-audit Undervoted contests (< 14% of bubble filled) even the presidential do not outstack the ballot by themselves (although they classify the race as outstacked on CVR): this does NOT explain any of Jovan's examples, unless he called a ballot modified due to the race being outstacked when the ballot wasn't. "Ambiguous" Marks (14-25% filled) outstack the ballot which COULD explain some of Jovan's example bubbles. If it's over 35% of the bubble filled in and only one bubble, THAT"S AN "IS VOTE": supposed to be no adjudication. But you can see in Jovan's examples with stray ink outside the bubble, that there are bubbles that have well over 35% filled in, and they were adjudicated. The whole ballot (and every other one in the batch) gets outstacked if something is flagged, but there are outstack/adjudication conditions assigned to the individual races, so this couldn't have been caused by a downballot race. The detractors will say Jovan makes everything up and not say more than that: Just let the "experts" do everything, and all of it behind the scenes. I'm not satisfied with that. Jovan's Final Report presentation which was supposed to be the first of 3 but ended up the only one: https://rumble.com/v1av7i6-jovan-ballot-paper-and-kinematics-final-report-1-mesa-cy-az.html Current adjudication dispute is the same thing that's been argued https://rumble.com/v5jp4mb-jovan-1018-why-odonnell-and-parikh-are-wrong-on-how-to-fill-ballots-adjudic.html Hemo report and all others, with vids, preliminary print report and lots of work from Jovan and by others on Maricopa 2020: https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/3412860/maricopa-index-1 Planning to post a dominion manuals section and if I have time a chronology of the letters btwn Brno's AGO, Maricopa & the Senate.

They're STILL charging Crosby with FELONIES for delaying certification, as they note at the end, but they don't want to charge CASEY and RENTERIA with VOIDING !16 THOUSAND! BALLOTS while they were supposed to be "adjudicating" them to discern voter intent, AND NOT TELLING ANYONE.

No mystery here, they're keeping the seal on because they're going to swap those ballots somewhere with fewer eyes and rig the seals back on, which are there to attest to how many ballots were scanned. Intact seals show no one ADDED, REMOVED OR TAMPERED with the ballots in the container: Chain of Custody. So, EDB's "ELECTION DAY BALLOTS" were obviously swapped out somewhere or just burned, if witness is legit. But being EDB's, the votes had already been tabulated when the ballot was run. This would almost certainly mean they altered the votes Database in the EMS "Election Management System" then tampered with the paper ballots to make them match. The EMS can be altered by CISA through the Albert Sensors, SoS office through B-Pro, or any hacker in the world who knows the DVSCorp08! password; however, if it was done by Maricopa County themselves, it would likely be done using the MICROSOFT SQL DATABASE software, which ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE THERE BUT IS: SEE MESA 2 REPORT/ GOULD https://electionpdfs.locals.com/post/4266801/mesa-2-report-security-and-vulnerabilities

https://rumble.com/user/johncleer?q=adjudication The combo of the sharpie marker with the noncompliant paper caused the bleed-throughs which caused adjudication, which buys time to fix the vote as it comes in. My question about this is, is there a mechanism to kick EDB's out to adjudication after it goes through the self-adjudication process where it asks you to check your ballot if it sees an overvote or other anomaly. Did they institute this self-adjudication after that Fontes letter?