Letter to Tehama Board of Supervisors re: Concerns of Election Systems

Dear Supervisor,  

As I’m sure you are aware, Shasta County Board of Supervisors has voted to cancel the contract with Dominion Voting Systems and go to hand counting ballots.  I am also aware that some of you believe Dominion is safe and hand counting is prohibitively costly. 

Many of our citizens, myself included, have grave concerns about machine voting.  Rather than addressing election concerns, elected officials across the country (including here in Tehama County) have simply denied voters the opportunity to validate that our elections are indeed free and fair. 

We deserve to be heard and our concerns addressed.  We already feel written off.  Our elections clerk seems to have convinced you that the voting system is fine.  We know otherwise and you should be challenging the clerk to prove that the machines are as accurate and safe as hand counting.  It is not acceptable to simply say that the clerk thinks it is safe.  She – and you – need to prove it to our satisfaction. 

Please take the time to review the information below and expand your thinking.  I have sent information about our concerns several times and have yet for even one Supervisor to respond.     

I am in the process of coordinating meetings for our county residents to discuss our concerns.  I’d like to invite you to either attend these meetings or meet with me one on one.  In the meantime, I have compiled information regarding the vulnerability of machines below for your review.  Your constituents have been learning a lot about the machines – we expect you to do the same.  This is too important for you not to spend the time to learn what we know. 


Shawn Greer

VIDEOS: Tina Peters is the Mesa County, Colorado Election clerk.  She believed the election system, including the Dominion machines used in that county, was secure and invulnerable to attack.

But she had numerous complaints that said otherwise. Enough so that she hired a forensic auditor to dig into the machines (expecting to prove those complaining wrong).

What she found is shocking.

Selection Code is a documentary tracking her discoveries and showing the lengths corrupt people will go to cover up their acts.

Watch Tina’s full story:  https://selectioncode.com/

Professor David Clements (an attorney who has done a great deal of research into the various machine problems) explains in detail what his concerns are:  https://rumble.com/v184wti-taking-our-country-back-with-david-k.-clements.html  

Testimony of Clint Curtis, Computer Programmer who wrote a program in 2000 to flip votes: https://rumble.com/vn2zd3-your-votes-have-been-stolen-with-algorithms-and-computers-since-2000..html

2020 Forensic Audit Reports

Below are 3 audits from the 2020 election showing the vulnerabilities of the Dominion Voting System.  I’ve pulled out a few comments from each of the reports, the link to the full reports are also included. 

Antrim County Michigan

  • We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, weconclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.
  • The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.
  • In Central Lake Township there were 1,222 ballots reversed out of 1,491 total ballots cast, resulting in an 81.96% rejection rate. All reversed ballots are sent to adjudication for a decision by election personnel.
  • It is critical to understand that the Dominion system classifies ballots into two categories, 1) normal ballots and 2) adjudicated ballots. Ballots sent to adjudication can be altered by administrators, and adjudication files can be moved between different Results Tally and Reporting (RTR) terminals with no audit trail of which administrator actually adjudicates (i.e. votes) the ballot batch.
  • A staggering number of votes required adjudication. This was a 2020 issue not seen in previous election cycles still stored on the server. This is caused by intentional errors in the system. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency or audit trail.
  • The following is a breakdown of the votes tabulated for the 2020 election in Antrim County, showing different dates for the tabulation of the same votes.  The Antrim County Clerk and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson have stated that the election night error (detailed below) by the vote “flip” from Trump to Biden, was the result of human error caused by the failure to update the Mancelona Township tabulator prior to election night for a down ballot race. We disagree and conclude that the vote flip occurred because of machine error built into the voting software designed to create error. 

FULL REPORT:  https://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/antrim_michigan_forensics_report_121320_v2_redacted.pdf

Maricopa County Arizona

The audit report identifies more than 57K questionable votes, intentionally deleted election files, and other suspicious voting machine activity.

Major issues identified:

  • 255,326 early votes are recorded in the VM55 file of counted ballots but are missing from the EV33 file 2
  • 17,322 duplicate votes (where voters sent in 2 or more ballots) that were illegally counted in the final certified tally (a large surge of these were dated the week following the election)
  • 27,807 ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election, and are unlikely to have physically received their ballots legally
  • Envelopes without signatures that were stamped as “approved”
  • Ballot envelopes showing an apparent “approved” stamp behind the basic graphics of the envelope, suggesting tampering, or at the very least, poor quality scanning and archival of envelope images
  • The systems related to elections integrity had numbers that could not balance or agree with each other
  • The voter rolls and the registration management process itself having many data integrity issues. For instance, over 200 individuals were easily identifiable as likely being the same person but having two different Voter IDs and voting twice in the election.
  • There were unexplained large purges of registered voters, right after the election, of people who had voted in the election
  • There was back-dating of registrations, adjustments made to historical voting and voter records, unexplained linking of voter registration affidavits to multiple voters and more
  • Files were missing from the Election Management System (EMS) Server and other voting machines, either intentionally or negligently removed
  • Ballot images on the EMS were corrupt or missing
  • On the ballot side, batches were not always clearly delineated, duplicated ballots were missing the required serial numbers, some originals were duplicated more than once, and the auditors were never provided chain-of-custody documentation for the ballots for the time-period prior to the ballot’s movement into the auditors’ care. This all increased the complexity and difficulty in properly auditing the results.
  • There were significant anomalies identified in the ratio of hand-folded ballots, on-demand printed ballots, and a significant increase in provisional ballot rejections for a mail-in ballot already being cast, suggestive of mail-in ballots being cast for voters without their knowledge
  • Remote Access and “Terminal Services” features of Windows were enabled allowing machines to be remotely controlled

Detailed Summary:

More Information:  https://electionfraud20.org/in-detail/maricopa-arizona-forensic-audit-report-results/

Mesa County Colorado

Author: Shawn

"The burden of suffering seems a tombstone hung about our necks, while in reality it is only a weight which is necessary to keep down the diver while he is hunting for pearls" Jean Paul Richter

2 thoughts on “Letter to Tehama Board of Supervisors re: Concerns of Election Systems”

  1. Thank you Shawn, very insightful and to the point! They need to listen to their constituents as they serve us, not the other way around!

    1. True – but we also need to show up and tell them what we think. They are hearing a lot from liberals, not a ton from conservatives

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s