Do you want to know what election fraud looks like? Read on and you will discover real evidence before your very eyes.
Some bags appeared to have been slit with a sharp instrument were actually duct taped.Read “Duct Tape (Really?)”
Then there were the bags whose seal numbers did not match the numbers on the Inspectors Report. To protect the integrity of our elections your ballot is accounted for by numbering and recording where it goes, even after it is placed in bags. The bags are numbered and recorded on Inspector Reports. Whenever there is a discrepancy that points to an opportunity for a bag to be tampered with by adding or stuffing votes it is called a break in the chain of custody.
A host of these instances of break in the chain of custody where apparent in Waukesha County.
In each instance the observers for Kloppenburg challenged each and every one. Why was nothing done? The Wisconsin statutes give complete control of the means and rules for counting the vote to the County Clerk, who was Kathy Nickolaus. Since, Nickolaus had dismissed herself from the count, the head authority was give to retired Judge Mawdsley(pictured top holding bag). In each case it was his judgment that the votes be counted and any challenges to be dealt with later. As you may remember Kloppenburg conceded, the vote was certified by the Government Accountability Board, and the challenges where never officially addressed. It seems none of the challenges rose to real proof and could be dismissed as human error or mistakes. There wasn’t real proof of election fraud.
From the Minutes of the Waukesha Recount – Town of Genesse
The Clerk, Barabar Whitmore, was present and tesitified
The Kloppenburg representatives objected to counting …the bag tag and seal and label were different numbers than on the inspection report.The Board noted the the seal is 3165678, and the label and serial number is 3165678, but the inspector’s list is 3165679 = different number. It appears B. Hellman wrote a different number down.The Clerk addressed why the board has two copies of the statement with numbers on them. The second copy is somewhat incomplete, but does have a set of numbers that matches the ballot bags. The Clerk testifies that one is the original copy and one is a photo copy. The tag number and the voting number and the tamper evidence seal numbers were added to the copy. She thinks she made a copy for the town’s purposes, but did not make a copy of the back of one page that went to the County.
So, the testimony is that the COPY was Changed to include the correct numbers.
You, most likely, viewed the two forms above and see that one is a copy of the other with the numbers changed, just as the observers did? Take another closer look. Most obviously notice the circled word beneath the word “Town” in the original that SOMEHOW did not transfer to the “COPY”?
It is NOT a COPY
You can see that indeed the numbers are added to the “copy” as testified in the minutes of the Waukesha recount, but look carefully. The “copy” is not a copy at all. It is an entirely different document.
This is what Election Fraud looks like.
In the “Original” the town is not circled, and the date is written as April 5. In the “Copy” the town is circled and the date is written as April 5th. The “Copy” is not a “Copy” as all, but a completely different document that was testified as being a “Copy” of the “Original”.
This is undeniable PROOF of Waukesha Election Fraud
This is like me signing your check with your name and saying “I made mistake.” Someone composed an entirely new and different Inspection Report and it was presented, judged, and counted as a “copy”. This is hard proof of Fraud.