The Culling vs. Raffensperger Lawsuit: Evidence of Voting Machine Vulnerabilities and Fulton County 2020 Election Issues Entered into the Federal Record | The Gateway Pundit

On January 9th, the seven-years-long federal lawsuit known as Curling v. Raffensperger began in Atlanta, Ga. in Judge Amy Totenberg’s court.  The case challenges the constitutionality of the Dominion Voting machines (originally the Diebold machines used since 2002 and replaced in 2019), arguing that the touchscreen Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) fail to create a voter-verifiable ballot because the actual voter intent is contained in a QR code that cannot be read by the voter.

Last year, VoterGA’s Ricardo Davis was able to insert himself as a co-plaintiff and retain his own counsel, attorney David Oles, to represent him in this case.  This was in addition to a team of lawyers already arguing the case for the other plaintiffs.  Sitting in the court room, you can feel the tensions between the two sides of attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

During the proceedings thus far, Oles has been relatively constrained in terms of arguing Davis’s case.  The co-plaintiff’s team of lawyers, led by David Cross, have gone as far as objecting to Oles during the extremely limited questioning he’s been afforded from time to time.  In fact, on Monday, during the questioning of UC Berkley Professor Philip Stark, Oles was granted just two questions and some follow-up after a minutes-long sidebar between the judge and almost a dozen attorneys over whether he could ask any questions.  As Oles was asking Prof. Stark about the 17,852 missing ballot images in Fulton County, Cross’s team of lawyers interrupted and questioned the relevance to the case.  Judge Totenberg allowed the question.

Yesterday, just before the plaintiffs rested their case to allow the defendants to proceed, Oles was able to proffer evidence to the court from the expert witness declarations of Professors Philip Stark and J. Alex Halderman.  As reported previosly by The Gateway Pundit, Dr. Halderman testified late last week and was able to hack into the Dominion ICX BMD in just five seconds using a ballpoint pen.  This was a significant development in the case as the overall theme thus far has revolved around the illegality and vulnerabilities of the touchscreen BMDs.  However, the case has all but ignored significant vulnerabilities in the computerized election system as a whole and has shown support for hand-marked paper ballots counted by optical scanners, as done in most election jurisdictions throughout the country.

David Oles was not permitted to ask any questions during Dr. Halderman’s testimony.  He was only allowed two questions of Dr. Philip Stark.

The proffers offered by counsel from Dr. Stark’s testimony were focused on anomalies and issues in Georgia and, more specifically, in Fulton County:

1. A digital ballot image is required by the Dominion Voting System to produce tabulated votes for the ballot
2. Stark believes digital ballot images are election records that should be retained according to federal and state law
3. Georgia does not require digital ballot images to be retained for the period specified by federal law
4. Georgia does not require digital ballot images to be retained for the period specified by state law
5. It is technically impossible to have more certified votes than ballot images if the elections processes are followed correctly
6. 17,852 certified 2020 Fulton Co. votes have no original ballot image files
7. Additional VoterGA research corroborates Dr. Starks findings that over 17,000 votes have missing ballot images
8. Certified votes that have missing ballot images is an indication of electronic vote tampering
9. 376,863 original Dominion ballot image files for the certified Fulton Co. 2020 election are missing
10. The missing original ballot images files made it impossible to audit the 2020 election

The Gateway Pundit has covered many of these issues including this 4-part series about Georgia’s 2020 and subsequent elections.

Proffers from Dr. Halderman’s declaration were focused more broadly on Dominion Voting and election machine vulnerabilities:

1. Dominion has no available patch that is proven to address all of the security concerns in Dr. Halderman’s Security Analysis
2. The irregular access that occurred in Coffee County poses a threat to the entire Dominion voting system
3. Intruders could attack and infect either the ICX BMD or the ICP scanner that reads the QR codes for all in-person voting
4. Intruders could also attack and infect the county Election Management Server not just the BMD
5. Both the ICP in-person scanners and ICC mail-in ballot scanners cannot detect photocopied ballots
6. Malware could reside on either the ICX Precinct scanners, the ICC central absentee ballot scanner or even the Election Management Server
7. Halderman would agree with Dr. Stark that Georgia’s audit procedures are wholly inadequate
8. The only way to rule out malware-based fraud is with hand counted results or very comprehensive audits for each race on the ballot
9. All Dominion system components were developed without sufficient attention to security during design, software engineering, and testing
10. Malware that is spread by an Election Management Server could also infect that server
11. Malware could also be programmed to infect ICP in-person voting scanners not just the BMDs
12. Malware could also be programmed to infect ICC absentee ballot scanners
13. Halderman was not given the opportunity to examine the server that prepares election projects for the current or previous Dominion system despite claims by Ryan Germany’s SOS Investigative report that he would
14. He would likely have found similar security deficiencies in the Dominion servers election projects and other components if he had been given that opportunity to examine them
15. He could have explained why Paul Maggio was able to image copy every Dominion Voting System component except the BMD