WPAA continued to investigate election fraud after the audit ended. They reported multiple instances of voters stating their records had been changed, etc. WPAA brought this to Karen Fann on 6/20/22, and Fann provided them access to an external drive they had received under subpoena from Maricopa. This would allow WPAA to further investigate their findings by using the data Maricopa had…

I can be corrected, but I don’t think anyone knew this was happening, or it wasn’t widely reported.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

As WPAA was doing this, they noticed severe irregularities, including hidden files, etc. Then, a group of senators authorized a full scale investigation of the voter signatures on ballot envelopes used in the 2020 election, using actual control signatures found on the hard drives for comparison, just as Maricopa was supposed to have done…

Hold on to your hats.


@TracyBeanzOfficial

They reviewed over 230K of the signatures in Maricopa.

1. 18,022 had egregious signature mismatches, and when proportioned, that represents a staggering potential 156,000 ballot envelopes with egregious mismatch. (What was the margin of victory for Biden again?)

2. 19,631 signatures failed the SOS standards, which means that 165,000 ballots would likely fail the standards.

Maricopa rejected just 587 for mismatched signatures.

Chew on that for a second.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

So, what does this have to do with 2022? Even though the full 2022 file wasn’t available, they wanted to see if some of those same voters with bad signatures voted again. Of course, they did. A lot of them.

So Hobbs could say “Well their signatures changed!” Or “We don’t have an updated signature on file”

Doesn’t matter under the law, if it is adjudicated properly. In free countries, that is something you hope the courts will do. Adjudicate the law.


@TracyBeanzOfficial

32 workers did signature validation in the 2022 election. Of those, 3 have stepped forward and signed sworn declarations about their experience this go round. They were rejecting 30% but would only see 1000 or so for curing, when that stack should’ve been MUCH bigger.

They held them back.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

The most likely explanation, is that the level two folks were approving previously rejected signatures. They were supposed to record if they were doing this.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Even ballots that had already been rejected 3 times were sent through in a desperate search to find a signature — any signature - to match the ballot.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Maricopa County was handing out “approved” curing stickers like candy. These stickers could be affixed to a ballot to have it pass through the process. There were no observers watching to make sure that signature was actually cured. They were just hanging piles of these to any level employee, who were then instructed not even to sign that they’d cured it, just date, which prevents accountability and tracing who did what.

Criminal. This is something,.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Maricopa also employed a third party contractor, Star Center, to cure ballots. There were no observers present at Star Center. This is flagrant, and isn’t allowed.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

“Ballot Printers and Tabulators Failed at More than 59% of Maricopa Counties 223 Vote Centers; Created Chaos on Election Day”

@TracyBeanzOfficial

Vote Centers co-mingled tabulated and untabulated ballots. The lawsuit asserts that the Maricopa County BOS report is FALSE.

@TracyBeanzOfficial

We are back! The bulk of the rest of this lawsuit is patently debunking the report made by Maricopa County. The door 3 issue is addressed here. Because there were so many “door 3” ballots, there wasn’t adequate means to transport those, causing widespread confusion and potential double counting (or non counting) of “door 3” ballots.

@TracyBeanzOfficial