Electronic voting machines from a leading vendor used in at least 16 states (including NJ) have software vulnerabilities that leave them susceptible to hacking if unaddressed, the nation’s leading cybersecurity agency says in an advisory sent to state officials.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, or CISA, said there is no evidence the flaws in the Dominion Voting Systems’ equipment have been exploited to alter election results. The advisory is based on testing by a prominent computer scientist and expert witness in a long-running lawsuit that is unrelated to allegations of a stolen election pushed by former President Donald Trump, Mike Lindell, Dinesh D’Souza, Rudy Giuliani and several others after the 2020 Biden win.

The advisory details nine vulnerabilities and suggests protective measures to prevent or detect their exploitation. CISA is back-pedaling between not alarming the public and stressing the need for election officials to take action despite the fact that CISA, in a public statement, called the 2020 election, “the safest in U.S. History.” Soon after that public report came out, then CISA Director Christopher C. Krebs was fired.

The current CISA Executive Director Brandon Wales wouldn’t go so far, but he did issue a statement that “states’ standard election security procedures would detect exploitation of these vulnerabilities and in many cases would prevent attempts entirely.” The advisory “seems” to “suggest” that states aren’t doing even rudimentary cyber protections like prompt mitigation measures, continued, and enhanced “defensive measures to reduce the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities.” CISA advises that measures need to be applied ahead of every election. According to the advisory it’s clear that’s not happening in all of the states that use the machines. Despite the fact that in 2020 CISA itself said, in a graphic which has since disappeared from their site, “the 2020 election was the safest in U.S. history.”

An outside-the-agency contractor, University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman wrote the report on which the CISA advisory is based. So why are we paying billions of dollars to DHS and CISA if they can’t do the job themselves? Halderman has long argued that using digital technology to record votes is dangerous because computers are inherently vulnerable to hacking and thus require multiple safeguards that aren’t uniformly followed. He and many other election security experts have insisted that using hand-marked paper ballots is the most secure method of voting and the only option that allows for meaningful post-election audits. This is the approach that Ocean County takes.

“These vulnerabilities, for the most part, are not ones that could be easily exploited by someone who walks in off the street, but they are things that we should worry could be exploited by sophisticated attackers, such as hostile nation states, or by election insiders, and they would carry very serious consequences,” Halderman told the AP.

Malicious code could be spread to machines throughout a jurisdiction. The vulnerability could be exploited by someone with physical access or by someone who is able to remotely infect other systems that are connected to the internet.

What About Lakewood?

This year, each county will designate a minimum of three to 10 voting locations for early in-person voting. Registered voters can cast their local ballot at any location in the county where they reside.  “You will be able to cast your local ballot, whatever the county site you show up at, and it will be very similar, other than the fact that you’re not going to your neighborhood polling location, to what you would experience on election day,” said Alicia D’Alessandro, communications director for the Division of Elections.

Ocean County Clerk Scott Collabella said, “Just the hours alone make it more convenient. So many people work, right? If the polls are open till eight o’clock at night, that gives them that window from 5:30 p.m. or 6 p.m. to come after work.” Beth McGuckin, supervisor of the Ocean County Election Board, can understand some of the hesitation. She’s been voting by mail for over a decade but intends to try out the new early voting system this year. I’m actually looking forward to voting on the new equipment. It’ll be the first time in 17 years I’ve voted on a machine,” McGuckin said.

These machines require internet connections, just a heads up:

Hackers can try but are not always successful as in the screenshot below taken at a Lakewood Polling location:

Here is the YESTECHNOLOGY Co., Ltd (yellow arrow at the bottom) network with connections to Communist China (and even Russia) via their Korean connection.

The exploit moves through kikky.net (a programmer and hacker site).
DO NOT GO TO THAT SITE. It is not safe.

YESTECHNOLOGY Co., Ltd includes connections to all the companies and locations below:

00-08-59 ShenZhen Unitone Electronics Co., Ltd.

2 Southern Floor 702 Building

BaGuaLing Industrial Zone Shenzhen

CHINA

00-08-5C Shanghai Dare Technologies Co. Ltd.

23F, China Merchants Tower,

No. 161, East LujiaZui Road

Pudong New Area, Shanghai

CHINA

00-08-69 Command-e Technology Co., Ltd.

Suite 709, Zhongsheng Mansion,

No.2 Bei FengWo Rd .

Beijing 100038

CHINA

00-08-9E Beijing Enter-Net co.LTD

NO 1 courtyard,

shuangquanpu jia 1, chaoya

Beijing 100085

CHINA

00-08-B2 SHENZHEN COMPASS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD

4th Floor, Building 205, TaiRan Industry

& Trade Park, Futian District, Shenzhen

Shenzhen GUANGDONG 518040

CHINA

00-08-B3 Fastwel

Profsoyuznaya 108,

Moscow 117313

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

00-08-D2 ZOOM Networks Inc.

13F, XinLuDao Building, No.1175, Nanshan Ro

Shen Zhen GuangDong Province 518052

CHINA

Election workers can also use USB sticks to bring data from an infected system into the entire election management system.

This is a USB drive disguised as a necklace that a poll worker can insert into some machines to gain administrator access and run programs to sway the vote.

It has been proven that almost anyone can quickly swap out chips used in the machines by technicians, giving the remote attacker access to alter the software.

“Attackers could then mark ballots inconsistently with voters’ intent, alter recorded votes or even identify voters’ secret ballots,” Halderman said.

Halderman is an expert witness for plaintiffs in a suit filed as far back as 2017. The plaintiffs focused on outdated voting machines that Georgia used at the time. The state bought the Dominion system in 2019, and the plaintiffs contend that new system is as insecure or worse. A 25,000-word report detailing Halderman’s findings was filed under seal in federal court in Atlanta in July of 2021.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg, agreed in February 2022 that the report could be shared with CISA, if CISA worked with both Halderman and Dominion to analyze potential vulnerabilities and then help jurisdictions that use the machines to test and apply any protections.

In a statement, Dominion persisted in defending the machines as “accurate and secure” even as the first vulnerabilities in polling place equipment reported to CISA affected Dominion machines.

The affected machines are said to be used by some voters in at least 16 states, and in most of those places they are used only “for people who can’t physically fill out a paper ballot by hand” according to voting equipment tracker Verified Voting.

The CISA advisory and a separate report commissioned by Dominion recognize that “existing procedural safeguards make it extremely unlikely” that a bad actor could exploit the vulnerabilities identified by Halderman. He called Halderman’s claims “exaggerated.”

No one but Dominion had the opportunity to test their asserted fixes.

The Ocean County Board of Elections is divided between two Democrats and two Republicans by statute and was deadlocked in a 2-to-2 vote in an advisory opinion sent to the five-member, Republican County Board of Commissioners.

A Democratic candidate for county commissioner this November has appeared before the board several times questioning its continued use of Dominion. Ocean County currently uses 858 AVC Advantage machines (Dominion Voting Systems) which is up from the previous 600. The vote by mail system uses Canon DR-X10C Optical Scanners.

Despite Democratic accusations, a review of election reports filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission does not show any direct campaign contributions to Ocean County commissioners from Dominion Voting Systems.

The Ocean County committee had evaluated the merits of different early voting machines eligible for use in New Jersey.

Commissioner Ginnie Haines was appalled to think that anyone would insinuate that any member of this Board of Freeholders (Commissioners) would vote for anything based on a contribution rather than the merits of a solution. She asserted that the committee doesn’t see who has donated. I do not see those lists nor does any member of this Board of Commissioners. Gary Quinn lamented that the pay-to-play allegation had originated “with a story that was out there on social media, and it’s just kind of grown and grown and grown. And I think it’s gotten out of hand.”

Chairman Frank Holman addressed the commissioners on Wednesday saying he also resented the allegation that campaign contributions would be a factor in such a decision.

The new Dominion machines are used for early voting to produce a paper record of every voter’s ballot. Those ballots are securely warehoused by the county government after the election is over.

In New Jersey, State Law (Title 19) requires that voting equipment:

(1) may be adopted, rented, purchased or used by any county so long as that system has been thoroughly tested and is reliable; and

(2) must be certified for use by the State.

Further, the Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”) sets forth voluntary standards for voting equipment and voting procedures to be used in federal elections, for the purpose of protecting the individual right to vote and assuring the accuracy for, and confidence in, the electoral process.

The Ocean County AVC Advantage Dominion voting systems are certified by the State of New Jersey.

“I can tell you that the Dominion machines have a better audit trail,” Holman said. “There is an extra step, there is a bit of an inconvenience for the voter. But the voter gets to take a paper ballot that he imprinted and walk it over to storage. And it goes into a bin that gets recorded.”

The ES&S machines do not have a simple paper trail that the Republican-led County government has decided is necessary to protect the integrity of future elections and the confidence of voters that the process is legitimate, Holman said. “There’s a barcode” used to track each vote, Holman said of the ES&S machines. “So, I don’t like that. What we’ve learned here, I think, is technology isn’t always the answer. Sometimes you go back to a manual process and I think Dominion has solved that and there’s a much better audit trail.” Chairman Holman is correct in that when the envelope is returned with the ballot inside, the barcode identifies the voter. There is also a signature line. When the ballot comes in, the ballot is scanned by software, which records that the ballot has been received and then brings up a collection of signatures for that voter against which the signature on the envelope is matched. Every single signature is matched.

Ocean County Voting Machine History

Many have asked, “who makes Ocean County’s Voting Machines?” This what I was able to obtain from the Ocean County Community Information System (OCCIS):The voting machines in use in Ocean County are the Sequoia Pacific AVC Advantage machines and they are considered a DCR machine. OCCIS’ understanding is that these machines were chosen here in Ocean County, NJ because of accuracy, security, and reasonable cost.  In Ocean County NJ we have approximately 600 machines. (Their site has not been updated since 2016) At the time of purchase, they cost approximately $5,300 each. For a total cost of $4,240,000.

“We (OCCIS.com) have recorded NO problems or complaints from voters and the degree of simplicity and voter satisfaction appears to be very high.”

At the time of purchase, Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment Company was owned by publicly traded Smurfit Stone. The Jefferson Smurfit Group (JSG) (Ireland) is one of the largest European-based manufacturers of containerboard, corrugated containers, and other paper-based packaging products. In addition to wholly owned operations, the Group has interests in several associated companies, the principal of which is Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation (SSCC). (This website, as you can see by clicking on the link is of a very old design and is registered in Reykjavik, Iceland).

The company claims to span 4 continents and 30 countries (insert Red Flag here), JSG and its associates employ some 68,000 people and are significant players in Europe, Latin America and North America.” source: http://www.smurfit.ie/ .

That particular version of the company site is currently unavailable and is registered to Smurfit Kappa Group IS Nederland B.V. According to Smurfit Kappa, it has 350 production sites around the world, with locations in 23 countries in Europe and 12 countries in the Americas. They produce paper and packaging sourced from their own paper mills.

Who is Sequoia:

Sequoia’s web site is: http://www.sequoiavote.com. Clicking on the site “About Us” page reads:

“SequoiaVote.com is a casino directory that gives every user the opportunity to safely play poker, slots, sports betting, and other casino games (like voting?). Before choosing a suitable casino site or program, one can read usefull (sic) reviews and see how other users have voted for the particular program. This site does not need registration, comment, or rate applications.”

In 2009, New Jersey’s Department of the Public Advocate published a startling report detailing how the makers of voting machines had gamed the state’s patchwork electoral system for profit.

The report showed how counties across the state “engaged with a handful of powerful companies, such as Sequoia Voting Systems, in one-sided contracts that soaked taxpayers with exorbitant fees for items like long-term service and software licensing.”

The Public Advocate report claims, “There were “unconscionably” short hardware warranties and liability disclaimers that exposed counties to legal damages if machine errors fouled up elections.”

“Not much has changed,” Flavio Komuves, a former state official who helped write the report, told New Jersey Spotlight News in an interview. “Even at this point, I don’t see any wholesale movement toward a better system in the near future.”

Most New Jersey counties are still deploying the touch-screen voting machines based on 1980’s technology which is still proven to be bug-prone and open to hacking.

According to the report, an otherwise progressive New Jersey, compared to other states, is far behind the rest of the nation as far as counting votes is concerned.

Government estimates that it would take over $100 million to upgrade the 11,000 voting machines in the state. A review of state records show that it seems to be less about the cost of buying better machines than about the alleged power of voting machine makers to take advantage of the state.

In the 2009 study, for example, the Public Advocate found that “taxpayers could benefit substantially if counties negotiated collectively with machine makers, used basic standard contract terms for minimum warranties, software licenses and other items”. The report even presented a model contract and recommended that counties join together under a central purchasing office.

“We could have a uniform system of voting machine standards and contracts, and a state purchaser who gets everything cheaper,” Komuves said. “But this is New Jersey. Everything is local. You end up with a lot of expensive, no-bid contracts.”

Renée Steinhagen, a public interest lawyer who is executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group New Jersey Appleseed, claims she traces the roots of New Jersey’s voting dysfunction straight to what she said is a “self-serving” political class that buy the machines, run the elections and even design the ballots.

She goes on to say, “We’ve got a deep history in this state. Local political parties control how we vote, where we vote and who we vote for. County election officials run as political candidates. They all do what they need to do to protect narrow, parochial interests.”

Paper Ballots?

Advocating the use of new machines throughout the state using paper ballots marked directly by voters, Steinhagen argues, would bring what she says is a “scary” level of accountability that party leaders may not be ready for.

Advocates for reforming the New Jersey system claim they have gotten nowhere. Reformers say a paper ballot like that used elsewhere — with orderly rows and columns of candidates grouped together — “would open the system to newcomers unbeholden to party bosses.”

“The paper ballot helps fix all these abuses,” Steinhagen said. “The fact that we haven’t seen more paper ballots shows that local party leaders find reform scary. The voting machine makers know this.”

The voting machine makers have worked to cement their power in New Jersey. Since 2016, the two leading machine makers, Omaha-based ES&S and Dominion Voting Systems of Canada, the firm formerly known as Sequoia, have spent more than $300,000 to lobby Trenton officials and oppose voting legislation such as the New Jersey Voting Security Act, which promoted the use of paper ballots. The firms have hired some of New Jersey’s top lobby groups, including Public Strategies Impact and the 1868 Public Affairs firm, which until 2019 featured Ocean County Republican Chairman George Gilmore as a partner. Gilmore was listed as a lobbyist for Dominion from February 2016 to January 2019, according to state records.

Gilmore was convicted on federal tax evasion charges in 2019 and sentenced to a year in prison, was a close ally of former Gov. Chris Christie and known for his strong influence over Ocean County government. A special election was held and Frank B. Holman, III was elected Ocean County Republican Chairman.

Under Gilmore Ocean County used more than 850 Dominion voting machines which are among the oldest in the state. There are many other counties also use similar vintage models made by the firm. Reformers have pointed out that New Jersey has historically represented a large share of Dominion’s business, and the firm has lobbied hard to maintain its hold here.

The Lobbying and Influence of Voting Machine Companies

“The voting machine companies have a business model that depends on influencing state and local officials,” said Princeton University computer science professor Andrew Appel, a voting security expert who has studied New Jersey’s machine system for some 15 years. “They will do what they have to keep up the power they have.”

Another machine firm with a long history in New Jersey, ES&S, was fined $2.9 million in 2019 for failing to disclose lobbying activity to influence Philadelphia officials who were considering a $30 million voting machine contract with the firm. An investigation by the city controller found that ES&S had spent $400,000 to wine and dine city officials over a period of four years. Pennsylvania is now another state that is being targeted for an election audit. It is important to note that Sequoia, AVC, ES&S, Dominion and Smartmatic maintain a complex but symbiotic relationship. ES&S eventually was awarded the Philadelphia contract over the objections of watchdog groups and some city officials who said the machines were less safe than other models. Pennsylvania is currently under audit for alleged fraud in the 2020 election.

In 2019, ES&S also provided new voting machines to Union County, at a cost of more than $5 million.

“These firms have power because they are the only game in town,” said Brendan Gill, an adviser to Gov. Phil Murphy who is also a member of the Essex County freeholder board. “It’s hard to go in another direction.”

Changing NJ’s Political Culture

Three years ago, Gill led a successful effort to replace Essex County’s voting machines with the kind of inexpensive equipment that is not offered by the major machine firms. Now, Essex is the first county in the state where voters mark their choices directly on paper ballots and then scan them into simple optical scanners, which record the tallies. The system costs about one-third as much as the latest machines by the major makers that use touch screens to produce a paper record. Voting security experts say those touch-screen machines are flawed because voters often do not read the paper record — a grocery-store-like receipt of paper with small print and bar codes.

“We bit the bullet and got it done,” Gill said.

But New Jersey’s entrenched system of home political rule, Gill said, could very well stymie efforts in other counties even as the state moves into an era when voters demand more security and greater access to the ballot via changes like early in-person voting.

“In the end, the voting system here reflects the political culture of New Jersey,” Gill said. “We know how hard it is to change that.”

2004 Landmark Lawsuit

Penny Venetis, a professor and director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Rutgers Law School, has been working for almost 20 years to safeguard the New Jersey ballot and promote better voting systems.

In 2004, she filed a landmark lawsuit in Superior Court seeking to compel the state to replace machines that, even then, were widely recognized as flawed and unreliable. New York state, as far back as the late 1980s, cited safety concerns in rejecting use of the very same voting machines that still dominate in New Jersey.

But after a legal fight that lasted more than a decade, through the administrations of four governors, the effort of Venetis and a host of reformers and experts who worked with her came up short. Although the case exposed many security flaws in the state’s system, the court declined to order the state to make fundamental change.

“I thought it was going to be the easiest lawsuit I ever filed. I thought it would be over in two weeks, all the evidence, all the science, was on our side: Voting machines in New Jersey failed on every count.”

“Why do we keep resisting change in this state? I’ve been racking my brain about that for a very long time.”

2020: Another Lawsuit

A 2020 federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey’s primaries is gaining momentum and is said it could lead to embarrassing revelations about the way elections may have been manipulated in the past.

Leading election reform advocates filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the New Jersey plaintiffs’ arguments against dismissal:“Fair voter access is about more than just drop boxes and early voting hours. New Jersey’s primary ballot layout confuses voters, leading to decreased participation and keeping voters from having their voices heard,” said Jesse Burns, Executive Director for one of the groups, The League of Women Voters of New Jersey.

Julia Sass Rubin, a professor at Rutgers University who researches New Jersey’s electoral system, has found that chosen candidates in Column 1 on the ballot enjoy a near insurmountable advantage in primary elections.

Her New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) study of state elections shows that no state legislator seeking reelection has been defeated in a primary since 2009. And this NJPP 2020 Primary Results Analysis shows that not one congressional incumbent from New Jersey has lost a primary in the past half-century, even as primary challengers unseated dozens of incumbents in other states during the same time.

Sass Rubin says Democratic Party bylaws in 17 of 21 New Jersey counties don’t even mention the possibility of an open convention where primary candidates could present their credentials and make an argument for themselves.

“In most counties, the choice of who gets the line is completely up to one person, the party chair,” she said.

The result, Sass Rubin said, is a Legislature that bears little resemblance to the people it represents. Another result:  80% of political party chairs are white, and they are predominantly male, she said.

New Jersey ranked 27th among the states for the number of women in its Legislature, and numbers are decreasing.

“Despite having a sizeable minority population, New Jersey is dominated by a largely white and male political elite,” said Imani Oakley, a community organizer who works on ballot issues with citizen groups in north Jersey. “It’s time that we — the public — take back the power, and that starts with eliminating the line.”

“Change is a long haul but you can feel the energy out there,” said Sue Altman, a Camden-based activist who heads the Working Family Alliance, one of several plaintiffs in the ballot lawsuit now working through court. “There is a definite awareness that the ballot system is corrupt and can’t last.”

More than 50 grassroots reform groups, like Glen Rock After the March, Huddle by the Sea and Our Revolution Monmouth have made ending the party line their top issue. A number of candidates for state and local office have signed pledges to reform the system.

A Short History of Voting Machines

Smartmatic’s voting solution was first implemented in the August 2004 recall referendum against President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and was successful in helping Chávez secure 59% of the votes. This result was met with accusations of electoral fraud.

According to Wikipedia: “although Smartmatic has made different claims about whether they are American or Dutch, the U.S. State Department notes that the owners of the company remain hidden in a network of holding companies in the Netherlands and Barbados”. The New York Times notes that “the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less obvious and that its organization is an elaborate network of offshore companies and foreign trusts.” BBC News noted that while Smartmatic says the company was founded in the U.S. and “its roots are firmly fixed in (Venezuela), the ownership structure is opaque.”

WikiLeaks provides some more detail, “…they have a list of about 30 anonymous investors …. the silent partners are mainly upper-class Venezuelans, …. then Defense Minister Jose Vicente Rangel …. the Vice President’s daughter Gisela Rangel Avalos, Chávez’s political mentor Luis Miquelina is also a shareholder in the company ….” The true identity of most of Smartmatic’s shareholders remains a mystery.

In 1984, Sequoia Pacific System Corporation purchased the voting machine business of AVM Corporation (the former Automatic Voting Machine Corporation) and reorganized it as Sequoia Voting Systems. By the time Sequoia bought the AVM voting business, the AVM Automatic Voting Computer (AVC) was ready for market. Under Sequoia’s ownership, AVC was certified for use in several states in 1986 and 1987 including New Jersey and Ocean County. It went to market as the ‘Sequoia AVC Advantage DRE voting machine in 1990.

In late 1997, benefiting from an antitrust action by the U.S. Department of Justice, Sequoia Voting System obtained the intellectual property rights of the Optech line of ballot scanners. It proceeded to manufacture scanning voting machines and developed a touchscreen. But the product underperformed after several years of losses. In March 2005, the company was acquired by Smartmatic, which had developed a range of advanced election systems, including voting machines. Since then, Smartmatic has assigned most of its development and management teams to work on retrofitting some of Sequoia’s old-fashioned, legacy voting machines and replacing their technology with proprietary features.

In November 2007 CFIUS issued a ruling ordering Smartmatic to sell all of its shares in Sequoia Voting Systems in exchange for CFIUS dropping its investigation of Smartmatic. But what followed was far from what one might expect. Following a ruling by the CFIUS, Smartmatic was ordered to sell to Sequoia’s management team- SVS Holdings Inc, (Sequoia Holdings). However, Smartmatic still retained some financial control over several aspects of Sequoia, ownership of the intellectual property rights of some of Sequoia’s election products deployed in the U.S., and the right to negotiate for overseas business.

Sequoia Holdings orchestrated a turnaround in 2010 with the acquisition by Dominion Voting System.

Sequoia Holdings is a conglomerate of the Sequoia group of companies, Sequoia Capital, Sequoia Capital China, and particularly their founder Neil Shen. This is the alleged connection with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

He is the Vice-Chairman of the Venture Capital Committee for Asset Management Association of China. He is also a Trustee of the Asia Society. He is the founding board member and the 2016 rotating President of the Future Forum. He is also the Vice President of Beijing Private Equity Association, and the Vice Chairman of the Zhejiang Chamber of Commerce, Shanghai. Neil Shen was the top-ranked venture capitalist in China according to Forbes from 2010 to 2013. He topped the Forbes ranking of Top Venture Capitalists in China in 2014 and 2015.

In September 2015, Neil Shen was received by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the China – U.S. Internet Industry Forum in Seattle, Washington, USA. In 2016, the New York Times reported that Neil Shen was ranked at #9 on the CB Insights listing of the world’s top venture capitalists. Is Neil Shen the key connection between the CCP, Sequoia, and Dominion Voting Systems and their work in the US elections?

Dominion Voting Systems was founded in 2002 in Toronto. It sells electronic voting hardware and software in the United States and Canada. Key individuals at Dominion are associated with the Carlyle Group, a U.S. multinational private equity, alternative asset management and financial services firm with more than $203 billion in assets under management and the subject of many Deep State conspiracy theories.

In April 2003, Carlyle Capital was allegedly managed by a team of former U.S. government personnel, including president Frank Carlucci (former Deputy Director of the CIA), former Secretary of Defense James Baker III (who served on George W. Bush’s Board of Governors), and James Baker III (who served on the Board of Directors of the National Security Agency).

It appears that the financial assets of the Saudi bin Laden Corporation (SBC) were also managed by the Carlyle Group before the 9/11 attack in New York. Many influential individuals have either worked for or invested in the group, including John Major, former UK Prime Minister; Fidel Ramos, former Philippines President; Park Tae Joon, former South Korean Prime Minister; Saudi Prince Al-Walid; Colin Powell, former Secretary of State; James Baker III, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Defense Secretary; Richard Darman, former White House Budget Director; the billionaire George Soros; bin Laden family members; Alice Albright, daughter of Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Arthur Lewitt, former SEC head; and William Kennard, former head of the FCC.

In May 2010, Dominion acquired Premier Election Solutions from Election System & Software (ES&S); and in June 2010, acquired Sequoia Holdings, which at the time had multiple voting systems controlled by Smartmatic in 16 states and 300 jurisdictions of the U.S. Following the 2020 Presidential Election there is great interest in who created and developed the software used in the voting machines sold by the merged Dominion/Sequoia entity and who currently has custody and controls the software code.

New Jersey Recent Criminal Convictions

New Jersey 2020 : May 2020 – Third Ward Paterson City, Judicial Finding: Fraudulent Use of Absentee Ballots

New Jersey 2020: William Rojas, Criminal Conviction: Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

New Jersey 2019: Matthew Calicchio, Criminal Conviction: Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

New Jersey 2019: Dio Braxton, Criminal Conviction: Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

New Jersey 2019: Frank Raia, Criminal Conviction: Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

New Jersey 2018: Lizaida Camis, Criminal Conviction: Buying Votes, Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions, statements, organizations and/or their publications, including reports, correspondence, findings and related materials available in print or otherwise are representative only of those entities that are presented in this article and are not to be assumed or construed as belonging to the writer, editor or publisher except where indicated. All information in this article is available to the public independently of this article. References and links are provided.