Is There a Georgia Election Fraud Connection?
No investigation into election integrity and legalities in Arizona would be complete without taking a serious look into the ballot printing.
Arizona’s Attorney General, Mark Brnovich, requested more information from the Arizona Senate following the release of the report from the forensic audit in Maricopa County last week.
On Monday, Brnovich’s Election Integrity Unit sent a letter regarding the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County.
“The Arizona Senate’s report that was released on Friday raises some serious questions regarding the 2020 election,” Brnovich said. “Arizonans can be assured our office will conduct a thorough review of the information we receive.”
Maricopa County officials in Arizona failed to cooperate on crucial matters in the recent forensic election audit. Evidence was obviously removed or destroyed even prior to their subpoena.
According to “official” results, Joe Biden won over President Donald Trump statewide by only 10,457 votes.
However, the audit revealed serious questions on at least 57,722 ballots, more than five times that number.
🔹Tens of thousands of people voted from a prior address, which would technically invalidate the votes if the election law is enforced.
🔹10,342 voters potentially voted in more than one county.
🔹Over 9,000 more ballots were returned by voters than were sent out.
🔹In over 3,000 instances, the official results do “not match who voted.”
🔹There were 2,592 more duplicates than original ballots.
🔹There were 2,382 in person voters who had moved out of Maricopa County 29 days prior to the election.
🔹2,081 voters had moved out of state during the 29 days preceding the election.
🔹Hundreds of votes were cast by people who were not part of the official precinct register, or returned by mail from people who had not been sent ballots.
The ballots in Maricopa County were printed by Runbeck Election Services in Phoenix, Arizona, but many questions remain about these particular ballots.
Who filed a U.S. Patent Application for a computer system for “on-screen ballot duplication” to be used for “generating a revised ballot”?
According to application # 20190311030, Kevin Runbeck did:
Kevin Runbeck is Chairman and owner of Runbeck Election Services.
Stunningly, government records indicate Brian Runbeck, who worked for the ballot printing company, was a prolific monetary contributor (over 50 times in 2020) to Act Blue, Biden for President and the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Rey Valenzuela, Maricopa County elections director has a curious relationship to Kevin Runbeck, owner of the printing company. Even other
(Note: The reference by Valenzuela has been taken down from the Runbeck website.)
When Rudy Giuliani and Arizona state legislatures held public hearings regarding the Maricopa County election fraud of November 2020, among the most compelling sworn testimonies came from elections witness Jan Bryant.
Her testimony coincided with others and may explain Arizona audit director Ken Bennett’s later revelation that Dominion Voting Systems had refused to comply with a subpoena to turn over passwords to its Maricopa County voting machines.
During the hearing on November 30, 2020, Bryant testified under oath that not even county IT staff were allowed access to the machines.
Bryant witnessed Dominion employees with a laptop computer in the counting room during the six days she worked at the Maricopa County Election Center.
During questioning by Republican state Rep. Mark Finchem, Bryant said there were daily election ballot deliveries to the center by Runbeck Election Services. According to witness testimony, these deliveries happened from Nov. 3 to at least Nov. 10.
Repeated explanations by supervisors at that time was that “Runbeck has high speed scanners,” Bryant said. She was told the ballots were scanned offsite by Runbeck and then delivered to the Maricopa County Election Center.
Transcript Quotes from Bryant’s testimony:
Jan Bryant: …ten days before they quit tabulating they thought they were done. And then more truck loads of ballots would come in. And I’m like, how can you not know how many ballots are still out there.
State House Rep. David L. Cook: Mr. Chairman I’m sorry. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT. They thought they were done, and then there was WHAT?
Jan Bryant: They thought they were done multiple times. Multiple times the people that were running the rooms thought they were done (counting ballots), or almost done. Or were gonna be done Wednesday morning (Nov. 4th), then Thursday morning (Nov. 5th), then Friday morning. Then it went on the whole next week. And I’m like, I asked the question, You don’t know how many ballots are still left to come in? I don’t know who does, again…process…project management, but zero.
State House Rep. Mark Finchem: On that point Ma’am, I’m tracking with you but, what day did the truck show up?
Jan Bryant: Every day, yeah, every day.
Mark Finchem: OK. Just a minute. I want to make sure we capture this properly. So there were trucks that showed up on the 3rd, and then the 4th, and then the 5th, and how long did that go on. How many days?
Jan Bryant: I wasn’t there the whole last week. My last day was the 10th and they were still coming in. They were coming from a company called Runbeck, that does the high speed scanning and printing of duplications, and I think the military ballots. And now I’m getting out of my comfort level here talking about this. I don’t know what they are doing but those ballots are coming in from a high speed scanning company called Runbeck that…. apparently you haven’t heard of Runbeck.
Mark Finchem: No, I’ve heard of Runbeck Ma’am. What I’m trying to figure out is whether they printed them or if they scanned them. And if they scanned them offsite, to what purpose?
Jan Bryant: I can’t tell you.
Mark Finchem: Wasn’t that your job to scan them? I mean, not your job, but the (MCTEC).
Jan Bryant: No, all the high speed scanning happens at Runbeck. So, those ballots go to Runbeck. As far as I know there were no observers there. I don’t know. I never got called to work at Runbeck. That’s all I can tell you.
Mark Finchem: No that’s fine. Your observation is useful here. What you’re telling me is the scanning wasn’t actually done on site at a Maricopa County structure. It was done someplace else.
Jan Bryant: Where they have very high speed scanners.
Mark Finchem: Right now I really don’t care what the speed is. I want to know were they Dominion scanners?
Jan Bryant: No, no, I don’t think it has anything to do with Dominion.
Mark Finchem: I’m trying to understand what was the purpose of scanning them in advance of them being tabulated on the Dominion equipment.
Jan Bryant: They were duplicate, duplications. The ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines. They were ballots that came in from Military and overseas. But there were more ballots than that. So I don’t know where the rest of them were coming from. Because they kept bringing trays of them in. So I don’t know where they were coming from. That’s a question for the county employees to explain to you, where those ballots came from that whole next week. I don’t know where they came from.
Rudy Giuliani: So you were there from Nov. 3rd through the 10th. Seven days later (after election) ballots were still coming in.
Jan Bryant: Yes.
Rudy Giuliani: Were those ballots counted?
Jan Bryant: I watched them go through the tabulation machines. And I watched people working on the adjudication of those ballots.
Rudy Giuliani: And how many ballots…
Jan Bryant: Oh, I don’t know.
Rudy Giuliani: What was the largest number you saw in one day. Just a guess. How many cartons?
Jan Bryant: …there was usually 2 or 3 shifts. I wanna say one day they thought 90,000 was a good number, for a shift. And if they were running multiple shifts a day. It was somewhere between the 3rd and the 10th.
State House Rep. Bret Roberts: I am assuming these were not early ballots in any way shape or form. I’m just kind of curious, did anything stand out to you as far as these new ballots, didn’t know where they were coming from, as far as a physical appearance in any way?
Jan Bryant: No. Everything… they just looked like ballots. Just kept coming. They all came in the same bins.
Georgia Sworn Affidavits
Jim Suver is listed on Runbeck Election Services’ website as Vice President of Business Services.
“Jim leads Runbeck’s business development and strategic growth initiatives in all states and specific partner counties. He is also responsible for developing and maintaining strong governmental relationships. In the U.S. elections space, Jim is well-known for establishing and finding value in previously untapped markets. Jim has managed Runbeck’s expansion to 18 states and Washington DC.”
One of the expansion areas for Runbeck Services is Georgia. Of special note is their printing and involvement with the controversial Fulton County election of November 2020.
Judge Amero is a Democratic donor in Georgia, but sworn affidavits from actual election monitors compelled him to order ballot reviews.
According to RealClearInvestigations, (RCI) Fulton County poll manager Suzi Voyles testified she saw ballots marked for Joe Biden were suspiciously pristine and uniform while she was sorting through a large stack of mail-in ballots last November.
When Fulton County, Ga., poll manager Suzi Voyles sorted through a large stack of mail-in ballots last November, she noticed an alarmingly odd pattern of uniformity in the markings for Joseph R. Biden. One after another, the absentee votes contained perfectly filled-in ovals for Biden — except that each of the darkened bubbles featured an identical white void inside them in the shape of a tiny crescent, indicating they’d been marked with toner ink instead of a pen or pencil.
Adding to suspicions, she noticed that all of the ballots were printed on different stock paper than the others she handled as part of a statewide hand recount of the razor-thin Nov. 3 presidential election. And none was folded or creased, as she typically observed in mail-in ballots that had been removed from envelopes.
In short, the Biden votes looked like they’d been duplicated by a copying machine.
“All of them were strangely pristine,” said Voyles, who said she’d never seen anything like it in her 20 years monitoring elections in Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta.
More poll workers in Fulton County swore in affidavits that they also observed fake-looking ballots in stacks of absentee ballots for Biden.
Robin Hall, a certified Fulton County recount observer, also testified she witnessed a number of boxes of absentee ballots marked “100% for Biden” that appeared to be “perfectly filled out as if they were pre-printed with the presidential candidate selected.”
She stated: “They did not look like a person had filled this out at home. All of them looked alike.”
Judy Aube also worked at the World Congress Center on Nov. 14 where she observed the same thing: “suspicious batches” of mail-in ballots for Biden whose markings appeared identical, as if they had been duplicated by a machine and not filled out by a voter at home.
Barbara Hartman, another election official auditor, also doubted the authenticity of absentee ballots she handled that she said were never folded, as would normally be the case for ballots returned in an envelope by mail or dropped in a box. “The absentee ballots looked as though they had just come from a fresh stack,” she swore in her affidavit. “I could not observe any creases in the ballots and [it] did not seem like they were folded and put into envelopes or mailed out.”
Also, “The majority of the mail-in ballots that I reviewed contained suspicious black perfectly bubbled markings for Biden,” Hartman stated, adding that “they looked as if they were stamped.”
Please Support These American Owned Businesses