from GNews Canada:
In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, with public opinion, on election day November 3rd, overwhelmingly in favor of President Trump, the preliminary results from the mainstream media on the morning of November 4th showed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden winning the Presidential contest over President Trump. While Biden’s team was celebrating, evidence of ballot fraud was emerging. The Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) ballot-counting system used in 28 states during the election contained Chinese-made hardware components as well as the Smartmatic ballot software. Voter data was illegally transmitted to foreign countries and this led to the seizure of a server by the U.S. military at the offices of Scytl in Frankfurt, Germany. Public discontent reached a climax and finally erupted on November 14 in Washington, D.C., when the Washington D.C. Voters’ Association held a rally. Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to demand electoral transparency, and to support Trump’s re-election.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
The use of high-tech voting systems to process voting results in the U.S. is not new. The DVS machines use software from Smartmatic which describes itself as the global leader in secure, accessible, transparent election technology. Once one of the top-ranked voting systems in the U.S., Smartmatic has a complex background and continues to generate controversy. In the 2020 U.S. election it has been exposed as a real threat to U.S. national security.
Smartmatic Voting Systems in Venezuela
Founded in Venezuela in 1997 by a team of three engineers – Antonio Mugica, Alfredo José Anzola, and Roger Piñate, Smartmatic specializes in the design and end-to-end deployment of technology solutions for specific applications. The company’s niches are: electronic voting systems, smart city solutions (including public safety and public transportation), identity management systems for civil registration, and authentication products for government applications.
The company’s first U.S. entity was incorporated in Delaware in April 2000 and opened its headquarters in Boca Raton, Florida with seven employees in November of that year. The 2000 U.S. presidential election was marred by “hanging and dimpled chads” on the Florida ballot cards. After controversy erupted over the mis-counting of ballots, Smartmatic began to target the development of election voting systems.
In April 2003 in Caracas, Venezuela, Smartmatic officially unveiled its prototype for election automation. The testing of the prototype covered all the details of the process necessary for any type of election. During the tests, emphasis was placed on the system’s encryption capabilities, which are essential for the confidential storage and transmission of data, as well as the robustness of the software and hardware system’s components. The system passed all tests with no shortcomings, said a company spokesperson.
The voting system was developed entirely in-house by Smartmatic. That includes the integration of hardware and software systems from design stage to end-to-end deployment. Such a complex, purpose-built technical solution would require a strong, system-wide R&D capability that would not have been possible in Venezuela without massive technical and financial support. Although Smartmatric established a U.S. presence in 2000, almost all of its products were developed in Venezuela, a country where capital is scarce and scientific research and manufacturing are not sophisticated.
Key conclusion/question #1: where did the financing and R&D knowledge come from?
Smartmatric’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. At the time questions were only raised about the election process and patterns. Nobody focused on the Smartmatic voting system. The good people of Venezuela had no idea that an invisible hand was manipulating the referendum.
Smartmatic first established a presence in the United States in 2000 in Boca Raton, Florida, then moved its headquarters to Amsterdam, the Netherlands in 2004, and opened a new headquarters in London in 2012.
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.” Smartmatic maintains that holding companies in multiple countries are used for “tax efficiency.”
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.
Key conclusion/question #2: who are the true owners of Smartmatic and where is the company resident for tax purposes?
Sequoia Voting Systems of the United States
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, and 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 touch-screen. But the product underperformed after several years of losses. In March 2005, the company was acquired by Smartmatric, 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, resulting in new high-tech products. As a result, Sequoia sold many next-generation election products and experienced a healthy financial recovery in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. However, in the 2006 presidential election, Sequoia’s voting system was called into question.
1.Cook County, Illinois is the second most populous county in the United States. It had many problems using the Sequoia Voting System. Problems were suspected to be related to a software error of the voting system.
2.Florida replaced the punch card voting system with a touchscreen system after the 2000 election problems, but the touchscreen system purchased from Sequoia had some major problems.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) opened an investigation into Sequoia only after Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who chairs the subcommittee overseeing CFIUS and who co‐authored the Foreign Investment and National Security Act 2007 (FINSA), wrote a letter to then‐Treasury Secretary John Snow inquiring whether the Venezuelan government could use Sequoia to manipulate U.S. elections. Maloney cited the fact that the Venezuelan state had invested in Smartmatic’s affiliates, the company’s current ownership was buried in a labyrinth of offshore trusts, and revelations that Sequoia had flown 15 Venezuelan nationals to Chicago to tabulate votes in a local election. “There clearly remained doubt surrounding this company, and as long as those doubts lingered, many people would have legitimate questions about the integrity of these voting machines,” said Maloney. “When I first raised this case with Treasury, I thought that it was ripe for a CFIUS investigation, because the integrity of our voting machines is vital to national security. At that time, Smartmatic flatly refused to undergo a CFIUS review. But now it seems the company could not overcome the cloud of doubt surrounding this doubt – had they been able to, we would not be talking about a sale of Sequoia today. As I said in May, it seems that a CFIUS review was in fact the proper course.”