The point of this article is to show a County again but this time using GrokBot output. All of the below would have been possible with the old school EDA file after hours of data manipulation. With Grok Bot, it took me less than 30 minutes over the course of a week of just asking questions.

_____________________

411 Cuyahoga County Addresses Have More Than 8 Registered Voters. Here Is Where They Are.

Using Grok Bot to map every high-density address on the September 2026 voter file: shelters, nursing homes, campuses, and a handful of buildings I still can’t identify.

In my last two pieces, Using Grok Bot to Analyze Voter Registration Rolls and GrokBot: Unaffiliated Voter Registration Trends in Cuyahoga County, I worked through the county’s registration file by address type and by registration date. This time I asked a narrower question: which individual addresses in Cuyahoga County carry an unusually large number of voter registrations, and what does the party mix look like at each one?

The answer from the September 19, 2026 file: 411 addresses have more than 8 registrations, and together they hold 9,485 registrations. That is about 1.1% of the 874,607 registrations on the county file, concentrated at a tiny number of locations.

The single largest is a downtown Cleveland men’s shelter with 1,261 registrations. Most of the rest are what you would expect: shelters, nursing and senior-living campuses, college housing, and public housing. A few large ones are not yet identified, and a few have data-quality patterns worth a question to the Board of Elections. As with the earlier articles, I did the data work with Grok Bot and checked the numbers against the source files.

Methodology

Source. The Cuyahoga County voter file from the Ohio Secretary of State’s county voter file download page (SOS update dated 19-SEP-26). The file has 874,607 registration rows. This is one snapshot; the SOS posts refreshed files regularly.

Unique address. Each registration’s residential address was keyed as street address + unit/apartment (when present) + city + 5-digit ZIP, after uppercasing and collapsing extra spaces. Apartments are not collapsed: “APT 202” and “APT 203” at the same building are separate addresses.

Threshold. An address qualifies if it has strictly more than 8 registrations.

Party. Ohio voters don’t pick a party when they register. Under Ohio law, you are affiliated with a party if you voted in that party’s primary in the preceding two calendar years; otherwise you are unaffiliated. In the SOS file the party field is D, R, L (Libertarian), or blank. I code blank as U (unaffiliated). So “U” here means “no partisan primary ballot in the last two calendar years,” not a declared independent. The 9 Libertarian registrations at these addresses are counted in totals but ignored for color.

Color rule. Among R, D, and U at each address:

• Only R present: red

• Only D present: blue

• Only U present: yellow

• Two or three groups present, or a tie: purple

This is a strict rule, not a plurality rule. One Democrat at an otherwise all-unaffiliated address turns it purple.

Geocoding. Street addresses were run through the U.S. Census Bureau Geocoder, and only “Match” results were plotted. 398 of the 411 addresses matched; 13 did not. ZIP outlines on the map are Census TIGER/Line ZCTA5 boundaries for the 48 ZIP areas that appear in the results.

Findings

The key numbers

• 411 addresses with more than 8 registrations; 9,485 registrations at those addresses.

• 398 geocoded and plotted; 13 not geocoded (243 registrations). The 13 are still in every total above and in the CSV.

• 0 all-Republican (red) addresses and 0 all-Democrat (blue) addresses.

• 201 all-unaffiliated (yellow) addresses and 210 mixed or tied (purple). On the map: 195 yellow and 203 purple.

• The typical qualifying address is small: the median is 12 registrations. Only 27 addresses have more than 50, and 7 have more than 100.

Party mix is heavily unaffiliated, even by Ohio standards

At these 411 addresses, 85.2% of registrations are U (8,081), 11.6% are D (1,098), 3.1% are R (297), and 0.1% are Libertarian (9).

Countywide, the same file is 72.8% U (636,614), 18.4% D (161,338), and 8.6% R (75,517). So high-density addresses skew about 12 points more unaffiliated than the county as a whole. 372 of the 411 addresses have a U majority, and only 2 have Republicans as the largest group. That fits the kind of places these are: people in shelters, care facilities, and student housing are less likely to have voted in a recent partisan primary.

The strict color rule matters when reading the map. The #1 address is purple, not yellow, even though it is 99.4% unaffiliated, because 2 of its 1,261 registrations are R and 6 are D.

Heavy concentration at the top

• The #1 address alone holds 13.3% of all 9,485 registrations.

• The top 3 hold 1,794 registrations (18.9%).

• The top 10 hold 2,513 registrations (26.5%).

Where they are

The qualifying addresses span 44 cities and 48 ZIP codes. Cleveland has 191 of the 411 addresses (46.5%) and 5,548 of the registrations (58.5%). After Cleveland: Cleveland Heights (27 addresses), Euclid (21), University Heights (13), Beachwood (12), East Cleveland (12), and Parma (11).

The top addresses

1. Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry Men’s Shelter, 2100 Lakeside Ave, Cleveland 44114: 1,261 registrations (99.4% U, 0.5% D, 0.2% R). Registration dates on the file at this address run from 2008 to September 18, 2026.

2. Norma Herr Women’s Center (YWCA Greater Cleveland), 2227 Payne Ave, Cleveland 44114: 353 (99.2% U).

3. Salvation Army Harbor Light Complex, 1710 Prospect Ave, Cleveland 44115: 180 (100% U, the largest all-yellow address).

Beyond the shelters, the named addresses in the top 25 are mostly senior and care facilities: King David / Menorah Park campus in Beachwood (#6, 107), Broadview Multi-Care Center in Parma (#7, 104), Aristocrat Berea Healthcare and Rehabilitation (#10, 91), Merici Crossings in Pepper Pike (#19, 59), and Algart Health Care on Detroit Ave (#25, 52). These carry far more partisan mix than the shelters. At King David / Menorah Park, D and U are tied at 47.7% each.

Three entries in the top 25 are the same building: 6001 Woodland Ave, Cleveland 44104, which prior facility checks tied to CMHA King Kennedy South Family. It shows up as “STE 703” (#12, 81), no unit (#15, 62), and “APT 703” (#21, 57). That is 200 registrations, all unaffiliated, and 138 of them list a single unit number written two different ways.

Several large, nearly all-unaffiliated addresses have no name in my data yet: 3135 Lorain Ave (#4, 116, 100% U), 5310 Carnegie Ave (#5, 115, 100% U), 1829 E 55th St (#8, 93, 98.9% U), and 2710 Walton Ave (#9, 93, 98.9% U). Only 18 of the 398 plotted addresses have a facility name attached. A blank name means I haven’t confirmed what the building is, not that it isn’t a facility.

One more flag: Confirmation status

The Ohio file also carries a voter status field: ACTIVE or CONFIRMATION. Confirmation generally means the board has sent the voter a confirmation notice, for example after mail came back undeliverable. Under Ohio law (ORC 3503.19), a registrant who doesn’t respond, update, or vote over the next two federal elections is canceled.

At the 411 high-density addresses, 3,741 of 9,485 registrations (39.4%) are in Confirmation status. Countywide it is 166,767 of 874,607 (19.1%). At the top three addresses: 800 of 1,261 at 2100 Lakeside, 228 of 353 at 2227 Payne, and 91 of 180 at 1710 Prospect.

That is roughly double the county rate. It is what you’d expect at addresses with high turnover and unreliable mail delivery, and it also means a large share of these registrations are already in the state’s list-maintenance pipeline.

What this does and doesn’t tell us

What it tells us: where registrations are densest in Cuyahoga County, how few places account for a big share of them, and that those places are overwhelmingly unaffiliated and disproportionately in Confirmation status.

What it doesn’t tell us: whether any individual registration is valid or invalid. A shelter with 1,261 registrations built up since 2008 could be a mix of current residents, people who left years ago, and everything in between. The file alone can’t separate those. That takes the Board of Elections’ records.

Questions I’d put to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

1. 2100 Lakeside Ave (1,261 registrations, 800 in Confirmation): How are shelter registrations reviewed when residents move on? How many of the 800 are scheduled for cancellation, and after which election?

2. 6001 Woodland Ave: Are “STE 703” and “APT 703” the same unit? Is that a management office or mailing address being used as a residence address for 138 registrations?

3. Unnamed high-count addresses (#4 3135 Lorain, #5 5310 Carnegie, #8 1829 E 55th, #9 2710 Walton, and others): What are these buildings, and are they on the board’s list of known group residences?

4. Nursing and senior facilities: How often are facility rosters reconciled against deaths and move-outs?

5. The 13 addresses the Census geocoder couldn’t place, including three on “Private Dr” in East Cleveland 44112 (14900 with 58 registrations, 14850 with 17, and 14940 with 10): What are these locations?

6. Unit formatting: How widespread are inconsistent unit designations like STE vs. APT, and do they affect list maintenance?

If you have local knowledge of any of the unnamed addresses, send it my way and I’ll update the list.

Sources and caveats

Sources

• Ohio Secretary of State, County Voter Files download page (Cuyahoga file, SOS update 19-SEP-26): https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=VOTERFTP:HOME

• Ohio Secretary of State, party affiliation rule (press release, May 10, 2024): https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2024/2024-05-10a/

• Ohio Secretary of State, Election FAQ (party affiliation, confirmation notices): https://www.ohiosos.gov/elections/frequently-asked-questions

• Ohio Revised Code 3503.19 (confirmation notices and cancellation): https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3503.19

• U.S. Census Bureau Geocoder: https://geocoding.geo.census.gov/geocoder/

• U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefiles (ZCTA5 file tl_2024_us_zcta520): https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/tiger-line-file.html and https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2024/ZCTA520/

Caveats

• One snapshot. Everything here is from the file dated 19-SEP-26. The SOS download page already lists a newer Cuyahoga file (26-SEP-26), and counts change constantly.

• Geocode misses. 13 qualifying addresses (243 registrations) did not get a Census “Match” and are not on the map. They are in all totals and in the full CSV.

• Street-level map. The Census geocoder places streets, not units, so different units at one building share a dot.

• Literal address matching. Addresses are matched as written after basic cleanup. Spelling or format variants (STE vs. APT, abbreviations) can split one place into several keys or leave near-duplicates apart. Only 5 of the 411 qualifying keys have a unit value, so large apartment buildings that record unit numbers mostly fall below the threshold by design.

• Names. Facility names come from my earlier facility checks and appear on 18 of 398 addresses. Blank means unknown.

• Group residences are legal residences. Shelters, nursing homes, and dorms are places people live, and residents can register there. High counts at those addresses are expected; the questions above are about how those rolls are maintained.

• “U” means blank party. It reflects primary-ballot history, not a stated preference.

I used the same data set as in Part I. Voter roll snapshot of 2020 obtained in early 2021 of 10 Colorado counties.

In this analysis, I grouped the counts per PARTY on each graph then normalized it. By normalization, I mean I looked at the % voter registrations by PARTY by day, not the absolute number.

By visual inspection, it is easy to see that on or about August 1st 2020, the trends as an aggregate start to move by PARTY in a consistent direction right up until Nov 3rd.

Has the “Sold Standard” has been activated?

The DEM’s start to move downwards consistently across all counties (as a normalized data set, not the absolute number).

The REP’s start to trend upwards.

Now look at the UAF (unaffiliated). They converge towards a point.

Now let’s look at the last week between 28-OCT-2020 and 03-NOV-2020 for UAF only……

The color coded table shows the difference from the daily average. What is interesting is that on 31-Oct-2020, there is a drop in UAF registrations in Mesa and Weld County (red cells) that is balanced out by a surge in UAF in Boulder and Adams County (green cells). In Boulder County, a 13% surge in UAF registrations (normalized). In Mesa County, a 10% drop in UAF (normalized).

Seems 31-Oct-2020 is an important day….it was a SATURDAY by the way. LOL.

If you want to control an election, controlling registrations is a fundamental requirement.

We call this the “Sold Standard”.

There is a pattern in the daily peaks of D vs R vs UAF that is hard to believe is organic. I also overlaid a “WTF” zone which is the same time period for each county. Again, each county ramps up at the exact same time?

Adams County

Arapahoe County

Boulder County

Broomfield County

Denver County

Douglas County

El Paso County

Mesa County

Pueblo County

Weld County

Part 1 is here.

This is the entire state of Rhode Island for 2019.

5:1 Unaffiliated to Republican!

Now let’s compare NJ and RI.

Camden County New Jersey

Rhode Island again.

Blue States, of course.

Is this random human behavior or does this look like a process that is controlled?

This is data from 2019 Camden NJ aggregated by week.

In this county for all but 5 weeks the number of registrations never exceeded 40 for any party. The week of 10/15/19, there is huge spike in UAF and DEM that REP don’t share. Interesting.

This is the same data comparing DEM vs UAF and REP vs UAF. So in this visually, DEM and UAF appear to move in lock step.

The ratio of U, D, and R counts to one another curve fit to a 6th order polynomial.

Human behavior or controlled opposition? You decide.

This snapshot is from Nov 4th 2024 in Denver.

Here are the top 20 address in Denver by number of registrations and all of them are linked below. Now ask yourself, how are we to run a secure election with 100% verifiable chain of custody in a state that has “no-excuse” mail in ballots when all of these places are collectively receiving 4000+ ballots to mostly a transient population? This is insanity.

1. St Francis Center

2. The Gathering Place

3. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

4. Advenir Apartments

5. Haven of Hope

6. Denver Rescue Mission

7. Senior Support Services

8. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

9. Harm Reduction Action Center

10. Independence House

11. Lynx Crossing

12. WellPower

13. Salvation Army

14. Samaritan House

15. Samaritan House

16. Sheridan Health Services

17. Berkely Manor Care Center

18. Denver Rescue Mission

19. Heartbeat Denver Working Men's Program

20. The Other Side Academy

11 of the 20 are various types of social service non-residential facilities.

6 of the top 20 are homeless shelters.

The single apartment complex listed below has 106 registrations against…wait for it….the SAME apartment A503.

Of the 4,699 registrations, 2,545 resulted in Undeliverable Mail and 351 in Returned Mail.

The homeless shelters alone accounted for 1,866 Undeliverable ballots.

Gee, I hope they were handled correctly by the USPS. Gee, I hope none of the homeless people were taken advantage of and PAID to vote a certain way.

And not surprisingly, the vast majority of the registrations are either for Unaffiliated voters or DEMs. Sounds like a Democrat “honeypot” to me….

Please, grab a snapshot of the voter rolls as close to election day as possible this year!

Why care? Because it helps to prove or disprove if there were coconspirators.

Let’s focus on this picture below from the FBI which I added green lines too.

Do you see something wrong with this picture?

I guess I wasn’t the only one scratching my head.

You can watch this video by Mrgunsngear here that explains very clearly the urban lexicon that “10 pounds of shit doesn’t fit in a 5 pound bag.”

But wait there is more….I was able to locate on the exact bag used by Crooks and the dimensions here on Amazon. It is plausible at least that the gun might fit in this bag at the right angle. And now we know the exact dimensions of the backpack. It just seems an odd choice to leave the barrel hanging out of the bag or perhaps give any impression at all that there is a rifle in your backpack.

Grassley released records showing Crooks was at the Clairton Sportsmen’s Club on July 12th at 14:45. I am going to speculate that he was using the same gun at the range as was used on July 13th. This seems obvious.

We also know the FBI Director Wray said father Crooks SOLD the gun to his son. The earliest stories about how Crooks obtained his gun was that his dad gave it to him to borrow on July13th when in fact the son owned it himself.

Q1: After Crooks was done at the shooting range on the 12th, was the gun 1) taken back home or 2) stuffed into a backpack and hidden some place near/at the AGR complex in Butler PA the night of the 12th or 3) given to an accomplice that would meet up with Crooks the next day in Butler PA?

GPS data on his phone answers this question, why don’t we know?

On July 13th, the FBI reported Crooks bought ammo on his way to Butler PA. What could he have done with it? If he did not have the gun on him, he likely loaded a magazine and carried that around with him until he was reunited with his backpack. Otherwise, he could have a loaded gun in the backpack. Important distinctions to remember.

Later on July 13th, he sets off a metal detector with his range finder….not his loaded magazine in his cargo shorts but the range finder. All we know at this point is that the loaded magazine is not with him at that point in time.

Q2: Of the 50 bullets Crooks bought on July 13th, were any of those used in the assassination attempt. This is an easy question for the FBI to answer. The implications are important to answering when and how the gun was loaded.

Next we see Crooks at 14:26:00 walking around. Does he have a full magazine clip in his pocket here? Maybe, tough to say. But he certainly does not have a backpack.

Next, we have a report of Crooks at 17:45:00 sitting on a retaining wall with a phone but no backpack.

Next we have a report of Crooks at 18:02:00 from Nichol of Crooks, finally, with the BACKPACK. The WaPo article is here.

We need to know exactly where the gun was between July12th 14:45:00 and July 13th 18:02:00 a span of 27+ hours. Why? because it speaks to the question of co-conspirators.

Q3: Where did Crooks obtain the backpack in the 17 minutes between 17:45:00 and 18:02:00 on July 13th? Was it hidden in the nearby woods? Was it hidden somewhere on the grounds of AGR? Did he go back to his car?Did an accomplice give him the backpack at AGR?

Again, GPS data would likely answer many of these questions. Why are we still in the dark?

The fact that ESU personnel “lost sight” of Crooks during this critical period is not just troubling, it might lead us to deduce something.

Could he have walked back to his car to retrieve the backpack and then walked back to AGR and remain unseen? Unlikely, ESU were LOOKING for him at this point.

Could he have walked to the woods on the east side of the AGR complex to retrieve the backpack and then all the way back to the west side and remain unseen? Even more unlikely.

What about the possibility that the gun was stashed on the grounds of the AGR facility on the 12th and Crooks retrieved it on the 13th? This seems exceedingly reckless and stupid.

The gun was traceable back to his father. Crooks has no idea what the security sweep plans were of the USSS on July 13th and had no way of knowing if his hiding place, on GROUND….. would have been detected. So much for the “big plan”…. “they found the backpack with the gun and now I am going to jail because they traced it back to my dad”. Really?

Would Crooks, who was obviously not stupid, do that? Besides, where on the GROUND is a “safe” place to stash a backpack with a gun, potentially loaded, overnight (or potentially even that day only much earlier)? Remember, we have ruled out the woods and are looking at “nooks and grannies” around AGR.

The backpack was NOT stashed overnight on the roof because Nichol reported that Crooks already had it at 18:02:00, on the GROUND in the vicinity pictured above.

Oh, you say that Crooks stashed it on the roof on the 12th then went back up and retrieved it and came back down by 18:02:00? This is an absurd idea. Why would he do that?

The coconspirator idea is the easiest to rationalize of all the scenarios. Between 17:45:00 and 18:02:00, he walks over to a car (for example) and gets inside where the accomplice gives him the backpack.

This might explain why the ESU lose him for a period of time, because he is concealed in a car. Then he gets out and walks over to the picnic table when Nichol sees him.

If you have a better idea, put it in the comments.

[Conspiracy Break: Of course, the ultimate conspiracy theorist would say Nichol is LYING and he never saw Crooks with the backpack at 18:02:00 in which case all bets are off. The backpack could have been put on the roof by an accomplice or Crooks on the 12th or 13th and picked up by Crooks himself.]

Next we come to the issue of climbing onto the roof itself. The current narrative is frought with problems that I cover here. I am not going to rehash all of that. Suffice it to say, using flimsy PVC electrical conduit that is not anchored to the roof to climb up onto the roof seems to me very unlikely. See a crude sketch below to scale and tell me how this is supposed to work?

Here is my problem with this “using the AC unit to get on the roof”.

Crooks climbs with the backpack onto an AC unit, then onto the roof. At this point, he is concealed. From this point forward, he will only make himself more visible. Yet, he chooses not put together his rifle while being concealed. Why? Put yourself in his position. You about to make a mad dash across a roof on a suicide mission. Why not have your gun in hand?

If he was intent on doing damage, he had no way of knowing who would be on the roof that he might need to take out. Also, if his gun was already put together, it would have taken a bit less time to get into position. Why keep the gun in the backpack in the first place?

Did he think that the police would not shoot a kid with a backpack versus a kid with a gun in his hand running across the roof? Maybe. It just strikes me as an odd decision when seconds count and most importantly, you DO NOT know if anyone is on the roof between you and your objective.

[Conspiracy Break: Of course, if he knew that the roof was void of ESU personnel and he would have no need to use his gun as he is running across the roof, that could be an explanation.]

All of these questions are easily answerable by the authorities, but they seem to choose not to want to answer them directly.

All we want is the Truth, the WHOLE Truth and nothing but the Truth.

Was he assisted or unassisted?

First of all, I want to recognize SpaGuy for his outstanding video here. Let’s delve into it in more detail to see what are facts versus conjecture.

In the video, it is speculated that this wall that is being pointed towards is 8 or 9’ tall. This appears to be untrue. How can you tell? Using an industry standard of 8” tall per 3 courses of brick dimensions can be extrapolated.

4.5’ to the top of the AC unit in the rear that Crooks supposedly climbed on top of, with the wood on it.

7.5’ from the ground or 3’ from the top of the AC unit to the “foot hold” position.

11.5’ to the top of the cornice on the wall.

Again, these are approximations based on brick coursing. That results in this diagram and for the sake of discussion let’s assume Crooks is 6’ tall.

What can we conclude?

1. Athletic climbing of some sort was needed. This was not a walk up. Crooks needed to be strong and coordinated.

Further Questions

1. Do the climbing options from this location actually support the conclusion that Crooks, without assistance could plausibly get on the roof?

First, let’s attempt to debunk some narratives.

The fact that a piece of wood is sitting on top of an AC unit does not PROVE the FBI removed the top of this AC unit for footprint analysis.

This is not PIPE as many people have said. It is an electrical conduit/raceway and very likely made of PVC. There is exactly ONE anchor point show here into the brick wall made with a small bracket you can see clipped around the conduit. I will call this the “foot hold”.

This conduit is anchored to rubber blocks that are not themselves attached to anything. These blocks sit on the roof. Look here for details on these blocks.

The other anchor point on this electrical conduit is at the next AC unit on the roof which you can see in the video. The idea that a 6’ tall person with a backpack is going to hoist himself onto a foothold by grabbing onto this electrical conduit that is not secured on the roof is questionable, at best.

For the sake of discussion, let’s dismiss the idea that Crooks uses the electrical conduit to get on the roof. What other options does he have?

Looking back at the diagram below, he could have just grabbed the “cornice” of the roof and attempt to get a foothold. He needs to lift his foot about 3’ to do that while hanging onto the cornice.

The questions becomes, is the cornice edge strong enough to support Crooks getting a foothold and then swinging his legs over the edge and hoisting himself on the roof.

The foothold itself is not more than 1” wide if you look at the picture above. So Crooks grabs the cornice, puts the toe of his size 10-13 shoe on a 1” wide foothold which brings his waste level to the top of the cornice edge, approximately. Then Crooks swings his other leg over the edge and pushes himself up.

Look at this cornice edge.

This so called “cornice” is simply a piece of flashing with no structural integrity whatsoever that is apparent to me. Imagine grabbing that piece of flashing and trying to haul yourself up onto the roof. This seems barely plausible at best.

Much has also been made about footprints and hand prints, as if this is conclusive evidence from Crooks himself.

Maintenance workers access rooftops as part of their regular jobs. An analysis would need to be done on the actual footprints and the sole of Crooks shoe to prove anything. The same conclusion on so called fingerprints smudges on the cornice flashing. It proves nothing.

Then there is the claim that this pattern on the roofs shows where a backpack and AR15 where dropped.

The circular spots that are pointed too look to me like a roof repair where some type of mastic was poured into the roof to repair a hole. The AR15 was not even out of the backpack at this point so any marks on the roof are not going to be the result of “iron sights”.

The FBI sure could clear this up by releasing the recording of Crooks climbing up into the roof that Director Abbate claims to have that occurs at 18:08:00. But alas, that is being held back by the FBI.

I do not believe that Crooks used electrical conduit to climb about 7’ onto the roof. I am not convinced he used the roof “cornice” either and something akin to this type of athletic move.

We need to keep demanding more information to get to the truth. And if I am proven wrong, fine. I can live with the truth.

On the other hand, a YouTuber Spa Guy has him coming from the infamous white van with AZ plates parked on Lawrence Ave (red arrow).

We are also told by Spa Guy that this is Crooks walking in front of the AGR Building. No timestamp provided. The video is not clear. Confirmation of Crooks carrying a back pack here is difficult at best. Maybe so, maybe not. If I had to guess, I would say NO.

Q1: Did Crooks drive a Sonata or a van?

Q2: What is the story with the van and AZ plates?

Q3: What were his movements from either parking spot to AGR?

The most obvious conclusion is that all of this could be explained with cell phone ping data because we have pictures of him using a phone.

Q4: Why are authorities not releasing the cell phone ping data?

1627

The next definitive sighting is at 1627 as described in the Grassley documents. The odd observation here is that the text makes it sound like Crooks himself followed the cop into the parking lot and parked his car, presumably his Sonata.

The picnic table called out in the text is circled here. Note, there is no mention of a backpack. Not calling out the backpack leads you to believe he did not have it with him at 1627.

Here is a picture of the parking lot, and there are no Sonatas here.

Q5: Who “snuck in and parked by our cars” as the text above says?

Q6: Where was Crook’s back pack hidden at this point.

1706

Then his next sighting is by a rally goer skulking around AGR at 1706. Not wearing a backpack here either.

1742

“Just an FYI, we had a younger white male, long hair, lurking around the AGR building,” a local countersniper said at 5:42 p.m., according to a time-stamped transcript of encrypted radio communications obtained by The Washington Post. “He was viewed with a range finder sighting the stage. … We lost sight of him.”

1745

The first clear picture of Crooks sitting on a retaining wall directly below the snipers.

Q7: If the cop at 1627 claims that Crooks knows snipers are in the building, why would he choose to sit on a retaining wall right below where “he knows” the snipers are located?

Q8: Where is his backpack? No mention of it and it is not visible in the picture. One would think that would be noteworthy if present.

1802

In the WaPo article, this is stated.

At 6:02 p.m., the same local sniper who first radioed in the message about the range finder was on the second floor of the building owned by AGR International. From a northwest window, facing away from the rally site, he glimpsed the suspect again just as Trump was preparing to take the podium.

“All right, subject is in between the AGR building. He has a backpack,” said Sgt. Greg Nicol, a Beaver County sniper. Nicol had been assigned to look out over the rally site from a window on the opposite side of the building, but he had moved to look for the suspect, according to Young, Nicol’s commander.

At this point, Crooks is seen from the 2nd floor by a sniper and he has a backpack as stated in the WaPo article.

Q7: Where did he have his backpack stashed away? Between 1745 - 1802 did he retrieve it? Was it given to him?

1803

Again from the WaPo article.

But Nicol suggested Crooks was headed in the direction of a gas station on the other side of the building.

“He just went towards the Sheetz,” Nicol said, referring to the gas station about a quarter of a mile away.

Q8: Why did Nicol say he was headed towards Sheetz? Is this purposeful misdirection?

1804

Again from the WaPo article.

“All units be advised also that individual is headed towards Sheetz,” a sheriff’s deputy radioed to his colleagues at 6:04 p.m.

1806

Again from the WaPo article.

Video obtained by the FBI shows Crooks climbing onto the roof at 6:06 p.m., FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate said in congressional testimony this week.

By the time Crooks was on the roof, officers were still focused on finding him on the ground.

“He’s reportedly between the building up here at AGR somewhere,” a local officer on the channel for traffic control said at 6:06 p.m. “I’m guessing the west side, east side looks clear.”

Q9: Why has the FBI not released the video yet of Crooks climbing on top of the roof?

Q10: Where was that video shot from if it was from a “local business”.

This is where we need to take a diversion from the timeline and delve into some drone footage.

Going back to the Spa Guy drone footage, I am going to present some clips and contradict the narrative.

Having a piece of wood sitting there does not PROVE that the FBI confiscated it for foot prints.

The narrative would suggest Crooks grabbed these so called “pipes” and pulled himself and his back pack onto the roof. These are not “pipes”. It is electrical conduit made out of PVC and it would be very questionable that it could be used as a climbing anchor. It is way to flimsy. Look how warped it is from the sun.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that these “finger prints” are really finger prints on the siding as stated by Spa Guy. If they were, do you think maybe the FBI would also have removed them? Maybe they are the fingerprints but of the electrician who was running the conduit on the roof.

The idea that this arrow, according to Spa Guy, is pointing at a spot where his backpack was is truly absurd. If you look closely, there is another “backpack” spot but this one is darker. These look more like roof repair locations where a mastic like rubber coating was poured onto the deck.

Now we get some conjecture about “shoe prints” from Crooks. Roofs get maintenance and when the conduit was installed I am quite sure someone was making shoe prints. The point is, this is definitive proof of nothing without the shoes themselves.

Then Spa Guy tells a TALL tale, these marks indicate that the AR15 was “slid around the roof”. Really? The backpack was found near the shooter where he expired. So, if I am to believe this story, he climbed up a PVC conduit with an AR15 on this shoulder and then tossed it onto the roof and continued to carry his back? Sounds pretty unbelievable and the marks certainly are not proof of anything, except maybe an electrician doing work on the conduit.

Now, let’s take a look at where this as yet to be released video of Crooks climbing on the roof could have came from.

The red cone defines a rough approximation of line of sight to the AC unit. Looking for cameras in that area using street view, a possibility exists near the location of the star.

There is what appears to be a camera located on the car dealership and I am going to assume it is pointed at the entrance.

The angle of this camera is approximated here, again to focus on presumably the entrance.

Here is the banger part about it. When you drop a line from the camera to the entrance it seems to be directly on the line to the AC unit.

Now if you place yourself on that line above on Evans City Road, this is the street view from that exact location.

This raises many questions.

Q11: Why has the video not been released by the FBI?

Q12: With the trees fully leafed out at AGR, could this location be used to see the AC unit?

Q13: Where there any cars also blocking the view that day?

Q14: Does the car dealership security camera have the resolution density to make out details that far away?

Q15: If it can capture the AC unit, it certainly could also capture the roof to the south where the shooter ended up. Where is that video?

An alternate camera could be the M&R Equipment but the problem there is that these cameras do not appear to have full line of site to the AC unit back in the corner.

1808

Again from the WaPo article.

“Someone’s on the roof,” a local officer radioed at 6:08 p.m. “I have someone on the roof with white shorts.”

18:08:20

This is the moment when (supposedly) Crooks can be seen as having crossed over the hallway onto the first shed roof he will climb.

18:08:30

He lingers there for 11 seconds then disappears off to the left as he is climbing the shed roof.

Here is a further breakdown of the movements of Crooks.

Another conclusion that can be made after observing these Crooks movements is that the Coopenhaver video is FAKE NEWS. Please read that too.

1809

Again from the WaPo article. Crooks is confirmed as having a backpack.

At 6:09, Lenz again dialed the state trooper to inform him about the suspect on the roof, according to the law enforcement official and call logs. At the same time, a local officer said over the radio that he had a good view of the male on the roof.

At the same time, a local officer said over the radio that he had a good view of the male on the roof. “We got him,” the officer said. “We don’t have him in custody yet, but he’s right straight in front of me by the pine tree standing upwards. He had a backpack.”

1811

At 6:11 p.m., a local officer hoisted up to the roofline by a colleague reported the first sign that the man on the roof was, in fact, a deadly threat.

“He’s armed,” the officer said, according to the transcript. “I saw him, he’s laying down.”

1811:33

At 6:11:33 p.m., Crooks opened fire from a rooftop, unleashing eight bullets that left the former president wounded, one rallygoer dead and two others critically injured.

After Action Report

There are many regular citizens who have common sense questions about July 13th. We are not ballistic professionals, former or current law enforcement, just people with common sense who don’t believe the narratives pushed out by MSM and various podcasters.

Maybe someone in the government can answer these common sense questions? Josh Hawley?

Let’s start here…..is allowing a HORSE to walk by the building where ESU personnel are stationed permitted as part of a standard security protocol?

0900

1. The briefing given by the Butler County ESU apparently was not attended by the Secret Service.

   1. Why was the SS not in attendance?

   2. Should they have been in attendance and exactly who should have been there?

2. The “Bravo” team leader gives assignments.

   1. What unit is the Bravo team leader from? Butler, Washington, Beaver County? Other?

   2. How many teams are there and who leads those teams?

   3. How do all the teams report into a cetral command? I want a diagram!

   4. What specifically are the Assignments given? How many and what positions and which units in those positions? I want Assignments of ALL personnel shown on a map.

1015

1. The Beaver County ESU is “in place”.

   1. What about all the other county ESU and all the other Assignments? Butler, Washington, Sheriff, State Police, SS? Why is it that just Beaver is called out as being “in place”?

   2. Who verified all other Assignments provided where “in place”? What agency and who is that person?

1030

1. Snipers in place. Looking at the two maps below, there are a discrepancies in how the sniper locations are identified.

   1. SS Hercules 1 & 2 are consistent and video evidence shows they were on the roof.

   2. In the bottom photo Butler and BCESU are now listed as Sniper teams, but they are not stationed on the roof. They are in a second floor room, apparently. Was the original advance plan to have these sniper teams in a room or on a roof? If on a roof, which roof?

   3. Why is the red cone line of sight not including the roof where the shooter was found? Why is that red cone listed as belonging to Beaver County and not Butler County?

   4. In the bottom map, the Washington Swat is now labelled as the Washington Co Sniper team. Was the Washington Co sniper team on the roof? Did that sniper fire or put eyes on the shooter?

   5. The top map “conveniently” cuts out the position of the water tower for the “plan”. Is this intentional? Nowhere in this report does it explain why an ESU or SS person was not on the water itself or at least secure it.

1710

1. First observed suspect by ….

   1. Why is it omitted which unit observed the suspect? Butler, Beaver, Washington, etc.

   2. Were all the snipers still in there Assigned positions at 1710? This is almost 7 hours after the assignments were made. Was there a personnel change out? Were all posts staffed during this entire 7 hour period?

1714

1. Picture of suspect taken

   1. At the time the suspect’s picture was taken, he did not have his backpack, just a phone. What behavior caused the suspicion of a person with a phone?

1728

1. Picture of Bike Taken

   1. What caused the picture of the bike to be taken 14 minutes after the suspect’s picture was taken? Was the suspect observed riding the bike?

   2. Doesn’t it seem odd that the suspect’s back pack was left unattended next to a bike? Especially of that back pack had the gun?

   3. Did anyone attempt to inspect the backpack? Why just take a picture of it? If you are concerned law enforcement professional, go look inside the backpack.

1732

1. Suspect spotted looking at phone, news feeds, and range finder confirmed through monoculars

   1. At 1714, he was looking at his phone as shown above. Were ESU personnel watching him from a second floor window for 14 minutes from a second floor looking at his phone?

   2. If not, where was he observed looking at his phone and where was the person with the monocular?

1734

1. Butler County Sniper texts Butler team (assumed)

   1. What is assumed? Totally unclear what this note means.

   2. What is the purpose and the content of the text?

   3. Why is “texting” an acceptable form of communication in this situation. Was a radio not available?

1738

1. ……sends text to group text to Sniper Group about suspect

   1. Four minutes transpire between the original text and this next text. Why is that acceptable?

   2. What was said about the suspect in the text? What actions were taken?

1740

1. Response text to ….”Call into Command”.

   1. Two minutes transpire before a call into command response text is given. Why didn’t the person who received the text sent at 1738 just call into command themselves?

1741

1. Called into command by … about suspect (Butler 4 Command Frequency)

   1. The suspect was first observed at 1710. It is now 1741 and 31 minutes have elapsed. Have any ESU personnel attempted to talk with the suspect lurking around the building that are filled with ESU personnel? If not, why not?

   2. What are all the ESU personnel in Building 1 doing at this time? What are there Assignments?

1745

1. Text sent to Beaver ESU Group Command about suspect and to relay to command.

   1. The text was sent by which ESU group?

   2. What was the content of the text?

   3. Why are there multiple command groups, apparently and not a unified command?

1749

1. …communication to ….. regarding suspect and pictures

   1. What are the names of the ESU groups that are redacted?

   2. What is the content of the text messages?

1755

1. …..acknowledges receipt to …. and passing it onto command.

   1. Again, what ESU are involved in sending and receiving texts?

   2. What are the contents of the texts?

1759

1. … to … asking sent to Command and asking for direction of travel.

   1. The last sighting of the suspect was noted at 1732. It has now been 27 minutes before anyone asked which direction the suspect is going. Why did no ESU personnel speak with the suspect in these 27 minutes?

1800

1. …. to … asking for direction of travel of suspect

   1. Again, what ESU are involved in sending and receiving texts?

1805

1. Approx suspect at picnic tables and moving direction of Sheetz, he has a back pack (communicated by …) via radio

   1. What ESU reported this?

   2. What was the location of the ESU that reported this?

   3. The unattended bike and backpack were reported first at 1728 and now 37 minutes has elapsed. Did anyone check the backpack during this period?

   4. It states that the Butler sniper “stayed in place”. What place? Why is this relevant?

   5. Look at where Sheetz is in the upper right corner of the below image? Why would an ESU person give a direction as moving towards Sheetz?

   6. He now has his backpack apparently, so was the backpack found with him on the roof? If not, where was the backpack eventually found?

      

1806-1812

1. ….goes downstairs of building 1 to meet patrol to let them know suspect is around building on side of fairgrounds. 1 marked vehicle and unmarked vehicle pull in together.

   1. There is no upstairs to building 1 so how is it that someone goes downstairs in building 1?

   2. Which ESU unit goes downstairs and which ESU unit do they meet?

   3. Why do these ESU need to “meet” to communicate? Do they not have radios or phones?

   4. Did the ESU who went downstairs leave their post precisely at the time the shooter was climbing on the roof?

   5. What is the purpose of calling out that vehicles pull in together? What did the personnel in the vehicles do? Who called them in?

1812

1. Shots fired

   1. How is it known what time shots were fired but UNKNOWN what time shooter is down? Do they not know who took the final shot?

   2. Why is there not a more accurate accounting of time of events between 1806-1812 when the shots are fired? This is the MOST critical period of time.

   3. Clearly in the videos, there is much movement of police on the grounds around the building, where is ALL of this detail on the various movements of ALL ESU personnel. Everyone needs to be accounted for.

1823

1. …. and …. climb black tactical ladder to L of Building 3 door to access roof.

   1. Are we to believe that between the time people saw the shooter on the roof which was say 1810, 2 minutes before the shots that it took 23 minutes to find a “tactical” ladder to get on the roof? The shooter apparently got on the roof either with his own ladder or by jumping on top of an AC unit/shed and a tactical team could not do the same?

Some other random questions.

Who are these plain clothes guys in shorts and backwards baseball caps with guns? And who is the “camo guy” and what is he doing exactly?

Who is “Old Yeller” screaming at people to leave just minutes before any shots are fired? Did he do this on his own or did someone direct him?

This sheriff pulls up minutes before the shooting then drives away. What is he doing and why is that NOT in the After Action Report?

Who is this guy standing on the “tactical picnic table” and what did he see?

Who is this guy with a badge and what was his Assignment that day?

Am I to believe the shooter used this shed and jumped onto the roof with a rifle that he put together from pieces in his backpack, ran across the roof to his position? Is this kid a Ninja?

Or maybe he climbed up this support system that looks like a ladder directly onto the building in front of where the ESU snipers were stationed as “overwatch”?

Easy questions……

Bongino has sources today who told him the local police were responsible for the covering the roof location where the shooter was (star below). But for some unexplained reason they decided to monitor the situation from the 2nd floor through the windows (circled). I covered this building in Part I.

Let me get this straight keystone cops…

1. You are looking out those windows and DON’T see someone on the roof?

2. The windows open, they are casement windows, and they DON’T shoot the guy?

3. There is even a door on the second floor to the ROOF (shown below 2nd pic), and they don’t step outside and take him out?

BULLSHIT all over the place here. Who is lying this time?

Today “News 11” published a story here. Watch the video of the “news reporter”.

“News 11” still can’t locate the shooter correctly on the graphic below and they are still calling him “suspected”.

See the blue oval? Bongino said the key stone cops were on the second floor which means the left side of that blue oval. Clearly, they had line of site to where the shooter actually was or the ability to walk out a door.

Also notice above, “News 11” also misplaces where the stage was. It was way…..forward of that location. Need proof? Look at this below.

The image on the right is how the stage was setup. I added a red line for reference which is the width of the road, currently under a long white tent. To get to the podium is about 5 road widths. Now look at the image above and also, another image below on the left which has the same scaled reference.

Why does the “news” media keep misrepresenting where the stage/podium was?

Could it be because the person who decided WHERE the podium was going to be is a TRAITOR?

At least “News 11” confirms that the USSS is lying AGAIN when they say the roof was unsafe. I don’t see anyone tied-off and anchored per OSHA regulations here.

“News 11” put out this shot of the shooter’s bike and backpack. So, I guess he drove to the event in his car with his ladder and bike and backpack and rifle and parked. Then road his bike with the backpack and ladder and rifle slung over his shoulder?

“News 11”, how does any of that make sense?

Maybe “News 11” should have loaned the USSS their drone…DRONE 11.

To prove that the keystone cops were on the 2nd floor instead of outside on the roof, here is the picture they took of him. Post here.

Note the actual location of blood stained roof, the ladder hidden behind the trees and the roof access door.

Note the tree in front of the blood stain on the roof that is partially blocking the view to the snipers. The windows circled here are casement windows that open. Pictures of that below.

Note the LIARS at ABC news who mis-locate the shooter and the height of the building in the back with casement windows. Outright LIE.

Note the liars at ABC news placing the shooter, again, in the wrong location on the roof no longer behind a tree.

The actual location.

Note the difference between the liars at ABC news location and the actual location partially behind a tree.

Note that the shooter could have even climbed up a ladder from between the buildings and been undetected. Did he?

More lying from the news on the actual location of the shooter. Note the location of the snipers blocked by the tree of the line of sight to the shooter’s actual location.

Is the shooter actually able to see over the top ridge line of the roof here? Look at the slope of the roof versus the the rifle.

All these windows open. was there a second shooter involved?

Was the roof access to this building controlled?

From Google Earth….line of sight. Conveniently located behind a tree. What an outstanding choice for a novice.

Yea, we have questions….

https://www.bitchute.com/video/loYFWoqYEvI6

WASTE

You likely live in a state that has universal mail in voting. Obviously, there is a cost to print the ballot, print the envelope, stuff the envelope, and mail it out. This is probably done by a third party, like Runbeck Election Services.

Now let’s consider the case of an entry in a voter roll of “Undeliverable Ballot” (or similiar designation) associated with a voter ID.

How does a voter attain this status?

It is very likely in your state that the ballot has to be sent out and returned by the USPS as “Undeliverable” in order for that voter’s registration to attain this status.

So now we have two other costs: returned mail and processing of inbound returned mail.

The formula for total cost of an undeliverable ballot then becomes:

print cost for ballot and envelope + outbound processing + outbound postage + inbound postage + inbound processing.

I have looked at cost estimates from the republican party of my own county and also talked with several other researchers. A fair estimate for each ballot of this total cost might be ~ $5/ballot give or take. It varies by location of course.

Let me ask this question. Would it not be easier to verify the address as being legitimate BEFORE you print out the ballot and all the rest of it? Is that even possible?

Let’s say it was possible, what is the WASTE savings?

In Denver there are ~ 540,000 people registered. Of those, ~ 77,000 are classified as “Undeliverable” or “Returned Mail”. Imagine, 14% of Denver registrants! Do the math. 77,000 x 5 = $385,000 per election cycle? Maybe not exact, but it is not a trivial amount of waste.

Fortunately, there is a system called CASS owned by the USPS that can validate address.

Is your county IGNORING the ability to use CASS to validate the address on the voter roll? Try and find out, it is not easy.

Let’s extend the math a bit more assuming 40% mail in ballots for the 2024 general this year. Assuming there are ~ 161 million voters and for the sake of discussion 10% bounce back as Undeliverable, that is 6.4 million x $5/ballot = $32,000,000 in WASTE!

Hell, at $2000/month, this enough for about 2,600 illegal alien family apartments for 6 months while they find jobs to replace you! Let’s put that waste to good use Comrades.

FRAUD

Once you understand the waste, it is easy to understand the potential fraud.

Using 6.4 million, for the sake of discussion, these are the ones that bounce back, they are not voted, right? So how many “Undeliverable” do you think are sent out and harvested and voted fraudulently meaning they did NOT bounce back? Tough to say right? It is certainly not 0. If they can send out 6.4 million ballots with bad address, it would not be unreasonable to assume millions more are harvested at bad address?

A colleague made the “hypothetical” point to me that even though the COUNTY may not be using CASS, the third party processor might be. So now, the third party processor knows which ballots are going to BOUNCE and could be harvested, right? That would be a very valuable data set to own, just sayin…..

ABUSE

Who is being abused?

• The person who’s name is being put on a ballot that is harvested and voted by someone else because our marxist overlords can’t check the address before they print and send out the ballot.

• Every person whose vote is negated by a fraudulent harvested mail in ballot.

Conclusion

Every county should run every address being used to mail out ballots through CASS before it is printed and mailed out. If it does not validate against CASS, purge it or inactivate it the record. Don’t send that address a ballot.

Better yet, vote in person only and close down this Waste, Fraud and Abuse!

What a concept!

References

Jurski’s Journal

Refer to Denver Voter Rolls = TRASH to understand how this table below was put together and what it means.

In Part I, we covered probable illegal aliens of middle eastern origin stacked in a single Apartment, drug addicts stacked in a Halfway House and ex-cons stacked in a Vocational School.

In Part II we are going to focus on Social Service Centers, a favorite of our marxist overlords.

Example 1

The Urban Peak Drop In Center at 2100 Stout St had a 57% increase in registrations from 2022 to 2024 up to a total of 152 registrants today. 104 (68%) of these registrants currently have a status of Undeliverable Ballot. Exactly 9 of the 152 are registered as Republicans and only 4 of those have an Active voter registration.

Ya think this is a Democrat honeypot?

How nice, this is a YOUTH drop in center you say?

The problem is the age distribution for the registrants looks like this….

Youth = Not An Adult

Not An Adult < 18 Years Old

Woops….uhm, what age can people vote?

Birth Year 1958 means the person is 67 years old….and so on.

In fact, there are only 3 people who are 18 years old registered at this address, one was register in April 24, one in May 24 and one in June 24…almost like it is algorithm generating these records?

Example 2

The Samaritan House (or is it a warehouse?) is for women 18 years and older. So, why are there 9 males and 5 “Others” registered at this location? Only 6 Republicans and 50 out of the 85 registrants were either Undeliverable Ballot Returned Mail or Failed to Vote.

6 of these registrants at the Samaritan House have a mailing address at a different Social Services facility at 2323 Curtis St which is the St Francis Center for Homeless pictured below. All but one of these 6 have a status of Undeliverable Ballot or Returned Mail. What a surprise.

Example 3

At 4280 N Kearney St we have GeoReentry Services which had a 100% increase in new registrants from 2022 to 2024 up to 14. This is a residential re-entry center, apparently for women because all 14 registrants are Female only 2 of which are Republican.

What happened to the 5 Undeliverable Ballots and 1 who failed to vote from this address? Remember, every fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate lawful American vote.

Example 4

There are a variety of Social Services located at this address listed below.

Look, SOME people need these services and if we stop sending money to Ukraine, maybe we would have more money to pay for it.

The problem is, how can mail in ballot chain of custody be maintained when using an address like this? It can’t and that is the point.

There are a total of 32 registrants here with 13 having a status of Undeliverable Ballot or Failed To Vote. That is 40%, at least, TRASH registrations. And of course, only 3 of these registrations are Republican…

Offended yet?

If not, there is Part III…..

The hypothesis has been made that illegals are being packed on the rolls. Of course, there is no checkbox on the voter roll which says “I am an illegal alien”. So as a data analyst, you try and look for patterns or a “tell” in the data that MIGHT indicate a good place to challenge a registrant.

But how to spot potential illegals….or perhaps prove that there are none?

I obtained a copy of the voter rolls of Denver CO in June 2022 and June 2024. The concept was to look at NEW registrations that had occurred in the prior two years ONLY.

Data Set 1 from June 2022 Snap = June 2019 - June 2022 Registrations

Data Set 2 from June 2024 Snap = June 2022 - June 2024 Registrations

From there, I looked at the top address counts where NEW registrations are occurring in 2024. So for example, are illegals REALLY being stacked in Hotels or Apartments in the 2024 roll?

From there, I looked at the difference between what the count of NEW registrations at these top address were between the two year periods in 2022 and 2024.

Finally, I looked at cases where there was at least a 50% increase in new registrants AND where that yielded MORE than 10 new registrations.

The whole purpose was to see if in fact there are address in 2024 were NEW stacking is occurring of NEW registrants.

Got all that? If not, fine. Basically it resulted in the list of data below. Is this a good place to start looking for challenges?

The meaning of the columns:

• Address

• 2024 - New registration at this address between June 2022 - June 2024

• 2022 - New registration at this address between June 2019 - June 2022

• Difference - 2024 minus 2022

• % Difference - Difference / 2024

• Total 2024 - ALL registrations listed on the June 2024 version of the roll, not just new ones

• Type

• Name

Example 1

For example, 1090 S Parker Rd #A503 is an apartment that was not “registering” new people between 2019-2022 but then all of a sudden, 101 people are registered at this address between 2022-2024. Don’t believe me? Here is a snippet.

Look at the last names…..hmmm. That sure is a coincidence that a bunch of folks with middle eastern looking last names are all registered at the same apartment, not the same apartment complex…..the same UNIT. This address had 99% Undeliverable Ballots and the remaining 1% was Returned Mail!

This allegedly is a picture of a social event at Advenir Apartments.

Example 2

Let’s look at 1178 N Mariposa St where our marxist overlords have decided that registering people to vote at a Halfway House/Rehab facility called Tribe Recovery House is a good idea. Of the 41 people listed on the roll, 25 of them (60%) have a status of Undeliverable Ballot. What happened to the chain of custody of those mail in ballots anyway? I am sure it is fine, looks like a nice neighborhood.

Example 3

Finally let’s look at 1859 N York St which is a Vocational School called The Other Side Academy. Most of these folks were incarcerated according to the web site and are learning a new trade. Great idea, but do they all LIVE there too?

I have some challenges to put together Jena Griswold….

Can states be sued by citizens to enforce what I will call “one day voting” for federal elections based on this USSC precedent?

The manner….and more importantly, THE TIME of the election……which is the ELECTION DATE.

Post your comments below, please.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/67/