Declaration of Edward Solomon.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1746, I, Edward Solomon, make the following declaration.

1. I am over the age of 21 years, and I am under no legal disability, which would prevent me from giving this
declaration.
2. I am a numbers specialist with a specific area of research of elementary number theory and counting arguments.
I have devoted my life to the study of numbers, fractions and ratios, and have written academic materials on the
subject.
3. Whereas the Dominion, ES&S and related voting systems that were used in the 2020 USA presidential election
are designed to tabulate and report the information digitally, and whereas voting data was reported on a precinct
level as released by central tabulation and Edison Research through the New York Times data feed. The data
concerning Allegheny, Chester, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties, come only from Dominion or ES&S.
No other counties were used in this study.
4. I performed an analysis of the ratios of Trump to Total votes as reported on a precinct level to detect if there
were impossibly improbable ratios of votes reported in the data.
5. So, if Trump received exactly 47 votes and Biden received 247, that would represent a ratio. This kind of ratio
occurring once or even twice would not raise suspicion. However, were the ratio to occur in multiple precincts
simultaneously or within one timestamp of each other and then transfer to other precincts, that would make the
occurrence highly improbable. Were this to continue to occur over the course of the election day and on into
subsequent days, the likelihood of natural occurrence becomes statistically impossible. The repetition of these
ratio would demonstrate clear manipulation of the votes through software.
6. This analysis required setting up a Boolean logic board to only identify the most suspicious transfers of ratios of
votes between precincts, and the probability model is a geometric proof concerning the distribution of
irreducible fractions in a square.
7. Each report of votes from a precinct contains a “timestamp”.
8. In the State of Georgia, it was sufficient to set the Logic Board in a manner that identified a transfer of ratios
between two distinct sets of precincts by simply flagging the occurrences where the first distinct of precincts
would stop reporting their ratio on particular a timestamp, a new set of precincts would then start reporting that
ratio on the same timestamp; however, in the counties of Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester and Allegheny,
the severity and extent of fraud could not be solved with such a simple test (as in Atlanta ,Georgia), it was
readily apparent that thousands of ratios transfers in these Pennsylvania counties were not being identified with
the same logic.
In Atlanta, there was never an instance where three or more precincts reported the same ratio
simultaneously, nor was there ever an instance where five or more precincts were holding the ratio at the same
time; yet, in these Pennsylvanian counties, there multiple instances of twenty or more precincts reporting the
same ratio at the same time (with maximum of 26). It was further noticed through the “Stasis Columns,” (which
will be explained later in the detailed report below), that many precincts were being seized by this algorithm
 after the prior set of precincts reported their ratios and were subsequently released from the grasp of the
algorithm. In most instances however, the new set of precincts was seized at the same time that the prior set of
precincts reported the ratio in question.

Because of this, it was imperative to design a far stronger logic, which compared the timestamp of the
seized precincts that was prior to the timestamp of their seizure against the report time of the previous set of
precincts. This comparison is titled “The Last Potential Free State” of the seized precincts against the “Current
State,” of the previous set of precincts that held the ratio in question.

The result of this logic demonstrated that first batch of 1,260,829 votes, containing 338,543 Trump votes,
from the seized precincts, came in at 26.85% Trump; yet, after these precincts had released from the grasp of the
algorithm, the final aggregate was 1,598,210 votes total, containing 462,487 votes for Trump, which is at 28.93%.

When seized aggregate is subtracted from the grand aggregate, we see a very stark contrast: That the
337,381 votes that followed after the seized states, contains 123,944 Trump votes, which 36.73%; this is nearly a
10% difference, and if we apply 36.73% against the grand aggregate of 1,598,210 votes, it would have yielded
587,136 Trump votes, which is a difference of 124,649 votes, that I claim hereby claim, were stolen from President
Donald J. Trump, in these four counties alone of Allegheny, Chester, Montgomery and Philadelphia.

9. Furthermore, I do not claim, but I do suspect, based on “Second Tensor Analysis,” (explained in the detailed
report below), that the entirety of the State of Pennsylvania was seized by this algorithm, since the Second
Tensor contained a “Wheel Number,” which is the solution to inverse floor function to over 3600 data points;
however, I do not have sufficient data for all the counties in Pennsylvania to investigate this
suspicion...although le it be noted that the Republican counties of Greene, Cambria and Washington, showed
suspicious activity of ratio transfers in a prior investigation.
10. The following diagram illustrates the effect of when the software overrides or seizes specific precincts and
applies a specific ratio of votes to them, and then moves onto the next set precincts:
11. The reason for which this algorithm seized the Trump to Total ratio, instead of the Biden to
Total Ratio, is quite simple. Let us rephrase as the “Intended Loser to Total Ratio,” vs. “The
Intended Winner to Total Ratio.”
 When the “Intended Loser’s” total is set to an exact number, and the “Intended Winner’s”
total is set to a minimum, then both values, the Exact and Minimum, can be scaled down
proportionally, so that a remainder can be split between the Third Party Candidates and the
Intended Winner, such that greater variance can be injected into the reported totals for the Intended
Winner and the Third Party.

However, if the algorithm instead attempted to set an exact number for the Intended
Winner, then it would have to place both a Minimum and a Maximum on the Intended Loser, such
that when the remainder is split between the Third Party Candidates and the Intended Loser, there
is very little variance that would be allowed, since such a split would be tightly confined to within a
region of competing minimums and maximums for the Intended Loser, which would result in very
little variance, would appear as if all the reported totals for each candidate were all uniform, and
would be too easy to identify as fraudulent activity.

12.
12. To prove the effectiveness and validity of my methodology in detecting these transfers, I also created a
simulation which reproduced these transfers and clearly demonstrated how these computer controlled ratio
transfers allow fixing an election to provide the desired election result, while leaving the exact same “ratio
footprints” in the data as I found in the spreadsheet data.
Live Simulation, Fraction Magic: Integer Ratio Transfers via Virtual Precinct hijacking. - YouTube
13. I have also produced multiple videos demonstrating exactly how this analysis can be performed, with each step
enumerated from and directly tied to the original raw data.
14. This entire investigation was live streamed on Youtube over the course of several days, from start to finish.
15. In my opinion, this also explains why Jo Jorgenson got so many votes in every precinct (I'm a Libertarian and I
know very few libertarians who voted for Jo this year, due to the importance of this monumental election).
16. In conclusion, this research shows multiple repeating patterns of ratios which have a cumulative probability of
naturally occurring which is significantly less than the grains of sand or the stars in the known universe.
However, the efficacy of this technique when programmed via computer can be demonstrated to effectively
sway the outcome of elections.
17. This affidavit presents unambiguous proof (sic. not evidence, proof) that Dominion and Related Voter Systems
were accessed or otherwise used fraudulently to transfer votes according to specific ratios of Trump’s Total to
Grand Total per precinct. Unless this kind of activity is completely prohibited within voting machines and
software in the future, there can be no mathematical certainty that the numbers of votes reported for each
candidate match the number of votes placed for each candidate.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed
this December 12th, 2020.

SIGNATURE OF EDWARD SOLOMON

_________________________________________
 Detailed Report of the First Tensor
The initial database from which all of this research hitherto was derived originates from the New York
Times and SCYTL timeline reports of each voting precinct in the counties of Alleghany, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery and Philadelphia.

A deliberate decision to remove Delaware County was made, since Delaware County uses the Hart voting
software. Here are the following links from my Google Drive account containing these files:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15TYAR4dQf2Ch8KB0mj8xGQ8uIheTM_hD?usp=sharing

Creation of the Fathersheet

All of the data first had to be compiled into a spreadsheet in a uniform format for all of the counties that
were included in the investigation. The format included the following, for each precinct:

Date, Time, Time in Seconds, County, Precinct, Grand Total, Biden Total, Trump Total and the Trump Total to
Grand Total Ratio. The readme and local evolutions of the Fathersheet file, from the raw data, to the completed
Fathersheet, can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uD1PqqZSXwL3_gpbPyl3q-qJAHyJ5bVx?usp=sharing

Creation of the Mothersheet

From the Fathersheet, a unique index was added to easily identify each Timestamp, Precinct and Ratio. A
fourth index titled the “Mother Number,” was also added, to record the Row Number of each entry, when sorted by
Ratio, then by Time, and then Precinct; such that the Mother Number could be used as an immediate reference for
all evolutions of the Logic Boards, or more generally, for any resorting of the Mothersheet Data. It can be accessed
from this link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PzD_ZiWWgYNBhl7kgX6Uu0g2J5Pa7J3Y?usp=sharing
 Creation of the First Logic Board 1000
From the Mothersheet, comes the first incarnation of the Logic Board, file 001Evo Logicboard,
MotherAlpha. Three switches were created. detecting a change in county, then, if a change in county was detected,
then if a change in the timestamp occurred. The Third Switch detected if the Ratio Changed.
From that, the Preliminary Transfer Detection Switch (MAGA Switch) was created, detected when all of
the following values were true: The County Changed, The Time Changed and the Ratio remained the same.
However, although this simple switch was powerful enough to detect all of the transfers in Atlanta,
Georgia, and isolate the seized data from which a Wheel Number of 2231 was found as a solution to an inverse floor
function against all the data points from the seized precincts in Atlanta, and also balance the wheel (explained later)
used in Atlanta, this logic switch was not strong enough to detect all the transfers in these four Pennsylvanian
counties. It was immediately apparent to the human eye that more powerful logic needed.

(All Logic Board Files in link below)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1e5mxlOYIkMEwO7NE3TsgN51Hp4BcHaMf?usp=sharing

Here is the link to the README:

https://gofile.io/d/qID25r

002 Evo
I then added two more switches, detecting the difference of two consecutive timestamps within the same
ratio, by both the index number of the timestamp and the actual time difference in seconds. This index difference
was set to read TRUE if the difference was 1 timestamp index, and the actual time difference was set to read TRUE
is the difference between two consecutive timestamps was less than or equal 4200 seconds.
An “OR” switch was then created, to read TRUE, either above the above switches were TRUE. This was
the next Transfer Detection Switch (“Transfer Flag”).

However, even this switch proved insufficient to flag countless ratio transfers that were easily observed by
the human eye.

003 and 004 and 005 Evolutions

After careful observation and inspection of numerous randomly selected, it was determined that I had to
create two columns.
The first column recorded the timestamp upon which the ratio in question was initially reported by a
precinct. This is known as the “Present Stasis Column.”

The second column recorded the previous timestamp that the current precinct reported its prior ratio. This is
known as the “Time of Seizure Column,” indicating when a precinct was forced to report its previous ratio, so that it
could be seized and produce a fabricated ratio. It is duly noted, the “Present Stasis” entry for the prior precinct
holding a ratio almost always matched the “Time of Seizure,” of the precinct that reported the ratio afterwards.
Four Tensors were then created, the First and Second Tensors are defined specifically below:
 Specific Definition of the Second Tensor Set.

Let R be the set of all ratios (Trump’s total to the Grand Total for each precinct, over the entire
timeline), and |R| = n, and let R be ordered from least to greatest.

Let T2 be the Second Tensor, such that T2 contains all consecutive pairings of R.

Then let T2,1 be the first partition of the Second Tensor, such that T2,1 contains all pairing of R,
leading with the odd element of R; likewise, let T2,2 be the second partition of the Second
Tensor, such that T2,2 contains all pairings of the R, leading with the even element. All such
tensors are ordered from least to greatest, in respect to their leading elements from R.

In general, letT2,m denote the mth partition of the Tensor.

Then let T2,m,k denote the kth pairing, which is the kth element of T2,m .

Let X be the set of timestamps for which a ratio, ri, in T2,m,k , is reported, and let |X| = Ω.

Then let T2,m,k,x denote the xth timestamp for which ri is reported, such that 1≤ x ≤Ω, containing all
precincts reporting ri at time x.

Finally let Y be the set of precincts that simultaneously report ri at time x; and let |Y|= 𝝀.
Now let T2,m,k,x,y denote the yth precinct that reports ri, within the timestamp x, such that 1≤ y ≤𝝀.
 General Definition of the Tensor Set.

Let R be the set of all ratios (Trump’s total to the Grand Total for each precinct, over the entire
timeline), and |R| = n, and let R be ordered from least to greatest.

Let Tg be the gth tensor, where G is the set of all tensors, |G| = Γ , such that Tg contains all
consecutive groupings of length g in respect to R.

Let Tg,m denote the mth partition of the Tensor, such that:

Tg,m is the mth partition, containing all consecutive groupings of ratios such that the
difference in the indices of the leading and the trailing ratio in the group is equal to g, with the
index leading ratio of the group, ri, being congruent to m mod g, and the index of the trailing ratio
of the group being congruent to (m+g-1) mod g.

Then let Tg,m,k denote the kth grouping, which is the kth element of T2,m .

Let X be the set of timestamps for which a ratio, ri, in Tg,m,k , is reported, and let |X| = Ω.

Then let Tg,m,k,x denote the xth timestamp for which ri is reported, such that 1≤ x ≤Ω, containing all
precincts reporting ri at time x.

Finally let Y be the set of precincts that simultaneously report ri at time x; and let |Y|= 𝝀.
Now let Tg,m,k,x,y denote the yth precinct that reports ri, within the timestamp x, such that 1≤ y ≤𝝀.
 Specific Definition of the First Tensor Set.

Let R be the set of all ratios (Trump’s total to the Grand Total for each precinct, over the entire
timeline), and |R| = n, and let R be ordered from least to greatest.

Let T1 be the 1st tensor.

Let T1,1 denote the only partition of the First Tensor, such that:

T1,1,k denotes the kth ratio, since each “group” contains a single ratio.

Let X be the set of timestamps for which a ratio, ri, in T1,1,k , is reported, and let |X| = Ω.

Then let T1,1,k,x denote the xth timestamp for which ri is reported, such that 1≤ x ≤Ω, containing all
precincts reporting ri at time x.

Finally let Y be the set of precincts that simultaneously report ri at time x; and let |Y|= 𝝀.
Now let T1,1,k,x,y denote the yth precinct that reports ri, within the timestamp x, such that 1≤ y ≤𝝀.
 The First Tensor is the Tensor used to prove my claim that over 149,000 votes were
stolen from President Donald J. Trump in these four counties.

006 and 006 Tensor 1, Partition 1 Evo

After more consideration, it was determined that I had to add a third stasis, known as the “Last Potential
Free State,” which recorded the timestamp of which penultimate ratio, in respect to the current ratio, was reported,
for a particular precinct. Additionally, a future stasis column was also added, which records the next timestamp that
a particular precinct reports a ratio.
The logic used in Atlanta, Georgia, was equivalent to detecting if the “Future Stasis,” of the prior set of
precincts was equal to the “Present Stasis,” of the current set of precincts reporting the ratio in question.

007 Evo
All duplicate entries (repeated entries from precincts in stasis that had yet to update their tabulations) were
removed.

008 Evo
The Lambda Index was created for the first tensor in column BE.

Finally let Y be the set of precincts that simultaneously report ri at time x; and let |Y|= 𝝀.
Now let T1,1,k,x,y denote the yth precinct that reports ri, within the timestamp x, such that 1≤ y ≤𝝀.

Since 26 was the highest recorded lambda value in the first Tensor, a loop of length 26 was run down the
entire BC column, checking the Last Potential Free State of the set of precincts in current timeblock against the
Current Stasis of the set of precincts in the prior timeblock... such that if the Last Potential Free State was greater
than the Current Stasis, then that particular precinct in the timeblock was NOT flagged as a transfer, otherwise it
was.
A complementary loop of length 26 was added to ensure that the ratios of the prior and the current
timeblock were the same.

If both loops returned TRUE, then the Final Transfer Switch read TRUE (this is the light purple column
titled “AND”, which is column BD).
 008 and 009 Evo
The Lambda Index was created for the first tensor in column BE.

Finally let Y be the set of precincts that simultaneously report ri at time x; and let |Y|= 𝝀.
Now let T1,1,k,x,y denote the yth precinct that reports ri, within the timestamp x, such that 1≤ y ≤𝝀.

Since 26 was the highest recorded lambda value in the first Tensor, a loop of length 26 was run down the
entire BC column, checking the Last Potential Free State of the set of precincts in current timeblock against the
Current Stasis of the set of precincts in the prior timeblock... such that if the Last Potential Free State was greater
than the Current Stasis, then that particular precinct in the timeblock was NOT flagged as a transfer, otherwise it
was.
A complementary loop of length 26 was added to ensure that the ratios of the prior and the current
timeblock were the same.

If both loops returned TRUE, then the Final Transfer Switch read TRUE (this is the light purple column
titled “AND”, which is column BD).

Identified which precincts were not flagged in any transfers in 009 Evo.

101 Evo LogicBoard 3000, First Tensor

These results were now isolated to a new spreadsheet, titled 101 Evo LogicBoard 300, First Tensor.
Several indexes were created as a reference.
The Main Board was then copied and renamed as a new sheet “Investigation.”
This Investigation was then sorted to put the recorded transfers at the top, and the non transfers at the
bottom, then all of the non transfers were deleted from the Investigation Sheet.

102 Evo LogicBoard 3000, First Tensor

The investigation was then copied, the new sheet being named the “Last Tree State Analysis.”
It is on this sheet where the final timestamp of each seized precinct was identified, before it was released
from control by the algorithm, in accordance with the Logic of the First Tensor. This is the final state of the “Virtual
City,” (see above diagram from the general report) frozen time for all of us to see.

The Final Tree State Analysis sheet was copied again, and renamed as the “Wheel Number,” sheet.

It is here the Wheel Number was brute forced, with the active formulas still running in the spreadsheet file.
The Brute Force Algorithm is coded to find the solution to an inverse floor function against a dataset containing
discrete integer ratios, a solution that is highly unlikely to exist for any natural set of data. The first integer solution
was 1465, shortly followed by 1468, with 1370.168 being the fractional solution.
 Thus, if one were to make a wheel, with 1465 evenly spaced spokes, then one would find all of the data
crushed against the right side of each spoke, with vast empty regions containing no data on the left side of each
spoke; thus, once data has been fabricated in accordance with a Floor Function of 1465, or any other number, it now
becomes exponentially more likely that other Wheel Numbers can be found, since the data has already been
fabricated in manner that left vast regions of Nature’s Wheel devoid of data.

In the photo below, a Wheel Number of 32 is used as an example, the blue dots represent data points that
fall within the green areas to the right of each spoke; yet, no data points appear in the pink areas, to the left of each
spoke. Since 3118 precincts were seized, in accordance to the Logic of the First Tensor, it’s as if one were to throw
3118 darts at board, and all of the darts landed in a green sliver, a clear violation of the Laws of Nature.

In short, this proves that the data was manipulated, and is why I swear by my statement.
 The reason the Algorithm uses a Wheel Number, as the Radix to which all seized precincts and their
discrete integer ratios are floored, is to simplify the value of the ratios for its own purposes, as shall now be
explained.

A Wheel Number of 80 shall be used for this example. Each spoke corresponds to a discrete increment of
1/80, which is 1.25%.
In this example, the algorithm is fixing the “Virtual City’s” ratio to 20/80, which is 25%, corresponding the
red line starting from the origin and ending at 20 in the photo below.
However, the algorithm does not solve for the specific case of 25%, rather it starts with the Red Line rotated to 0%,
see photo below:

Here the spokes -1 and +1 correspond to the original spokes +19 and +21 before the rotation; likewise the spokes -9
and +9 correspond to the spokes +11 and +29 before the rotation, preserving their respective distances from the Red
Line. Rotating the Wheel to the Zero Position, makes it easier for both humans and computers to solve.
The Wheel starts with the same amount of votes on each spoke, such that the Wheel starts balanced at zero.
Then, using simple vector addition, as new votes are seized by the algorithm, the elevation of each seized precinct
on the wheel is adjusted in accordance to its total number of votes (denominator), where the elevation refers to
which spoke the precinct’s ratio is floored to.

For instance, the blue vector on Spoke +15, shows that three votes are added to that precinct, as such another
precinct on Spoke -15, then has three votes also added to it, or if such votes cannot be found for the precinct on
spoke -15, then one vote can be added to the precinct on Spoke -15, and one vote can be added to another precinct
on the spoke -14, and final vote added to a precinct on the Spoke -16, such that the Wheel remains balanced overall
in the zero position.

Each vector in the photo below (by color), shows various redistributions of votes in respect to the positive spokes.

At all times, the desired average of 25%, can be simply obtained by adding 25% to all of the negative and positive
ratios on either side of the Red Line, rotating it back to the prior photo. As such, by treating each precinct as if it
were on the spoke itself, regardless of the fact that the precinct’s data point is slightly to the right of the spoke, it can
balance the wheel using simple integer arithmetic, and the actual discrepancy will always be negative, which is in
the direction of the Intended Loser.
 In order to determine the probability of this event, two thousands random position of the respective radixes
for each precinct (total number of votes per precinct) were generated by adding a number to Trump’s vote, from
-1000 to +1000, for each precinct, rotating the position of each precinct’s data point by 360*(1/Z) degrees for each
increment, where Z is the total number of votes in each precinct, to test how many precincts would have fallen in the
pink areas of the wheel (above photo) that were devoid of data, in respect to the Wheel Number 1465.

Of these values, only the following randomized positions passed (such that all of their data points fell
within the green slivers), in accordance to the following increments:
-955, -929, -824, -764, -687, -639, -288, -276, -253, -151, -111, -91, -56, -32, -12, -2, 0, +112, 142, 235, 406, 436,
506, 573, 583, 681, 703, 711, 753, 818, 924, 962, 989.

Discluding the increment of 0, which corresponds to the actual reported data, then the chance of this event occurring
is 32/2000, which is 1.6%; this is the best model that favors the defense, which is my legal duty to provide.

However, it shall be my argument, in accordance with laws of logarithmic distribution of digits in Base 2,
Base Phi and other fractional bases, that had this data not already been manipulated then chances of any randomized
position passing against the Wheel Number 1465, would be effectively zero. A rough estimate of the failure in Base
2 of the numerators (the residues of the radixes, where the radixes are Total Votes per precinct, and the residues are
Trump’s Vote per precinct), put this chance at less than one in one octillion.

.
 The next sheet is called the “Balance Sheet.”

In the State of Georgia, in the City of Atlanta, I was able to identify all transfers within the city, and show
that the Wheel started from an equally balanced state; however, the extent and degree of the fraud perpetrated in the
State of Pennsylvania, is so great, that even I cannot find all of the transfers, but only a large of portion of them, and
I was only able to bring the wheel to -3% (in respect to the zero), which implies that there are indeed Republican
Counties such Greene, Cambria and Washington (that were flagged in a previous study for ratio transfers) that were
involved in this great crime upon the People of Pennsylvania, where such a positive 3% balance would most likely
be found (this previous study was in my previous affidavit).

In the balance sheet, the reported ratios are ceiling’ed to the ideal ratios corresponding the first fractional
radix and first two integers radixes (the Wheel Number solutions).

In the next sheet, the entire timeline of all of the hijacked precincts was reconstructed by filling in the blank
entries, for the Grand Aggregate Analysis.

In the Final Tree State, the seized precincts (prior to their release from the algorithm), stand at 338,543
votes from Trump, out of a Total of 1,260,829 votes, which is 26.85% Trump.

However, the reported totals at the end of the timeline, long after the seized precincts were freed from the
unholy grasp of this algorithm, they grand aggregate stands at 462,487 Trump out of 1,598,210 Votes, which is
28.93% Trump.

We then subtract the Seized Totals from the Grand Aggregate Totals, and the Free Vote stands at 123,944
Trump out of 337,381 total votes, which 36.73% Trump.

Quoted from Wikipedia, on the Law of Large Numbers:

“In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the
same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large
number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer to the expected value as more
trials are performed.[1]
The LLN is important because it guarantees stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. [1][2] For
example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a
predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by
the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the law only applies (as the name indicates) when a
large number of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide
with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's
fallacy).”

Hypothetically, had the seized 1,260,829 Votes, been natural and not manipulated, then the remaining
337,381 votes, also should have came in at 26.85% Trump; yet, we see a difference of nearly 10% between these
batches, a phenomena that defies any and all rational explanation, other than fraud.
 In accordance with the Law of Large Numbers, it can only be assumed that the natural rate of Trump’s
votes should have been 36.73%, and thus, when that percentage is applied against the entire aggregate of 1,598,210
Votes, Trump should have had 587,136 Votes, which is a difference of 124,649 Votes from the reported Grand
Aggregate.
The Second Tensor is the Tensor used to voice my suspicions, of which I lack sufficient data to
prove that the entirety of the State of Pennsylvania was seized by this Algorithm.

Tensor 2
Tensor 2 contains every consecutive pairing of ratios (ordered from least to greatest) starting from the odd
indexes in the first partition, and then starting from the even indexes in the second partition. This Tensor, as well as
the Third and Fourth Tensors, were created in an effort countless other ratio transfers that were hidden behind prime
numbers, the first of which observed, were the ratios 61/376 and 68/419, almost equal, but not.

Such ratio transfers escaped the Logic of the First Tensor, as such the other Tensors were created to capture
this phenomenon. The results of the Second Tensor were devastating. First and foremost, it was observed that the
First Partition of the Second Tensor, captured roughly 20,000 transfers; however, the Second Partition of the Second
Tensor, captured roughly 30,000 transfers, a difference exceeding 50%, an event that could not occur for anything
other than manipulated data.

The same logic used to capture transfers in the First Tensor, was used in the Second Tensor, the only
exception being that Pairs of Ratios were considered a single Ratio, in a manner similar to the Wheel itself.
The evidence provided by this Tensor yielded a Wheel Number of 2481 against 3678 data points
(precincts), of which only ten randomized positions of the radixes (Total votes precinct) passed out of 2000 random
positions, which is 0.5% (again, this is the model that best favors the defense).

It was noted that the total number of seized precincts fell at a linear rate over the course of the timeline of
the Second Tensor, and that the Second Tensor nearly included all of the votes of the four counties in this
investigation, suggesting that after a particular threshold of votes were seized and flipped against Trump, to safely
secure a victory for Joe Biden, that the algorithm then continued to manipulate the votes, to restore the grand
aggregate in controlled manner that would have seemed more likely at the end of the whole process, yet ensuring a
razor thin margin of victory for Joe Biden, the Intended Winner of this Algorithm, and that the missing positive
balance of the Wheel, can only be found in Republican Counties, such as Greene, Washington and Cambria, which
were flagged for Ratio Transfers in my prior investigation in my previous affidavit.

For this reason, it is my belief that the entire State of Pennsylvania was held hostage by this algorithm, and
that this election has been compromised.