Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 August 26, 2021 – p.m.

To: Distribution [Politicians, Media, Potentially-Interested Persons]

Re: Pennsylvania “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART LXXIV] – Draft Testimony (B)
{}

Continuing efforts to distill what should be included in subpoenae to be issued by the PA Senate
first entails recalling the impact of prior under-oath testimony regarding deficient oversight at
the PA Convention Center; this constituted the most extraordinary testimony evinced during the
entire set of legislative hearings, notwithstanding the countermanding of a lower-court ruling by
the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court. If the observer can’t observe, there is no observing.
[memo LXXIII - https://tinyurl.com/e7cpa9nh]

These recommendations have been gleaned from Memo IV [https://tinyurl.com/49w85hvk] and

Memo XXXI {https://tinyurl.com/vf2smw8k], both resulting from my grunt-work based upon
review of 9/10 hearing transcripts/attachments; they have been placed within the context of the
Navarro Decalogue (https://tinyurl.com/p99xs68, page 79), as per this crosswalk:

10,000 {a} Absentee ballots cast that arrived after Election Day
14,328 {b} Absentee ballots cast from addresses other than where voters
legally reside
58,221 {c} Absentee ballots cast that were returned on or before the
postmark date
9,005 {d} Absentee ballots cast without a postmark (violating state law)
8,021 {e} Dead voters
742 {f} Double voters: in-state
7,426 {g} Out-of-state voters who voted in-state
202,377 {h} Over-votes (per State Representative Frank Ryan, et al.)
680,774 {i} Poll watcher & poll observer abuse (defying SCOTUS orders)*
1,573 {j} Voters age 100+ (suspect, per state records and obituaries)

Drawing upon all of the available information, in particular that in Memo IV:

(a) We know that Absentee ballots were received up to three days after Election Day.
(b) We know the SURE System was unable to track address changes reliably.
(c) We know “confusion” led to aberrations that may have been exacerbated by the U.S.P.S.
(d) We know the 3 a.m. tabulation spike could have been caused by ballot-stuffing.
(e) We know J. Christian Adams had to sue the Commonwealth to expunge deceased voters.
(f) We know voters who received multiple ballots may have returned them.
(g) We know the Address-Change and EPIC Systems were not consistently employed.
(h) We know, c/o a State Rep. harboring extensive experience, over-votes occurred.
(i) We know observers were denied meaningful oversight in fraudulent-Philadelphia.
(j) We know that the absence of purged voter rolls allows for voting by centarians.

1
 Philly Recap

My synthesis of observations based upon quotes from the transcript review [Memo V] noted that
Seth Bluestein had acknowledged there had been “a pause of a few hours from processing while
we rearranged how closely observers were to the process, but nothing was shut down”; he
claimed all observers had been allowed access, defined as “were always present” as in the past,
and that “meaningful observation” was manifest despite inability of observers to read the ballot
that a poll worker is processing. (“All those activities were clearly visible for the entire time for
every observer who wished to observe them.”) When confronted with the observation that
“clearly visible is different than actual meaningful observation,” he incredulously asserted “the
past practice has been that that’s never been the case” and claimed ignorance “of any instance
in Philadelphia for sure and possibly throughout the Commonwealth where the activity you’re
describing has occurred.” Anyone who has served as a Judge of Elections and/or a poll-watcher
would know that this claim is deceitfully obfuscatory and constitutes an overt cover-up. Indeed,
multiple testifiers acknowledged this perspective, which is ensconced in Colorado law because
election observers (watchers) are an additional layer that can witness and verify to the public.

Watchers must be permitted access that would allow them to attest to the
accuracy of election-related activities. This includes personal visual access at a
reasonable proximity to read documents, writings or electronic screens and
reasonable proximity to hear election-related discussions between election
judges and electors. (a) Election activities include: (4) Signature verification of
mail ballot envelopes at close enough distance to challenge the signature [and]
(6) Ballot tabulation. [Here, if the observer can’t observe, there is no observing!]

That this was averred under-oath constitutes the most extraordinary testimony evinced during
the entire set of legislative hearings. This is intuitive and, rather than suggesting a remedy
whereby all tainted ballots would be voided, it’s preferable to conduct a forensic audit to ensure
there was neither biased interpretation nor ballot-stuffing (recalling the overnight voting-spike,
for example). This is the only way to yield confidence the electoral process was legitimate in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [One might say the “elephant” was barred from the room.]
Federal law mandates ballot preservation, and legal impediments have been cleared in Arizona.

Auditor General

Newly-Elected Auditor General Timothy DeFoor reported on a 2019 report by his predecessor:

•Weaknesses in the voter registration application process and the maintenance

of voter records in the SURE system had resulted in instances of potentially
inaccurate voter record information.
•Data analysis had identified tens of thousands of potential duplicate and
inaccurate voter records.
•The necessity for the Department of State to continue to implement leading
information technology security practices and information technology controls to
protect the SURE system and ensure the reliability of voter registration records.
•The view that incorporating edit checks and other improvements into the design
of SURE’s replacement system will reduce data errors and improve accuracy.

2
This Report [https://tinyurl.com/947eb6] had been composed by a Democrat, and its summary
lambasted the Secretary of the Commonwealth, also a Democrat. The report was not a review of
voting machines or counting of votes; rather, it had been a retrospective post-election SURE audit
that had examined the voter registration system. DeFoor said his election had been fair, but he
didn’t want to discuss those of others [https://tinyurl.com/hmtuabs2], prompting Rep. Kenyatta
to claim it was “deeply problematic” that the Auditor General could not answer a straightforward
question about whether or not the elections, of which he had also been on the ballot, was fair.

Yellow Book auditing standards were applied despite the inability to review a sufficient number
of source documents; 70% of the voter records weren’t verified due to lack of cooperation and
failure to provide “necessary information from the Department of State, PennDOT, and selected
county election offices, specifically, denial of access to critical documents or excessive redaction.”
Amazingly, “there is no accountability for people when they refuse to participate.”

That “Incorporating edit checks and other improvements into the design of the replacement
system for SURE would reduce data error records and improve accuracy” suggests that the SURE
system had data errors and inaccuracies. Rep. Ryan noted three audit objectives couldn't be
completed and that the “Auditor General was not able to conclude that there was reasonable
assurance that the SURE system is secure and that the Pennsylvania voter registration records
are complete, accurate, and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.” Submitting
affidavits didn’t supplant ability “to review system settings ourselves or reviewing documents.”

Forgotten is the fact that the Pennsylvania House approved auditing the 2020 election, citing
inconsistencies and confusion in the electorate; the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee
(a bipartisan, with members from both House and Senate) was to oversee a “risk-limiting” audit.
An outside contractor could be hired to do the work. [https://tinyurl.com/btswt5] {Results???}

{When I spoke briefly to DeFoor in Bradford, during a sprinkle (I asked him to “step into my private
office” under a tent), he disclaimed interest in conducting an audit because he said his office
lacked subpoena power; he said he’s support others doing so, yielding the possibility that he may
be invoked to facilitate what is now planned. Subsequently, publicly, he reiterated disinterest,
and this actually helped discount the then-pending SB528 (which would have asked him to do it);
Mastriano also discounted it, because he didn’t trust that DeFoor would abide by what he’d seen
in Maracopa. Thus, I concluded DeFoor could become involved in the process, albeit adroitly.}

Strengths/Weaknesses of Audits

Election audits focus on double-checking the bottom line (did the voting machines count the
ballots correctly?) because legal compliance and overall integrity are assumed to exist; they are
often conducted to enhance public confidence after confirming equipment accuracy and
compliance with procedures. This is why Jonathan Marks supported performance audits.

An effective Pennsylvania audit process would combine aspects of Arizona’s Hand Count Audit
[https://tinyurl.com/ywus6rbh] with Michigan’s procedural audit, which necessitates greater
county-level uniformity and flexibility [https://tinyurl.com/c68cftbs]. Thus, I conclude here that
any type of audit/investigation should encompass these two prongs, noting results and process.
To accomplish this, it will first be necessary to probe the origins, for example, of Ms. Boockvar’s
intransigence; it will then be possible to explore why audit results were overtly ignored.