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 27, 2021 – p.m.

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

Re: Pennsylvania “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART LXXVI] – Draft Testimony (D)
{https://tinyurl.com/tthx9jw9}

Completing 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.
[LXXIII - https://tinyurl.com/e7cpa9nh] and input of the Auditor General corroborated [LXXIV -
https://tinyurl.com/4hxx858p] and flawed procedures [LXXV - https://tinyurl.com/r68jbba7].

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
 Recap of Philly, Auditor General, Department of State, and Totally Corrupt SURE System

The lack of oversight during the tabulation process was as gross as has been demonstrated
occurred in Detroit; instead of physically blocking sightlines with plywood, observers were only
allowed to view from afar. Indeed, I’m told that compliance with a judicial order that they were
to be moved six feet closer to the tabulators prompted the organizers to move the tabulators
another six feet distant. When I was at the PA Leadership Conference post-event seminar,
multiple attendees corroborated what I’d recalled from news reports and, assuredly, those who
filed affidavits with Rudy could be invited to testify regarding their individual/group experiences.

Regarding the Auditor General, he could be invited to detail how he could facilitate this effort.
Irregularities of the (recently-departed) Department of State and of the (defunct) SURE System
merit a probe, for their past/present/future electoral implications are bewildering and acute.

Mail-in and absentee ballots

People who apply for an absentee or mail-in ballot through the county are sent a ballot with a
unique identification number that is tied directly to the voter registration record, to the specified
address; people who affirm having neither a driver’s license nor a Social Security number will be
issued a ballot. It’s unclear how the former cannot be easily supplanted by a PennDOT ID and it’s
unclear how an individual can be a citizen without the latter. In any case, for that ballot to be
counted, an alternate form of identification must be provided, such as a government photo ID or
some forms of non-photo ID (confirming the address) such as a utility bill. {6} In any case, every
state with Photo-ID has adopted these common-sense alternatives, available gratis {8}.

People who want to determine if a ballot had been requested in their names could go onto our
website and search by their names and perhaps date of birth; this is “new information” to me
and, undoubtedly, to most everyone. Indeed, one wonders what recourse they might have if they
could determine their “votes” have been filed prior to election day, 100% fraudulently. Despite
these obvious flaws, mail-in/absentee ballots are entrenched in PA and nationally; the no-excuse
request procedure should be eliminated inasmuch as the Covid-19 epidemic is abating. {6}

Thad Hall detailed multiple categories of defects experienced in 2020 with regard specifically to
mail-in/absentee voting, emphasizing that “most of the work for the election flowed through a
system that was built in the last 1990s/early 2000s (SURE) and not designed for the task.” A lack
of uniformity of some dates and an overlapping of processes in certain areas made mail-in voting
complicated; examples related to mailing out ballots, ballot request deadlines, overlapping ballot
mailing/registration deadlines, and conflicts with third-party filing and challenge deadlines. {6}

Other defects relate to the current pre-canvass period for mail-in ballots, logic and accuracy
testing of the tabulation equipment used to count mail-in ballots prior to mailing out ballots,
returning ballots, cumbersome in-person mail-in voting, drop boxes and satellite locations,
permanent mail-in and absentee voters, third-party mailings, and signature verification. Attached
to the written testimony were a dozen specific bullet-points detailing the impact of deficiencies;
it’s intuitive that the presence of such problems adversely affected the veracity of 2020 data. {6}

2
Drop-boxes render moot the mandates personally experienced regarding affirmation that an
individual returning a ballot was indeed the voter and/or functioning on a disabled voter’s behalf;
they must be secure and dispersed uniformly across a jurisdiction, for the absence of such
safeguards (plus no signature-verification) would yield the potential for fraud. Recognized is the
complexity of detecting/tracking people crossing state lines, moving from one state to another,
because input from other states is received periodically rather than regularly {4}. Finally,
Ed Allison claimed satellite offices are expensive and not authorized by statute {7}.

Ensuring mail-in/absentee ballots be assessed also at the precinct-level will undermine any
double-franchise (purposeful or accidental), maximizing empowerment of local officials; review
of how they were requested/granted by the counties interacting with the state is needed. Thus,
whatever impact these loose tabulation processes may have had merits acquisition of critique via
any number of officials, for the aforementioned issues of uniformity have been eviscerated.

Photo-ID and Signature Verification

The underlying force animating the “access vs. integrity” dynamic is Photo-ID; the Chair cited a
recent study showing that this version of Voter-ID—no matter how strict—hadn’t shown
disproportionate individuals not being able to vote and had actually increased voter turnout. {10}
Curiously, recalling the adage that a politician might oppose an idea before supporting it,
opposition to this procedure was voiced by the Democrat Minority-Chair claiming such laws are
discriminatory {10} despite having previously praised accepting “government letters, utility bills,
government program statements, and other kinds of identifying information that will allow a wide
berth of people to be able to access the voter rolls.” {4} The pro/con arguments are well-known.

Some witnesses felt signature verification shouldn’t be provided by human beings who aren’t
specifically trained to do that, particularly absent supportive software; this assertion contravenes
personal experience validated over the decades when conflict can ultimately be rectified by a
Commonwealth Court judge (if parties maintain disagreement). Having been on both “sides” of
petition challenges, I have noted concurrence emerges routinely; no special training is needed.
Classically, proper procedure has been to cover the signature in the registration book (upside
down from the clerk) and then to compare old/new versions; this is why online registration data
exclude signatures, precluding the ability of a stranger to learn how to mirror a signature.

Pam Anderson emphasized Colorado’s “election integrity and security are in the ballot envelope
and signature verification”; permitted are a certain amount of automatic (software) and manual
verification. Only early in-person ballots are processed daily; if a voter’s ballot is rejected for any
reason, he/she must have an opportunity to cure the issue(s) within 8 days after Election Day.
Bipartisanship reigns; no single person views an unfolded ballot and envelope with voter data.
And signature verification is facilitated when the current signature is compared with the one that
had been provided most recently, rather than relying upon initial registration forms (precluding
concern that a signature might evolve dramatically over the decades). Threaded throughout this
quality written/oral input was how this ecosystem combines people, law and technology.

Noting the two components of this process, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation trains workers
in signature matching; they can accept ballots through automation, but they can’t reject them.
Thus, “especially for large jurisdictions, there is good reason to investigate artificial intelligence
machines developed in the commercial setting.” Ohio’s signature-procedure was also praised.

3
And in Pennsylvania, signature-verification is routine when processing mail-in ballot applications,
for “the signature that’s on the application is compared with voter registration signature.”
Claiming this occurred also merits confirmation via an audit, noting erratic “curing” initiatives.
Otherwise, these concerns also apply to the need for photo/voter-ID, but this is more of an issue
involving legislation than it is related to the retrospective review of the 2020 election process.

Voting machines (certification, operation, contracted vendors)

The 10/13/2020 document Guidance on Electronic Voting System Preparation and Security states:
“Counties should maintain a robust chain of custody protocol that documents access to all
components of the system including the county computers and the warehouse storing the voting
systems.” Yet, there isn’t 24-hour video surveillance of certified machines in all counties and
pivotal in post-election analysis is whether chain of custody mandates have been honored
regarding all submitted ballots (before/during/after being processed through machines). This is
why the absence of true observers in Philadelphia is the overarching theme of this memo;
tangential is the fact that Penetration Testing is mandated to optimize security. {1}

Judging from the aggregate testimony by government officials, it seems the Dominion voting
machine would not be able to wreak havoc in Pennsylvania; it’s one of two main certified venders
(the other is ES&S), although the number of counties employing them wasn’t specified. It seems
the Global system became Diebold which, when sold to ES&S, divested 50% of itself to Dominion.
Jonathan Marks quoted the Department of State’s PA Voting System Security Standard {5}:

No components of the voting machine shall be connected to any modem or

network interface, including the Internet, at any time, except in a standalone
wired local area network configuration in which all connected devices are
certified voting components. Transmission of unofficial results can be
accomplished by writing results to media, and moving the media to a different
computer that may be connected only to a closed network (i.e., the voting system
uses air-gapped computer networks that necessarily isn’t connected to anything
else or any other electronic computer).

Timothy A. Benyo also emphasized the disconnect between voting machines and tabulators, a
narrative that is also consistent with my recollections as a Judge of Elections; we submitted a gray
disc from each voting machine inter alia, and there seemed to be no other type of interface:

Most of the devices are never connected to the Internet; computers that upload
results are not connected to the voting system itself. Electronic poll books are the
only one that uses a web-based connection to load the poll books. The other parts
of the voting system are the precinct scanners. They are your central tabulating
and scanning systems and your electionware, the software that runs the whole
system, the database for collecting all the votes and tabulating them. These
machines are never on the Internet. They have no means to go on the Internet.
it’s a completely stand-alone system, and the only way to transfer data from the
electionware system is to physically and, quoting in very old terms, “sneakernet”
your results from a drive to a computer off of this centralized network to a
computer that has Internet access that can load stuff to your website or to the
Department of State.

4
All of these reassurances have been countered during conversations with Dr. Frank and, thus,
conveying questions from this Ph.D. who has explicitly scrutinized PA would be highly desirable.

Security Concerns

Election offices have been flooded with calls because various interest groups were mailing
documents to people that resembled government mailers {6}; also, people would present
documents that resembled applications or were applications that had already been populated
and had been sent to them by third-party organizations employing public databases. {2} Recalling
the fact that Boockvar countenanced such disclosures as a manifestation of transparency, it is
clear that it’s necessary to step away from a system that allows for third-party vote harvesting;
indeed, when the voter has permitted this level of access to the system, it isn’t difficult to imagine
that such permission might live in perpetuity, granted and never rescinded. {1} Jonathan Bechtle
related additional concerns regarding how the electoral process can be sabotaged by money {10};
this meshes with the manipulation that was financed by Zuckerberg. Emphasized throughout this
memo is concern that the electoral impact on 2020 is undeniable when testimony suggests
deficiencies must be corrected legislatively to enable counties to tackle the “daunting task” of
performing future audits effortlessly; indubitably, citation of potential improvements impugned
the quality of what had been generated, in multiple realms.

Again, acquiring input from national experts in this realm should include contacting John Fund,
Tony Schafer, and J. Christian Adams; myriad organizations such as the Thomas More Society are
also deeply enmeshed in the details of what has occurred nationally, easily applied to PA.

Audits, Pre-Canvassing, Mail-in/Absentee Ballots, Photo/Voter-ID, Signature-Verification

It was noted that an effective Pennsylvania audit process would combine two prongs, generating
results following an Arizona-style Hand Count Audit [https://tinyurl.com/ywus6rbh] and
exploring how the outcome had emerged in compliance with a Michigan-style procedural audit,
which necessitates greater county-level uniformity and flexibility [https://tinyurl.com/c68cftbs].

It has also been noted that pre-canvassing invites fraud (confirmed via Dr. Frank’s algorithms)
and that signature-verification doesn’t necessitate review solely by specialists (for precinct-level
evaluation suffices almost always, with the potential for judicial oversight to be invoked).

Executive Summary

Regarding these issues, it is felt that “Legislatures have both the ability to intervene in some of
this litigation when necessary, and then also to ensure that that litigation cannot result in
settlements or consent decrees that lead to the promulgation of regulations that fundamentally
countermand or undermine established law.” {8} Similarly, legislatures can manifest intent to
discern optimal election law in 2022 by mandating a Forensic Audit of what transpired in 2020.

It is anticipated that stiff legal opposition will be mustered to forestall an election investigation
of any ilk, let alone a probe of the accuracy of the tabulation and the pathogenesis of PA’s ills.
Nevertheless, specifics in these four memos have been gleaned from PA-specific testimonies and,
thus provide grist for legislative discovery of the manifestations of aberrations (if not fraud). And
all citations are linked directly to quotes from Memo IV, often with Bates-Number references.

5
6