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 December 29, 2021 pm – Louis Pasteur BD

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

Re: Pennsylvania “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART CCXI] – *Loyal Oppos
{}

It’s desirable to cite info/observations that are counter to narratives postulated herein,
illustrative of intent to mesh quality data with optimized opinions; this memo is intended
to probe these reactions. For example, a theory that the lib-triad on the Supremes could
have voted to accept Certiorari of the Mississippi case to employ it as a vehicle to
strengthen Roe seems unlikely because: [1]—they would risk reversal of blockage (by two
federal courts) of its 2018 Gestational Age Act; and [2]—confirmation hearing testimony
confirms my *surprise* that conservatives probably flipped on abortion stare decisis.

Two in-the-know thinkers who share my philosophies have weighed-in on Mastriano;

neither appears to favor any competitor, a key-consideration when endorsing anyone.
Thus, the Mastriano-focus is understandable, rather than comparing/contrasting.

First, a simple assertion provoked an elaborative response that reflects “out-takes” from
prior memos that, themselves, provide color-commentary to objective data conveyed.
This simple provocation [“If he will speak or correspond with you, you should consider
communicating with Dr. Frank and ask him whether Mastriano did anything to respond,
coordinate or work with him after he presented in Penna.”] yielded elaborative comment:

I've met him twice [3rd Constitution Convention on 7/5 and @ Brandywine
~ 2 months ago}; on the second occasion, he greeted me with "Dr. Sklaroff"
[perhaps because of my interim 'phone chats and e-mails while he’s been
on-the-fly] and I showed-off my matching red-white-blue bowtie. [His isn't
authentic, he admitted, but mine is, c/o my father.]

I've conveyed [in memos and via intermediaries] dismay that he has yet
to release his "control-group" 2000-census data [compared with that of
2010] that would show the latter served as the basis for creating ghost-
voters; he had promised it would be in Lindell's SCOTUS filing but, alas,
it's not even in the attachments.

I'm lying-in-wait for when he alights within 100 miles of Philly, for a buncha
pungent queries have accumulated; I have no knowledge [public/insider]
of any interaction with Mastriano [although I haven't confronted him with
this query] during the past year.
 One of the underlying sources-of-angst is how these guys don’t coordinate;
specifically, and I think I placed this into a memo, @ Brandywine, while
Mastriano held-court in the distal reaches of the ballroom and Frank
interacted @ the front, I told both of them of the presence/locale of his
presumed colleague.

They didn’t intersect, and Doug [who spoke first] departed immediately;
this phenomenon was also detected when I chatted with Clement [the
Born-again Richmond-attorney who refused to acknowledge the
Jeffersonian underpinnings of a JUDEO-Christian Ethic, even when
reminded of Spinoza]; amazingly, overheard were “digs” of one individual
against another during the hourlong time-frame between when I arrived
[the first check-in] and the start of the 6 p.m. program.

My diagnosis is that Mastriano was tooling-up and then decapitated by

Corman when he was prepared to launch, as per both an audio and a
direct-chat with his former Chief-of-Staff [who now will be employed by
GOA, after Corman fired him and the rest of Doug’s staff]; not to beat a
dead horse, but recall my [ego-centric”] view that—armed with having
held June chats with him (thrice) nose-to-nose, during which he’d
promised subpoenae would issue just after legislative recess—I was quite
prepared [in July] to confront him with my opinion that killing that entire
month while awaiting receipt of responses from three recalcitrant
counties (to letters) was NOT going to inure him with an overtly-
obstructionist Jake-the-Snake.

DelCo activists have also complained [on multiple occasions, including

during three Zoom calls] that he hadn’t communicated with them while he
chaired the Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee, which is why
I’ve repeatedly noted that EVERYONE had shut-down once Rep. Seth Grove
had announced his weekly hearings [recalling my Memo IV]; he wasn’t
permitted to organize fundamentals and, thus, wouldn’t yet have been
positioned to follow-up on anything provided either by Dr. Frank or by the
two DelCo litigants.

Second, a more seasoned PA-politico attempted to delve into a personality portrayal

[“Bob, let's be practical here. Mastriano is unelectable state-wide. He simply is not a
sympathetic figure. It matters not whether one agrees with him on most things or not.
His style alone is off-putting to a significant percentage of the voting population. I'm as
conservative as anyone in PA, but, in my opinion, Doug is a political "dig-me." He loves
the spotlight -- too much, one might reasonably argue -- but doesn't perform well when
he's in it. For the record, I haven't picked a candidate for PA governor or senator, but
Mastriano won't make my list. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination, but, if he does,
he'll lose in the general election.”] Having observed him up-close-and-personal, consider:
[1]—“Bob, let's be practical here.” If he can win a statewide primary (which seems likely,
vide infra), he can build upon his expression of forthright views (with attendant activism).

[2]—"Mastriano is unelectable state-wide. He simply is not a sympathetic figure. It

matters not whether one agrees with him on most things or not. His style alone is off-
putting to a significant percentage of the voting population.” His mien is admittedly a bit
“military” stylistically, but it need not globally undermine a conservative message that will
compare with Josh’s extreme liberalism [first to endorse BHO @ Keswick rally] during what
is shaping up to be a Republican year. His Covid-19 fireside-chats a year ago were
perceived as reassuring, and he sports a genuine smile that accompanies unambiguous
delivery of forthright, anti-swamp, populist, ethical, limited-government themes.

[3]—"I'm as conservative as anyone in PA, but, in my opinion, Doug is a political ‘dig-me’.

He loves the spotlight -- too much, one might reasonably argue -- but doesn't perform
well when he's in it.” The environment in which he allegedly didn’t perform optimally
hasn’t been specified but, if reference is being made to Gettysburg, this was a successful
elucidation of key-facts (that have yet to be explored by any legislative/judicial body). Also,
his humility drips from both his weekly radio appearances (WWDB – Friday – noon) and
his stump speeches; he attracted >150 people to a Philly rally (held in Port Richmond).

[4]—"For the record, I haven't picked a candidate for PA governor or senator, but
Mastriano won't make my list. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination, but, if he does,
he'll lose in the general election.” Such dire predictions are derivative of the assertions
throughout this communication, but it’s inappropriate to strike him before the campaign
season has even begun. He need not participate in the 1/6/2022 debate (not announced)
because many announced candidates may not acquire 1000+ valid petition signatures.

The only current candidates with statewide recognition are Corman/Mastriano/Barletta,

and it seems (sadly) Lou hasn’t been dynamic AND hasn’t advocated for election reform;
Corman is Jake-the-Snake in myriad ways, best opposed by an offsetting individual who
excites the base. The Donald’s endorsement would destroy putative pretenders (Gale),
people with whom I’ve worked (Ciarrochi and his prior boss, Hart, and Gerow), people
who are steadfast-but-shrinking-violets (McSwain, who honored AG-Barr’s alleged order
to stop reviewing the election without having completed an independent review thereof),
and people who are “*” in polls (Berger, Innamorato, Martin, Monn, Richey, Rosenblum,
Ventre, White, Zama). Thus, the axis of the excitement in future debates will be between
Mastriano ↔ Corman, and does anyone think The Donald would endorse a Swampster?

Most important when I pounce so early is whether a Wagner-esque event could befall the
anointed-one; having followed Doug for a year-plus, he’s consistently been a stalwart
conservative on all fronts. Indeed, I divulged my not being 100% pro-Life to a high-ranking
campaign-leader, and this didn’t matter; fortunately, in the primary, abortion will not be
debated substantively, for this could split the party unnecessarily. What will be probed is
how the candidates would SPECIFICALLY improve the lot of freedom-loving citizens.