Is EU dancing to the tune of Big Pharma? Bye bye, € Trillions!

 The EU Commission Press conference today was about 

Commission puts forward declaration on digital rights and principles for everyone in the EU Today, the Commission is proposing to the European Parliament and Council to sign up to a declaration of rights and principles that will guide the digital transformation in the EU. The draft declaration on digital rights and principles aims to give everyone a clear reference point about the kind of digital transformation Europe promotes and defends. It will also provide a guide for policy makers and companies when dealing with new technologies. The rights and freedoms enshrined in the EU’s legal framework, and the European values expressed by the principles, should be respected online as they are offline. Once jointly endorsed, the Declaration will also define the approach to the digital transformation which the EU will promote throughout the world. A press release and factsheet are available online. The press conference was presented by Commission Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, responsible for anti-Cartel operations, and Commissioner Thierry Breton.

Two Trillion euro Question for all Europeans 

I asked the Commission anti-cartel chief about what the EU was going to do about Big Pharma withholding raw data on which EU vax policy is based. There is huge money involved. 

The cost of Covid 19 to the EU?

More than 2 Trillion euros has been and will be spent on the 'pandemic' and recovery programmes.

The normal annual budget is about 180 billion euros. The sum involved is more than ten times the annual budget. 

Where is the rational evidence and approval for spending so much taxpayers' money?

I quoted BMJ editorial (British Medical Journal): Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. 

Thus trillions are being spent without democratic control and scientific justification.  Who are responsible for waste and fraud? The Pharma industry have a lamentable reputation as recipients of largesse. 

It is 'morally indefensible' not to provide doctors and the public with full data on vax trials that injure lives and cause deaths, beyond the symptoms of Covid-19. 

The BMJ wrote:The purpose of regulators is not to dance to tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of the populations. 

Pharma firms reckon they own the raw data necessary to justify their vax policy and massive sales to the EU. They do not divulge the data about vaxed and unvaxed and the claimed effects of their experimental injections. Normally an experimental procedure would be tested over many years before being released to the public. The present operations are therefore 'experimental' based on data that the public has not seen.

Pharma firms have their employees and contractors publish papers showing positive results that stimulate sales. What data are they based on? In the Tarniflu case a decade ago governments paid for expensive stockpiles, only to find out that the approval of the drug and the trials were the result of papers, most of them unpublished, and those that were were written by ghostwriters paid for by the manufacturers. The researchers listed as principal authors lacked access to the raw data. Those who asked for access were fobbed off.

FRAUD Big Time!

The only access public and regulators have is via these published papers based on the restricted data. They never see the raw data. Then their response to Freedom of Information action is drip feed the info over many years. 

For the public 'we are left with publications but no access to the underlying data on reasonable request.' 

The BMJ Editorial is at https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102

Are the EU politicians and regulators fully aware of the nature of the evidence before they commit trillions to Big Pharma? Can Pharma be trusted? The BMJ editorial points out that Pharma is the least trusted industry among the 25 main industries. They have paid billions in fines and for fraud.

 A Gallup poll showed that 58% of the public had a very negative or somewhat negative view of Pharma compared with a mere 27% giving positive views. 

My Question is at 12min 30s on https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-217300

'We are not here to enrich companies,' Vestager said. 'We are here to make sure data serve their purpose if their owners, the individual wants them to and that data can be made available for research and innovation.... We are in the process {to create} a health data space in order to let everyone know what data is available on what terms. Secondly trials have to be proved to be real trials.'

Too little, too late? 

Only after strenuous efforts were the first data on the injuries caused by the new breed vaxes released, a year late. Requested info under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed more than 1200 deaths in the first 90 days up to 28 February 2021 and some 160,000 adverse effects and debilitating disorders.

Why wasn't this data released a year ago? 

As the BMJ wrote:

'We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.'

DANGER! European Commission refuses to publish Treaty Charter defending Citizen's Rights against technocracy!

 European Commission refuses to publish Treaty Charter on Citizen's Rights against technocracy!

Europe is in grave DANGER. 

Technocracy has OFFICIALLY replaced any veneer of Democracy and Transparency. What can the citizen do about it? 

Here are the new rules of the European Commission. They override any law or treaty, apparently.

• Principles of democracy for the EU? Don't ask!
• How can citizens stop irresponsible technocracy controlling their lives, imposing lockdowns, forcing inoculations and spending taxpayers' money without proper controls? Don't ask!
• How can citizens appeal against bureaucratic abuse? Don't ask!
• No more questions on these subjects. Journalists in the Commission Press Room are allowed to ask any question but apparently not on this subject, according to the Commission Spokesman. 
• Just don't ask!

Why?

Censorship on bureaucratic and technocratic maladministration is the rule! That is what the Spokesperson of the European Commission declared in answer to my question.

What was my question? I asked when was the Commission going to publish the founding documents of modern Europe, Charter of the European Community. This defines how citizens can appeal against all sorts of bureaucratic abuse and malfeasance. It was signed at the time of Europe's first Community treaty in Paris on 18 April 1951.

Here is a link to my question: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-217128

Commission Vice President Suica confirmed on 19 April 2021 that this and other historic documents on transparency and democratic control would be published for the Conference on  the Future of Europe.  That conference was initiated by French President Macron in response to the Democratic Deficit and Brexit. The conference is now drawing to a close without any discussion on the Charter.

Now apparently the bureaucrats themselves have decided that they should override both the Vice President and the public. They are refusing to publish the Charter. 

The founder of the European Community, Robert Schuman, probably had Britain's Great Charter, the Magna Carta, in mind when he called it the Charter of the Community. It is a system of justice and fair government. It defines the linkage to the human rights process.

The European Commission said that it is not going to answer the question, even if I asked it again. In fact the Spokesman refused to allow me the usual follow-up question, twice.

This is quite an extraordinary position to take. For half an hour, Mr Mamer had just answered multiple similar questions by different journalists on the bureaucratic consequences of Covid 19 on free movement of citizens. We have answered this question a thousand times, he said.  

But one answer about why the Charter is not published as promised? One answer about why bureaucrats buried it in the archives? One question as to what is going on? VERBOTEN!

And if any citizen had the naive idea that an appeal to the European Ombudsman about maladministration would have any effect on the Commission, they are mistaken. The Commission said they would ignore it!

Europe is in real danger.

After my question in the Commission Press Room, Eric Mamer, the Commission Spokesperson telephoned me. He repeated that they are not going to publish the Treaty Charter of the Community at the heart of Europe's democracy. Mr Mamer confirmed again that he would refuse to answer any further questions on the subject. 

I pointed out that the European Ombudsman had written to the Commission pointing out that the Commission had not given any reasons for not publishing the Charter. The Commission had therefore failed in its elementary duty to answer my complaint about this failure. 

Mr Mamer was adamant. He said he did not care what the Ombudsman said. Their position would not change whatever the European Ombudsman reported on the abuse. There were many other cases that they had done so. 

The letter I had received from the Commission's Secretariat General did not give any reasons for not publishing it. The official merely stated it was considered a declaration and therefore it was not going to be published, (whatever Vice President Suica said). Not logical. Surely the Commission can publish a Declaration if the Vice President said it was necessary.

The Charter is in fact an integral part of the Paris Treaty that defines the institutions of modern Europe. It defines not only the duties and installation of the Commission (High Authority), the Parliament and the Council of Ministers but also the European Court of Justice!  If you eliminate the Charter you should logically eliminate these institutions! 

This call confirms that the Commission is governed by rules of technocracy, not open democracy.

Europe is in grave DANGER.

For the Commission, apparently, it is not a question of whether the Charter is a legal and ratified part of the Paris Treaty or is a mere declaration or some other sort of document, the Spokesperson said that it is simply not going to republish it. 

I had prepared a letter to European Commission Spokesperson, Eric Mamer, following my question at today's Press conference. I then sent it to him immediately.

Here is my later letter to the EC Spokesperson in full.

Hello Eric,

In the Commission press room today, Eric, you said the Commission has answered my complaint about the non-publication of Europe’s foundational democratic documents. You did not allow my follow-up question. That did not let me clarify where you are mistaken on the Commission’s stated position for full publication. The letter (that I had not received at the time from the Secretariat General) said nothing to justify the non-publication of the Paris Treaty Charter. It merely gave an (erroneous) description of the Charter. I did not ask about the legal nature of the Charter.  That should be obvious. Schuman said that these documents provided a defence for citizens’ human rights against bureaucracy, technocracy, tyranny and totalitarianism.

 

The official at the Commission's Secretariat General refused to address the question of publication. The Ombudsman pointed this out to the Commission.  ‘It is not clear what relevance the nature of the document has with the decision not to publish…’ The Ombudsman added ‘The Commission has not replied to the complainant’s request that the documents should be published online and in the OJ.’

 

The failure to publish has nothing to do with how one official defines the document. The Commission said officially it would publish the foundational documents on European democracy.  

So did the Council. 

So did the European Parliament.

 

Reason enough that they should be published.  Is one official allowed to stop publication authorised by Vice President Suica and the Council Presidency? Can an official deny publication of a public document that is a constitutional foundation stone of Europe? Is a technocrat in charge to decide what is good and fit for the public to know above the Commission itself? This Charter is a document signed and sealed in Paris on 18 April1951 by the Six Foreign Ministers with plenipotentiary powers, ratified and legally deposited in the French Foreign Ministry.

 

The Vice President of the Commission affirmed that, for the Conference on the Future of Europe and the on-going debate on the Democratic Deficit, the Commission would publish this essential part of the Treaty of Paris. The Commission and the other institutions (EP and Council) represented in the press room on 19 April 2021 also confirmed they would publish the full text of the Schuman Declaration including what Schuman called the exordium, the initial summary that situated it in a geopolitical and historical context.

 

The Commission has not published either document. Fact. Why?

 

Is the Commission refusing to publish these documents?

I would appreciate your  reply on this question.

Regards,

David

Mr Mamer then replied to my letter as follows.

"We have spoken just now on the phone. You received a detailed letter from the Commission, dated 14 December 2021, that states the Commission’s position on the publication of the document you refer to and hence answers your questions.

As I already wrote to you on 21 December 2021, I have nothing to add to what this letter states, either in writing or in the press room. Kind regards, Eric."

 The European Commission has, inevitably, to answer to the people and to justice.

 

Europe's Future: Autocracy, Technocracy? EU Commission must publish the Charter Treaty on Freedom of Choice!

Yesterday in the EU Commission Press Room, I raised a couple of questions about the inactivity and the lack of a direct response of the Commission on the need and legal obligation of the Commission to publish the Charter of the Community. Eric Mamer, the Spokesman, said he had no information. I asked him to help the services provide answers, and publication well before the end of the Conference debate on the Future of Europe. 

On 19 April, the Commission affirmed that they would publish this Charter Treaty and the full text of the Schuman Declaration so that citizens can discuss them at the Conference on the Future of Europe. The Commission ('Guardian of the Treaties') has not done so. 

https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-215453

President Ursula von der Leyen spoke in a Tweet for the Summit for Democracy about how democracy means freedom of choice for Europeans. The Charter or Joint Declaration is a Treaty that provides for citizens a legal instrument to expand the areas of liberty, counter technocratic or politburo-style imposition of regulations and reverse the disastrous Democratic Deficit of the EU that led to many recent problems including Brexit and Rule of Law issues. 

The Charter Treaty is held in legal deposit in the archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs as designated by Article 100 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.  The French Presidency of the Council starts next month and it will be embarrassing if the Charter Treaty and the full Schuman Declaration are not published by then.
The Charter of the Community signed by the plenipotentiary Founding Fathers confirms legally that the European institutions in the Treaty of Paris (Council, Commission, Consultative Committee, Court, Parliamentary Assembly) recognise that Europeans have God-given rights of freedom of choice.  This distinguishes a real democracy from the Fascist regimes or the false People's Democracies of the Communist Soviet bloc or any autocratic regime that imposes its own rules or a technocracy.

My recent article on the subject is at:
https://eurdemocracy.blogspot.com/2021/12/eu-document-transparency-real-problem.html

 

EU Document Transparency: the real Problem is Seventy years old!

Do politicians like transparency? Do cats like rain?

They prefer to stay inside, behind closed doors. 

Then they hide the papers.

The most important papers are in fact treaties that have been hidden for seventy years. 

Seventy years!

What should citizens do about it? 

Complain about missing papers? A treaty engaging governments to open government is some extraordinary piece of paper, like no other.

 "Access to Documents: what next?" That was the theme of the 15 November conference was organised on  by the European Ombudsman, Mrs Emily O'Reilly. 

The conference was told:

"The EU institutions are obliged to keep records of documents relevant to their work and any EU citizen can request to view them. This right is enshrined in EU law but Regulation 1049/2001 is now 20 years old. New technologies, as well as changing expectations about the transparency of public administrations, mean it is time to discuss the future of the EU’s access to documents rules.

Transparency and access to documents inquiries account for around one quarter of the Ombudsman’s inquiries each year. There is a fixed timetable in the procedure for requesting documents, but are there too many delays in the system? While institutions have the right to refuse access to documents for certain specific reasons, are these exemptions applied too readily?"

Seventy Years of decline

The European institutions have been around for 70 years since the Treaty of Paris was signed on 18 April 1951. That treaty had a very powerful way both to collect information about the first European Single Market. It also knew how to protect the privacy of enterprises, the trade unions and the consumers. 

Schuman was no dreamer about bureaucracies. He wrote that a badly run bureaucracy, a technocracy was the greatest danger to democracy. How do you fight an out-of-control technocracy? Transparency. He therefore built in protection of information and information sources and also provided the means to make the most important information available to the citizens.

When the United Nations wanted to organise its global information network, it called on Schuman to write a plan for them.

So why is the Democratic Deficit and maladministration such a problem today?

Blocked at Birth

Let's be clear about the origin of this problem. Let's also understand why the office of Ombudsman was invented four decades after the birth of the European Community.

The European Community was designed as an open democratic system: 

• the Assembly was to hold open debates, 
• the Consultative Committees and, 
• Yes, the Council of Ministers too! 

Everything was supposed to be open to the public and the press. The principles were clearly written in the original treaties signed and sealed on 18 April 1951. 

Declaration of Interdependence

The key document was the Charter of the Community. It described how all citizens and civil organisations have the right to demand open government so that they can see, investigate and criticise each and every institution. This contrasted them with the so-called People's Democracies of the Soviet bloc. There the politburo met behind closed doors, issued its laws, stopped citizens from criticising the Party and forbade any other ideology but atheistic Communism. 

The Charter Treaty is the key document focusing on the right that will stop the EU becoming the European equivalent of the Soviet-style People's Democracy run by a politburo.

What distinguishes an autocracy from a democracy? The citizens' right to choose. With this power they can replace the so-called representatives who preferred to act as self-serving autocrats. 

The first act of the politicians was to hide or bury the Charter of the Community! This treaty was originally called the Joint Declaration of the European Community. Robert Schuman called it the Charter of the Community. It has also been called the Declaration of Inter-Dependence, reflecting the founding freedoms of the United States of America. 

The Commission has promised many times to publish this and the founding documents. It failed to deliver. Their original reluctance to publish it has led to the slippery slope of the Democratic Deficit. That has got worse and worse as one error was compounded by subsequent political compromises, not to say corruption.  

Consequences

Without the Charter and the applications of its principles, the European Commission became what Mrs Thatcher called in 1990 "an undemocratic politburo." This was just after the liberation of the Central and Eastern Europe from the Soviet Bloc. 'We are trying to get Eastern Europe to accept democratic standards and here we are recreating our own politburo,' she said. 

She was not alone, either in the UK or on the Continent.  

Generations of European democrats would not abandon the fundamental principles of impartiality and transparency. 

They made sure that it was written down -- even in the politicians' own Lisbon Treaty. Its articles say that meetings on the Council should be as open as those in the European Parliament. 

That still has not happened.

The doors of the Council of Ministers are slammed shut to the public and the press. 

The Law says politicians have to agree to open sessions whenever they

• consider
• deliberate, or
• take a common position of legislation proposed by the European Commission. 

That means practically all the time except possibly for discussions on security.

How will they be opened again? All the politicians in the Council have to agree that they should obey the treaty they signed up for.

Politicians are as difficult to herd as a clutter of cats.  But it takes only one brave, honest politician to declare and insist that the ministers have to obey the Treaty and act to open the doors.  

But even before the Lisbon Treaty, the Democratic Deficit and the closed door autocracy of the Council had stoked public frustrations, not to mention fury. What would the politicians do about it? How could they divert public opinion?

By the year 2000, the European Community system had been blatantly deformed into a politicians' cartel. People openly complained that the Commission was developing characteristics of Soviet politburo secrecy. The newly liberated countries of central and eastern Europe wanted none of that. 

So the politicians instead of applying the original treaties, decided to borrow the idea of Ombudsman from the Scandinavian countries. This would give the complainants the illusion of access. It was a veneer to cover the real problem.  It limited citizen's intrusion into their political games.  It diverted their energy into a process of fighting the bureaucracy to release documents rather than giving citizens their proper powers.

Illusion, no substance. False promises of action to publish responsibly. And far from the original basis of open democracy, full public and press access to meetings.

The excuses

What of demands for the publication of the real documents of people power from 1951? The Commission has over the years come up with a long list of excuses. 

They denied knowledge of the Charter of the Community!

Figure that out. The Commission declares that it is 'Guardian of the Treaties'. How then does the Commission not know where the treaties are?

Here is the signature page of the Charter Treaty, the Joint Declaration, signed and sealed as part of the founding Treaty of Paris.

It is signed the same day as the European Coal and Steel Treaty with its other annexes and protocols. It is signed by the same plenipotentiary ministers of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, with two ministers from Belgium and the Netherlands. 

Its powers are described in the early legal literature and books on the Community, including those of Robert Schuman, Paul Reuter (who drafted much of the treaties) and others like Walter Hallstein, later president of the European Economic community. 

The Commission said they could not find it in their archives! Of course not. The last article of the ECSC treaty says the originals are kept at the French Foreign Ministry in Paris. A decade ago I wrote and obtained a copy. Why couldn't the 'Guardian of the Treaties'? 

What sort of incompetence is that?

The time for excuses is over. The governments, all organised civil society and individuals including the Ombudsman should insist that citizens have their rights recognized by the politicians.

The Charter of the Community must be published in the Official Journal! 

     

Major US Election Fraud captured by the Trillion

US election Cyber-hacking by algorithm 

Media reaction: Silence. 

EU reaction at possible fraud on the most massive scale imaginable: Silence. 

The EU has its own anti-'disinformation' investigators. It has its own cyber security agency, ENISA.

The EU authorities are zip-mouthed on possibly the most outrageous affront to democracy in the world. 

Between 30 percent of Americans used to believe that fraud and cheating took place in the 3 November US election. That was a few months ago. Today the figure is around 50 percent or more. A large number of them are Democrats. They wonder how allegedly Joe Biden gained millions of votes more than Barak Obama, and broke his record turn out. Biden is older, forgetful, lethargic, bumbling and accused of dementia. Hardly the characteristics to gain votes.

They have good reason. The evidence is flowing out. Joe Biden himself said: 

"We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics," Biden said in the video.

https://home.frankspeech.com/tv/video/absolute-interference-sequel-absolute-proof-new-evidence-foreign-and-domestic-enemies-used

Law-makers with cyber experts from 50 of America's 50 States interacted this summer with other experts analysing software tricks and criminal activities that altered election results and the means to analyse them from the computer based records. Key ballot files have been shown to be deleted. That should automatically and of necessity lead to prosecution. It hasn't.  

During the November 2020 US election 37 Terabytes of internet messaging from electronic counting ballot machines were captured as raw data packets 'pCaps'. 

A major symposium with the nations top cyber experts is taking place 10 to 12 August in Sioux Falls SD, USA analysing these data. 

It has confirmed major fraud.

For one, the electronic counting machines were not supposed to be connected to the internet! 

Secondly, the ballot counting machines are owned by a European company whose major shareholders are Chinese. 

Thirdly, similar fraud seems to have taken place in a number of other countries.

Is the Commission and ENISA or other European agencies following this? When I asked the Commission, they replied:

We are aware of the press reports both on this story and on the cybersecurity symposium but we would have no specific comments to make.

Algorithm to create false voters

Following some unusual outcomes were candidates lost seats in known Republican strongholds, an investigation was conducted on several levels.

Where did the vast number of Democrats suddenly appear? There was a mystery between the results and the known affiliation of the population. Dr Douglas Frank an eminent physicist decided to lead an investigation into what happened. He had two sources of information. The election results and the electoral roll, the list of the adults in that population who were registered to vote. 

Clearly the maximum number of voters could not exceed the number of voters on the electoral role.

Then surprise, surprise. He found that not only had 100 percent of the registered voters voted but in some cases more than 100%! Normally only a proportion, like fifty or seventy percent of the population would actually go to vote.

He showed the graphs to Mike Lindell, who, as a businessman, was familiar with graphs and advertising responses. It showed that someone had been illegally recording that not only all had the registered voters been to the polls that day, but in some cases, others were phantom who seemed to be legally registered. 

What was going on?

The most reliable method was to check door-to-door to see if the person named as voting was actually living at the registered address.

The result was shocking. About one in thirty was a phantom person. 

Votes structured by age

To the sharp mind of Dr Frank that meant that an algorithm was being used. But it wasn't the same as the most recent one. So he tried to fit the supposed voter curve - and found that it fitted better with the previous census report.

Conclusion: Someone was (1) adding extra voters so that the maximum number of voter could be recorded as voting.

(2) These added voters were false.

(3) they were using a computer program to assign the phantom voters so that at first glance they fitted the census data even though it was ridiculous to maintain that 100 percent or more registered people had voted.

(4) the algorithm did not use the latest census as a database and guide for fitting up the falsehood. They had only at their disposal the previous census report.

Above all it showed that massive voter fraud was taking place by adding phantom voter into what was now a computer based voting system. 

The Election, at least in Hamilton county, Ohio, was fraudulent.

Then Dr Frank checked all the other 88 counties of Ohio. All showed the same fraudulent pattern or algorithm. This was age-adjusted. The shock was that this 'Registration Key' worked to a perfect fit in all counties.

No human could make these adjustments in real time. It showed that it was done by a computer manipulation.

What was happening? It was like a credit-line for fraud.

In one county of a State, Dr Frank calculated the percentage of voters of a certain age who supposedly voted. Then he checked the numbers in all the other counties. Surprise, surprise! In all the counties the same percentage appeared, regardless of being NSEW, city or farm etc. However when he examined the next State he found the same phenomenon, but with a different percentage. 

What was the explanation. Someone with the aid of computers was 'expanding' all votes so that the outcome for each State gave Biden extra votes. Some gave him victory by very small margins, but victory no less.

"The more voters you have registered the more {false} ballots you can put in wherever you need them."

Dr Frank used public data. The same pattern was happening in Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado etc. The data can be checked by any member of the public -- except in States where the Secretaries of State have barred access to census and registration data. Why would they do that?

What was also incriminating was that as soon as the fact-checkers crossed the State borders, they found that a different Registration Key was being used. And it was being applied to all the counties in the State. Each State is manipulated separately, because in USA it is the electoral college of State victories that determine the presidency, not the total national count.

Independent figures confirm fraud

The material that came into the hands of Mike Lindell fit these figures like a hand and glove. These data are the internet traffic figures. It is possible to capture all the traffic on the internet and record from which computer address it is being sent and to which computer address it is being sent. Each computer has a coded address. 

Commercial companies, like Wireshark, can provide such capture of each separate message. And each message is detailed as to time place and contents. The messages are divided into the smallest size for transmission and sent separately. Then at the receiving end the separate 'packets' are reassembled to provide the whole transmission, whether an email or a video. 

 

Packet Capture codes

The packet list pane will show you the exact number of captured data bits. Since the packets are organized in several columns, it’s fairly easy to interpret. The default categories are:

• No. (Number): As mentioned, you can find the exact number of captured packets in this column. The digits will remain the same even after filtrating the data.
• Source: It shows where the packet originated.
• Destination: It shows the place where the packet will be kept.
• Protocol: It displays the name of the protocol, typically in an abbreviation.
• Length: It shows the number of bytes contained in the captured packet.
• Info: The column includes any additional information about a particular packet.

Time stamp

As Wireshark analyzes the network traffic, each captured package is time stamped. The timestamps are then included in the packet list pane and available for later inspection.

Wireshark doesn’t create the timestamps themselves. Instead, the analyzer tool gets them from the Npcap library. However, the source of the timestamp is actually the kernel. That’s why the accuracy of the timestamp can vary from file to file.

You can choose the format in which the timestamps will be displayed in the packet list. In addition, you can set the preferred precision or number of decimal places that are displayed. Apart from the default precision setting, there’s also:

• Seconds
• Tenths of a second
• Hundredths of a second
• Milliseconds
• Microseconds
• Nanoseconds

Source

As the name suggests, the source of the packet is the place of origin. If you want to obtain the source code of a Wireshark repository, you can download it by using a Git client. However, the method requires you to have a GitLab account. It’s possible to do it without one, but it’s better to sign up just in case.

The cyber-security people at ENISA should be familiar with the issues as the materials have been aired for several months now. The pCap was known in January. On packet-switching networks, each packet of data has to be verified individually as to contents of its origin and destination and the timing. A packet is typically from tens up to a few thousand bytes.  

The capture of election machine data packets can show forensically sure proof of fraud. Each packet holds its own proof. 37 Terabytes have been captured. (One Terabyte = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes.)

 

There are many multi-billion dollar law suits by Dominion and other firms against news organisations in US, trying to prevent the release for examination of the ballot counting machines. The modems would show the identical data traffic fitting exactly that which is in the 37 Terabytes of pCaps. That would be incontrovertible proof of interference.

Initially both the manufacturers and some politicians maintained that no modems existed on the counting machines but this has been proved false in the case where one of the machines was forensically examined. The 4G modem comes from a firm in Taiwan.  

Both major parties in the USA have previously issued statements about the lack of security in these voting machines that threaten election integrity. see video below.

After full analysis of the data stream by cyber security experts, the details of the pCap are being released at the Symposium 10-12 August. They show millions of votes being shifted fractionally and expanded according to both algorithms that attribute false votes to people on the 2010 census and interactive international cyber-hacking following this algorithm. That is why the voting includes tens of thousands of dead people.  

Background https://home.frankspeech.com/tv/video/mike-lindell-presents-absolutely-9-0

This is one of several background reports available on https://home.frankspeech.com/content/mike-lindells-absolute-series

Tina Peters images

Mesa county Colorado took forensic images of their computer based Dominion machines before and after a visit of their technicians. Far more than maintenance was involved. The elections clerk was suspicious of what they called the new work-- ironically called Trusted Build. 

First two partitions of the HD were made. This provided a means for another operation. Some files were deleted. The partition divisions destroyed the contents of them. By US law no manipulation addition to or deletion from electoral data is permitted for 22 months after an election. 

Thus breach of public trust requires legal action up to and including a new election. Then during Tina's trip to the symposium he Secretary of State raided her office in Mesa country, Colorado.

Symposium experts found deletion of files and also software to "de-harden" the security and turn off the encryption for the intruder. This revelation rendered the Dominion software illegal for any future election use. 

Media ask Trump supporters: 'Do you believe Trump lied on Arizona election audit?'

 "Trump lied on Arizona count"

The very careful forensic audit of the 2020 US election found 360 more votes for Biden in Arizona's most populous county of Maricopa. The main TV and press media were jubilant and gave it wall-to-wall coverage. They ask:

1. Do you Trump supporters believe Trump's claim that he won? If so, why?

2. If Trump lied about these matters, do you still believe the 2020 election was stolen?

3. If you know he lied about the Arizona recount results, what does this imply about Trump's view of his supporters?

I can't answer the first question because I am not an American nor do I vote. The other two questions assume Mr Trump lied when he said the Arizona audit showed he won the election. They are "When did you stop beating your wife" sorts of question.

What did the audit show? It found 360 more votes for Mr Biden. But it found massive fraud too. I checked DuckDuckGo and it is hard to find this. Google I did not try; it hardly ever gives an accurate account of public opinion articles. 

The story that the audit confirmed the Biden win was massively promoted by media to distract the expected outcome that was not going to be released until the next day. This is the Arizona session where the audit results were released. I watched a good bit of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWTMuwy5CQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAAu6O33rNE

These are the facts. If you have a stack of $100 and you find $10 dollars more are you richer? Not if half the $100 and some of the $10 are then found to be counterfeit.

Mr Biden supposedly won Arizona by 10,457 votes.  However four times that number are fraudulent or probably so. Dr Shiva of MIT found some people had voted twice, thrice or four times. Total extra votes: 17,322.

The audit report concludes: "57,734 serious issues were identified."

This is in line with other news that the corporate media refuse to report on: Chinese cyber attack of the supposedly off-line counting machines. Their censorship implies they are captured corporate media (CCM) at the service of both Chinese communists (CCP) and Big Business.

Serious interference was also found to the software of the Dominion counting machines in the Arizona audit. 

They were not supposed to be attached to internet and the count needed to be kept for 22 months by federal law. However, on three occasions a total of 9571 directories and 1,064,746 election-related files were deleted for Maricopa county alone. Successively 463, then 37,686 and 330 entries were overwritten just before audit. Screenshots are proof of this.

Deleting electoral information is a federal criminal offence. The auditors say they have the screen shots to show the identity of the person/s involved.

Yes 360 extra votes for Mr Biden were found but it that the real story?

The main issue is: are the main media acting responsibly? We shall see if and when the Arizona vote is de-certified and criminal prosecutions are undertaken as some of the Senators are requiring. 

 

US Elections: How the Big Cheat was done

 

Mike Lindell's Symposium on US Election cheating

For those who haven't seen the three day symposium, 10-12 August, it is available still on LindellTV.com and FrankSpeech.com

The areas of evidence of massive fraud involving multiple millions of votes include the following:

1. Paper ballot fraud.

(a) uncertified ballots 

(b) extra ballots brought in by the truck-load

(c) ballots counted when no observer was present.

 

2. Computer algorithms to hide extra, illegal ballots.

Physicist Dr Doug Frank presentation. He shows mathematically that fraud must have taken place because the same computer algorithm was used to fiddle vote counts. 

How were hundreds and thousands of votes assigned to dead people, false addresses, non-residents and out-of-State residents?

(a) All citizens were registered by computer tricks in some States as voters (normally only 50 to 70% register). Then all extra illegal votes can be assigned to people who did not vote so it looks as if all voting was by registered voters. To do this effectively, the fill-in had to use a model. The 2010 census was available and was used to populate the voters according to their age. This did not work well because:

(b) the census was out of date. On examination, it had produced impossible results. These showed human interference.

(c) it resulted in more votes than people in several categories.

(d) a post-election canvas of the addresses showed that people did not live at the addresses, including parking lots and postal boxes.

(e) the fraud was apparent because the same model to an exact degree was used in all counties in each State. Just across the border a different algorithm was used implying people a few miles distant acted according to State-based rules. Also impossible without computer-based algorithm for fraud.

3. Computer counting machine traffic fraud.

(a) By law and sworn company testimony, ballot counting machines are supposed not to be connected to the internet. Evidence, both of the internals and internet traffic, show they had modems (made in Taiwan) and were connected. That is a criminal offense. The companies are refusing to obey sub poenas to submit the machines (bought by tax-payers money) for forensic examination. Why?

(b) The exact content of traffic can be captured in a process called packet capture, thus making a photograph of time and content of each internet message. Digital traffic is sent in packets containing the sender identifier, time, contents and destination identifier. A packet is typically between tens to a few thousand bytes. Each gives exact forensic proof of messaging. During the election period 37 Terabytes were captured. One Terabyte is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. This pCap (packet capture) shows extensive interaction between voting centers and Chinese data centers.  This voting manipulation shows that votes for Trump were reduced or changed to Biden votes.

4. Counting Machine crime

Besides illegally connecting the machines to the internet, companies have been shown directly to remove data stored on computer memories.

A brave clerk from Mesa county, Colorado, Tina Peters, was unhappy when her Secretary of State said the State had authorized an update to the machine's software by what they ironically called 'Trusted Build'. She had an image of the computer memory taken before and after the intervention. This showed the company had quite illegally deleted the log files of data. The symposium cyber experts analyzed the batch file. This turned off the security and the encryption before deleting the essential records. It created two partitions that wiped out the data. 

This act was considered even more important for action than the pCaps because it showed clear interference with data that had, by federal law, to be retained intact for 22 months. 

The major counting machine is owned by Chinese shareholders using a European company for cover.

5. Further action.

The symposium was broadcast publicly but only State legislators, media, and computer cyber experts with a necessary level of qualifications could attend. All 50 States were represented. Legislators agreed that forensic examination of all the election results needed to be done, in both Democrat and Republican counties across the USA.

Results of a forensic audit of all votes from Maricopa country, Arizona, are expected to be released in the next few days. Others will follow. 

Dr Shiva of MIT, whose own election was interfered with, showed the network of organizations used in media news suppression.

The ballot counting machine firms have launched multi-Billion (yes billion) dollar cases against media such as FrankSpeech, NewsMax, OANN, Fox, and Mike Lindell, Mayor Giuliano, Sidney Powell personally and others to silence any investigation of their machines or the actions of their executives. This is one of the biggest freedom of speech cases in US history. 

Have you heard about it?