@emd_worldwide Perhaps not by coincidence, there is a peculiar figure who today occupies a MAJOR seat on a certain supreme court, and who years ago practically "designed" the workings of a fraud in a hypothetical electronic vote counting system... 🤔😱
@emd_worldwide Select a sample of machines. Access their binary files. Reverse-engineer the binaries to reconstruct the source code (you’ll need Claude Opus 5.5 for this). Look for anomalies in the code. It’s the only way I can see forward.
@emd_worldwide Maneira mais fácil de tirar qualquer dúvida.
Nas 106 urnas em que Flavio não obteve nem um voto no segundo turno. Basta, informar as seções..publitiza Las dos próprios eleitores destas seções que votaram virem a público e denunciarem que seu voto não foi computado para Flávio.
@jdoetthird@emd_worldwide Nem deveria existir eleição sem o voto impresso que permitisse recontagem manual e também a apuração é secreta sem publicidade dos votos. Um departamento chefiado por uma pessoa que abastece as urnas com um código fonte que pode estar alterado p/favorecer um dos candidatos.
Can you read this? I have this question for years.
The electronic ballot box is vulnerable to human fraud.
The result is not decided by the machine itself. It is decided by the software the machine runs and by the media it accepts. That software is prepared by a small group of TSE civil servants. The most visible name is Júlio Valente, Secretary of Information Technology since 2021. The rest of the team that writes and signs the code does not have publicly known names. No one elected them.
The sealing ceremony only guarantees that the signed software is what runs. It does not guarantee that the software is honest. If this team wants to, it can put code into the system that alters votes in a consistent way. After sealing, the digital signatures and hardware only confirm that it is the official software. They do not detect whether the official software is wrong.
In the second round, the same team generates the loading media. In roughly 21 days, with only two candidates, it is possible to produce a media that the already-sealed software is programmed to interpret maliciously. The machine accepts it because the media is “official.”
After voting, the result media leave the polling stations and are handled in electoral offices, in open rooms, by staff. The Maringá video shows exactly this: bags arriving, media sitting on desks, insertion into computers. Protection at this stage is almost entirely digital. The team that controls the system that accepts or rejects these media is the same technical team.
There is no technical barrier that absolutely prevents those who control the software and the generation of the media from deciding the result. Ultimate security depends on the integrity of a small, unelected, and little-known group. If that group is corrupt, the current system does not prevent fraud.
What could an independent audit actually uncover about the Zanin Window?
Consider a hypothetical candidate named Lolo with privileged technical access. Lolo might attempt to substitute section results, alter aggregation records or interfere with which results were accepted. Those attempts would have to overcome safeguards and survive comparison with authentic local tallies. The Zanin Window itself would not grant that access. Nor would it erase the printed Boletins de Urna already held outside central custody.
That gives investigators a concrete test. You could compare independently preserved originals with signed electronic files, every accepted or replaced version, and the published totals. Examine administrative access and changes before, during and after the interruption.
A separate hypothesis—compromised machine software before local tallies were generated—requires different testing and would not depend on the Zanin Window.
An independent audit with international experts and observers should establish whether any records changed without justification, whether safeguards held, and whether any discrepancy could affect the outcome.
The audit must be capable of exposing manipulation—and of clearing the system if the records support it.
🚨 BOMBA NO CENÁRIO INTERNACIONAL!O advogado americano Martin De Luca @emd_worldwide se manifesta após as declarações de Trump contra Lula e as alegações de fraude eleitoral no Brasil. 🌎⚖️
@JMilei@edufeiok
@MAGANEW0 Okay, but instead of annulling the elections, he declared Lula elected. This monster's son has cases before the Supreme Court; this minister was threatened by Gilmar Mendes on September 15th in plenary via WhatsApp, and the same was mentioned.
🚨ATTENTION: Trump Dossier Could Lead US to Classify Brazil as a Dictatorship and Even Consider Military Actions
The material would gather suspicions of corruption in the STF, judicial abuses, narcotrafficking, and electoral irregularities.