Posted by Curt on 22 November, 2020 at 12:32 pm. 68 comments already!


by Blade Coplin

Dominion Voting Systems Corporation is a company that sells electronic voting hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators, in the United States and Canada. It is also in the headlines presently due to rumors going around of it’s involvement in election rigging claimed by the Trump Administration and his legal team, as the voting systems for the 2020 Presidential Election used their systems to tally votes. While the company itself, along with every other news source has denounced any irregularities or evidence of election rigging due to the voting systems, evidence to the contrary has started to present itself. Here is a brief history of Dominion Election Systems before they became Dominion.


Diebold Elections Systems Inc. is formed. Previously, DESI was run by Bob Urosevich, who worked in the election systems industry since 1976. In 1979, Mr. Urosevich founded American Information Systems. He served as the President of AIS, now known as Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), from 1979 through 1992. Bob’s brother, Todd Urosevich, is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales with ES&S, DESI’s chief competitor. In 1995, Bob Urosevich started I-Mark Systems, whose product was a touch screen voting system utilizing a smart card and biometric encryption authorization technology. Global Election Systems, Inc. (GES) acquired I-Mark in 1997, and on July 31, 2000 Mr. Urosevich was promoted from Vice President of Sales and Marketing and New Business Development to President and Chief Operating Officer. On January 22, 2002, Diebold announced the acquisition of GES, then a manufacturer and supplier of electronic voting terminals and solutions. The total purchase price, in stock and cash, was $24.7 million. Global Election Systems subsequently changed its name to Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

Fast forward to the election year that followed the creation of Diebold Election Systems. There had been known glitches within Diebold’s software that could alter an election in other candidates favor. Multiple News Outlets wrote articles pertaining to the threat of Election Rigging via E-Voting. Those same media outlets now in 2020, that claim e-voting to be safe and not subject to tampering/glitches even whilst saying the exact opposite 15 years prior. Michael Meacher from “The Guardian” wrote this back in 2005.

“According to Harris, a manipulation technique she found in Diebold’s AccuVote central vote tabulator is able to read totals from an untraceable bogus vote set within its software. “By entering a two-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created; and this set of votes can be changed in a matter of seconds, so that it no longer matches the correct votes,” she has said. And she has demonstrated this live on television. Her conclusion is: “You can easily edit the election.”

While Diebold denounced these claims, email threads I acquired through digging indicate their knowledge of said bugs in some form or another in their systems and how circumventing was done to avoid detection including halting google searches on the company and the keyword bug, as to not increase the chances of those two keywords coming up in the registry upon searching the company.

Attached below are a few separate emails from various members of the company. (At the end of this article I will post the rest of the email threads I have currently, as to not be selective in only picking out certain conversations.) Pay attention to the name Ian Piper in the separate email below as well. Though he didn’t partake in the email thread below regarding the glitch, he was the Compliance Officer of Diebold Election Systems. This is important in many ways.

A compliance officer is an individual who ensures that a company complies with its outside regulatory and legal requirements as well as internal policies and bylaws. Compliance officers have a duty to their employer to work with management and staff to identify and manage regulatory risk. Now to me, those emails though not too descriptive in detail clearly show knowledge of a said glitch, and an attempt to keep it off the radar somehow. As a Compliance Officer, I don’t think I’d be too off the mark in saying he too had knowledge of a good amount of what was going on within the company.

Shortly following these emails that year and the years following, Diebold Voting Systems were having many widespread irregularities occur. Some as severe as taking votes away from one candidate and transferring them over in favor of the other party/doctoring votes as described in this April 2004 Vanity Fair article written by Michael Shnayerson.

In 2006, Diebold decided to remove its name from the front of the voting machines for strategic reasons. In 2007, it changed its name to Premier Solution Systems. Election Systems & Software (ES&S) acquired Premier Election Solutions on September 3, 2009.

According to Wikipedia, Following the acquisition, the Department of Justice and 14 individual states launched investigations into the transaction on antitrust grounds. In March 2010, the Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust lawsuit against ES&S, requiring it to divest voting equipment systems assets it acquired from Premier Election Solutions in order to restore competition. The company then sold the assets to Dominion Voting Systems.

Dominion Voting Systems acquired Premier on May 19, 2010.

“We are extremely pleased to conclude this transaction, which will restore much-needed competition to the American voting systems market and will allow Dominion to expand its capabilities and operational footprint to every corner of the United States,” said John Poulos, CEO of Dominion. The transaction was approved by the Department of Justice and nine state attorneys general.

Problem with this is Dominion Voting Systems too had its own “glitches” just like Diebold/Premier Solution Systems had dating all the way back as early as 2001. Essentially making it safe to assume that Diebold hadn’t so much as went away, as they travelled from name to name. Dominion was no different. In this March 2012 article from “The Palm Beach Post”, written by George Bennett where a supplier for Dominion Voting Systems blamed the problems on a software “shortcoming” as they put it which ended up transferring the votes of one candidate over to the other.

Now this is but speculation, but this same scenario is what I presume to have occurred with the recent 2020 Presidential Election in multiple states across the country seeing as Dominion Systems are used in more than 29 states in the nation.

As we continue down this rabbit hole, I’ll detail Dominion’s role in everything.

On a sidenote, for those who have recently heard of the company Smartmatic here’s something important you should know contrary to what the company states, when they denounced their affiliation with Dominion. Smartmatic acquired another multi-national technology company which developed advanced election systems, as well as voting machines. This company was called Sequoia Voting Systems. The acquisition occurred on March 8, 2005.

Why is this important?

Because Smartmatic, following a verdict by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), was ordered to sell Sequoia. Who did they sell it to? None other Dominion Voting Systems. So, while not directly related to Dominion, Smartmatic still retains a degree of indirect relationship to it based off the sale of said company.

So now we have Dominion in possession of not just one, but two subsidiaries. Sequoia and Diebold/Premier. 

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x