Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 20, 2016 - Project Camelot

02:08:57

POLLMOLE - VOTING & POLLING PROTECTION SOFTWARE - RICHARD DAVIS, MD.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	So, sorry for the delay in starting tonight.
	I had some unprecedented problems with my computer.
	I had to work at all, and so I had to change everything around to another computer.
	Okay, are you there now with us?
	Okay, thank you very much for your patience and the audience as well.
	This is very interesting, having so much trouble with this particular broadcast.
	So at this moment, what I will do is try to identify this broadcast really quickly.
	Okay, so now we will get Richard on the screen and hopefully this whole thing will proceed as normal at this point.
	So Richard, welcome to the show.
	I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to give you a good introduction here and so I'm going to ask you to introduce yourself and really tell a little bit about yourself and how you got into building this particular software program.
	Thank you, Kerry.
	I appreciate you having me on.
	Project Camelot is certainly one of my favorite pastimes, and you have some amazing guests and very thought-provoking, controversial, interesting people.
	So I'm honored to be among your folks that you've had on.
	So thank you for that.
	Briefly, my background began when I watched Way Too Rich Star Trek as a kid.
	And wanted to go into the astronaut program.
	I was always fascinated with space and wanted to do that since I can remember.
	And so the ticket to get into the aerospace program was to go become an aerospace engineer.
	And I pursued that initially until they closed the space program down.
	Manspace anyway.
	And the show was not going to be launched for several years.
	So I was impatient.
	I decided to pursue my second interest.
	Which was medicine.
	So I went back to school.
	I had a degree in synthetic bio-organic chemistry.
	Vietnam was winding down a scholarship program for the military in order to fill their ranks back with medical professionals.
	So I was lucky enough to win that scholarship.
	It was awarded to a number of people.
	I went into the Navy in medical school.
	I went to medical college in Virginia in Richmond.
	And when I got out in 1981, I went into full-time active duty and had an absolutely incredible experience in the military for me.
	I was fortunate enough to be selected to go into their aerospace program.
	What I mean by that is the flight surgery was sort of the ticket to that, and I became a flight surgeon.
	One of my collateral duties was to be the backup flight surgeon for the Blue Angels when I was stationed in Pensacola.
	I also had the opportunity to go to Panama City, learn how to run some of the dive chambers and do some very deep profile mixed gas And I met a series of SEALs there and was invited to participate with them in some things that I can't really talk about, even to this day.
	But let's just say that it was a fascinating experience to be able to fly high with the blues and to dive deep with the SEALs.
	I don't think that many people have had that experience, very few, and so I feel myself very fortunate.
	When I got out of the military, My ER trauma was always my specialty and so I ran a series of level 4 trauma centers in the Tampa Bay area for some of the largest hospitals in the area and enjoyed that a lot and did that for about 10 years.
	Along the way I started to invent things.
	To this day I have about 400 patents and trademarks that I've authored.
	Developed numerous products, both medical and non-medical.
	Many of them are still considered standards of care around the world today.
	So I'm very proud of that.
	My wife and I are both very entrepreneurial.
	We've started a number of businesses.
	Two of those businesses were taken public through IPOs.
	So I have entrepreneurism and the rest of it.
	So an odd eclectic background, but it gives me a little bit of different focus, gives me a different perspective for sure on the world and how the world works.
	I consider myself to be relatively awake like many of the people in your audience and look forward to continuing to grow and learn as I figure out how the world really works as opposed to how I'm told that the world works.
	And this dichotomy between the creation of our reality and what is actually reality was the aegis And probably began about 12 years ago as I started to emerge from my slumber and started to recognize the significant amount of propaganda and the agendas that are afoot, both visible and many of them that are covert.
	And as we watched this election season unfold, it became very evident to us That both the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be extremely good at and relish in the idea of stealing our voices by stealing our elections.
	And like a lot of inventors, a lot of people that have different skill sets, I hired consultants.
	I put a team together.
	We began to understand in tremendous detail How elections are stolen.
	And it actually isn't that hard.
	I mean, you know, the complexity is in the execution of doing it well.
	But on a theoretical basis, stealing elections is not that hard.
	They use a process called skimming.
	And I'll get to that in just a minute.
	As we talk about the kind of technology that needs to be brought to bear, which is what poll ball is.
	And in one of my past lives, I had the honor to be able to write and develop the first software for portable mortgage origination.
	That was a long time ago with a company called Online Financial Services.
	That software was the first of its kind, and it ultimately led to what is used today by companies like LendingTree and others that utilize A system of being able to query a database, being able to do mathematical calculations, and to drive that back to the screen in order to be able to tell people how much house they can afford and what their payments might be.
	So Plomo is not that much different, even though it's 30 years later.
	Obviously, technology changed significantly.
	But it's this idea of understanding that our elections are stolen all the time.
	And I think that if there's any controversy in this conversation that we're having tonight, it's having people trying to understand that this is America, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but our elections are stolen all the time because it's not that difficult, there's no evidence left behind, and they always get away with it.
	Okay, okay.
	Thank you.
	I mean, this is a great introduction and you're all fired up with your subject.
	I can see that.
	And thank you for being so sort of, you know, excited to tell your story.
	What I want to do is slow you down just a bit so that people can kind of catch up with you and I can ask you a couple questions about the sort of The stealing of elections is one thing.
	Polling as well is another thing that I believe the software is handling.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	In release one for poll, it is a political polling application that's built on top of the social networking platform and an engine that underlies that.
	Yes.
	So when you say release 1, are you on release 1?
	Is that where you're at?
	or did you already release you know something else Android and iOS applications open running Full result.
	People can go to the App Store or Google Play Store and they can download either of these apps.
	It's really simple.
	And You can sign in, it's very simple, very basic, and off you go.
	So we can talk about that in a bit.
	So I'm going to back up just a bit.
	So you have a release one, you said, I believe, and are you saying there is now another release that enables, I guess, prevention of the voter fraud?
	Is that now part of it?
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Let me explain.
	The software has been designed in four modules.
	And we call them Release 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0.
	1.0 is the political polling application of the technology.
	And we'll talk about the technology in a minute because we're quite proud of what we've been able to do and no one's ever done it before.
	So we are delighted to be able to have such a robust system.
	So Release 2.0 It's moving beyond just this polling system, which is complicated enough, but we're actually going to be able to deliver, and the app is free, by the way.
	There are no fees or charges.
	People will be able to download the whole for free and follow the elections in real time, 24-7, right on their Android or iOS device.
	And Release 2 takes it to the next level, which will allow people to Query everyone that's in our database and ask them a simple question for free and being able to have that information go directly to everyone within our database and have them answer those questions and come back to them without any filter, with complete, total transparency.
	Our system is designed to be audited.
	We currently have A financial company like the new requirement for what's called Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as from a medical perspective to be able to guard and safeguard personal communication, personal information, and that's called HIPAA.
	So our software is auditable from both the financial as well as the medical side, which is a significant effort in order to make that happen.
	We invite anybody that knows what they're doing to come and audit our software so that they can see that we have nothing to hide.
	It's a giant calculator that simply gathers up people's opinions and displays that, tallies that information, and turns it around and displays it onto all of the devices in our system.
	And there's no manipulation.
	It's completely transparent, and it's virtually instantaneous.
	Okay, so that is the polling side of it.
	Is that correct?
	That is the polling side.
	It has a new application where individuals, because right now when people log on, they're basically asked to answer a single question.
	Who are you voting for for president?
	And there are six choices.
	And so people would either vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Or Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or other, because there are other people running for president, constitutional party, and others, independent party.
	And then there would be unsighted.
	So in our straw polls leading up to election day, we have four separate weeks of running a poll each week.
	On Sunday night, midnight, each week, like this Sunday night, at midnight, the poll shuts down.
	It tallies the votes, determines a winner, resets everything to zero, all the vote count goes right back to zero, and then everyone can vote again.
	Okay, thank you.
	So what you're really saying here is that in order for you to do this kind of a poll on a weekly basis leading up to the election, that people will need to download your software.
	Is that correct?
	They'll be able to download the app, yes.
	Yes.
	So when you get polling going with this software, it's completely dependent, I assume, on the people that are registered.
	That is correct.
	We're depending on people to accurately reflect both their demographic information Identify an individual.
	There's nothing that we're asking people.
	So that remains entirely anonymous.
	So there's no way that we would have to be able to identify, Carrie, if you were to do this, we couldn't go out and say, oh, here's Carrie Cassidy or this is Dr.
	Rick Davis or anyone else.
	We collect information from a demographic standpoint in order to be able to refine and better understand how people voted.
	And we will be displaying that before the election.
	So people would have an opportunity to look at the demographics and say, you know, how many Asians are voting or how many African Americans or Caucasians or Hispanics or, you know, men, women, you know, different incomes, different education levels.
	So they can sort of slice and dice the information in order to be able to understand how people are voting and not have that information spoon fed to us by the establishment media, because that's the way it happens today.
	And if something as important as polling, we felt it was about time that we, the people took that power back and took that knowledge of that information back so that we have the raw data and can ask those questions and get the answers for ourselves without having CNN or CBS or, you know, anyone the people took that power back and took that knowledge of that information back so that we have the raw data and can ask those It's our information.
	We generate it and we should be able to access it for free.
	Okay.
	Now in order to register for this, you know, to download the software, a person needs to be, you know, on a computer, one assumes.
	Yes?
	Well, the computer-based system will be the last.
	Right now it's really designed for smartphones and tablets that have internet access.
	So any of the Android or Apple products, we support about 7,600 different models of Android and Apple products right now with the backward compatibility that we've built into the system.
	So if you had a smartphone, let's say that you had an Apple 6S or whatever it was, you'd be able to go to the App Store, download Polo, just type in Polo, and you search it, Your little head will come up.
	You have a cute little face and a little mole with a little miner's cap on.
	It's very cute and a lot of fun.
	And they can download that.
	And then you enter the demographic information.
	It takes you right to the voting screen.
	And then you'll cast your vote.
	It'll ask you, are you sure?
	Is this the person you want to vote for?
	And you say yes.
	And it instantly registers that in our dynamic loading.
	It's an auto-scaling kind of a cloud system.
	Very sophisticated.
	We're able to register, and it will send you an immediate notification letting you know that your vote was just counted at such and such a time, on such and such a date, and it was the nth vote in the stack as the votes come in.
	So people will have a very good idea that vote was, in fact, counted.
	And the way that rigged elections occur is that some votes are not counted, And some votes are counted more than others.
	And so our idea, our objective, is to be able to take information in a way and present it in complete transparency so that people will know for sure that their vote got counted and that Cuomo was doing its job.
	Okay, so I'm putting, you know, your website, the front page of your website, so people can actually see what it looks like when you're saying Pomo, how to spell it, for example.
	But what I'm wondering is, this polling software that you've got is completely dependent on audience receptivity, in a sense, and usability.
	It is not, in other words...
	If you get a sort of an estimate of who is voting, are these people going to demonstrate for you that they are actually registered or are they just going to be casting a vote, for example?
	You know, and I'm assuming you want to reflect what's going on in the United States, but Europeans and so on who may have an interest could vote.
	Does that factor in or not?
	Well, we ask a series of questions In the demographics, are you a United States citizen?
	Are you registered to vote?
	You know, what is your age, etc.
	And so we are doing our very best, just like all polls.
	I mean, polling today typically uses landline telephones, and so they're restricted to people that still have landlines.
	They make a phone call, they call someone that they don't know, and ask them these same kinds of questions.
	So you're depending upon The integrity and the honesty of the person who is responding in order to be able to give you the information that you're requesting.
	This makes polling an inexact science at best.
	I think you've pointed that out.
	So there can be a lot of different kinds of people that have either no opportunity to vote in the United States or people that shouldn't be voting, etc., that may participate in this.
	We have no way of actually being able to determine that Because we believe that having it anonymous is more important than being able to strictly track and find out and have some sort of thought police that, oh, you're not supposed to vote or what have you.
	But we do know that statistically, and I happen to have a background in statistics as well, that statistically, if you have a very large sample size, and our objective is to have 20 million people subscribing to poll poll, right now we have about 350.
	So we've got an awfully long way to go in three and a half weeks.
	We think that we can do that as long as, as you said, as we get awareness and people respond and recognize the importance of using a system like this that is the one sort of last bastion of being able to protect our guaranteed right to vote and to have that vote count of the total vote count Done properly.
	And I'm here to tell you that usually it's not.
	Almost every election is manipulated in one fashion or another.
	And the bigger the election, the bigger the stakes, the bigger the business interests, and the more voter fraud and more election fraud occurs.
	And poll roll is designed to be able to detect all forms of election and voter fraud and being able to determine when it occurred, Where it occurred, right down to the precinct level.
	And there's nothing that's ever been that powerful.
	It's had that kind of granularity built into that system.
	Okay, thank you.
	Well, let me ask you, you say that it's going to be able to detect voter fraud.
	How is it going to do that?
	Well, the way that the system works today, and now let's talk about skinning.
	Because that's really your question, is how does voter fraud occur?
	There's three steps to having a successful fraudulent outcome and manipulate the data from an election.
	It begins with, like what we're doing now with straw polls, where there's pre-election polling that begins, and it began months ago.
	I mean, you can't turn on the news on any channel and not find out what the latest poll says.
	And where's Donald Trump?
	And where's Hillary?
	And the rest of it.
	And this is carefully orchestrated in elections that are designed to be stolen.
	Because they basically set it up like a horse race.
	Where they have the two lead horses and they're rounding the turn.
	And they're heading for the stretch.
	And boys are going to be close.
	And they're neck and neck.
	And it's going to be a photo finish.
	And this is going to be won by a nose.
	It keeps everybody in their seat.
	And it's fantastic.
	Political theater, wonderful for television and the ratings in the political season.
	And think back over how many races have been run exactly like this, where they're talking about being too close to call for months ahead of time.
	Months ahead of time.
	And yet the polls that determine this conclusion are absolutely inaccurate.
	If you look at the way that they're constructed, they may be interviewing 600 people, 1,000 people, 1,500 people, not a lot.
	It's not a lot of people.
	And so your margin of error, in other words, your ability to be able to predict what these few people do and try and extrapolate that into the entire population of the United States, that's a very inexact science.
	And so you'll see margins of error between 6 and 10% all the time because they interview so few people and they have to take into consideration other things that go into polls.
	And the reality is that it's very easy to manipulate a pre-election poll because you can decide who you're going to call.
	And then once you've called a bunch of people, you can decide to throw out votes if you choose or not.
	If you're not being honest, and you're not going to be audited, and there's no paper trail, there's no way for anyone to determine whether the poll was done appropriately with integrity or not.
	And so you have this pre-election hype, this buildup to election day.
	And as the election day gets closer and closer, the polls will get tighter and tighter, and the leaders will jockey back and forth.
	One will be ahead one day.
	The next person will be ahead the next day, back and forth.
	And again, this is one of the telltale signs of election fraud.
	We're being set up because polls don't typically gyrate that much back and forth, back and forth, especially when your margins of error are so large.
	And so this sets the stage of setting an expectation among the electorate, those of us who vote, That, oh boy, this is going to be a really close election.
	Another nail-biter.
	Just like, you know, George Bush came to Florida and he won by hanging chads by about 500 votes in a state where 10 million people voted.
	What?
	Really?
	I mean, does anyone really believe that?
	I don't.
	That's clearly a king.
	Okay.
	Are you there?
	My...
	Hello?
	Hi.
	Sorry, there was a breakup right there.
	I'm sure that the artificial intelligence that's surveilling this conversation decided that, you know, they heard the name Bush and they went crazy.
	So that's all good.
	So you at this time are saying that the...
	The polling is fraudulent.
	So before the vote even is cast, we have a fraudulent polling system.
	And I appreciate that.
	That's very good information.
	What I'm wondering is, how is your software going to sort of rescue us from that situation, so to speak?
	Yes, thank you.
	Let me get to the second piece of the fraud.
	Because you have the pre-election polls...
	And then you have the exit polls.
	The exit polls are, they poll more people.
	They typically poll what they consider to be key precincts in battleground states.
	So you've really self-selected the type of people, the number of people that you're going to talk to and interview as they come out of the polls.
	And you're going to ask them basically the same questions that have been asked in Same kinds of questions that Paul will ask.
	But here's the interesting thing.
	And I would challenge all of your audience, after we're done, to go look up a company called Edison Research.
	Just like, you know, the inventor, Thomas Edison.
	Edison Research.
	You go right on their website and you read about them and what they do and how they do it.
	And they boast that they have the exclusive contracts that With six very large, very powerful media organizations that have come together and put this exclusive contract to get exit polling data from Edison Research.
	And they call themselves the National Election Pool.
	And who are these media organizations?
	It's right on their website.
	So this is not secret.
	It's like everything.
	It's secrets that are hidden in plain sight.
	It's ABC. CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, and AP, Associated Press.
	Those six companies have this exclusive contract with Edison Research to provide them with exit polling data that they use on Election Day to project the winner of the election.
	Now, that might not sound so bad, except that Edison Research is owned by By those self-same six media organizations.
	That's just a little too good.
	That's almost like the same model of the Federal Reserve owned by the big banks.
	And the big banks tell the Federal Reserve kind of what to do.
	And there's no audit and all the rest.
	So Edison Research isn't audited.
	And the polls that they conduct, the exit polls that they conduct are not audited.
	I'm not saying that Edison Research has ever done anything wrong.
	There's no way to know.
	There's no way to audit them.
	They've never been audited.
	But it just seems a bit cozy, don't you think?
	That they've got this exclusive relationship with the people that tell 95% of us what to do and what to think and what reality is and what's going on.
	And they own that entity that gives them that information.
	I'm just...
	I'm just flabbergasted, but that's a little-known truth, and I'm sure that you've got 100,000 people fact-checking me right now saying, you know, is Dr.
	Davis out of his mind?
	And when they look at it, they're just going to go, wow, that is interesting.
	And so you've rigged the pre-election polls done by lots of different people.
	You've rigged the most important poll, the exit poll, and I'll tell you why in a second.
	That is the most important.
	And then you have the election itself.
	And the election itself can be rigged in a dozen ways.
	But the most common are having dead people voting.
	And having illegals voting.
	And having people bust around and voting in multiple precincts.
	Or people crossing state lines and voting.
	And then the most common, of course, today is the electronic voting machines.
	And having them...
	Rigged electronically to give you the answer that you want.
	And what is that answer?
	You don't have your winner win by a landslide.
	You don't have your horse win by a furlong.
	You have them win very close.
	2%, 2.5%, 3%.
	Very, very tight race.
	Think back to the races that have been run recently.
	Very, very tight races.
	And there's a specific reason for that.
	Because they compare the exit poll that's done that day, official vote done that day, to determine if they're the same.
	If they are within 2%, according to the United Nations, and Jimmy Carter, who has been a very vocal opponent of election fraud, and has been a poll watcher all over the world with the United Nations, where they're going to The United Nations is sending 500 poll watchers into our country in order to, quote, watch and safeguard and certify that our elections were done properly.
	500 people, Kerry.
	We have 180,000 precincts.
	I mean, really?
	500 people are going to help certify and determine that 180,000 precincts Follow the rules?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, it's absurd on its face.
	And any thinking person would have to scratch their head and wonder, what is this?
	It's a charade.
	It is a charade.
	And this is part of how elections are stolen.
	You're getting the United Nations come in and say, oh, we had these people, they sat there, you know, they looked at all these precincts and said, Yep, everything was done just right.
	This election was on the up and up and we certify it as being truthful.
	And then they go to the next step, which is to look at not just the UN poll watchers information, they take the exit poll and they look at how a few thousand people determined from that exit poll who should be the winner.
	And again, extremely inaccurate.
	6, 8, 10% margin of error.
	If you have a margin of error that's this wide, And you manipulate the vote using the machines and dead people and the rest so that this is, say, 6% or 8%.
	And you bring the vote in inside that margin of error to 2% or 3%.
	What that means is the margin of error is this no-man's land, this black hole of statistical unknowingness that you can't determine whether something is true or not in a margin of error.
	So you design your exit poll to be grossly inadequate of being able to determine a close race.
	So you set the poll here, you set the official vote here, and there's no one the wiser.
	Okay, you know, I want to stop you right there because I'd like you to explain to me what the exit poll will actually do.
	In other words, what's the machination of an exit poll?
	I don't You know, I voted, but I don't remember exit polls.
	Where do they get this information?
	Is it something they ask someone walking out after they vote or what?
	They have people greeting people as they leave the voting area.
	And they have people with forms that they ask people to fill out or they fill themselves out and they just speak to people.
	And as I said, I've never been asked these questions, and I've voted in every election since I was 18, and I've got a lot of gray hair, so that's a lot of elections.
	I've never been polled.
	You've never been polled.
	I don't know any of my friends that have ever been polled.
	And so it goes back to they simply have this information from what they define as key precincts.
	I don't know how they define Key precincts.
	They don't tell us.
	And then they only do that in key precincts of battleground states.
	Those states where they consider that the vote could go either way, very, very close, and usually states with pretty significant electoral college votes.
	Remember, we have an electoral college that actually elects the president.
	It's not done on the popular vote.
	And we've had many elections, you know, like with Bush-Borke, where, you know, Borke wins the popular vote, but Bush wins the presidency because he won in states that had more electoral college votes.
	And that's the system.
	We can argue all about that system and the rights and wrongs, but that's the system we have today.
	That's the system that's going to be put in place on November 8th to determine who our president is going to be.
	Okay, well, let me just say, though, that, you know, I've heard some discussions about the Electoral College.
	And isn't that also skewed?
	In other words, it's not a fair allocation, necessarily, to reflect, again, the people's opinion.
	And the very fact that we would have a different vote with the people than you would with the Electoral College is worrisome, you know, in essence.
	You're exactly right, Carrie.
	I mean, the...
	The idea that we've been sold in the United States comes from an antiquated system, in my opinion, of the Electoral College.
	Small states make the argument that they are more reflected in an Electoral College system where they would have the same apportionment of two senators, every state does, and the same number of To the representatives in the House of Representatives and Congress.
	And that's what makes it, and you have Washington DC, of course, that has its votes.
	So you have this group of people, this body of people, 538 people that have the opportunity to vote for whoever they choose.
	And this is another thing.
	They're almost like superdelegates, like what Hillary used to steal the election from Bernie Sanders, according to Stanford University's report.
	I'm not, in my opinion, I'm quoting a very authoritative analysis that was done of the primaries this year.
	And they basically concurred with what many people felt was that Senator Sanders had the election stolen from him through the use of superdelegates and other mechanisms.
	very complex rules that were put in place.
	And again, that was one of the things that alerted What they were doing with Senator Sanders as well as with Mr.
	Trump.
	But that goes to why we created Polo and how we did it.
	We talked about that and the technology that undermines it, which is substantial.
	But if you look at the Electoral College, to get back to your question, they don't even have to vote according to the prevailing system, which is to Reflect the political will of the people in their state.
	So you might have a very mixed bag.
	California has 55 electoral college votes, 55 people that will go and submit and cast their vote and have the official vote when they hold their Congress and they vote on this.
	Well, they're not necessarily bound by law to reflect.
	Let's say that California voted 60% for Hillary Clinton.
	Well, they don't have to actually reflect, and it's typically a winner-take-all for the whole state.
	You might have people that defect and say, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, and they will vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Donald Trump or whoever.
	And you may have states where this is done, and you have these rogue electors, quote, voting their conscience, unquote, as opposed to doing what they were Sworn in and told to do, which was to vote the will of the people in the aggregate representing their state.
	So the system can be skewed in many ways.
	And we the people have been told to basically sit down and shut up and take it, no matter what the outcome.
	And POMOL is designed to be the first thing that's actually going to work for us to be able to successfully A rigged system.
	A rigged system.
	And the way that it does that is by having, rather than just counting a few select precincts in a few battleground states, if we can get 20 million people, that is our objective, 20 million people to sign up and to vote, hopefully in the straw polls, because it'll make it very interesting to see the trend analysis of where things are going.
	But certainly on Election Day, to be able to sit down and tell us how they voted.
	But there's a wrinkle to this.
	20 million people telling us how they voted.
	Remember I told you that the margin of error, typical, you know, interviewing a couple thousand, 5,000 people is significant.
	If you have 20 million people voting, the margin of error goes almost to zero.
	Almost to zero.
	Not zero, because you'd have to ask everyone in the country how they voted.
	But statistically, it's 99.98% accurate.
	And that is the key, because if you have a margin of error that's very close, and they've rigged the machines, and they've got the whole system designed to come in where the winner wins by 2 or 3%, then that Winning vote is out here, and the margin of error is so small, you can go into each precinct and find out where the errors occurred.
	You've got a tool, finally, so accurate and so robust that we, the people, have this voice.
	We see this tabulation in real time coming in.
	We just hit the refresh screen.
	Every minute, every hour, we can see how the vote is going all across the country, state by state.
	We can see how the electoral college is changing and building.
	In real time, total transparency.
	That's for us.
	We see it.
	CNN is telling us what it is.
	Edison Research isn't telling them what it is.
	We see it in real time, right in the palm of our hand.
	It can't be manipulated.
	We run on a level five encryption.
	The NSA is running at level four.
	We're the first ones to commercialize this Level 5 technology in this way that has only been available to intelligence communities and the military, and we're the first ones to take it up.
	Okay.
	Sorry about that.
	Go ahead.
	Finish your sentence.
	It's essentially unhackable.
	So when people see that information, they can trust it.
	They can believe that that is, in fact, what's going on.
	Okay.
	Isn't it also the case though, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that you are actually counting the popular vote rather than the electoral votes because you're not actually going to have access to those votes, the electoral votes.
	Isn't that correct?
	That is correct.
	And what we're doing is using the historical precedent of where the Electoral College votes Vote the will of the people in an all-in situation where they will all, depending upon the popular vote of their state, they will all agree to vote for whoever the popular vote is for in their state.
	That's the way it has worked for hundreds of years and it's just that I'm pointing out that legally the rules have been changed and that they don't actually have to do that.
	From a legal perspective, they have to do it from a historical perspective, from a moral perspective, from a common law perspective, from all the ways that you would want to have a democracy operate.
	If you have rogue electors who, you know, have somebody put a hundred million dollars in their unnamed Swiss bank account, then they can steal the election.
	I'm just making people aware that there are a lot of ways that this can be stolen from us.
	We cannot, as you pointed out, we can't determine how those electors are going to vote.
	But what we can do is we can determine whether the vote itself, on the popular vote, at the precinct level, was manipulated.
	That has never been done before.
	There's never been a technology that has been powerful enough to do that before, especially to do it in real time.
	There's never been anything like Polmo.
	Never.
	And that's what we're basically saying to your audience and smart-thinking people around the world, is that there's finally a tool for us that reflects our voice and says, this is the way we voted today.
	And this is what we said today.
	And we think that's powerful.
	It's never been done.
	It's going to be done.
	And hopefully we'll have huge pouring and outpouring of support by people that can spend a minute To simply go in, download the app, fill out some things, and then vote, and we'll know.
	And we'll know it in real time as the election rolls out from East Coast, Central, Mountain, and Pacific.
	People can see how the boat is flowing, and they'll know what's going on long before anybody in the mainstream media is willing to predict the winner.
	Again, 95% of the people are being told by these six major media organizations How the vote is going.
	Because Edison is telling them how the vote is going.
	And the reason that they do it this way is because it makes it so easy to rid it.
	If you can suspend people from knowing how the official vote is going until some predetermined time, 9 o'clock central or 10 o'clock central or whatever, however they decide to do it, and the excuse that's used, the reason that they give us, Which is moronic, is that, oh, well, we don't want to skew the vote for people who are voting in California or in the West.
	We don't want to tell them how the East Coast people voted because if their candidate is ahead, they may just say, you know, I need to go out and have a beer with my friends.
	I'm not going to go vote.
	Or if their candidate's behind, they'll be discouraged and they'll be dejected and they're going to go out and have a beer with their friends and they won't vote.
	This is sophomoric.
	I mean, that's not human nature.
	I mean, if your candidate that you have really invested in is behind, you're going to want to go vote and see if you can't help them catch up and help your state stand behind them, especially a state like California that has so many electoral college votes.
	You're going to want to do everything you can to get your candidate above that 50.1% threshold.
	In order to be, or at least a plurality in this case, we have more people voting than two.
	You would have whoever's going to win get those electoral college votes.
	And if your candidate is winning, you're certainly going to go and pile on to make sure that it isn't stolen at the last minute because you didn't support your candidate.
	It's always fun to go brag that, oh, I voted for the winner.
	So this is contrary to human nature.
	This is why poll role is going to be revealing Our information, our votes, that information belongs to us.
	We deserve to know it.
	It deserves to be free, and it deserves to be agenda-free and not spun by some news organization and some poll-gathering company.
	Again, I'm not casting aspersions on them.
	They may be doing it exactly right and having everything right down the straight and narrow, done perfectly.
	We have no way to know.
	Okay, well, okay, fair enough.
	Let me ask you, though.
	With this polling software that you have, are you able to determine whether or not the electoral votes, as they come out, I don't know how they decide, when it's announced on the television, how they decide a state's electoral votes are going in a certain direction.
	They are based on, I believe, the number of members they have in Congress.
	And therefore, the small states factor less than the large states.
	And so if you have, your polling software is going by numbers of people.
	And so are you able to look at all of that and see for elections that have happened in the past, if you had your software operational, are you able to determine, you know, how they were stolen, that sort of thing?
	Yes, we would be able to determine two things.
	Whether the popular vote was stolen, because the granularity goes right down to the precinct level, and we would have statistically significant information from each precinct in the United States, all 180,000 of them, with all the votes pouring in.
	And we would know specifically, historically, where the Electoral College should be voting, so that when the Electoral College If someone does vote, we would be able to determine if there was a rogue vote that occurred where someone defected from their historical moral and ethical obligation to us, to we the people, if they in fact change their vote.
	At the time that they actually cast the official vote for president.
	Okay, I think you misunderstand my question, but I appreciate you repeating that.
	What I'm really asking is, looking back in the past, sort of speculating on this, and also, again, I kind of have to keep coming back to this.
	You're saying you're going to have the information from each precinct.
	The only way you're going to have that is if you are able to, in...
	The four weeks' time that you have left, in essence, promote this software so that enough people download it and then use it to reflect accurate numbers for your own software, correct?
	Absolutely.
	Without participation of the people, we have no way to know.
	And if you make the assumption that the machines are not going to give you an accurate reflection We're going to believe that our people, the American people, who want free and fair elections, who want their voice heard and done in a fair way.
	I don't know anybody that wants this election rigged.
	I don't personally know anybody that would like to see the election stolen.
	It makes us dirty.
	It makes us like a third world tyranny.
	And some people may argue that we're there, but obviously Polmo is designed to be able to detect that.
	And it's the only way that you can.
	You have to ask people, how did you vote?
	Or you're going to ask the machines.
	And are they going to tell you if they've been manipulated?
	It takes a nanosec for you to change the voting machine.
	You can have a Trojan come in, awaken, reset the vote, destroy itself and go away.
	No evidence that it was ever there.
	I'll bail on the American people every day, and I'm going to be confident that the vast majority of people will tell us the truth, they'll tell us who they voted for, and they'll allow this to be done as, and I'll get to this in a second, this electronic affidavit system that we have set up within the system,
	because we're asking people to be able to use their vote In case there is a contest of the vote, that we can present Polmo's data to the people who are doing the contesting.
	We'll give it to them for free.
	All this is free.
	We'll give it to the people.
	Let's say that Hillary Clinton were to steal this election.
	A lot of people are saying that she's trying.
	I'm not here to judge.
	I'll let Polmo decide because it is entirely apolitical.
	If Polo were to determine that there was the potential for the theft of this election, and they provided evidence of that to the Trump campaign, to the Stein campaign, and to the Johnson campaign, and say, here is the evidence.
	This is why we believe that the election was stolen.
	And we will let them take that as evidence into any state, federal, or even the Supreme Court where electronic affidavits have standing.
	And where they have standing, it would be unprecedented for someone to take, you know, 5, 10, 20 million affidavits electronically and electronically dump it onto the desk with a full audit trail, full audit trail of exactly where every one of those votes was cast, when it was cast, what precinct it was tasked, what time it was tasked, and which device it was tasked.
	We don't have the personal information.
	We don't have that information.
	But in a court of law, we've asked everyone that votes to say, you can submit this information that you have in order to defend the integrity of the vote that we did that day.
	And from there, the case can proceed forward in order to be able to determine whether the vote was stolen or We give them the legal basis in standing for the first time in history to be able to contest a vote in a way that it cannot be really overturned.
	I mean, an affidavit is unimpeachable unless you can impeach the integrity of the person that gave the affidavit.
	If you're asking them to use their memory five minutes after they did something of who they voted for president, I think that's going to be a very luprous argument that a defense may try and make that, oh, you had mass hysteria, people didn't remember, this is all faulty, and on and on.
	Okay, so now what I want to ask you, sort of as part of the question that I was asking before, which is, if elections have been stolen, as they most likely have, certainly in the United States, In the past, have you done any study as to how they were stolen?
	The techniques by which they were stolen?
	Well, it's interesting that you ask that question.
	There's something in existence right now, in 2016, and it has been in existence in full force and effect for 29 years.
	Your audience can go look up something called the consent decree.
	Consent decree that the Republican National Committee entered into after they attempted to rig the elections in 1981.
	And they got caught.
	They got caught.
	And they paid a very severe penalty.
	And in that court case, as they were marching through the courts prior to them simply making this consent decree, it was determined the different ways that the election was attempted to be rigged.
	And it talked about stuffing ballot boxes and dead people voting and people that weren't registered to vote and multiple states and multiple sites.
	I mean, there's a lot of different ways, and it outlines in this consent decree how that was attempted.
	And you have to believe that this standard of methodology has been around for an awfully long time.
	And as I pointed out, to know how this is done, it doesn't matter how the official vote is rigged.
	It's rigged to bring the official vote inside a large margin of error.
	If you have a tiny margin of error, the vote is a rigged vote as obvious as a sore thumb.
	It's waving a red flag everywhere in every precinct where the votes were miscounted.
	Because we can actually count the votes from every precinct with millions of people coming out.
	We'll have representation from all the precincts in the country.
	And you can use statistical laws to determine how in fact that precinct Okay, but at the same time, what I'm saying is you're reciting a case from 1981, I believe, and what I'm asking is actually considering how we vote now.
	So I don't know, maybe you know, are they going to use the same Chad thing?
	Method that they used last time?
	Are they using electronic machines?
	Aren't they using these Dybald machines?
	I'm not sure.
	But my understanding is that they might be electronic this time.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Well, they have the Dybald manufacturers come together under the GENS system and Being a computer savvy person and understanding how programming works,
	understanding how hacking works, and the rest of it, I can tell you that the sophistication of the ability to use machines far outstrips our ability to detect The
	one that cannot be traced, because there's no evidence left at the scene of the crime, is machine manipulation.
	It's very sophisticated.
	It works every time, and it leaves no trail.
	It's totally undetectable.
	If you're a criminal wanting to steal an election, how better to do that?
	Why go out and provide a bunch of homeless people and give them $100 and a fake ID and maybe they get sober and then they tell their tale.
	I mean, that's awfully messy.
	Machines are not messy.
	That's a very precise surgical strike of being able to steal machines.
	Okay, so this is what you're saying is what they are capable of at this time.
	Isn't that correct?
	I just lost the audio.
	So this is what you're saying they are going to be capable, this election, of doing.
	Isn't it correct they're going to be able to manipulate the machines?
	And if they wish to steal it, they can steal it.
	So the only thing your software will be able to do, possibly, assuming people adopt it, and we need to talk about why you waited to the last minute, so to speak, the last four weeks.
	And, you know, we had a pre-talk where we discussed that very briefly.
	I want to go over that again.
	Hopefully you're able to hear me now.
	So what I'm asking is...
	You are now saying that the way they can steal the election the most logical way they're going to do it is electronically.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	Okay, and with that in mind, that means that our sort of ability to combat any kind of stealing of the election...
	In other words, it's a fait accompli.
	If they decide to do it, they'll do it.
	But the only way they can get away with it is really your concern, isn't that?
	In other words, you're basically saying...
	Your system is like a backup system that if there's evidence that they stole it, and we'd have to talk about what that would be, but I assume it's this percentage of difference between exit polls and not, although I think that's a very inaccurate way of determining whether something's stolen or not.
	Nonetheless, you're basically saying, yes, it can be stolen.
	The only thing that this software that you're hoping it can do is After the fact, after it's stolen, determine if it's stolen and possibly rectify the matter.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	It's just not that.
	People that are determined to steal the election will and they will have an opportunity to be caught because 98% accuracy.
	We will be able to determine whether the election was stolen and where, and by how much.
	That's what we can do.
	We can't stop the theft, but we can sure point it out.
	We can shine a huge spotlight on it when it does occur and where it occurs, and we believe that that would be 90% chance of being caught.
	That's all we're saying.
	But you're right, we can't stop it.
	But we can certainly try and deter it simply by our presence in the market as well as our ability to come back around after election, provide this evidence, go ahead and find out which precinct captain needs to be subpoenaed in order to be brought in and put his hand on the Bible before a grand jury and to tell us why Okay,
	now in terms of other than that, if there's a discrepancy between poll and the precinct votes, so again, that's still the popular vote, right?
	Yes.
	So, but If there's some other way that they determined to steal it, in other words, you know, and this gets into the fact that you did delay releasing this software until now, you know, you told me off the, you know, when we talked that basically you held it back so that they wouldn't be able to devise a workaround necessarily.
	Is that correct?
	That is correct.
	They've only built so many machines that they can manipulate because they're manipulated, in my estimation, in my opinion, they're manipulated from the factory.
	The back door is inserted, it's hardwired in, in such a way that it can be switched on with a software signal for a billionth of a second, and then switched off, and no one is the wiser.
	Those machines have been in the polling warehouses for a long time.
	The people that are going to try and steal elections know precisely which machines they are, they know which precincts they're going to be delivered to, they know precisely how they've been programmed in order to be able to accept the instructions that they will give them.
	So all of this has been done beforehand.
	I was fortunate enough to work with the SEALs, as I mentioned to you before.
	There's not a SEAL team or Special Forces team alive that would tell the enemy, six months ahead of time, where they're going to attack, how they're going to attack, what kinds of weapons they're going to bring with them, how many people.
	That's idiotic.
	And that's not the way that battles are won.
	Battles are won by using surprise.
	And so, surprise, here we are.
	And anybody that wants to steal this election is now going to really have to scramble to try and figure out exactly how effective We're just going to ask everybody that's listening to this broadcast and to the other media organizations that
	I'll be speaking over over the next four weeks and asking everybody to participate.
	You know, I may have my own personal political, you know, things.
	Polo does not.
	Polo is totally apolitical.
	It just counts votes.
	It doesn't weight them.
	It doesn't destroy them.
	It doesn't multiply them.
	It just adds, it's a giant multi-million dollar calculator.
	That's all it is.
	And it's there to be sure that the votes are counted accurately.
	I couldn't influence it if I wanted to.
	The audits that we've set up and the portals that we've set up make it impossible for us internally to change that.
	We can't change all the portals.
	It simply is, as I said, I invite anybody to come in that knows what they're doing and knows how to audit this kind of software.
	We have nothing to hide.
	Come in, they can audit until the cows come home.
	We have nothing to hide.
	And so, no other polling company in history has ever offered to do that.
	None of them have ever offered to say that, yes, we've been audited by X number of third parties.
	No, they don't.
	They simply say our reputation stands in what we do.
	We have to trust them.
	I'm telling people, don't trust us.
	Trust the auditors that are going to come behind us and audit our software and see if, in fact, every single vote that was counted was, in fact, counted.
	Exactly the way we reported it.
	And if they want to do it, they want to come into it.
	I think that's great.
	But at the end of the day, Kerry, what you're really asking is, if we have the ability to deter the steel, will we be successful?
	I don't know.
	I hope so.
	I hope so.
	I'm tired of my voice being purposely manipulated and modified against my will.
	And I'm tired of having it done for everybody else that believes that they're voting for the candidate that they believe in and that they have researched and that they have strong feelings as to why that person would be the best person for that position.
	That's 10%.
	That should be You know, a confessional.
	I mean, there should be some things that should not be perverted.
	And our vote is won.
	That really should be won.
	Okay.
	Well, very well said.
	Now, I want to ask you, in terms of this whole scenario that you've got going on, and that you're hoping to get people to adopt and to use this, and I can see that they would be motivated, especially after the fact, for making sure that in a court of law, A stolen election could be proven.
	The trouble is, will a stolen election, you know, in other words, I guess this is a little complex, but how is elections How are elections proven to be stolen?
	A big enough case to where you submit your records to a court, or not actually to a court, but to, I don't know, a congressperson?
	In other words, at what point will your records become serious court data, I guess is the question.
	Anyone that's We'll have complete and free access to our law data to be able to present that information as millions and millions of affidavits, legal and electronic affidavits, to the court, where it will be able to compare.
	Again, you compare the exit poll to the official poll.
	The United Nations standard that President Jimmy Carter has been a part of for decades is that if the exit poll varies by more than 2%, then the official vote I appreciate, you know, you kind of have gone over that.
	What my question really is, I guess, it actually has more to do with the lawyers and the court and their perspective and the way, you know, sorry to say that, you know, what goes on in our courts is also very suspect and judges are suspect and all of that goes on.
	So what I'm asking is, will they take Absolutely.
	You cannot reject an electronic affidavit in the way it is being presented by formal.
	It's simply As information that would have to be submitted by the attorneys that would be demanding a recount because that would be the first step in determining whether the election was stolen from a nation or even from a
	precinct level.
	But I'm just saying that looking at the popular vote, you would ask for a recount.
	Recounts are done all the time.
	Why are you recounting?
	In history, what have they used Some private, some, you know, people going around in a neighborhood and canvassing people and asking them, well, how did you vote?
	I mean, there's some post-election mechanism that's done to try and say, we believe that the vote was X, but the official vote was Y, and the difference is Z.
	And if Z is greater than 2%, we have a case.
	That's the argument that is made to have a recount.
	We have a case.
	And if the case is made, in order for it to stand better than any other case in history, in this country, or anywhere else in the world, we have millions of affidavits to support your assertion that the election was stolen.
	That's pretty powerful evidence.
	There isn't any better evidence on Earth.
	There just isn't.
	Unless your attorneys can enlighten my attorney.
	We think that it's as good as it can be.
	It's the best submittable evidence to a court of law.
	Now, can they buy off the judges?
	Can the whole system be corrupted?
	Absolutely.
	Are we going to change the entire system of whole law?
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	But we're going to give ourselves a fighting chance to go in and say, everybody on election day was watching the vote.
	Vote by vote.
	Tabulating on their tablet or their And if it's different, somehow something happened.
	Some funny business happened.
	It gives us a voice.
	It gives us a place to stand before a grand jury, before a real jury, before a judge, and say, there was funny business here, and here is why we believe that, and see if a jury or a judge or a panel and see if a jury or a judge or a panel of judges, as you would have in an appeal situation, if they would agree with If it has to go that far.
	But the bottom line is that you're going to have to get enough corrupt people to rig the system, to execute the rig, and to stick behind it and try and keep their stories straight as this unfolds.
	And as you're seeing of late, the human intelligence with the Internet and all the people with their cameras and all the different kinds of reporters and people that you know is going to be very, very difficult.
	because I've told this law.
	Not just from this year, but from this year forward.
	Because BOMO is just going to get more and more popular, and more available, and it's not going to get less expensive because it's free.
	Always will be free.
	And that's our path.
	We're paying it forward.
	We're making this available.
	We don't monetize our site.
	There's no advertising.
	There's no ads.
	There's no service.
	There's nothing.
	It's just what it is.
	It's free and there's no ads.
	People can't accuse us of trying to dig in and make money off this.
	We don't sell ads.
	We don't take money.
	We're not accepting any endorsements from any candidates.
	We don't want endorsements.
	We want to maintain complete political neutrality.
	And we're certainly not selling our services All right, you and I talked before this interview, and you mentioned encryption for your own software, for Pomo, and I'd like you to talk about that a bit so that people could understand,
	because if the real strength of Pomo, at least for this election, is going to be something that happens after the fact, in other words, as proof of a stolen election, which is how it kind of sounds to me, Then your encryption becomes all the more important because if they know you're coming sort of chasing behind them and you're going to be tallying whether or not they're accurate,
	then if they can hack you as well, they're going to, you know, be able to slant that.
	So I believe you said that your encryption was beyond what the NSA is using at this time.
	So I want to talk about that.
	Encryption is what they call end-to-end.
	In other words, it goes right down to the device where the vote is registered, and that encryption tunnel travels all the way up to a cloud-based system that dynamically adjusts the amount of capacity that we need in order to basically monitor the But
	the encryption wraps the entire system.
	It wraps all of our servers.
	It wraps all of our software.
	It wraps all of our analytics.
	It wraps the bidirectional.
	We use a quantum tunnel technology back and forth.
	It's as rock-solid and as airtight Okay, but you worked in the Navy, correct?
	Yes.
	And you worked, I believe, possibly above Top Secret.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so you're seeing this with that background.
	You're basically saying that your encryption is the best there is here on earth that you know of.
	Have you followed the Snowden case?
	Have you followed the disclosures along those lines?
	I'm sorry, I missed your question.
	Have you followed the Snowden case?
	Yes, of course.
	Okay.
	And you know that the NSA basically is surveilling, you know, everyone and everything, etc., etc.
	Do you also recognize that there are ways that they can hack through encryption?
	And Snowden alludes to some of this.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So would you sort of acknowledge that there might be some techniques that they have within sort of what I would call the secret government?
	You know, because in all fairness, I just consider these presidential candidates to be puppets anyway.
	So it is a bit of a problem regardless of who gets into office.
	We're still going to have a government that has basically been taken over Since the time of the Kennedy assassination.
	But, you know, giving you the benefit of the doubt here, do you want to address the notion that there may be some level of encryption and or hacking of encryption that the secret government has access to?
	I can't speak to...
	Yes.
	I mean, you can...
	What I'm saying is that the level 4 technology that we're aware of has never been hacked.
	Our level is one step above.
	was never been hacked before.
	That's all I can say.
	That's the factual basis.
	Hypothetically, theoretically, could something out there, some deep state, some, you know, other civilizations, you know, of course, that's a theoretical possibility.
	Has it ever happened?
	No.
	Do we think it's going to happen?
	No.
	Have we spent a ton of money to make sure it doesn't happen?
	Yes.
	That's the best I can do for you, Carrie.
	Can I give you a clue?
	I'll cut my throat if it happens.
	No.
	Okay.
	No, I appreciate that, you know.
	I mean, these...
	Sorry, these are kind of questions that at least my audience, in theory, would be asking.
	You know, I appreciate that people that are not as sort of up to speed and hip would maybe not even think along these lines.
	But I think after the Snowden disclosures, everyone should be questioning just how safe Encryption is.
	And we do know that there's something that reads keystrokes.
	I don't know if you saw this note in Ruby, but you also see him put...
	Whether it's melodramatic and whether it even solves the issue, because I have whistleblowers that would say it doesn't, but in essence, he throws a black thing over his head when he types his password.
	So whether case stroke monitoring means anything in that context, I don't know.
	But, you know, these are the kinds of things that are being disclosed at this time, even in the Snowden information.
	And, therefore, it's soon to be, at least to some degree, in the public consciousness.
	So I just wanted to bring that to light.
	We are in a very difficult situation.
	Certainly, we have candidates that are highly questionable.
	We have a government that's highly questionable.
	And we have a voter sort of procedure that is also highly questionable.
	That does involve this electoral vote situation, which is another loophole through which fraud can occur.
	So...
	I do applaud your building of this software.
	I think that this is a way for the people to monitor at least themselves in the sense of knowing what they intended.
	However, at a certain point, Whether your software is able to monitor the very precincts that then go into building the electoral college votes that then are used to steer the election one way or the other.
	It kind of gets like that.
	We're talking about Whether or not small states will use this software, as well as large states.
	So you can also have issues with that.
	You can also have issues with computer use.
	Perhaps older people, I don't know how old, but I'm told older people don't really grasp how to use computers.
	They may have more issues with this, and yet they would seem to have a vested interest if they believe in the voting process to want to see their vote counted.
	And so on.
	So it's an interesting dynamic, and I appreciate all the work you've put into it.
	Is there anything you want to say about the team that worked on this software that you're working with?
	Sure.
	I believe in the best you can find.
	The people that I'm in the intelligence community and in the military, we asked around and we asked, who is the best at what we're going to be asking them to do?
	And the people on our team, and for security reasons, I'm not going to identify them.
	I'm the point person, so if anybody's going to GPS. And people that have been awarded contracts for,
	you know, new technologies similar to GPS, along with a whole...
	I'm using GPS because everyone in your audience is probably familiar with GPS. That's my team.
	Those are the guys and gals.
	Those are the people that figured that out and made that happen so that you can have a moving man.
	And those are the people that did it.
	They're the best at what they do.
	The very best.
	And they've continued to be a prime contractor for the federal government, for the DOD, for the NSA, for NASA, for the Federal Reserve, for you name it, where super-secret, absolute secure, very, very accurate systems need to be put into place.
	These are the people that do it.
	And those are the people that we have Okay.
	Well, that sounds like a positive and a negative, with all due respect, you know, because we're really wondering behind the scenes.
	Now, this group has to be a pretty patriotic group, I would imagine.
	They are.
	Okay.
	And so we're going to have to assume that they are not themselves infiltrated, you know, and so on.
	Well, these are the finest patriots that you would ever meet.
	That was another criteria that we had to have was people who believed in America and wanted to protect Trump at all costs.
	Because I'm sure that the bad guys that are out there that would be opposed to free, fair and transparent elections that hold the truth.
	And there are people out there, as you know, that are like that.
	They probably know who those people are.
	They've probably been following us for months and months.
	There's very little that they can do from a technological perspective.
	But every one of the people on my team was aware of the risks.
	Fully aware of it before they signed up.
	Okay.
	So what you're kind of indicating, at least at the moment, is that some of you feel that you might be in some amount of danger for having been part of this effort.
	Is that correct?
	I can't think of anything like this, then sticking an eye right in Soran's eye and basically saying the elections are now powers and you may not steal them ever again.
	That's a big, big risk.
	Yes, and I am certain.
	My wife and I spoke about my personal safety before we took this on.
	I've put my life on the line for my country many times before.
	This is just one more time, as far as I'm concerned.
	Okay.
	So what I'm going to do right now and what I've already done is type into the chat.
	We have a chat room that goes alongside the show here.
	It's a live chat room.
	And I am asking the people listening to ask you good questions and to put them in all caps in the chat.
	So I will continue this discussion while I give you guys a chance to put your questions in there.
	So I appreciate any questions you have.
	The chat's been going on for quite a while, so it's not really possible for me to go back through and gather any questions that might have come along.
	So we'll give them a little time to do that.
	In the meantime, though...
	You've looked, I assume, back in history and you arrived at this particular software with this particular method.
	What about the notion of going directly to the voting places to install this kind of a software?
	Did you ever consider or try to approach that notion?
	Or were you convinced that anything installed on a voting machine would be a problem as far as...
	You know, being stolen or are interfered with or whatever.
	Well, I haven't in the voting at all.
	They're on their face.
	Vote mostly and count in public.
	And this system basically the counting of the votes Three, fair, transparent elections that tell the truth if the votes are counted in secret.
	Remember what Stalin said.
	It's not the people who cast the votes that count.
	It's the people who count the votes that count.
	And that's the truth.
	And every tyrant has known this forever.
	Those that allow votes that want to corner the market on those votes and ensure that the rig occurs will make sure that the voting That they went.
	And that's the way it works.
	One of the last things I wanted to say, we kind of got off topic about encryption.
	We also have, with our Level 5 encryption, we have a warning sensor that will alert us to anyone trying to hack in and invade the system.
	It's very, I won't say impossible, and I'm not going to talk about the specifics of our encryption.
	That's no one's business but ours.
	But the encryption itself protects itself.
	And if it believes it is under attack, it will notify us, shut down certain things and fundamental processes that it is doing, shut them over to areas that are not under attack, or at least evidence of attack.
	And after this is done, we will run a full analytics from a separate technology.
	In order to look at whether there was any manipulation of our data from some system that came in undetected, like you're talking about, some breakaway civilization from the deep state, from some super smart people with AI or whatever it is that they've got that may be able to sneak in and do it.
	Well, we have several impediments to them getting away with that.
	I'll just put it that way.
	So before this we go to court, we would be able to know for sure about the integrity of our data that you can't spend more money or pay better people to do what we're doing.
	That's all I'm saying.
	I mean, you know, I don't live a thousand years in the future.
	I live in today's world.
	And in today's world, there's simply no better system than what Volvo has.
	None.
	Zero.
	Okay, so I'm wondering in terms of, actually we do have some questions showing up here.
	One of them is asking about the web application.
	So you have, you said, smartphones application and you have something for what are in essence what I call iPads, but I guess there's another word for it.
	Anyway, but you don't have anything else for the regular computers, right?
	Not yet.
	We're going to be coming up with a cross-platform upgrade that people will be able to use for the software, so that's coming.
	But we wanted to address the largest possible population, and that is the 420 million smart devices.
	Tablets and phones that are in and registered in the United States today.
	That's the low hanging truth.
	If you're going to have to spend your money and spend an enormous amount of money, which this has cost, in order to do this, you're going to have to make sure that you go after the largest markets first.
	We went after Androids, phones, tablets.
	We went after iOS, phones, and tablets.
	Then we'll get around to the laptops, PCs, et cetera.
	And ultimately, maybe in a year or so, before the next election system comes up, we'll be at the Linux.
	So we'll have virtually everything covered.
	Will we have it all this year?
	No.
	But we're going to cut across the party lines equally.
	Basically, everybody that's got a smart device, whether they're Republican or Democrat, they'll be able to participate.
	The people on both sides of that, they don't want.
	And so when you have a statistical analysis, you basically have a bell curve, where you have a curve, and you have your outliers on both sides of the bell curve itself.
	And so, you have outliers on the Republican side, outliers on the Democratic side, that either can't vote, won't vote, or criminals, and turned, you know, blind your computer was down that day, or whatever, all of that, whatever the reason, hassle themselves out.
	If you have approximately equal populations.
	Whereas the vast majority I believe in the American people.
	I didn't.
	I wouldn't have done this.
	Why?
	Why would I do this?
	It would make no sense.
	But I believe in the American people.
	I believe in our integrity.
	I believe that the vast majority of them will use formal, they'll use it correctly.
	It's very simple.
	I mean, you literally just push a few buttons and it's done.
	And then you've got a graph that's on the screen moving, telling you how your candidate is doing.
	You can just press the refresh button anytime you want through the entire week of these straw polls, these four weekly straw polls.
	Reset on Sunday night, start over again the next week, and you can kind of play this, you know, pole ball, strong pole game.
	Every single week, you can see how people are doing.
	You can be anywhere that you've got an internet connection, and you can find out.
	There's no question.
	There's no questionability.
	There's no issues about who at any given time is ahead or who's third or what have you.
	Polo will accurately reflect that 24-7 in the palm of your hand.
	It just doesn't get any better.
	Okay.
	I've got a few more questions and a few comments here in the chat.
	One person wants to know, let's see, is...
	Is this software some kind of black chain technology, is the way they're going?
	No, it isn't.
	Okay.
	No.
	Someone else wants to know, has it been reviewed, sanctioned, or commented on by the White House?
	No.
	We thought endorsement or the solicitation of any of the political parties.
	In fact, I would prefer that they did not endorse And I want to be reflective of Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, Libertarians, Independents, everybody.
	I mean, that's going to give the best reflection of what is the mood of the country and how do we feel each week as the straw polls happen and on election day on the next week.
	That's scientifically the best information I would hope that everyone in elected office would see the value of having free, fair, honest, and transparent elections.
	I think that all of them should want that.
	Unfortunately, that's not the way it is.
	That's not the real world.
	So, let's see if we can make it more real world.
	Okay, now you mentioned offline as well as someone in the chat is referring to this, the notion of going to other audiences besides the Camelot audience and how you might want to Prevail upon the listeners to get this information and get this interview over to people like, for example, Coast to Coast, Alex Jones, what we might call the usual suspects.
	I'm certainly happy to refer you to the people that I'm in contact with.
	I am not in contact, however, with Alex Jones.
	So if someone listening is and wants to see that happen, I encourage you to Do you have an email address where people contact you?
	Well, I think to do that is to have a Facebook page.
	We have Twitter.
	We have Facebook.
	We have the top eight social media networking systems that we have pages in.
	And Facebook is great.
	We just downloaded a new, really interesting discussion today.
	Nice video.
	It takes two minutes.
	So we're trying to be very current.
	We're trying to We are keeping that current every day.
	We're answering questions every day on our Facebook page.
	So we're very attuned.
	We have a staff that looks about it and does that.
	So Facebook is a great way to communicate with us.
	On our website, we have a Contact Us page, on the last page.
	We answer all of the emails that we get, at least now, while we're still small.
	If we get gazillions, we're not going to be able to do that.
	For now, we have a staff that can handle that.
	So, we're delighted to feed questions from anybody.
	We'll answer them as openly and as honestly as we can.
	When people read our website, I think that they'll recognize that we've really worked hard I
	would like to talk to Alex Jones, just like I'd like to talk to Joy Behar.
	I want to talk to everybody on all sides of the political spectrum that have an audience to basically promote that here is a way for all of us to come together, provide sensitive, anonymous information, We're good to
	This is how we do it.
	And get people familiar with it, using this presidential election campaign season to step forward and to show who we are.
	But when we're going to crowdfund release two, we don't want any corporate sponsorships.
	We don't want to take corporate money.
	We don't want to use PACs or political operatives or any kind of influence.
	Obama is designed to stay as pure as we can keep it.
	We're human.
	We're going to make mistakes.
	We're going to have issues.
	I expect that.
	That's normal.
	But we'll do everything we can to try and keep this the best as we can from a technological basis, from a personal basis, and doing the right thing as often as can be done.
	So when we crowdfund Release 2, we're going to take the polling technology to the next level, where an individual can ask us Some
	people, if you're in a pizza shop, you're going to want to find out who likes toppings on your pizza.
	You're not going to ask someone in Spain what kind of pizza they like.
	It won't make any difference to you.
	So it would make more sense to ask people in your area.
	But if you had a geopolitical question you wanted to ask, sure, you could ask everyone in the world who's part of our system.
	Everyone in our community will have the opportunity to vote on these in real time.
	It's the exact same thing.
	And it's free.
	Because we're going to do polling for free, and we're going to open up interpersonal communication in a way that's never been done before.
	Because this is the whole purpose behind polling.
	They're getting sort of to our core value about trying to open up lines of communication to make the world safer, more peaceful, more interactive.
	You know, if millions of us Just trying to get an idea.
	But it would be great if we had that kind of dialogue.
	Because if our elites come along and say, oh, well, we have to blow the hell out of these people, I think Paul would basically say, well, hold on a sec.
	These people have become our friends.
	They're absolutely no threat to us.
	And what you're telling us is going to serve the 1%, the military-industrial-intelligence complex.
	That's who this is about.
	And if you really want to go fight a war, take all your kids, put them in uniform, and send them over there and let them get incinerated with whatever you want to do.
	And don't take me or my kids.
	Don't take my grandkids.
	I'm done with that.
	And if there's an existential threat that can be demonstrated clearly, I put on the uniform many times.
	I'll be glad to put that uniform on again to defend the nation that I love.
	And there's millions of us that feel this way.
	Tens of millions of us who feel exactly that way.
	But don't just make up some story and use the media that you control to hype up some non-event and then have us go to war because of it.
	This has happened over, I mean, these false flags are legion now.
	I mean, your show has talked about that.
	I mean, you have some of the best whistleblowers in the world that have talked about these events.
	And I can tell you that for me and my people that think like me, my friends and people that are still serving, we're done with that.
	I mean, we really are done with that.
	Okay, thank you.
	So there is somebody in the chat who says they are a developer and this app is very strong, technically superior.
	Wow, that's some of their feedback right there.
	Thank you.
	And let's see, somebody else is asking, is this available, I guess, you know, overseas at this point?
	Are you going to be able to make it available?
	It sounds like your plans, you plan to expand beyond the US. Is it already available to, you know, people in the UK, Europeans, etc.?
	It's impossible to maintain a geographic border with the internet.
	We're doing the very best we can in terms of the repeaters that are being used and the routers and the various things, but I'm certain that some of our whole world will leak out into the world.
	One of the next phases when we introduce release two, we'll be putting a universal translator system into the system, end to end, so that we'll be able to speak directly with someone in Japan or China or Korea or Egypt or wherever they might happen so that we'll be able to speak directly with someone in Japan or China or Korea or Egypt or wherever they might happen to be The translators have gotten very, very good.
	Are they perfect?
	No.
	But they're getting better and better.
	And we have, you have our pledge that we will continue to use the very best translation software, end to end translation software within our source group that we can use in order to provide this on a global basis.
	And being able to then ask people when it comes to voting and things like that, two years, 10 years from now, to use restraint and...
	And again, we have the ability to identify devices, not people.
	And we don't have GPS capability today.
	May we use it in the future?
	quite possibly, in order to try and, when we want to restrict to a specific population, like voting for president, I'd hate for everyone in India to vote for a president, or Venezuela, or, you know, Pakistan, or anything.
	I mean, I'd like to keep it so that we can have people honestly ask that question.
	So we will be using technology and leveraging it to its finest ability in order to get the best and most accurate, transparent, and honest data that we can.
	Can we stop everything?
	Probably not.
	But we'll do our damnedest.
	We'll do our very good.
	Okay, so in essence, what I think you are also saying is that eventually, like, if they have an election in another country, that they could possibly use this method as well, possibly use your software, right?
	That is what we're designing the whole thing so that when you have a Brexit vote, Any normal, regular vote.
	That people within those countries would be able to take Polmo and do exactly what we're doing.
	America, taking the lead with our ingenuity, our intellectual property, our patents, and all the other pieces of what Polmo lives, and having it available for people worldwide to use in their initially It's not hard from a software design,
	but in terms of having the money to have the bi-directional capability, all the encryption and servers and clubs, all these other pieces, that is going to become very expensive.
	And so we'll have our commercial arm It's designed to stand up for us.
	It's going to stand up for them in the same way.
	Okay, lovely.
	Someone has a comment here.
	They want to say to you that they think your software is pure genius and they're proud to follow you on this.
	Yes, we're going to crowdfund release 2, which is this person to, when I say peer, I say They can pull as many people as within the geography.
	There's a little pull-down menu, and they can click on that, and they can decide how many people they'd like to pull, or what geographic area they'd like to pull.
	So it can be very selective and a very useful tool.
	That's going to be crowdfunded, again, because we don't want to have any corporate influence on our ability to maintain the neutrality We're going to revolutionize market research.
	They're going to be able to add pull-down menus using an e-commerce type of engine and hook whole wall into that so that marketing people from everywhere, from whether you're IBM or Ford Motor Company to Joe's Pizza on the corner, can get an immense amount of information very can get an immense amount of information very fast, very accurate, with reports that all levels of dinner they're fitting to, wherever you'd like.
	There's nothing going to be a cost associated with the greater degree of complexity.
	And that's how whole wall will make its initial revenue streams, just by selling market research at the greatest leverage possible of the 21st century.
	And, you know, gone will be the days of having, you know, 20 people in a room, having a moderator and asking questions, the enormous amount of expense and the difficulty and all the issues that go with having focus panels and rest.
	And you ask any major companies, they don't do just one focus panel.
	They're going to do dozens because they may have billions of dollars at stake in their supply chain and release times and advanced technology and trying to get people's attitudes and ideas and spending habits and all the rest.
	That is a very expensive proposition today and extremely inactive, very inactive.
	We want to make that as accurate as possible.
	And so POMO will sell market research in Release 3.0, and that's part of what we'll do.
	And after that, Release 4.0 is another revenue-generating size for POMO will do.
	That is that once the market research is provided, Like
	I said, I have 400 apps that I've authored, so I have a pretty good understanding of how you do this and how you can be very successful from an intellectual property standpoint.
	And I've stood toe-to-toe with some of the biggest corporations in the world.
	So that is not an issue.
	The issue is we have some things that make us funny.
	We have some things that we do for free.
	And our core values are to serve our customers, our paying customers, the highest degree of integrity that can be done.
	And we'll be serving the public with the highest degree of integrity if it can be done.
	And for that, for our corporate partners and institutions, governments and people, it's not free.
	Because we have to pay for this part.
	For this part.
	Sure.
	Okay, well thank you.
	That sounds like a great game plan.
	I'm wondering if you have...
	A media plan for getting this out, because obviously you have a very short window to operate from to get this to, you know, get out there before the selection.
	And so, do you have a plan?
	And if so, are you planning to, for example, buy advertising to make people aware of the application?
	Well, the problem that you...
	But advertising at the end of a presidential campaign cycle is there's no more media buys left.
	It simply doesn't exist.
	You can't get, you know, a 15-minute spot at 3 o'clock in the morning.
	It's just not available.
	So knowing that our entire plan was to make as much of a social media impact as Ask
	We ask this to tens of millions of people throughout the Internet space, through Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and all the rest, in order to get our message out there.
	We're asking individual people to go on Facebook and like us and have their friends come on and like what we're doing.
	I mean, in our estimation, the only person who wouldn't like to have their voice told and have free, fair, transparent elections are the crooks that want to rip it.
	Everybody else should be for this.
	I mean, no one should be opposed to what we're doing.
	I can't imagine an argument that could be made that this is a bad thing for any of us.
	It's just not.
	There's no salient argument from any rational person that would say that this is a bad thing.
	So we would like everybody to get involved and tell everybody, hey, take some A. Go down with it.
	Simply.
	We've kept that front end.
	When you see those screens, by design, they're really simple.
	It just takes a second.
	We did that so that everyone could participate.
	We're not asking rocket scientists to do this or people with a college education, people with no education, people from the inner city think, You know, anyone can do this.
	It doesn't require an intellect to operate normal.
	It's designed to work for everybody.
	And the graphics are simple to understand.
	Anyone can see that if you've got this much, you know, if you've got a candidate with this much of the vote and a candidate with this much of the vote, the guy that's out here versus the guy that's here is, this person has more.
	You know, fool people or be sophisticated.
	And we could have.
	We could have done it so that only a very small number of people could have operated.
	That's completely antithetical.
	It's completely against what POMO and our core values are all about.
	Okay, someone is suggesting that you have articles perhaps written for publications that are print publications.
	For example, someone is suggesting the Drudge Report and another person's, I guess they're saying Veterans Today is another suggestion.
	Have you got, you know, I guess that would be sort of a PR press releases, that sort of thing going up?
	We had our first press issue through our newswire at 3.20 this afternoon.
	So that press release has gone out.
	I haven't looked at the stats because I was prepping for talking with you and finishing up a few things, but hopefully that was picked up by the 1,400 sites that People
	that know one another is the best way for this to catch fire and to go viral.
	But just in case that doesn't happen as quickly as we would like, since as you've said several times, we don't have a lot of time.
	We want to peak on November 8th.
	We want to wrap up exponentially every day, getting more and more and more people aware, voting, becoming part of this community.
	And we peak with our goal, our objectives, 20 million people on that exit poll, We are much more robust than Pokemon Go.
	Trust me, we have vastly more capacity than the way that that was launched.
	We can't be hacked.
	We can't be crashed.
	We are rock solid.
	It was designed that way.
	We spent an enormous amount of resources to do that.
	But if anyone could put us in touch with Alex Jones, I would love to go on his program.
	He talks all the time about his concerns about the elections being raped.
	Donald Trump has talked about the election.
	Even my president talked about it.
	He said he didn't know what it meant.
	But, you know, it's not that this is an invisible concept.
	And I'd love to go on Anderson Cooper.
	I'd love to go, you know, anywhere, Fox and MSNBC or whatever program has an audience that may find us of interest.
	And that wants free, fair, transparent elections.
	I have a staff and, you know, our chief information officer and others that can go to these programs.
	We can go in person.
	We can Skype.
	We can provide articles.
	We have a lot of things pre-written.
	We have a bunch of press releases ready to go, one after another after another.
	And we're going to try and keep this in the public eye.
	So all those things sort of a classic Madison Avenue, still commercials on primetime TV.
	That is a story.
	All right.
	We would have had to have made those media bias at the beginning of six months ago, and we're going to have the availability, because every local politician, regional, statewide, you know, you can't find the time.
	It's just not available.
	Okay.
	Well, you've been extremely thorough and gracious about answering my questions.
	I want to thank you very much.
	We've been going for a while now, so I think we need to close this down, but I'm just looking to see at the last minute if there's any other questions in the chat.
	And also wondering if there is anything else that you would like to say that you haven't had a chance to say in general to wrap up about this software.
	And certainly it is something that it seems kind of like a no-brainer if you're going to vote that you want to keep a record of your vote and make sure it's an accurate one.
	It sounds like this software is the way to go.
	So anything else you'd like to say?
	I think we've covered the waterfront.
	I can only ask as an appeal, as an American to my fellow Americans, in this particular election, there's a lot at stake.
	There's enormous philosophical differences between the two leading candidates.
	There's a lot of acronym.
	I don't think I've ever seen such a contentious, personalized election in my life.
	It is sad.
	It's really sad that that's where this election has gone.
	But there you have it.
	And I think that you have two extremely divergent philosophies of the future of this country between Mr.
	Trump and Secretary Clinton.
	To try and do the best that we can to put our energies behind the philosophy or the candidate of our choice so that they can feel comfortable coming into office, that they had a plurality of people that believed in what they're doing,
	and that they can have confidence that they're not going to continue the acrimony in the Congress and in the Senate and have to see this bipartisan bickering continue Our thoughts and feelings and opinions to the candidate of our choice.
	And maybe people that have never voted before, maybe this will inspire them that this is the first time that maybe this election is not going to be rigged.
	Or maybe if they try and rig it, it can get caught.
	Maybe I'll get off my sofa and for the first time in 20 or 30 years, I'll go vote because maybe this time my vote will count.
	That's what the pole model is designed to do.
	To try and give everybody a voice.
	Whether they're educated or not.
	Because everyone has a voice.
	I would hope that everyone before they cast their work would study, would research, would try and understand and get a basic concept of where the country might go if they elect this person.
	Whether they at least have some informed Of saying, you represent me and please go represent me accurately and do the best that you can.
	I guess that's my statement here.
	I mean, I want people to come out and vote.
	I want them to participate.
	I want them to feel that their vote is counted so that their vote counts.
	And to know for a fact that we've done everything We're
	trying to do to invite everybody to warn about it.
	I think they'll like it.
	I don't know what there's not to like about it, to be honest with you.
	And to join us.
	And then we can become, you know, that pluralistic, very colorful family of what America is, in my estimation, what I fought for and put my life on the line for, to be sure that everyone has their vote.
	So the tapestry of America is filled with not just words, not diversity, not the words that use diversity to bring us into racial tension, but to diffuse that and to genuinely have all of us come together.
	Because we're Americans, we have a common objective, we have a common reason to be, and we have a common, you know, background, which most of us are immigrants.
	So we are an immigrant nation, and people that recognize that and realize that, and utilize the effective laws and rules and restrictions that are put in place in order to make sure that So, my hope is that everyone who plans to vote, will vote.
	People that may not have, will.
	And everybody who will use votes for the blue can find out if their votes in the ballot booth were accurately reflected or whether they were manipulated and tried to steal their vote.
	Because, like I said before, I've been done with certain things.
	I'm done with those things, and I'm done with my voice being stolen.
	Alright, thank you so much for coming on the show.
	It's great to talk to you and I really appreciate all the work that you and your team have gone to to make sure that the vote is not stolen and I guess the rest is up to the people.
	So hopefully this video will get out there and you will find people coming to register and We can see where the real vote is going, at least in this country, at this time and within the months.
	So thank you again, and good luck to everyone.
	And please do support this work, this important work.
	So thank you.
	Thank you, Chair.
	Thank you, Claudia.
	And spread the word.
	Let's spread the word.
	All right.
	Thank you again.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	So that's the show for now.
	And I just want to say that for everyone that we are putting new information out all the time on Project Camelot, projectcamelotportal.com.
	So I encourage you to come to my website, sign up for the newsletter.
	It's going out every Friday now and containing Links so that you can keep track of where we're going with information.

▲