Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 August 4, 2021 – a.m.

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

Re: Pennsylvania “Forensic Audit” of 2020 POTUS Election [PART XLV] – [“Dr. Douglas Frank”]
{}

In response to yesterday’s attack on pre-canvassing, the following was received:

I saw this below on Dr. Frank’s Telegram account. This made me think of your
comments on {one of the Zoom calls} yesterday about counting mail-in ballots
within each county.

In the state of Pennsylvania, audits of the voter rolls reveal that

massive numbers of phantom voters were added in advance.
Zuckerberg's easy-voter kiosks made it easy to produce phantom
ballots indiscernible from real ones. So instead of examining the
paper, we needed to examine the rolls, and pound pavement to
find the dead voters and phantom voters.

One more good reason there should be a one-and-only voting day. In PA, the
voters were added to the computer rolls in advance so, no matter how careful
the poll workers were to make the signatures of voters and number of ballots
voted on the machines were at the end of the day, “the fix was in” already.

My initial reaction was to acknowledge acknowledgement of the registration glitch, but also to
re-recognize that it’s inevitably disheartening when a legitimate voter is rejected after having
come to the polls on election day to vote; my subsequent reaction was to recall how the “fix” was
acknowledged during the sworn-testimony distilled in Memo IV when the grunt-work based upon
review of 9/10 hearing transcripts/attachments was generated (during a marathon weekend).

After I had been unable to cut/paste the above cite, I then decided to take a “deep dive” into the
social media outlets that parallel the info-sources that had recently been presented [PART XL -
https://tinyurl.com/nx4569s], inasmuch as I haven’t posted these Memos via that mechanism
(despite having linked with “the usual suspects” plus Gab, MeWe, Substack). The goal was both
to probe their generic ease-of-use and to taste how the Lefties will smear the upcoming reports
from Arizona’s “Fraudit”; in both instances, woke vs. awake was anticipated to be an undertone.

Immediately, impediments were encountered. For example, an interview of Dr. Douglas

G. Frank on Analyzing the 2020 Election was available on YouTube but, when it was desirable to
watch the isolated presentation by Dr. Douglas G. Frank on Following the Election Data, rejection
emerged (“This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines.”). Also,
his Facebook page (Follow the Data with Dr Frank, Ph.D.) has 159 members, but no entries.
Finally, 91 people follow his Twitter account (https://twitter.com/dr_dg_frank?lang=en), noting
the most recent Tweet (of only three on the site) on 3/21/2020 was focused on Covid-19.
He doesn’t hide the fact that he’s not an election expert when defining his professionalism
(https://savageminds.substack.com/p/dr-douglas-frank), the ambient Leftie-attack on the web;
note the referenced Facebook page is defunct (“This Content Isn't Available Right Now”):

Dr. Douglas Frank, Ph.D. in Surface Analytical Chemistry, has recently gained
notoriety for his modelling work on the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Frank has been
making his work available to the public since January of 1990 and his Facebook
page “Follow the Data with Dr Frank” has over 50,000 members and followers. In
this episode, Dr. Frank details the way the COVID-19 data is being used, abused
and misrepresented by governments and the media.

Nevertheless, his detection of troubling patterns in the 2020 Election, based upon his algorithm
research of the packets of data (that Mike Lindell is starting to release) has been disseminated
(https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/542874813/dr-frank-2020-election-data-research-reveals-
troubling-patterns & https://rumble.com/search/video?q=follow%20the%20data%20with%20
Dr.%20Frank) by non-mainstream platforms, and he has toured the nation while elucidating his
findings; I met him when he spoke during the Third Constitutional Convention in Philly, he has
also spoken in Colorado and in Ohio, and he will speak this upcoming Friday in Wisconsin.

Some have claimed Dr. Frank's Analysis is Wrong and, specifically, that Michigan didn't use an
algorithm to manipulate 2020 according to {unreliable} PolitiFact; nevertheless, it’s desirable to
ensure his view of election audits (c/o Telegram) have been captured, again, pre-Maracopa.
Herein, he provides the ‘graph that was cited in the initial e-mail, although it took a bit of sleuthing
to ID it {note the four “Commonwealth” states are PA, Massachusetts, Virginia and Kentucky}:

People have asked me to clarify my position on audits.

It's simple: they need to be properly designed and DATA-driven.

For example, simple recounts seldom yield meaningful results because the main
cheat is not machine manipulation, rather machine *reporting* of ballots from
phantom voters (the voter rolls are filled with phantom voters). So if we always
demand recounts, we are making a mistake because all the effort tends to yield
little results, deflating the movement for election reform.

If the DATA suggest that a recount is called for, then by all means do a recount.
There are some rare examples where a recount really mattered (e.g. Antrim, MI).

In the state of Washington, for example, individuals are allowed to print their own
ballots at home from their own computers. If they want, they can write out their
own ballot "on a table napkin." So auditing the paper ballots themselves in the
state of Washington is probably not a good idea because the results are likely to
be inconclusive.

If the DATA suggest that there are a bunch of counterfeit ballots, and they are
readily discernible, then by all means do an audit of them.
 In the state of Pennsylvania, audits of the voter rolls reveal that massive
numbers of phantom voters were added in advance. Zuckerberg's easy-voter
kiosks made it easy to produce phantom ballots indiscernible from real ones. So
instead of examining the paper, we needed to examine the rolls, and pound
pavement to find the dead voters and phantom voters.

In Maricopa, my analysis of the DATA suggested (before they started the audit)
that there were AT LEAST 200,000 phantom voters. Once I heard that Liz Harris
was leading a canvassing effort, I directed my attention to another state,
because her strategy was the right one. Imagine showing up at the secretary of
state's office with a pile of even only 30,000 affidavits exposing phantom voters.
No additional audit would be needed. No delays... Done.

What was the first thing the legislature did in AZ? They STOPPED the canvassing...
Why? Because THAT was the right strategy. Note which strategy they ALLOWED
to continue.

Am I against audits? Of course not. But time and resources are limited, so our
strategies should be guided by the DATA.

To some people with hammers, everything looks like a nail. But sometimes we
don't need a carpenter. Sometimes we need a CPA or a cyber geek.

Follow the Data!

Two excerpts merit a bit of clarification. First, remember that Dr. Frank entered the electoral
scene via PA, when he ID’ed inter alia deceased voters in MontCo; thus, his assertions in this
particular regard carry additional gravitas, particularly when expanded to county-specific data.
Second, it should be emphasized that the SCOTUS-related op-eds published c/o Arutz Sheva noted
that invalidation of Biden Electors by three state legislatures would yield a Trump reinstatement;
thus, establishment of uncertainty regarding a total of voters exceeding the margin of “victory”
would create the capacity to withdraw Arizona’s electors (a model for two other battlegrounds).

Remember, starting immediately after the election, we projected Trump’s campaign would follow
a Study Guide and how it had been Handicapped, triggering him to orient litigation toward
the Supreme Court (in essays published in Israel); merely accepting Pennsylvania cases would be
seismic because Originalists would find a vehicle to honor myriad voting irregularities.

All of these observations reinforce the applicability of my paradigm for the legal goal of this effort
[https://tinyurl.com/7f2ue5wt - c/o Arutz Sheva] and intent to disseminate my unique distillation
of the PA-specific aberrations [https://tinyurl.com/49w85hvk] to prod national attention to be
focused upon the urgent need for a PA-focused forensic audit.

My queries of the Phoenix chronology recognizes that the data have been checked thrice and
that I’m impatient for release even of a preliminary tabulation, dovetailing with the selective
information conveyed during a Senate hearing of a fortnight ago; the relevant model is conveyed
by the paradigm popularized by Santa Claus who routinely checks his list twice prior to embarking
upon his global gift-drop [http://www.the-north-pole.com/carols/santacome.html].