The following is a video of Ramsland explaining voting systems as well as a link to other information and commentary. Personally, while I am not completely confident in the integrity of this source, some or a lot of what they are saying may be true: https://www.bitchute.com/video/scUpSRkNoj9g/
Let's post the pertinent text about Ramsland from the court filing starting on Page 7. Please excuse the run-on formatting in the copy/paste. Ramsland's nonsense has been tossed out of every "election fraud" case he is cited in. He has no expertise. His resume is a lie. He merely pushes conspiracy theories he found on the Internet. Ramsland is not qualified and fails to disclose his methods Russell James Ramsland, Jr.offers opinions regarding whether the use of certain voting machines influenced the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 60 Filed 12/05/20 Page 11 of 35 8 Georgia. See, e.g.,Declaration of Russell James Ramsland, Jr. (“Ramsland Decl.”)ECF No. 1-10, ⁋8. Ramsland’s report should be excluded: because Ramsland is not qualified as an expert and fails to disclose the information relied on and the methodology he (or others) utilized to reach his conclusions. First, Ramsland is a businessman who lacks the qualifications necessary to offer expert opinion testimony on the impact, if any, on the2020 presidential election from the use of certain voting machines. See id.at ⁋2. In his declaration, Ramsland candidly admits his lack of relevant knowledge, education and experience stating that he “relied on [his current employer’s] experts and resources,” noting that his employer, “which provides a range of security services,”“contract with statisticians when needed,” and employs a “wide variety of cyber and cyber forensic analysts as employees, consultants and contractors.” Id. Ramsland does not disclose, however, who these unidentified “experts” are, which of them were utilized, the sources of data they relied upon, the manner in which they performed whatever work they might have done and in what way Ramsland, in turn, relied on that work to prepare his own report. Id.; Bowersv. Norfolk S. Corp., 300 Fed. App’x 700,703(11th Cir. 2008). Instead, Ramsland appears to be parroting analyses from other unidentified individuals who claim to possess expertise that he does not. This alone is more than Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 60 Filed 12/05/20 Page 12 of 35 9 sufficient to exclude his report. See Redmond v. City of East Point, Georgia, No. 1:00-CV-2492-WEJ, 2004 WL 6060552, at *15 (N.D. Ga. Mar.29, 2004)(noting that, under Daubert,“[a]scientist, however well credentialed he may be, is not permitted to be the mouthpiece of a scientist in a different specialty”). Even if Ramsland were qualified (and he assuredly is not), his report is inadmissible because it utterly fails to disclose the data or methodology he (or others) used,as well as the bases for his (or other’s) analyses and conclusions. See Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1264-65.Indeed, the report can be searched in vain for Ramsland’s data sources, the statistical analyses conducted, margins of error, or virtually anything that might suggest serious scholarly or expert analysis. And, to the extent any methodology can be discerned from the scant information in the report, that methodology is unreliable. McDowell, 392 F.3d at 1298.The proffered opinions are therefore inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. For example, Ramsland references a“regression analysis” used to “develop a model/equation to predict in any county what percentage of vote could reasonably be expected to go to candidate Biden,”noting that the model does a “good job” predicting Biden’s percentage of votes in “most counties.”Ramsland Decl. at ⁋8. But Ramsland fails to describe that “regression analysis,” or the “model/equation” developed from it. He is remarkably silent as to the inputs for the regression Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 60 Filed 12/05/20 Page 13 of 35 10 analysis, the method itself, any assumptions, the predictive findings, and the error rate.He claims that the undescribed model does a “good job” predicting Biden’s percentage of votes in “most counties,” but nothing more is provide: How accurate is a “good job”? How many counties is “most counties”? This isn’t even close to an appropriate or reliable statistical analysis. Similarly, Ramsland concludes that, in counties that used certain voting machines or devices, candidate Biden “over-performed”beyond the expected results using the undisclosed predictive model,resulting in 123,725votes in Georgia that are “statistically invalid.” Id. at ⁋10. He opines that Biden’s “overperformance” is “highly indicative (and 99.9% statistically significant) that something strange is occurring with the [voting]machines.” Id. at ⁋11(emphasis in original). Again, no details regarding these calculations—including how it was determined that the results are statistically significant or how statistical significance of “strangeness” might be measured—are disclosed. The exact type of “strangeness”at issue is left to the reader’s imagination. Ramsland’s other opinions suffer from the same issues.See, e.g.,id.at ⁋13 (failing to disclose data or explain method underlying plot purportedly showing widespread fraud);⁋⁋15, 18-19(estimating magnitude of “fraudulent[]and erroneous[]”vote attribution without providing data or explaining methodology). Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 60 Filed 12/05/20 Page 14 of 35 11 Moreover, an examination of the possible methodologies underlying Ramsland’s opinions reveal deep flaws. As noted in Dr. Rodden’s rebuttal report, Ramsland relies on “idiosyncratic, non-standard statistical techniques”that are ill-suited for the analysis he attempts to conduct.Rodden Rep. at 36. Among the many identified by Dr. Rodden1) inappropriate reliance on a correlation that is driven primarily by cross-state variation; (2) failureto address causal inference problems including that Democratic leaning counties were more likely to adopt Dominion voting systems; and (3) failure to include fixed effects which is standard practice in the type of social science research Ramsland attempted. Id. at 36-43. In short, “the research design used in the Ramsland report is ill-equipped to detect differences in vote shares that are caused by use of particular voting systems.”Id. at46.The rebuttal report of Kenneth R. Mayer identifies additional errors including, for example,that the data Ramsland relies on from undisclosed sources does not match the actual data from the state. Report of Kenneth R. Mayer (“Mayer Rep.”) at 4-5. [3] Ramsland’s failure to provide or even describe the methodology underlying his opinions as well as the lack of reliability in the methodology that can be (3 )Kenneth R. Mayer has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University and is on the faculty of the political science department of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.Mayer Rep. at 2.He has authored articles on election administration and has been qualified as an expert in numerous matters. Id.at 2-3 Case 1:20-cv-04809-TCB Document 60 Filed 12/05/20 Page 15 of 3512 ascertained from his report mandate exclusion of Ramsland’s testimony. See, e.g.,McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253, 1256(11th Cir. 2002) (affirming exclusion of testimony where proffered expert did not test or consider alternatives); McClain v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2005) (determining it inappropriate to admit expert testimony that was “not support[ed]. . .with sufficient data or reliable principles” and did not “follow the basic methodology” used by experts in the relevant field)[/S]
And we should note that any lawsuit that is either pending or filed in the future citing Ramsland will also be rejected. So far the "election fraud" lawsuits have compiled a record of 50 straight losses. Their only success was having a mere dozen ballots tossed in Pennsylvania that were already set aside and not counted -- therefore not impacting the total at all.
It is my understanding that some of Ramsland’s employees are or could be considered experts, as some have worked at US intelligence and or investigative agencies performing electronic voting related work.
Dominion Voting Systems seems awful close to suing the Trump campaign for defamation The practically unknown Denver company was harmed after being thrust into the middle of a wild vote-switching conspiracy cooked up to explain Trump’s loss. https://www.fastcompany.com/9058906...se-to-suing-the-trump-campaign-for-defamation
Trump Finally Found The Voter Fraud He's Looking For Officials finally found a case of a dead person voting, accusing a Republican of pretending to be his dead mom to vote for Trump https://www.yahoo.com/news/officials-finally-found-case-dead-225210492.html
Campaign attorney Jesse Binnall told Judge James Russell Thursday in Las Vegas that 1,506 votes came from dead people, 42,284 double ballots were cast, about 20,000 voters voted without having a Nevada mailing address, and 2,468 voters had changed their addresses to another state,