True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips have been in jail since Monday morning.

Posted by $ Dobrien 3 weeks ago to History
20 comments | Share | Flag

Federal District Judge Kenneth Hoyt appears to be far more interested in helping Konnech track down the identities of all involved in exposing the company’s massive contract fraud involving it’s client’s election data than he is in properly deciding if its defamatory for True the Vote to claim Eugene Yu did what LA County officials just arrested and charged him for doing.

One of the most stunning aspects of this case is how the judge seems to have instantly accepted without question or evidence Konnech’s version of events from the very start and has pro-actively taken steps to counter any attempt by the defendants to prove the falsity of Konnech’s representations to him.

Let me provide just one example of this:

On Thursday October 27, True the Vote’s lawyers had a representative of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office on the phone ready to speak to the judge about the case being made against Eugene Yu. This LA County rep was clearly prepared to discuss evidence that the server in question was indeed located in China, and not inside the United States. This person was prepared to discuss the very relevant fact that the data on the Chinese server included over one million US poll worker’s personal identification information. This person was prepared to answer any questions the judge had about the criminal case being prosecuted against Eugene Yu and, by extension, against Konnech itself.

As the stunned observers in the courtroom looked on, Judge Hoyt insisted he had no reason to speak to this LA County person, and wasn’t interested in discussing any of the evidence being used to prosecute Eugene Yu because he sees that as a completely different case, and so he was not going to waste any of his time on that.

And let me end this column by dropping the $56,000 question:

If Phillips and Engelbrecht are telling the truth in their testimony, and they never had the 30+ terabytes in their hands, and this 30 terabytes of data went from Mike Hasson to the FBI…

…where exactly did the LA County prosecutor and the grand jury get the evidence they saw that led them to indict and arrest Eugene Yu if it didn’t come from True the Vote?
edited 45 mins after posting
Word is they just were released. Hooray!

More to this than meets the eye.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 6 days ago
    Appeals Court ordered their release today.
    "Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips were ordered released by a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit late Nov. 6.

    “IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ opposed motion for release from detention is GRANTED pending further order of this court,” the panel said in the order, which was obtained by The Epoch Times.

    The panel consisted of Circuit Judges Catharina Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee; Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee; and Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee.

    Engelbrecht and Phillips were expected to be released on Nov. 7, a spokesman for True the Vote told The Epoch Times via email on Monday morning."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    I've met Katherine. I found her to be upstanding, and I am happy to hear she was released.

    These Judges... I publicly suggested at a FL Public Hearing that we should have the Death Penalty for Activist Judges. It woke people up.

    I figure if you can have a lifetime appointment. Then the Penalty of Death should be on the table. It seems fair!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 weeks, 5 days ago
      Oh, I like that ... A LOT!!!!!!!!!!

      Of course it goes for the other side too, right? Judges voting along with religion (e.g. Roe-vs-Wade) get the chair or noose too. They shouldn't really mind, since it is glory for them. This election would have been a landslide, if it hadn't been for that religiously-based, unnecessary precedent-flipping SCOTUS decision. Now we are nail biting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        The Roe reversal wasn't based on religion. Every legal scholar - even progressives - has known that Roe was a terrible decision on all points - medical, ethical, Constitutional. Alan Dershowitz was very critical of Roe Federalizing what should be a States' rights issue. It just took ~50 years to get the reversal that never should have been needed in the first place.

        Another one of huge import would be reversing Chevron, but so far there aren't any pending cases which would allow for that. :(
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 weeks, 5 days ago
          We agree to disagree on Roe.

          One of the justices tried to hear a case relevant to Chevron, but the rest voted them down. There was just a Reason article on this.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 5 days ago
            I haven't seen a single legal argument which defends the Federal Constitutionality of Roe. If you know of one, I'd like to read it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 weeks, 4 days ago
              Legal arguments against RvW are all human life at conception = religion:

              - States have an interest in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting prenatal life
              - A fetus is a "person" protected by the 14th Amendment
              - Protecting prenatal life from the time of conception is a compelling state interest

              RvW stood based on the 14th Amendment, just like a vast majority of things should be off the menu for the Fed or States. Making cakes for example.

              "[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

              Not even complicated. Same as getting a tattoo, removing a tumor, or chopping one's own finger off.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                That wasn't my question. My question pertains to the Constitutional authority of the Federal government - especially the Judiciary - to invent a "right" which had never before existed and for which there is no explicit Constitutional basis. One can certainly have a debate about when human life should be protected, but aside from the seriously-flawed medical interpretation used in the original Roe decision (highly questionable at the time and unquestionably false now) there was the Constitutional question pertaining to Federal authority.

                I would also point out that you also completely mischaracterize the recent decision: it did not outlaw abortion, it simply put the decision back where it should have been all along: in the hands of the States as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. As Justice Thomas pointed out when SCOTUS voted to overturn Roe, the critical flaw lay in the very unConstitutionality of the original ruling in usurping to the Federal government authority not granted anywhere in the Constitution.

                P.S. 97-98% of abortions have no other reason than personal convenience.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                  No, the Fourteenth takes away the State's ability restrain personal liberty. This is a personal liberty. Simple. Not a State issue at all.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                    Uh, here's the actual text:

                    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

                    Now while I can see several arguments in there which run contrary to the practice of abortion (protection of life being the big one), the Constitutional problem with the original Roe decision was that at that time not a single State had voted to grant the "privilege" of aborting a child. Roe invented that "right" out of thin air and then pretended that that invented "right" couldn't be abridged by the States - all in one fell swoop without any kind of legislative debate or vote of the People.

                    It's funny that you decry overturning Roe as a dogmatic decision when the original Roe decision was the result of the tyranny of judicial activism. I guess it just all depends on whether or not the pendulum swings toward one's philosophical predilections rather than solid rational thinking.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 weeks, 3 days ago
                      Roe doesn't grant the privilege of abortion. It reaffirms the right to do what you want with your body.

                      The whole argument boils down to the religious assertion that conception begins a human. There is no more to it than that. Everything else about it is a tattoo, piercing or breast augmentation.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 73SHARK 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    The value of work that they did that contributed to 2000 Mules is incalculable.
    If you haven't seen it yet then you can catch it on One America News throughout the week. Well worth the hour and a half to watch it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks, 5 days ago
    What is particularly concerning to me is the insistence on the part of the judge that the sources for their information be publicly exposed. Usually it is enough that the information itself is accurate - which is what the appeals court noted. Requiring that the sources be disclosed is very dangerous for some sources and has a chilling effect on any legal decision because it inherently suppresses testimony. This judge should be censored and/or impeached for this gross misconduct.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 2 weeks, 5 days ago
      Think about how Liddle Schiff protected the so called whistleblower on Trumps Ukraine call that he was impeached for phony Quid pro Joe. It would be illegal for True the vote to reveal an FBLIE confidential Human sources name.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo