$778 Million Climate Bill Looming For Delco?

$778 Million Climate Bill Looming For Delco — Center for Climate Integrity says Delaware County, Pa. municipalities will have to spend $778 million by 2040 to address climate change.

The threat was made at the center’s July 25 virtual press conference and reported in the Aug. 4 The Delaware County Weekly which is the county government’s news letter.

It was attended by Delaware County Council Chairwoman Monica Taylor, Clean Air Council Executive Director Joe Minott, Resilient Analytics Director Paul Chinowsky and Sharpsburg Mayor Brittany Rendo.

Ms. Taylor has completely signed onto the scam.

“The study’s findings on the economic impact of climate change on our communities in Pennsylvania are a wakeup call,” she said. “Climate change will affect all Pennsylvania communities, and some residents more than others. We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of inaction.”

If the climate crisis was real, Barack Obama would not be living in a seaside mansion in Martha’s Vineyard and have other mansions in Washington D.C. and Hawaii. Al Gore, the Clintons and the Kerrys would not have carbon footprints 100 or 200 or 300 times average.

We would not be tolerating the coal-coated skies of China which produces twice the greenhouse gases as the United States.

The wokest states would not be ripping down hydro-electric dams.

Bruce Springsteen, however, would be performing concerts to protest the lack of nuclear power plants.

In the four years under Democrat control, Delco’s budget went from 40 pages to 421 pages, and county residents can expect a 35-percent permanent property tax hike if the Ds keep council this November.

Monica Taylor is among those up for election.

$778 Million Climate Bill Looming For Delco?

$778 Million Climate Bill Looming For Delco?

Morton Homestead Filthy Information Station

Morton Homestead Filthy Information Station — Here’s one of the information stations at the Morton Homestead off Route 420 in Prospect Park. The structure is traceable to 1698 and may be the oldest building in Pennsylvania. But really, you think someone can do something about the filthy information stations? They are all like this by the way. The photo was taken, Aug. 4.

Morton Homestead Filthy Information Station

The Delco Juvenile Offender Mystery

The Delco Juvenile Offender Mystery — Our story about last night’s United4Delco’s candidate’s forum caused a brouhaha after we reported that Delaware County’s juvenile offenders are being being incarcerated at the county’s Intermediate Unit educational facility in Aston.

Delco’s juvenile detention facility has been shuttered, after all, and the mischievous tykes have to be kept somewhere.

We have since heard that they were only been kept at the school during the day. Where do they go at night? They didn’t say.

We heard that they were being sent to juvenile facilities in Montco and Chesco. Then we heard that wasn’t true, and that Montco and Chesco weren’t taking them because, well, they were just too unruly.

Then we heard they are being shipped to Ohio.

So what does District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer say about it? He is the guy responsible, after all, and dreams of being president despite an objective lack of competence in the job he now holds.

We await his answer.

We did hear that Aston Police were being sent to the I.U. almost daily to deal with the younguns.

The Delco Juvenile Offender Mystery

The Delco Juvenile Offender Mystery

Trump Dropped From Delco Defamation Suit

Trump Dropped From Delco Defamation Suit — Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Erdos, July 31, dropped President Trump from a defamation suit filed by former Delaware County, Pa. Voting Machine Warehouse supervisor James Savage.

Judge Erdos said Trump claim that elections in Delaware County were rigged was protected by presidential immunity.

Remaining as defendants are Rudy Giuliani, Jen Ellis and Delco poll watchers Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom.

Why is this case being held in Philly? Savage was employed in and lived in Delaware County when the alleged defamation occurred, after all, and Mrs. Hoopes and Stenstrom remain Delco residents.

Trump Dropped From Delco Defamation Suit

Pennsylvania law allows plaintiffs to chose any county in the state to file their case.

Judge Erdos in a June 20 hearing in which he dismissed a bizarre request by Savage’s attorney Conor Corcoran for a protective order against Mrs. Hoopes and Stenstrom, noted that none of the various cases regarding 2020 election fraud allegations ever went before a jury and that the eyes of the world will be on Philadelphia when this case goes to trial.

Considering the indictments against Trump filed, yesterday, Aug. 1, by Special Counsel Jack Smith alleging that the President conspired to defraud the government, impede Congress and violated persons right to vote for saying the 2020 election was rigged, it seems a whole lot of cases regarding 2020 are now going to be going to trail.

Wonder if Smith considered that before filing his indictments. He was under a lot of pressure after all being as how Hunter Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer had just testified to Congress that Joe Biden listened in on his son’s business meetings and met with the corrupt mayor of Moscow’s filthy rich widow after his which his little boy got a $40 million investment.

Trump Dropped From Delco Defamation Suit

Delco Envelope Examination Ends; County Praised

Delco Envelope Examination Ends; County Praised — An examination of ballot envelopes in Delaware County, Pa. at The Wharf in Chester ended soon after noon, today, July 19.

The envelopes were from the May 16 primary election. The examination took about seven hours over two days with six stations. The examiners — all volunteers — photographed each envelope signature.

The request had been made by Delaware County Council candidate Joy Schwartz and poll watchers Greg Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes and Paul Rumley.

Stenstrom said they found no discrepancies between the 25,000 vote tally reported by the county and the number of envelopes. He thanked the county and praised the county poll workers for their cooperation and assistance.

Stenstrom said they will process the data and report back.

Mrs. Schwartz and the poll watchers made the request to examine the envelopes shortly after the election, which the county perversely fought for nearly two month taking it all the way to Commonwealth Court.

Stenstrom said the envelope images are stored on the county’s BlueCrest sorters and dozens of man-hours — including paid county labor — would have been saved if the Delco just gave them the images on a disk.

He had also made this point at the 9-hour hearing, Nov. 28, before Judge Barry Dozor.

Delco Envelope Examination Ends; County Praised
Greg Stenstrom, Erik Kocher, Scott Thomas, Joy Schwartz and Maria Fine at the cancelled envelope exam, June 2. In the background is the symbol for the Philadelphia Union soccer team which has its headquarters at The Wharf.

Delco Envelope Examination Ends; County Praised

Delaware County Concedes, Will Let Auditors See Ballot Envelope Signatures

Delaware County Concedes, Will Let Auditors See Ballot Envelope Signatures — Delaware County, Pa. has agreed to allow Republican candidates and poll watchers to count mail-in ballot envelopes from the May 16 primary election and see the signatures on them, according to Greg Stenstrom who is one of the poll watchers.

Stenstrom received an email yesterday, July 13, from county Director of Elections Jim Allen saying “the envelopes are going to be available for review unredacted.”

Stenstrom requested that the two-day audit be scheduled for the middle of next week.

Stenstrom; fellow poll watchers Leah Hoopes and Paul Rumley; and Delaware County Council candidate Joy Schwartz requested to see the envelopes shortly after the election but were stonewalled by the county.

Facing legal challenges, the county conceded but demanded that the envelope signatures be hidden. They began taping over them. This prompted the audit to be cancelled with the petitioners appealing to Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

Commonwealth Court is the venue for civil suits against the state.

The taping had been done after consultation with the Department of State.

Commonwealth Court Justice  Michael H. Wojcik  heard the petition, July 11. He accepted the county’s argument that his court was not the appropriate jurisdiction because the secretary of the state could not compel action.

Fulton County, we hope you are reading.

Wojcik sent the case to Delaware County Common Pleas Court.

Sometime between then and yesterday some authority in Delco took a sane pill and agreed to an unredacted audit. Pointless legal expenses will be end and, hopefully, election trust will increase.

Envelope signatures are no different than voter rolls which are obviously and necessarily public records. How one voted cannot be learned from the envelope.

Now Delco, end the stupid fights about the right-to-know requests.

Delaware County Concedes, Will Let Auditors See Ballot Envelope Signatures

Delco Ballot Envelope Signature Case Kicked To Common Pleas Court

Delco Ballot Envelope Signature Case Kicked To Common Pleas Court— Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Justice Michael H. Wojcik ordered, this afternoon, July 11, the case to see envelope signatures from the May 16 primary be heard in Delaware County Common Pleas Court.

Defendants were Al Schmidt, secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Delaware County; Delaware County Park Police Department; Delaware County Director of Elections James Allen; and Delaware County Park Police Chief John S. Diehl.

Schmidt is off the case now.

Plaintiffs were originally Republican County Council candidate Joy Schwartz; and certified poll watchers Gregory Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes and Paul Rumley. Four other Republican candidates have joined, however.

The county and state were represented by lawyers while the plaintiffs represented themselves.

The government lawyers claimed that Commonwealth Court was not the proper venue as allowing access to the records was solely a county responsibility and the secretary of the state could not compel action.

If the state government was involved Commonwealth Court would be the venue.

The plaintiffs say there is a 14,289 ballot disparity between what was observed being counted at the county’s Wharf Centralized Counting Center and the 24,289 recorded the night of the May 16 election.

A request to examine the ballot envelopes was fought by the county before it conceded to it. This June 2 examination was called off, however, when the county insisted on covering the envelope signatures with masking tape. These are not just public records but the only way to determine if the envelope came from a legitimate voter.

Stenstrom said that Allen initially told the plaintiffs that signatures were covered at Secretary Schmidt’s direction but changed his statement in an email claiming it came from attorney Manley Parks acting on advice from the Secretary.

Parks, who represented Delco today, said that the state merely offered a suggestion and didn’t order action.

Stenstrom, in his presentation, pointed out that the Pennsylvania Department of State fined Fulton County millions of dollars after they made a preliminary audit of its voting machines when it failed to follow “a suggestion”.

He also said in open court that Delco has actively destroyed records regarding elections from 2020, 2021 and 2022. He said they have evidence.

Mrs. Hoopes said that she worked a decade in geriatric health care. If a tragedy occurred because she followed advice from her superior, the superior would be sued as well as herself, she said.

Judge Wojcik emphasized the case was not dismissed. He would have taken a big step in restoring trust in our elections, though, if he simply told Allen to let them look at the freaking names.

Our judges really better start taking election concerns seriously. Wojcik used a technicality to punt on an issue which should not be an issue.

Why is Allen and the county fighting this so hard? It’s not about privacy. These names are given to thousands of non-government people every month.

Voter rolls are obviously public record.

It should also be obvious that the envelope signatures cannot reveal how a vote was cast.

There is no honest answer either as to why the county is fighting so hard a right-to-know order from a state arbiter.

Delco Ballot Envelope Signature Case Kicked To Common Pleas Court

Plaintiffs Accuse Delco Of Staging Evidence

Plaintiffs Accuse Delco Of Staging Evidence — The plaintiffs in the case regarding access to Delaware County election envelopes from the 2023 primary election are accusing Delaware County officials of “preparing and staging materials” in anticipation of the July 11 hearing before Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

The plaintiffs are Republican County Council candidate Joy Schwartz; and election integrity activists Gregory Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes and Paul Rumley.

Defendants are Al Schmidt, acting secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Delaware County; Delaware County Park Police Department; Delaware County Director of Elections James Allen; and Delaware County Park Police Chief John S. Diehl.

Allen and Diehl are being sued in their personal capacities.

The plaintiffs say there is a 14,289 ballot disparity between what was observed being counted at the county’s Wharf Centralized Counting Center and the 24,289 recorded the night of the May 16 election.

A request to examine the ballot envelopes was initially fought by the county who then conceded to it just before an expected ruling by Commonwealth Court.

This June 2 examination was called off, however, when the county insisted on covering the envelope signatures, which are not just public record but the only way to determine if the envelope came from a legitimate voter.

The envelope signatures cannot reveal how a vote was cast and the names of those who vote are obviously and necessarily public information.

The plaintiffs again appealed to Commonwealth Court.

In their latest filing, they say:

  • The BOE has been active in the Wharf Centralized Counting Center setting up plastic barriers on the tables next to the envelope racks, and continuing to stage boxes with unknown contents in the secure storage room with closed door access immediately next to the expended, opened Mail In Ballot (MIB) racks.
  • Multiple people have access to the back office and side storage room. This room has two access doors to the back office where there are no cameras, and to the main counting room door next to the racks where they are storing expended MIB envelopes.
  • In 2020, Plaintiff Gregory Stenstrom was told by Delaware County, Clerk of Elections, Laureen Hagan that only she and James Allen had keys to the storage area where there are controlled election results that include primarily ballot bags from the precincts with cast ballots. Multiple people entering and exiting these areas without access control and sign in / out, is a problem by itself, as these are official election records.
  • On June 21st, 2023, Lauren Hagan, BOE (Bureau of Elections) IT (Information Technology) Director Robert Wright, and an unidentified male BOE employee, were observed entering the back storage room together (Camera 9) with a hand cart and placing brown cardboard boxes, that were on the floor behind stacked precinct ballot bags out of sight of the cameras, onto the cart. The boxes are somewhat heavy based on the effort they exerted lifting them and estimated to be about 20-30 pounds. They were placed on the cart and wheeled next to the door that opens next to the racks of expended MIB envelopes.
  • On June 23rd, 2023, Robert Wright supervised two BOE employees setting up large clear plastic barriers with a slot on the bottom, placing them on the 8’x4′ card tables set up next to the racks that are lined up along the windows with opaque plastic boxes with blue folding lids that contain expended MIB envelopes.
  • Also on June 23 , 2023, another unidentified male wheeled in another hand truck with two brown cardboard boxes sealed with red tape and a white shoe box into the room, transferring the boxes to the hand truck staged by the door that opens to the racks with the expended MIB envelopes, and the right rear corner of the main counting room.
  • The unidentified male returns to the hand car by the door with access to the MIB racks, after wheeling the hand cart he used to wheel the (new) boxes in the room and seems concerned with the logo and label and moves the white shoe box on top of the newly placed brown cardboard boxes.
  • In the videos of remarkable behavior to date, IT Director Robert Wright appears to be acting in a supervisory role, and is aware of the public access monitoring cameras.
  • The County BOE seem to be preparing and staging materials in anticipation of the July 11th, 2023, hearing at the Commonwealth Court and a subsequent order from the Court that Plaintiffs be granted their Act 77 rights to inspect the expended MIB envelopes for their declarations.

The entire filing sent is below:

The reason why two-thirds of this country are convinced that our elections have become untrustworthy is behavior like this. The good people in our government have to defend transparency and put an end to the strange games being played by officials in Delaware County and elsewhere.

There is no honest reason to hide those envelopes or their signatures.

Plaintiffs Accuse Delco Of Staging Evidence

Delco GOP Sues County Council Over Election Code Change; Will Their Testicles Drop After All?

Delco GOP Sues County Council Over Election Code Change; Will Their Testicles Drop After All? — The Delaware County (Pa) Republican Party is suing Democrat-controlled County Council over changes made to the Election Code, Jan. 18.

The lawsuit was announced May 21.

The new law allows the board to reject all members on a list of three names submitted by the Republicans for the seat and restart the process. Previously, they had to accept one of the names.

State law requires all counties except Philadelphia to have an election board with a minority member and that the minority member must come from a list submitted by the county chairman of the minority party.

The county law passed by the Democrats lets them reject names unceasingly until they get one that meets with their approval.

Good for the GOP for finally standing up even if it’s just for a little.

Now, how about giving Rob Mancini a hand with his right-to-know case? The Delco Republicans haven’t even made a public statement or issued a press release in support. You’d think it would be good politics to simply ask why the Democrats are fighting so hard to keep the people from seeing correspondence with Fort Orange Press of Albany, N.Y., which prints the county’s election ballots.

Frankly, it would be good politics to ask why Delco’s ballots are not being printed in Delaware County, much less out of state.

The GOP can also start asking why the Democrats are fighting so hard to hide ballot envelope signatures.

Again, it is good and necessary politics to call out strange and suspicious behavior by governments to whom you are the opposition.

All we’ve heard from the Republicans on these matters are crickets.

Also kudos to Bob Small for submitting a tip.

Delco GOP Sues County Council Over Election Code Change; Will Their Testicles Drop After All?

Delco GOP Sues County Council Over Election Code Change; Will Their Testicles Drop After All? — The Delaware County (Pa) Republican Party is suing Democrat-controlled County Council over changes made to the Election Code, Jan. 18.

Stenstrom And Hoopes Respond To Savage Protective Order Request

Stenstrom And Hoopes Respond To Savage Protective Order Request — Greg Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes have responded to a request for a protective order filed against them, June 6, in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court by former Delaware County, Pa. Voting Machine Warehouse supervisor James Savage.

A hearing before Judge Michael E. Erdos has been scheduled for 9:30 a.m.., June 20, in Courtroom 650 at Philadelphia City Hall.

Here is the response:


  1. Answering Defendants object to the entirety of the subject Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Attorney Motion for Protective Order.
  2. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes were exercising their constitutionally protected First (1st) Amendment rights, for which Plaintiff has filed abusive complaints against the same Defendants in multiple jurisdictions, and multiple separate complaints (since joined), in this Honorable Court, with claims of defamation, malice, and conspiracy.
  3. Plaintiff’s vexatious use of frivolous litigation, abuse of legal process, and false representations by Plaintiff’s Attorney, have brought fraud upon the court.
  4. Plaintiff’s protective motion is unconscionable as there are no undisputed, genuine facts that support the alleged “danger” Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney claims.
  5. The balance of hardship would prejudice answering Defendants, depriving them of their guaranteed, secured, and protected rights to keep and bear arms pursuant to the US Constitution, Second (2nd) Amendment, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Article I, Section 21.
  6. Further, Masons Manual of Legislative Procedures, Chapter 2, Section 7, declares constitutional provisions stand on a higher plane than statutes and are mandatory.
  7. This maxim of American Law supersedes unfounded accusations that have not been adjudicated by a trier of fact, but are mere conjecture and color of law accusations without reference to any statute, or provision of law, that Defendants have supposedly violated.
  8. Finally, Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes are individually people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and are protected by mandatory language “shall not be infringed” and “shall not be questioned” pursuant to federal and state constitutions.
  9. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes move that this Honorable Court deny the entirety of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective order, because of the primary authority stated above that cannot be superseded by disingenuous accusations. Page 2 of 14


  1. Defendants have made no statements regarding violence or made any communications aside from litigative responses and service of legal filings, against Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran, or the Honorable Court, for which Plaintiff has not provided any factual proof of any such statements exhorting violence or incendiary threats by answering Defendants, beyond conjectural contrivances.
  2. Plaintiff attorney has grossly conflated Defendant Stenstrom’s quote from well-known US Statesman, leader in the movement for the abolition of slavery, and great American historical figure, Frederick Douglass, regarding the means of changing the United States being found on the “soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the powder box,” as an advocation for violence.
  3. Defendant Stenstrom has repeatedly, and clearly stated that the “way home” through the controversy of fraudulent elections is through the law, the courts, and “the jury box,” so that our nation can avoid violence and “the powder box.”
  4. Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran’s false inferences, utterances, and conflation of these statements, as a licensed attorney and officer of the court, that Defendant Stenstrom implied the endorsement of the use of “explosives” and “incendiary devices” against the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s attorney, and the Honorable Court, transcends the bounds of common sense and absurdity, and is an affront to this Court.
  5. Defendant Stenstrom is a 22-year career naval officer, veteran of foreign wars, and graduate of the US Naval Academy; Leah Hoopes holds dual Associate Degrees and was a medical professional; with both Defendants being successful small business owners, and parents. Their public statements and writing correspondingly reflects their educations and experience, with regular references to historical figures and events, famous quotes, literature, books, history, personal anecdotes, and a mutual commitment to resolving Page 3 of 14

matters of great public concern civilly, and lawfully. Their multiple Pro Se lawsuits, co- authored book, “The Parallel Election,” and advocacy for lawful activism is proof of this.

  1. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes notified law enforcement officials of Plaintiff Savage’s civil and criminal violations of law on November 7th, 2020. These officials included US Attorney William McSwain, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, and Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer. These violations were subsequently, and immediately, referred to the highest levels of the US Department of Justice. (See Exhibit A).
  2. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes Exhibit B, is a compilation of several US DOJ FOIA responses regarding the November 2020 election that include dozens of email exchanges regarding Defendants Stenstrom’s and Hoopes’ sworn declarations, affidavits, eyewitness testimony, injunctive court order, and evidence, between executive level DOJ officials including US Attorney General Barr, US Attorney General Chief of Staff, US Attorney General Senior Counsel, former US Attorney for Eastern PA William McSwain, all 94 US Attorneys, multiple States Attorney Generals, the Director of US Public Integrity Section (PIN), and Directors of the FBI and multiple other US federal government agencies subsequent to the November 2020 elections. Not a single comment is made in any of the correspondence by these executive and senior justice officials, most being learned attorneys, that would imply Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes statements, testimony and evidence regarding Plaintiff Savage might be false, unworthy of investigation, or otherwise “frivolous,” as characterized by Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran.
  3. These email exchanges directly refer to, in great detail, Plaintiff Savage’s illicit possession of USB vCards, his insertion of these vDrives into voting tabulation servers, and corroborate Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes sworn, eyewitness testimony and factual assertions regarding the conduct of elections in Delaware County, PA, in the November 2020 general election, and factual statements regarding Plaintiff Savage, a public official. Page 4 of 14
  1. As repeatedly stated in answering Defendants Stenstrom’s and Hoopes’ previous motions, and specifically their Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Summary Judgement, (both denied by this Court without requested oral arguments), this makes Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes both prospective federal and state witnesses to criminal violations of law (by the Plaintiff) in still pending investigations and yet to be adjudicated litigation currently in the active trajectory of the Appellate court (Stenstrom & Hoopes v Boockvar, et al, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Case No. 876 and 877 CD 2022), which were facts well known by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney prior to filing their complaints, and have been made known to this Honorable Court.
  2. Former US Attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, and 2022 gubernatorial candidate, William th
    McSwain’sJune9 ,2021,publiclettertoPresident(Defendant)Trump(ExhibitC),further corroborates the factual statements of Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes, and summarizes much of the heavily redacted correspondence included in Exhibit B, which is proof that the veracity of Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes statements and evidence was never in question, or diminished by US Attorney General Barr’s and Pennsylvania Attorney General Shapiro’s politically driven refusals to investigate.
  3. Nor was the fact that more than 64 notable 2020 election fraud cases being dismissed diminishing of Defendants’ statements of fact and evidence, as 20 of those cases were dismissed without evidentiary hearings or oral arguments, none permitted the entry of evidence that was contradictory to the mainstream media narrative of “the safest and most secure election in history,” and not a single case was permitted a trial where evidence could be weighed in the crucible of a court with opposing counsel and a jury of citizens.
  4. Defendants Stenstrom’s and Hoopes’ Exhibit D is a heavily redacted USPS investigative report obtained through FOIA, and published by “The American Thinker,” that states that PA mail in ballots, were brought into Pennsylvania, over multiple state borders. The contractor that printed 200,000 bound for Chester County, PA; 650,000 bound for Philadelphia; and hundreds of thousands more destined for other Counties in Pennsylvania in the November 2020 election, could not recall whether the ballots were shipped by Page 5 of 14

contract courier or USPS. A truck shipment of mail and ballots was, indeed, unaccounted for. The report’s otherwise inconclusive findings regarding the specificity of contract truck driver Jessie Morgan’s allegations are strongly diminished by the fact that it does not mention the substantial unlikelihood that fraudulent mail in ballots with false declarations (signatures) would be recorded by USPS mail scanners, with other conjectural statements made as declarations unsubstantiated by the actual evidence that hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots were unaccounted for.

  1. This USPS report corroborates Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes eyewitness accounts that they observed 130,000 presumably fake mail in ballots being processed in the Delaware County, PA centralized counting center (“The Wharf”), and further corroborates answering Defendants eyewitness testimony that they observed 70,000 unopened “real” mail in ballots in a sequestered storage room after they secured an injunction to access that room, that were never counted.
  2. In fact, opposing Delaware County attorneys to Stenstrom and Hoopes, inadvertently submitted photographs in their own litigative responses that required them to admit to the undisputed fact that thousands of unopened mail in ballot remained uncounted in sequestered back office rooms in Delaware County in Stenstrom and Hoopes v Delaware County Board of Elections (US Supreme Court Case No. 22-503), of which Stenstrom’s and Hoope’s Writ of Certiorari and Request for Reconsideration were denied by the US Supreme Court without opinion, and for which all lower Courts also denied evidentiary hearings, oral arguments – or trial – which was the sole requested relief by Stenstrom and Hoopes – to hear their evidence before a trier of fact, before a jury of their peers.
  3. Plaintiff Savage, as a public official; former President of the United Steel Workers of Philadelphia; Vice Chair of the Delaware County Democratic Party; and Delaware County Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor; had full supervisory control and custodial accountability for over 1,000 voting machines and their respective election software and vDrives, ballot scanners, ballots, and election materials, which is a factual matter of public Page 6 of 14

record, Court records, and filings by both Plaintiff and Defendants in the subject case before the Court.

  1. Yet, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney continue to aver both in their subject motion, and previous filings, that Plaintiff Savage was NOT a public official beholden to Defendants Stenstrom’s and Hoopes’ 1st Amendment freedom of speech as ascribed in the US Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 286 (1964).
  2. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes respondent Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint of May 23rd, 2022, included both Defendants Objections AND New Matter Affirmative Defenses. Contrary to Plaintiff’s attorney affirmations in the subject Motion, he did not respond to those New Matter Affirmative defenses until April 28th, 2023, almost a year after Defendant response. Plaintiff’s curative procedural response was not only untimely and impermissible by law, but also non-compliant with Rules of Civil Procedure, yet inexplicably, was administratively permitted to be submitted by this Honorable Court’s Discovery court to the docket, separate from Motions court, and denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike in the process.
  3. Plaintiff’s attorney consistently misrepresents to the Court that Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes have not responded to Plaintiff’s “factual allegations,” when, in fact, Defendants have repeatedly stated in their motions that Plaintiff has made no factual allegations at all besides impermissible conjecture, and has not presented any triable issues or facts to the Court in support of its defamation, malice, and civil conspiracy counts.
  4. The exhibit Plaintiff’s attorney has entered in this filing, and its other most recent filings, as its sole “factual allegation” is both impermissible and intentionally mislabeled to fit its disingenuous narrative. The photograph, whose origin is omitted or undocumented aside from Plaintiff’s attorney unfounded personal attestations that it depicts Defendant Stenstrom sleeping through the entirety of the 2020 election is, in fact, a photograph pulled from Facebook of Defendant Stenstrom during a short 4am-5am (0400-0500) break, during the 24 hours (0700-to-0700) from November 8th-through-9th, 2023, when he was present Page 7 of 14

as an Authorized Representative in the Delaware County Wharf central counting center observing the processing of ballots. Stenstrom had been relieved from his watch by another Authorized Representative.

20. Hence, the sole offering of “evidence” offered by Plaintiff’s attorney since his October

31 , 2021, filing of the underlying complaint is a singular mislabeled and misrepresented

photograph from the November 2022 election, (not the 2020 election), pulled from Facebook by Plaintiff’s attorney without a moment to spare, and presented after the Case Management Ordered discovery deadline, upon which hinges the Plaintiff’s entire claim that Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes recounting of events, declarations, affidavits, videos, audios, photographs, emails, texts, official Return Board report that the November 2020 election could not be reconciled by tens of thousands of votes, their book “The Parallel Election,” DOJ FOIA responses, RTK responses, USPS Investigation report, US Attorney General McSwain’s emails and public letter; and that Plaintiff Savage was essentially an anonymous, private person presiding as chief primary custodian of all election machines and materials in Delaware County, PA, for the November 2020 election are all a “scandalous” fiction in a diabolical conspiracy by Defendants President Donald Trump, Mayor Rudy Guiliani, former Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline, attorney Jenna Ellis, the Thomas More Society, Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom to defame Plaintiff Savage.

21.Regarding Plaintiff’s attorney’s false and inflammatory statements that Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes are anti-gay, and advocates for violence against gay people, Plaintiff’s attorney circuitously justified this unfounded accusation based on Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes factual statements in previous motions that Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran subverted special Covid-19 procedures to divert the trajectory of the case from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Motions Court to Discovery Court, in an attempt to receive favorable extension of discovery deadlines that had been denied to the Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran in Motion’s Court.

Page 8 of 14

  1. Defendants made note that Plaintiff had used similar procedural chicanery in other cases, as in this case, to circumvent rules of civil procedures, and received inexplicable and otherwise implausible special attention and favor from the special Discovery Court procedures, and administrative staff, clerks and judges associated with the special Covid 19 procedures.
  2. Defendants remarked that a plausible reason for this special treatment was that Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran, and Judge Anders, the presiding judge for the Discovery Court, both shared well known, public gay activism as a potentially unifying causation for special treatment.
  3. Plaintiff was permitted to contrive, file, and perfect a new complaint against Defendant President Trump, consolidate that case with this subject case, and obtain favorable extraordinary relief and case extension for the entire (new) consolidated cases that had been previously denied to him in the Motions Court, all within a matter of hours of filing said petitions and motions, within the venue of Discovery court (and its affinity group), while Defendant’s Motions and filings have languished in excess of 30 days, unanswered. Plaintiff’s attorney has similarly benefited and enjoyed filings submitted long after normal business hours of the court being processed and entered into the docket after hours, in the dead of night, by senior Discovery Court personnel.
  4. Now, Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran, is somehow afraid for his life, and demanding the Honorable Court confiscate Defendant’s firearms, muzzle them from speaking, restrict their movements, restrict their communications, restrict their rights as Pro Se litigants to defend themselves by filing legal documents with the Court, and sanction them for $15,000, for having the temerity to question the decidedly poor optics that Plaintiff’s attorney Corcoran, himself, fomented, and upon which he rests his professional reputation.
  5. Regarding Plaintiff’s attorney citation of Pa.R.C.P. 4012 as providing remedy for the extraordinary relief he demands described above, 4012 is the procedural statute regarding Page 9 of 14

discovery, which makes no such provision of allowances that would provide any Court juris to provide the relief sought.

  1. Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes have an indisputable right to vigorously defend themselves Pro Se, a right that consistently bridles Plaintiff’s attorney, who has frequently referred to answering Defendants filings as “gibberish” among other denigrations, including Plaintiff attorney Corcoran’s motions to prevent Pro Se Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes from submitting filings without permission from the Honorable Court to do so, for the presumed reason, which he leaves unsaid for the Court to figure out, of apparently upsetting him.
  2. Defendants are one of the people as submitted in their respective Declarations of Status (see Exhibit E)

10. Hence, Defendants Stenstrom and Hoopes move that this Honorable Court deny the entirety of Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective order, for reason that the primary authority stated above cannot be superseded by disingenuous accusations.

Stenstrom And Hoopes Respond To Savage Protective Order Request
Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom flanking journalist Emerald Robinson during a broadcast
%d bloggers like this: