Yu Appendix

Case: 22-20578 Document: 00516542767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2022
NO. 22-20578
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN RE TRUE THE VOTE, CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT,

And GREGG PHILLIPS
Mandamus from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas
Case No. 4:22CV3096, Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote, Catherine Engelbrecht And
Gregg Phillips
RESPONDENT KONNECH, INC’S RESPONSE TO

PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Texas State Bar No. 00794419
Nathan W. Richardson
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 220-8800
Facsimile: (713) 222-0843
Email: DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
Email: NRichardson@kasowitz.com
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
i
NO. 22-20578

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

And GREGG PHILLIPS

Gregg Phillips
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons
and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Fifth Circuit Rule 28.2.1 have an
interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the
judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:
ii
Respondent
Konnech, Inc.
Counsel for Respondent
www.kasowitz.com
Telephone: (713) 220-8800
Facsimile: (713) 222-0843
Petitioners
Catherine Engelbrecht
Gregg Phillips
True the Vote, Inc.
Counsel for Petitioners
Michael J. Wynne
Cameron Powell
James L. Turner
GREGOR WYNNE ARNEY, PLLC
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3800
Email: mwynne@gwafirm.com
Email: cpowell@gwafirm.com
Email: jturner@gwafirm.com
Brock C. Akers
The Akers Law Firm
3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 101
Email: bca@akersfirm.com
iii
John C. Kiyonaga
Law Officers of John Kiyonaga
600 Cameron Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Email: john@johnckiyonaga.com
s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Attorney of Record for Respondent
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ....................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................................1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................1
STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..............................................3
A. The Parties and the Events Preceding the Lawsuit .......................................3
B. Respondent Sues Petitioners and the TRO is Issued ...................................8

C. Petitioners Evade Compliance with the TRO ..............................................9
D. Petitioners Admit Their Contempt .............................................................11
1. The October 6 Hearing ........................................................................11
2. The October 27 Show Cause Hearing .................................................14

3. The October 31 Show Cause Hearing .................................................16
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ......................................................................17
I. The District Court Order Was In Effect and Required Certain Conduct ......17
II. Petitioners Did Not Comply with the District Court’s Orders ......................18
A. Petitioners Refuse to Identify Who Was Involved In Accessing
Respondent’s Computers ...........................................................................18
B. Petitioners Failed to Identify How Respondent’s Computers Were

Accessed .....................................................................................................21
C. Petitioners Failed to Identify All Persons Who Have Had Possession,

Custody or Control of Respondent’s Data .................................................23
v
III. The District Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion in its Contempt
Finding .......................................................................................................24
IV. Petitioners’ Attempted Collateral Attack on the TRO is Improper ...........26
A. Petitioners Never Moved to Dissolve Or Modify the TRO But Instead

Agreed to Extend It ....................................................................................26
B. The District Court Properly Refused to Reconsider the Issuance of the
TRO At the Contempt Hearing ..................................................................27
C. The TRO Was Properly Issued ..................................................................28
V. Petitioners Have an Adequate Remedy on Appeal ....................................31
VI. Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus Does Not Comply With the Rules ....31
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................32
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

542 U.S. 367 (2004) ........................................................................................ 3, 31
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wellington Precious Metals,

Inc.,
950 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 28
Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co.,

204 U.S. 599 (1997) ............................................................................................ 31
In re Gee,
941 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 3
In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P.,

No. 19-34054-SGJ11, 2021 WL 2326350 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June
7, 2021) ............................................................................................................... 22
Hill v. Schilling,
No. 3:07-cv-2020-L, 2018 WL 6492508 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018)................. 25
In re Jankovic,
738 Fed. Appx. 268 (5th Cir. 2018) (mem. op.) ...........................................20, 31
Leonard v. Martin,
38 F.4th 481 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................. 3
Powers v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
846 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 21
Shillitani v. U.S.,
384 U.S. 364 (1966) ............................................................................................ 25
Test Masters Ed. Svs., Inc. v. Singh,

428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 25
Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc.,

60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................... 29
vii
U.S. v. Nosal,
930 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Ca. 2013) ............................................................... 30
U.S. v. Wilson,
421 U.S. 309 (1975) ............................................................................................ 19
United States v. Fidanian,

465 F.2d 755 (5th Cir. 1972) .............................................................................. 24
United States v. Rylander,

460 U.S. 752 (1983) ............................................................................................ 28
Vioxx Prod. Liabl. Litig. Steering Comm. v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
No. 06-30378, 2006 WL 1726675 (5th Cir. May 26, 2006) .............................. 31
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 2
Waste Mgmt. of Washington, Inc. v. Kattler,
776 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 17
Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.,
481 U.S. 787 (1987) ............................................................................................ 19
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 1030 ........................................................................................................ 8

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.001.................................................................. 8
Other Authorities
FED. R. CIV. P. 65 ..................................................................................................... 28
viii
TO THE HONORABLE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT:
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioners satisfied their burden to show that the District Court
abused its discretion when it found Petitioners in contempt of court.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This case involves Petitioners’ direct and admitted defiance of court orders
and the District Court’s efforts to secure their compliance. Petitioners’ contempt is
undeniable and inexcusable. For 2 months, Petitioners have defied court orders
requiring them to identify everyone who was involved in hacking into and inspecting
data on Respondent’s computers, to describe how they did it and to identify everyone
who has had possession of it. Petitioners have treated compliance with the court’s
orders like a game of cat and mouse. For example, for 6 weeks after the TRO was
issued, Petitioners concealed the existence of a third person involved in accessing
Konnech’s data whose identity they were ordered to disclose. When they
inadvertently acknowledged his existence during cross-examination at their show
cause hearing, they refused to identify him despite a direct order to do so. Further,
in their affidavits which were submitted to “purge” their contempt, Petitioners
openly admit that they still have not disclosed, as required by the TRO, “how, when,
and by whom Konnech’s protected computers were accessed” even though the TRO
was issued 2 months ago and required immediate compliance.
1
Far from abusing its discretion, the District Judge afforded Petitioners every
opportunity to comply with his orders and to purge their contempt, but Petitioners
have wasted every opportunity afforded to them. The District Judge correctly
exercised his coercive contempt power and should be permitted to continue to use
the coercive and compensatory contempt tools available to all federal judges to
enforce his orders.
Petitioners’ attempt to avoid complying with the TRO by claiming this is all
a big misunderstanding is meritless. Petitioners never moved to modify or dissolve
the TRO and, instead, agreed to extend the TRO. Further, even though Petitioners
opposed Respondent’s request for a preliminary injunction, they did not claim any
misunderstanding at that time and failed to submit any evidence in opposition. As
such, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction on October 31, which is in
all respects identical to the TRO. Petitioners’ desperate attempt to avoid complying
with the TRO based on a “misunderstanding” is simply too little too late.
The Court therefore should deny Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only if the
petitioner establishes that: (1) he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he
desires,” (2) his “right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable,” and (3) “the
writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
2
F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81
(2004)).
Civil contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion. American Airlines, Inc. v.
Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 2000). Where the decision of the
lower court is discretionary, “a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of the writ
of mandamus will arise only if the district court has clearly abused its discretion,
such that it amounts to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re Gee, 941 F.3d 153,
159 (5th Cir. 2019). Demonstrating this right “requires more than showing that the
district court misinterpreted the law, misapplied it to the facts, or otherwise engaged
in an abuse of discretion.” Leonard v. Martin, 38 F.4th 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2022)
(internal punctuation omitted). Rather, petitioner must show “a clear abuse of
discretion that produces patently erroneous results . . . or exceptional circumstances
amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” Id. That is, petitioner “must show not
only that the district court erred, but that it clearly and indisputably erred[.]” Id.
(emphasis in original).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Parties and the Events Preceding the Lawsuit
Respondent, Konnech is incorporated in Michigan. (App 10-11 at ¶ 19).
Konnech provides cities and counties with election logistics software called
PollChief which is used to recruit, train and schedule poll workers; coordinate the
3
distribution of equipment and supplies to polling places; and dispatch support
personnel to address technical issues. (App 41). Konnech does not select,
communicate, or interface with any poll workers. (Id.) And Konnech is not involved
in any way in the registration of voters, the production, distribution, scanning, or
processing of ballots, nor the collection, counting or reporting of votes. (Id.) It thus
begs the question how Petitioners could believe that Respondent could ever be
involved in election fraud when Respondent is not involved with ballots in any U.S.
election.
Petitioners are in business to capitalize from their claim that the 2020
Presidential Election was “stolen.” (App 5-6 at ¶ 3). Petitioners, who are known as
the “Bonnie and Clyde” of election fraud1, have enriched themselves by spreading
conspiracy theories, which they present as factual in nature, largely funded by money
funneled through True the Vote, which some commentators have called a “big
grift.”2 (Id.). Contrary to Petitioners’ allegation (Mandamus at p. 11-13), it is not a
fact that Respondent stored poll worker data on any server in China. Petitioners’
allegation is apparently based on BinaryEdge which, as Engelbrecht testified, at best,
1
See Mimi Swartz, How True the Vote Fabricates Claims of Election Fraud, for Fun and Profit,
Texas Monthly (Aug. 22, 2022), available at, https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/true-
the-vote-election-fraud/. (App 5-6 at ¶ 3).
2
See Cassandra Jaramillo, She Helped Create the Big Lie. Records Suggest She Turned It Into a
Big Grift, Reveal News (June 8, 2022), available at, https://revealnews.org/article/true-the-vote-
big-lie-election-fraud/. (Id.).
4
identifies the existence of a server but does not reveal any data contained on that
server. (App 109, 116:16-18) (“Q. My question is simply: BinaryEdge does not
show you the data; correct? A. No. That would be exposure of PII.”).
Petitioners most recently capitalized on their claims of election fraud through
their involvement in the production of the “documentary” 2000 Mules in which they
sought to convince their followers that people, who they refer to as “mules,” were
paid to collect and deposit fake ballots into ballot boxes for the 2020 Presidential
Election. (App 6-7, at ¶ 4). The theories peddled in 2000 Mules, however, have
been repeatedly disproven. (Id.) Apparently realizing that 2000 Mules had run its
course, Petitioners have now shifted their focus and made Respondent their new
target. (Id.)
The events preceding this lawsuit began in the summer of 2022, when
Petitioners advertised an invite-only event they dubbed “The Pit,” scheduled for
August 13, 2022, at which they claimed they would disclose “devastating”
information as definitive proof that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen. (App
7, at ¶ 5). During the event, Petitioners took the stage and claimed that they
discovered Respondent had an unsecured server located in Wuhan, China, which
Petitioners claimed that they hacked into using a default password and stole data
therefrom. (App 52). Petitioners admit to this Court that their co-conspirator
“breached” a server. (Mandamus at p. 17).
5
Petitioners claimed to have illegally downloaded from Respondent’s server
personal data on 1.8 million U.S. poll workers, including social security numbers,
phone numbers, email addresses, and banking information. (App 45-48 and 51-52;
App 53-87). Indeed, one attendee of The Pit, who is actually the producer of
Phillips’ podcast, called “Patriot Games,” immediately posted a high-level summary
of what was discussed by Petitioners at the event. (App 52). The Post was
“ReTruthed” (the Truth Social equivalent of a Retweet) by Phillips as an apparent
confirmation of the event summary. (Id.) To be clear, Respondent has never
authorized Petitioners, nor anyone acting in concert with them, to access
Respondent’s computers or to obtain, use, and/or disclose any data contained on
those computers. (App 42, at ¶ 5).
Petitioners also falsely and maliciously claim that the hacked data from
Respondent’s computer demonstrates that they are “Chinese operatives,” who are
spearheading a “Red Chinese communist op run against the United States.” (App
20, at ¶ 37). Petitioners claim that they took the stolen information to the FBI, but
that the FBI started investigating Petitioners for hacking and stealing the data. (See
App 45-46, 49-50; App 53-57, 77-87).
Following The Pit, Petitioners went on a media blitz to publicize their newly-
fabricated conspiracy theory in an unabashed effort to enrich themselves at
Respondent’s expense. Phillips, in particular, gave numerous interviews where he
6
not only continued to spew baseless lies about Respondent, but repeatedly confessed
to hacking into and stealing Respondent’s data, and threatened to publicly release it.
For example, on August 23, 2022, Phillips appeared on the “Prophets and Patriots”
podcast where he described meeting his “guys” at a hotel room in Dallas, Texas,
where they put “towels under the doors” like “some kind of a James Bond kind of
thing,” and proceeded to hack into Respondent’s server. (App 45-46; App 54).3
Indeed, Phillips admitted on that podcast that he and his team “took [Respondent’s
data] directly” and that Petitioner True the Vote plans to publicly “release all of
[Respondent’s] data” through “drops” to subscribers to Petitioners’ website. (App
45-46; App 56).
Likewise, on an August 30, 2022 video podcast titled, “Here’s How They’ll
Try to Steal the Midterms,” Phillips again described how “[his] analysts” “brought
[him] to Dallas into a hotel room at the Anatole Hilton Hotel” at “nearly midnight”
where “they plugged one of their computers into the television” and began looking
at Respondent’s data on a server Petitioners claimed they hacked into. (See App 47-
48; App 66). Phillips admits that, on “that night, in mid-January of 2021, [he]
personally witnessed the scrolling through millions and millions of records about
3
Highlighted transcripts of these podcasts, which were also provided to the District Court, have
been included in the Appendix, and a flash drive of the podcasts has been mailed to the Court.
7
Americans,” which were allegedly obtained by gaining unauthorized access to
Respondent’s computer servers. (Id.)
And on a September 2, 2022 video podcast hosted by Phillips called “Patriot
Games,”—during which he admits the FBI accused him of being “the thief that stole
the Chinese internet”—Engelbrecht confessed to how Petitioners, along with Mike
Hasson and another individual that Petitioners refuse to identify, unlawfully
accessed Konnech’s computers. (See App 49-50; App 78).
B. Respondent Sues Petitioners and the TRO is Issued
Respondent filed suit on September 12, 2022 and asserted claims for (1)
defamation, libel, and slander; (2) tortious interference with existing and prospective
business relations; (3) violation of, and conspiracy to violate, the federal Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (4) violation of, and conspiracy to violate,
the Texas Harmful Access by Computer statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
143.001; (5) conversion; (6) violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act; and (7)
injunctive relief. (Id.). That same day, the District Court issued a TRO as a result
of Petitioners’ admitted hacking of Respondent’s computers and theft of its data,
coupled with Petitioners threats to publicize the data ahead of the midterm elections.
(App 118-120). The TRO was based on Petitioners’ own public statements, which
are outlined above. (App 41-52).
8
The TRO ordered that Petitioners, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or
in concert with others to immediately (1) not access or attempt to access
Respondent’s computers; (ii) return to Respondent all data obtained from its
computers; (iii) not use or exploit the data taken from Respondent’s computers; (iv)
preserve any data obtained from Respondent’s computers; (v) identify each
individual and/or organization involved in accessing Respondent’s computers; (vi)
disclose to Respondent how, when and by whom its computers were accessed; and
(vii) identify all persons and/or entities who have had possession, custody or control
of any information or data from Respondent’s computers. (App 118-120).
C. Petitioners Evade Compliance with the TRO
Since September 13, 2022, when Petitioners accepted service of the TRO,
Respondent has sought compliance with the TRO. (App 226-230). However, for
the last 2 months, Petitioners have engaged in an elaborate game of cat and mouse.
On September 14, counsel for Petitioners sent a letter to Respondent admitting that
they were not complying with the TRO. (App 141-144). The stated basis of
Petitioners’ initial refusal to comply with Sections v, vi, and vii of the TRO at that
time was that “this is a matter that has been turned over to the FBI,” and that “they
do not want to compromise an ongoing [FBI] investigation[.],” which they have
admitted is targeting the Defendants. (App 143). Petitioners also claimed in that
9
September 14 letter that their “independent contractor” was responsible for gaining
unauthorized access to Respondent’s computers and taking its data.
On September 15, Petitioners filed a sealed, ex parte letter with the District
Court which claimed that they could not comply with Section v of the TRO, and
instead revealed only to the Court the identity of a single individual Petitioners
claimed was responsible for accessing Respondent’s computers and stealing its data,
because they said that the individual was “integral” to an FBI investigation. (App
150-151). That same letter was sent to the FBI “to allow the FBI the opportunity to
be heard on this sensitive issue if that is its choice.” (Id.). That same day, counsel
for Petitioners sent a letter to Respondent contradicting their prior position on TRO
compliance. (App 145-147). Specifically, just one day after stating that the hacker
was their “independent contractor,” Petitioners claimed that the hacker was “not
contracted to [Petitioners] or paid by [Petitioners].” (App 146). Petitioners also
claimed that they only viewed a “screen share” of “certain elements of the data,” and
that the data was merely “characterized” to Petitioners as showing Respondent’s
data. (Id.) And notably—although Petitioners again changed their story at the
October 27 show cause hearing—the September 15 letter claimed that an individual
hacker “turned over to True the Vote a hard drive device containing” the data stolen
from Respondent, which Petitioners then turned over to the FBI. (Id.)
10
Despite Petitioners ever changing story, Respondent continued to seek
Petitioners’ compliance with the TRO through communications on September 15,
16, 17 and 20, 2022; but Petitioners would not comply. (See App 131-140).
Respondent asked Petitioners to sign an affidavit swearing to the statements made
in their counsel’s September 15 letter. But after initially indicating that Petitioners
would do so, they ultimately refused.
Accordingly, on September 21, 2022, Respondent filed a Motion to Show
Cause and For Contempt Against Petitioners. (App 124-149). That same day, the
parties filed a stipulation to extend the expiration of the TRO. (App 152-154). And
on September 26, 2022, the District Court approved the parties’ stipulation, and set
a hearing on Respondent’s Motion for preliminary injunction for October 6, 2022.
(App 155). To be clear, Petitioners never sought to modify or dissolve the TRO;
instead, they agreed to extend its force and effect without any objection.
D. Petitioners Admit Their Contempt
1. The October 6 Hearing
On September 23, 2022 and October 5, 2022, Petitioners openly admitted in
District Court that, not only were they involved with hacking Respondent’s
computers, but they know how it was done: “In this case, the server in China that
was accessed had a pre-loaded password (i.e., ‘password’) that did not even require
typing in a password to enter the server[.]” (App 156-159; App 167). This is
11
important because Section vi of the TRO requires that Petitioners disclose
confidentially to Respondent how its computers were accessed without
authorization. (App 118-120). But Petitioners would later testify that this statement
in their court filings was untrue. (See infra at p. 22).
At a hearing on October 6 to address, among other things, Respondent’s
Motion for Contempt and Respondent’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
Petitioners failed to present any evidence in response to either motion and instead
relied solely on argument of counsel. At that hearing, counsel for Petitioners
admitted that they had not complied with the TRO. (App 185, 19:20-24) (“Yes,
Your Honor. And it is a fact that we have not given up the name of the individual.”).
Counsel for Petitioners also admitted that Petitioners did have possession of
Respondent’s data before giving it to the FBI. (App 186, 22:7-10) (“THE COURT:
. . . when Phillips claims that he turned it over to the FBI, he had to have possession
of it at the time in order to turn it over? MR. AKERS: Actually, yes.”). Notably,
counsel for Petitioners also stated that there was only one person in that Dallas hotel
room with Phillips in January 2021, Mike Hasson, and provided that name to
Respondent after repeatedly refusing to comply with the District Judge’s orders that
he do so in open court. (App 191, 50:10-16). However, as is evident from the record
now, there was a third, still unidentified person in the hotel room that Petitioners
concealed until cross-examination at the show cause hearing, and who Petitioners
12
are now refusing to identify on the basis that he is an FBI confidential informant4 in
an unrelated matter. However, both Petitioners and their counsel have told the
District Judge that the FBI has no interest in protecting the information required by
the TRO. (App 187, 25:7-25 (answering that “they [the FBI] were not interested in
the protection of this information,” when asked by the District Court what the FBI’s
position was on the TRO requirements); App 113-114, 151:24-152:3; 152:8-16).
Unsurprisingly, the FBI has made no effort to intervene in this matter whatsoever.
(App 190, 38:9-14) (“THE COURT: . . . I need to know whether or not it is this
national security issue. I need to know whether or not the Department of Justice is
involved in this in some way. They have got thousands of lawyers all over this
country. Surely somebody could have contacted the Court by now.”). Accordingly,
the District Judge has made clear that he wants all individuals involved identified,
because he wants them added as parties to this lawsuit. (App 188, 28:21-23) (The
Court: “I’m ordering you right now to give the name to him. I want him in the
lawsuit. Whoever it is, I want him in the lawsuit. And I want all of them in the
lawsuit[.]”).
4
Phillips also claimed to be a confidential informant for the FBI as well (App 97, 46:25).
However, upon questioning by the District Court, Phillips admitted he had never entered into any
confidential informant agreement with the FBI, nor any other formal relationship with the agency,
and he was never paid for his work as a purported confidential informant. (App 98, 47:1-3; App
103-104, 84:2-85:19).
13
2. The October 27 Show Cause Hearing
On October 17, 2022, the District Court issued a Show Cause Order requiring
Petitioners to appear and show cause on October 27, 2022 for why they should not
be held in contempt of the TRO. (App 193-195). Petitioners, however, confirmed
their contempt while testifying at the show cause hearing.
For the first time since the inception of this lawsuit, and despite the TRO’s
requirement that Petitioners disclose each person “involved” in accessing
Respondent’s computers, Petitioners waited until cross-examination at the October
27 hearing to admit that there was a third person in the hotel room. (App 95, 39:3-
6). Phillips admitted under oath that this third, unnamed person, was “involved” in
accessing Respondent’s data. (App 100, 58:11-22). Petitioners make the same
admission in their Mandamus Petition. (See e.g., Mandamus at p. 29) (admitting
that “[a]side from the other individuals in the hotel room and the FBI agents, Phillips
had no knowledge of who may have accessed the Konnech-protected computers.”).
But when pressed and further ordered directly by the District Judge to reveal that
person’s name, Phillips refused to do so, falsely claiming that he is a confidential
informant himself. (App 96, 40:3-14) (“THE COURT: You are at liberty to say
because I’m ordering you to give the name. THE WITNESS: I’m a confidential
informant, too. I can’t do it.”). To be sure, Phillips’ reason that he could not give
the name—because he is a confidential informant—is belied by his own testimony
14
a short while later when he testified that “I’m not a confidential informant anymore.”
(App 105, 102:1-4). Engelbrecht, who admitted that “I believe I know the third
person,” likewise refused to provide the name of the third person involved, which
the District Court ordered disclosed. (App 113, 151:10; App 114, 152:20-22)
(answering “yes” to the District Court’s question if it was her “personal choice or
decision to not disclose the name”).
Also, at the October 27 Show Cause hearing, Petitioners contradicted their
prior statements that they were provided a hard drive with Respondent’s data (App
145-147) when they testified that they were never provided with any copy of the
data. (App 93, 34:22-25). But just a short time later during his testimony, Phillips
again changed his testimony, saying that he could not recall if he ever was provided
with a hard drive of the data. (App 99, 51:10-23). Engelbrecht similarly could not
recall when pressed. (App 112, 144:11-16).
At the conclusion of the October 27 show cause hearing, the District Judge
found Petitioners in contempt and ordered the show cause hearing continued until
October 31 and directed the Petitioners to purge their contempt by that time or face
jailtime. (App 115-116, 172:21-173:5).
The day after the October 27 Show Cause hearing, Petitioners filed an
affidavit in a “Submission of Evidence in Furtherance of Request to Purge Finding
of Contempt.” (App 196-200). However, far from purging their contempt, Phillips
15
admitted his contempt when he swore that he would “with all diligence, expedience,
and in good faith,” provide the information required by Section vi of the TRO. (Id.).
But it has been 2 months since the TRO was granted, and 2 weeks since that affidavit
was submitted, and Petitioners have made no effort to comply despite the TRO’s
requirement of “immediate” compliance.
3. The October 31 Show Cause Hearing
On October 31, 2022, the Petitioners asked to delay the second show cause
hearing by six hours while they waited for the FBI to contact them. (App 203, 7:1-
5). The District Court did not delay the proceeding and no FBI support for the
Petitioners’ position has materialized in the 12 days since that hearing. As a result
of their unabated contempt, the District Judge ordered Petitioners detained until they
complied. (App 205-206, 16:16-17:11). In doing so, the District Court addressed
the inconsistencies and the evasiveness of Petitioners’ answers to the District Court.
(App 203-204, 7:10-8:19) (“I have never gotten a straight answer from either of them
as to what happened in the hotel room . . . Whatever their knowledge is, they have
evaded the Court.”).
As explained by the District Judge at the end of the October 27 hearing,
Petitioners were detained for coercive civil contempt, and Petitioners could “get out
any time they want to. All they have to do is comply with the Court’s orders.” (App
16
91, 22:1-15). The District Judge thus issued an Order for Confinement Pending
Compliance. (App 207-208).
Since Petitioners’ detention on October 31, Petitioners’ contempt remains
unabated and they have made no effort to purge it.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
“A party commits contempt when he violates a definite and specific order of
the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts
with knowledge of the court’s order.” Waste Mgmt. of Washington, Inc. v. Kattler,
776 F.3d 336, 341 (5th Cir. 2015). To hold a party in contempt, there must be (1) a
court order that was in effect; (2) the order required certain conduct; and (3) the order
was not complied with. Am. Airlines, Inc., 228 F.3d at 581. All three elements are
present in this case.
I. The District Court Order Was In Effect and Required Certain Conduct
There is clear and convincing evidence of the first element of contempt. The
TRO was indisputably in effect at the time Petitioners were held in contempt. (App
155). Additionally, at the October 27, 2022 hearing, Petitioners refused to identify
the third individual in the Dallas hotel room despite a direct order to do so. (App
96, 40:3-14; App 114, 152:20-22).
There is also clear and convincing evidence of the second element of
contempt. The TRO indisputably required clear and definitive conduct by
17
Petitioners. (See App 118-120). The District Court’s direct order from the bench
also required Petitioners to disclose the identity of the third person. (App 96, 40:3-
14). This is not in dispute.
II. Petitioners Did Not Comply with the District Court’s Orders
Petitioners also failed to comply with the District Court’s orders, thus
satisfying the third, and final, element of contempt by clear and convincing evidence.
See Am. Airlines, Inc., 228 F.3d at 582 (affirming district court’s finding of
contempt).
A. Petitioners Refuse to Identify Who Was Involved In Accessing

Respondent’s Computers
Petitioners indisputably refuse, in direct contempt of Section v of the TRO
and the District Court’s direct order from the bench, to identify the third person in
the hotel room who, along with Phillips, was involved in accessing Respondent’s
data.
The TRO required Petitioners to “identify each individual and/or organization
involved in accessing Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected computers.” (App 118-
120; App 96, 40:3-14). Phillips acknowledged on the stand that, although this third
person may not have been the person who did the actual act of “accessing”
Respondent’s computers, the third person was in that room and nevertheless
involved. (App 100, 58:11-22). Phillips, however, refused to identify him despite
the TRO’s requirement to do so, and despite the District Judge’s direct bench order.
18
(App 96, 40:3-14) (“THE COURT: You are at liberty to say because I’m ordering
you to give the name.”); U.S. v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 316 (1975) (“All that is
necessary is that the judge certify that he ‘saw or heard the conduct constituting the
contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court’ . . . The face-
to-face refusal to comply with the court’s order itself constituted an affront to the
court . . . and summary contempt must be available[.]”). The District Judge thus
warned Phillips of his contempt if he refused to identify all persons in the Dallas
hotel room. (App 104, 88:4-14) (“THE COURT: And I want to know who these
people are. If you don’t tell me, then you’re going to be held in contempt.”).
Engelbrecht also refused based on “personal choice” to identify the third person even
though she testified that, “I believe I know the third person.” (App 113, 151:10; App
114, 152:20-22). In fact, Petitioners’ defiance of court orders is so blatant, that
Phillips even refused to give the name to the District Judge confidentially. (App
106, 103:3-11); Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987)
(“[W]hen confronted with a witness who refuses to testify, a trial judge should first
consider the feasibility of prompting testimony through the imposition of civil
contempt.”).
Petitioners claim that they cannot identify the third person because he is an
19
FBI confidential informant in an unrelated matter.5 However, Petitioners have
presented no evidence and cited no authority to warrant their refusal to disclose the
individual’s identity. See In re Jankovic, 738 Fed. Appx. 268, 270 (5th Cir. 2018)
(mem. op.) (denying mandamus for civil contempt where there was clear and
convincing evidence that petitioner failed to comply with court order and “provided
no documentation that he had done so.”).
Importantly, by their own admission, the FBI has eliminated their excuse for
non-compliance. Counsel for Petitioners confirmed during the October 6 hearing
that the FBI was “not interested in the protection of this information,” that is, the
information required by the TRO, including the names of the individuals acting in
concert with Petitioners. (App 187, 25:7-25). Engelbrecht confirmed the FBI’s
position while on the stand at the October 27 show cause hearing. (App 113-114,
151:24-152:3; App 114, 152:8-16).
Petitioners also claim for the first time in their Mandamus that they are not
required to identify the third person because Section v of the TRO, which requires
his identity, is “an immaterial provision.” (Mandamus at p. 23). Petitioners are
required to comply with the District Court’s orders without regard to their own
5
As the District Court correctly observed, nobody needed to know that this unnamed person is a
confidential informant, and that Phillips is the one who disclosed, not only that the third person is
a confidential informant, but also what he does as a confidential informant. (App 106-108,
103:12-105:12).
20
unilateral assessment of materiality. In any event, the third person’s identity is
material to protect the data which this person was involved in accessing and to ensure
no further unauthorized access. Further, as the District Judge stated, the identity of
all persons involved is required because they should be added as a party to the
lawsuit. (App 188, 28:21-23) (The Court: “I’m ordering you right now to give the
name to him. I want him in the lawsuit. Whoever it is, I want him in the lawsuit.
And I want all of them in the lawsuit[.]”). At bottom, the third person’s identity is
needed to discover the truth about what really happened and remedy the situation.
The District Court correctly held Petitioners in contempt for their admitted
refusal to comply with Section v of the TRO and the District Judge’s direct bench
order to identify all individuals in the Dallas hotel room. See Powers v. Chicago
Transit Auth., 846 F.2d 1139, 143 (7th Cir. 1988) (denying mandamus where,
although the circuit court did not agree with the district court’s contempt ruling, there
was no “usurpation of power” necessary for mandamus where lower court order
disclosures of source claimed to be a confidential informant).
B. Petitioners Failed to Identify How Respondent’s Computers Were

Accessed
There is clear and convincing evidence that Petitioners are also in contempt
of Section vi of the TRO, which requires Petitioners to “disclose to Konnech
[Respondent] how, when, and by whom Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected
computers were accessed.” (App 118-120).
21
At The Pit event, Petitioners claimed that Respondent’s computers were
accessed by a default password. (App 51-52). And in an October 5 filing, Petitioners
further admitted that, not only were Petitioners involved with hacking Respondent’s
computers, but they knew how it was done: “In this case, the server in China that
was accessed had a pre-loaded password (i.e., ‘password’) that did not even require
typing in a password to enter the server[.]” (App 167). But when Phillips took the
stand, he would not testify as to how Respondent’s computers were accessed and did
not recall whether a default password was utilized. (App 101, 74:3-22).
Engelbrecht, likewise, did not testify as to how Respondent’s computers were
accessed. (App 110-111, 132:23-133:4).
Immediately after the show cause hearing, in an October 28 affidavit, Phillips
admits that he still has not complied with the TRO and swears that he will “with all
diligence, expedience, and in good faith,” provide the information required by
Section vi of the TRO. (App 196-200). However, it has been 2 months since the
TRO was issued, and 2 weeks since that affidavit was filed, and Petitioners have still
made no attempt to comply despite the TRO’s requirement that it be done
“immediately.” (App 118-120); Am. Airlines, Inc., 228 F.3d at 582 (affirming
district court’s finding that defendants were in contempt for violating TRO); In re
Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., No. 19-34054-SGJ11, 2021 WL 2326350, at *25
(Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 7, 2021) (same).
22
The District Court correctly held Petitioners in contempt for their admitted
failure to comply with Section vi of the TRO.
C. Petitioners Failed to Identify All Persons Who Have Had Possession,

Custody or Control of Respondent’s Data
There is clear and convincing evidence that Petitioners are in contempt of
Section vii of the TRO which requires Petitioners to “identify all persons and/or
entities, in Defendants’ [Petitioners’] knowledge, who have had possession, custody
or control of any information or data from Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected
computers.” (App 118-120).
Petitioners confirmed their contempt in Phillips’ affidavit and at the show
cause hearing. While Petitioners have repeatedly changed their story, their current
position on Section vii of the TRO is that, “to the best of [Phillips’] personal
knowledge, the only persons and/or entities who have had the electronic information
to which I understand the order is directed” are Mike Hasson and the FBI, “including
but not necessarily limited to Special Agents Huy “Bobby” Nguyen and/or Keven
McKenna.” (App 196-200). First, Section vii of the TRO required Petitioners to
base their disclosure on their “knowledge” (all 3 Petitioners); not the “best” of only
Phillips’ knowledge. Second, Section vii of the TRO is not limited to “electronic
information to which [Phillips] understand[s] the [TRO] is directed;” it encompasses
“any information or data from Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected computers.”
(App 118-120) (emphasis added).
23
Third, Section vii of the TRO required Petitioners to identify “all persons
and/or entities,” with any information or data from Respondent’s computers, but
they have admittedly refused to identify the third person in the hotel room that
viewed the data, or anyone at the FBI other than two agents and, most notably,
themselves. Petitioners previously represented to the District Court that Petitioners
did have possession of Respondent’s data before giving it to the FBI. (App 186,
22:7-10) (“THE COURT: . . . when Phillips claims that he turned it over to the FBI,
he had to have possession of it at the time in order to turn it over? MR. AKERS:
Actually, yes.”).
Again, rather than purging Petitioners’ contempt, Phillips’ affidavit confirms
it. (App 196-200). Petitioners are therefore in contempt of Section vii of the TRO,
and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
III. The District Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion in its Contempt
Finding
There is no dispute that Petitioners are in contempt of the District Court’s
orders. And there should be no dispute that the District Judge properly exercised his
discretion in holding Petitioners in contempt.
It is well settled law that “the power to punish for contempt,” and in particular
civil contempt, “is an inherent power of the federal courts and that it includes the
power to punish violation of their own orders.” In re Bradley, 588 F.3d 254, 265
(5th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Fidanian, 465 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir.
24
1972)); Shillitani v. U.S., 384 U.S. 364, 368 (1966) (“There can be no question that
courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through
civil contempt.”). Upon a finding of contempt, courts have broad discretion in how
they choose to exercise their contempt power. Test Masters Ed. Svs., Inc. v. Singh,
428 F.3d 559, 582 (5th Cir. 2005) Hill v. Schilling, No. 3:07-cv-2020-L, 2018 WL
6492508, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018). As the Fifth Circuit has explained,
“[i]mprisonment is an appropriate remedy for either civil or criminal contempt.” In
re Bradley, 588 F.3d at 265. And as aptly described by the United States Supreme
Court, “[w]hen the petitioners carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets, the
action is essentially a civil remedy designed for the benefit of other parties and has
quite properly been exercised for centuries to secure compliance with judicial
decrees.” Shillitani, 384 U.S. at 368 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
is precisely what the District Judge explained to Petitioners when he ordered them
confined. (App 91, 22:11-15) (“[T]he point of coercive contempt is they hold the
keys to the jailhouse, as we might say. They can get out any time they want to.”).
“Judicial Sanctions” likewise may be employed “to coerce the defendant into
compliance with the court’s order, and to compensate the complainant for losses
sustained.” American Airlines, Inc., 228 F.3d at 585. These losses can include both
direct losses “for the damages sustained” (id.), as well as attorneys’ fees incurred in
seeking compliance. Hill, 2018 WL 6492508 at *10. Further, though the United
25
States Supreme Court has noted that “the paradigmatic civil contempt sanction order
. . . involves confining the contemnor until he complies,” “the closest analogy to that
paradigm civil contempt situation” is a “per diem fine imposed for each day a
contemnor fails to comply[.]” Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d 1347, 1359 (5th Cir.
1995).
Respondent seeks compliance with the TRO and the District Court’s orders
by way of all available means to encourage Petitioners’ compliance with the District
Court’s orders and to compensate Respondent for the significant damages and fees
incurred in seeking Petitioners’ compliance as described at the October 27 show
cause hearing. (App 90, 20:5-16).
IV. Petitioners’ Attempted Collateral Attack on the TRO is Improper
A. Petitioners Never Moved to Dissolve Or Modify the TRO But Instead

Agreed to Extend It
As set forth in Petitioners’ “Statement of the Issue,” the only question for this
Court to consider is whether the “district clearly erred and abused its discretion when
it found Petitioners in contempt[.]” (Mandamus at p. 1). Petitioners, however, are
attempting to collaterally attack the issuance of the TRO even though they never
sought to dissolve nor otherwise modify it. Far from contesting the TRO, Petitioners
stipulated to extend its expiration date and the Court approved that stipulation. (App
152-155).
26
B. The District Court Properly Refused to Reconsider the Issuance of the

TRO At the Contempt Hearing
Petitioners also wrongly accuse the District Judge of some unspecified error
at the show cause hearing for not reconsidering the issuance of the TRO that
Petitioners had already violated. For example, Petitioners falsely claim that the
District Judge refused to let them call a Los Angeles County “Assistant” DA as a
witness, by cell phone call, who Petitioners clearly wanted to call to discuss the now
dismissed criminal complaint against Eugene Yu. (Mandamus at p. 23). But the
“witness” Petitioners claim they were not permitted to call was an unknown
individual on Petitioners’ counsel’s cell phone who, as a lawyer, should not have
had the requisite personal knowledge needed to testify regarding Petitioners’
compliance with the TRO. (App 222, 5:14-23). The District Court nevertheless
explained that it would welcome proper testimony from whomever would appear in
the courtroom to testify. (App 223, 6:6-12). And notably, on November 9, the day
after the midterm elections, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
dropped all charges against Konnech's founder and CEO, Eugene Yu. In asking the
Court to dismiss the case “in the interest of justice,” the prosecutor cited concerns
about “potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence,”6 much
6
See Juma Sei, LA County drops charges against election software executive, citing ‘potential
bias’, NPR (Nov. 10, 2022), available at https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135839608/los-
angeles-county-dropped-charges-konnech-true-the-vote.
27
of which was supplied by the Petitioners who bragged about enlisting the DA’s
Office to further their agenda. (App. 23 at ¶ 44).
In any event, a show cause hearing is not the proper time to challenge the
issuance of the TRO at issue. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 756–57
(1983) (explaining that “it would be a disservice to the law if we were to depart from
the long-standing rule that a contempt proceeding does not open to reconsideration
the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become
a retrial of the original controversy.”); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v.
Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he
court will not reconsider the legal or factual basis of the order alleged to have been
disobeyed” at a contempt hearing). Accordingly, Petitioners incorrectly argue that
the District Court erred in failing to reconsider the TRO at the Petitioners’ show
cause hearing.
C. The TRO Was Properly Issued
The TRO is valid and was properly issued ex parte as permitted by Rule
65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (App 118-120). Also, contrary to
Petitioners’ false claims, the TRO was not issued solely on the basis of Mr. Yu’s
affidavit. (Mandamus at p. 3, n.2). Rather, the TRO was issued on the basis of Mr
Yu’s affidavit and Petitioners’ own public statements. (App 41-52).
28
Additionally, the “affirmative portions of the TRO,” are not inappropriate
injunctive relief (Mandamus at p. 3, n.2) as alleged by Petitioners. See Tom Doherty
Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (explaining
that mandatory injunctions calling for specific performance are proper “upon a clear
showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme
or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief.”). Here, the
TRO specifically states that Konnech has shown “a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits” of its claims against Defendants. (App 118-120). The TRO further
enumerates the specific reasons why serious damage would result from the failure
to issue the TRO. (Id.) This was particularly true at the time because Respondent,
which provides governmental entities in the U.S. with an election logistics software,
was rightfully concerned with the security of its data ahead of the 2022 midterm
elections; the security of which is necessary to maintaining the integrity of U.S.
elections. (Id.)
Further, Petitioners’ attempt to avoid compliance with the TRO by claiming
for the first time in their Mandamus that the word “access” in the TRO is ambiguous
is groundless. Phillips specifically testified that he understood the term “accessing”
to mean “having some access to the data inside the computer.” (App 92, 30:23-25).
This is consistent with how other federal courts have interpreted the term as used in
the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which formed the basis for the TRO. See
29
U.S. v. Nosal, 930 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1063 (N.D. Ca. 2013) (“Nothing in the CFAA
suggests anything other than a common definition of the term ‘access,’ applies. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘access’ as, inter alia, ‘[t]he opportunity, means,
or permission to gain entrance to or use a system, network, file, etc.”). And when
asked who “accessed” the Respondent’s computer, Phillips answered without
questioning the meaning of the term. (App 94, 36:8-11).
Petitioners also claim that because Respondent found no breach of its system
after conducting an internal investigation—as described in a document entitled “The
Truth About Konnech”—that Respondent’s computers were not hacked. However,
the fact that Respondent could not find a breach doesn’t mean it didn’t happen,
especially given Petitioners’ repeated public statements bragging about breaching
Respondent’s computers, and their testimony that Mike Hasson did just that. (Supra
at pp. 5-8). The District Court properly understood this distinction. (App 189, 33:3-
5) (“THE COURT: . . . In the face of your client’s own admissions, I don’t know
that that is what is being said.”). Petitioners would therefore have this Court believe
that they should be exonerated merely because Respondent did not detect their
breaking and entering their computers, all while they publicly confess to their
unlawful activity.
The TRO was a lawful order, and Petitioners’ non-compliance remains
unabated.
30
V. Petitioners Have an Adequate Remedy on Appeal
The Court should also deny Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus because they
have an adequate remedy on appeal. For a writ to issue, a Petitioner must first show
that they have no other adequate means to attain the relief requested. Cheney, 542
U.S. at 380-81. “A civil contempt order is appealable after final judgment.” In re
Jankovic, 738 Fed. Appx. at 270 (citing and quoting Doyle v. London Guar. &
Accident Co., 204 U.S. 599, 603 (1997) (“[A]n order punishing for contempt . . . is
. . . to be reviewed only upon appeal from a final decree in the case.”)). Indeed,
“Mandamus may not serve as a substitute for the appeal process.” Id. This is true
“even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial.” Vioxx
Prod. Liabl. Litig. Steering Comm. v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 06-30378, 2006 WL
1726675, at *8 (5th Cir. May 26, 2006).
Accordingly, Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus should be denied on this
point alone.
VI. Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus Does Not Comply With the Rules
The Court should deny Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus because it does not
comply with the Rules. Rule 21(a)(2)(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
requires that any petition for mandamus “must include a copy of any order or opinion
or parts of the record that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the
petition.” FRAP 21(a)(2)(c). Likewise, Fifth Circuit Rule 21 states that “the
31
application must contain a copy of any memoranda or briefs filed in the district court
supporting the application . . . as well as a transcript of any reasons the district court
gave for its action.” Fifth Cir. L.R. 21. Although Petitioners cite and refer to the
District Court’s docket and hearing transcripts at least 50 times, Petitioners did not
submit any such documents for the Court to consider, and, as such, Petitioners have
not met their burden of proof to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Petitioners further did not comply with the basic requirement that the brief be
signed, as required by FRAP 32(d) and Local Rule 25.2.10, which requires any
electronic signature to be preceded by an “s/” where the signature would otherwise
appear. Fifth Cir. L.R. 25.2.10.
The Court should deny Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus for failure to
comply with the rules.
CONCLUSION
Respondent respectfully requests that the Court deny Petitioners’ Petition for
Mandamus.
Respectfully submitted,
32

Telephone: (713) 220-8800
Facsimile: (713) 222-0843
Counsel for Respondent
33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that today, November 11, 2022, an electronic copy of the
foregoing brief was filed with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system, and that service
will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
34
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of FED. R. APP. P.
32(g)(1) and 21(d) because it contains 7,774 words, as determined by the word-count
function of Microsoft Word 2019, excluding parts of the brief exempted by FED. R.
APP. P. 32(f) and Fifth Circuit Rule 32.2.
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FED. R. APP. P.
32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(6) because it has
been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2019 in
Times New Roman 14-point font in text and Times New Roman 12-point font in
footnotes.
3. This brief was filed electronically, in native Portable Document File
(PDF) format, via the Fifth Circuit’s CM/ECF system.
35
NO. 22-20578

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

And GREGG PHILLIPS

Gregg Phillips
APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT KONNECH, INC’S

RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Telephone: (713) 220-8800
Facsimile: (713) 222-0843
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
1
Document App. Page Nos.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 4-40
Affidavit of Eugene Yu 41-52
Highlighted Transcript of Podcast entitled “Prophets and 53-57
Patriots – Episode 20 with Gregg Phillips and Steve Shulz”
(produced in native format as Yu Affidavit, Ex. A-1)
Highlighted Transcript of Podcast entitled “Here’s How They’ll 58-76
Try to Steal the Midterms – Gregg Phillips Interview with Seth
Holehouse (AKA ManInAmerica) August 30, 2022” (produced
in native format as Yu Affidavit, Ex. A-2)
Highlighted Transcript of Podcast entitled “Episode 6: 77-87
Gamechanger” (produced in native format as Yu Affidavit, Ex.
A-3)
October 27, 2022 Hearing Transcript Excerpts 88-117
Temporary Restraining Order 118-120
Acceptance and Waivers of Service of Original Complaint 121-123
Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and for Contempt Against 124-149
Defendants
September 15, 2022 Ex Parte Letter from Defendants to Hon. 150-151
Kenneth Hoyt
Stipulation to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and Reset 152-154
Preliminary Injunction Hearing
Order on Stipulation to Extend Temporary Restraining Order 155
and Reset Preliminary Injunction Hearing
Defendants’ Response to Motion to Show Cause and Contempt 156-159
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 160-182
Injunction
Order Directing Defendants to Appear and Show Cause Why 193-195
They Should Not Be Held In Contempt
2
Document App. Page Nos.

Affidavit of Gregg Phillips, Ex. A to Defendants’ Submission 196-200
of Evidence in Furtherance of Request to Purge Finding of
Contempt
Order for Confinement Pending Compliance 207-208
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for a Preliminary 209-217
Injunction
October 27, 2022 Transcript of Motion Hearing (A.M. Session) 218-225
Acceptance and Waiver of Personal Service of Temporary 226-230
Restraining Order
3
Case:
Case22-20578 Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page: 4 in TXSD
1 Filed on 09/12/22 Date Filed:
Page11/11/2022
1 of 37
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________
§
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., GREGG §
PHILLIPS, and CATHERINE §
ENGELBRECHT, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”), in the above styled cause, and files
this Original Complaint, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants True the Vote, Inc., its founder and President Catherine Engelbrecht,
and board member Gregg Phillips (“Defendants”) have intentionally, repeatedly, and relentlessly
attacked Konnech and its founder Eugene Yu with Defendants’ unique brand of racism and
xenophobia by their completely baseless claims that Konnech, its founder, and employees are
“Chinese operatives,” who are spearheading a “Red Chinese communist op run against the United
States,” that Konnech is tied to the Confucius Institute, which Defendants say is part of the Chinese
Communist Party, that Konnech was the subject of a long-running FBI counterintelligence
investigation, that Konnech obtained contracts with certain U.S. city and county voting districts
after bribing public officials, and that the Chinese Communist Party is somehow controlling U.S.
elections through Konnech because its founder and some of its employees are of Chinese descent.
Defendants’ false accusations of treason, espionage, bribery, and election fraud, which they peddle
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1
4
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 37
to enrich themselves at Konnech’s expense, are completely fabricated and constitute defamation
per se.
2. The truth is that Konnech is a U.S. company founded and operated by a U.S. citizen
who has no affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party whatsoever. Konnech obtains its
contracts through transparent public government bidding processes, and has never engaged in
bribery or any other criminal activity of any sort. All of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured
and stored exclusively on protected computers located within the United States. Konnech’s
software products are not involved in any way in the registration of voters, the production,
distribution, scanning, or processing of ballots, or the collection, counting or reporting of votes.
Indeed, Konnech never handles any ballots and no ballots or other voting counts ever enter any of
Konnech’s computer servers. It thus begs the question how Defendants could believe that
Konnech could ever be involved in election fraud—or how it otherwise could have helped “steal”
the 2020 Presidential Election from former President Donald Trump—when Konnech has had no
involvement with ballots in any U.S. election. But the simple matter is, Defendants have no regard
for the truth or the consequences of their actions, because the truth would not profit them.
3. Indeed, Defendants are in business to capitalize from their claim that the 2020
Presidential Election was “stolen.” Defendants Phillips and Engelbrecht have been referred to as
the “Bonnie and Clyde” of election fraud 1, and they have enriched themselves by spreading
conspiracy theories, which they present as factual in nature, about the 2020 Presidential Election,
largely funded by money funneled through Defendant True the Vote, which some commentators
1
See Mimi Swartz, How True the Vote Fabricates Claims of Election Fraud, for Fun and Profit,
Texas Monthly (Aug. 22, 2022), available at, https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/true-
the-vote-election-fraud/.
5
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 37
have called a “big grift.”2 Defendants were in fact the subject of a suit filed in 2020 by a
conservative megadonor, who, after speaking with Defendant Engelbrecht, donated $2.5 million
to help fund Defendant True the Vote’s efforts to fight election fraud. The donor later discovered,
however, that his money was instead siphoned through Defendant True the Vote, and other entities
established by Defendants Phillips and Engelbrecht, for their own personal gain. 3
4. Defendants most recently capitalized on their claims of election fraud through their
involvement in the production of a so-called “documentary” titled 2000 Mules in which they
sought to convince their followers that people, who they refer to as “mules,” were paid to collect
and deposit fake ballots into ballot boxes for the 2020 Presidential Election which they contend
changed its outcome. The theories peddled in 2000 Mules, however, have been repeatedly
disproven. 4 Apparently realizing that their 2000 Mules tale had run its course, Defendants Phillips
2
See Cassandra Jaramillo, She Helped Create the Big Lie. Records Suggest She Turned It Into a
Big Grift, Reveal News (June 8, 2022), available at, https://revealnews.org/article/true-the-vote-
big-lie-election-fraud/.
3
See Eshelman v. True the Vote, Inc., OSPEC Group, LLC, Engelbrecht, Bopp, Jr., Phillips, and
The Bopp Law Firm, 4:2020-cv-04034, filed November 25, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas; see also Richard Salame, Was Election Denial Just a Get-Rich-Quick
Scheme? Donors’ Lawsuits Look for Answers (Feb. 6, 2021), available at,
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2021/02/06/was-election-denial-just-a-get-rich-
quick-scheme-donors-lawsuits-look-for-answers/.
4
See Fact Check-Does ‘2000 Mules’ provide evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential
election?, Reuters (May 27, 2022), available at, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-
mules-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ; FACT FOCUS: Gaping Holes in the Claims of 2k Ballot ‘Mules’,
Associated Press (May 3, 2022), available at,
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-03/fact-focus-gaping-holes-in-the-
claim-of-2k-ballot-mules; Tom Dreisbach, A pro-Trump film suggests its data are so accurate, it
solved a murder. That’s false, NPR (May 17, 2022), available at,
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1098787088/a-pro-trump-film-suggests-its-data-are-so-
accurate-it-solved-a-murder-thats-fals; Phillip Bump, Even the geolocation maps in ‘2000 Mules’
are misleading, The Washington Post (May 19, 2022), available at,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/even-geolocation-maps-2000-mules-are-
misleading/.
6
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
4 of 37
and Engelbrecht declared an end to “mules” at an August 2022 True the Vote, invitation-only event
which they called “The Pit.”
5. The Pit, they promised, would be the event where Defendants would finally release
“devastating information” that would definitively prove the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was
stolen. Instead, Defendants used The Pit as a platform to announce their website, and publicly
launch their attack against Konnech by spreading baseless lies.
6. In an attempt to bolster their false accusations, Defendants claim that they have
obtained financial and other sensitive personal data of 1.8 million U.S. poll workers—including
social security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, and banking information—from
Konnech’s protected computers. As an initial matter, Konnech has never managed customer data
for that many poll workers or even a small percentage of that many poll workers. But regardless,
based on the extensive security measures Konnech has in place, Defendants could only access any
of Konnech’s data if they illegally hacked into and stole data from Konnech’s protected computers.
7. Defendants have in fact portrayed their access to Konnech’s protected computers
as unauthorized. Defendant Phillips specifically described on a recent podcast how Defendant
Engelbrecht had an idea and asked him to look into Konnech’s election software, how he then
traveled to a Dallas, Texas hotel room to meet his “analysts,” how they put “towels under the
doors” in an effort to conceal their knowingly unlawful conduct, and then how “analysts,” who
were acting at his direction, successfully hacked into Konnech’s servers and unlawfully
downloaded its data. Defendants even admit they are now the subject of an ongoing FBI
investigation due to their misconduct targeting Konnech. But apparently undeterred, Defendants
7
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
5 of 37
have continued their attacks on Konnech and have publicly and repeatedly declared their intent to
release the information they stole from Konnech’s servers.
8. Defendants have pushed their false narrative with social media posts that “ReTruth”
(the Truth Social equivalent of a Retweet on Twitter) conspiracy theories published by armchair
“experts” and anonymous sources. Defendants lead a chorus of online adherents who are
encouraged by Defendants—through social media postings and podcast appearances—to engage
in further attacks against Konnech. Numerous conspiracy theories attempting to affiliate Konnech
with the Chinese Communist Party have appeared online since The Pit. To be clear, Konnech, a
previously relatively unknown entity, has gone viral since The Pit, with countless Tweets and
Truth Social postings using the #Konnech hashtag. But the consequences of Defendants’ actions
are far more serious in that Defendants’ public smear campaign has resulted in repeated death
threats against Konnech’s founder and his family which have forced them out of their home in fear
for their lives.
9. Defendants’ allegation that a vast international conspiracy concerning the U.S.
Presidential Election would be ignored by the Federal Government—and, in fact, concealed by the
FBI—but proven by conspiracy theorists and con artists using basic internet searches and posts on
social media, demonstrates Defendants’ recklessness and disdain for the truth.
10. Defendants know what they are doing is wrong, and have tried, in vain, to avoid
responsibility for their misconduct by encouraging and using others to perform their dirty work for
them. But Defendants have already gone too far, and they cannot avoid liability for their own
misconduct and for masterminding this entirely fabricated conspiracy against Konnech.
11. Absent intervention of this Court, such damaging behavior will continue to occur,
which is particularly problematic in light of the upcoming 2022 midterm elections, for which
8
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
6 of 37
Konnech has contracts to provide election logistics software for voting districts across the country.
Konnech thus files this action to recover damages as a result of Defendants’ defamatory
statements, and interference with Konnech’s current and prospective business relationships, and
seeks a restraining order to immediately and permanently restrain Defendants and those acting in
concert with them from accessing, obtaining, using and/or disclosing any data from Konnech’s
protected computers.
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. is incorporated in Michigan and headquartered in East
Lansing, Michigan.
13. Defendant True the Vote, Inc. is a Texas Nonprofit Corporation which is
headquartered in Houston, Texas, at 18720 FM 249, Suite A, Houston, Texas 77070, and can be
served through its registered agent, Registered Agents, Inc., at 5900 Balcones Drive, Suite 100,
Austin, Texas 78731, or wherever else it may be found.
14. Defendant Catherine Engelbrecht resides at 13909 Track Rd. East, Cat Spring,
Texas 78933, and can be served at said address or wherever else she may be found.
15. Defendant Gregg Phillips resides at 1752 Coates Pass, Birmingham, Alabama
35244, and can be served at said address or wherever else he may be found.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331, because Konnech has asserted claims against Defendants under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Konnech’s
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This Court further has subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the parties have diversity of citizenship
and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
9
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page: 10in TXSD
Page11/11/2022
7 of 37
17. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Houston, Texas where Defendant
True the Vote is headquartered and Cat Spring, Texas where Defendant Engelbrecht resides, and
a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in Houston, Texas
and/or Cat Spring, Texas. Additionally, venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) because Defendants and, in particular, Defendants Engelbrecht and True the Vote, have
published defamatory statements that are the subject of this action from within the Southern
District of Texas (Houston Division).
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant True the Vote because it is
incorporated in Texas and has its principal place of business in Texas. This Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant Engelbrecht because she is domiciled in Texas. This Court has
personal jurisdiction over Defendant Phillips because he availed himself of the benefits and
protections of the laws of the State of Texas by, among other things, committing a tort and other
unlawful misconduct against Konnech while in Texas. Specifically, Defendant Phillips, while
acting in concert with Defendants Engelbrecht and True the Vote, has admitted that he obtained
confidential information and data from Konnech’s protected computers while located in Texas,
and obtained data from Konnech’s protected computers while located in Texas which has also
been provided to Defendant True the Vote which is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Konnech, Inc.
19. Konnech, Inc. is a U.S. company which is incorporated in Michigan and was
founded by its President and CEO, Eugene Yu, who is a U.S. citizen. Mr. Yu built Konnech on
his own from the ground up. Konnech provides governmental entities in the U.S. with an election
logistics software product called PollChief which those governmental entities use to recruit, train
10
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
8 of 37
and schedule poll workers; coordinate the distribution of equipment and supplies to polling places;
and dispatch support personnel to address technical and other issues. Konnech does not select,
communicate, or otherwise interface with any poll workers. And Konnech’s software products are
not involved in any way in the registration of voters, the production, distribution, scanning, or
processing of ballots, nor the collection, counting or reporting of votes. Indeed, Konnech never
handles any ballots and no ballots or other voting counts ever enter any of Konnech’s computer
servers.
True the Vote’s “The Pit” Event
20. In the summer of 2022, Defendants advertised an event they dubbed “The Pit,”
scheduled for August 13, 2022, at which they claimed they would disclose “devastating”
information that would be definitive proof that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen from
former President Donald Trump.
21. The Pit was hosted by Defendants and attended by over 100 by-invitation-only
guests who were handpicked by Defendants Engelbrecht and Phillips based on who they believed
would be supportive of their conspiracy and who would best spread the disinformation they
planned to disclose. The Pit was also livestreamed on Right Side Broadcasting Network.
22. The event featured many different speakers, including Defendants Engelbrecht and
Phillips, and served as a pep rally for election fraud conspiracy theorists in anticipation of the 2022
midterm elections. But the main attraction for The Pit was the supposed proof that Defendants
claimed they planned to disclose, which was not part of 2000 Mules, but, in their words, would
serve as definitive proof that the 2020 Presidential election was a sham.
23. While The Pit was still livestreaming, Defendants Phillips and Engelbrecht took the
stage to finally make the big announcement. The announcement, however, was nothing more than
11
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
9 of 37
an advertisement for a website Defendants created, where Defendants claim their subscribers can
log on and view the purported evidence of election fraud.
The Pit Livestream is Turned Off
24. Upon information and belief, and according to social media posts from those in
attendance at The Pit, Defendants turned off the livestream and then disclosed to attendees that
they had been secretly working on something they called “The Tiger Project”—which is the code
name and hashtag for their campaign against Konnech—during which they sent dozens of FOIA
requests to Konnech’s customers, all in an apparent effort to intimidate those customers or to
otherwise raise customers’ suspicions about Konnech. But even more shocking, Defendants
falsely claimed that they discovered that Konnech had an unsecured server located in Wuhan,
China, which Defendants hacked into and stole data from. Specifically, Defendants claimed to
have illegally downloaded from Konnech’s server personal data on 1.8 million U.S. poll workers,
which they claim is a vehicle for the Chinese Communist Party to breach U.S. elections.
25. To be clear, however, all of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured and stored
exclusively on protected computers located within the United States. Konnech controls access to
its offices, enters into confidentiality agreements with its customers and employees, and uses two-
12
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
10 of 37
factor authentication, restricted access, and other security measures to control access to its
protected computers. Only a select group of Konnech employees that have been provided with
that two-factor authentication have authority to access the protected computers which contain poll
worker data.
26. Defendants additionally claimed that they brought all of their information to the
FBI and made a formal complaint. Unsurprisingly, Defendants sought to capitalize on certain
public sentiment against the FBI on the heels of the recent raid on Mar-a-Lago, and claimed that
the FBI turned the tables on them, and began an investigation of Defendants for hacking Konnech’s
protected computers and stealing its data.
27. Then, to ensure maximum damage from their defamatory statements, Defendants
encouraged The Pit attendees, as documented in the following social media post, to spread what
they learned at the event, to do their own research on Konnech, to publish their findings on the
internet and, moreover, to continue attacking Konnech:
And as things typically evolve with the internet in the 21 st century, the conspiracy theory and
attacks against Konnech—all of which were initiated by Defendants at The Pit—quickly spread,
and the previously relatively unknown Konnech went viral.
13
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
11 of 37
28. Sadly, as a foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ malicious and baseless attacks
against Konnech, Mr. Yu has been the target of repeated death threats, which have forced him and
his family to leave their home in fear for their lives:
Defendants Continue to Defame Konnech
29. Following The Pit, Defendants went on a media blitz to publicize their newly
fabricated conspiracy theory in an unabashed effort to enrich themselves at the expense of
Konnech, all under the guise of being “Patriots” who are supposedly uncovering election fraud—
which one can supposedly learn about, but only by subscribing to Defendants’ various web-based
platforms.
30. Defendants have further perpetuated their attacks by posting and ReTruthing
articles of purported research compiled by anonymous posters which associate Konnech to
everything from Mark Zuckerberg, to George Soros, the Chinese Communist Party, and even the
origins of COVID-19.
14
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
12 of 37
31. As one example of many, on August 15, 2022, True the Vote posted an article which
falsely claims, among other factually incorrect assertions, that Konnech built software for the
Confucius Institute, an organization which they claim is linked to the Chinese Communist Party,
and further encouraged its followers to “keep digging.”:
15
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
13 of 37
32. On August 17, 2022, True the Vote posted to Truth Social representing that
everything they said at The Pit was a factual matter and, again, encouraged others to continue to
research Konnech and further expand the ever-growing conspiracy theory:
16
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
14 of 37
33. On August 21, 2022, True the Vote directly accused Konnech of unlawful acts in
connection with a government contract and handling of ballots, even though Konnech has never
handled ballots in any U.S. election:
17
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
15 of 37
34. On August 27, 2022, True the Vote posted an article claiming that Konnech is
“owned by the Chinese Communist Party,” even though Konnech is owned by U.S. citizens who
are not affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, and claiming that Konnech is involved in the
“subversion of our elections” which is tantamount to falsely accusing Konnech of election fraud,
treason, and espionage:
18
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
16 of 37
35. On August 26, 2022, Defendant Phillips also ReTruthed allegations that Konnech
is directly connected to a “jump” of votes for President Biden even though Konnech has never
handled ballots in any U.S. Election:
36. On September 5, 2022, True the Vote hosted a “Q&A” podcast concerning their
“Tiger Project,” which claimed to be an event where Defendants would reveal “How the CCP is
Breaching US Elections.” The podcast, however, merely summarized the same baseless rhetoric
against Konnech, and Defendants did not produce any evidence to support their baseless
accusations:
19
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
17 of 37
37. And on September 8, 2022, Defendant Phillips ReTruthed an article claiming that
the “FBI Conceals Chinese Infiltration of U.S. Election Software,” and quotes a prior statement
by Phillips that “[t]his is a red Chinese communist op run against the United States by Chinese
operatives and it’s a disaster”:
38. Defendants’ attacks on Konnech, however, are not just limited to social media
postings. Defendants—who constantly seek publicity—have also made numerous appearances on
their own and others’ podcasts where they have further spewed and perpetuated their lies about
Konnech and, in fact, repeatedly confessed to hacking Konnech’s protected computers and stealing
its data.
Defendants Falsely Accuse Konnech of Bribery
39. For example, Defendants have falsely accused Konnech of bribing the City of
Detroit to obtain a contract simply by making campaign contributions of an unstated amount.
Specifically, on an August 15, 2022 podcast titled “Devolution Power Hour – Gregg Phillips
20
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
18 of 37
Interview,” Defendant Phillips (pictured below on the right) falsely implied that Konnech only
received its contract with Detroit because Konnech bribed the officials there: “The two biggest
donations . . . were from, guess who, Konnech. And then all of a sudden, they get, they get this
fast ballot counting software contract and, and next thing, you know, the election counting stops[.]”
But, as explained throughout, Konnech does not, and has never, performed any ballot counting,
scanning, or processing in any U.S. election. And Konnech has never engaged in bribery of any
form and a legal campaign contribution, if any, is not a bribe.
Defendants Falsely Accuse Konnech of Maintaining Unsecure Chinese Servers and Admit to
Hacking and Stealing Konnech’s Data
40. Defendants have also falsely accused Konnech of maintaining unsecure Chinese
servers for their election logistics software and, in the process, admit to hacking and stealing
Konnech’s data. For example, on an August 23 podcast titled “Prophets and Patriots,” Defendant
Phillips described meeting his “guys” at a hotel room in Dallas, where they put “towels under the
doors” like “some kind of a James Bond kind of thing,” and proceeded to hack into a Konnech
server. Indeed, Defendant Phillips admitted on that podcast that “[w]e took [Konnech’s data]
21
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
19 of 37
directly” and that Defendant True the Vote plans to publicly “release all of [Konnech’s] data”
through “drops” to subscribers of Defendants’ website.
41. Defendant Phillips repeated these claims on an August 30, 2022 podcast titled,
“Here’s How They’ll Try to Steal the Midterms,” where Phillips described, once again, traveling
to Dallas, Texas to meet his so-called “analysts,” where they “plugged one of their computers into
the television” and began “scrolling through millions and millions of records about Americans,”
all of which he claims to have obtained by gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected
computers. Defendant Phillips also described how he “immediately drove down to Houston” and
got Defendant Engelbrecht “to come over and meet [him]” that next morning, where they came up
with a plan to file a complaint with the FBI and turn over the data they stole.
42. Likewise, on a September 2, 2022 podcast hosted by Defendant Phillips called
“Patriot Games”—during which he admits the FBI accused him of being “the thief that stole the
Chinese internet”—Defendant Engelbrecht (pictured below on the right) confessed to how
Defendants conspired to unlawfully access Konnech’s protected computers, and how she and True
the Vote “pulled in [Defendant Phillip’s] team, and asked them to take a deeper dive” around the
security of Konnech’s software. Defendant Phillips told The Pit attendees that they accessed
Konnech’s alleged Chinese server by using a password after finding vulnerabilities in the server.
22
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
20 of 37
Defendants Falsely Claim Konnech is the Subject of a Long-Running FBI Investigation
43. Additionally, Defendants have falsely claimed that Konnech is the subject of a
long-running FBI investigation, and that a grand jury indictment against Konnech is imminent.
Specifically, during the “Prophets and Patriots” podcast, Defendant Phillips claimed to have been
“involved in a major and mature counterintelligence operation with the FBI” investigating
Konnech.
44. And during the “Patriot Games” podcast, Defendants claimed that they are working
with people “to bring this work to, to a grand jury for the first time,” and that they have the “support
of, of a major prosecutorial office in the United States . . . and [that] they are moving this along,”
thus further claiming, as a factual matter, that Konnech has committed unlawful acts worthy of
prosecution.
45. But contrary to these unfounded accusations, Defendants admit they are the ones
who are the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation, which they have freely and repeatedly
admitted (if not boasted about) at the Pit and in each podcast on which they appear.
Defendants Falsely Accuse Konnech of Storing U.S. Poll Worker Data on Chinese Servers
46. Further, Defendants have falsely accused Konnech of storing sensitive and personal
data—including social security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, and banking
information—on 1.8 million U.S. poll workers on servers in China, and otherwise running their
election logistics application through Chinese servers. For example, on an August 31, 2022
podcast called “Stealing the Chinese Internet w/ Gregg Phillips of 2000 Mules,” Defendant Phillips
falsely claimed that he found an “unbelievable amount of data from a US company run by a
Chinese national . . . Yeah, the CCP. We later found out that there’s all kinds of data on this server.
23
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
21 of 37
There’s, there’s data from counties all over the United States where the servers installed, there’s
all sorts of other related software.”
47. And during the September 5, 2022 “Tiger Project” podcast advertised by
Defendants, Defendant Phillips falsely claimed that Konnech “left a database open that had the
personal identifying information of over a million Americans living on an open server in China.”
48. Similarly, on the “Here’s How They’ll Try to Steal the Midterm” podcast
mentioned above, Defendant Phillips falsely claimed that Konnech’s election software “apps were
running from China, the database is running in China. It’s on the Chinese internet, meaning the
Chinese own it.”
49. And on the “Prophets and Patriots” podcast mentioned above, Defendant Phillips
falsely claimed that Konnech has “done military ballots,” and has “online voting systems that
they’ve created,” and that they were all “created by Chinese programmers[.]”
50. But the truth of the matter is, all of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured and
stored exclusively on protected computers located within the United States. Konnech does not,
and has never, stored any actual customer or poll worker data on any server in China as Defendants
falsely claim. Konnech does not, and has never, performed any ballot counting, scanning, or
processing in any U.S. election. And furthermore, Konnech has never managed customer data for
1.8 million poll workers, or even a small fraction of that number, despite Defendants’ claiming to
find 1.8 million U.S. poll worker records on a Konnech server in China.
Defendants Falsely Accuse Konnech of Being a Vehicle for the Chinese Communist Party
51. Moreover, Defendants have maliciously and dangerously claimed that Konnech
and its founder and CEO are members of and, in fact, spies for the Chinese Communist Party, who
are using Konnech to spy and commit fraud in connection with U.S. elections.
24
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
22 of 37
52. During the “Prophets and Patriots” podcast, Defendant Phillips claimed that
Konnech, through its alleged Chinese Communist affiliates, “pulled this [election fraud] off on the
United States.”
53. And during the “Tiger Project” podcast, Defendants Phillips and Engelbrecht made
further absolutely baseless and defamatory allegations against Konnech by expressly claiming that
“these are Chinese operatives in the United States,” and that “this is a, a Red Chinese communist
op run against the United States by Chinese operatives, and it’s, it’s a disaster.”
54. To set the record straight, neither Konnech, nor its founder and CEO, have any
affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party. Konnech is not a “Chinese operative,” and Konnech
is not used by the Chinese Communist Party for any purpose, whatsoever.
55. Defendants’ statements have been made with actual malice, knowing or reckless
disregard for the truth, including intentional lies concerning their possession of evidence of fraud
or meddling by the Chinese Communist Party that simply does not exist. Defendants have further
manufactured, misrepresented and cherry-picked information available on the internet to draw
unsubstantiated connections to support their false accusations. They have purposely avoided or
intentionally disregarded publicly available evidence, facts, and reliable resources rebutting and
disproving their false claims. And they have formed and stuck to a false preconceived narrative
in spite of the facts, by relying on and putting forward facially unreliable and anonymous sources,
all in a plan to enrich themselves.
56. Defendants have perpetuated their claims after being put on notice of the falsity of
their accusations. They have ignored former President Donald Trump’s own Attorney General
William Barr—the former chief law enforcement officer of the United States Federal
Government—who has repeatedly declared that there was no evidence of voter fraud to overturn
25
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
23 of 37
the 2020 Presidential Election.5 And moreover, the notion that a vast international conspiracy
concerning the U.S. Presidential Election would be ignored by the Federal Government—and, in
fact, concealed by the FBI—but proven by conspiracy theorists and con artists using basic internet
searches and posts on social media, demonstrates Defendants’ recklessness and disdain for the
truth.
Defendants Intentionally Interfere with Konnech’s Business Relationships and Konnech

Suffers Harm
57. Unfortunately, although Defendants live in a world of make believe which they
have created for the sole purpose of enriching themselves, their actions have real world
consequences, including substantial harm to Konnech and its business reputation that has been
built over decades, but is at risk of being destroyed by Defendants’ baseless lies.
58. For example, on August 27, 2022, an anonymous poster on Truth Social posted the
name and email address of the board members of DeKalb County, Georgia’s Board of Registration
& Elections, and a Konnech contract proposal for DeKalb County, and encouraged followers to
contact the board members because the board was considering using Konnech for their voter
software. The post was ReTruthed at least 246 times and, just a few days later, Defendant Phillips
“Truthed” about DeKalb County, and posted the same Konnech contract proposal that the
anonymous source posted. Defendant Phillips’s actions are thus directly intended to damage
Konnech’s business relationships.
59. Indeed, ever since Defendants’ attacks on Konnech began, Konnech has had to
perform additional, costly security audits, and spent time and money investigating Defendants’
5
See Michael Balsamo, Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud, AP News (June
28, 2022), available at, https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud-
b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d.
26
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
24 of 37
hacking, and to ensure that it has no security breach. Additionally, Defendants’ conduct
demonstrates their intent to prevent Konnech from developing business relationships with other
prospective governmental entities in the U.S., apparently solely on the basis that Konnech has
employees of Chinese descent. Defendants’ conduct is not only damaging to Konnech, it also
deters other would-be election logistic companies from entering the market—or will cause other
such companies to shutter—without which, elections would be unmanageable for cities and
counties, leading to further election integrity issues.6
60. Absent intervention from this Court, Konnech believes that Defendants will
continue its campaign to destroy Konnech’s current and prospective business relationships,
Defendants will make continued efforts to hack and otherwise compromise Konnech’s protected
computers, Defendants will continue their possession of data that they claim they stole from
Konnech, and Defendants will publicly disclose the data they stole.
61. Defendants’ conduct is all a calculated effort to intentionally inflict substantial
harm to Konnech and its business, including harm to its reputation, customer confidence, and
goodwill, and to impugn the integrity of U.S. elections.
CLAIM 1: DEFAMATION, LIBEL, AND SLANDER
62. Konnech repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 61, as if fully
set forth herein.
63. Defendants published the foregoing statements of purported fact referring to
6
For example, conspiracy theorists have recently caused one Texas county’s entire elections
department to resign. See Neil Vigdor, 3 Election Officials Resigned in a Texas County, The New
York Times (Aug. 18, 2022), available at, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/18/us/politics/texas-
gillespie-elections-threats.html; see also Michael Murney, Anti-flouride conspiracists harassed
Texas county election workers until they all quit, MSN (Aug. 29, 2022), available at,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anti-fluoride-conspiracists-harassed-texas-county-election-
workers-until-they-all-quit/ar-AA11fir2.
27
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
25 of 37
Konnech.
64. The foregoing statements by Defendants were false in their particular details and
their gist and essence in the entire context in which they were made.
65. The foregoing statements by Defendants were defamatory, libelous and slanderous
(collectively, “defamatory” or “defamation”) and in making the statements, Defendants acted with
actual malice, with knowledge of the falsity of the defamatory statements, or at least with reckless
disregard of their falsity by purposely avoiding the truth, making inherently improbable assertions
and, in fact, lying about Konnech’s commission of what are serious crimes in the United States.
66. The foregoing statements by Defendants were not privileged.
67. The foregoing statements by Defendants constitute defamation per se in that they
falsely state that Konnech committed the crimes of treason, espionage, bribery and election fraud,
and in that they plainly accuse Konnech of breaking the law.
68. The foregoing defamatory statements by Defendants have injured Konnech’s
reputation and exposed Konnech to public hatred, animus, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury.
These false statements were made to impeach Konnech’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation
and thereby expose it to financial injury. The defamatory statements are therefore defamatory per
se.
69. A reasonable reader would understand that all of the foregoing statements referred
to Konnech because, among other things, they referred to it by name, nickname, affiliation, or the
name of their “Tiger Project,” which is specifically directed at and targets Konnech.
70. Defendants are strictly liable for the damages caused by their defamatory
statements. Alternatively, Defendants were negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the
defamatory statements of purported fact. Alternatively, Defendants knew and know that the
28
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
26 of 37
defamatory statements of fact were false, or were reckless with regard to whether the statements
of purported fact were false.
71. As a result of Defendants’ defamatory statements, Konnech suffered pecuniary
injury and damages are presumed.
CLAIM 2: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING AND

PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS
72. Konnech repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 71, as if fully
set forth herein.
73. Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with the existing and/or
prospective business relationships of Konnech.
74. Konnech has many existing contracts with various governmental entities in the U.S.
which retain Konnech to provide election logistic software.
75. Defendants have contacted Konnech’s customers in an effort to cause them to
breach or cancel contracts with Konnech. Defendants have further encouraged others to contact
Konnech’s customers in an effort to cause those customers to breach or cancel contracts with
Konnech.
76. Konnech has suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct as
Konnech’s current customers have required Konnech to undergo costly audits that would not have
been requested but for Defendants’ actions.
77. There is also a reasonable probability that Konnech would have entered into
additional business relationships with other governmental entities in the U.S. but for Defendants’
actions.
78. Defendants have acted willfully and intentionally to prevent those business
relationships from occurring by way of their independently tortious acts, which began with their
29
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
27 of 37
defamation and violation and conspiracy to violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and
the Texas Harmful Access by Computer statute, and the disclosure of information stolen from
Konnech’s servers.
79. Upon information and belief, Konnech has suffered damages as a result of
Defendants’ interference.
CLAIM 3: VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND

ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
80. Konnech repeats and realleges each allegation in paragraphs 1 through 79, as if
fully set forth herein.
81. Konnech’s computers are used in interstate and/or foreign commerce or
communication in the course of Konnech’s business and therefore are “protected computers” under
the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(b-c).
82. Konnech’s protected computers are secured by numerous security features,
including two-factor authentication which is only provided to select Konnech employees.
83. Defendants admit to intentionally accessing Konnech’s protected computers
without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, caused Konnech damage and loss.
84. Defendants, by, among other things, knowingly disclosed, or otherwise have
threatened to disclose, the information stolen from Konnech’s protected computers, knowingly
caused the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such
conduct, intentionally caused damage to Konnech’s protected computers.
85. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned unauthorized access to Konnech’s
protected computers, Konnech has suffered loss in an amount to be proven at trial, well in excess
of $5,000, which includes, but is not limited to, investigating, and assessing the need to remediate
30
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
28 of 37
Defendants’ unauthorized access, and responding to the attacks and assessing the damage, if any,
caused to Konnech’s protected computers by Defendants.
86. Additionally, Defendants knowingly caused damage to Konnech’s protected
computers, by, among other things, impairing the integrity of Konnech’s protected computers, and
intentionally stealing data and information contained on a Konnech server.
87. Konnech has suffered further injury and harm in the loss of confidential and
protected personal identifying information which was misappropriated by Defendants, and damage
to its reputation and the confidence of its customers.
88. Defendants’ misconduct constitutes a violation of the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. et. seq., and Konnech is entitled to damages under the Act.
CLAIM 4: CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND

ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
89. Konnech repeats and realleges each allegation in paragraphs 1 through 88, as if
90. Konnech’s protected computers are used in interstate and/or foreign commerce or
communication in the course of Konnech’s business and therefore are “protected computers” under
the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(b-c).
91. Konnech’s protected computers are secured by numerous security features,
including two-factor authentication which is only provided to select Konnech employees.
92. Defendants admit to conspiring to intentionally access Konnech’s protected
computers without authorization and obtaining information from Konnech’s protected computers.
93. Defendants admit to conspiring to intentionally access Konnech’s protected
computers without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, caused Konnech damage and
loss.
31
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
29 of 37
94. Defendants, by, among other things, knowingly conspired to disclose, or are
otherwise knowingly conspiring to disclose, the information stolen from Konnech’s protected
computers, knowingly caused the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and
as a result of such conduct, intentionally caused damage to Konnech’s protected computers.
95. Specifically, Defendants admit they were part of a group who gained unauthorized
access to Konnech’s protected computers.
96. Defendants admit the objective of their group was to accomplish the violation of
the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by way of gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s
protected computers and obtaining and disseminating information taken from those protected
computers.
97. Defendants admit to a meeting of the minds to violate the federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act by way of gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers and
obtaining and disseminating information taken from those protected computers.
98. Defendants committed overt acts to further the objective of their conspiracy by
taking actions to gain unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers and obtaining and
disseminating information taken from those protected computers.
99. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conspiracy to gain unauthorized access
to Konnech’s protected computers, Konnech has suffered loss in an amount to be proven at trial,
well in excess of $5,000, which includes, but is not limited to, investigating, and assessing the need
to remediate Defendants’ unauthorized access, and responding to the attacks and assessing the
damage, if any, caused to Konnech’s protected computers by Defendants.
100. Additionally, Defendants conspired to knowingly cause damage to Konnech’s
protected computers, by, among other things, impairing the integrity of Konnech’s protected
32
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
30 of 37
computers, and intentionally stealing data and information contained on Konnech’s protected
computers.
102. Defendants’ misconduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate the federal Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. et. seq., and Konnech is entitled to damages under the Act.
CLAIM 5: HARMFUL ACCESS BY COMPUTER, TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE &

REMEDIES CODE § 143.001; TEXAS PENAL CODE § 33.02
103. Konnech repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 102, as if
104. Konnech maintains “computers,” “computer networks,” and/or “computer
systems” (hereinafter, collectively “computers”), as those terms are defined in TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 33.01.
105. Konnech’s computers are secured by numerous security features, including two-
factor authentication which is only provided to select Konnech employees.
106. Defendants admit to intentionally or knowingly accessing Konnech’s computers
without the effective consent of Konnech, and as a result of such conduct, caused Konnech damage
and loss.
107. As a result of Defendants’ access to Konnech’s computers without effective
consent, Konnech has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, which includes, but is
not limited to, investigating, and assessing the need to remediate Defendants’ unauthorized access,
and responding to the attacks and assessing the damage, if any, caused to Konnech’s computers
by Defendants.
33
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
31 of 37
108. Defendants knowingly and intentionally caused damage to Konnech’s computers,
by, among other things, impairing the integrity of Konnech’s computers, and knowingly and
intentionally stealing data and information contained on a Konnech computer.
110. Defendants’ misconduct constitutes a violation of TEXAS PENAL CODE § 33.02,
which may be brought as a civil action pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.001.
CLAIM 6: CONSPIRACY TO GAIN HARMFUL ACCESS BY COMPUTER,

TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE § 143.001; TEXAS PENAL
CODE § 33.02
112. Konnech maintains “computers,” “computer networks,” and/or “computer
systems” (hereinafter, collectively “computers”), as those terms are defined in TEXAS PENAL CODE
§ 33.01.
113. Defendants admit to conspiring to intentionally access Konnech’s computers
without effective consent and obtaining information from Konnech’s computers.
114. Defendants admit to conspiring to intentionally access Konnech’s computers
without effective consent, and as a result of such conduct, caused Konnech damage and loss.
115. Specifically, Defendants admit they were part of a group who gained access to
Konnech’s computers without effective consent.
34
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
32 of 37
116. Defendants admit the objective of their group was to gain access to Konnech’s
computers without effective access, and obtaining and disseminating information taken from those
computers.
117. Defendants admit to a meeting of the minds to gain access to Konnech’s computers
without effective consent, and obtaining and disseminating information taken from those
computers.
118. Defendants committed overt acts to further the objective of their conspiracy by
taking actions to gain access to Konnech’s computers without effective consent and obtaining and
disseminating information taken from those computers.
119. As a result of Defendants’ aforementioned conspiracy to gain access to Konnech’s
computers without effective consent, Konnech has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, which includes, but is not limited to, investigating, and assessing the need to remediate
Defendants’ unauthorized access, and responding to the attacks and assessing the damage, if any,
caused to Konnech’s computers by Defendants.
120. Additionally, Defendants conspired to knowingly cause damage to Konnech’s
computers, by, among other things, impairing the integrity of Konnech’s computers, and
intentionally stealing data and information contained on Konnech’s computers.
122. Defendants’ misconduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate TEXAS PENAL CODE §
33.02, which may be brought as a civil action pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.001.
35
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
33 of 37
CLAIM 7: CONVERSION
124. Defendants currently possess data owned or legally possessed by Konnech, or to
which Konnech otherwise has an entitlement to possession.
125. Defendants unlawfully and without authorization assumed and exercised dominion
and control over the property to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with Konnech’s rights as owner
of the property, which removed the need for Konnech to demand the return of the property.
However, Konnech demanded the return of the data Defendants claim to have taken and
Defendants did not return it.
126. Defendants’ actions were intentional, malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent, and give
rise to liability for exemplary damages according to proof at trial.
127. As remedies for Defendants’ conversion, Konnech seeks compensatory and
exemplary damages, a constructive trust over the converted materials, and an injunction requiring
Defendants to return the converted materials to Konnech.
CLAIM 8: VIOLATION
OF THE TEXAS THEFT LIABILITY ACT
129. Konnech had the possessory right to property taken from its protected computers
by Defendants.
130. Defendants unlawfully appropriated the property Konnech had a possessory right
to through its business as an election logistics software company.
36
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
34 of 37
131. Defendants’ misappropriation of Konnech’s property was and is willful and
malicious because they intentionally tried to steal Konnech’s property as a means to enrich
themselves by peddling disproven conspiracy theories.
132. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act,
Chapter 134 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
133. As remedies for Defendants’ theft, Konnech seeks compensatory and exemplary
damages, a constructive trust over the stolen materials, costs and reasonable and necessary
attorneys’ fees, and an injunction requiring Defendants to return the stolen materials to Konnech.
CLAIM 9: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
135. As set forth in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action, supra,
Defendants have admitted to violating and conspiring to violate the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.A., et. seq. and the Texas Harmful Access by Computer statute. There is
thus a strong likelihood that Konnech will succeed on its claims in this action.
136. Defendants’ misconduct has caused, and continues to cause, Konnech injury
including, without limitation, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
137. There is no adequate remedy at law to compensate Konnech for the irreparable
harm caused by the interference with its control and the integrity of its protected computers, the
harm to Konnech’s reputation, customer confidence, and goodwill it has suffered and will continue
to suffer due to Defendants’ hacking of Konnech’s protected computers and the disclosure of
information obtained therefrom. And there is no adequate remedy at law to compensate Konnech
for the prior and continued hacking of Konnech’s protected computers.
37
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
35 of 37
138. To protect Konnech from such irreparable harm, the Court should enjoin
Defendants, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with others: (1) from accessing
or attempting to access Konnech’s protected computers; (2) to return to Konnech all property and
data obtained from Konnech’s protected computers, whether original, duplicated, computerized,
handwritten, or any other form whatsoever; (3) from using, disclosing, or exploiting the property
and data downloaded from Konnech’s protected computers; (4) to preserve, and not to delete,
destroy, conceal or otherwise alter, any files or other data obtained from Konnech’s protected
computers; (5) to identify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing Konnech’s
protected computers; (6) ordering Defendants to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when,
and by whom its servers were accessed without authority so that additional necessary security
measures can be implemented by Konnech to maintain the integrity of the data therein in light of
the upcoming midterm elections; and (7) to identify all persons and/or entities, in Defendants’
knowledge, who have had possession, custody or control of any information or data from
Konnech’s protected computers.
139. The balance of equities strongly favors issuing injunctive relief in favor of Konnech
as Defendants will suffer no hardship from being ordered to cease and desist from committing
continued unlawful acts and, specifically, from gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s
protected computers, and to return the data that belongs to Konnech, but was stolen by Defendants.
140. An injunction will not adversely affect the public interest. Rather, an injunction
will benefit the public interest because the public has an interest in preventing conduct which the
United States Congress and Texas Legislature has determined is unlawful, and an interest in
maintaining the integrity of U.S. elections.
JURY DEMAND
Konnech demands a trial by jury.
38
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
36 of 37
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. prays that Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and
Catherine Engelbrecht be cited to appear and answer herein, and that Konnech, Inc. recover
judgment from Defendants as follows:
a. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and/or permanent

injunction enjoining Defendants, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in
concert with others:
i. from accessing or attempting to access Konnech’s protected computers;

ii. to return to Konnech all property and data obtained from Konnech’s
protected computers, whether original, duplicated, computerized,
handwritten, or any other form whatsoever;
iii. from using, disclosing, or exploiting the property and data downloaded from
Konnech’s protected computers;
iv. to preserve, and not to delete, destroy, conceal or otherwise alter, any files
or other data obtained from Konnech’s protected computers;
v. to identify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing
vi. to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom Konnech’s
protected computers were accessed; and
vii. to identify all persons and/or entities, in Defendants’ knowledge, who have
had possession, custody or control of any information or data from
b. Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial,
constituting its losses from Defendants’ misconduct;
c. A constructive trust for the return of Konnech’s stolen and converted property;
d. Reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees;
e. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
f. All costs of suit; and
g. All such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to
which Konnech may show itself to be justly entitled or as this Court may deem
appropriate.
Dated: September 12, 2022
39
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
37 of 37
By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

Attorney in Charge
SDTX Bar No. 19378
DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
SDTX Bar No. 24094914
NRichardson@kasowitz.com
(713) 220-8800
(713) 222-0843 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Konnech, Inc.
40

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03096
§
ENGELBRECHT, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
AFFIDAVIT OF EUGENE YU
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
)
COUNTY OF INGHAM )
BEFORE ME the undersigned official on this day appeared EUGENE YU, who is
personally known to me, and being duly sworn according to law upon his oath deposed and said:
1. My name is Eugene Yu. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I am over the
age of 18 years and suffer no form of legal or mental disabilities. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated in this affidavit which are true and correct.
2. I am the President and CEO of Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”). Konnech provides
governmental entities in the U.S. with election logistics software, called PollChief, that is
used by those governmental entities to recruit, train and schedule poll workers; coordinate
the distribution of equipment and supplies to polling places; and dispatch support personnel
to address technical and other issues. Konnech does not select, communicate, or otherwise
interface with any poll workers. And Konnech’s software products are in no way involved
in the registration of voters, the production, distribution, scanning, or processing of ballots,
or the collection, counting or reporting of votes. Konnech never handles any ballots and
no ballots or voting counts ever enter any of Konnech’s protected computers, as that term
is defined by 18 U.S.C. 1030, et. seq.
41
3. In connection with its business, Konnech maintains protected computers which are used in
or affect interstate commerce. Konnech controls access to its offices, enters into
confidentiality agreements with its customers and employees, and uses two-factor
authentication and other security measures to control access to its protected computers.
Only a select group of Konnech employees that have been provided with that two-factor
authentication have authority to access Konnech’s protected computers.
4. True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht (“Defendants”) have
directly, repeatedly and improperly targeted Konnech and its protected computers.
Defendants have publicized that they held an event on August 13, 2022, called “The Pit,”
during which they announced their attack campaign against Konnech, falsely and
maliciously claiming that Konnech maintains U.S. poll worker data on servers located in
Wuhan, China, and falsely and maliciously claiming that Konnech is otherwise being used
to enable the Chinese Communist Party to breach U.S. elections.
5. On August 13, 2022, and on multiple different occasions since then, Defendants claim that
they and/or those acting in concert with them have directly or indirectly gained access to
Konnech’s protected computers and obtained, used and/or disclosed data allegedly
contained on those protected computers including, according to Defendants, the personal
identifying and banking information of 1.8 million U.S. poll workers. Konnech has never
authorized Defendants, nor anyone acting in concert with them, to access Konnech’s
protected computers or to obtain, use, and/or disclose any data contained on those protected
computers. Defendants have threatened to imminently publicly disclose all of the data
that they allegedly obtained from Konnech’s protected computers.
6. Konnech has thus spent over $5,000 within a one-year period in connection with
Defendants’ unauthorized access of Konnech’s protected computers, because Konnech has
been required to investigate, assess, and respond to Defendants’ alleged attacks on
Konnech’s protected computers, and to assess the damage, if any, caused to Konnech’s
protected computers by Defendants’ alleged unauthorized access of same.
7. Unless Defendants and anyone acting in concert with Defendants are immediately enjoined
from accessing Konnech’s protected computers and obtaining, using and/or disclosing any
data contained on those protected computers, Konnech will be irreparably harmed by:
a. the unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers;
b. the unauthorized use and/or disclosure of data from Konnech’s protected

computers;
c. interference with Konnech’s control of its protected computers;
d. Breach of security of Konnech’s protected computers;
42
e. disclosure of confidential information contained on Konnech’s protected

computers; and
f. loss of confidence and trust of Konnech’s customers, loss of goodwill, and loss of
business reputation.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of a video entitled “Prophets and
Patriots – Episode 20 with Gregg Phillips and Steve Shultz” published by Elijah Streams
on Rumble on August 23, 2022. In the podcast, Defendant Gregg Phillips sits for an
interview for approximately one hour and four minutes. The video can be found here
https://rumble.com/v1h1pj9-rumble-only-prophets-and-patriots-episode-20-with-gregg-
phillips-and-steve-.html and a flash drive with a copy of the recording will be filed with
the Court contemporaneously with the filing of Konnech’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) and this Affidavit of Eugene Yu
(“Affidavit”).
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of a video entitled “Here’s How
They’ll Try to Steal the Midterms – Gregg Phillips Interview with Seth Holehouse (AKA
ManInAmerica) August 30, 2022” published by Man In America on Rumble on August
30, 2022. In the video, Defendant Gregg Phillips sits for an interview for approximately
one hour and fifteen minutes. The video can be found here https://rumble.com/v1hz1jr-
heres-how-theyll-try-to-steal-the-midterms-gregg-phillips-interview.html and a flash drive
with a copy of the recording will be filed with the Court contemporaneously with the filing
of the Motion and Affidavit.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-3 is a true and correct copy of a video entitled “Episode 6:
Gamechanger” published by Patriot Games on Rumble on September 2, 2022. In the
video Defendants Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht speak for approximately forty-
six minutes. The video can be found here https://rumble.com/v1idjwj-episode-6-
gamechanger.html and a flash drive with a copy of the recording will be filed with the
Court contemporaneously with the filing of the Motion and Affidavit.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of an August 13, 2022 Truth
Social post by an individual named Taylor Phillips, and “ReTruthed” by Defendant Gregg
Phillips.
12. I submit this affidavit in support of Konnech’s application for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction.
13. No previous application for the relief requested herein has heretofore been made to this or
any other Court.
43
44
EXHIBIT A-1
45
Filed in Native Format
46
EXHIBIT A-2
47
48
EXHIBIT A-3
49
50
EXHIBIT A-4
51
52
Prophets and Patriots – Episode 20 with Gregg Phillips August 23, 2022
Original here: https://elijahstreams.com/podcast/podcast/prophets-and-patriots-episode-20-

with-gregg-phillips-and-steve-shultz/
Gregg Phillips 38:10

Yeah, just in the first day, I think they raised $100,000 In the first day. And since then I'll let
Catherine, if she's ever on your show, let her tell you a little bit about the detail. Project. We're
just a contractor running the fusion center. But But gosh, David, this is so exciting. It's such a
great time to be here. So we went through all of that. And then the latter third of the day were
several key things. We wanted to be able to to share with people. What what we're starting to
understand in terms of what's happening in the country, because it's bigger than just
somebody's trying to cheat and elect Joe Biden, right. This started 70 years ago, the
communists laid out a plan to come into the United States to take over the Democrat party to
take over the media. And, and if you listen to people like Trevor Loudon and and Jeff Nyquist,
which we had we had with us at the bid. They make a very compelling story. And, and if you
contemplate it in the context of the communists, and the Marx is divorced from God, in the
separation from all things spiritual, and now you think about what's happening to us, and you
think about how could it be? Well, the how is the infiltrators are coming? Without God, they're
not with God. Right. And, and we and everybody, I mean, there were jaws open. I mean,
listening to Trevor and you can see this up on up on rumbled now on RRSPs channel. But
listening to Trevor and listening to Jr. Talk about this stuff, was setting the stage for the final
thing that we did in the last hour or so. One of the things that Catherine and I came up with in
our research was, Catherine had this idea that there's too much free and near free software out
there. And it's all being operated at the county levels and state levels by the bad guys. It's not
the good counties, it's the bad counties. And we're like, what's going on? So Catherine asked
us, if we would take a look at it. We went through, we went through and pulled out there's
something called vote shield, that supposedly some counties or some states use that none of
the none of the states admit to using. And that was kind of weird. So we're like, Okay, well,
that's, that's odd. And then we started started coming across more and more and more and
started realizing that there was one particular company that was behind several of the
software's that were operating the elections. And when I say operating, I mean, ballot counting
software. Administration software, meaning if you're a poll worker, they would register you in this
system with your name, your social security number, your date of birth, your bank account, if
you're getting paid all of this information. And in just in the course of our normal business, we
use a product called binary edge. It's a it's just a, it lets you take a URL and learn if you took
Elijah list.com. It wouldn't tell you what servers you guys operate from, it would tell you a little bit
about those servers, it would, it would give you a sense of where your your show is being
broadcast from. And there would be all sorts of different things you can learn just by going into
binary edge. But when you dig into binary edge, you learn and you get into few layers deep, you
learn. Okay, well, where what if you were broadcasting from Oregon, but your data was being
stored in? I don't know Detroit? Well, you might care about that. But what if your data was all
being filtered through China? And it's not we're not. What happened was, we're not asking
53
anyone to believe us. We took it directly. That was on a Friday after Friday. Now, my guys
invited me to Dallas. On a Friday night, we went met at hotel room towels under the doors, you
know, we were pretty weird. I mean, it was like some kind of a James Bond kind of thing or
some sort of weirdness like that. And, and they proceeded to show me everything. They showed
me the database, they showed me where it lived. And it lives on the main, the main backbone,
the Unicom backbone in China, which is the main internet, in China, all the poll workers, is that
what you're saying of everything, everything. And they have, they have software that counts that
count that does FastCap ballot counting. They have software, all of this is done in China,
42:46
who gave China all of this information? I mean, how did this even happen?

There's a company in the there's a company in the US based outside of what just outside of
Lansing, Michigan, and actually they operated an office in Lansing, run by a former Chinese
national and all of his programmers are Chinese. And, and they basically pulled this off on the
United States. And they've, they've done military ballots, they've done they have, they have
online voting systems that they've created. And these were all created by Chinese
programmers. And it's a big deal. It was such a big deal that Friday night, I left Dallas and I
drove to Catherine's I left about four in the morning. After sitting there looking at this for four or
five hours, my analysts are the best analysts in the country, in the world, maybe. And and when
we were done, I not just knew it was true, but they weren't asking me to believe Oh, Greg
believe that. This is some satellite changing numbers or whatever. This wasn't that. All they
were saying was this software that runs in, in by their own admission in 1000s of counties
nationwide, is based in China in Wuhan, China. And, and that's all that that's all they were really
telling me. And, and so it was so significant to me from a national security perspective. We
immediately made a complaint to the DNI. We on Monday, we we contacted some people we
know at the FBI, and we made an official and formal complaint to the FBI. That was in January
of 2021. By April of 2020 to 15 months later, we had been involved in a major and mature
counterintelligence operation with the FBI. It wasn't just we didn't just surface the data. We were
part of the op. We were being read in. I traveled to meet with them multiple times. You just want
it all comes out and it's all said and done. That they were poor. sort of a counter intelligence with
with this frightening thing is to me. And, and this is kind of the rest of the story. The people we
were working with at the Bureau, some of them seemed very senior agents that had been there
for 20 plus years. I mean, these were, these were these were people, we really have enormous
respect for him, you know, I have respect for them as law enforcement officers, I have respect
for them as as people that love their country, and they're really good people. And we had all
agreed early on, that the thing that needed to happen is this software needed to be removed
from all counties before the next election. Yeah, it had to in April, and mid April of this year,
couple of weeks before the the Catherine got a call from somebody at the Bureau saying, Hey,
we got a problem. We took this up to, to DC to kind of do some final work on it before we started
making this public. And they turned it on us, they made us to target me in particular, the target.
They had been advised that, well, that came a little bit later. But but but they said don't tell her
ag he's gonna get he's gonna get mad. Well, they were right, I was gonna get mad. But they
54
turned this whole thing on us, Steve and EPA. So here's the key, the software is still in place.
And so and so they said, well, we'll work on it, we'll try to figure it out. Don't worry about it, don't
worry about it. About a week, about a week later. They we find out that, that they they had the
meeting that they were going to have and and in the end as it as it began to sort of unpack the
I'm gonna have my car cut off, I'm sorry, it's gonna dig for a second. Okay. They they had
basically unwound that, but they hadn't fixed it. They're still the software there. And by now that
we're into the movie, the movie was out. And I get a call. A few weeks after the member, we had
all manner of things happening, right? And I'm still I'm still on my listen to God. You know, my
kids. I'm still listening. I get a call from a senior agent at the FBI. And he says, Listen, we've
received a report that you stole, meaning me, Greg stole three servers on the Unicom backbone
in China. What

my first answer was, and I'm a tech guy. So my first thing was, but wait a minute. That's not how
the internet works. You can't steal the internet man. That's not the way it works. It's not that's
not the game. And I said, nevertheless, I still nothing. And, and, and, in fact, what we did have,
we turned over to them to the FBI. So they if somebody has something stolen, they have
something stolen. And, and it's crazy. And And anyway, they left it. And I'm like, that's not true.
And he's like, I mean, he was threatening me. I took it as an absolute threat. Well, is
48:24
it the enemies? Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but are we just looking at absolute corruption at
the top? He's turning it on you because he's turning it on you not because he really believes it.
Because he he's trying to stop your work. That's only right. I

don't know if it was him because I know him. Okay. But it was certainly someone above him
what we're now calling referring to as political law enforcement. Okay, these these political law
enforcement people that make their way to the top of the bureau or the top of, you know, a state
organization or whatever, just political animals and they just don't, they don't care about
America. They don't care about anything, they care about them, and they care about their
career. And that's all they care about. But he flat out threatened me and was the weirdest thing
of all state and when I knew that this was just completely Satan induced. Yeah. 100% He
threatens me we go through a 15 minute pretty heated conversation you might imagine I don't
think anything's laying down like that especially a threat and and then he says, Okay, well you
know, those guys that you've been working with in Detroit, I said, yeah, he's like, Well, they still
want they still want to get with your work with you. Like okay, now I haven't heard from him
since but but it you can't seem to make sense and so I called Catherine and I was I was I was
on the road and I called Catherine and said, Look, all we can do right now is just pray. You
know, we armored up we leave we We've bought some new lawyers and brought some new
folks in just in case something happens, and so on and so forth. So people have been banging
on me a little bit about that opening thing and why we haven't been able to get that up? Well,
the reason we haven't been able to get it up and running is, is the bad guys keep taking it down.
Every time we put it up, they take it down. But there's a reason for that. The reason is, they
55
have no idea what we have. And they have no idea what's it, what's in these what's in our
records. And when it all comes out. And it's all said and done. And we dump all of it, we called
the this Chinese thing and Tiger project, when we dumped the Tiger project out into the world,
and there are already 180 People that have it, and they're doing some amazing work, you could
go in and read onto socialism of the work that's being done by some of the folks that already
have some of the info. But that's just a smidgen of info, we have so much more. And, and when
it all comes out, it's going to, it's going to devastate the left. And that's what they're doing.
They're trying to stop it before the election, then
51:00
when you say when it comes out, you're talking about the movie that they keep shutting down
that one,

the the really the date, let's call it the database. It's much more than that, because it's much
bigger than that, but we're gonna release all of our research, we're gonna release all of our
data, we still haven't figured out exactly how to release all the video, in part because the videos
pretty worthless. I mean, there's some there were some good video but but the people will see
when it comes out, they'll be like, What in the world? This is terrible in there, right? It's terrible.
And we're reason we're going to push it out there is let people know that only a fraction of the
counties had video, surveillance video on their drop boxes at all. And the ones that did, it was
terrible. So we have a few good Dropbox videos. But you know, out of the four or 5 million
minutes of video we have, I'd say probably, you know, 10,000 of its worth watching, and
references just junk. But anyway, we're, we're blowing and go in and everything's great. And,
and we're hot it was,
52:04
I was gonna say so great. How can people I want to watch this movie that you're trying to get
out? What do people do to try and find it? Do they go to their soulmate website? Or what what
do we do?

Yeah, let's look, we haven't decided yet, I think what we're gonna do is we're gonna send out
we've got about 25,000 people that have signed up for opendata.ink, which is the kind of the
research database, I think what we're going to do is we're going to, we're going to see this out
there, we're going to do some drops, we're going to mark the data, the and we're going to watch
who's attacking it. And then we're going to we'll make some decision. And once we get that
done, but the bottom line is with the fusion center in place, some of Catherine's projects in place
with Protect America dot vote in place. And there are lots of other people out there that are
doing some amazing things. So I spoke with General Flynn last week, they're doing some
amazing things with their own Fusion Center in Florida, different people are doing different
things. And, and, you know, and it's hard, because everybody wants it, everybody wants it to be
if you're not with me, you're against me. And that's not quite the way this is going to work. I
mean, you know, if people, we don't have that many people on our side, that we can do it
56
exactly like that, but we have some really great people that are stepping up and really doing
some amazing research. And while you know, they're probably not going to go to church with
me, and you know, they won't be in these prayer groups. And, and, and, you know, probably
didn't come to the pit. And when we when we did pray at the bid, they probably weren't in the
prayer circle. But But, but they're important to the process. And it's important that we, we, you
know, keep some of our own emotions out of the way and always tell everybody look that my
TrueNorth is freedom, in this case, and yeah, and if and if you're if anyone's willing to fight for
freedom, and well, yeah,
57
Here’s How They’ll Try to Steal the Midterms -

Gregg Phillips Interview with Seth Holehouse
(AKA ManInAmerica) August 30, 2022
Original here: https://rumble.com/v1hz1jr-heres-how-theyll-try-to-steal-the-midterms-gregg-phillips-
interview.html
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
people, election, vote, fbi, china, patriots, confucius institute, happen, chinese, overwhelm, information,
data, run, ballots, greg phillips, important, folks, america, steal, day
SPEAKERS
Gregg Phillips
00:00
You? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to man in America. I'm your host Seth Holehouse. So by now it's
obvious that dark and powerful forces are manipulating our elections. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg
basically admitted to Joe Rogan that the FBI and Facebook intentionally steered the outcome of 2020
by censoring news about Hunter Biden's laptop from hell. Meanwhile, in China, a server has been
discovered containing the personal data of 1.8 million US poll workers. And as we head into the
midterms, the mainstream media is already starting the exact same narrative like they did in 2020. The
big question is, how will they attempt to steal the midterms? And more importantly, can they get away
with it, even if we have a red tsunami? So joining me today is Greg Phillips to discuss all of this and
more. Before we get started, today's show is brought to you by rise TV, a patriot owned streaming
platform. With all the big tech censorship and the monetization going on right now. The subscribers that
rise TV are literally the reason I can bring you this critical information today. Over at Rhys, our mission
is to uncover the truth no matter how dark and difficult, we'll always holding on to hope you can have a
few laughs along the way. Over and rise, we have a massive, massive content library with amazing
content, and an incredible community of patriots that you're gonna get to know on day one. And you get
to hang out with me and my guests for the second half of every show and ask your questions and share
your thoughts and ideas. So if you have any specific questions that you want Greg to answer, make
sure you join us on righ t rise TV, there's a link for a free trial in the description below. You should go
ahead and click it now. So that way, you're all set up and we cut the public streams for the exclusive
q&a During the second half of the show. Also, make sure you're following me on telegram and true
social at man in America. You can also catch every episode as a podcast, if you just want to listen, the
links to my podcasts and all the social media are in the description below. And folks, by now we've all
sensed that we're in for a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future. Russia and China are truly flexing their
-1- Transcribed by https://otter.ai
58
muscles on the global stage. And they've aligned with India, Brazil, South Africa and dozens of other
countries to transition away from the US Dollar as the dominant global currency. So what does this
mean? Well, for most of us, Americans, the US dollar is all we know, right? All of our hard earned
money is completely tied to it, whether it's through the stock market, or bank accounts, pensions, 401k,
etc. But you see, the rest of the world is fed up with the US printing money out of thin air and
demanding to trade it for things of real value. So this is why Russia has already back its currency with
gold and many other nations are expected to follow. But what happens to the US dollar if it loses its
global reserve status? Well, the value of our dollars our life savings could literally be wiped out
overnight. And look, I'm not a financial advisor. So please do your own research. But I believe that now
more than ever, it's a good time to consider transferring at least some of your wealth into physical gold
and silver. Real world assets have stood the test of time we're talking five 1000 years. And for this, I'm
confident recommending noble gold, you can buy gold and silver directly or you can even transfer your
IRA into physical gold and silver with zero taxes or penalties. Most importantly, you can trust noble gold
with your wealth, they have an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and hundreds of positive
reviews from the folks like you they've already helped. Now look, I want to be really, really clear with
you. You don't buy gold and silver to get rich, you do it to protect your wealth. But if things get really
tough history has left us with many stories of folks scooping up land and other valuable assets for a few
gold coins. So now's the time, folks, if you want to learn more about this, open up a new tab right now
and go to gold with seth.com. Or you can call 877-646-5347 to speak to someone right now, the folks at
Noble gold who will answer all your questions and take care of you every step of the way. Again, that's
877-646-5347. And look, I'm not saying noble goal is the only option if you already know something
sells gold and silver. Great. All I'm saying is that you should please act now and protect your wealth
before it's too late. So folks, this is going to be a fantastic, fantastic interview with the patriot, Greg
Phillips. But I have a quick note, for those of you that are watching on YouTube, we're not going to be
publishing this interview on YouTube. Right, this is going to be a very, very important interview. And
we're gonna be talking about a lot of what happened in 2020, what they're lining up for 2022. And I
can't publish this on YouTube. So if you want to join us and watch the rest of this show, which is gonna
be incredible, please click on the link in the YouTube description. And you can go over to rumble to
watch it where we can actually talk about things openly over there. So Dom, you can go ahead and cut
the YouTube stream. So we can go ahead and talk about all these things that the commies don't want
us to talk about. So without further ado, let we're gonna bring on my guest today. Mr. Greg Phillips. So
Greg, thank you so very, very much for joining me again.

So I can't thank you enough for having me back. And your audience has been amazingly supportive of
us and me and, and just really grateful for for you and the work that you're doing and your voice and
your voice for freedom around the world.
07:22
Thank you. You know, some people are calling this the Battle of the beards. But I think we're on the
same team. So I'm just I'm really worried for years on the opposite side of you, and on the front lines of
this. So it's
59
so many people recognize me because of my beard, but it's actually a little bit silly, I'll walk down an
airport, people come up and want to take pictures of me and be sure you get his beard in the picture.
It's just it's kind of funny, but you know, I've, I've been able to laugh about it and enjoy it. And I just, you
know, again, I'm super thankful for not just your listeners, but all the people that have supported
Catherine through the vote. And some of the work that we've been able to accomplish is surely been
extraordinary.
08:08
It's really, really important because the I think that for a lot of us, we're going through this process of
realizing that our country hasn't been in the control of weather people for quite some time. And you
know, without getting into the corporatocracy and, and all the corruption and bureaucracy that exists
just looking at the elections, which are really the foundation of us being able to choose who we want to
represent us. Right? That is, like we're not, you know, we're not saying that if you're a leader, you have
full command, or as we're saying, Look, we're giving you permission to rule us. And this that this is one
of the big problems we're facing right now is that they have hijacked that entire process of us being able
to choose our leaders and adjust in fair way. And so, you know, I want to first dig into a few things that
are just more topical, the first one being, I'm not sure if you saw the recent interview with Mark
Zuckerberg and Joe Rogan, where Zuckerberg has come out and he I'm not sure if he was intending to
do it on purpose or not. But he basically admitted that the FBI pressured Facebook, to censor the
Hunter Biden laptop information, which we know and Trump was very open about this untrue social
saying, Look, if that would have gotten out there, it would have turned to the times of the election, and
the damning evidence was so strong. So this we have, really this is almost what you call the fascism.
This is a wing of of of our government working with a private corporation to change the course of our
own elections. I mean, this is a very slippery slope. So and you've also had some dealings with the FBI.
You guys brought your information to the FBI. So I wanted to get your take on what you think the FBI is
role is in our elections.

Well, if you really get into the heart of that this agent that was ushered out of out of the Bureau
yesterday in in DC really, I think can see the, what they believe are the most important things right. And
the so this guy seems to be certainly a bad guy, but maybe sacrificial in some ways, in the way that
they let this happen. So this guy was in charge of election integrity related things and investigating
those type things, which tells us a lot now that we've been through what we've been through, he was in
charge of this laptop situation, he was in charge of, of the rate at at Mar a Lago and gathering those
documents. So, you know, when one might think, well, this guy's really a bad guy. Our opinion is, is
reasonably close to that. We believe that, that law enforcement broadly these days, whether it's state
level or, or even locally, if it's a police chief, and, and rising up to coerce the FBI, that there's a real
distinction between some of these people, which I would call political law enforcement, you know, who
are given operations are given missions to go do things that have a very political feel, and a very
political bent. And, you know, whether it's Peter strock, and his girlfriend or others, I mean, there, there
is plenty of reason to believe that these people are not good people. But our experiences is interesting,
in that, when you get below that political law enforcement thing or that level, you really run into a lot of
good people. I mean, some of the people that we've met, and some of the people that we know, in the
intelligence community group, in the FBI, these people's job is and there are 17 agencies that have an
60
intelligence community presence. So the intelligence community is made up by people inside of each of
these organizations, whether it's DHS, or whether it's the FBI, or the NSA, or the CIA, so on and so
forth. All of the defense agencies, and their job is to surface information, to get information from from
people to get information from confidential informants to get information from human sources that they
have, and that they've acquired and maintained on the ground. It's important on in trafficking is
important drug trafficking, human trafficking, you know, all of the border issues, all of these issues have
an intelligence community component to them. So that if someone say in the Air Force I see comes up
with some information, he or she might be able to give it then to someone at DHS that might need it
that they would do. So that's the way the community is sort of formed, and obviously horribly,
oversimplifying something that's far more complex. But that's, that's really what the IC is our experience
with these people that are out there. And their job is to surface things that is pretty extraordinary. I
mean, these people have been, you know, mostly good to us. They've, they've kept us out of trouble.
They've alerted us when bad things were happening around us. We've been able to go to them when
we've had, like servers taken down. And I mean, we can we actually have people we can go to and talk
to. But similarly, these people's job is to surface information. So if we find something that is so
important, from a national security perspective, that we just can't deal with, I mean, we're just people,
right? And we're just citizens, citizens, researchers, in a way, we happen to have a few, maybe better
connections or not. We happen to have data sources, maybe some tools that the average the average
man or woman may not have. But the process of taking that information, understanding that as an
actual national security application, and then and then presenting it to your anyone's icy contacts.
That's the way the game is supposed to work. And that that's what America is, is really how it's
designed to work and, and those people are really good people. We don't we don't really run into any
bad guys at that level and or at least as far as we know.
14:24
That's then once they get encouraging, I'll say that's encouraging to me because I think that it's really
easy to look at these giant organizations or even these new 87,000 IRS agents and, and just think that
like, Okay, if you were the FBI bad, you're a Storm Trooper, you're working for Darth Vader, so you're a
storm trooper. But actually, I think that this what they want us to believe is that it's the behemoth of his
agencies that are all against us. But actually, you make a really good point and that that even that like
there gives me the sliver of hope instead thinking that there's actually a lot of patriots and constitute you
people that love the Constitution, that it's just their job, and they don't like the fact that they hand that
information up the ladder. And then it gets you to say, three levels above and then something bad
happens with it. So just it's good to know that there are a lot more good people out there, and they want
us to believe sorry to interrupt you. But it's I think it's important point to me.

Yeah, and, you know, important for us, because, frankly, I think we've survived because of some of
these people. Because you know, when you work with people at this level, you sort of get to know
them. And it's not that they're your friends, per se, but but you have a collegial relationship with them.
And you can pick up the phone and call them and say, Hey, we've got something really important to talk
about, can you meet us for lunch? Or can you meet us in Houston, or whatever the we know, whatever
the answers are. And it also helps sort of bridge the gaps into where you need to go. So let's say we
had, I can't think of a, I can't really think of a great example. But let's say we surface some information
61
that had something to do with Ukraine and Russia. And it was super important. And what do you do
with that, so you're just an average guy sitting in your office, somebody presents you with something
that seems like oh, my gosh, somebody needs to know about this. If I took that to, say, the intelligence
community representative from the FBI, he or she may not be able to do anything with that, but they
might be able to hand that off then to or oil and Dora introduce us to someone say at the agency, or, or
the CIA or at the NSA, or someone or DOD for that, for that matter, that that might have some
knowledge or interest or whatever, and then handing that off, and then letting us go make the
presentation to that individual, or, or really share kind of what we know and then walk away. What
happens occasionally is really what happened to us. And all of this is that is that there are times, and I
was just talking to a retired FBI agent this morning on this very topic, a very senior person. I mean, he's
really somebody I really admire his his career and his trajectory. And, and I was talking to him this
morning about this. And I said, one of my frustrations is that, you know, if we stay in it, we never know
where those those lines are those bright, there is no bright white line, right, it's more of a gray kind of
chalky line that you sort of get there you step on, like, oh, like, I'm not sure I'm supposed to be here.
Because sometimes you are given information from from a human source or acquire information from
from open source research, or whatever it is. But in sometimes it doesn't even matter, right?
Sometimes, you know, they don't care, we don't care. So we've tried to hand it off to and they're like,
and whatever, you know, we don't care about that. However, there are times when you do encounter
things, that that you need to hand off. And, and having people that you can go to that you can trust to
say, look, here's how we receive this information, we don't want it, we want to get rid, we don't want it in
our offices or whatever. Here you go, go do this. And these people are really great at handing off to
people that they know, and they trust inside of, say, a local field office of the FBI, or, or maybe maybe
maybe a, you know, a CIA Case Officer at the agency or something like that. And so being able to hand
off that data

is important. But occasionally, it becomes more important because you know more than they do, or, or
there's an important operation that needs to be executed, maybe a counterintelligence type operation,
where they really need to stop what's happening. It's not just that they need to know about it, they need
to go find the bad guy, but maybe it's still going on and they need to try to engage in it, try to find ways
that they can counter it or stop it from actually happening. And, and even at that point, generally
speaking, with one or two limited exceptions, we've had very positive experiences and those handoffs
and being able to brief people, they're interested, they're thoughtful, they're kind, they're smart. They
bring in other analysts that may have different skills than they do to listen to us. And, and, and it was a
and this happened in in January of 2021, related to some information that we acquired from an open
source research project that we were doing, and we didn't know, it's still don't whether or not it's, you
know, actually a crime or not. We have our strong suspicions at this point. But when we handed this
information off to them, they were willing to accept it and take it, but they needed us to remain engaged
because we do so much more than they did. It wasn't like we could go have a 30 minute lunch with
them. And here's your, you know, computer desk and or here's your Storage Desk and good luck to you
guys, which occasionally is, this is more like, this is a big deal. And, and they need us to stay, they
needed us to stay in, in the game. And so it went on for months, it went on for over a year. For 18
months, we were working with them I personally worked with them. I personally went to Detroit where
they were working from and met with them and spent time with them. And and it shared information,
62
shared phone calls, shared text, hey, what do you know about this? Do you know about that? You know
anything about the banking relationship? Do you know anything about these new patterns, or these
new trademarks that we found and what's going on with this? And it was a very collegial in this case, a
very collegial relationship with with with true patriots. I mean, their job was what would prevent them
from being out, you know, like, like me, or you would, you know, trying to uncover something just for the
sake of patriotism. But there's no question these people were good people and patriots, and they
worked with us right up until right up until the very end. And, and and we never, mostly, it wasn't until
the near the end, where we really had a sense that something went wrong, that it wasn't any longer
about learning about who this company was or what they were doing or their involvement in elections?
Or could we prove it? Or what was the connection between this company and that company or this
bank and that bank out at all? What do you know what, it stopped being that. And, and the challenge
that we had was really post that. And we knew it was changing. around mid April or So Katherine
received a call from one of our somebody that we were in close contact with, at the FBI saying, Hey, I
don't want you to tell Greg this, but we got a problem. And the problem is, we went up and presented
18 months worth of research, or some people went up and, and presented 18 months worth of
research. And during the presentation, the counterintelligence operators, were basically ordered to go
tell the target that we had penetrated his systems illegally and, and really turn it on us and go to and it
was China based. And so you know, and it goes, and I'll come back to that in just a minute. Because
that's the most striking thing of all that.

It was, it was like, wait, what, and so, I mean, we didn't even know what to do. And he's like, Listen,
don't work at work. We're working on this, we're gonna have another meeting about it on a Friday. Now,
by now it's very close to the mules being released. And we sort of had this sense, it was kind of feeling
like, maybe they're worried about the movie deals movie, maybe they're not what's going on with this.
And, and then the movie is released. And, you know, we got another call, right? As the movie was
being released, saying, Look, don't worry about it. We work this out. You know, nobody's nobody's in
trouble right now, whatever. And then about maybe maybe two or three weeks after the movie was
released, which I'm sure your your viewers and listeners would would remember. I mean, we were we
were pretty busy. I mean, we had a lot going on. And we were we were, you know, not only in demand
publicly, but we were the media, the leftist media was really trying to poke holes in what we were doing.
And they still are, I mean, think Philip pump at the wall post read, like 20 articles now negative about
us. And I got another request this morning that the New York Times is wanting to do an article not only
about the old stuff, but about this newest stuff. And so it started with that again, and you just can't make
this up. And so anyway, we were in pretty hot demand, like at this call on a Wednesday morning from
from a senior person at the at the FBI, saying listen, someone I know, saying listen, you're in trouble.
So why any he's pretty, pretty threatening for him. We had never been threatened by them before in
this way. But he's like, Look, you talk too much. And you gave a an interview, or you talk to a
confidential informant, who then shared with us that you had stolen three servers from the Chinese
Internet, and that you had copies of all of them. And you're in big trouble to like, whoa, whoa, whoa, no,
first of all, I mean, I'm the tech geek in Vegas coming out so you can't steal the internet, right? You
can't steal the Chinese internet or any other.
24:54
63
Internet, right.

Right. So so they were in essence accusing me of stealing the Chinese internet. And, and, um, I mean,
it doesn't even, it doesn't even really compute but but then is it kind of kind of played out? Somebody,
you know, some, you know, maybe someday I'll know who it was. And I'll be able to try to understand
what actually happened. But But these people, somebody went to the FBI and said that I had stolen
three servers from the Chinese internet that I had copies of that store and all over the place. I think I
know who it was, because that's not at all what was said, they got confused between our video we have
a bunch of open source or video surveillance video that we got through open records. And we do have
several copies of that stored in different places. And I think, in the midst of all of what was being said
out there, I think somebody simply went to the FBI and logged on and said, he stole the internet, and
he's got all these servers and, and bad and you can almost imagine somebody some, you know, hater
that that wants to get rid of us or me going out and doing that. And, and it was so outrageous. But it
was it was a more outrageous in the phone call. Remember, this is somebody that I know, and I have
enormous respect for he said to me, after that, that shock was over, and we kind of battered about for a
bit. Then Then he says to me, well, listen, do you still know the guys? And do you still have the phone
numbers of the guys in Detroit? I said You mean the agents? And he said, Yeah. I said, Well, course
I'm in it. I mean, yeah, I mean, we we taught, you know, a couple times a week for a year. And he said,
he said, Well, they still want to work with you and trying to figure out this, this situation. I'm like, Whoa,
wait a minute, you just threatened me and told me you're gonna have me arrested for stealing the
Chinese internet. And now you want me to go work with the same people that are in charge of the
underlying investigation? This can't be right. It's the reason set that we decided to go public with all of
this. And, and we decided to share it in the way that we did, you know, with with people that I'm sorry, I
should have muted that apology. It's the reason that we decided that we were going to share this at the
pit with, you know, 180 patriots 180 people, you know, most of which are our friends, and, you know,
care, my goodness, 100% of them care about this country. And whether they're 1,000%, in line with my
true north, you know, maybe not, there were a few hiccups around all of that people that were a little
mad at me about some of the stuff, but we had to get it out. And we had to get it out as quickly as we
could. Knowing first of all that, that anonymous researchers broadly. But researchers in general,
especially some of the people at that event, are our top quality researchers, there were a few people
there, one of them is one of the best open source researchers that I know, there were a couple of
prosecutors there. Some people don't know that we're gonna have a grand jury convening soon on
some of this stuff. So we were very strategic and what we did and why we did it and who we invited.
And, and it's going to pay dividends, it already has paid some dividends, because I think it has pushed
away this idea that we're gonna get Roger Stone here for the moment, or, you know, or Paul Manafort
or, you know, any of these other people, they've drug out of their houses in the middle of the night, you
know, like the jackbooted thugs that, that some of them seem to be. But again, that said, 90,

virtually 100% of the people that we came in contact with, that we came in contact with, were good,
good people. They were good. They were they looked after us. They didn't seek to have anything ugly
happened to us. It wasn't until it got to political law enforcement in DC. And what they said to women,
we don't even know the two agents were the two women agents ordered them to turn it on us. And, and
64
whatever other calls in between where they were saying, Look, you guys need to get ready for the
nuclear option here. And we need to go public with this. And it was those admissions that ultimately,
like well, we can't wait. And I mean, we went to a few. We went to Senator Johnson. I think Catherine
contacted Jim Jordan's office. We contacted a few people high placed in the media and they could
touch it. It was just too hot. hematogenous Gosh, literally days before the pit, that raid at Mar a Lago,
you know, advice and credit was it was fortuitous, to say the least.
30:12
How much Xenos, I read a really good article detailing the server that you guys discovered in China,
where you found one around 1.8 million poll workers that the detail right the details on almost 2 million
United States poll workers, but not just that their family members, maps of the buildings where the
voting machines are kept. I mean, how much in your just in your understanding and through your
research? How much of this goes back to the CCP, right? And back to, you know, the Chinese
Communist Party, really working to sway our elections, like layout me what you found that led you back
to them?

Yeah, it was extraordinary. The adventure was extraordinary. So we found that the there was one
individual and he came here from China, as part of a sort of a professor exchange type program, he
was an engineer had trained at the university and, and in China, came to Michigan State back in 1998,
or something like that, you know, very soon thereafter, started this company, the company got involved
in a lot of telecommunication stuff, they were bringing, they were sponsoring h1, B, people to come
over here from China, to turns out that one of the key programmers actually programmed the internal
comms mechanism for for the Confucius Institute. And if you don't know much about Confucius, you
should. Yeah, and, and, you know, Pompeo basically booted them out. And they've now reconfigured
themselves in other ways, they're in the States. But these are not good guys, the same guy that
program, the comps the system that transferred or that moved all of this data to China is the same guy
that created the comps, the internal comps mechanisms for the Confucius Institute, back to the CEC
32:12
group, a quick note out for the viewers. So the Confucius Institute, it's basically it's one of China's main
ways of bringing propaganda into the school systems across America. So university level will have the
Confucius Institute will fund teachers all kinds of programming for people going to, you know, your local
university to learn about China. But the entire thing is a CCP run infiltration and propaganda operation.
Like it's completely a communist operation. And it Mike Pompeo, yeah, he was very, very on top of
trying to expose under the Epoch Times has done that a lot. So you're telling me that this guy who was
when the lead programmers of the Confucius Institute itself, is also the one that is spinning his data off
to China? So is it through their infiltration into these tech companies into this? And how are they getting
this? How is the CCP getting their hands on the data of these poll workers and maybe throw using tick
tock? It'd be easy, right? But how are they getting that kind of information?

There's a piece of software called PollChief, we started looking into PollChief because it kept emerging
in places where we were doing research and we found out okay, it's in DeKalb. County, Georgia. And
65
next thing you know, it's in Travis County, Texas. We're Austin is and and we started looking around
and it's in Detroit. And, and it's in all of these places. We're like what is happening here. And so we
started, Catherine started doing open records requests, and started learning a little more about these
contracts. And a little more about it, as we dug into using some open source tools that help you track
these things. One called binary edge, we realize that there's one particular IP address, where all of the
software and this this, basically this company created a software that manages elections. It manages all
of the information, human information, facility based information, it manages the RFID codes on the
machines, everything there is to know about an election and manages the hours that people work in
these elections. And all of this data rolls up into into depending on let's just say it's in Fairfax County,
Virginia, vote for fairfax.com and then vote for boston.com. Vote for the number four la.com. And all
over the country. These M Johnson, Johnson County, Kansas and I mean all over the country. This this
software is emerging out there. And we're like, what, what is even happening with this? In binary ads,
one of the things that it does is it not only tells you what URLs resolved there, all of those ones that I
just mentioned, but it tells you where it lives. Where does this server live? And you can actually track it
down and you track it down to China. it on the main Unicom backbone in China. And, and it was almost
impossible for me to believe it came to me from some of my analysts who got me to, they uncovered it.
They brought me to Dallas into a hotel room at the Anatole Hilton Hotel and in Dallas, just off the
campus of SMU. I mean, I got there like nearly midnight, and we started get rolling up into this data,
they plugged one of their computers into the television, and we're we're looking at this stuff live by 430.
In the morning, we were we were, I was pretty well scared that this was bad. You know, this wasn't our
geo data. This wasn't what we normally do. And by the way, that's being tracked too. But that's a whole
different topic. The the, the volume of data that was went beyond just this, because the way China
operates in their social scoring system is the data is all way or Dan. So they and they, they are the
largest owners of American of data about Americans in the world. And so as data sells in its
36:10
largest owner of data about America.

Correct about Americans, about Americans. And and it's absolutely frightening what they've what
they've compiled. The other piece of this, that's important, and sorry, there's so many pieces to this, it's
hard to kind of sometimes get your arms around. But the other thing that your viewers listeners need to
understand is that by Chinese law, if something comes on to the Chinese backbone, in other words, it's
the end the Chinese internet, that means the CCP owns it. And so what I'm telling you is that, that
night, in mid January of 2021, I personally witnessed the scrolling through of millions and millions of
records about Americans. We later found out that that was attached directly to the score to the social
scoring system for some pipes and some layers because they have to report it up. And once you're
already in that server, you can just follow it up. important key note here, guys, that for your for
everyone, especially the FBI, and especially the two women who want to turn this on May, we didn't
steal anything. They left it open. The database was a MongoDB database that they left open. And there
was no stealing going on. There was some scraping going on, there was no breaking in there were no
tools used to break in. We didn't steal anything. The Chinese left this open for everyone to see. But
remember, it was coming from a software that was ostensibly a US based company. And instead, I'm
not just saying this data was being stored in China, I'm telling you the apps were running from China,
66
the database is running in China. It's on the Chinese internet, meaning the Chinese own it. So that so
that is on a Friday, that was on a Friday night or Saturday morning, 430. In the morning, by the time I
left, I immediately drove down to Houston never went to sleep that night, got a Catherine to come over
Cand meet me in Houston on Saturday morning. And by Sunday, we had made a plan to hand this off
this idea, this concept off to the FBI. Because it was national security. We knew that there were at the
time before the Chinese scrubbed at all. There was a similar incident that happened in Australia. They
had servers in Canada. There were there was all sorts of underpinnings around all of this that were just
absolutely frightening. They have multiple offices in or near Michigan State including one right across
the street in the same building that had housed the the Confucius Institute when it was still there. So
there were lots of reasons for us to be oh my gosh, we have to do something about this. One other
interesting point is we so we pointed this out, we took it to the FBI, and they got engaged in almost
immediately the target. The guy that ran the company started communicating with us about the open
records request. And so, so we're like, Well, that's what we do. Yeah, we'll happily meet with you and
talk to you about it. We did this all with the permission and the cooperation of the Bureau, because they
had already opened up an investigation because this guy was already on their radar. It wasn't just that
we brought something in, he was already on their radar, but they could never pin him down with
anything. They didn't have the you know, they just didn't have the line of sight. Like we just accidentally
stumbled on that in that launched an 18 month investigation that brought me up to the pit. And so us
having to explain what I just you know, and I did it I think a little bit more eloquently at the pit. But that
said, this is real. This isn't this isn't just a joke. This isn't just Oh, believe me about these, these pee
caps that are flying through the air. And, you know, I actually happen to know a little about pee caps.
But this is not that. What we're saying is the data being being processed by an app, run by a company
based in Michigan is processing, storing, analyzing, and utilizing all of the data that is gathered from
these elections. In from their own website. It says they're in 1000s of counties across the country. And
we know they're in places like Los Angeles, you know, we know that there. I can tell you today there
are 43,000 records of Los Angeles poll workers that are that are on this list. What's even more
frightening about that particular one?

Is the the Los Angeles version of it in particular, what they have programs in LA, where young people,
high school kids, as soon as they're 16, can go work in the polls. It's great experience. It's it's, you
know, it's I think it's great. I mean, I think it's a great program. But how would you feel if if your
teenagers personal information, including what they're studying, if they're in college, or if they're in high
school? What are they focusing on? And all of this information was stored in this Chinese social scoring
system?
41:39
And that is what's frightening to me. So I wanted to ask you about so do you think from what you're
seeing that the CCP is using a variety of, you know, we know they're using tick tock has all kinds of
backdoors that they're using, including election software, to build a database of Americans and that
they're layering their social credit system in with that database? And that's a frightening thing to ask
about is why on earth would the CCP be building a digital database of American citizens that ties into
their social credit scoring system that is frightening.
- 10 - Transcribed by https://otter.ai
67

It's, it's absolutely frightening. And when you consider now that they know these people's cell phone
numbers, they know everything about them, they can track them. They know when they're leaving the
polling that they have their hours, but they also know when they're leaving the polling places they know
when it's going to shut down, they know who's working. So if you wanted to shut down this, not that
anybody would ever shut down vote counting on election night. But let's just say that everybody wanted
to shut down vote counting on election night at the same time, and put you and you knew every single
person that was working in every single polling place and every single target area, and you had all that
information, you don't think that that's something that they could have figured out? I mean, it makes it
makes it makes me question every single person, you know, the, the penetration of the Chinese, I
mean, you know, you go in and you play, I'm just making this up, you go in you find in an 18 year old
kid, who's just doing this to make 15 bucks an hour. And you go in and say, hey, you know, some
Chinese, you know, honeypot or whatever goes and meets up with some teenage boy and says, Hey, I
got some for you, if you'll just just give me a little bit of information. And and you think about those
possibilities. It's, it's off the edge. It's frightening. And and I'll add to a few more things to this, the
number of secretaries of state and Election Officials in the United States of America that have been to
China, on these on these sharing adventures that they go on. I'm talking about Republicans, I'm talking
about Democrats, I'm talking about people that are shown up in, you know, speaking with Secretaries
of State in the United States, speaking Chinese and thanking them for all that they've done to help
them get elected. And, and, and traveling over there. What in the world is the Secretary of State in the
in, say, Alabama? What in the world is the Secretary of State and Alabama, doing go into China to talk
to their students about our elections?
44:27
Why it's even you because this is a my

students? So my question will be,
44:33
yeah, but even it's a mayor's mayors of small towns in Ohio. And so, you know, back when I used to
work with the Epoch Times, I made a lot of contacts of people that really understand China and they've
got access to China, like no media I've seen on Earth, what they're able to uncover there. And I was
speaking to a woman that was very well connected. And what she told me was that the CCP has
studied every single level of our society to know how everything works even down to the the board level
of a local school. They know how it works. They know who the key influencers are. And so they invite
people over to China for these trips. And it's, it's not just like, you know, you might see like, say Mitch
McConnell, and, you know, we know his wife is very tied into the jungles and men regime and all these
kinds of things. But it's literally mayors of small towns in a place like Ohio, for instance. And what they
do, then what this woman explained to me, is that it's it's bribery and blackmail. And that's the purpose
of these trips. So these hotels are staying in each hotel room might have 3040 50 cameras and
recording devices. And so say that there's a mayor from small town, Ohio, it's a good Christian man,
family, guys, like why I get a trip to China to talk to them, they want to learn how we're successfully
running our small towns in America, you know, what an honor? Well, you know, he's at dinner with
68
somebody, and so impose Messiah sit down and say, Look, we're gonna give you half a million dollars
for you to work with us. But it means you're going to do what we say, and we're gonna get information
when you access your information, etc. He might say, Look, you know, look, I'm a God fearing man,
and I'm a patriot, I'm not going to do that. He goes up to his room, and a woman shows up, beautiful
young Chinese woman shows up at his door, and she knocks in and she says, hey, you know, kind of
come in, and he goes, Look, nope, like, I'm a Christian man, I've got a wife and four kids at home. Not
gonna happen. He wakes up the next morning with her in his bed. Next to him. He didn't realize they
already planned it, they knew that they don't accept, Oh, he didn't accept our bribe. So it's not going to
work. They already poisoned, they already put something in his drink at night, you know, and she
doesn't go up there, there's no option. They've got it all recorded. And if he's lucky, that's all it was. It
might have been a young child, it might have been a young child that he wakes up debt with a child
debt next to him, you know, everyone looks at Epstein, the communists, they're the ones that mastered
the use of pedophilia as blackmail. And that was me that's that's old Soviet Soviet campaigns, I that
was a deep thing that they did. So this is, you know, it's it's honey potting to the nth degree. And this is
how they've compromised so many people in America. And it's not just you know, you look at Congress
and say, all, you know, Crenshaw, or you know, your Kissinger or whoever you want to, you want to
kind of point that it's on the small local levels, and what you're telling me it just, it matches up perfectly
to so much other stuff that I've heard, but the fact that they're layering all this information they're getting
with a social credit system, and it's just like, Oh, my goodness, like, what have we gotten ourselves
into? What have we gotten ourselves into? But I want to talk to you a little bit as we're heading into the
midterms, right? I just saw an article this morning, how, you know, CNN is saying, you know, we
thought it was going to be a red tsunami, and now it's going to be a red puddle. So the media is already
laying out the narrative that a lot more people are actually not going to be voting Republican, even
though we know it's the opposite. We know that it's like, after the last two years, who in their right mind
is still going to look at that and say, you know, I want more liberals and in Congress, I want more
liberals in the Senate, etc. And so they're already laying the foundation for this. So to me, it's almost it's
a given that they're going to try to steal the midterm elections, especially with Biden recently coming out
and talking about look, once we win the midterms, we're going to ban assault weapons, we're going to,
you know, get roe Roe v. Wade back, you know, it's right place. So what do you think their game plan
is? Because we're watching them now. Right? I know that a lot of what you guys are doing with the pit
with with the sheriff's with empowering the citizens with your teaching people about how the mule
networks work like we're uncovering, you're uncovering a lot of their methods of deception and
treachery. But to me, I don't expect them to say you know what, you know, Greg Phillips, and they're
doing such a great job, we probably can't steal the election. Right? I'm sure they've got intricate plan.
So how do you think they're still going to attempt this? And more importantly, after that, how can we
stop it? How can we ensure that we can still somehow get the right America first patriots into office?

Well, first of all, let me say that that much of what you just described could have been avoided had
Republican legislators in states around this country done the right thing stepped up and been leaders
and stop this nonsense. You know, in Arizona, you know, they there were three or four different bills
that might have made a difference. None of them passed, ostensibly, because one person supposedly
in the Senate fits in want them to pass and and you just can't make this stuff up. And our experience
during these couple of during these last couple years has been amazing. We Georgia passed a bill that
69
frankly almost made it worse than then better. And by the way, I said that earlier in the week and lo and
behold I start getting beat up in Giorgia again for, for the meal stuff. But it's just true that there was no
leadership. But here's what did happen along the way, that great awakening amongst people, you
know, whether it was because of meals or meals was just one of the reasons or whatever, there is a
real understanding. And there's some amazing people out there that don't know anything about deals
that are just doing their own thing and, and thinking how can I help? What can I do? Catherine has long
Catherine Cabrera has long said that, that sometimes it's not enough just to vote. And this is one of
those times. So here's, here's our view of what what needs to happen. And everybody's got a different
opinion. And I embrace those opinions. I mean, many of these people are my friends, they just disagree
with me about whether you should really vote or vote on election day, or, you know, how you should do
this, what we should all do. One thing we've learned through all of our research, and all of the work that
we're doing is that while some people believe that this was really sophisticated, and that these
machines are programmed in a way to do certain things, and flip boats, and do all this kind of stuff. One
thing that we believe that we know is that much of what's happened from a what people likely call fraud
is really process based. And, and you can, you can watch them manipulating the processes that that
they believe can help them win. Now, I'm sure there are some of these machines and some of this
other stuff that are happening out there, we just didn't look at that. Because we don't believe that the
bulk of the cheat is that sophisticated. If it is that sophisticated, then we do have a problem. But here's
what we know. And we've tested some of this out, we tested some of this out in Arizona this year, we've
done it in some other elections across the country during the primaries that they build in the CI into the
process and into the safety of the machines or the algorithm, the software that runs the machines. And
if we can just agree on that, then then the extension is okay. They have to build that, that process or
they have to build the cheat into those processes, and well in advance. The reason that they fight so
hard not to change, you know, to make the process that, you know, they had all those consent decrees
back in 2021, and 2020. Most of them expired in 2021. A few of them are still around that so many, I
mean, there's there's been some some positive sort of process based things that have happened,

it takes a while to really embed all of this, what people sometimes don't fully understand is that this is
not just one election system, you can't just break into into a the federal system or you can't break into
even a state that that you have to break into 3700 counties, you know, 185,000 precincts to really make
a difference. And and you are to really make the difference that people think they can make the some
of it happen once you get to central count, maybe but the cheat happens long before that, and it really
puts it puts in place, the possibilities at Central count can make those changes what I would have rather
done, I wish we would have cleaned the voter rolls make it mandatory every 30 days, the secretaries of
state and the counties have to clean their voter rolls. I'd like to I would like to have eliminated mail in
voting completely. I would like to or except for, you know, extreme circumstances, somebody's disabled
or whatever, we've got to make provisions for all of that everybody agrees with that. We've got to get rid
of these drop boxes, it's a crime. What happens is a crime. And in the in the in the zeal to make it
easier for people to vote, they opened up a door to criminals. And furthermore, I would say they opened
up a door even to disparate treatment. So if you take these drop boxes, you put them only where poor
people live, or mostly where poor people live, then you created a disparate treatment possibility under
the law. And so drop boxes need to be eliminated then the final thing that I would have recommended
is make this a serious crime. Make people fear what's going to happen to them. Make it make it a 10
70
year mandatory sentence if you if you're the meal runner, that you're causing these ballots to be stuck
these meals don't want to go to jail make it a five year mandatory sentence if you if you're caught
stuffing ballots, you're going to jail for five years.
54:36
Yeah should be offense. I mean it should be no question

100% 100% Now they could stop it but the states could have done all of these things they chose not to.
Here's what we learned along the way and here's why we think that that this that we have a chance to
to overwhelm this. They tried in Arizona to when Carrie lake was running in the primary they tried In
Arizona to say near the end, what the the Republican whoever they were trying to run some lady up
there a 50 year old lady married to a 95 year old billionaire. And they she was out spending this money
trying to get elected. And, oh, that's fine. And you can say what you want about her, you know, I think
she was a fool. But But you notice a few weeks before early voting, they started saying even my
pollster call, we had a pretty tense conversation where he was I said, What is going on? You're sharing
these numbers and these numbers, you know, they're not reflecting what we're saying. He goes, Oh,
you don't know what you're talking about whatever we got in a pretty tense conversation. But it dawned
on me on that conversation. That's the first place they start manipulating, just like you just said, they
start manipulating and start to change expectations amongst the populace, that there is this, this
tsunami of support for these rhinos in that case, or the leftists, and other cases. And, and but but as we
started really looking into it, we decided that they were building their projections based on numbers that
they were injecting into the situation. So you could take what they were saying, and realize that they
were taking those projections. And then that's how they were deciding how much cheating they wanted
to do, how much ballot stuffing they wanted to do, how much Miss county they wanted to do all the
things that they needed to do, they were using those initial projections, because it takes a while to get
this done. You can't just say, Oh, I'm going to change this tomorrow and make it happen. You can't do
that. So what we what we figured out was that if we sat down together all of us and I was fortunate
enough to have an opportunity to sit down with with with some Macquarie's people or campaign people,
some other lawyers and some other people from around the country, some of the American first people,
some other people, and really make up a plan, okay? If This Then That. And we made an entire
contingency plan, if this happens, here's what we're going to do. If this happened, here's what we're
going to do. But the other thing that we did was stop that consciously stop this idea that they that was
going around the state at that time, that everybody needs to vote on Election Day. I'm for that, but that
means everybody, if our side is the only one voting on Election Day, that's how they know how much
cheating they made. Because they can project then you're gonna get this many votes, and they'll have
it down to a few 1000 votes. That's why you always see it, like, you know, that they, they figure it out,
and they get it close. And then you know, it gets, you know, 451 49, and then all of a sudden it flips.
That's all they gotta do. And that's why it happens over and over and over again. But our idea was to
flip the script on that and overwhelm them in the, in the early voting, so that it screws up all their
projections, and they have no way to deal with the overwhelming vote also happening on election day.
So what we what we learned, and this is how we projected what was going to happen on election night,
it took it back to election night it looked it was you know, carriers behind by 40,000 votes and or 41,000
votes. But what was happening is they were counting and certifying signatures, they hadn't already
71
counted those votes. Everything that happened on election night, was the early vote with signature
verification. So the next day, so that was on Tuesday, so Wednesday's count where they added
another 25,000 votes or so was the stragglers, the extra stuff, the yield kava stuff all these extra ballots
that dribbled in or there was just something confusing about them, or they couldn't verify signature, they
were curing signatures, whatever else it was, that happened on Wednesday. And then by Thursday,
what they were counting was the verified signatures from Tuesday. So there were three separate
counts. And, and had, everybody just voted on election day, they would have been able to potentially
overwhelm it by Thursday, when they actually counted Election Day ballots. Our point was just take that
option away from them. So we overwhelmed them with early votes. And and somebody if somebody
wanted to go back on and in truth and look at my timeline.

At one point, you can see it start to roll. And you can see by the time by the time the the early vote was
done counting, it was nearly I think precariat was up by a few 1000 votes. And then by and then she
gained a few more votes on that Wednesday count, which was the stragglers and then by Thursday,
she was ahead and there was nothing they could do. They couldn't cheat enough because we had also
overwhelmed the vote on the Election Day. So, in effect, what we were able to do is finding method to
blow past their cheating. And there was nothing they could do about it. But we had so many
contingency plans if something went wrong, like you're may remember in Pinal County, that they sent
out a bunch of bad ballots, and then the guy that the guy that sent the bad ballots out, backed it up with
63,000 More bad ballots. We had a contingency plan for that. And so we went to Sheriff lamb and said,
Hey, what's going on? He's like, it's like, we're on this blah, blah, blah. So okay, well, we need to watch
because here's what they'll do next. And sure enough, on election day, they tried to act like they ran out
of ballots. We already had a plan for that. So So even for the few precincts that actually ran out of
ballots, we had a plan to get more ballots into those precincts, and Sheriff lamb, and, and others in the
county, the honest people had their eyes on this, they fired the guy. So we had contingency plans for
each of the things that they might do. And that's what we have to do. I understand why people think we
ought to vote on election day, if I had my druthers, I would only vote on Election Day, everybody votes
on one day, give the whole nation that the day off. And everybody go vote on election day, I'm 100%.
for that. I'm also in favor of voting on paper until we get all the tech fixed, we've got too many tech
problems. But if we did that, we could get a good clean count on election night, and everything would
they would go back to some semblance of normal. But that's not where we are. Remember, the
Republican leadership failed to change anything, we still have all the same machines we had before,
we still have all the same algorithms that are running or software that's running those machines, we still
have all this many of the same people that the cheaters that were there before. So we have to build
contingency plans, we have to build to build a method to overwhelm their expectations. In the early
vote, it states, the Dukes, they're still in states that don't do it. But then we have to also overwhelm
them on election day, and there's nothing they could do about it, they won't be able to make the
changes quick enough. And if they do try to make the changes by sending out more ballots by doing
this by doing that, then we're there with eyes on watching this process. I'm not saying it's gonna be
perfect, yes, we're gonna have some mistakes. But I'm telling you that there are prosecutors, right now,
prosecutors that will be completely unexpected, that come forward and nail some of these people for
the cheating, as we approach September and October. And what you're going to see is you're going to
see an absolute fear from the left, because they don't want to go to jail, right? They want to cheat, but
72
they don't want to go to jail. Some of these people are going to be charged with perjury, some of these
people are going to be charged with fraud.
Gregg Phillips 1:02:56

I think I might have lost, no, I'm here. Okay, perfect. Okay, the the, the, some of these people are going
to be doing things that but if we have eyes on, and we have eyes on these drop boxes, and we have
sheriffs that we can hand things off to, and we have prosecutors that whether they're on the right or on
the left are interested in justice and free and fair elections, then we're going to have a great opportunity
to serve to not just survive this, but to but to actually actually overwhelmed this. So rather than thinking
of it as a red tide, i i prefer things I don't know if you know much about what tsunamis actually are. But
tsunamis exit actually overwhelmed and there's more water than there is place for it to be. And that's
what it really needs to be and, and I think we can overwhelm them both sides of this and completely
break their algorithms. Even if they started today, they couldn't fix what's going to happen. Now there
are going to be some places where we're going to lose this there are going to be some places in New
York and other places where they have some other problems and some other softwares that that have
intervened. But there are also more patriots awake right now. And there are more people willing to get
eyes on and to engage. And as I said earlier, Katherine always says, sometimes just voting is not
enough. You also have to work now's that time we need to be ensured that if you can't work, if you've
got, you know, two full time jobs, then you just got to be sure you vote. And you also have to be sure
your friends, your family, your colleagues, everyone vote, you know, pick that old lady up across the
street and drive her to the polls, help her vote. It's up to us now. The government is not going to say the
government is trying to kill you. The RNC doesn't care. They don't want you to win. And so we have to
overwhelm this and it's the only way to do it. It means voting. It means working. It means helping. It
means supporting the patriot movement. Find your true north. We've had a lot of people say things like
well until we fix 2022 or 2020. We can't We can't we're not going to go In 2022, well, that's exactly what
they want you to say. And anybody who says that to you is suspect in my view. The other big thing
that's out there right now, Seth is people saying and some really important, people in the movement are
saying we may not have elections in in, in this cycle. I wholly disagree. There is no means to do it.
People keep saying, well, Biden is going to issue some executive order and do something to keep it
from happening. Biden can't do that. These are state elections, states run these elections. This isn't this
isn't a presidential year where we even have to worry about the Electoral College states run these
elections. It's not going to happen. We're going to have elections. And it's going to happen this year. If
you want to have a contingency plan, where you say, Look, I don't I just disagree with you. And I want
to find out what happened in 2020. Okay, so do we, that's why we're working. That's why we do in the
work that we're doing. That's why we're still I think in the next seven business days, we're going to be in
seven different states talking to prosecutors, we want to fix two. So join us, but you still have to vote.
You still have to work in 2022. If you want to have a contingency that if if Biden does this, then we're
going to, you know, whatever. Okay, but that doesn't. That's that's a that's can only be a contingency.
That's not what's gonna happen. We're 28 days away, actually. Yes, today's Tuesday, we're 28 days
away from early voting in the first early voting states 28 days, they've already printed the ballots,
they've already printed you Aqaba. They already have these ballots out there right now. And in the
early voting, process, once it kicks off, almost guarantees that there won't be anything else that
happens. You cannot wait. You have to work. You have to vote. You have to help other people. But you
have to get people registered. If you know somebody that's not registered, take them and get them
73
registered. Take them, you take them to get in your car, pick them up and take them that's up to you.
Think about if the Patriots just I think I have like 150,000 or something people that follow me. They get
Think about if 150,000 people that just follow me went and picked somebody up and got them
registered to vote. That's 150,000 votes. Right.

And I know I get wound up about this, but but the this misinformation that's out there, and people that
are, are well meaning but just you know, they don't know, elections, they haven't been involved in this,
you know, just because you were really good at your job, and you're really good. Something doesn't
mean that you really fully understand what's going on with these elections. And unless you've watched
these people do this for the 40 years that I have, between me and Katherine, we've been doing this for
over 50 years, we get this, we know how they're going to cheat, we understand the process. So so pick
and choose, you know, who you listen to carefully. But the one thing you can't you can never do is
listen to someone who says, Don't vote. Exactly. Those people are wrong. They have a they have an
agenda that is not yours.
1:08:16
And I think that what you know, what you've shown with Arizona, which was a critical, a critical election
with Kerry Lake is that their fortress is not impenetrable. And that if we do if we overwhelm them, if we
the people take control, we can actually do this, we can cast them off, as as we're supposed to. So
Greg, we're gonna be heading over to Rhys TV for some q&a Very soon on was a few, a few points.
And once we get over there, actually, I want to ask you, whether you think there's a path for Trump to
get back into the White House before 2024. So I want to have that kind of brief discussion are there
because it's something that just is eating away at me and whether we're there's a possibility that how
we can make that happen. And then we also have some other questions that are answering your feels
either or watching live right now. If you want to ask your questions, come join us over on rice TV, it's
free there's a link for a free trial. So it's free today, go over there, set an account up you can come in it's
a very it's a fantastic place. You can get your question answered most likely by Greg which would be
fantastic. But Greg, before we do that, where can people follow you? And what resource have you guys
been working on building resources for people that want to get more involved in the voting process? So
for all people that are watching and actually I'll say really quickly, I really I hope that those you're
watching can share this video. I know right now you're watching live you're hanging on the edge of your
seats. You don't want to do it right now. But after you're finished watching email to a few friends put up
on through social put on Telegram, Facebook, you'll probably get banned on Facebook for a week or
so. Unfortunately, it just Facebook and it is how it is but you'll just get this out there and it's just
important for this information to be get out a The details you've given us about how we can actually
make this election successful. But also, I feel like our conversations has really helped people see that a
lot of you who the real enemies are and really seeing China's role in our election system and what the
threat is So, you know, so again, share this show. And also, Greg, if you feel let me know if I can pull
any websites off or something but let me know where should people go to get more involved in what
you're doing both on the ground or to support what you're doing I want people to really know how to
access your your work.
74
Well, first of all, let me say through the vote.org Katherine and the true devote team are doing some
amazing things and creating some amazing opportunities. So true the vote.org and sign up and and I
promise you, they'll fill it can get you engaged. The second group is another group that Katherine
founded with Sheriff Mark Lam. And that's Protect America dot vote, protect American vote, there's a
cool video up there, you can kind of see what they're doing. You could sign up there, you can nominate
your sheriff to participate with us. It's a key thing to do. TEF America, games dot.as. For me, patriot
games.com. We started it as kind of a just a little podcast because we were what we're hoping to do is
create sort of a reality podcast so that as we were going to educate people on what we're doing, we
have a fusion data fusion center that we're pulling people into, it's called Ground fusion. You can
access dot.com, okay, and think of it as sort of a Rio reality podcast, we're going to you're going to be
able to listen in to us and our analysts. We're going to be taken, we're going to be taking information
that we gather from people in the field, we're going to be working that information, and we're going to
show you how we actually run ops. So that's a kind of a fun thing, if you're interested in doing that, in
man between the three of those and folks like you, Seth, and so many others that are out there. Let's
see, we're on rumble. You're on rumble Catherine's on rumble. I think I think hers is true the vote I think
mine's real patriot games. And, and then she's on locals. We haven't started on locals yet. I don't know
that I actually will. But I think she's got a Monday night show at 6pm, Central 7pm. Eastern, where that
she's bringing folks in and and really doing a good job and having an interesting conversation on her
local show. So we're everywhere all the time. We're spending as much time as we can talking to folks.
And as we start approaching this election, and and really get back into the cycle where folks need to be
thinking about, you know, what, what can I do? Reach out to one of those groups reach out to us, we'll
absolutely join with you go lock arms, I may not agree with everything you think. And you certainly won't
agree with everything, I think. But you know, if we're all heading in the same general direction, and
God's freedom and the true north, that we can all agree on that all our shields with anyone, and I'll
trudge forward, I don't need to agree with you on every single issue, I don't need to agree with you that
you're only out to vote on Election Day. It's just a difference of opinion, where we all know is that we
have to overwhelm this this time. And we have to beat these people back at the polls, and there's
nothing they can do if we do overwhelming.
1:13:18
I couldn't agree more. I think you'd probably agree on most things. And that's my my guess. But again,
it's that the the fundamental thing is that look, whether you're liberal or white, or black, or gay, or
straight, doesn't matter. Like all of us as Americans right now we're free, right? We're one of the freest
countries in the world. And they're trying to take that away from us. And so I really hope that every
American can really recognize what's at stake here. And, and just stand up and fight for it. Because we
have to, and we also have to really help our fellow citizens, even the ones that are very brainwashed,
see the truth of what's happening and get them to realize that it's not just the the Magga that are having
their freedoms taken away. That's just the first step, right? Because at the end of this, every person in
America has a freedom taken away, go look at Communist China look at their social credit system.
That's what we're up against. And the more Americans that can realize that, then the more we can
stand together and lock shields, as you say, to fight against this enemy. So right, so folks, we're not
going to head over to Rhys TV for the q&a portion. Also, I want to dig into what you think is unfolding
with Trump because it to me, it seems like they're trying to take some some pre emptive steps to
prevent him from getting in, obviously, in 2024. But, you know, it could be that they're trying to prevent
75
things from happening sooner than that. So I really want to hear your thoughts on that. So again, folks,
if you want to come join us, there's a link for a free trial in the description below. pay rise TV is a patriot
own streaming platform. So by if you want to choose a stick around, it's 10 bucks a month, it's up to
you, but it's a great way to support the work that I'm doing and my team is doing and so I hope to see
you there. So, again, all you They're watching, thank you so much for watching this on the public
platforms Dom, you can go ahead and cut those public feeds. And now we're going to be on rice TV
exclusively. So, Greg, as it relates to Trump, I know there's been, I don't want to get too deep into the
rabbit hole because I've dug deep into devolution, a lot kind of stuff. And, and that's a longer
discussion, right to kind of get into that. But, I mean, do you think that, especially if we can really do well
at the midterms and we can take back control of a lot of the major Institute's in DC? I mean, is there a
76
Gregg Phillps_Patriot Games_Episode 6

Gamechanger
Sun, 9/4 12:53AM • 46:03
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
vote, people, election, sheriff, overwhelm, began, catherine, ballots, folks, fbi, cheat, project, early
voting, information, happened, patriot, started, count, games, support
SPEAKERS
Gregg Phillips, Catherine Engelbrecht

Hey y'all, welcome to our first Patriot Games Update.

One of the things that I've been concerned about is that we're not getting enough quick, relevant
information in in the context of the normal weekly episodes that are coming out. So we thought it would
be a good idea today to bring the illustrious leader of this pro election pro election integrity. Movement,
Catherine Engel Breck my business partner, my best friend and the leader of assault. So Catherine,
welcome to Patriot Games.
Catherine Engelbrecht 00:47

Thank you for having me.

You know, over the last few weeks, since we had the pit, it's just been like one thing after another, and
I've been meaning to do this update and really kind of get people up to speed on all of it. And we've
been on podcasts, you were in Pennsylvania the other day and, and had some amazing experiences. I
want to talk a little bit about that. But what I really hope to get to today is really, let's give some people
some guidelines, or some rails on how to think about this tiger project. And what we announced at the
pit, which is now getting some new legs. Second thing, I think we ought to really spend a little bit of time
with his let everyone know what we just started a few minutes ago, and how all that's gonna roll out
with law enforcement and prosecutors over the next few weeks. And then finally, I think it's worthwhile
to spend a little bit of time talking about voting, we're 27 days away from the first early election votes.
And so I think it's helpful to folks, if we you and I spent a little bit of time just talking about our point of
view, not that we want everybody to agree with us. But our point of view, I think, is slightly different than
some of the
77

some of the voices that are out there saying vote only on election day.

All right. And with that, so let's jump in Catherine, let's talk a little bit about the tiger project. If you from
your perspective, if you just give everybody a little bit of idea of what we learned when we learned it,
what's happened since then I'll add a little bit of color from my point of view. And let's kind of lay this out
for everyone so they can hear it in, you know, 1015 minutes.

Sure. So Tiger project

wasn't actually called the tiger project. Just recently, we didn't call it anything we just weren't talking
about. It started for us back in January of 2021. And it was right alongside what ultimately became the
mules project, neither of which, at the time of our beginnings could we have ever anticipated they would
take us on the Odysseys that they each have in their own way. So we know what became a Neil's and
the geospatial data. But this project was

focused in a different way, I've long been concerned about securities related to the software that is
used to manage elections. So it's very different than the hardware and the machines and the things that
have really occupied a lot of the

national conversation since 2020. I was really more interested in the fundamental underpinnings of how
you the nuts and bolts, how you now use stage and deploy an election cycle bond cycle. And so we
started to look at those software's and began to file open records requests, requesting from counties
what their what their information, what kind of software they were using, what those contracts look like.
And in the process, we stumbled across a particular company that gave us pause it just things didn't
seem right from the from the phrasing on their website to the promises made in contract.

Something wasn't, wasn't square. And that was proven to be accurate. When we pulled in Greg's team,
and asked them to take a deeper dive doing some basic tests of around the

very basic security of the software itself and and how it was managing the highly private and secure or
sensitive data that it was responsible for. So I don't know if you want to pick it up from there. But that's
that's how it started. Yeah, well, after we did that, that was about the third week of January and 2021.
And what emerged from that was really a whole sort of awakening for us as analysts and looking at all
of this and being able to then report back to you and ultimately given our
78
assessment that this had major national security implications, we needed to move forward. And we
needed to be able to share this with the FBI, which we ultimately did. Over the ensuing 1718 months,
our team and Katherine and some outside contractors and some other people really began to really dig
into this issue with this company that was running the selection management software, the company is
based in Michigan, just outside of Lansing. And as we began to unpack all of this and really say, Wow,
this is really incredible. One of the first things that really came to us was that this data from this
company, and these apps apps.connick.com is one of the one of the URLs lives in China, it lives on the
main Unicom backbone in China. And that came back to us very quickly. But as we went through the
process of really trying to ascertain whether this was real or not, all of a sudden, the company, you
know, got wind of what we were doing. And they started changing a few things on their side. And even
to this day, as analysts are beginning to look at it, I would encourage all of you that are doing this
analysis on these guys, be sure you save your work, be sure you get screenshots, be sure you record
it, anything that you're up to anything, and archive it, because it's going to disappear. And you can
count on that. So as we began the process of really, really, you know, unpacking all of this and doing it
with the FBI, we learned all sorts of things, they had some information that we didn't have, we had to
information, they didn't have an across a period of 17 or 18 months, we engaged with them as an
operational asset and a counterintelligence operation that really span the gap, that distance of time,
between January 2021, and late spring, April, May of 2022. The information that we ultimately
gathered, while it's been dramatically augmented by the Anons, and by people, since the pit, that have
been doing research and doing some amazing work, I mean, gathering what you talk a little bit about
what some of the people have done. But what we've learned has really led us now to a path wherein
we had hiccups along the way the FBI betrayed us first they were they were with us for 18 months then
and for a period of time, they were against us and, and we're blaming us for having stolen the Chinese
internet and all manner of other nonsense. And so you know, for any of you that kind of wonder who I
am, just remember, just put this down on your notes, that I'm the thief that stole the Chinese internet for
whatever that actually means. That's what they accused us. And as it began to, you know, dissipate
that kind of stuff, we started to realize that the there was so much more to what was actually
happening. And even though we were being betrayed, and the script was flipping on us, and they were
blaming us, there was still a story to be told. And that story was that this software is still installed in we
don't even know how many jurisdictions in the country. We know that installed installed in hundreds, I
think their website, or somewhere in some of their their marketing materials is 1000s of locations in the
United States. But we also know that it's installed in Canada, it's installed in Australia. There's some
references to Mexico, although we haven't seen any real installations there. But primarily, it's in the
United States. Their programmers are Chinese, Chinese national, some that ran the the
communications for the Confucius Institute, a group that was, you know, soundly kicked out of here by
by Secretary Pompeo. And it just goes on and on and on and on. And the more we uncover, the more
frightening I think it actually becomes.

Absolutely, and the the closer we get to midterms you know, you and I have long talked about you
know, we have a responsibility. We know when when the as you say that the script was flipped on us
by the FBI, we had an option, right, we could just have chosen to stay silent and hope that somebody
did something, but that's never been our way. And so the thought of the pit was really to provide a a
platform to share this. And you know, that's a whole nother matter of discussion. I mean, we present a
79
lot of things at the pit. It wasn't ever supposed to be video that kind of happened at the last minute and
we're glad that it did for sure half a million or more people saw a lot of information but what you didn't
see was that very last piece, where we sat down with the 150 some odd people that were and shared
this very story. And we asked for their help, because all indications, as far as we could tell was that we
had been made the target, and that things were heating up in a not good right way for us. And so we
we gave them all of our source material. And as much background as we could and guidance as as we
were not able. And we said, go for it. And I mean, to tell you, here we are little more than two weeks out
from that event. And the amount of research that has been done, and I'm talking solid, reliable, well
sourced, well drawn papers. It's just breathtaking. And so this, this community has developed around
proving out, you know, frankly, what the federal government was not. I don't know if they weren't able,
but they certainly weren't willing to take on and in our token was able to turn to the jurisdictions where
we know it's installed and begin to have conversations at the local level, or whatever level, I mean, at
this point we're in with with attorneys general and district attorneys, and sheriffs, and governors, and
any level that will, that will take action to do what we can to stop this from happening again, in the
midterms. And I really, I can't I don't think, overstate how significant this discovery is, and how
important it is that we stand together to secure our elections from enemies foreign and domestic. And
it's happening, it is happening on our watch. And so that's, that's what we're doing right now. It's, it's
what's gotten, it's taking all of our attention, we're traveling to as many jurisdictions as we can, to begin
to lay out options or support potential options for investigations or prosecutions.

Catherine, I can't say enough about some of the anons and how they've stepped up. Many folks don't
know that, through all of that it was actually ended, it didn't start out to be this way. But it actually ended
up being a bit of a recruiting mechanism for through the vote. And, and you bringing in a couple of
people, I think we're bringing in a couple of folks that we met. And really, it's a credit to these folks that
have, you know, long sort of been anonymous and stood in stood in, you know, the shadows and, you
know, kept trying to crank information out and they were dissed and made fun of and you know, called
Q anon followers, whatever that is, and, and so on and so forth. And, and but as you really think about
what actually happened here, you know, one of our greatest challenges, Katherine, and I don't think
there's any surprise to any of the listeners, that our circle of trust is about this big, we trust no one and
it's because of the trails. And it's because of things like the FBI, it's because of, you know, people that
we some people that came to the pit that were turns out, we're probably government assets, maybe,
maybe maybe sent there as plants and, and, but to know that some of these folks have have emerged
in our world as being some of the most top quality researchers that in open source space, especially,
that I know, anywhere in the world today. It's truly amazing.

Alright, so I think it's inspirational, you know, the story, when it is told, and it will be told in full and
hopefully in technical or on big screens, we will, we'll see if we can pull that off. But that's, that's
underway as well. It's, it's so it's so motivating and heartwarming, and every positive emotion, one can
have to see that when the chips are down, as they were that day in, and we said, okay, so cameras off.
This is what's going on. And this is where where we are at with this. And this is the situation that we find
ourselves in. And can you guys help that crowdsourcing of truth? And getting getting answers more
quickly than we could have ever previously imagined and seeing it happen? in near real time has just
80
been, it's changed. It's, I'll tell you what, it's changed the way I think about Patriot Games, right?
Because now I'm thinking, Okay, let's check this one off the list. And we have, you know, a dozen
others that we want to approach similarly. And then let's look at it you know, I mean, there's nothing,
there's, there's there's no subject that we couldn't tackle in this way. It's very, I think, empowering. Need
to really wrap your mind around, you know, even though the federal government had chose to do what
they did and wasted a lot of time and in the process, you know, we find ourselves now maybe better off
than we've ever been. Because we've got a growing group of people that are becoming more and more
familiar with working together and getting get in the facts together, getting this getting the truth out. And
I just think it's everything good about America, you know, when that when we stand and fight together,
there's nothing that can come against. And so it's, it's very encouraging. And it gives me great hope for
the for the many problems that we have in this country, we can be reminded that if we stick together,
the same method is the same approaches can be applied time and time again. And locally, we can hold
the line.

Well, that's what we had really hoped for, I think, and maybe maybe we had lost a little bit of hope. The
ground fusion center, which is going to be a data collection center for us, is a arguably one of the most
important things that we're going to do going forward. Starting now we're going to expand on the data
centers we have, we're going to create new acquisition mechanisms, we're going to create new data
sources. We're going to access new data sources, we're going to provide all sorts of analytic
capabilities, not just tools, but also the data, we're we're going to be actively working with folks in the
community to really join us in this in this analysis, join us in this effort, not just join us in in the analysis
of things we already know. But really helping us find new targets, not just helping us find them, but
exploiting what we find. And so as we finish all of this, and really get to the endpoint, and I think the
endpoint is dissemination. We have not we have, we have not as a movement really had a clear and
clean means of dissemination part of that is true because the mainstream media won't cover anything
we do. They didn't cover 2000 meals. But yet we disseminated it. They won't cover this, but yet we've
disseminated it. The the you can tell we're over the target because they keep coming in and banging on
us. I think NPR has been banging on his again. Philip bump, I think is on an article 19 or something of
hate around around all of that, we got a message from the New York Times that they're wanting to write
some more hate about us and this time, right a little bit about this, the tiger project. And really, even in
their questioning, they were sort of making fun of us and making fun of the anons and making fun of
things that we found in that, that our researchers have found and that we've talked about. And I gotta
tell you, this is a new way. This is a new way forward. And being able to do this and have a an outlet, a
set of mechanisms, whether they be some of the great podcasts that are out there. I think Dan bond,
Gino was talking about some of this again today. And it it's it's a it's a sea change in how we push out
information. So it's not just gathering it. It's not just analyzing it and exploiting it. But it's also
disseminating it and how we disseminate it and through whom do we disseminate? It is critically
important. On the call before this one, everybody to know that we have begun the a, I don't know, a
new push to get all of this information into the hands of law enforcement get this information into the
hands of district attorneys and other prosecutors. And we started that today. In fact, the call just before
this one, Katherine led with a sheriff in a a major county in the United States. And we presented all of
the Tiger project information we offered to support them. Katherine, can you first of all talk a little bit
about how important your Protect America dot vote initiative is, but also let people sort of feel how that
81
presentation went. And how important it is to have the backing of some of these open source
researchers and open source data gatherers in our presentations.

Sure, well so protect America dot vote. That's actually the name of the website Protect America dot
vote. And it's a project come true the votes that grew out of the realization that difficult realization that
federal government and for the most part, a government was so heavily politicised, and in this season,
that means that, you know, we were we were timing again becoming a target. It was just futile to spend
time trying to unpack any of this with them, we we learned that through the 2000 meals project. So as a
sheriff's began to come forward relative to that saying, Hey, if you haven't, you know, information on the
geospatial stuff, we'll take a look at it. Well, when when it came time to find another path for the tiger
project, we knew that sheriff's would would be there. And so in the mix of authorities that we are going
to we, as Greg said that the presentation that we just finished up previous to this call was with sheriff
and his his team. And the what they have to do, then is fine to deal with to get this into court or to get,
you know, to get the next steps in play, but they have authority to initiate these investigations. And it's
really, really encouraging so so protect America dot vote is is a way for you to go and nominate your
sheriff to be involved. And the goal of the program is to provide those sheriffs with information about
election laws and what they can do, how they can help stand in that gap and defend their constituents
from abuse of process that really just breaks down to in the law says one thing, another thing is
happening, bring that to the attention of your sheriff will bring that to the attention of true the vote
through our election integrity hotline, and then we'll bring it to the attention of your sheriff. But that's
that's a, you know, an initiative that started this summer. And I think it's going to be here to stay, I see
so much growth potential in that, and this bringing together of local law enforcement, and the citizenry
and voters you know, in particular, because just as we seen, I mean, even more times than I care to
remember in the last two years, just the lawlessness that has become the norm at the federal level and
most state levels as well requires that we come up with new ways to safeguard our, our backyard. And
so that's Protect America dot vote. And it has has, you know, proven to be a natural inroad for us with
the tiger project. And we are traveling all over in these next week and a half or so just with all of the
jurisdictions that we know of, and as many as we can get to, to get something going. And so far, it's
been really, really positive. So I'm very optimistic. It's it's a very, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts,
Greg. But for me, it's a very different feeling like when we were going in presenting the geospatial
information, I was just so you know, naive. I mean, I really thought like, Hey, this is a predicate to an
investigation. And surely you see this and surely this is going to mean that you're going to get involved
and bring your resources to bear and you know, and to see the see the failure, I mean, just just the
repeated failure of law enforcement to to do what they ought to do. Was was difficult. But I think maybe
it's, it's hardened me in a way that now I'm, I know that when we go into these meetings, we need to
have the beginning the middle of the end, don't expect anything, they just lay it all out. And in this
instance, tiger, we're able to do that. We don't need their help, we can show them everything. And we
can do a lot of good, because we've got to stop what's going on.

Yep, Patriot Games was started as a an effort that I just wanted to be able to allow people to participate
in what we're doing and understand what we're doing and get ready and frequent updates to what we're
doing. And today was just an additional reminder, and I'm so glad you came on to help me with this
82
update today. Going from Texas, to Florida, to Pennsylvania, to Michigan, to Kansas and to Arizona
and to California. We are really sort of reaching not just into the heartlands, but reaching into the, you
know, sort of the den of the bad guys, right. I mean, we were I think we we both and everybody we
know are experiencing some spiritual warfare. It seems like every time we go to do something in one of
these communities, you know, something bad happens to one of us or they take a site down or they
send us a you know, the technology folks send us a zillion dollar bill for something that we didn't know.
And, you know, and it's really just this process, I think of, of dealing with, with the Patriot Games. And
just for those of you who you know, tend to want to, you know, not really pay attention. Games is a
euphemism for battle. It's a euphemism people, it's a literary device, so don't get all upset, we're not
playing games. It's a it's it's another word for battle. And so, anyway, I'm just so excited to be part of it.
And even though I had to bounce on and off the call with the with the last Sheriff, you know, knowing
that at the end of the week, you and I are going to be sitting in front of some people that are about to
bring this work to, to a grand jury for the first time, and we're looking at, you know, some potential
significant movement. We've gotten the support of, of a major prosecutorial office in the United States,
and they are moving and they are moving this along. And I just have no way to express how exciting
this is, after everything we've been through and all of the dismissals and all of the lies and all of the
Philip bump articles in the New York Times and MPR, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, to know that we are
already starting to contact law enforcement and they are moving forward. We have prosecutors that are
moving forward from a prosecutorial perspective. And we are opening up more and more and more
doors. So as all of these Patriot Games continue to open, and all of these doors continue to open and
true the vote, you know, walk is leading the way through these doors. This, we are not just moving the
needle like we did with the mules. We're making changes now. Because if they say that they're going to
go to prison and some of these companies that are running these bogus operations, and and really, you
know, selling out America and you know, as it says in one of the Patriot game songs, the quislings I
mean, that's who these people are. These people are traitors, they're quislings, and they are supporting
not just foreign operators or foreign operations, but foreign infiltrations into the United States, and the
left the media, and now possibly even the FBI and other agencies in the federal government are
supporting this nonsense. This is crazy.

I agree. I agree. But that brings us to the next subject that I think we're going to talk about, you know,
how should people even in hearing this? How should they then feel about voting this election cycle?
Because we've laid out some pretty ominous situations? Does that? Does that alleviate us from the
need to still participate?

Yeah, this, this has been something I've been on a rant on for the last few days on a few few other
podcasts. And I appreciate you bringing it back up again. So I do want to close with all of this. Anyone
who tells anyone else not to vote for any reason is you should consider them suspect you should
consider them a plant you should consider them the enemy. Anyone telling you not to vote in these
midterms is wrong. They're wrong. They have another motive. They have something else going on? It's
not you shouldn't say Oh, well, because until we fix 2020 We're not going to vote in 2022. That's not
really the option. Catherine, you've long said that. Sometimes it's not enough to just vote. And this is
one of those times.
83

That's exactly right. If you don't vote, that's the sure outcome. Right. If everybody stays home well then
we all know what we're going to get we've got to stick together we've got to hold the line the the
process may not be where it ought to be. But if we stay engaged the we have a shot if we just pack up
and leave it does not does not go well for this country. We've got to stay on those front lines and part of
that is voting and serving so you know as I've been saying about for years, but particularly now don't
don't just go in and think you know what, I'm gonna get my vote and get my I Voted sticker and you
know, I'm golden. Don't do that this time. Look at that calendar. Consider when you're early election
start, see if you can take a few days off and go work early election or if you can take election day off
and work. There are so many other options you can work on an absentee ballot or may Alan ballot
review boards where you're looking at Signature verifications and, and the standards around the
processing of those ballots, you can work on Central account, you can be a poll watcher, so even if
you're not hands on, in the election process you can observe. So there's so many ways and for more
information about how to get involved, you can go to the tree, the boat website through the vote.org,
and click on my state, choose your state. And then there are just all kinds of links that tells you exactly
how to how to volunteer, depending on your state, every state does this a little bit differently, but the
links will guide you. And then that's kind of step one. And then step two is understand that you're,
you're working with government. And chances are that you're not going to get a call back, you're not
going to hear anything. So you've got to get it in your own mind that you're going to continue to push
this issue on your side until you find a way into working in that election. And that's that I mean, that's it.
Look, it's not, you know, it's not as simple or easy as any of us would like, but it is what it is we're in this
together. And we must hold this line now. So the voting this time is not enough, we must vote. But we
also need to serve,

I'm gonna take it off on a little slightly different turn, Catherine, that I know you're a 501 C three and
really, really can't participate in this piece of this conversation. So I'll be I'll lead this chunk of this.

And I'm going to hum, yeah, let

me let me just let me just start with this. The first thing is, if you still believe that 2020 matters to you, we
do two, we're still in the fight. That's what all that's what we're going to all these law enforcement
meetings about. And we're not giving up on it. But if you're, you know, if that's your, your primary focus,
Okay, jump in, we need plenty of help, believe me, all these anonymous research and others, we are
happy to have more people jump on board. And we are actually moving the needle there. So 2020, if
you're so inclined, keep working on it. That doesn't alleviate you the responsibility to vote. But it also
doesn't alleviate you with the responsibility to get as Catherine pointed out, to get eyes on, you have to
get eyes on this election as some piece of this process, go work in the polls, work for a candidate. You
know, just go sit out by a Dropbox, I think there's a movement around to do those kinds of things.
We're, you know, be careful and don't don't confront anyone. But but, you know, we think that that's a
possibility. And we're going to be providing, I think some apps and some access to some other ways
84
that we can gather the information quicker. But the what the fusion center is going to be doing is
gathering all that information and then handing it off in near real time, to the sheriff's and to other law
enforcement folks. That can take action. That's how you affect 2022. So we work on 2020, if you want
to, we want you to we're doing it, we want we need you, we also need you to be engaged in 2022. And
that doesn't just mean voting. The final thing I want to talk about this, it's just harder. So I'm going to
take just a few seconds to kind of give some backdrop on it. The reason that Carrie Lake one in
Arizona, is because they overwhelmed the vote. They overwhelmed early voting and in Arizona they
early vote for a month, there are states that are going to start early voting for 2022 and 27 days, 27
days think about that. We're going to be early voting, and they're going to be early voting for six weeks.
There are states that for four weeks, there are states for two weeks, but there's early voting out there.
Here's what we've learned. When they cheat, they want they need to be able to predict. And they have
some incredibly accurate prediction mechanisms. They are all generated from the from the perspective
that Republicans conservatives and others will stay home during early voting and only vote on Election
Day that helps them meet their predictions and it helps them build the algorithms and formulas that
allow them to inject more into the cheat. That's what they do. What we learned in Arizona was that
there's two component three components to this. The first thing is we have to overwhelm them in early
voting, we have to overwhelm them in early voting. The second thing we have to do is we have to
overwhelm them in on election day. If you do both, or if you only do one if you only vote heavy on
election day, they can predict that they have great prediction tools, they will beat you they beat us in
2020 doing that they think they beat us in 2016 Doing that we just over whelmed them in the polls,
overwhelm them early, it will cause them to make mistakes. They will try to change something that they
couldn't change in Arizona, there was a situation where a an election official panicked and said, he said
sent out some bad ballots. And to fix it, he sent out more bad ballots. And so 63,000 bogus ballots were
sent into the system. But because we had eyes on, we were able to catch it. But we what really
happened was, he panicked because he did he he realized all of a sudden that early voting was going
to overwhelm their predictions. And that's what happened. The second thing that happened was having
a an understanding of process. And having a knowledge of the process of what those predictions are, is
critically important. The other thing that happened was, you may remember on election day in Arizona,
on Tuesday night, they stopped counting. The reason they stopped counting was those ballots that they
counted on Tuesday were the early votes, whose signatures had been verified. So they stopped taking
early voting, they verified their signatures. And that count that you saw on Tuesday night was the was
the early voting

signature verification count. They were expecting to be ahead by beating carried by 100,000 votes in
that 100,000. The reality was, we were watching it in as some of you saw me a true social I was I was
actually doing this sort of live. Once it got to about 41,000. And it topped out, we knew we had one,
then you started seeing it click down click down click down by the time they were done with early
voting, because we overwhelmed the vote. It was basically even I think Carrie was ahead by a couple
1000 votes or something like that. When Tuesday voting counting stopped. On Wednesday, there was
a smaller number of votes added to the count. And those were stragglers, those were you Aqaba votes,
those were votes that you know there was something wrong maybe maybe votes that they had to cure
a signature or something like that. And there was a smaller vote by then we were ahead. Carrie was
ahead by even more. We, at Tuesday night, when or early Wednesday morning when they stopped
85
counting. And we were even I think I went on true true social and declared carry one. That's it. They
can't beat us now. And the reason that they couldn't beat us is because they couldn't cheat fast
enough. They couldn't cheat with those interim votes. And they couldn't cheat with what ultimately were
put into the system on Thursday. And those were the Election Day votes that were signature verified on
Wednesday, and then put into the system on Thursday. So by Tuesday night, when when Karis team
and Carrie had overwhelmed the early vote, we knew we had one, they couldn't do anything about it,
they couldn't cheat fast enough. And then Wednesday, once we added to it with some of the EO Cava
votes, military votes and other things, and those signatures were verified, it confirmed further that we
had won. And while there was still a little bit of panic that ensued on on Thursday, amongst the I think
people like us that had been watching this, we knew they had won. In fact, I think I sent Carrie a note,
both Tuesday night, Wednesday. And then finally again on Thursday. Look, you got this thing, they
can't beat you. And sure enough, she she blew it out from there. It was up by by 10s of 1000s of votes.
So my point with all of that is overwhelm the vote, overwhelm them, overwhelm them early and
overwhelm them on election day, they can't cheat fast enough, they don't know what to do. And
because those algorithms are already written, they've already done this, they've already assumed that
this was going that this was going to happen. So So my point is, vote early, overwhelm them. If you're
in a state where you can vote early, vote on Election Day, overwhelm them there. They can't overcome
this, we can overwhelm them with the vote next year in 2023. When we have more state legislators and
we could do a better job of of attacking this, we need to do a bunch of things. We need to get these
roles, clean, mandatory roles cleaning every 30 days. We need to eliminate drop boxes, eliminate
them, eliminate all this mail in ballot nonsense. Do single day voting everybody votes on paper until we
fix the technology problems. And then finally, May these legislators need to be held responsible for this.
They need to make it a certainty and absolute certainty that someone's going to jail if they cheat, make
it a mandatory sentence five years for mules and 10 years for the meal runners, put him in jail, put him
in prison, it will stop it will stop straightaway and so on Our view of it is that we can overwhelm all the
machine problems, we can overwhelm all the software problems if you vote heavy early. And if you vote
heavy on election day, if you're in a state where Election day is all there is, of course, vote heavy there.
Everyone else. Do what you want to do. If you want to vote early, great if you don't want to vote early,
great. But that's Catherine, you know, the kind of the political side of this from an old political operative?
Brett like me, I can tell you, this is the only way to do this.

I agree. I mean, it's it's just it's time to get all hands on deck. And and anybody that says sit this one
out, there aren't going to be there's another room or going right or there won't be midterm elections.
That's nonsense. Engage, and

even if there is, I mean, engage exactly and have a contingency plan if you want to, in case the
elections don't don't happen, but these elections are going to happen. And 27 days, we start voting, the
ballots have all been printed, the machines are being certified now. And once that's done, the only way
to beat that is to overwhelm their projections, and they can't deal with it, folks. All right, Catherine Engel
Brack, thank you so much for for joining us on this, our first Patriot Games update. We covered a lot of
ground with everyone. And thank you all so much for joining us. And Catherine, as always, thank you
86
for your leadership. I think the world appreciate you so much. You're not the left so much. But but the
rest of us do. And thanks again to everybody for joining Patriot Games.

When we started Patriot Games, we had absolutely no idea how we were going to be able to put this
together and Taylor, our executive producer, and and all of us just kind of jumped in and started putting
together equipment and started putting together the pieces that ultimately became this. I'm so grateful
for the the people that have signed up to support us on Patreon. And it's, it's really sort of gratifying and
humbling a little bit. When we first started this and then launched that first episode of the prelude. We
didn't even really know what to think we just kind of stuck it up there, we stuck a camera up there, I
don't even think we had all our lights lit the you know, we had all manner of stuff going wrong. But for
those of you that have chosen to support us through Patreon, I can't thank you enough. We're going to
get you some interesting information, we're going to give you a list of some of the episodes that are
upcoming, and let you have an early look at that. And we'll continue to provide you with new and
interesting information. I appreciate you all so much, please, if you're so inclined, support us on
Patreon. It will help us continue to make this program better for everybody. We have Patriot Games are
super excited about a new sponsor. When we first got into 2000 meals and bought all of that geo data
and really began to dig into it. The one thing we recognized, of course, was that there's a lot of citizens
out there that aren't doing anything wrong, but people are still tracking them. And the cell phones and
the trackers that are in these apps, in spite of what the media seems to have you believe that it can't be
done. And it's just wrong. And you can't tell which side of the street people are on. All of that is false.
There are very few technologies out there that can actually protect you. We at Patriot Games have
partnered with a company called Stratus X. Stratos is developing a technology that is going to allow you
to sign into a hotspot to ensure that your ad keys that your IMEI is that your maids are not trackable by
the bad guys, by the tech big tech companies. And we look forward to this this partnership with Stratus
x. We're going to get the guys from Stratus X on the show and talk a little bit about how can you protect
yourself and your family and your co workers using the tools that Stratus X is developing. So thank you
again to the to the great folks at Stratus x and we look forward to the next big steps in trying to protect
our listeners and everybody else. I can't thank my friends at Warpath coffee enough. My friend
tradeskill started Warpath coffee after being a Navy SEAL. And he sent it to me and declared at that
point that this was the best coffee that he had ever tasted and I 100% agree. Warpath coffee is the best
coffee on the market today. The difference is how they do the roasting. So many of these roasters
especially for the big chains like the Starbucks and all these people, they burn the beans. And so in
burning the beans you have to have extra things put in it so that they can make their lattes and all the
different things that they need. So you need milk and you need all these things to even it out because
the beans were burned to agent his roaster has figured out a way to roast the beans without burning
the beans and in that creation of that carmelization it really softens the drink so that you can drink or
bath coffee black. I drink it black. It's keto friendly. And you don't have to add all the sugars and you
know all the nonsense that folks put into coffee these days. But Warpath coffee is the best coffee that
I've ever had. Please go to Warpath dot Coffee order from stage today. And I promise you won't regret
it.
87
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
3 THE HONORABLE KENNETH M. HOYT, JUDGE PRESIDING
4 KONNECH, INC., Cause No. 4:22-cv-03096
5 Plaintiff,
6 vs.
7 TRUE THE VOTE, et al.,
8 Defendants.
10 HEARING
11 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
12 Houston, Texas
13 October 27, 2022
14
15 APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
16 Constantine Z. Pamphilis, Esq.
Nathan Richardson, Esq.
17
On behalf of the Defendants:
18 Brock Cordt Akers, Esq. (Not present)
Michael John Wynne, Esq
19 John C. Kiyonaga, Esq.
20
21 Reported By: Nichole Forrest, CSR, RDR, CRR, CRC

Certified Realtime Reporter
22 United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
23
24 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography.

Transcript produced by Reporter on computer.
25
88
1 EXAMINATION INDEX
2 WITNESSES PAGE
3 GREGG PHILLIPS
Direct Examination By Mr. Wynne 29
4 Cross-Examination By Mr. Pamphilis 37
5 CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT
Direct Examination By Mr. Wynne 106
6 Cross-Examination By Mr. Richardson 109
Redirect Examination By Mr. Wynne 166
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
20
1 In addition to that, Your Honor, we've
2 asked for compensatory sanctions. My client has spent
3 the last 45 days chasing these guys to get compliance
4 with the contempt order.
5 To this point, we've already incurred over
6 $130,000 in attorneys' fees doing just that, including
7 having to wait here in the courtroom for three hours
8 when Mr. Akers didn't appear for the hearing on
9 October 6th because he had another matter that he
10 didn't tell us about until the last minute.
11 Also, Your Honor, my client has had to --
12 because of their noncompliance, spend money on
13 additional IT security. It has hired people at the
14 cost of $15,000 after the TRO was issued to try to
15 figure out if their system was in fact hacked and by
16 whom.
17 And by them not telling us who all was
18 involved, they've kept us from completing that
19 investigation, so that we can figure out what in fact
20 happened here. And as counsel just admitted, they
21 don't even know if it was a Konnech computer that was
22 accessed. After all of this, they don't even know.
23 Meanwhile, these statements they've made
24 are destroying my client's company, and they're trying
25 to destroy Mr. Yu as well; all based on these
90
22
1 they should also be aware that failing to testify
2 could result in them being incarcerated and held until
3 they give testimony or take the Fifth Amendment, if
4 they believe they're going to criminally implicate
5 themselves.
6 And If they think they're going to
7 criminally implicate themselves, they need to get
8 counsel and get advice from a criminal defense lawyer,
9 who can explain to them what the contempt proceedings
10 are about.
11 This is not criminal contempt. This would
12 be coercive contempt. And the point of coercive
13 contempt is they hold the keys to the jailhouse, as we
14 might say. They can get out any time they want to.
15 All they have to do is comply with the Court's orders.
16 And with that in mind, you may go ahead
17 and proceed with rest of your comments or responses.
18 MR. WYNNE: Yes, Your Honor. I'll address
19 them in order. First, with regard to the photograph,
20 my client is bound, of course, to tell the whole
21 truth. The photograph, as I understand it, is seven
22 years old. So --
23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, the what?
24 MR. WYNNE: The photograph --
25 THE COURT: Are you talking about what
91
92
34
1 of that electronic data that you saw on the monitor or
2 projected on the monitor in --
3 MR. PAMPHILIS: I'm going to object. That
4 calls for speculation. He modified the standard for
5 the witness's testimony by saying to the best of his
6 knowledge.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it as to
8 the form of the question.
9 BY MR. WYNNE:
10 Q. I guess everything is to the best of your
11 knowledge here. So --
12 THE COURT: No, sir. It's true or not
13 true. If he doesn't know, that's the answer.
14 BY MR. WYNNE:
15 Q. Okay. Who else has copies?
16 A. Federal Bureau of Investigations.
17 Q. How do you know that?
18 A. Because post the meeting, Catherine
19 Engelbrecht and I met with the bureau. Told them that
20 it exists, told them who had it, and he transmitted it
21 to the bureau.
22 Q. Did you ever have a copy of the electronic
23 data on your computer or otherwise in your individual
24 possession?
25 A. No.
93
36
1 350-terabyte range, and was downloaded over
2 approximately three months in the first quarter of
3 2021.
4 BY MR. WYNNE:
5 Q. Is that your educated guess as to when and
6 how long it took?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the last part, by whom was this
9 information -- again qualifying who owns and doesn't
10 own. By whom was it accessed?
11 A. Mike Hasson.
12 Q. What's the basis of that answer?
13 A. Because Mike subsequently transmitted the
14 information to the FBI.
15 Q. Now I'm going to move to number 7. And would
16 you read that, please?
17 A. Yes, sir. "Ordered to identify all persons
18 or entities in defendants' knowledge who have had
19 possession, custody or control of any information or
20 data from Konnech's protected computers."
21 Q. Okay. I'm go to add the same qualification.
22 There is some question about whether Konnech actually
23 owned the protected computers.
24 Subject to that qualification, what is the
25 answer?
94
39
1 A. I'm so sorry. I don't recall the meeting.
2 So I assume probably a lot more, yeah.
3 Q. So by your answer, I take it, there was
4 somebody else in that hotel room with you and
5 Mr. Hasson in January of 2021, wasn't there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who was that?
8 MR. WYNNE: Your Honor, I'm object. This
9 is beyond the scope.
10 THE COURT REPORTER: Can you speak into a
11 mic, please?
12 MR. WYNNE: I have to object. Because
13 this is beyond the scope. I also have a concern, not
14 only that, but the answer may compromise a
15 confidential informant of the FBI.
16 THE COURT: How do you know all of this?
17 Have you talked to the FBI?
18 MR. WYNNE: I --
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry. That's a yes-or-no
20 question.
21 Have you talked or discussed this matter
22 with the FBI?
23 MR. WYNNE: This matter, I have not
24 discussed with the FBI.
25 THE COURT: Overruled. Let's proceed.
95
40
1 MR. PAMPHILIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
2 BY MR. PAMPHILIS:
3 Q. Who else was in that room with you and
4 Mr. Hasson in Dallas of January of 2021?
5 A. A confidential informant for the FBI.
6 Q. What's his name?
7 A. I'm not at liberty to say.
8 THE COURT: You are at liberty to say
9 because I'm ordering you to give the name.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm a confidential
11 informant, too. I can't do it.
12 BY MR. PAMPHILIS:
13 Q. You're refusing to answer the question, sir?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. PAMPHILIS: Your Honor, we ask that
16 Mr. Phillips be held in contempt for refusing to
17 answer this question. This concerns item number 5 in
18 the TRO; specifically, who was involved in accessing
19 Konnech's protected computers.
20 This individual was in the room when it
21 was being accessed. He was involved. He should be
22 identified.
23 THE COURT: Let's proceed. Keep asking
24 questions. Let's go.
25 BY MR. PAMPHILIS:
96
46
1 A. It might be.
2 Q. Did you have that information when you went
3 to meet with Mr. Hasson in January of 2021 that he was
4 a confidential informant, as you were told?
5 A. I think so.
6 Q. Did you have reason to believe that
7 Mr. Hasson was someone that you could trust?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. Do you know anything about where he got the
10 data that he showed to you in that hotel room?
11 A. He told me that he accessed it from a server
12 in China.
13 Q. Did he mention the name "Konnech" in that
14 regard?
15 A. Not directly, but it was indirectly related
16 because of the way that he showed me where the server
17 was.
18 Q Were you able to independently verify that
19 that data you were seeing came from a Konnech server
20 in China?
21 A. Was I able to? No, but that's not my job.
22 My job was to -- once I learned it, to hand off the
23 information to the FBI.
24 Q. Your job for who?
25 A. The FBI, as a confidential informant.
97
47
1 Q. Does the FBI pay you to be a confidential
2 informant?
3 A. No.
4 Q. When do you claim you first became an FBI
5 confidential informant?
6 A. When do I claim it or when did it happen?
7 Q. I'm asking when you claim it happened.
8 A. Around January of 2021.
9 Q. So you'll recall on these podcasts that you
10 told your viewers, your followers, that you got this
11 data, turned it over to the FBI, and that the FBI
12 started investigating you. Do you recall that?
13 A. That's out of context.
14 Q. Is that what you said, sir?
15 A. I don't have any idea what I said.
16 Q. You can't recall it? Is it true that the FBI
17 investigated you after you provided this data that
18 Mike Hasson gave you?
19 A. No, it's not true.
20 Q. So if you said that, that's not true; right?
21 A. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just
22 saying that that is not true.
23 Q. Is the FBI investigating you, sir?
24 A. As far as I know, they're not investigating
25 me.
98
99
58
1 A. I don't know the answer to that.
2 Q. You don't know if he's the same --
3 THE COURT REPORTER: Counsel, I did not
4 hear the question.
5 BY MR. PAMPHILIS:
6 Q. So you don't know if Mr. Nguyen is a San
7 Antonio field agent or not?
8 A. I don't believe he's a field agent. I
9 believe he's a representative of the intelligence
10 community in the FBI.
11 Q. Was there anybody else involved in accessing
12 this data in that hotel room that you saw, other than
13 Mike Hasson, yourself, and this person who you will
14 not identify?
15 A. Mr. Hasson was the only one that accessed the
16 data that night.
17 Q. Sir, listen very carefully. I'm asking
18 because the TRO says "anyone who was involved."
19 So was there anybody else involved in
20 accessing that data, other than yourself, Mr. Hasson,
21 and this other individual you won't identify?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you know if Mr. Hasson had the help of
24 anybody else in accessing it before he arrived in that
25 hotel room?
100
74
1 Restate the question.
2 BY MR. PAMPHILIS:
3 Q. Sure. Has anyone told you that they used a
4 default password to access this Konnech data that you
5 were shown in that hotel room in January of 2021?
6 A. I don't have direct -- I don't have a
7 recollection.
8 Q. You don't know?
9 A. I just don't recall.
10 Q. We've seen -- well, let me step back.
11 Have you seen the letters that your
12 lawyer, Brock Akers, was sending to us about your
13 compliance with the TRO?
14 A. I don't know that I've seen any of them
15 actually.
16 Q. Did you see any reference to Konnech's
17 computers being accessed using a default password?
18 A. I don't recall. No, I don't think I've seen
19 it.
20 Q. You're certainly not in a position to swear
21 that that happened, are you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you attempted to access any Konnech
24 protected computer since September 12 of 2022?
25 A. No, sir.
101
84
1 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
2 THE COURT: All of you-all are contract
3 people working on piecework, I guess, for the FBI?
4 THE WITNESS: No, sir. We don't have
5 contracts.
6 THE COURT: But you are engaged by the
7 FBI?
8 THE WITNESS: Not for money.
9 THE COURT: You find things and you turn
10 it over to the FBI?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They call it
12 surfacing the data.
13 THE COURT: When you say you're a
14 confidential informant, that is a formal relationship
15 with the FBI. Do you understand that?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: And that means you sign
18 documents with the FBI.
19 THE WITNESS: No.
20 THE COURT: So you have no formal
21 relationship with the FBI?
22 THE WITNESS: We actually --
23 THE COURT: No, I'm talking about you.
24 Do you have a formal document that you've
25 signed where you are engaged as an FBI informant?
102
85
1 THE WITNESS: We were --
2 THE COURT: I'm asking you about yourself.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. I was engaged as an
4 FBI informant at the time.
5 THE COURT: And that means that the FBI
6 would have a document, that you would have signed the
7 document that would permit you to act in that
8 capacity --
9 THE WITNESS: No, sir. That's not
10 correct.
11 THE COURT: That's the way it generally
12 is, isn't it?
13 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
14 THE COURT: But you never signed any
15 documents?
16 THE WITNESS: No, but when we --
17 THE COURT: I'm sorry. You never signed
18 any documents?
19 THE WITNESS: No, not for the CI, no.
20 THE COURT: What did you sign a document
21 for?
22 THE WITNESS: When the reports are made,
23 occasionally they would ask you to sign something.
24 THE COURT: So you have made reports
25 involving this particular disclosure that you received
103
88
1 telling me. I want to know whether or not it's true.
2 That's the whole point.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it is.
4 THE COURT: And I want to know who these
5 people are. If you don't tell me, then you're going
6 to be held in contempt.
7 THE WITNESS: Who? Which people, sir?
8 THE COURT: The ones that you will not
9 disclose.
10 THE WITNESS: I think there's just the one
11 person.
12 THE COURT: Well, that's one in the Dallas
13 office in the hotel; right?
15 THE COURT: And you said you met with or
16 talked with others in the FBI. You talked general, in
17 a general way, so that you can simply play it loose.
18 I'm not interested in a general conversation with you.
19 I'm interested in evidence.
20 Who in the FBI received this report, or
21 took this report and statement from you?
22 THE WITNESS: The two that were noted in
23 the earlier, in the --
24 THE COURT: I don't know who they are. I
25 think you got to tell me.
104
102
1 THE COURT: Nobody would have known that
2 you were a confidential informant had you not told us.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm not a confidential
4 informant anymore. So I'm more free to do that.
5 THE COURT: When did you stop being a
7 THE WITNESS: A few months ago.
8 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
9 THE WITNESS: A few months ago.
10 THE COURT: These other people -- what
11 about Hasson, is he still a confidential informant?
12 THE WITNESS: As far as I know, yes, sir.
13 THE COURT: Is the other gentleman still a
16 THE COURT: How do you know?
17 THE WITNESS: Because I've been in
18 meetings with him and the FBI.
19 THE COURT: So you're meeting with
20 confidential informants, exchanging information.
21 They're confidential but you're not?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I haven't
23 exchanged anything with them since I stop being a
24 confidential informant.
25 THE COURT: I'm trying to figure out
105
103
1 whether or not I should be talking to the FBI or not.
3 THE COURT: And I'll figure that out. But
4 I want to know how I can get this name from you
5 confidentially?
6 THE WITNESS: I can't give you the name.
7 THE COURT: So you can't?
8 THE WITNESS: I can't.
9 THE COURT: It's not that you can't; it's
10 that you won't?
11 THE WITNESS: I can't.
12 THE COURT: What would prevent you from
13 doing that?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, it would
15 put his life in danger. Beyond that, because I know
16 that he's a CI, you can't just unmask a person that is
17 a CI. This person -- this particular person, Judge,
18 is -- he would be in such extraordinary danger that --
19 THE COURT: From?
20 THE WITNESS: From --
21 THE COURT: China?
22 THE WITNESS: From the cartels. He works
23 on the border. He does all kinds of work.
24 THE COURT: The cartels on the border, as
25 I understand, are drug dealers.
106
104
1 THE WITNESS: Right.
2 THE COURT: So a confidential informant
3 involved in this process has nothing to do with drugs.
4 THE WITNESS: It's the same thing. It's
5 the same CI. You don't distinguish --
6 THE COURT: I been doing this over 34
7 years. I know every confidential informant with the
8 FBI is not in drug trafficking.
9 THE WITNESS: I didn't say he was
10 trafficking, sir. I said he's helping assist against
11 human trafficking and against drug trafficking,
12 against all of the things that are going on in the
13 border. But that's not all he does.
14 THE COURT: Nobody in this room would know
15 that except you are disclosing it now, aren't you?
16 THE WITNESS: I didn't disclose his name.
17 THE COURT: You're just telling us what
18 he's doing?
19 THE WITNESS: Sure.
20 THE COURT: And nobody in this room had to
21 know that, did they?
22 THE WITNESS: It's not disclosing anything
23 private. There is no private information.
24 THE COURT: Well, I said no one in this
25 room would know the role that he plays as a
107
105
1 confidential informant --
2 THE WITNESS: Sir --
3 THE COURT: -- except you disclosed it
4 right now, didn't you?
5 THE WITNESS: This person is --
6 THE COURT: Did you just disclose --
7 THE WITNESS: I didn't disclose his name
8 nor any identifying information.
9 THE COURT: Did you just disclose what he
10 does as a confidential informant?
11 THE WITNESS: One of the things, yes.
12 THE COURT: Okay.
13 That's all I have.
14 Go ahead, counsel.
15 MR. WYNNE: No further questions.
16 THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
17 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, do I take these
18 or give these back? Things that have been --
19 THE COURT: I don't know.
20 MR. PAMPHILIS: There is an exhibit that
21 we ask to be admitted, the photo of Mike Hasson.
22 That's the only one that I put up.
23 THE COURT: Hand them to the lawyers, not
24 to me.
25 MR. PAMPHILIS: May I have Plaintiff's
108
116
1 issue in this lawsuit, the poll worker data that you
2 guys have claimed to have found.
3 Did you ever personally see any of that
4 data?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You did nothing to verify that that data was
7 ever on any of those servers that went through any of
8 those ports that BinaryEdge was showing you. Is that
9 correct?
10 A. Verification from BinaryEdge was sufficient
11 to support what had been provided, to the best of our
12 understanding, to the FBI.
13 Q. BinaryEdge doesn't show you the data. Isn't
14 that correct?
15 A. No. But it shows approximate file sizes.
16 Q. My question is simply: BinaryEdge does not
17 show you the data; correct?
18 A. No. That would be exposure of PII.
19 Q. That is what you're saying Mr. Mike Hasson
20 did, was exposed PII. Is that correct?
21 A. He identified the data. Gave it to the FBI.
22 Q. Again, you never saw that PII? Is that
23 correct?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And so was there a third time that you spoke
109
132
1 take a deeper dived around the security of software?
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, there was
3 someone named John.
4 Q. John what?
5 A. I couldn't tell you.
6 Q. Who else?
7 A. There was someone -- I'm drawing a complete
8 blank. I apologize.
9 Q. What is John's position with Opsec?
10 A. They're all researchers. They all do
11 different things.
12 Q. What do they research?
13 A. Open-source intelligence.
14 Q. Do they research security around software?
15 A. It's certainly possible. Clearly, in the
16 podcast, I said it. And we have open-source records
17 to support findings. So...
18 Q. But you never even saw the data that we're
19 talking about here today. So you don't know what
20 supports -- what you didn't see? So --
21 A. No. That's actually not true.
22 Q. How is it not true?
23 A. The data is one aspect of this. But the
24 insecurities around Konnech's websites, and there are
25 many, are fully available on open-source anything.
110
133
1 You can see it.
2 Q. Let's go through that then. So it sounds
3 like you know how it was accessed then?
4 A. No. I don't know how the data was accessed.
5 Q. So how do you know there are any
6 vulnerabilities?
7 A. You can use BinaryEdge. It will show you the
8 vulnerabilities.
9 Q. How does BinaryEdge show you the
10 vulnerabilities?
11 A. A vulnerability would be, if you're able to
12 reside on the UNICOM backbone in China.
13 Q. And that is a security vulnerability; to
14 access that server? Or is that just a location of
15 something?
16 A. Well, in that particular instance, and I
17 believe this has been submitted along with our other
18 things today, there are host of URLs. Formation would
19 be, for example, vote for L.A., vote for Fairfax, vote
20 for Hillsborough. Those are the front doors to a
21 product called PollChief. That is how Konnech uses
22 its user interface to capture data.
23 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection.
24 Nonresponsive.
25 THE WITNESS: Those URLs resolve on the
111
144
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Did that hard drive contain any Konnech data
3 on it?
4 A. No.
5 Q. The hard drive was just a geolocation data
6 that was used in 2000 Mules?
7 A. It was Arizona-specific data for the
8 jurisdictions in which we conducted the research.
9 Q. Not any Arizona poll worker data?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did Mr. Phillips bring with him to Houston --
12 when he left Dallas, did he bring with him a flash
13 drive, a hard drive, a copy of any Konnech data that
14 he received from that hotel room?
15 A. I don't recall. I don't know. I never saw
16 that if it happened.
17 Q. You don't know if he had --
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. He never showed you a copy?
20 A. No. There would have been no need.
21 Q. Did he tell you what he did that night?
22 A. He told me what he had seen and the need to
23 report it to the FBI immediately.
24 Q. He told you who he was with?
25 A. He told me about Mike, yes.
112
151
1 Q. He was there that night, in January of 2021,
2 in that hotel room in Dallas?
3 A. I don't even have specific knowledge of that.
4 Q. You've been told by Mr. Phillips. Is that
5 right?
6 A. I've been told generally, yes. And so --
7 it's interesting, it's entire possible that we may not
8 even be talking about the same thing. But, yes.
9 Q. What do you think we're talking about?
10 A. I believe I know the third person and I'm --
11 Q. Who is the third person?
12 A. -- very cautious.
13 I am sorry?
14 Q. Who is the third person?
15 A. This is a confidential that I cannot give the
16 name of.
17 Q Has the FBI told you that you can't give us
18 that name?
19 A. I'm not sure what the rules are around that.
20 I wish I had more clarity.
21 MR. RICHARDSON: Objection.
22 Nonresponsive.
23 BY MR. RICHARDSON:
24 Q. I asked you: Has the FBI told you
25 specifically that you cannot give us that name?
113
152
1 It's yes-or-no question.
2 A. No. The FBI has never told me that
3 specifically.
4 Q. So you are refusing to tell us that name here
5 today?
6 A. I just don't think I'm supposed to do that.
7 I can't do that. I'm sorry.
8 Q. Are you aware that at the October 6 hearing
9 your counsel told Your Honor here that the FBI told
10 him they have no interest in protecting this
11 information? Are you aware of that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And despite that statement from your lawyers,
14 what they were told by the FBI, you're refusing to
15 tell me the name of the individual. Is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. RICHARDSON: Pass the witness.
18 THE COURT: I have a couple of questions.
20 THE COURT: So is it your personal choice
21 or decision not to disclose the name of that person?
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 You've never seen the data I think you
25 said?
114
172
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. WYNNE: No further questions.
3 THE COURT: All right. I'm not going to
4 permit any additional questioning unless you can tell
5 me some good reason why we should continue this.
6 MR. RICHARDSON: No further questions,
7 Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: I'm going to reset this matter
9 to Monday morning at 9:00. And here is the message,
10 lawyers and witnesses or parties: If I am not
11 provided, and counsel is not provided -- you don't
12 have to turn anything over to me confidentially. I
13 have the highest clearance of anybody in this country.
14 And so you cannot ask me to agree to keep something
15 confidential.
16 You can work out whatever arrangements you
17 want with counsel about confidentiality. I put that
18 in there to protect you, if want that protection. But
19 you cannot bargain with the Court by asking questions
20 about what somebody will do; if the Court does this.
21 What the Court is going to do, the Court
22 is going to find that these parties are in contempt
23 and that is what I find right now. They're both in
24 contempt of court, and they have until 9:00 a.m. on
25 Monday morning to cure it. Otherwise, they are to
115
173
1 report here, and I will have a U.S. marshal prepare to
2 arrest them until they give up the information.
3 Understood?
4 MR. WYNNE: Absolutely, Your Honor.
6 You may step down.
7 MR. KIYONAGA: Your Honor, I'm unavailable
8 on Monday.
9 THE COURT: I don't have a concern about
10 that, counsel. That's not my problem. I have this
11 lawyer and the lawyer, who he claims he is counsel of
12 record, and that he has authority to speak. The
13 record reflects that counsel, Mr. Akers, is still in
14 the case, and that he represented that he is the
15 attorney-in-charge.
16 So you're not in this at all as far as I'm
17 concerned. If you want to show up, feel free. I have
18 nothing at all to say to you about anything going on
19 in this case. If they want you to ask questions, they
20 should ask you to do that. It's not appropriate for
21 you to jump up and just decide you going to intervene
22 in the case.
23 Understood?
24 MR. KIYONAGA: Yes, sir.
25 THE COURT: Thank you.
116
175
1 CERTIFICATE
5 I hereby certify that pursuant to Title
6 28, Section 753 United States Code, the foregoing is a
7 true and correct transcript of the stenographically
8 reported proceedings in the above matter.
10
11 Certified on October 30, 2022.
12
13
/s/ Nichole Forrest
14 Nichole Forrest, RDR, CRR, CRC
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document 9 Filed onPage: 118in TXSD
09/12/22 Date Filed:
Page11/11/2022
1 of 3
United States District Court
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 12, 2022
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03096
§
TRUE THE VOTE INC., et al., §
§
Defendants. §
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This cause having come before the Court on the Motion of plaintiff Konnech, Inc.
(“Konnech” or “Plaintiff”) for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), and the Court having
reviewed Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Brief in Support (“Motion”), and the supporting affidavit of Eugene Yu, the Court finds that there
is a substantial likelihood that Konnech will suffer irreparable injury if this TRO is not granted.
Specifically, evidence was presented to the Court to substantiate Konnech’s claim that: (1)
Konnech has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its claim against
Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht (“Defendants”) for
violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et. seq., and the Texas
Harmful Access by Computer statute (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.002), as
Defendants have admitted to gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers and
obtaining information therefrom; (2) Konnech will suffer immediate irreparable harm absent the
issuance of a TRO because there is a threat that (a) Defendants will seek unauthorized access to
Konnech’s protected computers; (b) Defendants will use and/or disclose data from Konnech’s
protected computers without authorization; (c) Defendants will interfere with Konnech’s control
1/3
118
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 3
of its protected computers; (d) Konnech will suffer a breach of security of Konnech’s protected
computers; (e) Defendants will disclose confidential information contained on Konnech’s
protected computers; and (f) Defendants will cause a loss of confidence and trust of Konnech’s
customers, loss of goodwill, and loss of business reputation; (3) this harm outweighs any potential
harm that Defendants might suffer if a TRO was granted because Defendants will not be damaged
by being enjoined from committing further unlawful acts, by returning the property stolen from
Konnech, and by identifying how Defendants obtained data from Konnech’s protected computers
without authorization; and (4) the TRO is in the public interest because it is in the public’s interest
to enjoin conduct that the United States Congress has found to be unlawful, to prevent the
disclosure of personal identifying and banking information, and the TRO would in fact benefit the
public’s expectation of integrity in the U.S. election process.
Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that emergency conditions exist, that irreparable
harm to Konnech is threatened to imminently occur and will continue to occur unless Defendants,
and anyone acting in concert with them, are restrained, and that Konnech has no adequate remedy
at law.
Further, this Order is issued ex parte, and no notice was required to be given to Defendants
or their counsel, as there is a risk that Defendants would publicly release the information stolen
from Konnech, or otherwise destroy the evidence establishing their misconduct. It is therefore:
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED; it is further,
ORDERED that Defendants, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with
others, shall be immediately:
i. enjoined from accessing or attempting to access Konnech’s protected computers;
2/3
119
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 3
ii. ordered to return to Konnech all property and data obtained from Konnech’s protected
computers, whether original, duplicated, computerized, handwritten, or any other form
whatsoever;
iii. enjoined from using, disclosing, or exploiting the property and data downloaded from
iv. ordered to preserve, and not to delete, destroy, conceal or otherwise alter, any files or
other data obtained from Konnech’s protected computers;
v. ordered to identify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing Konnech’s
protected computers;
vi. ordered to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom Konnech’s
vii. ordered to identify all persons and/or entities, in Defendants’ knowledge, who have
had possession, custody or control of any information or data from Konnech’s protected
computers; It is further,
ORDERED that Konnech shall post bond with sufficient surety in the amount of $100.00;
it is further,
ORDERED that a hearing on Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction is set for September 26,
2022 at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom 11A.
SIGNED on September 12, 2022, at Houston, Texas.
_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge
3/3
120
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document 11 Filed onPage: 121 in TXSD
Page11/11/2022
1 of 1
121
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 1
122
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 1
123
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 24

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
§
ENGELBRECHT, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
PLAINTIFF KONNECH, INC.’S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND

FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”) requests that this Court order Defendants True the
Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht (“Defendants”) and their counsel of record
to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) entered by this Court on September 12, 2022, based on the following
grounds:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since this Court granted the TRO nine days ago, Konnech has endeavored, on an almost
daily basis, to obtain Defendants’ voluntary compliance with the TRO. Instead of complying,
however, Defendants have treated compliance with the TRO like a game of cat and mouse.
Initially, Defendants took a blanket position that any Konnech data was obtained by an
“independent contractor” and that they never took Konnech data from a “protected computer” and,
therefore, the data they had was not covered by the TRO. However, when Konnech corrected
Defendants’ fundamental misunderstanding of the term “protected computer”—which, as defined
by the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, simply means a computer connected to the
124
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 24
internet—Defendants changed their position to claim that any Konnech data that they obtained
was from a “third party” who “was not contracted to us or paid by us,” that the data was “turned
over to the FBI,” and that they no longer possess any Konnech data. Defendants’ position stands
in stark contrast to their repeated public statements that their “guys” and “analysts” helped them
to obtain Konnech’s data, and their repeated threats to publicly disclose it even after they said they
turned it over to the FBI.
In any event, Defendants now openly admit that they will not comply with subsections v,
vi, or vii of the TRO because they turned over to the FBI what they now say they believe, but do
not know, was Konnech’s data, and because it is otherwise a “matter for the FBI.” In so doing,
Defendants are refusing to identify to Konnech those people involved in allegedly taking
Konnech’s data, how, when and where they took it and who else has the data. Instead, Defendants
have filed a letter addressed to this Court under seal which purports to identify a single individual
(whose identity was hidden from Konnech and the public) that was involved in taking Konnech’s
data, even though Defendants’ prior statements clearly indicated that multiple people were
involved.
The only appropriate description of Defendants’ conduct is contemptuous. Defendants are
blatantly defying the TRO and should be held in contempt of Court for their misconduct.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2022, Konnech filed suit against Defendants claiming, among other
things, violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et. seq., and the
Texas Harmful Access by Computer Statute, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.001. That same
day, the Court issued an ex parte TRO which ordered that Defendants, directly or indirectly, and
whether alone or in concert with others be (i) enjoined from accessing or attempting to access
125
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 24
Konnech’s protected computers; (ii) ordered to return to Konnech all property and data obtained
from Konnech’s protected computers, whether original, duplicated, computerized, handwritten, or
any other form whatsoever; (iii) enjoined from using, disclosing, or exploiting the property and
data downloaded from Konnech’s protected computers; (iv) ordered to preserve, and not to delete,
destroy, conceal or otherwise alter, any files or other data obtained from Konnech’s protected
computers; (v) ordered to identify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing
Konnech’s protected computers; (vi) ordered to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when,
and by whom Konnech’s protected computers were accessed; and (vii) ordered to identify all
persons and/or entities, in Defendants’ knowledge, who have had possession, custody or control
of any information or data from Konnech’s protected computers. (Doc. 9.)
ARGUMENT
Although the TRO was signed nine days ago (Doc. 9) and Defendants accepted service of
it seven days ago (Doc. 14), Defendants have still not complied with subsections v, vi, and vii of
the TRO.1 Konnech has repeatedly sought Defendants’ voluntary compliance with these
subsections of the TRO by letters and e-mails to Defendants’ lawyer dated September 15, 2022,
September 16, 2022, September 17, 2022, and a conference call on September 20, 2022; but
Defendants will not comply. (See Exhibits A, B & C attached hereto.)
1
In addition to subsections v, vi, and vii of the TRO, Konnech has worked extensively to obtain
confirmation of Defendants’ compliance with the other provisions of the TRO. Specifically,
because of Defendants’ contradictory pre-suit statements and threats to release data they now claim
to have never possessed, Konnech is seeking sworn statements from Defendants to confirm their
unsworn representations that conflict with their attorneys’ unsworn statements claiming their
compliance with the TRO. Defendants, however, have still not provided Konnech with the
requested sworn statements or any comments to the affidavits which Konnech drafted for their
review based on Defendants’ attorney’s unsworn representations.
3
126
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
4 of 24
The stated basis of Defendants’ refusal to comply with subsections v, vi, and vii of the
TRO is that “this is a matter that has been turned over to the FBI,” and that “they do not want to
compromise an ongoing [FBI] investigation[.],” which they have admitted is targeting the
Defendants. (See Exhibit D attached hereto; see also Doc. 15.) But before the TRO was issued,
Konnech specifically addressed in its Original Complaint and Motion for TRO the Defendants’
pre-suit statements that they provided the FBI with Konnech’s data, while at the same time
repeatedly threatening to publicly release the data they now claim to not possess. Moreover,
Defendants’ other stated basis for refusing to comply with the TRO—i.e., that Defendants only
viewed a “screen share” of “certain elements of the data” and that the data was merely
“characterized” to Defendants as showing Konnech data, and that Defendants never viewed any
Konnech data that was provided to them on a hard drive by an undisclosed third party—is contrary
to Defendants’ pre-suit statements as outlined in Konnech’s Original Complaint and Motion for
TRO. (See Exhibit E attached hereto; see also Docs. 1 & 5.)
On September 15, 2022, and in lieu of complying with the TRO, Defendants’ counsel filed
under seal an ex parte letter addressed to the Court which states that it identifies an individual
whom they claim is actually responsible for the alleged unauthorized access of Konnech’s
computers and the theft of its data. (Doc. 15.) However, the individual’s name was redacted from
Konnech’s copy of the letter, and Defendants did not otherwise purport to comply with subsections
v, vi, or vii of the TRO. Specifically, subsection v of the TRO required Defendants to identify
“each individual and/or organization involved in accessing Konnech’s protected computers.”
Defendant Phillips previously referred to the persons who allegedly gained unauthorized access to
Konnech’s computers as his “analysts,” and his “guys,” thus signifying more than one person.2
2 See Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, at p. 6 (Doc. 5); see
4
127
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
5 of 24
However, in their September 15, 2022 ex parte letter, Defendants do not confirm that the individual
whose name was provided to the Court is the only person or organization involved in accessing
Konnech’s computers.
Further, although Defendants previously refused to comply with subsections vi and vii of
the TRO because of the FBI’s alleged involvement, they still have not provided Konnech or the
Court with any of the information required by those subsections of the TRO. By their refusal to
comply with the TRO, and specifically subsections v, vi, and vii, Defendants are flagrantly
violating the TRO and transparently seeking to protect those that they acted in concert with from
the consequences of their actions.
Konnech therefore seeks Defendants’ immediate compliance with subsections v, vi, and
vii of the TRO, including making public a fully unredacted copy of Defendants’ September 15,
2022 ex parte letter to the Court. In the event that Defendants do not immediately comply,
Konnech requests that the Court set a hearing requiring Defendants to show cause why they should
not be held in contempt of the TRO. See FED. R. CIV. P. 70(e); 18 U.S.C. § 401 (providing the
Court with power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, for a party’s disobedience or
resistance to its order); American Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 585 (5th Cir.
2000) (“The district court ‘has broad discretion in the assessment of damages in a civil contempt
proceeding.’”) (quoting Long Island Rail Co. v. Brotherhood of Rail. Trainmen, 298 F. Supp. 1347,
1347 (E.D.N.Y. 1969)). Konnech also requests that the Court order that Defendants and their
counsel pay the attorneys’ fees and costs that Konnech has incurred in seeking their compliance
with the TRO as well as sanctions for Defendants’ blatant contempt of the TRO and, should
also Exhibits A-1 and A-2 in support of Konnech’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 6).
128
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
6 of 24
Defendants continue to refuse to comply with the TRO or any other orders issued by the Court,
that Defendants be jailed or otherwise punished in a manner that this Court sees fit.
PRAYER
In sum, Konnech, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court, without a hearing, enter an order
directing that (i) Defendants and their counsel appear before the Court and show why they should
not be held in contempt of the TRO; and (ii) make public a fully unredacted copy of Defendants’
September 15, 2022 ex parte letter to the Court. Konnech, Inc. further respectfully requests that,
after hearing, the Court enter an order: (i) holding Defendants and their counsel in contempt; (ii)
awarding Konnech attorneys’ fees and costs; (iii) sanctioning Defendants for their contempt; and
(iv) for such other and further relief to which Konnech may be justly entitled.
Dated: September 21, 2022
By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

Attorney in Charge
SDTX Bar No. 19378
DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
SDTX Bar No. 24094914
NRichardson@kasowitz.com
(713) 220-8800
(713) 222-0843 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Konnech, Inc.
129
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
7 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that, as stated herein, I have made numerous attempts to obtain Defendants’
voluntary compliance with the TRO, but Defendants have either ignored my requests or outright
refused because they claim the matter has been turned over to the FBI.
/s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

I hereby certify that on September 21, 2022, true and correct copies of the above and
foregoing were forwarded via email and through the ECF system, to all parties and counsel of
record.
/s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

130
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
8 of 24
EXHIBIT A
131
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
9 of 24
Kasowrrz BTNSoN TonRES LLP
I4I5 LOUISIANASTREET, SUITE 2IOO ArLeNre
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77OO2 LoS ANGELES
ConsraNrrrue Z. Denru Pavpxrt-rs MrAMr
Drnecr DrAL: (713) aeO-4452 (7 t3) 2zo-aaoo NEW YORK
Drnecr Fax: (7 l3) ???-OA43
DPav pg ruts@xAsowrrz.coM FAX: (7 r3) 222-o443/o94o N EwnRN
SnN FnnNcrsco
SrLrcoN VALLIY
WASHINGTON DC
September 15,2022
VIA EMAIL
Brock Akers
The Akers Firm
3401 Allen Parkway
Suite l0l
bca@akersfinn.com
RE Cause No. 4:22-cv-03096; Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, et al,,In the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
Dear Mr. Akers
I write in response to your September 14, 2022 letter ("Letter") to seek Defendants'
voluntary compliance with the TRO.
First, the Defendants' refusal to comply with significant portions of the TRO (ltem nos. 5,
6 and 7 in your Letter, which are subparagraphs v, vi and vii in the TRO) because they have
provided the FBI with the same information does not excuse their non-compliance with the TRO.
Your Letter admits the Defendants know who stole Konnech's data, how it was stolen, and who
else has it, but that Defendants will not disclose such information even though the TRO requires
it. Three days ago, Judge Hoyt ordered the Defendants to immediately:
V fl]dentify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing Konnech's
protected computers;
vl. [C]onfidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom Konnech's

132
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document 16 Filed on Page: 133in TXSD
Page11/11/2022
10 of 24
Kasowrrz BpNSoN TonRES LLP
Brock Akers
September 15,2022
Page 2
vll fl]dentify all persons and/or entities, in Defendants' knowledge, who have had
possession, custody or control of any information or data from Konnech's protected
computers.
And, even though the Courl was not required to consider it, the Defendants' allegations of the
FBI's involvement was brought to the Court's attention before the TRO was issued, Defendants'
refusal to provide Konnech with this information directly violates the TRO and is frankly stunning.
This information is essential to enable Konnech to protect its data and needs to be turned over
immediately,
Second, Defendants' refusal to immediately "return to Konnech all property and data
obtained from Konnech's protected computers, whether original, duplicated, computerized,
handwritten, or any other form whatsoever" is also shocking, particularly because it is apparent
that Defendants are acting in concert with others that still have Konnech's property and data. The
basis for your clients' refusal to comply -- that they turned all of Konnech's data over to the FBI -
- is also demonstrably false. In the event that you are planning to make such representation to the
Court, you should first review the Complaint and Motion for TRO carefully as both demonstrate
that your clients have recently, repeatedly and publicly stated that they plan to release, or already
have released, stolen Konnech data to their subscribers and/or others, including The Pit
attendees-even after claiming they had turned over all such data to the FBL
Third, your Letter demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of whether the Konnech

property and data (which your Letter admits your clients accessed) came from a Konnech
"protected computer." While you claim in your Letter that you are not "playing semantics," that
is precisely what your clients' position on "protected computers" demonstrates. Specifically, you
state that your responses to the seven items in your Letter are all "properly modified" by
"Konnech's protected computers." Konnech's Motion for TRO and Complaint expressly define
the term "protected computet" under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, l8 U,S,C. $ 1030
("CFAA"). Further, the TRO expressly states that "Defendants have admitted to gaining
unauthorized access to Konnech's protected computers and obtaining information therefrom." So
that there's no misunderstanding, the term "protected computer" is defined under the CFAA as a
computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication,
including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects
interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States," l8 U.S.C. $ 1030(e)(2).
Your Letter states unequivocally that the Konnech data your clients obtained came from an "open
source." Again, in the event that you are planning to make that representation to the Court, please
review the Complaint and Motion for TRO carefully as both demonstrate that your clients have
publicly claimed that they used a "default password" to access Konnech data which, as a matter of
law, constitutes hacking, and is not "open source" as you claim in your Letter. In any event, the
term "protected computer" has nothing to do with the security features of a "computer" (as that
term is also defined under the CFAA). Rather, a "protected computer" is merely a computer that
is connected to the internet-which indisputably applies to Konnech's computers even with
133
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
11 of 24
K,tsowrrz BnNSoN TonRES LLP
Brock Akers
September 15,2022
Page 3
Defendants' admission that they obtained Konnech's data on an "open sourceo' from the internet.
See Merritt Hawkins & Assoc., LLC v. Gresham,948 F. Supp. 2d 671,673-74 (N.D. Tex. 2013)
(explaining that any computer connected to the internet is a "protected computer" under the
CFAA).r
With the above in mind, we ask that you ensure Defendants immediately comply with the
TRO bv 3:00 PM CT today. Defendants' failure to do so will leave us no option but to seek
immediate court intervention
Separately, in response to your request, we can agree to extend the expiration date of the
TRO. However, since that agreement will require the entry of an agreed TRO, I would suggest
that the parties agree to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction and avoid the preliminary
injunction hearing altogether.
ly,
Z.
I To the extent Defendants intend

to try to hide behind the still yet unidentified alleged "independent contractors" that
provided them with Konnech's data, the CFAA does not limit Iiability to direct access; it penalizes indirect access and
conspiracy to violate the CFAA as well.
134
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
12 of 24
EXHIBIT B
135
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
13 of 24
September 16, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Brock Akers
The Akers Firm
3401 Allen Parkway
Suite 101
bca@akersfirm.com
RE: Cause No. 4:22-cv-03096; Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, et al., In the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
Dear Mr. Akers:
I write in further response to your September 14 and September 15, 2022 letters, and to
again seek Defendants’ voluntary compliance with the TRO in a final attempt to avoid contempt
proceedings.
First, Defendants’ position concerning Konnech’s property and data has repeatedly
changed since the emergence of their attacks against Konnech. Defendants initially claimed at
The Pit—and then repeatedly on podcast appearances and social media postings following the
event—that, as a factual matter, they were the ones who found data and personal identifying
information on 1.8 million U.S. poll workers located on a Konnech Server that was allegedly only
restricted by a default password; that it was Defendant Phillips’ “analysts,” or otherwise his “guys”
(signifying more than one person), who gained unauthorized access to Konnech’s servers and took
data therefrom; that Defendants “took [Konnech’s data] directly,” and that they already did, or
otherwise planned to release the data to their subscribers in an effort to somehow substantiate their
false and malicious claims that Konnech is involved in election fraud or is otherwise affiliated with
the Chinese Communist Party; and further, that this was all done at the direction of Defendants
Engelbrecht and True the Vote.
136
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
14 of 24
Brock Akers
September 16, 2022
Page 2
After the TRO was issued, your correspondence has contradicted Defendants’ prior
statements. In your September 14 Letter, although you admit that Konnech data was acquired by
Defendants, you claim the data and information was obtained by an “independent contractor” who
contacted Defendant Phillips after having first obtained the information themselves. And now,
your September 15 Letter claims for the first time that this alleged third party was not “contracted”
by Defendants as your prior letter claimed (though, glaringly, neither letter denies that the third
party was working in concert with Defendants). Further, and contrary to prior public statements
by Defendants, Defendants suddenly claim in your September 15 Letter that they only saw “certain
elements of the data” which was merely “characterized” by the undisclosed third party as
containing sensitive poll worker data. Unsurprisingly, the repeated change in Defendants’ position
and, indeed, the contradictory nature of it all, makes it impossible for Konnech to take Defendants
at their word.
Second, Defendants have still not complied with substantial obligations in the TRO and
you have still not addressed those items, including in your September 15, 2022, ex parte
communication with the Court.1 Specifically, Defendants have not confirmed (1) who, other than
a single undisclosed third-party and the FBI, in Defendants’ knowledge, has had possession,
custody, or control of any of the information or data taken from Konnech; and (2) how and when
Konnech’s servers were accessed. The answers to these questions is paramount to Konnech’s
ability to maintain a secure system and, therefore, the integrity of the upcoming midterm elections.
Moreover, and most significantly, Defendants were ordered by Judge Hoyt to provide this
information to Konnech immediately 4 days ago.
To be clear, Defendants’ continued failure to comply with all provisions of the TRO will
subject Defendants to contempt proceedings. Accordingly, please immediately provide the
answers to these open questions as ordered by the TRO.
Third, to avoid any misunderstanding, please confirm that your September 15 Letter’s
reference to “True the Vote” encompasses the other two Defendants as well. 2 In other words,
confirm that (1) neither Defendants Phillips, Engelbrecht, nor True the Vote viewed the contents
of the alleged hard drive or connected it to their network or any device; (2) that Defendants
Phillips’ and Engelbrecht’s knowledge about the data is likewise limited to what they were told by
the undisclosed third party and as shown through a shared screen; and (3) that Defendants Phillips
and Engelbrecht have likewise never obtained nor held any Konnech data, aside from their alleged
transfer of said data to the FBI.
1
Your September 15, 2022 ex parte letter only addressed the identity of the supposed hacker, and did not address the
question of how and when Konnech’s server was accessed, which Defendants have been ordered to do.
2
For example, your September 15 Letter states that “True the Vote did not view the contents of this hard drive or
connect it to their network or any device,” that “True the Vote’s knowledge about this data is limited to what they
were told and shown by a ‘screen share,’” and that “True the Vote has never obtained or held” Konnech data. But the
letter is silent as to Defendants Phillips and Engelbrecht.
137
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
15 of 24
Brock Akers
September 16, 2022
Page 3
And fourth, to avoid any further shifts in Defendants’ positions and to confirm that we have
Defendants’ final position on the TRO, we ask that Defendants each sign an affidavit that swears
to the key factual statements identified in your September 15 Letter, and other key facts concerning
Defendants’ alleged involvement (or lack thereof) in accessing and obtaining data from Konnech’s
servers. I do think this would go a long way toward resolving the obvious issues with Defendants’
TRO compliance. If Defendants are amenable, we will draft the proposed affidavits for your
review and if agreed upon affidavits are executed, we are willing to negotiate an agreed preliminary
injunction on the basis of such affidavit and avoid the preliminary injunction hearing altogether.
Please provide me with the information requested in this letter by 12:00 PM CT today.
Sincerely,
/s/ Dean Z. Pamphilis

Dean Z. Pamphilis
138
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
16 of 24
EXHIBIT C
139
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
17 of 24
Archived: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 1:38:27 PM
From: Dean Pamphilis
Mail received time: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:57:19
Sent: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:57:18
To: Brock Akers
Cc: Nathan W. Richardson
Subject: RE: Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., et al.
Importance: Normal
Sensitivity: None
Brock – Though we shouldn’t have to—because the Court has ordered your clients to do so—we have asked repeatedly for your clients to confirm if they know (1) who, other than
a single undisclosed third-party and the FBI, in Defendants’ knowledge, has had possession, custody, or control of any of the information or data taken from Konnech; and (2) how
and when Konnech’s servers were accessed. Stated simply, we need to know if your clients know how the servers were accessed (if at all), and who else, if anyone, has had the
data. Please provide us with this information immediately.
Thanks, Dean
From: Brock Akers <bca@akersfirm.com>

Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Dean Pamphilis <DPamphilis@kasowitz.com>
Cc: Nathan W. Richardson <NRichardson@kasowitz.com>
Subject: Re: Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., et al.
See attached
From: Nathan W. Richardson <NRichardson@kasowitz.com>

Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:40 AM
To: Brock Akers <bca@akersfirm.com>
Cc: Dean Pamphilis <DPamphilis@kasowitz.com>
Subject: RE: Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., et al.
Brock – Please see the attached on behalf of Mr. Dean Pamphilis, which requires your immediate attention. Thank you.
From: Brock Akers <bca@akersfirm.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 3:11 PM
To: Dean Pamphilis <DPamphilis@kasowitz.com>
Cc: Nathan W. Richardson <NRichardson@kasowitz.com>
Subject: Re: Konnech Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., et al.
See attached response.
140
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
18 of 24
EXHIBIT D
141
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
19 of 24
BROCK C. AKERS DIRECT DIAL

_____________ 713/552-0232
BOARD CERTIFIED PERSONAL INJURY
e-mail: bca@akersfirm.com
AND CIVIL TRIAL LAW
TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCACY
NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY
September 14, 2022
Dean Pamphilis
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
Re: Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, et al; No. 4:22-cv-03096; In the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
Dear Mr. Pamphlis:
This letter is in response to your email relating to the TRO against my clients. It was not
until Nathan Richardson sent the waivers to us that we were aware that you had
acquired a TRO. Previously, my clients knew of the lawsuit itself from reading about it
in the press, but not the TRO.
As to that which is covered by the TRO, it is easy for them to comply with its
terms. Despite the allegations to the contrary, my clients did not obtain any property or
data that was used, generated or stored by Konnech on a "protected computer." As you
will learn through the course of this matter, anything acquired from Konnech was
retrieved from an open source. There was no "hacking" involved in getting this data.
The information relevant to the voter integrity issues that was acquired was actually
stumbled upon in the course of doing other research on matters involving security of
elections and election data bases. Neither Catherine Engelbrecht, Gregg Phillips nor
anyone employed or associated with True the Vote was responsible for this data
retrieval. Instead, it was an independent contractor who located the information and in
turn contacted Gregg Phillips.
Mr. Phillips' immediate reaction, knowing and sensing the national security
implications of the information, was to contact the FBI. He did so and handed all of the
information he had been given to the FBI.
The Akers Firm PLLC ,The Clocktower Building, 3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 101 Houston, TX 77019 Phone. (713) 877-2500 Fax. 1-713-
583-8662 www.akersfirm.com
142
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
20 of 24
With regard to the seven items in the TRO, we can respond directly to them. Please
note that all of the items are properly modified by "Konnech's protected
computers." Inasmuch as no data was obtained from a "protected computer" by anyone
to our knowledge, there is nothing for us to produce or to refrain from
doing. Nevertheless, and so that we are not accused of playing semantics on these
matters, we can respond more specifically:
1. We are enjoined from accessing or attempting to access Konnech's protected

computers.  We readily agree to comply with this injunction. We never
accessed or attempted to access Konnech’s protected computers in the past,
and we will not do so in the future.
2. We are to return all property and data obtained from Konnech's protected
computers.  We have not acquired anything from a protected computer. All
of the information that we have given to the FBI was from an open
source. Importantly, you should know that all of the data and information
was turned over to the FBI and my clients do not possess anything from
Konnech’s files or activities. Therefore, there is nothing to turn over.
3. We are enjoined from using, disclosing or exploiting the property and data.  We
have not done that, and will not do so, per the court’s order.
4. We shall not delete, destroy, conceal or alter files or data obtained.  We will not
delete, destroy or alter anything.
5. We shall identify each individual or organization involved.  This is a matter that

we have turned over to the FBI. Though we do not know the status of the
FBI investigation, we are not willing to compromise it as a result of an ex parte
order that you acquired on the strength of assertions and allegations that are
inaccurate. The FBI office in charge of this investigation was the Detroit field
office. We recommend that you contact them for this information.
6. We shall confidentially disclose how, when and by whom.  This is a matter that
has been turned over to the FBI and it ought to be up to them to provide this
information.
7. We shall identify all persons who have possession, custody or control of information
or data.  This is a matter for the FBI, not us. We know they have the data and
information; we do not. Since the information was gained from an open
source, we of course have no idea how many other people may have had
access to the information.
Based on the order as written, there is no action necessary for us in order to be in

compliance. I offer you the additional information to explain our position.
143
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
21 of 24
Because of the possibility of counterclaims, we ask that you inform your clients to
preserve all records, data of any sort, including logs, server configurations, emails, texts,
written communications, records of phone calls and other documents that may pertain
to this matter.
Sincerely,
Brock C. Akers
BCA:pdg
144
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
22 of 24
EXHIBIT E
145
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
23 of 24

_____________ 713/552-0232
AND CIVIL TRIAL LAW
September 15, 2022
Dean Pamphilis
Dear Mr. Pamphlis:
Thank you for your letter of this morning. It reflects multiple inaccuracies and
misrepresentations regarding True the Vote’s actions.
Apparently, I did not do a good enough job explaining how my clients became aware of
and in contact with the source information you describe. These facts hopefully provide
additional information so you will better understand our involvement.
1. As evidence will show, True the Vote was approached by a third party who
claimed to have data originating from your client. He had already obtained that
data prior to contacting us. He was not contracted to us or paid by us. We were
led to understand that he acquired the information from an open, not protected
source.
2. This individual “screen shared” certain elements of the data and characterized it
as showing large amounts of personal and confidential information about poll
workers and other sensitive material having been exfiltrated and stored on
servers located in China.
3. He turned over to True the Vote a hard drive device containing the evidence of
this, including the data. True the Vote did not view the contents of this hard
drive or connect it to their network or any device. They turned it over to the FBI
immediately with the representations made about it. No portion of that which
was turned over was retained.
4. True the Vote’s knowledge about this data is limited to what they were told and
shown by “screen share.” They never possessed the actual data or any part of it
146
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
24 of 24
except as above. True the Vote has been advised that this person is in
communication with the FBI.
5. Thus, True the Vote has never obtained or held any data as described in your
petition. This is just one of many inaccuracies contained therein.
6. We reject your contention that we have publicly communicated contrary to this.
Given this, we once again assure you that we are complying with all aspects of the TRO.
We have been led to understand in the course of this process that this is an active and
confidential matter with the FBI. We are uncertain as to our authority to make public
this identity, and feel as though we are being forced to violate federal disclosure laws
on the basis of your ex parte order. We will, therefore, provide the name and identity of
this individual to the court under seal, and will simultaneously offer the FBI the
opportunity to weigh in on its disclosure. We predict the Court would most prefer the
input of the FBI in this manner. Upon further direction from the Court or the FBI we
will release the name of the individual and what contact information we possess.
Sincerely,
Brock C. Akers
BCA:pdg
147
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
16-1 Filed on 148 inDate
09/21/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 2

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
§
ENGELBRECHT, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY

SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
Came on for consideration Plaintiff Konnech, Inc.’s Motion to Show Cause and For
Contempt Against Defendants of the September 12, 2022 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”)
(hereinafter “Contempt Motion”). There is good cause to grant the initial relief set forth below. It
is therefore:
ORDERED that on _______________, 2022, at ____.m, that Defendants and their Counsel
appear at The United States Court House, Courtroom No. 11A, 515 Rusk, 11th Floor, Room 11-
144, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on the Contempt Motion (the “Contempt Hearing”); it
is further
ORDERED that Defendants and their counsel shall (i) appear at the above-described
Contempt Hearing; (ii) show why he/she/it should not be (a) held in contempt of the TRO, (b)
ordered to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs that Konnech incurred bringing and prosecuting the
Contempt Motion, and (c) be ordered to pay additional sanctions; and (iii) that the Clerk of the
148
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
09/21/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 2 of 2
Court immediately make public on the Court’s electronic filing system a fully unredacted copy of
the September 15, 2022 ex parte letter to the Court (Doc. 15).
SIGNED this ___ day of _______________, 2022, at ____.m.
_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
149

_____________ 713/552-0232
AND CIVIL TRIAL LAW
September 15, 2022
Hon. Kenneth Hoyt

United States Courthouse
515 Rusk Avenue
Dear Judge Hoyt:
I represent the Defendants in the above action, recently filed, and in which you have
entered a Temporary Restraining Order. The TRO was, as is most often the case,
entered on an ex parte basis. Had we been present at the hearing, we would have
raised an important matter with the Court relative to some aspects of that which we
have been ordered to do.
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have inappropriately acquired information from
them. Discovery will reveal that the information which is the subject of their complaint
was actually acquired by a third person who in turn contacted Gregg Phillips, one of
my clients. Sensing that the information itself was a matter of potential national
security, Mr. Phillips immediately contacted the FBI and provided all that he was given
to the FBI. We were led to understand an investigation by the FBI followed, though we
do not know the current status of that investigation.
One of the matters which the TRO order requires of Defendants is to identify the person
or persons who acquired the data from Plaintiff. That individual is, to our
understanding, integral to the FBI investigation. That investigation may be hindered or
compromised if the identity of this individual was revealed at this time to Plaintiff. We
do not believe that it is our call to make as to whether this person should be identified
at this time. Plaintiff objects to our withholding the identity, citing the TRO itself which
directs us to provide the name.
150
Defendants are of course anxious to comply with the Court's orders, but
understandably concerned that they do not want to compromise an ongoing
investigation as a result where perhaps the Court has not been made aware of the
inherent risk created by providing this information as Plaintiff demands. With that in
mind, and being guided mostly by that which seems to make most sense given the
stakeholders involved, Defendants propose to provide the name and contact
information to the Court under seal, while at the same time providing notice to the FBI
that this process is taking place so as to allow the FBI the opportunity to be heard on
this sensitive issue if that is its choice.
This letter is copied to Plaintiff. However, the name which follows has been redacted
from their copy of this letter, the name only being provided under seal and in a letter to
the FBI Special Agent in Charge.
The identity of the person whom we understand obtained the data from Plaintiff is:
(REDACTED)
Your honor, we are willing and anxious to comply with any and all of the Court's
orders, as we are anxious to have the opportunity to defend ourselves against the
allegations that have been made.
Sincerely,
Brock C. Akers
cc:
Dean Pamphilis
Attorney for Plaintiff
(with redaction)
James Smith
Special Agent in Charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Houston Field Office
1 Justice park Drive
(without redaction)
151
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 2
IN THE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH,INC., s
$
PLAINTTFF, $
$
v $ CML ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-03096
$
TRUE THE VOTE,INC., GREGG $
PHILLPS, and CATHERINE $
ENGELBRECHT, $
$
DEF'EI\[DANTS. s
STIPULATION TO EXTEI\D TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND RESET

PRELIMINARY INJT]NCTION HEARING
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022,Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. ("Konnech") filed a Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support ("Motion").
WHEREAS, on September 12,2022, the Court issued a Temporary Reshaining Order
("TRO") against Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht
("Defendants" and, collectively with Konnech, the "Parties").
WHEREAS, the TRO is set to expire on September 26, 2022, and a preliminary
injunction hearing is set for September 26,2022 at l1:30 AM.
WHEREAS, due to Defendants' unavailability and ongoing discussions between the
Parties concerning an agreed preliminary injunction, the Parties agree and wish to reset the
hearing on Konnech's preliminary injunction for a date after October 5,2022 when Defendants
have represented they will be available for the hearing.
WHEREAS, due to ongoing discussions between the Parties concerning an agreed
preliminary injunction, the Parties agree and wish to extend the TRO until such time after the
152
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 2
Parties enter an agreed preliminary injunction or until such time after the Court has ruled on
Konnech's Motion for a preliminary injunction in this action.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the undersigned, and
subject to approval of the Court, that: 1) the preliminary injunction hearing in the above-
captioned action which is currently set for September 26,2022, be reset for a date after October
5, 2022; and 2) the expiration date of the TRO be extended until the earlier of the date when the
Parties enter an agreed preliminary injunction that is signed by the Court or until such time after
the Court has ruled on Konnech's Motion for preliminary injunction in this action.
to and
Constantine Z.
Counselfor Plaintiff Inc.
Agreed to and accepted
Akers
Counselfor Defendants True the Vote,Inc.,
Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht
153
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
09/23/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 1

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
PLAINTIFF, §
§
§
ENGELBRECHT, §
§
DEFENDANTS. §
ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND RESET PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the preliminary injunction hearing in the above-
captioned action which is currently set for September 26, 2022, is reset to ________________,
2022 at _______ a.m./p.m.; it is further
ORDERED that the expiration date of the TRO is hereby extended until the earlier of the
date when: (a) the Parties enter an agreed preliminary injunction that is signed by the Court; or
(b) the Court has ruled on Konnech’s Motion for preliminary injunction.
SO ORDERED this ___ day of _________, 2022.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
154
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 1
ENTERED
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ON STIPULATION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND RESET PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the preliminary injunction hearing in the above-
captioned action which is currently set for September 26, 2022, is reset to October 6, 2022 at 11:00
a.m.; it is further
ORDERED that the expiration date of the TRO is hereby extended until the earlier of the
date when: (a) the Parties enter an agreed preliminary injunction that is signed by the Court; or (b)
the Court has ruled on Konnech’s Motion for preliminary injunction.
SIGNED on September 26, 2022, at Houston, Texas.
_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
1/1
155
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 4

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC. §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4 :22-CV-03096
§
PHILLIPS AND CATHERINE §
ENGELBRECHT, §
Defendants §
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTEMPT
TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE KENNETH HOYT:
COME NOW DEFENDANTS, True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips and Catherine
Engelbrecht and hereby file their Response to Motion to Show Cause and Contempt, and with
respect thereto, would show the Court the following:
1. Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. has brought action against Defendants, alleging a plethora of
matters that are simply false, and accusing these Defendants of not only improper but illegal
conduct. At the time of the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff sought and acquired a Temporary
Restraining Order which was predicated on the supposed truth of the allegations in the
Complaint. Defendants learned first of this filing in the press. Upon notice of the entry of this
Temporary Restraining Order, obtained ex parte and without an effort to engage Defendants
prior to its entry, Defendants corresponded with Konnech counsel to explain facts relating to
these allegations. Such correspondence was attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and
156
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 4
Contempt. As is evident from the correspondence, Defendants explain that the fundamentals of
the allegations made by Konnech are untrue, and provided a general explanation as to what
occurred. Further, Defendants pointed out that there was no problem with adhering to the
Temporary Restraining Order because Defendants had not committed the conduct about which
they were accused, and were not going to start doing so. Defendants have neither improperly
acquired nor disclosed the data acquired on a server in China to anyone other than the FBI.
2. Significantly, though, there is one matter relating to the Temporary Injunction which
Defendants have not complied with in every respect. This is the basis of the Motion to Show
Cause and Contempt. Specifically, and as fully explained in the correspondence to Konnech
counsel, Defendants turned over data and information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
which had been given to them. The data and information that was turned over then became what
Defendants understood to be an investigation by the FBI. Providing the identity of the individual
from whom this data was acquired has the potential of disrupting the FBI investigation, pure and
simple. Significantly, Defendants believe that revealing the name of this individual has
significant national security and law enforcement implications that should be addressed outside
of this Court.
3. Defendants did not simply refuse to provide the name, however, and ignore this Court’s
Order. Instead, Defendants’ counsel sent the Court a letter on September 15, 2022 under seal
explaining the reason for not providing the name, but in turn providing the name to the Court in a
manner that has not been shared publicly or to Konnech’s counsel. Further, Defendants wrote to
the FBI the same day to alert them of this matter and to the potential risk of what might be to
them an undesirable interference in their investigation, inviting the FBI to assert itself on this
matter. To date, the FBI has taken no position despite the invitation to do so.
157
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 4
4. Faced with the problem of complying with a Temporary Restraining Order, acquired
from the Court without input of any sort from Defendants where an FBI investigation might be
placed at risk, Defendants took what they thought was the most reasonable and prudent position
as to the identity of this individual. Defendants have a legal obligation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§798 to not make available to an unauthorized person information prejudicial to the interest of
the United States.
5. This is far from a circumstance where Defendants are being unreasonable and refusing to
cooperate with the Court or Konnech in this matter. Indeed, Defendants have agreed to an
Agreed Preliminary Injunction wherein they agree to not go and improperly gain access to
Konnech’s servers and purloin its data, among other things. This is an easy position for
Defendants to take since they have not improperly gained access to Konnech’s servers in the past
and have not purloined Konnech’s data. Defendants are unwilling to violate 18 U.S.C. §798 and
thwart the efforts of the FBI to investigate massive improprieties by being imprudent in the
revealing of this identity.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg
Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht respectfully pray that this Court deny the Motion to Show
Cause and for Contempt, withhold the name provided to the Court under seal until the FBI
expresses disinterest in its being revealed, and for other and further relief to which Defendants
are otherwise justly entitled.
THE AKERS FIRM, PLLC
By:
Brock C. Akers
Federal I.D. No. 2046
158
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
4 of 4
State Bar No. 00953250

Telephone: 713-877-2500
Facsimile: 713-583-8662
E-mail: bca@akersfirm.com
Attorney for Defendants
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this 23rd day of September 2022, we electronically
filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. We also certify that
the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the
attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notice of Electronic
Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner to those counsel or parties who
are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
Brock C. Akers
159
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 15
Case No. 4:22-CV-03096

PLAINTIFF'S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EXHIBIT
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
v. §
§
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., et al., §
§
Defendants. §
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
COME NOW DEFENDANTS, True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine
Engelbrecht, by counsel, to file this Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
and to contest the basis for the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
INTRODUCTION
The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and
this opposition, prior to this Court’s hearing on Thursday, October 6, 2022. Defendants contend
that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, based on an alleged violation of the federal and Texas
computer security statutes, and claims of conspiracy under each, should not be granted, because
immediately prior to filing their Complaint, Plaintiff admitted that it knew that no hacking of
Plaintiff’s computer occurred and moreover, that Plaintiff has made false representations about
statements allegedly made by Defendants. For example, Plaintiff incorrectly argue that
Defendants threatened released private information about individuals. Ironically, Plaintiff’s
founder and CEO was indicted in Los Angeles County, in coordination with Michigan authorities,
and arrested for maintaining sensitive “personal identifying information” on servers in Communist
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PAGE 1
160
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 15
China. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to prove any of the four elements for injunctive
relief: likelihood of prevailing on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of the equities, and the
public interest.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Procedural Background
II. The Parties
III. Negotiations Relating to a Preliminary Injunction
IV. Allegations of Law Enforcement Investigations and Indictments
V. Failure to Demonstrate Computer Hacking
VI. Konnech Fails to Allege a Prima Facia Case of Hacking
VII. Konnech Is Seeking to Have this Court Enjoin Investigation into Election Fraud
VIII. Konnech’s Allegations of Irreparable Injury Are Contradicted by Konnech’s Own

Public Statements
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
18 U.S.C. § 1030
28 U.S.C. § 1331
28 U.S.C. § 1332
CASES
Goodarzi v. Hartzog, No. H-12-2870, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85727 (S.D. Tex. May 14, 2013)
hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022)
Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021)
MISCELLANEOUS
Dr. John R. Lott, “Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots
in the 2020 US presidential election,” Public Choice, forthcoming (May 12, 2022)
“October 4, 2022: Head of Election Worker Management Company Arrested in Connection with
Theft of Personal Data,” L.A. County District Attorney’s Office (October 4, 2022)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
161
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 15
ARGUMENT
I. Procedural Background.
On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”) filed a complaint against
Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht asserting eight claims,
along with a request for injunctive relief (claim 9). The request for injunctive relief was based on
claim 3 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act); claim 4 (Conspiracy re claim 3); claim 5 (Texas Harmful
Access By Computer); and claim 6 (Conspiracy re claim 5).
On that same day, Konnech also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support, supported by a single affidavit of Konnech President
and CEO Eugene Yu. 1 The Motion asked the Court to consider the matter ex parte, based on its
representations that if Defendants learn about the suit, they may follow through on threats to
publicly release data or destroy evidence. See Motion at 3 (pages unnumbered). Based on the
many representations made by Plaintiff and Yu, the Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
on September 12, 2022. Subsequently, Defendants waived service. Now their answer or other
responsive pleading is due by November 14, 2022. This Opposition is being filed in advance of
the scheduled October 6, 2022 hearing on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
II. The Parties.
Konnech identifies itself as a Michigan company founded by its President and CEO,
Eugene Yu, which contracts with governmental entities in the United States to provide election
related software — a product called “PollChief” is one of several. Konnech advised the Court that
“Konnech’s software products are not involved in any way in the registration of voters, the
1
As discussed below, Eugene Yu was placed under arrest in Michigan on October 4,
2022.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
162
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
4 of 15
production, distribution, scanning, or processing of ballots, or the collection, counting or reporting
of votes.” Complaint para. 2. However, prior to filing the Complaint, a great deal more about the
election-related products offered by Konnech was described on its own public-facing website, but
a significant amount of that and other information has been removed from its website, including
material that is inconsistent with the representations made to this Court.
True the Vote is a nonprofit organization exempt from federal income taxation under
Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). It has worked in support of election integrity since 2009.
Its mission is to promote the security and integrity of the voting process. It has become a
nationwide resource for information and training of citizens to ensure the accuracy of voter rolls
and voting. True the Vote extensively researched the 2020 election, and its research has been cited
in documentaries covering alleged election fraud in the 2020 election.
True the Vote has deep concern about the intervention by the People’s Republic of China
in United States elections. Konnech seeks to compensate for weak allegations by libeling
Defendant True the Vote. Konnech falsely accuses Defendant True the Vote of racism and
xenophobia against Chinese. Defendants categorically denies Konnech’s false allegations, and
there is no evidence to support them. Konnech also accuses True the Vote of having “peddled”
claims of election fraud to “enrich” and “profit” itself. See complaint at paras. 1-2. This also is
false.
As Konnech claims, True the Vote has availed itself of Freedom of Information Act laws
to make requests to obtain public documents from various governmental entities. However,
Konnech pejoratively describes these FOIA requests as “an apparent effort to intimidate ...
customers....” Complaint para. 24. Konnech objects to public disclosure of its contracts with
government agencies. Konnech contends that its principal Yu has received death threats from his
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
163
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
5 of 15
involvement in this controversial matter (Complaint paras. 8 and 28), yet Konnech feels no
reluctance to unnecessarily identify the home addresses of the individually named Defendants in
its Complaint. Complaint paras. 14-15.
III. Negotiations Relating to a Preliminary Injunction.
Efforts were made by counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants to negotiate an agreed
preliminary injunction, that could be in effect until the case could be fully briefed to and resolved
by the Court. Defendants were willing to seriously consider this option because most of the claims
that Defendants were about to engage in actions harmful to various parties were fanciful, enjoining
actions the Defendants had not and would not take. However, as the scope of the demands were
made clear, seemingly designed to prevent all investigation into Konnech under any
circumstances, and given the arrest of Konnech’s CEO, it became clear there could be no
agreement. The matter requires judicial intervention to vacate the stipulated extension of the
temporary restraining order.
Defendants oppose a temporary injunction for meritorious reasons. Defendants identified
a key document that supports its statements, but Konnech scrubbed it from their website. This
face-saving remedial measure alone demonstrates that Konnech knew that its computers were
never hacked by True the Vote, as discussed below.
IV. Allegations of Law Enforcement Investigations and Indictments.
There are a variety of allegations in the Complaint and Motion about possible investigation
and indictment of Eugene Yu. Those allegations are a bit dated as on October 4, 2022, the Los
Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon announced that Konnech President and CEO
Eugene Yu “has been arrested as part of an investigation into the possible theft of personal
identifying information of those workers.” See “October 4, 2022: Head of Election Worker
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
164
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
6 of 15
Management Company Arrested in Connection with Theft of Personal Data,” L.A. County District
Attorney’s Office (October 4, 2022) (Attachment I). The press release continued:
Earlier today, Konnech Corporation Chief Executive Officer

Eugene Yu was taken into custody on suspicion of theft of personal
identifying information by investigators from the District Attorney’s Office
Bureau of Investigation with assistance from the Meridian Township Police
Department in Michigan. In addition, hard drives and other digital evidence
were seized by LADA investigators.
The District Attorney’s Office is seeking Yu’s extradition to Los
Angeles.
Konnech distributes and sells its proprietary PollChief software,
which is an election worker management system that was utilized by the
county in the last California election. The software assists with poll worker
assignments, communications and payroll. PollChief requires that workers
submit personal identifying information, which is retained by the
Konnech.
Under its $2.9 million, five-year contract with the county, Konnech
was supposed to securely maintain the data and that only United States
citizens and permanent residents have access to it.
District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the
contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of
China. [Id.]
V. Failure to Demonstrate Computer Hacking.
While the Complaint is peppered with hotly disputed allegations of defamation against
Konnech and claims about “debunked” election fraud conspiracy theories, if necessary, those
issues will be addressed more fully at a later time, but are wholly irrelevant to this Court’s
consideration of the claimed basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. That Motion
is based only on the federal and Texas computer fraud statutes.
Addressing the two conspiracy claims first, it appears that no claim for conspiracy has been
properly asserted by Plaintiff. The Complaint admits that Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg
Phillips have been both acting on behalf of the corporate entity True the Vote, such as:
• “Defendants True the Vote, Inc., its founder and President Catherine Engelbrecht,
and board member Gregg Phillips (‘Defendants’) ...” Complaint para. 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
165
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
7 of 15
• “Defendant Phillips, while acting in concert with Defendants Engelbrecht and
True the Vote, has admitted that he obtained confidential information and data
from Konnech’s protected computers....” Complaint para. 18.
Indeed, except for a few statements attributed to either Engelbrecht or Phillips, the
allegations are against both individuals, who are agents of True the Vote. This Court recognizes
the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine under which there cannot be a civil conspiracy between a
corporation and its employees or agents:
Furthermore, in what is known as the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, 2

because an agreement between two or more persons is required for a conspiracy, a
‘corporation cannot conspire with itself any more than a private individual can, and
it is the general rule that the acts of the agent are the acts of the corporation.’ [This
district adopted the “intracorporate conspiracy doctrine” based on the fact that] an
agreement between two or more persons is required for a conspiracy, a ‘corporation
cannot conspire with itself any more than a private individual can, and it is the
general rule that the acts of the agent are the acts of the corporation.’ Nelson Radio
& Supply Co. v. Motorola, Inc., 200 F.2d 911, 914 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. denied,
345 U.S. 925, 73 S. Ct. 783, 97 L. Ed. 1356 (1953); Hilliard v. Ferguson, 30 F.3d
649, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore a corporation cannot conspire ‘with its
employees, and its employees, when acting in the scope of their employment,
cannot conspire among themselves.’ Id. To assert a claim of civil conspiracy
against an employee or agent of a principal, the employee or agent must have been
acting outside the scope of his employment or agency. Ameen v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
226 Fed. Appx. 363, 2007 WL 1026412, *5 & n. 33(5th Cir. 2007), citing Vosko v.
Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 909 S.W. 2d 95, 100 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist. 1995, pet. denied) (‘Nor can a parent and subsidiary corporation, or their
employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment conspire.’).
[Goodarzi v. Hartzog, No. H-12-2870, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85727, at *33-34
(S.D. Tex. May 14, 2013) (emphasis added).]
2
“The doctrine arose in the antitrust area, but has been extended, inter alia, to civil rights
conspiracies under § 1983 and § 1985. Collins v. Bauer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17769, 2012 WL
443010, *7 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012). Three recognized exceptions to the doctrine are (1) where
the alleged conspirators have “‘an independent stake in achieving the object of the conspiracy’”;
(2) where the alleged conspirators are acting for their own purposes, thus becoming independent
actors; and (3) where they act outside of the scope of their employment beyond the bounds of their
authority or when they engage in unauthorized acts. Id., quoting H&B Equip. Co. v. Int’l Harvester
Co., 577 F.2d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 1978), Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 603 (5th
Cir. 1981), and Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1252-53 (4th Cir. 1985).”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
166
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
8 of 15
Therefore, a conspiracy claim cannot be supported in this case.
As to the federal and Texas anti-hacking statutes, Konnech made numerous false
representations to the Court, including that Defendants:
1. “hacked into Konnech’s servers and unlawfully downloaded its data.” Complaint para.
7.
2. “repeatedly declared their intent to release the information they stole from Konnech’s
servers.” Complaint para. 7.
3. “falsely claimed that they discovered that Konnech had an unsecured server located in
Wuhan, China, which Defendants hacked into and stole data from.” Complaint para. 24 (emphasis
added).
Earlier this year, in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022), the
Ninth Circuit narrowed the application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to clarify that there
was no violation when accessing public websites which could be readily accessed. In this case,
the server in China that was accessed had a pre-loaded password (i.e., “password”) that did not
even require typing in a password to enter the server, but more importantly, the Plaintiffs have
represented that Defendants did not access Konnech’s computers, as it had no servers in China.
Accordingly, there could be no violation of the federal statute, and by extension, the state statute.
Additionally, as the Supreme Court recently made clear, even if Konnech’s computers had
been accessed in some way, that does not constitute a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act which forms the basis for claims 3 and 4. The Complaint alleges that Defendants have stated
that the data base was “unsecured” and was left “with default password on database....” Complaint
para. 24. This allegation is fatal to Plaintiff’s computer hacking allegations.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
167
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
9 of 15
Reinforcing the policy undergirding hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp, the Supreme Court,
in Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021), narrowed what would be considered hacking
in a different respect. While Defendants vehemently deny hacking any computers, including
Konnech’s servers, Van Buren demonstrates that courts should read the federal statute narrowly.
VI. Konnech Fails to Allege a Prima Facia Case of Hacking.
Particularly since being sued by Konnech, True the Vote has examined and monitored
Konnech’s website. This monitoring led to the identification of a document which demonstrates
that Plaintiff does not believe the truth of the central allegation that it made against True the Vote
in its Complaint and Motion.
In response to criticism of Konnech by True the Vote occurring on August 13, 2022,
Konnech posted a document entitled “THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH” (appended as
Attachment II).
The document THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH admits that Plaintiff does not accually
believe the claim that it made to this court:
Accusation: True the Vote claims to have downloaded personal data on 1.8 million U.S.
poll workers early in 2021 from an unsecured Konnech server in Wuhan,
China.
Truth: Konnech thoroughly investigated True the Vote’s claims and found no
evidence whatsoever of any breach of our systems or Konnech data
anywhere in the world. 3 [THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH, p. 1
(emphasis added).]
3
Konnech’s Complaint states: “All of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured and stored
exclusively on protected computers located within the United States.” Complaint para. 2. If that
were true, Konnech would have had no reason to deny that its data was breached “anywhere in the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
168
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
10 of 15
Since Konnech believed and publicly represented that “Konnech thoroughly investigated”
and “found” that there was “no evidence whatsoever of any breach” then there was no basis
whatsoever for its suit and much less, the seeking of a TRO to prevent imminent release of
Konnech’s data.
The file date on that posting was September 10, 2022 — just two days before it filed its
Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief. That document has since been scrubbed – removed
– from the Konnech website. 4
Importantly, it appears the Complaint has been worded carefully to avoid making an
express misrepresentation to the Court that Defendants actually hacked Konnech’s servers —
only alleging that Defendants claimed that they hacked the Konnech server. To be sure, there are
multiple allegations that seem designed to give the Court the distinct impression that such hacking
actually occurred (e.g., “Defendants know what they are doing is wrong...” Complaint para. 10),
while steering clear of a clearly fabricated allegation. And Konnech denies having a server in
China, which is what Plaintiff alleges that Defendants claim to have hacked. Complaint para. 40.
Lastly, Konnech asserts “all of Konnech’s U.S. customer data is secured and stored exclusively on
protected computers located within the United States.” Complaint para. 25. 5
world.” In any event, it is not true that Konnech’s data is secured and stored exclusively in the
United States, as clearly alleged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney.
4
A similar inconsistency was revealed in the Complaint, whereby Konnech accused
Defendants of falsely claiming “they have obtained financial and other sensitive personal data of
1.8 million U.S. poll workers — including social security numbers, phone numbers, email
addresses, and banking information — from Konnech’s protected computers.” Complaint para. 6.
Then Konnech claims that “it never managed customer data for that many poll workers or even a
small percentage of that many poll workers” which would undermine its allegation that it was
hacked. Id. Putting aside the fact that Konnech never obtained such data or claimed that it did, if
the Plaintiff knew this claim to be false as impossible, how could that justify a TRO?
5
It is not at all clear that Konnech’s vague and conclusory allegation that it expended
$5,000 in investigating the matter satisfies the jurisdictional requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
169
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
11 of 15
Thus, Plaintiff alleges (falsely) that the Defendants claimed that they hacked Plaintiff’s
computers, but do not allege actual hacking and publicly have stated that it has not been hacked.
Plaintiff cannot have it both ways. Section 1030 requires a person to actually access a protected
computer without authorization, and Plaintiff never alleges facts describing this sine qua non of a
violation of that statute. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege a prima facie case of a violation of §
1030.
Consequently, without a properly pled federal claim, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this
matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor does it have supplemental jurisdiction over any of the
remaining state law claims. Plaintiff’s alternative assertion of diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 also fails because there is no allegation of any amount in controversy anywhere in
the Complaint, much less an amount that exceeds $75,000.
VII. Konnech Is Seeking to Have this Court Enjoin Investigation into Election Fraud.
The document THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH describes claims of election fraud as
“disproven conspiracy theories.” Attachment II. This ipse dixit assertion lacks specific
substantiation. The fact that it can be stated as though it were a self-evident truth testifies to the
powerful forces which shape “the narrative” through those persons who “won” the 2020 election
and now exert influence over social media and the mainstream press, to oppose any investigation
into the legitimacy of United States elections — powerful forces with which Konnech has now
allied itself.
Despite repeated assertions of “debunked” election fraud claims, the truth is that almost no
claims have been ruled upon in court. Most courts have not ruled on the merits of election fraud
cases that have been brought but have ruled based on standing. By one analysis, 92 cases were
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
170
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
12 of 15
filed, but only 30 decided on the merits, and those bringing claims of vote fraud prevailed in some
manner in 22 of those 30 cases. 6
The Complaint states “[t]he theories peddled in 2000 Mules, however, have been
repeatedly disproven.” Complaint para. 4. There Konnech cites articles by three mainstream
media outlets (Reuters, Associated Press, and The Washington Post) and a government-owned
media outlet (NPR). Most of the criticisms about True the Vote’s research into dropbox abuse
using geospatial data, the findings of which were featured in the 2000 Mules movie, involved
speculation about the limitations of cell phone data. Such criticisms constituted only nibbling
around the edges of the film. In no way have these criticisms disproven True the Vote’s findings
of significant illegal ballot harvesting in key states.
True the Vote has been investigating the election fraud that occurred in the November 2020
election, and that much evidence of that fraud has been assembled despite the best efforts of
powerful forces to shut down any investigation. Konnech describes election fraud as being
advanced only by “conspiracy theorists and con artists” with “recklessness and disdain for the
truth.” Complaint para. 9. If Konnech has no involvement in voter registration, ballot counting,
or reporting in the 2020 elections, and if it did nothing other than assist with management of poll
workers, why would it feel necessary to so strongly defend the integrity of those elections in its
filings? 7 If those who believe claims of election fraud are bogus and easily disproved, why would
they not welcome, rather than try to shut down, every such investigation?
6
See 2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits (as of 7-29-22). See also Dr. John
R. Lott, “Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020
US presidential election,” Public Choice, forthcoming (May 12, 2022) (“The estimates for
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin combined indicate between
146,000 and 334,000 excess votes for Biden.”)
7
The notion that claims of election fraud leading to the election of President Biden in 2020
are new, novel, conspiratorial, and irrational is readily disproved by a brief video compiling the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
171
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
13 of 15
VIII. Konnech’s Allegations of Irreparable Injury Are Contradicted by Konnech’s Own

Public Statements.
Konnech alleges at page 10 of its Motion that, “Konnech has suffered loss in an amount
exceeding $5,000 in a one-year period, because it has been required to investigate and assess
Defendants’ claims, it has been required to conduct additional costly security audits, and it has
expended other resources in responding to and assessing the need to remediate the offense. (Motion
for TRO, Ex. A, Yu Aff. at ¶ 6.)” But Defendants did not cause an audit at Konnech. Konnech’s
THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH admits that there simply was no “offense” to “remediate” and
that in any event, it is regularly audited:
It’s important to point out that in addition to Konnech’s own rigorous security
measures, our systems and software are subject to security audits, penetration
testing, source code reviews and similar efforts required periodically by individual
customers in the U.S. and other markets and carried out by their own third-party
experts. Konnech has never failed such a review over the course of our two decades
in business.
(Emphasis added).
Despite this demonstrably false allegation, Konnech seeks to order “Defendants to
confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom its servers were accessed without
authority so that additional necessary security measures can be implemented by Konnech to
maintain the integrity of the data therein in light of the upcoming midterm elections.” Motion, pg.
15. This request is without merit given Konnech’s public admission that “Konnech thoroughly
investigated True the Vote’s claims and found no evidence whatsoever of any breach of our
systems or Konnech data anywhere in the world.” This is an admission against interest.
instances in which the very same politicians (e.g., President Joe Biden, President Jimmy Carter,
former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senator Chuck
Schumer, Senator Elizabeth Warren) and media outlets (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post)
now claiming that any questioning of the 2020 election is a “CONSPIRACY THEORY” boldly
asserted that the 2016 election was “stolen,” caused by Russian “hacking” and election fraud,
resulting in the election of an “illegitimate President” — President Trump — in 2016.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
172
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
14 of 15
CONCLUSION
Defendants respectfully request the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and terminate the Temporary Restraining Order entered on September 12, 2022.
By: /s/ Brock C. Akers

Brock C. Akers
Telephone: 713-877-2500
Facsimile: 713-583-8662
E-mail: bca@akersfirm.com
By: /s/ J. Mark Brewer

J. Mark Brewer
BREWER & PRITCHARD, P.C.
800 Bering Drive, Suite 201
Telephone 713-209-2950
Email: brewer@bplaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
173
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
15 of 15
I certify that on October 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of
record.
/s/ J. Mark Brewer

J. Mark Brewer
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
174
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT I
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office October 4, 2022:

Head of Election Worker Management Software Arrested in
Connection with Theft of Personal Data
175
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 2 of 3
da.lacounty.gov /media/news/head-election-worker-management-software-arrested-connection-theft-personal-data
News Releases
Contact:

Media Relations Division
(213) 257-2000
Media@da.lacounty.gov
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced today that an executive with a Michigan-
based company responsible for the software used in managing Los Angeles County election poll workers
has been arrested as part of an investigation into the possible theft of personal identifying information of
those workers.
“I want to thank my prosecutors and investigators for their commitment to eliminating cyber intrusions against
government entities and local businesses,” District Attorney Gascón said.
“Data breaches are an ongoing threat to our digital way of life. When we entrust a company to hold our

confidential data, they must be willing and able to protect our personal identifying information from theft.
Otherwise, we are all victims.
This investigation is concerned solely with the personal identifying information of election workers. In this

case, the alleged conduct had no impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results. But
security in all aspects of any election is essential so that we all have full faith in the integrity of the election
process.”
Earlier today, Konnech Chief Executive Officer Eugene Yu was taken into custody on suspicion of theft of
personal identifying information by investigators from the District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation
with assistance from the Meridian Township Police Department in Michigan. In addition, hard drives and
other digital evidence were seized by LADA investigators.
The District Attorney’s Office is seeking Yu’s extradition to Los Angeles.

Konnech distributes and sells its proprietary PollChief software, which is an election worker management
system that was utilized by the county in the last California election. The software assists with poll worker
assignments, communications and payroll. PollChief requires that workers submit personal identifying
information, which is retained by the Konnech.

Under its $2.9 million, five-year contract with the county, Konnech was supposed to securely maintain the
data and that only United States citizens and permanent residents have access to it.
176 1/2
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 3 of 3
District Attorney investigators found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in
the People’s Republic of China.
The East Lansing Police Department and Ingham County Sheriff’s Office in Michigan also assisted in the
investigation.
October 4, 2022
177 2/2
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT II
THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH
178
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 2 of 4
THE TRUTH ABOUT KONNECH
Konnech Inc. provides election logistics software used by U.S. cities and counties to recruit,
train and schedule poll workers; coordinate the distribution of equipment and supplies to polling
places; and dispatch support personnel to address technical and other issues. Konnech’s
software products are not involved in any way in the registration of voters, the production,
distribution or processing of ballots, or the collection, counting or reporting of votes.
On August 13, 2022, True the Vote, a group dedicated to perpetuating disproven conspiracy
theories regarding the 2020 U.S. presidential election, launched an attack against Konnech
claiming, among other things, that our company is affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party
and stores personal information about American poll workers on servers in China. To be clear,
these and other defamatory allegations being widely disseminated by True the Vote and its
founders and adherents are categorically and demonstrably false. Sadly, they are also clearly
based on ignorance, racism and xenophobia.
We are working closely with federal and other law enforcement agencies in connection with this
attack and related threats being made against our employees and families. As always, we are
continuing to take all necessary steps to ensure the security and integrity of our systems and
data. And we intend to pursue every avenue open to us to halt the blatant spread of
misinformation about our company, and the continued attacks on our nation’s democratic
institutions, dedicated election officials and organizations like Konnech that make it their mission
to uphold and support them.
These are just some of the false and malicious claims True the Vote and its followers
have made against Konnech, along with the facts:
Accusation: True the Vote and its adherents claim without any basis that Konnech is affiliated
with the Chinese Communist Party.
Truth: Konnech Inc. is 100% owned by U.S. citizens. Its founder and CEO, Eugene Yu,
immigrated to the United States from China in 1986. He was naturalized as a
U.S. citizen in 1997 and relinquished his Chinese citizenship in the process.
Neither he nor Konnech have ever had any association with the Chinese
Communist Party.
Accusation: True the Vote claims to have downloaded personal data on 1.8 million U.S. poll
workers early in 2021 from an unsecured Konnech server in Wuhan, China.
Truth: Konnech thoroughly investigated True the Vote’s claims and found no evidence
whatsoever of any breach of our systems or Konnech data anywhere in the
world.
Konnech has never stored customer data on servers in China. Konnech stores all
customer data exclusively in its country of origin. This means that data belonging
to Konnech’s U.S. customers is stored on secure servers within the United
States. It never leaves the U.S.
True the Vote could not have downloaded data on 1.8 million U.S. poll workers
from a Konnech server in early 2021 as they claim. Konnech’s poll worker
Page 1 of 3
179
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 3 of 4
management software at that time maintained records on fewer than 250,000 poll
workers—a far cry from the 1.8 million True the Vote purports to have found and
illegally downloaded. But even more important, these records do not exist
anywhere in a single database; software and data belonging to each customer
are managed and maintained in separate, secure databases completely
segregated from the software and data of other customers. There is no single
repository of customer data, and no single password as True the Vote’s claims
suggest.
Accusation: True the Vote supporters claim to have accessed the data using a default
password, implying that Konnech does not adequately safeguard customers’
data.
Truth: Konnech does not use default passwords. The information True the Vote’s
supporters claim to have found cannot be accessed by a single password
because data and software belonging to each customer are managed and
maintained in separate, secure databases.
It’s important to point out that in addition to Konnech’s own rigorous security
measures, our systems and software are subject to security audits, penetration
testing, source code reviews and similar efforts required periodically by individual
customers in the U.S. and other markets and carried out by their own third-party
experts. Konnech has never failed such a review over the course of our two
decades in business.
Accusation: True the Vote claims that Konnech stored U.S. election information “on the same
server in China that runs the Chinese Communist Party elections.”
Truth: Konnech has never stored any customer data on Chinese servers.
Accusation: Konnech outsources the coding of software for U.S. elections to developers in
China.
Truth: Konnech formed a research and development subsidiary in China, Jinhua

Konnech, in 2005 for the purpose of developing software for the K-12 education
market. It was a time when many U.S. and other foreign companies were
increasing their R&D activities in the country. Jinhua Konnech’s employees
focused primarily on coding and testing software for Konnech. Over time this
team also worked on developing and testing software for managing election
logistics such as recruiting, training and scheduling volunteer election workers;
coordinating the distribution of equipment of supplies to polling places; and
managing election logistics issues. This work was always carried out using
generic “dummy” data created specifically for testing purposes, never with
customer data.
Konnech made the decision to close Jinhua Konnech in early 2020 in response
to changing business needs and the increasingly challenging environment for
Page 2 of 3
180
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 4 of 4
U.S. companies doing business in China. It completed the process in 2021 and
no longer has any employees in China.
Accusation: People associated with True the Vote suggest that Konnech “ballot-counting”
software was used to manipulate the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential
election in favor of Joe Biden.
Truth: Konnech has never provided ballot counting software to any client anywhere in
the world. Konnech software is not involved in any way in the collection,
processing, tabulation or reporting of votes by any U.S. election authority.
Accusation: True the Vote alleged that Konnech was hired to build a communications
platform for the Confucius Institute, a controversial organization affiliated with the
Chinese Government.
Truth: In 2006, a professor at Michigan State University asked Konnech to develop a

Chinese language learning website as part of his work with the Confucius
Institute at the University. The project was never funded and Konnech had no
relationship with either the Institute or the University in connection with it.
Accusation: True the Vote notes that Konnech founder and president Eugene Yu is on the
board of the online voting company Votem, implying that there is something
improper about his relationship with the company.
Truth: In 2016, Konnech sold 100% of its North America ABVote business to Ohio-
based Votem Corp. ABVote was a secure software platform used by two
jurisdictions to facilitate online absentee ballot requests for military, overseas and
disabled voters in response to the MOVE Act of 2009. Eugene Yu remained a
member of Votem’s board of advisors until early 2021 to enable the company to
continue to benefit from his insight and years of experience in the field.
###
Page 3 of 3
181
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/05/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 1

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
v. §
§
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
The matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (#5), and the Defendants’ Opposition (filed 10/5/22) thereto, and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and Contempt (#16) and the Defendants’ Response thereto
(#19), and argument of counsel heard today, it is, this day ___ of October, 2022 by the Court,
ORDERED that:
1. The Temporary Restraining Order entered ex parte by the Court on September 12,
2022, and extended on September 26, 2022, is hereby vacated;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is
hereby denied; and
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause and Contempt is hereby denied.
_____________________________
KENNETH M. HOYT
U.S. District Court Judge
182
Case: 22-20578 Document: 00516542768 Page: 183 Date Filed: 11/11/2022 1

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
2 HOUSTON DIVISION
3
4 KONNECH, INC., . 4:22-CV-03096
. HOUSTON, TEXAS
5 PLAINTIFF, . OCTOBER 6, 2022
VS. . 1:59 P.M.
6 .
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., .
7 GREGG PHILLIPS AND .
CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT, .
8 .
DEFENDANTS. .
9 ................................
10
11 TRANSCRIPT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH M. HOYT
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14 APPEARANCES
15
16 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
17 Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Nathan Richardson
18 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
Wedge International Tower
19 1415 Louisiana
Suite 2100
20 Houston, Texas 77002
21 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
22 Brock C. Akers
J. Mark Brewer
23 THE AKERS FIRM
3401 Allen Parkway
24 Suite 101
25
183
1 APPEARANCES - CONTINUED
2
3
4 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
5 Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
U.S. Courthouse
6 515 Rusk
Room 8004
713-250-5787
8
9
10 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript
produced by computer-aided transcription.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
14:21 1 their response, so I can't just rely on these unsworn

2 statements. So part of what we need to ensure that the TRO has
3 been complied with is some sworn statement on Items 1
4 through 4.
14:21 5 And frankly, Your Honor, Items 5 through 8 -- I'm
6 sorry -- 5 through 7, if the defendants had complied with 5
7 through 7, that's a one-time thing. If they give us that
8 information, it's moot for purposes of the preliminary
9 injunction. We don't need it again. But we do need them to
14:22 10 continue to comply with Items 1 through 4 once they give us 5
11 through 7.
12 And frankly, I don't see why there should be an
13 issue complying with 1 through 4, because all it says is that
14 they won't try to access our protected computers. They won't
14:22 15 try to take our data, and if they come into possession of it,
16 they will give it back to us.
17 They don't have a right to do any of those
18 things, and so the fact that they won't agree to it is
19 concerning.
14:22 20 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Akers, do you want to
21 respond to the points made that your client has not complied
22 with 5 through 7 of the temporary restraining order?
23 MR. AKERS: Yes, Your Honor. And it is a fact that we
24 have not given up the name of the individual.
14:23 25 THE COURT: Why not?
185
14:25 1 to indicate that there was any investigation?

2 MR. AKERS: I do not know this individual. I do not
3 represent this individual.
4 THE COURT: Which individual are you talking about?
14:26 5 MR. AKERS: The individual who actually has the data
6 who then turned it over to the FBI.
7 THE COURT: No. But, I mean -- when Phillips claimed
8 that he turned it over to the FBI, he had to have possession of
9 it at the time in order to turn it over?
14:26 10 MR. AKERS: Actually, yes. It was kind of a
11 combination of the two of them getting together and, Here it
12 is.
13 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what they did, and I
14 don't think you know either, but you know Phillips was involved
14:26 15 in the turning over?
16 MR. AKERS: Yes.
17 THE COURT: All right. So here's my question that I'm
18 trying to get answered, and that is this: What evidence do you
19 have or what reason do you believe that Mr. Phillips verified
14:26 20 that any of this data was coming from China?
21 MR. AKERS: On the basis of what -- what Mr. Phillips
22 himself saw.
23 THE COURT: What he told you he saw. Have you seen
24 it?
14:27 25 MR. AKERS: No.
186
14:29 1 there and then for them to say, Well, you know, the judge
2 withheld this information from whatever. I mean, don't you
3 think that if the FBI -- let me ask it this way: Did
4 Mr. Phillips tell the FBI that he has been sued by Konnech? Or
14:30 5 do you know?
6 MR. AKERS: Would you ask that question again?
7 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Did Mr. Phillips -- or has
8 Mr. Phillips or Ms. Engelburt -- Engelbrecht -- I'm sorry --
9 told the FBI that they have been sued about this and that they
14:30 10 need to be -- need to have the backing of the FBI to stand in
11 the position they are standing in?
12 MR. AKERS: Yes, we have.
13 THE COURT: They have told them that?
14 MR. AKERS: Yes.
14:30 15 THE COURT: You did that?
16 MR. AKERS: Yes.
17 THE COURT: And what was the response from the FBI?
18 MR. AKERS: I was told by a different office --
19 THE COURT: What do you mean "different office"? The
14:30 20 people you reported it to was one place. The response came
21 from a different place. Is that what you mean?
22 MR. AKERS: Yes.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
24 MR. AKERS: That they were not interested in the
14:30 25 protection of this information.
187
14:33 1 there is this extradition question going. Apparently, the

2 judge there decided he wasn't going to hold him like he was a
3 foreigner. He's an American citizen. And I would hate to
4 think that just because he has a Chinese name, that that makes
14:34 5 him less of a citizen than anybody else in this courtroom.
6 MR. AKERS: Of course.
7 THE COURT: So the point is that he was released on a
8 bond and to show up at a show cause hearing, which I suspect he
9 will have lawyers to deal with that. But it has interfered
14:34 10 with the proceedings in this Court on what you and your client
11 have described as a national security issue. That's
12 top-of-the-line kind of problem. It's not, Somebody cut my
13 yard and they won't stop cutting it and I want an injunction.
14 That's not what this is. This is a very serious issue, either
14:34 15 because it is true or because it is a made-up, themed
16 proceeding designed to simply produce some kind of popularity
17 or publicity stunt. And I want to get to the bottom of it.
18 That's all.
19 So I want to know, if anything, whether or not
14:34 20 Mr. Phillips is going to make an affidavit. If he's not, it
21 really doesn't matter. I'm ordering you right now to give the
22 name to him. I want him in the lawsuit. Whoever it is, I want
23 him in the lawsuit. And I want all of them in the lawsuit,
24 because it's a national security issue.
14:35 25 And if Mr. Yu -- is it Y-U?
188
14:40 1 lawsuit was filed, they are saying they were not hacked.
2 Nothing happened in those two days.
3 THE COURT: I don't know that that's what that says.
4 In the face of your client's own admission, I don't know that
14:41 5 that is what is being said. I don't need to decide that issue
6 though.
7 MR. AKERS: We don't have admissions from my client
8 that says that they have improperly gotten into their
9 computers.
14:41 10 THE COURT: You know, if I walked out on the street
11 and some guy says, I have got three brand new suits in the
12 trunk of my car. I will let you have them for $100 apiece.
13 And I walk over and I look at them. And I said, Tell you what,
14 I will give you $75 apiece for them. He says, Fine. I give
14:41 15 him the money. Walk away with the three suits.
16 Am I a thief or not? What does the law say about
17 me buying stolen goods?
18 MR. AKERS: As it relates to computer data, the U.S.
19 Supreme Court has issued a case in 2021 called Van Buren versus
14:42 20 the United States which dramatically narrows what would be
21 considered hacking.
22 THE COURT: I didn't say anything about hacking. I'm
23 giving you an example of having access and taking data that
24 someone else has taken or come into and saying, Well, I didn't
14:42 25 do it. That's what the guy says: I didn't steal anything. I
189
14:47 1 data we're talking about, nowhere is it said to be Konnech.

2 They are only allegations.
3 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: How could your
4 client turn anything over to the FBI that he and she did not
14:48 5 have? And I'm not asking you to answer that. I'm posing that
6 as a question. Where your client is going to claim that
7 something has been turned over to the FBI and said, I don't
8 have it, is it because he turned it over to the FBI? Then who
9 in the FBI has it? I need to know, and I need to know whether
14:48 10 or not it is this national security issue. I need to know
11 whether or not the Department of Justice is involved in this in
12 some way. They have got thousands of lawyers all over this
13 country. Surely somebody could have contacted the Court by
14 now.
14:48 15 So I don't think the answer is, Well, there is
16 something wrong with their pleadings. I think the answer is,
17 We are not having a hearing because his client has been
18 arrested by people who are intent on flipping the script. He
19 has rights to the documentation. That's undisputed. He has
14:49 20 rights to the data that he had. And the allegation that the
21 data was somehow sent to China, that's not in his pleadings.
22 His pleadings are, We sent different data. So there is no
23 allegation in his pleading that he sent the data that he
24 received from clerks and county officials or whoever in the
14:49 25 United States.
190
15:04 1 and call him, and I'm going to sit right here until I know it's
2 done.
3 MR. AKERS: I have the name.
4 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
15:05 5 MR. AKERS: I said I have the name.
6 THE COURT: Well, then deliver it.
7 MR. AKERS: I need to look it up.
8 THE COURT: And if there are any other names --
9 (Simultaneous crosstalk)
15:05 10 THE COURT: Let me just finish. If there are any
11 other names associated with this Dallas group, those names are
12 to be turned over. And I understand that I'm hearing you say
13 there is only one name that you have.
14 (Mr. Akers hands Mr. Pamphilis a piece of paper)
15:06 15 MR. AKERS: For the record, I just handed him the
16 name.
18 MR. PAMPHILIS: Your Honor, I would prefer that the
19 name be read by him into the record so that there is no dispute
15:06 20 about the name that I was given.
21 THE COURT: I don't think I have my copy here.
22 MR. AKERS: I have mine electronically.
23 THE COURT: Say what?
24 MR. AKERS: I have a copy of my letter electronically.
15:06 25 THE COURT: You need to read it for the record then.
191
15:10 1 submitted.
2 THE COURT: All right. I will not stand in the way of
3 lawyers filing responses or replies. He's filing a response.
4 You would be filing a reply to the response, and I'm saying
15:10 5 that I will not delay considering this matter waiting on a
6 reply. If you want to file it, that's fine.
7 MR. AKERS: Understood.
8 THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.
9 MR. PAMPHILIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
10 (Court adjourned at 3:10 PM)
11 * * * *
12 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from

13 the record of proceedings in the above-entitled cause.
14
15 Date: October 8, 2022
16
/s/ Mayra Malone
17 --------------------------------------
Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
18 Official Court Reporter
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
192
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 3
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 17, 2022
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§
Defendants. §
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO APPEAR AND

SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
I.
On September 12, 2022, the Court entertained an ex parte temporary restraining order
[“TRO”] [DE 9]1, that arises as a result of the plaintiff’s, Konnech, Inc., [“Konnech”], original
complaint [DE 1] and motion for a temporary restraining order and request for a preliminary
injunction [DE 5]. The Court granted Konnech’s motion for a TRO.
II.
After a review of the tendered documents, the Court determined that a TRO should issue
against the defendants, True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht, because the
documents presented and the arguments of counsel substantiated Konnech’s claims that: (a) there
is a substantial likelihood that Konnech will succeed on the merits of its claims; (b) immediate and
irreparable injury or harm will be suffered by Konnech if a TRO were not issued: (1) in that the
defendants have obtained unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers and/or data and
1
Konnech filed a motion for emergency consideration of its request for a preliminary injunction and for contempt
[DE 17]. Consideration of that motion is subsumed in this order to show cause. A preliminary injunction will issue
shortly.
1/3
193
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 3
plans to publicly disclose private and confidential information that the defendants admit they
obtained unauthorizedly; (2) their plan will interfere with Konnech’s business contracts by
destroying trust in Konnech’s business reputation; (3) the harm to Konnech outweigh and harm
the defendants might suffer if the TRO is granted; and, (4) to issue a TRO is in the public’s best
interest because the private/confidential data of the individuals could potentially be released which
release would, without doubt, harm the individuals.
III.
The Court set a hearing on Konnech’s motion for a preliminary injunction on September
26, 2022, at 11:30 a.m., Courtroom 11A. In the interim, the parties entered into a stipulation to
reset the hearing for October 6, 2022, and to continue the TRO “until the earlier of the date when:
(a) the Parties enter into an agreed Preliminary injunction that is signed by the Court; or (b) the
Court has ruled on Konnech’s Motion for preliminary injunction. See [DE 20].
In addition to the stipulation, concerning the time for the hearing and extending its terms,
counsel for the defendant filed a “sealed” letter with the Court responding, in part, to the Court’s
TRO. The defendants refused to identify the source of its data, arguing that to do so would hinder
an FBI investigation concerning the matter, or jeopardizing “national security”.
IV.
On September 21, Konnech filed its motion to show cause and for contempt against the
defendants [DE 16]. The defendants filed a response to the motion [DE 19] and the Court received
arguments from counsel from all parties. Konnech contends that the defendants’ have failed to
comply with “subsections V, VI and VII of the TRO.” Those subsections state that the defendants
are:
v. ordered to identify each individual and/or organization involved in

accessing Konnech’s protected computers;
2/3
194
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 3
vi. ordered to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom

Konnech’s protected computers were accessed; and
vii. ordered to identify all persons and/or entities, in Defendant’s knowledge,

who have had possession, custody or control of any information or data
from Konnech’s protected computers.
In response, the defendants, through counsel assert that the allegations made by Konnech
are untrue and the defendants had no problem complying with the TRO; the defendants turned
over their data and information to the FBI; the defendants believe that to turn over the name of the
individual from who they acquired their data, has significant national security and law enforcement
implications, and the defendants assert that pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, they have a greater
duty to the United States not to make the name of the individual available to Konnech. The
defendants did not address further the Court’s TRO as it relates to subsections V, VI or VII.
V.
Based on the status of the record and the conduct of the defendants, the Court is of the
opinion that the defendants have failed and refused to comply with the TRO and ORDERS that
the defendants and their counsel appear in Courtroom 11-A on the 27th day of October, 2022, at
11:00 o’clock a.m., the United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk, Houston, Texas to show cause why
they should not be held in contempt of Court for failing to comply with the TRO entered in this
case.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED on October 17, 2022, at Houston, Texas.
_________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
3/3
195
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
§
v. §
§
§
Defendants. §
DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN FURTHERANCE OF REQUEST TO

PURGE FINDING OF CONTEMPT
Defendants submit the attached exhibits in their request to purge contempt in advance of
the hearing set to resume October 31, 2022. To that end, Defendants submit the following:
A. Affidavit of Gregg Phillips;
B. Affidavit of Catherine Engelbrecht with text exchanges with FBI Special Agents;
C. Criminal complaint against Eugene Yu in Los Angeles County, California; and
D. Conditions of Release for Eugene Yu from the state of Michigan.
DATED and FILED: October 28, 2022
196
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 2
Respectfully submitted,
GREGOR | WYNNE | ARNEY, PLLC
By: /s/ Michael J. Wynne

Michael J. Wynne
Attorney at Law
SDTX No. 0018569
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3800
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (281) 450-7403
mwynne@gwafirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS TRUE THE

VOTE, INC., GREGG PHILLIPS, AND
CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT
I certify that a true and correct copy of this document was served upon counsel of record
on this 28th day of October, 2022.
By: /s/ Michael J. Wynne

Michael J. Wynne
PAGE 2 OF 2
197
Case:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document Page:
10/28/22 TXSD Filed: 11/11/2022
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
198
Case:Case 4:22-cv-03096
22-20578 Document
Document: 46-1 Filed on
00516542768 10/28/22
Page: 199 in TXSD Page11/11/2022
Date Filed: 2 of 3
199
Case:Case 4:22-cv-03096
22-20578 Document
Document: 46-1 Filed on
00516542768 10/28/22
Page: 200 in TXSD Page11/11/2022
Date Filed: 3 of 3
200
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 HOUSTON DIVISION
3 KONNECH, INC. ) NO. 4:22-cv-03096
)
4 )
VS. ) Houston, Texas
5 ) 9:12 a.m.
)
6 TRUE THE VOTE, INC., ET ) OCTOBER 31, 2022
AL )
7
8
9 *******************************************************
10 CONTEMPT HEARING
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH M. HOYT
13
14 *******************************************************
15 APPEARANCES:
17 Mr. Constantine Z. Pamphilis
MR. Nathan Richardson
18 Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
19 1415 Louisiana
Suite 2100
20 Houston, TX 77002
713-220-8852
21 Email: Dpamphilis@kasowitz.com
22
23 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography.
24 Transcript produced by computer-assisted transcription.
25
KATHY MILLER, RMR, CRR - kathy@miller-reporting.com
201
1 FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

2 Mr. Michael John Wynne
Mr. Joseph R. Larsen
3 Mr. Cameron Powell
Gregor Cassidy Wynne, PLLC
4 909 Fannin, Suite 3800
Houston, TX 77010
5 Tel: 713-450-7403
Email: Mwynne@gwafirm.com
6
7 ALSO PRESENT:
8 Mr. Todd Burns
9 COURT REPORTER:
10 Ms. Kathleen K. Miller, CSR, RMR, CRR
515 Rusk, Room 8004
Tel: 713-250-5087
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
202
1 Now, we're tracking down now, Mr. Burns

2 is, whether the handling agents in San Antonio and
3 throughout the border have an issue with or if, in fact,
4 this will compromise any agent, and I don't know the answer
09:18:41 5 to that, so I am asking for six hours. They're tracing it
6 down right now. I can have Mr. Burns attest to that, and
7 then if -- if, in fact, he is, we're in a very, very
8 different situation.
9 THE COURT: Well, that's not something that I
09:18:59 10 have any intentions of engaging in, this back and forth. I
11 simply -- Mr. Phillips, as well as Ms. Engelbrecht, who
12 apparently either got it directly or indirectly, the
13 information, from Mr. Phillips indicated that there was a
14 third person in the room. And there may have been other
09:19:22 15 persons in the room. I have never gotten a straight answer
16 from either of them as to what happened in the hotel room.
17 And when you use language that "no longer
18 have access," it suggests that they had access to the -- to
19 the data. And the fact that they don't have access now
09:19:42 20 simply is a matter of them choosing not to exercise the
21 intelligence and the knowledge that they have to gain
22 access.
23 This suggests to me that they had access.
24 They had the -- they have provided this access information
09:19:58 25 to other entities. They even went on their website, I
203
1 believe, indicating on their website that they had

2 cooperated.
3 I mean, this is public knowledge that
4 they're saying, you know, we have -- we provided this
09:20:12 5 information to the sheriff's department, or some other
6 department in California, or the District Attorney. We've
7 had this information. We gave it to them.
8 And then how would they give it to the FBI
9 if they didn't have it in the first place? How could they
09:20:30 10 disclose anything to the FBI if they didn't have it? And I
11 am not asking you to give me your opinion. I am not asking
12 you to do anything except understand that the knowledge of
13 understanding has been evasive. Whatever their knowledge
14 is, they have evaded the Court.
09:20:48 15 I stepped into the matter and tried to
16 figure out how to get this data from them. They have not
17 done so. And all I have heard from you is, Judge, give us
18 some time to go ahead and work something out with counsel.
19 I mean, this has been going on for weeks. Lawyers don't
09:21:05 20 have that much business that they can't work out something
21 significant in something as important as this data is.
22 Particularly, in light of the fact that in the public
23 domain, people are being threatened, and harassed,
24 including your client said they have been threatened and
09:21:19 25 harassed.
204
1 that, Judge.
2 THE COURT: All right. Irrespective as to how
3 this might be handled by the clerk's office, the Court is
4 going to deny your motion as it relates to opposed -- as
09:30:55 5 your opposed motion or your motion opposing the -- the --
6 placing, should I say, the picture under seal.
7 MR. WYNNE: Yes, sir.
8 THE COURT: And further, and finally, anything
9 else?
09:31:09 10 MR. PAMPHILIS: Not from the plaintiff, Your
11 Honor.
12 MR. WYNNE: May I confer with co-counsel one
13 moment?
14 THE COURT: Sure. Sure.
09:31:30 15 MR. WYNNE: Nothing further, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Then the Court, having previously
17 found the Defendants Gregg Phillips and Catherine
18 Engelbrecht in contempt for failure to comply with the
19 Court's ex parte temporary restraining order that address
09:31:45 20 unauthorized access by the Defendants, their agents,
21 assigns, or entities, on the plaintiff's protected computer
22 network, the return of all data belonging to Konnech, the
23 disclosure and/or the identity of all persons, entities who
24 had or have possession, custody, control, or access to any
09:32:03 25 information located on Konnech's protected computers, and
205
1 to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by

2 whom Konnech's protected computers were accessed, the Court
3 finds that although time to cure and thereby render the
4 holding of the contempt motion -- the holding of contempt
09:32:25 5 moot, as provided, the Defendants have yet to comply with
6 the Court's order.
7 Therefore, it is ordered that Gregg
8 Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht are ordered detained by
9 the United States Marshal for one day and further until
09:32:40 10 they fully comply with the Court's order as set forth in
11 TRO exhibit -- or Documents Numbers 8 and 9. That's it.
12 You're to remain in the courtroom.
13 Counsel may be excused. Thank you very
14 much. Y'all have a good day.
09:32:59 15 U.S. Marshals, you're to take them into
16 custody, please.
17 (Concluded at 9:32 a.m.)
18 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
19
20 I, Kathleen K. Miller, certify that the foregoing is a
21 correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the
22 above-entitled matter.
23
24 DATE: Nov. 1, 2022 /s/ _Kathleen K. Miller
25 Kathleen K. Miller, RPR, RMR, CRR
206
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 2
ENTERED
October 31, 2022
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§
Defendants. §
ORDER FOR CONFINEMENT PENDING COMPLIANCE
The Court having previously found the defendants, Gregg Phillips and
Catherine Engelbrecht, in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s ex parte
temporary restraining order that addresses: (a) unauthorized access by the
defendants, their agents, assigns or entities, on the plaintiff’s protected computer
network; (b) the return of all data belonging to Konnech; (c) the disclosure and/or
the identity of all persons, entities who had or have possession, custody, control or
access to any information located on Konnech’s protected computers; and, (d) to
confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by whom Konnech’s protected
computers were access. The Court finds that, although time to cure and thereby
render the holding of contempt moot was provided, the defendants have yet to
comply with the Court’s order.
1/2
207
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 2
Therefore, the defendants Gregg Phillips and Catherine Englebrecht, are
ORDERED detained by the U.S. Marshal for one-day and further until they fully
comply with the Court’s Order as set out in the TRO. See [DEs 8 and 9].
It is so ORDERED.
_____________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
2/2
208
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 9
ENTERED
November 03, 2022
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are the plaintiff’s, Konnech, motion for a preliminary injunction
and brief in support [DE 5] and the defendants, True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips and
Catherine Engelbrecht’s, opposition to Konnech’s motion [DE 24]. The parties submitted
the matters to the Court on the evidence and arguments presented in open court. After a
careful review of the motion and response and the affidavit provided by Konnech, the Court
determines that a preliminary injunction should be entered.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Konnech brings this suit for injunctive relief and damages based on allegations that
the defendants violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, [Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030
et. seq] and the Texas Harmful Access by Computer statute also codified in the Texas penal
code, [Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001; Texas Penal Code § 33.02, respectively].
1/9
209
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 9
Konnech is a domestic corporation, incorporate in the state of Michigan, that
contracts to provides governmental entities throughout the United States with technical
assistance and software that enables the governmental entities to recruit, train and schedule
poll workers, coordinate the distribution of equipment and supplies to polling places, and
to dispatch support personnel to address technical and other issues related to staffing,
security and the handling of ballots. Konnech’s contractual duties do not include the
registration of voters, the production, distribution, scanning, or processing of ballots; nor
does it collect, count or report votes. Indeed, because Konnech does not handle ballots, it
does not enter balloting data onto its computer servers.
Finally, the evidence shows that Konnech acquired its contracts with governmental
entities through public government bidding processes. Therefore, all of the data acquired
and held by Konnech was acquired from the governmental entities it serves. Hence, the
workers’ data is personal and confidential and is secured exclusively on protected
computers located in the United States. The software program created by Konnech for
polling purposes, [the Poll Chief], is a product created for governmental entities to conduct
their election polling responsibilities.
III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Konnech’s Contentions
Konnech contends that on several occasions the defendants and others unknown to
Konnech hosted an “event” dubbed “The Pit” podcast in August 2022, where the
defendants claimed that they would disclose information acquired from Konnech’s
2/9
210
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
3 of 9
computer servers that would constitute proof that the 2020 Presidential Election was stolen
from former President Donald Trump. The event featured multiple speakers and the
defendants’ announcement of a website that they had created or was in the process of
creating, for the purpose of displaying the evidence gathered, which evidence, would prove
election fraud.
Konnech contends that following The Pit event, the defendants posted messages on
social media that defendant Phillips, “and his guys”, had successfully hacked into
Konnech’s servers and downloaded Konnech’s data. The defendants also alleged that they
had met with, or turned over to FBI agents their findings and that they would, nevertheless,
soon post Konnech’s data on their new website.
Konnech asserts that the defendants have accused Konnech and its founder, Eugene
Yu, of being a “Chinese operative, spearheading a ‘Red Chinese communist op run against
the United States.” Konnech also asserts that the defendants have publicly accused Yu of
acts of treason, espionage, bribery and election fraud, all for the purpose of enriching
themselves based on a racist and xenophobic conspiracy designed to harm Konnech’s
business and its founder’s reputation.
As a result of these allegations, Konnech seeks a preliminary injunction and asserts
the following state and federal claims in its lawuist: (1) defamation, libel and slander; (2),
tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations; (3), violating the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, (18 U.S.C. § 1030); (4), conspiracy to violate the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030); (5 and 6), computer conspiracy to gain
3/9
211
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
4 of 9
harmful access by computer (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, § 143.001 and Texas Penal
Code § 33.02); (7), Conversion; (8), violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act (Tex. Civ.
Prac. and Remedies Code, Chapter 134); and, (9), injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’
fees and costs of suit.
B. The Defendants’ Contentions
The defendants contend that True the Vote is a nonprofit organization that, since
2009, has worked to support election integrity. “Its mission is to promote the security and
integrity of the voting process.” The defendants have “deep concern[s] about the
intervention by the People’s Republic of China in United States elections.”
In a series of contentions, the defendants make the following assertions: (1),
Konnech has falsely accused the defendants of racism and xenophobia against Yu and the
government of China; (2), Konnech also has falsely accused True the Vote of having
“peddled” claims of election fraud to “enrich” and “profit” itself; (3), True the Vote’s
requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, to obtain “public documents from various
governmental entities” do not constitute a violation of federal or state law; (4), True the
Vote has identified “a key document” that supports its (public domain) statements that also
shows up on Konnech’s website; (5), Konnech’s pleadings, affidavit and exhibits fail to
demonstrate that its computers were hacked; (6), Konnech has failed to properly assert its
two conspiracy claims against the defendants in that they are merely agents of True the
Vote, and a corporation cannot conspire with itself. This is so because their acts are the
acts of the corporation.
4/9
212
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
5 of 9
As to the federal and state claims that the defendants hacked Konnech’s computers,
the defendants assert that they did not violate the statutes. They accessed a server in China
and acquired the data for a Chinese computer, therefore, the defendants contend, Konnech
is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65 addresses the circumstances under
which a TRO and preliminary injunction may issue. A TRO may be issued without written
or oral notice where:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and,
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and
the reasons why it should be required.
FRCP, Rule 65. A motion for a preliminary injunction must, however, be set for hearing
at the earliest possible date, at which time, the Court must proceed with the motion. Id. at
65(3).
In the case at bar the attorneys for both parties entered into a stipulation agreeing
that the TRO, that was entered by the Court, would continue in effect until the Court either
dissolves the TRO or enters a preliminary injunction. The parties also agreed that
Konnech’s motion for a preliminary injunction may be submitted to the Court on the papers
of the parties since none of the parties were present in Court.
A motion for a preliminary injunction is governed by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 65 which requires that a movant shows that he will suffer irreparable injury
5/9
213
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
6 of 9
if an injunction is not granted; there is relatively little or no harm visited on the non-movant
by the issuance of an injunction; the public interest is not harmed by the issuance of an
injunction; and the movant will likely prevail on the merits of his lawsuit. Daniels Health
Sciences, L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Sciences., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 2013).
Konnech’s suit asserts claims against the defendants in common law and under
Texas and federal statutes. Konnech asserts that the defendants have, by their admissions
concerning data in their possession, that they claim they acquired from a Chinese server,
admit that they are in possession of data that belongs to Konnech. This data, whether
acquired from Konnech or China, is personal and confidential to Konnech and the poll
workers of the various counties and States in the United States where the workers are
employed. The defendants describe their acquisition of this data as follows:
Gregg and Catherine, gc, stumble onto voting software used to coordinate
elections was left with default password or database. GC research team
discovered sensitive information on election workers, etc. on server (bank
account info, kids’ names, ssn etc-gc takes to fbi . . .
In order to establish a prima facie violation of the federal Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, a plaintiff must present evidence that a defendant has intentionally accessed a
protected computer; without authorization or has exceeded authorized access; the
defendant obtained and possesses the information or data and, the plaintiff will suffer
damages or loss of at least $5,000. See Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (c)(4), (e)(1 and 2)(b-c).
The State of Texas, in addressing alleged unauthorized access under state law,
couples unauthorized access to another’s computer with section. 33.02(a) of the State Penal
Code. There, the Code and defines access as communicat[ing] with, stor[ing] data in,
6/9
214
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
7 of 9
retri[ing] or intercept[ing] data . . . from another’s computer without prior authorization.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001; Texas Penal Code § 33.02(a).
In accessing Konnech’s computer and/or collecting, storing or retrieving data
known to belong to Konnech, the defendants have interfered with Konnech’s lawful right
to control its own computers and data, and, moreover, protect the personal and confidential
data of individuals who serve as “poll workers”.
The evidence shows that Konnech provides governmental entities in the United
States with an election logistics software, called Poll Chief, that is used by the
governmental entities to recruit, train and schedule poll workers, including other polling
duties. On or about August 13, 2022, the defendants announced that they were engaged in
an attack against Konnech, claiming that Konnech and its President, Eugene Yu, were
Chinese operatives working for the Chinese Communist Party to interfere with elections in
the United States.
Since the August event, Yu asserts, without challenge, that he and his family have
been personally threatened. Moreover, Konnech and Yu are under threats as a result of the
defendants’ media events, whereby they announced their intent to release to the public all
of the data that they acquired from Konnech’s protected computers. To do so, in the
Court’s opinion, would destroy trust in the governmental entities by the public and, trust
between the governmental entities and Konnech. See [Affidavit Attached to Motion for
TRO and Preliminary Injunction, DE 5-1]. Therefore, the Court is of the view that
Konnech has demonstrated facts that support the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
7/9
215
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
8 of 9
In response, the defendants have filed an unsworn written response. And, except
for taking issue with whether they “hacked” Konnech’s computers, they do not deny the
assertions stated in Yu’s affidavit. Therefore, the Court finds that a prima facie case is
established by the documents and record, that the defendants gained unauthorized access
to Konnech’s or another’s computer(s) and obtained personal and confidential data that is
stored on Konnech’s computers. Hence, the defendants are interfering with Konnech’s
control over its protected computer data to the detriment of Konnech, the governmental
entities and their employees.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that a preliminary Injunction issues, ENJOINING the
defendants, their agents and assigns:
(i) from accessing or attempting to access Konnech’s protected

computers;
(ii) from using, disclosing, or exploiting the property and data

downloaded from Konnech’s protected computers; and further, they
are;
(iii) ordered to identify each individual and/or organization involved in

accessing Konnech’s protected computers;
(iv) ordered to return to Konnech all property and data obtained from
Konnech’s protected computers, whether original, duplicated,
computerized, handwritten, or any other form, whatsoever obtained
from any source;
(v) ordered to preserve, and not to delete, destroy, conceal or otherwise

alter, any files or other data obtained from Konnech’s protected
computers;
(vi) ordered to confidentially disclose to Konnech how, when, and by

whom Konnech’s protected computers were accessed; and
8/9
216
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
9 of 9
(vii) ordered to identify all persons and/or entities, in defendants’

knowledge, who have had possession, custody or control of any
information or data from Konnech’s protected computers.
_______________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
9/9
217

2 HOUSTON DIVISION
3
4 KONNECH, INC., . 4:22-CV-03096
. HOUSTON, TEXAS
5 PLAINTIFF, . OCTOBER 27, 2022
VS. . 11:59 A.M.
6 .
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., .
7 GREGG PHILLIPS AND .
CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT, .
8 .
DEFENDANTS. .
9 ................................ A.M. SESSION
10
11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH M. HOYT
13
14 APPEARANCES
15
17 Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Nathan Richardson
18 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
19 1415 Louisiana
Suite 2100
21 FOR THE DEFENDANT TRUE THE VOTE, INC., AND CATHERINE
ENGELBRECHT:
22
Michael J. Wynne
23 GREGOR CASSIDY WYNNE PLLC
909 Fannin
24 Suite 3800
25
218
1 APPEARANCES - CONTINUED
2
3
4 FOR THE DEFENDANT GREGG PHILLIPS:
5 John C. Kiyonaga
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN KIYONAGA
6 600 Cameron Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
7
8
9 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
10 Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
U.S. Courthouse
11 515 Rusk
Room 8004
713-250-5787
13
14
15 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript
produced by computer-aided transcription.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
219
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 THE COURT: First, before I take a break and give
3 you -- you have already had a break, but you will get another
4 one so that I can address some other issues.
5 I need to have counsel -- as soon as you can
6 clear out over here, I would appreciate it so counsel may come
7 and take their places at these tables.
8 Feel free to move to the middle table. I won't
9 have to look so far to the right.
10 The first thing I want to do here is a little
11 roll call, but then I need to take a break. The court reporter
12 needs a break, and so we are going to take a break so that we
13 can certainly be ready to hear your arguments and concerns
14 regarding this case.
15 This is Case Number 2022-3096, Konnech,
16 Incorporated, versus True the Vote, Incorporated, and others.
17 I think the others are the two individual persons, I believe,
18 Phillips and Engelbrecht, named in the original petition.
19 So let me have an announcement of persons present
20 or counsel present, particularly leading counsel. You need to
21 make your name known and then other counsel that might be
22 assisting you and so forth.
23 What is your name, sir.
24 MR. PAMPHILIS: Your Honor, Dean Pamphilis for the
25 plaintiff Konnech.
220
1 THE COURT: Is that your client or your associate?

2 MR. RICHARDSON: Nathan Richardson.
3 THE COURT: Richardson?
4 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, Your Honor.
5 MR. PAMPHILIS: He is also with my law firm.
6 THE COURT: All right. Very good.
7 For the defendants, who is representing or will
8 be lead counsel?
9 MR. WYNNE: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning. My name
10 is Michael Wynne, and I will be lead counsel today for all
11 three defendants.
12 With me, most importantly, is my paralegal,
13 Heather Martinez. Appearing as co-counsel is John Kiyonaga --
14 THE COURT: Do I have him on the docket here?
15 Yes. Go ahead.
16 MR. WYNNE: Then separately assisting me from my law
17 firm are Cameron Powell and Bill Larson, and then our clients
18 Catherine Engelbrecht and Greg Phillips are here in the
19 courtroom, as well.
20 THE COURT: Let me do this. Do you have -- I believe
21 this is on my order. Do you plan on putting on any testimony
22 of any sort?
23 MR. WYNNE: Yes, Your Honor. We do have an affidavit
24 that has been notarized that I can present to the Court, but I
25 think it addresses the small Roman Numeral five, six and seven
221
1 issues, as I understand that, including our full agreement.

2 I'm very new on the case, as you may know.
3 THE COURT: Here's my concern. If we are going to
4 have witnesses to testify, I would like to swear them in. Then
5 I'm going to take a break and we'll come back and hear you make
6 argument as to where you plan to go on that.
7 MR. WYNNE: We do not have any live that we plan to
8 introduce, although Mr. Kiyonaga has one on the phone and
9 ready.
10 MR. KIYONAGA: Your Honor, John Kiyonaga, also
11 representing all three defendants. Very nice to meet you, sir.
12 Pleasure to be here. I'm from Alexandria, Virginia. I'm here
13 pro hac.
14 Your Honor, waiting for my call -- I have my cell
15 phone in my pocket -- is Deputy District Attorney of Los
16 Angeles County, Marc Beaart. That's M-A-R-C, B-E-A-A-R-T. He
17 has asked for the opportunity to address the Court by telephone
18 directly off the record, either in camera or in a sealed
19 courtroom, to explain that Mr. Yu, the CEO of Plaintiff
20 Konnech, is facing multiple felony charges in Los Angeles,
21 brought by the state of California, Los Angeles County,
22 sounding in the very conduct which is the subject of the
23 alleged defamation in this case. That being that Konnech --
24 THE COURT: I don't want you to argue -- let me just
25 be clear. I'm not involved in that case out of California. I
222
1 have no idea what the case is about. I really don't want to

2 know what it is about because I have a live pleading here that
3 brings matters to my attention that I need to focus on and
4 address and that the parties who are involved in this case need
5 to address.
6 So this is quite unusual for a district attorney
7 to want to talk to me about anything. And if he wants to be a
8 witness in the case, he certainly could get in here and tell me
9 what it is that I should be doing or not doing in this case
10 from a witness testimony perspective. But I will not permit
11 him to interfere in the proceedings in this case. That's the
12 way I see that at this point.
13 MR. KIYONAGA: If I may briefly explain --
14 THE COURT: Not now. Like I said, I wanted an
15 announcement. You have told me what you plan to do. And what
16 I'm saying is I will not take any statements or testimony from
17 any person that is not in this courtroom. He can tell me
18 nothing. It would be like me talking to the district attorney
19 or the U.S. Attorney about a criminal case that may bear on the
20 parties in the case but not on the case that's before me.
21 MR. KIYONAGA: Your Honor, if I may briefly explain
22 the pertinence of his remarks.
23 THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir. I am not --
24 MR. KIYONAGA: Your Honor, I'm trying to make a
25 record.
223
1 THE COURT: Let me be clear.

2 MR. KIYONAGA: I'm trying to make a very brief record.
3 THE COURT: I said I need to take a break, and I said
4 I would come back after the break and take any statements that
5 you might want, but I will not take testimony or statements
6 from some person I don't know and have no way of knowing and
7 have no interest in knowing, for that matter. So I will take
8 your statement when I come back.
9 All right. I apologize for the delay in
10 proceedings here, but, as you can imagine, sometimes you don't
11 have control over the clock. And if you did, you still don't
12 want to stop a proceeding.
13 MR. WYNNE: Your Honor --
14 THE COURT: Excuse me. I will be back in 45 minutes.
15 Certainly by then, you should have gotten your points together
16 and you can proceed with however you want to proceed under the
17 rulings of the Court. All right?
18 MR. KIYONAGA: I'm simply trying to make a record.
19 (Court adjourned at 12:05 p.m.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
224
1 * * * *
2
3 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
4 the record of proceedings in the above-entitled cause.
5
6 Date: October 28, 2022
7
/s/ Mayra Malone
8 --------------------------------------
Mayra Malone, CSR, RMR, CRR
9 Official Court Reporter
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
225
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
1 of 5
226
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
2 of 5
EXHIBIT A
227
Case: 22-20578
Case
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document
Document 14 onPage:
Filedon
9 Filed 228ininTXSD
09/14/22
TXSD Page
Page 11/11/2022
13of
of35
ENTERED
HOUSTON DIVISION
KONNECH INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§
Defendants. §
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This cause having come before the Court on the Motion of plaintiff Konnech, Inc.
(“Konnech” or “Plaintiff”) for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), and the Court having
reviewed Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Brief in Support (“Motion”), and the supporting affidavit of Eugene Yu, the Court finds that there
is a substantial likelihood that Konnech will suffer irreparable injury if this TRO is not granted.
Specifically, evidence was presented to the Court to substantiate Konnech’s claim that: (1)
Konnech has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its claim against
Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht (“Defendants”) for
violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et. seq., and the Texas
Harmful Access by Computer statute (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.002), as
Defendants have admitted to gaining unauthorized access to Konnech’s protected computers and
obtaining information therefrom; (2) Konnech will suffer immediate irreparable harm absent the
issuance of a TRO because there is a threat that (a) Defendants will seek unauthorized access to
Konnech’s protected computers; (b) Defendants will use and/or disclose data from Konnech’s
protected computers without authorization; (c) Defendants will interfere with Konnech’s control
1/3
228
Case: 22-20578
Case
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Document
Document 14 onPage:
Filedon
9 Filed 229ininTXSD
09/14/22
TXSD Page
Page 11/11/2022
24of
of35
of its protected computers; (d) Konnech will suffer a breach of security of Konnech’s protected
computers; (e) Defendants will disclose confidential information contained on Konnech’s
protected computers; and (f) Defendants will cause a loss of confidence and trust of Konnech’s
customers, loss of goodwill, and loss of business reputation; (3) this harm outweighs any potential
harm that Defendants might suffer if a TRO was granted because Defendants will not be damaged
by being enjoined from committing further unlawful acts, by returning the property stolen from
Konnech, and by identifying how Defendants obtained data from Konnech’s protected computers
without authorization; and (4) the TRO is in the public interest because it is in the public’s interest
to enjoin conduct that the United States Congress has found to be unlawful, to prevent the
disclosure of personal identifying and banking information, and the TRO would in fact benefit the
public’s expectation of integrity in the U.S. election process.
Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that emergency conditions exist, that irreparable
harm to Konnech is threatened to imminently occur and will continue to occur unless Defendants,
and anyone acting in concert with them, are restrained, and that Konnech has no adequate remedy
at law.
Further, this Order is issued ex parte, and no notice was required to be given to Defendants
or their counsel, as there is a risk that Defendants would publicly release the information stolen
from Konnech, or otherwise destroy the evidence establishing their misconduct. It is therefore:
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED; it is further,
ORDERED that Defendants, directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with
others, shall be immediately:
i. enjoined from accessing or attempting to access Konnech’s protected computers;
2/3
229
Case: 22-20578
Case Document:
4:22-cv-03096 00516542768
Page11/11/2022
5 of 5
230

Yu Appendix

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu Appendix

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 22-20578 Document: 00516542767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2022

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

IN RE TRUE THE VOTE, CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT,

Mandamus from the United States District Court

RESPONDENT KONNECH, INC’S RESPONSE TO

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

IN RE TRUE THE VOTE, CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT,

Mandamus from the United States District Court

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:

Counsel for Respondent

Counsel for Petitioners

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ....................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................1

STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..............................................3

A. The Parties and the Events Preceding the Lawsuit .......................................3

B. Respondent Sues Petitioners and the TRO is Issued ...................................8

1. The October 6 Hearing ........................................................................11

2. The October 27 Show Cause Hearing .................................................14

B. Petitioners Failed to Identify How Respondent’s Computers Were

C. Petitioners Failed to Identify All Persons Who Have Had Possession,

A. Petitioners Never Moved to Dissolve Or Modify the TRO But Instead

V. Petitioners Have an Adequate Remedy on Appeal ....................................31

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wellington Precious Metals,

Doyle v. London Guar. & Accident Co.,

In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P.,

Test Masters Ed. Svs., Inc. v. Singh,

Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc.,

United States v. Fidanian,

United States v. Rylander,

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,

18 U.S.C. § 1030 ........................................................................................................ 8

FED. R. CIV. P. 65 ..................................................................................................... 28

TO THE HONORABLE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT:

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

abused its discretion when it found Petitioners in contempt of court.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

issued, Petitioners concealed the existence of a third person involved in accessing

inadvertently acknowledged his existence during cross-examination at their show

in their affidavits which were submitted to “purge” their contempt, Petitioners

was issued 2 months ago and required immediate compliance.

enforce his orders.

a big misunderstanding is meritless. Petitioners never moved to modify or dissolve

misunderstanding at that time and failed to submit any evidence in opposition. As

The Court therefore should deny Petitioners’ Petition for Mandamus.

A writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only if the

writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545

Civil contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion. American Airlines, Inc. v.

(internal punctuation omitted). Rather, petitioner must show “a clear abuse of

discretion that produces patently erroneous results . . . or exceptional circumstances

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties and the Events Preceding the Lawsuit

Respondent, Konnech is incorporated in Michigan. (App 10-11 at ¶ 19).

distribution of equipment and supplies to polling places; and dispatch support

in any way in the registration of voters, the production, distribution, scanning, or

grift.”2 (Id.). Contrary to Petitioners’ allegation (Mandamus at p. 11-13), it is not a

allegation is apparently based on BinaryEdge which, as Engelbrecht testified, at best,

Petitioners most recently capitalized on their claims of election fraud through