100 Percent Fed Up reports- On Monday, Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt applied the Vote creator Catherine Engelbrecht and True the Vote detective Gregg Phillips in contempt of court over their rejection to recognize a private informant who assisted them get details that caused the discovery and, later on, proof that the E. Lansing, MI based election software application business Konnech was saving election-related information on servers in China.
( Click HERE to contribute). These 2 American heroes and warriors who are fearlessly battling to guarantee our elections are complimentary and reasonable and not able to be taken remain in the middle of battling 6 claims connected to their work to expose citizen scams in America.
Earlier today, Gregg Phillips published an image of himself using an orange one-piece suit in a federal jail on Truth Social.
He likewise published an upgrade:
5th Circuit still thinking about emergency situation release.
This might be the very first time in U.S. history that Americans have actually been imprisoned in a federal civil libel match.
![]()
Tonight, Catherine Engelbrecht revealed that they have actually been launched from federal jail, and in the meantime, they are totally free!
Praise the Lord!!!!
Catherine launched the following declaration upon their release:
Those who believed that sending to prison Gregg and I would compromise our willpower have actually seriously overlooked. It is more powerful than ever.
The right to totally free and reasonable elections without disturbance is more crucial than our own pains and even this detention, now reversed by a greater court.
We are exceptionally grateful for that. We will continue to secure and safeguard those who do the essential work of election stability, and we will make certain that their findings end up being a matter of public record.
— Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote
Here is a part of their appeal:
This contempt case is established on Defendants1 grossly misconstrued public declarations by Plaintiff and the district court, relating to both (1) Chinese Server Data– delicate information one accused, Gregg Phillips, seen on a television screen in a Dallas hotel space in late January 2021– which information is the sole topic of Plaintiff’s claims of computer system scams– and (2) Election Breach Information– summary info about the resulting election system vulnerabilities, all openly readily available, which Defendants wanted to communicate to the general public as a caution.
As an outcome of its misconception of Defendants’ decently technical descriptions, Plaintiff has actually misinterpreted this case to be in some method about hacking, or the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act, or about disclosure of delicate information (whether of Plaintiff or people). All of these presumptions are inaccurate. The district court perpetuated that misconception in buying Defendants to make disclosures to Plaintiff that were additionally difficult, unsuitable, or lawfully unimportant.
Based completely on its demonstrably flawed presumptions, Plaintiff wrongly ex parte acquired a TRO looking for discovery outside basic civil treatment.2 Perhaps goaded by Plaintiff’s characterizations of this case as having to do with “election denialism”, the Court took the uncommon action of releasing a TRO that obliged affirmative remedy for Defendants (1) in the lack of any proof from Plaintiff, (2) based upon verifiable mischaracterizations of Defendants’ public declarations, (3) without allowing Defendants to proffer all appropriate proof, and (4) based upon the inaccurate conclusion that an individual who experienced Chinese Server Data disappointed to come from Plaintiff in some way “accessed” a “safeguarded computer system” of Plaintiff. Highlighting the dangers of ex parte hearings, the district court uncritically accepted Plaintiff’s counsel’s inaccurate declaration that Defendants “confessed hacking and theft of monetary and other delicate individual information of supposedly 1.8 million U.S. survey employees supposedly from a Konnech secured computer system.”
Following the ex parte look by counsel for Konnech on the exact same day it submitted its Complaint and movement for injunctive relief, whose benefits and expected seriousness were both based upon Plaintiff’s severe mistaken beliefs about the kinds of info Defendants had actually mentioned, this Court provided the TRO, which holds, in significant part, that the accuseds are advised from:
— “accessing”, “utilizing”, or “divulging” “Konnech’s safeguarded computer systems” and information; or
— erasing or damaging very same,
Defendants vowed to adhere to this part of the order right after.
the TRO likewise forces Defendants to reveal:
— the identity of any private included in “accessing Konnech’s
secured computer systems”,– the way, suggests and time of “accessing” such computer systems, and
— the identity of any private to have actually gotten stated information.
In a hearing on October 6, the court required Defendants’ previous counsel to expose to Plaintiff, in open court and versus their demonstrations, the name of among the personal informants to the FBI who occurred to be in the Dallas hotel space. Accuseds consequently divulged details reacting to the rest of the court’s order, significantly abiding by the order and leaving out just to openly call a 2nd personal informant (” the Second Informant”) (1) who was not declared to have actually “accessed” any computer systems in this case, not to mention Konnech’s, (2) whom Plaintiff had actually stopped working to develop had pertinent proof, and (3) whose individual security the district court stated it did not appreciate.
On October 27, 2022, at a program cause hearing the Court held Defendants in civil contempt for stopping working to recognize the 3rd of 3 people. Aside from the reality that the person in concern had actually not “accessed” a “secured computer system” understood to come from Konnech, Defendants’ doubt in divulging another personal informant was due, in part, to their efforts to come to grips with the nature of Plaintiff’s and the court’s misconceptions, in part due to the fact that Defendants were worried about blowing the cover of private informants to the FBI and putting them at individual danger, and in part due to the fact that their initial counsel. Their doubt was not, as Plaintiff and the court defined it, contemptuous.
Crucially, in the October 6 hearing, Plaintiff misrepresented the disputed nature of their conclusions about Defendants’ declarations, stating,” [T] here is Fifth Circuit precedent that states that the Court can think about an initial injunction without live testament so long as there is no real problem of product truth.” DOC 30 TR at 9 (focus included). There is a real problem of product reality here– constant mischaracterizations by Plaintiff’s counsel about the nature of what Phillips saw (American survey employee information on a server situated in China) and what Defendants have actually stated they would do (report the truth of such information being breached and readily available in China– not the information itself).
1. Offender Phillips Witnessed a Portion of the Chinese Server Data
Defendant Phillips experienced, on a television screen in a Dallas hotel space, massive quantities of information (he was informed 350 TB) on a server situated in China, a few of it consisting of delicate information on American survey employees.3 Also present were the individual who accessed the information, Michael Hasson, whose name was exposed throughout the hearing of October 6, and the 3rd person. A few of the information appeared to have actually originated from, or been drawn from, Plaintiff Konnech.
But while the court’s order to justify is completely about this information, unrebutted testament reveals that Defendants did not themselves access the Chinese Server Data, did not download or copy it, do not otherwise have it, and have actually never ever specified they would expose it to anybody.
a. Defendants Did Not Download the Chinese Server Data
Q. Did any– forgive me if I get the terms– however did any downloading take place in your existence because hotel space when the– whatever was up on the television screen was up on the television screen– was any gain access to occurring?
A. No.
Doc 47 TR, p.32(Phillips answering).
b. No Defendant Has a Copy of the Chinese Server Data
Q. Do you have, in your belongings, a copy of this electronic info that was shown on that screen in the hotel space in Dallas?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does Ms. Engelbrecht have a copy?
A. No.
Q. Does True The Vote have a copy?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does any person connected with True The Vote have a copy?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have a copy of the electronic information on your computer system or otherwise in your specific belongings?
A. No.
Doc 47 TR, pp. 33-34(Phillips answering).
On October 6, Defendants’ previous counsel had actually currently notified the court that the Chinese Server Data was something Phillips had actually just seen, and did not have:
MR. BREWER: Your Honor, seeing it [information] and having it [information] are 2 various things.
THE COURT: Well, it might not be and it might be.
c. DefendantsDidNotWitnessHackingorMeansof” Access”
In unrebutted statement, Defendant Phillips likewise explained that what he saw
in the hotel space was not “accessed” at that time. Rather, he was revealed the outcomes of the gain access to on the television display:
Q. What, if anything, was your impression on the temporal relationship– that is the time relationship in between when you strolled into the hotel space and whenever whoever it was downloaded the info or information that appeared on the television screen that you saw?
A. It took about 20 minutes to get his computer system hooked to the tv screen. He had an issue with the cable that required to hook into the hotel screen. When he pulled it up, he went directly to his files that he was revealing me.
Q. Was it your impression that info was actively being recovered at that minute in the hotel space, or was it your impression that had currently been done, and he was revealing you something that had been performed in the past?
A. I believe it was being carried out in the past. He definitely would not have actually been– there would not have actually sufficed bandwidth at the hotel to download that kind [350 TB] of information.
Defendants have actually likewise explained precisely why they might not assist Plaintiff–
as it required in its apparently immediate movement for a Temporary Restraining Order– with its severe security issues. Since the uncontroverted statement is that Phillips did not understand how the Chinese Server Data had actually been accessed:
THE WITNESS: I do not understand how it was accessed. I understand it was accessed due to the fact that I saw it, and I consequently discovered that the details had actually ended up being essential to the FBI. [Regarding] when, provided the size of the information that I comprehend was downloaded, it was someplace in the 350- terabyte variety, and was downloaded over roughly 3 months in the very first quarter of 2021.
Defendants Did Not Provide the Chinese Server Data to Anyone
In unrebutted testament, Defendants likewise explained who offered the Chinese
Server Data to the FBI– and it was not Defendants:
Q. And so how was the information sent out from Mr. Hasson to the FBI?
A. They have an approach to transfer big pieces of information straight to them. Q. What’s that technique?
A. I didn’t do it. You ‘d need to ask Mike.
Q. Were you associated with it being done?
A. No.
Q. Did you see it being done? A. No.
Q. Who informed you it was done? A. The FBI.
Doc 47 TR at 54-55(declaration of Gregg Phillips).
In the very same podcasts Plaintiff has actually mentioned without understanding, Phillips has
likewise discussed unrefuted info about the China-based server that ought to have avoided the district court from trying to make Defendants accountable for Plaintiff’s own security issues in China: “Important keynote here, people, for everybody … We didn’t take anything. They left it open. The database was a MongoDB database that they exposed. … There were no tools utilized to break in.”
The 2nd kind of info, or information, in this case has to do with the standard truth of the breach of American survey employees’ information, which we will call Data Breach Information. This is the only details or information that Defendants “accessed”, had, or wished to divulge.
2. Information Breach Information
The Data Breach Information consists of the basic reality that delicate information on American survey employees was being kept on a computer system server situated in China. The Data Breach Information includes the openly readily available reality that election-related domain hosted by Konnech on behalf of American cities were being hosted on the exact same China-based server as its American survey employee information, as was Konnech’s URL app.konnech.com (significance that any information that went through its apps went through the insecure server in China), and, obviously, what seemed sites for the Chinese election system (e.g., 2dmeeting. com and 2dmeeting. cn).
Exhibit 1 reveals a screenshot from the openly readily available site Binary Edge, which offers details on computer system servers worldwide. It reveals the server info for Konnech-owned domain Vote4Fairfax.com, a site work on behalf of Plaintiff’s customer Fairfax County, Virginia, which Defendants validated was signed up to Konnech prior to the domain’s ownership info (aka WHOIS info) was just recently hidden. The Binary Edge screenshot, taken prior to somebody altered the server to one situated in the U.S, exposes numerous essential realities:
– The screenshot was taken at some point soon after December 29, 2020.
– The domain Vote4Fairfax.com was hosted in China, particularly, on Unicom, among 3 “foundations” of the Chinese Internet, which is owned
by the Chinese federal government.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Unicom
– The computer system server has IP address 101.6624452
– The exact same server hosted numerous other domain– and their information–
run by Konnech on behalf of its American customers, such as the city of Boston (Vote4Boston.com), the city of Hillsborough (Vote4Hillsborough.net), and others.
– Server 101.6624452 likewise hosted apps.konnech.com, in addition to all the information on applications utilized by Konnech consumers who access apps.konnech.com Exhibit 2 reveals that the very same domain, in addition to Konnech’s PollChief.com site and a couple of more domain that Konnech runs on behalf of customers in Detroit and Lake County, have actually been belatedly relocated to a server based in the United States. See Ex. 2 (accessed on November 1, 2022). It is this Data Breach Information that Defendants stated, in their podcasts and The Pit occasion and other media, they wanted to expose to the general public. This info does not come from Plaintiff, was not accessed from them, is not defamatory, and is within Defendants’ First Amendment rights to discuss.
3. The Missed Opportunities in the Court Below
In reality, had the district court subjected Plaintiff’s statement to interrogation, constant with due procedure, the court might have figured out whether Plaintiff does certainly own the above-named domain, and whether it was Plaintiff who moved the domain from the server in China to the one in the United States. If Plaintiff does own the domain or did move them from an insecure server in China to a server in the United States, then its whole movement for contempt, and its argument that it requires instant injunctive relief in the type of Defendants assisting it to comprehend its server’s “breach”, might have been rejected. Why? Since Plaintiff understood its info was on a server in China, and Plaintiff did not need the names of personal people in order to protect its information, as Plaintiff firmly insisted in its overheated and ex parte Motion for TRO. Doing not have such seriousness, the court’s holding of the ex parte case was itself improper. And it made no sense for the court to purchase Defendants to inform Plaintiff what it currently understood, nor to arbitrarily jail them for a good-faith disinclination to divulge the names of personal informants who might have informed them what they currently understood: that they were hosting their domain and information on a server in China.
The court did not enable Defendants to describe the essential differences at problem here. It did not appear to value the differences– undoubtedly rather technical in nature– when Defendants used them. Experience the court’s questioning of Phillips relating to the information– the Chinese Server Data– of American residents he saw that night in the Dallas hotel space:
THE COURT: And you saw that there were savings account? THE WITNESS: There were savings account.
THE COURT: You saw the names of the people?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You saw their Social Security numbers? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you then stated: We’re going to publish this on a public domain?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. There is 2 various datasets.
THE COURT: Well, I’m not– I do not care about the datasets. You understand what I am explaining.
14
“It’s unassociated,” Defendant Phillips started, since he carried out in reality understand what the court was explaining, however the court cut him off prior to he might discuss the vital difference. See Doc 47 TR 5at 97, lines 3-17(focus included).
This was not Defendants’ only effort to make sure the court was notified about the essential problems– and what they had and had actually not stated they experienced, had, or would reveal– prior to it released the contempt citation:
THE COURT: Okay. Do you remember making a declaration on the podcast to the result that you were going to develop a site and would pack the– this information that you saw onto the site for individuals who would wish to go to that website?
Note, once again, that Defendants’ podcast and site both connect to the open- source, openly offered Election Breach Information, not the Chinese Server Data.
THE WITNESS: No, sir. That’s not real.
THE COURT: I’m asking you. This is what you stated– or what your podcast stated.
THE WITNESS: My podcast was describing something we called the ripcord. The ripcord was associated with an app called Open.INK, I-N-K. We were going to put the– we do all sorts of other research study. We do a great deal of open-source research study, implying Googling around and looking for things. We likewise do geospatial research study.
The post BREAKING: Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips RELEASED From Prison– Here’s The Latest … appeared initially on The Gateway Pundit
This article may have been paraphrased or summarized for brevity. The original article may be accessed here: Read Source Article.
BREAKING: KARI LAKE HQ HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN AS FBI HAZMAT AND BOMB SQUAD INVESTIGATE THE SCENE 
(@JackPosobiec) 
![president-trump-gives-barron-a-shout-out-at-inaugural-parade:-his-unexpected-response-is-pure-gold!-[video]](https://news.lateawakening.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/35545-president-trump-gives-barron-a-shout-out-at-inaugural-parade-his-unexpected-response-is-pure-gold-video-100x70.jpg "President Trump Gives Barron A Shout Out At Inaugural Parade: His Unexpected Response is Pure Gold! [VIDEO]")
