Delaware County PA Candidate for County Council, Joy Schwartz, and Authorized Representatives Gregory Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes, and Paul Rumley have taken legal action to obtain “absentee Mail In Ballot (MIB) outer envelopes, which include the signatures of each voter” after their request for these public records were denied.

by USA Citizens Network
0 comment

A group of Chester County residents reported a voting anomaly in a local publication, the ChescoUnited, Democratic and Republican Primary Election results alarm SE PA voters.

Delaware County PA Candidate for County Council, Joy Schwartz, and Authorized Representatives Gregory Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes, and Paul Rumley have taken legal action to obtain “absentee Mail In Ballot (MIB) outer envelopes, which include the signatures of each voter” after their request for these public records were denied.

The Editorial board of USACN will analyze this voting issue presented in the legal action of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley. We will stratify the topic by fact and opinion.

1-voting data analysis


A group of Chester County residents identified a voting results pattern that was “a series of nearly identical reporting results in Chester, Delaware, Bucks, Montgomery, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Lehigh, and Northampton counties.”

Attorney Garland Favorito, from VoterGa.org, reported on election night (November 2022) , a graph that showed a 20,000 vote decrease for Herschel Walker was correct.

More details regarding this loss of 20,000 votes can be reviewed in the article.

Opinion/Circumstantial evidence/direct evidence*

Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley have followed other investigators who have reported and or litigated over voting pattern anomalies.

After the 2020 election, Conservative Congressman Crenshaw rejects data that has been interpreted as evidence for the 2020 election decertification in some swing states:

Rep. Crenshaw made this statement in an exchange with a data expert, Bobby Piton, who gathered data that he interpreted as strong evidence for decertifying the election in Pa for the 2020 Presidential election: DATA EXPERT: 200,000 Pennsylvania Ballots Were Modified After Election – A Sampling of 100,000 Arizona Ballots Show ‘Material Amount’ Aren’t Even Real People

Bobby Piton, a data expert, financial analyst and former Republican candidate for Illinois Senate seat, was suspended from Twitter during his live testimony, during an Arizona hearing in November 2020 in which he said, “I think this is the biggest fraud in the history of our constitutional republic. It’s taking place right before our eyes. The corrupt mainstream media and tech oligarchs are colluding in an attempt to assassinate the American public’s true legal vote for our president Donald J. Trump.”

Attorney Garland Favorito’s team summarizes on their website, VoterGa.org,, lawsuits across the swing states for the 2020 election. Most of these lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the evidence of voting anomalies contained in these lawsuits were never adjudicated. A recent October 2022 Georgia Supreme court decision giving standing to voters has created a legal pathway for some of this evidence to be adjudicated.

Therefore, the evidence described in this section of voting data analysis is classified as opinion until it is adjudicated.


2 mail-in-ballots


The team of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley observed less than 10,000 ballots counted on the day of the election. And by 8PM that night there were more than 24,000 ballots. They were refused access to the ballots.

The team of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley are requesting approximately 27,500 empty MIB envelopes and the images of all the MIB envelopes that were scanned.

The question posed by this legal action is not a new one in the election integrity cases since the 2020 election. They simply want to get the mail in ballots to review for signature verification given the anomalous voting results described.

They are not claiming the ballots are illegal. They simply want the right of citizens to inspect these public records for voter signature verification.

In an interview with Emerald Robinson, The Parallel Election: A Blueprint for Deception Paperback, Leah Hoopes quoted their legal brief that states that citizens are allowed by law, Act 77, to have access to the ballots. And, this ACT also defines that the voter signatures are not private.

In addition, further support for the team of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley, are Favorito’s team finding that “Failure to make mandatory check of ballot envelope signature to signature on file resulted in a 2020 absentee ballot rejection rate drop from 3.47% (in 2018) to 0.34%, which translates to the acceptance and inclusion of approximately 4,400 dubious Fulton County mail-in ballots”.

Greg Stenstrom said that he was at the conference with the recently vindicated USPS truck driver contractor and whistleblower, Jesse Morgan, back in 2020.

Stenstrom goes on to say that the Jesse Morgan case is proof that 100s of thousands of mail in ballots were shipped into Pa.

Stenstrom and Hoopes found 70,000 real mail in ballots in the back room.

In a June 2023 interview with Attorney Phil Kline of the Amistad project, he discussed a recently released report that exonerated the USPS Contract Driver Jesse Morgan and CONFIRMS He Hauled Trailer of Ballots from NY to PA in Late October 2020

In a recent Kari Lake case “They Dragged Us to Hell and We Are Standing and Fighting Back”, Kari Lake said that “My team and I, we’ve identified three whistleblowers who were intimately involved in the signature verification process in Maricopa County. They speak of how they were rejecting tens of thousands of signatures up to the tune of maybe 130,000 ballots.”

It is not surprising that Hoopes Stenstrom et.al., are back in court with another case requesting access to the mail in ballots to assess their validity.

Opinion/Circumstantial evidence/direct evidence

Stenstrom and Hoopes’ hypothesis is that the real ballots that people fill out are completely substituted with counterfeit ballots. The question is where are these counterfeit ballots coming from?

There would have to be 100s of thousands of counterfeit ballots that would have to be filled out in “boiler rooms and other special places across the country.”

They go on to say that those that use the fake ballots are trying to fundamentally change the American system through elections. And they have gone to these centralized counting centers and they are using them to stuff drop boxes. This is how they are completely changing the vote.

Nonetheless, there is a significant body of evidence that a large numbers of mail in ballots, not only from Pa, but, other swing states as well, were anomalous and possibly illegal, further supporting the team of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley’s request to review the mail in ballots from the recent 2023 primary election.

Stenstrom and Hoopes state in their book, The Parallel Election: A Blueprint for Deception., regarding the mail in ballot protocol that compares signatures “with a confederate loader, or even someone too indifferent or callous to glance at the signatures on the envelopes…it would not matter if the signature block had Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck, penned in. Once the ballot inside the envelope was was injected into the tabulation process, it was a mindless, fired bullet, without conscious or pedigree.
Immediately destroy and dispose of 120,000 outer envelopes with the barcodes, signatures, and forensic pedigree of where the ballots came from, and you have a perfect “Kansas City Shuffle”. And you have a 5-1 fraudulent margin of swing to mitigate the actual 5-1 election day pummeling that Trump voters had inflicted on the agenda of the ruling class.”

Attorney Favorito’s legal team at VoterGa.org have found that “There are six sworn affidavits of counterfeit mail-in ballots in Fulton Co. election results scaling into the tens of thousands.”

Stenstrom goes on to say that fake ballots are still being produced in Pa before elections. And those fake ballots are being substituted for peoples’ real ballots.

According to Hoopes and Stenstrom, on the night of the 2020 election, Democrat operatives put in 100,000 fake mail in ballots through the system.

The Amistad Project said that they have sworn declarations that state over 300,000 ballots are at issue in Arizona, 548,000 in Michigan, 204,000 in Georgia, and over 121,000 in Pennsylvania…Attorney Phil Kline said, “130,000 to 280,000 completed ballots for the 2020 general election were shipped from Bethpage, NY, to Lancaster, PA, where those ballots and the trailer in which they were shipped disappeared.”

The signature verification rate by the supervisors was so fast, that Kari Lake’s attorneys argued that it was not humanly possible to verify signatures with that method. Despite three whistleblowers testimony and this rapid rate of signature verification, the Judge did not agree with Kari lake’s attorneys stating that there were no regulations that defined a specific time that was required to review the signatures and ruled in favor of the defense.

This is what the team of Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley’s legal case is up against. Any of the previous cases that contained evidence of alleged invalid signatures were never adjudicated. Those cases were dismissed due to “lack of standing”.

The question remains what does the scientific evidence say about the ability to verify signatures at the rate that they were assessed in this case? And if there is no agreed upon scientific evidence, creating a panel of experts to define an acceptable rate of signature verification should be carried out.

Once that rule is defined, it should be applied to the rate that signatures were verified, in this case, and, previous cases, thrown out due to lack of standing given the precedent that the Georgia Supreme court case decided in October 2022 that gave standing to groups of voters.

On the other hand, many of the signatures clearly did not match. So, such a mismatch should not need a rule defined by experts. There needs to be common sense used as well as expert opinion. And, both seem to be lacking in the Kari Lake case. This is where a jury of our peers could be helpful in sorting these issues out as jurors.

3-jury of your peers


And there has been no adjudication of the many cases after the 2020 election which, according to David Clements, who is a veteran former prosecutor. Attorney Clements states that they were never adjudicated because the judges dismissed the cases because they had no standing.

The Georgia Supreme court remedied the issue of no standing in October 2022 when it made, what Jovan Pulitzer called, a “monumental” decision in that the injury can be generalized not only to the individual and it can impact voters.

In the article, A Tale of Two Bills: Barr v. McSwain Differing stances on investigating — or not investigating — the 2020 election, the author, GEORGE PARRY, said that “Ultimately, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan certified Biden as the winner of their respective state races. The issue then became how the Republican-controlled legislatures in some of those states were going to proceed. As it turned out, none of them acted to decertify the results. For example, when a pro-Trump Republican contingent in the Pennsylvania Legislature attempted to challenge Biden’s certification, they were unable to gain sufficient support among broader elements of the party.

“To knowledgeable political observers, this was unsurprising. In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, significant segments of the Republican Party were glad to be rid of the interloping Trump. They were not about to expend political capital on his behalf and weaken their electoral prospects by supporting his calls for recounts and audits of the results.”

Republican controlled legislatures in swing states did not adjudicate evidence challenging election integrity nor have judges until recently.

Surveys continue to show that the overwhelming majority of Republican and a signifcant portion of Democrat voters believe that there is evidence of voter manipulation.

No election integrity case since 2020 has been adjudicated by a jury of their peers.

Opinion/Circumstantial evidence/direct evidence

Attorney Clements said that the 2020 cases that were not adjudicated had overwhelming evidence of fraud.

And now that such cases can be deemed to have standing the next question is, can these cases get a fair adjudication in a trial that is decided by a judge rather than a jury of our peers? So, far no judicial decision has accepted the evidence as proving vote manipulation.

Citizens should be allowed to form a jury and adjudicate the evidence in future trials if our Republic will have a chance to remain a functioning Republic..


4 evidence of voter fraud


In South Dakota (SD), Jessica Pollema, community advocate from sdcanvassing.com, says that in South Dakota, Gevo corporation, the McCarthy group, ES&S voting machine company, Keiwit construction, are all tied together in ownership.

In an interview with Brannon Howse of FrankSpeech.com, she says that this ownership group have complete control of SD elections being the only vendor in the state. They shut off the audit trail. They won’t give citizens the caste vote records. There is no transparency. A lot of officials that are going along with things that are bad for South Dakota, that citizens don’t want and somehow, they are in office, and somehow, they are going along with all these things, voting for things the citizens don’t want, and going along with the corporations.

The recent 2023 Pa primary results identified a voting results pattern that was “a series of nearly identical reporting results”. Therefore, this data appears to be similar to the data that Clements analyzed, and, therefore, the Pa citizens who have submitted this litigation should have a right to have this data adjudicated.

Opinion/Circumstantial evidence/direct evidence

In the article, A Tale of Two Bills: Barr v. McSwain Differing stances on investigating — or not investigating — the 2020 election, the author, GEORGE PARRY, said that “There was an abundance of what prosecutors call “investigative predicates” warranting investigation. So, given the obvious national security implications of a potentially stolen presidential election, some of us aging Justice Department alums wondered when, if ever, federal law enforcement was going to swing into action… As far as I’m concerned, McSwain wins this swearing contest. It grieves me to say it, but Barr’s story doesn’t hold water.”

Bill Barr disagrees on this issue, and, Jeffrey Clark said that Barr never investigated the 2020 election, while President Trump does not endorse Bill McSwain.

Regarding electronic voting patterns, Attorney Clements, who is a veteran former prosecutor, stated in a recent interview , “I’ve Never Prosecuted A Case With More Evidence Of Fraud Than The 2020 Election”, that “we operate under this myth that our elections are decentralized. We have different moving parts, and everything is moving independently. That was 10 years ago. But today we have a fully integrated system…And they can manage your voter roles. They can do election night reporting. They can overwrite your election data at a local level. They are integrated without printing devices. The software is not certified and there is no congressional mandate to oversee this software. And its connected to the internet. So, we have been fed this myth that it is disconnected. When behind the scenes the department of homeland security has a back door to monitor everything. And not just monitor, they use these vendors to change results.”

In this recent interview with attorney Clements, he analyzed voting data that has voting anomaly patterns that experts have claimed are mathematically impossible to achieve without manipulation of the vote. That is, he is of the legal opinion that the results are evidence of illegal voting manipulation.

A review of a good portion of these cases by veteran Democrat attorney, Garland Favorito, Co-Founder at VoterGA has led his team to conclude that there is strong evidence for voter fraud in recent elections, as described on his website, VoterGa.org, including the 2020 election, “GARLAND FAVORITO JOINS WITH BIG NEWS OUT OF GEORGIA”

Attorney Favorito’s group has published a compilation of the evidence for voter fraud in the 2020 election as well as recommendations to prevent it in future elections that can be viewed at the end of this editorial. *




Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley . The Harvard professor published this book in the 1960s. And it remains influential regarding its main thesis that, as Brannon Howse, the Frank speech commentator, said, that if you throw the bums out (elected officials), that will not change the agenda– the two party agenda is an illusion: there are socialist-communists or constitutionalists and patriots.

This is consistent with the “Uniparty” behavior of elected officials, the Democrats and Republicans in name only (RINOS), whose vote supports their big donors’ positions rather than that of their constituents.

The Recent McCarthy-Biden debt ceiling bill is an example of that voting pattern.

Opinion/Circumstantial evidence/direct evidence

We believe that Hoopes and Stenstrom have provided direct evidence and circumstantial evidence of illegal vote manipulation in the 2020 election in their previous legal cases and in their book, The Parallel Election: A Blueprint for Deception. We also believe that a fair assessment of this evidence by a Judge or by a jury is likely to result in an assessment that their evidence meets the criteria for a prima facie case~ .

In addition, if the other investigators assertions, that were described in this editorial, regarding the magnitude of fake mail in ballots and electronic vote manipulation that they say were inserted to change the 2020 and 2022 elections are right, then, that would explain the unexpected results in the November 2022 midterms elections, especially the Kari lake race.

Therefore, if there is no fair adjudication of the ongoing collection of voting ballot manipulation evidence, like in this legal case submitted by the Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley team, there is no reason to expect that the results of the 2024 elections will turn out any different with a majority of the surveyed public continuing to believe that our elections are unfair.

This highlights the unrealistic nature of the National Republican party’s plan to “compete” with the Democrats by increasing the use of mail in ballots and by not looking backward to adjudicate evidence such as the evidence Schwartz, Stenstrom, Hoopes and Rumley’s team has submitted to the court and by waiting for the state legislatures to pass legislation for voting methods reform.

Our Republic is at a cross roads. Respected attorneys such as Garland Favorito and David Clements, respected IT experts, such as Jeff O’Donnell, documentary maker, Dinesh D’Souza, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, True the Vote, and the pro se litigants, Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, amongst other patriots, have collected evidence that suggests illegal votes are being substituted for legal votes.

The heroic efforts of Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, who have brought multiple legal cases regarding evidence of illegal voting patterns, as pro se litigants since 2020, have brought evidence forward that suggests that our Republic is being changed from within by illegal voter ballot manipulation. Their case deserves adjudication, and for the sake of the Republic, by a jury of their peers.



Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim.

Direct evidence directly links a person to a crime; it demonstrates the ultimate fact to be proved (see: Oliver v. State). U.S. vs Shawntell Curry also holds that “direct evidence is the testimony of a person who claims to have personal knowledge of the commission of the crime which has been charged, such as an eyewitness”. It is also written in Georgia Code, Title 24 – Evidence Charter 1 that, “Direct evidence” means evidence which immediately points to the question at issue.”

~A party with the burden of proof presents a prima facie case when the party presents enough evidence to support a verdict in the party’s favor, assuming the opposing party does not rebut or disprove it. This means that the party with the burden of proof has shown that he or she can meet that burden as to each element of his or her case.

*Attorney Garland Favorito and team at the VoterGa.org evidence for voter fraud in the 2020 election:


Attorney Garland Favorito and team at the VoterGa.org recommendations to prevent it in future elections:

Share This

You May Also Like

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're OK with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More