17. "Plaintiffs Stenstrom and Hoopes, as former co defendants with President Trump, in Savage v Trump et al (CV-2020-007523 Philadelphia CCP) successfully defended themselves Pro Se over an 860 day (2.4 years) discovery and pre-trial period during which no single allegation of massive election fraud, in which uncertified and untested election machines were a key component, was able to be refuted.

by USA Citizens Network
0 comment

The lawsuit filed by Mancini-et-al-v-Delaware-County states in its opening complaint section:

“Election machines used to process and tabulate votes in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, are not tested, certified, or operated in compliance with federal law. Defendants’ recalcitrant, willful violations of 52 U.S. Code § 21081(a)(5) “ERROR RATES” provide a critical vector for massive election fraud. Plaintiffs have hard, physical evidence, witness affidavits, court testimony, and admissions by public officials, that Defendants have, in fact, been committing election fraud with the help of uncertified election machines that enable that election fraud, depriving Plaintiffs, the People of Delaware County, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of their constitutional rights for honest and fair elections and requires immediate federal court intervention.”

This lawsuit is described by pro se litigant, Greg Stenstrom. He summarizes his team’s lawsuit as follows:

“…Mancini, Schwartz, Stenstrom and Hoopes v Delaware County (PA) et al, …is the first of several federal lawsuits that will be filed Pro Se in the coming days and next couple of weeks regarding massive election fraud, election machines, centralized counting centers, mail in ballots and other grievances based on the lower court filings over the past three years, and evidentiary base entered into the public record, and complaints filed with the Congress, and federal and state justice and LEO levels, demanding criminal investigations that have been obstructed or quashed. We will also be filing federal complaints in Chester and Fayette counties (Western District of Pennsylvania) substituting Plaintiffs and specific information to those counties.”

Thus, opens the final chapter in pro se lawsuits brought by the Stenstrom pro se litigant team that has been alleging voter fraud in Federal, state and county elections in Pennsylvania since the 2020 election.

Pennsylvania (Pa) has not had significant election reform passed by its legislators since the election fraud that occurred in the 2020 election as proven by this pro se litigant team’s evidence. The state of Pa is in need of a plan
to prevent or, at least, decrease the magnitude of fraud in the November 2024 elections.

This lawsuit can be used as a handbook that state officials should use to do just that: prevent another stolen election. Therefore, the USACN editorial board will go into great detail describing the lawsuit to demonstrate why we have taken this position.

This is a long editorial. For those readers that can not take the time to navigate this densely detailed document, we
suggest that you go to this pro se election fraud team’s evidence page and review some of the audio and video files. You will be stunned by the strength of the evidence and the shocking behavior of appointed election officials that this heroic team of Pennsylvania citizens have accomplished in proving the fraud. This is not a hyperlink. Copy and paste this link in the URL window to take you to the pro se team evidence page.



Once you have reviewed this evidence, you will understand why we agree with the pro se team’s characterization of the evidence as “proven” by lack of refutation by the person in the video file making the statements regarding the illegal activity.

The Judge, who has to adjudicate this evidence, has not allowed the trial to go forward nor has he ruled on it for approximately 2.5 years.

The future of our beloved Republic will rest on the Federal court agreeing to accept the case and adjudicate the evidence like the audio and video files on their website.

The lawsuit’s section entitled, “Basis of Jurisdiction”, makes six statements:

1-Federal question regarding 52 USC 21081(a)(5): “Error Rates,
2-Violation of Federal Laws (U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment (Appendix) and supporting U.S. Supreme Court case law,
3-28 USC section 1331:federal legislation regarding electoral process,
4-declaratory and injunctive relief under 5 USC section 706,
5-“Erie Doctrine” objections do not apply: solely a matter of federally mandated law.
6-Defendants are at County level who have refused “to comply with verification of election machines, logic and accuracy testing, recounts, recanvassing, and disclosure of public records”.

The next section entitled, “STATEMENT OF CLAIM”, contains 22 statements. A highlight of those statements are as follows.

8. The Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution: a State shall not violate Federal Laws
9. The Tenth Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”: the Plaintiffs and People have been
repeatedly denied their rights to address their grievances
10. This legal team has brought more than four cases to the courts since the November 2020 election
11. “…Defendants’ refusal to comply with federal and state laws requiring certification and testing of election
machines, and conduct of elections” The details of the defendants refusal to allow proper discovery of various
forms of evidence but also they have refused to adjudicate one of the cases for more than 580 days, that is over
two years.
12. Since November 2020, the Delaware county courts have refused “to remedy blatant violations of criminal law
and election law that was admitted to by the Defendants,”
13. “Despite…citing…federal and state statutes, and US Supreme Court case law as precedents, the Delaware
County Court has…cited self-referential, local…Court …rulings as prevailing precedents of law”
14.Local county officials have affirmed that the Defendants’, i.e., Delaware County Board of Elections, and
“Director of Elections,” …have…final authority in deciding how to conform to federal, state election laws and the
release of public election records. These decisions violated those laws.
15. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania did the same as Delaware county courts as described in # 14.
16. The “case of Hoopes & Stenstrom v Secretary of the Commonwealth Boockvar et al (876 & 877 CD 2022)…
provides video, photo, audio, texts and emails substantiating massive election fraud as a result of Defendants’
criminal violations of election law, The Commonwealth Court has allowed the case to languish unadjudicated for
958 days.” That is 2.6 years.
17. “Plaintiffs Stenstrom and Hoopes, as former co defendants with President Trump, in Savage v Trump et al (CV2020-007523 Philadelphia CCP) successfully defended themselves Pro Se over an 860 day (2.4 years) discovery and pre-trial period during which not a single allegation of massive election fraud, in which uncertified and untested election machines were a key component, was able to be refuted. ”
18.This lawsuit argues that “the subject complaint” is “of critical national interest that cannot be…allowed to be…
delayed …unadjudicated with the November 2024 presidential election coming fast upon the nation”
19. “…the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, and Defendants… insisted that they are above the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America …”
20. “Plaintiffs request the…Federal Courts’ intervention…ensuring Defendants comply with federal and state laws
regarding…certification of election machines…for the forthcoming November 2024 presidential election, and
adjudication…for the violations…in massive election fraud in previous national elections.”
21. “… Hand counted tabulations at the precinct level were used successfully for over two hundred (200) years in
the United States of America.”
22. In summary, the Defendants …violations of …election laws……while providing a criminally false attestation to
the contrary, provides a continuing vector for MASSIVE election fraud… must be addressed by the…Federal
Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”

In the section entitled, “Facts”, the pro se team lists Facts number 23 to 96. Examples of important facts are as follows.

24. The records requested by Pro Se Plaintiff Mancini were specific to election machine certifications and
logic and accuracy testing required to ensure honest and fair elections and access to these records was
granted by the PA OOR.
39. During a May 24, 2023, hearing, when Delaware County Director of Elections…“Did Delaware County hash test
the machines…
40. Therefore, Defendants’ agent…falsified the…attestation he filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State in
violation of 18 Pa. C.S. 4911.
41. The Hart Verity Voting System as used by Delaware County, Pennsylvania is not in compliance with 52 USC
42. 52 USC 21081(a)(5) states that the voting systems “shall comply with the error rate standard…issued by the
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
43. “…The error rate is defined using a convention that recognizes differences in how vote data is processed
by different types of voting systems.…For each processing function indicated above, the system shall achieve a
target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 (ten million) ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable
error rate in the test process of one in 500,000 (five-hundred thousand) ballot positions.”

In the final section, “Relief”, there are statements 97 to 101.

97. “Cease and Desist from using electronic voting systems in Delaware County, Pennsylvania and return to
hand counted votes in county precincts under bi-partisan observation”
100. Criminal referrals to appropriate federal and state justice and law enforcement agencies.
101. Monetary Damages and other relief and compensation as may be appropriate.

This concludes the Pro Se legal teams legal statement.

This legal document forms a platform for the team, started by Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, to be hired by the
state of Pennsylvania Election Board.

And, if the Democrats are unwilling to support such a plan, the Pa Republican party should hire this team. If the Pa
administrative wing of the Republican party refuses to hire them, the Republican party’s Presidential nominee,
former President Donald J. Trump, should replace the current administrative staff with those who will support the
Hoopes and Stenstrom team overseeing the mechanics of the November 2024 Pa elections to minimize the proven
significant levels of voter fraud that has existed in previous elections in the state of Pennsylvania.

The fact that this team has not been supported by the Pa Republican party’s administrative staff, to date, is
evidence that they are anti Trump and anti Maga. Its time to change that before the November 2024 election.

So, in conclusion, the pro se legal team, guided by Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, have exhausted their
financial and time resources, have had minimal donations to their just and worthy cause, have created compelling
legal documents and validated legal evidence proving election fraud in the 2020, 2022, and 2023 local, state and
federal Pennsylvania elections.

This lack of support by the Pennsylvania lawyers’ Bar and Pennsylvania county and state court system can be
classified as meeting the legal criteria for a lie of omission (Appendix).

And, yet, despite these violations and despite the large amount of unrefuted evidence of election fraud in this pro
se litigant team’s cases, elected and administrative officials from both the Democrat and Republican parties still
insist there is no evidence of significant election fraud in the state of Pennsylvania.

Many Republican attorneys that are retained by the Pa Republican party that we have talked to about this topic have the same position on this topic as these elected and administrative officials.

The state senators and congressmen and women continue to not pass significant amounts of legislation that will
reform what are clearly corrupted elections. We have elections that are managed like those from Russian communist genocidal dictator, Joseph Stalin’s staff: the vote counters not the voters choose the elected office holders.

Although this editorial describes the evidence of fraud committed by one political party, the editorial board of
USACN believes that the evidence shows that both parties, Democrat and Republican, have participated in illegal voting activities that result in elected officials that are not chosen by the voters but by the vote counters. We have described this pattern in previously published editorials and third party re-publications of media articles. We urge the appropriate federal courts to intervene before the November 2024 elections are again chosen by the vote counters.

God help save our Republic.


Democrats Lose Big Time After Appeals Court Denies Request to Reconsider Whether Date Requirement for Mail-In Ballots is Enforceable in Pennsylvania


What percent of polled citizens believe that the 2020 presidential election was stolen?

Rasmussen Reports Election Integrity: Most Voters Suspect Fraud

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential
election, including 43% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not likely the 2020 election was affected by cheating, including 23% who believe it is Not At All Likely. Among Trump 2020 voters, 84% think it’s
likely the outcome was affected by cheating, including 58% who say it is Very Likely. Surprisingly, 42% of 2020 Biden voters also believe it’s at least somewhat likely that cheating affected the election outcome.

52 U.S. Code § 21081 – Voting systems standards provides voters with definitions of their rights. Examples of those rights are: a right to verify their vote, to have that vote remain private, capacity to audit the vote, access to the paper record of that vote for any recount, and an error rate of the voting system in counting ballots as established by the Federal Election Commission. U.S.

U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s
“Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office. …

VOTING RIGHTS: Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
one-person, one-vote rule One-person, one-vote refers to the rule that one person’s voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person’s within the same state.

Equal Protection Clause “Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances”

Legal definition of lies of omission

A lie of omission is an intentional failure to tell the truth in a situation requiring disclosure. It is a type of deception that occurs when someone deliberately withholds important information, conceals facts, or fails to provide
necessary details, thereby creating a misleading or inaccurate impression.

Key Elements:

Intentional failure to disclose: The omission must be intentional, meaning the person knew they had a duty to
disclose the information and chose not to.

Situation requiring disclosure: The situation must be one where the truth is expected to be told, such as in a legal,
professional, or contractual context.

Important information withheld: The omitted information must be significant and relevant to the situation, and its
omission could lead to harm or misrepresentation.


A real estate agent fails to disclose a known defect in a property, which could have affected the buyer’s decision to

A doctor fails to inform a patient of a potential side effect of a medication, which the patient later experiences.
A business partner fails to reveal a financial problem with the company, leading to a partner’s investment decision.

Legal Consequences:

Lies of omission can have serious legal consequences, including: Civil lawsuits for damages or compensation

Criminal charges for fraud or deception

Loss of professional reputation and licensure

Breach of contract or fiduciary duty

In summary, a lie of omission is a deliberate failure to disclose important information, which can lead to legal
consequences and damage to one’s reputation.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts. Learn more Context definitions.uslegal.com

Lie By Omission Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc. psychcentral.com

Lying By Omission: Is It Harmful? | Psych Central www.ojp.gov

Criminal Liability for Omissions – A Brief Summary and Critique of the Law in the United States | Office of Justice Programs

What is the concept of silence or intentional concealment of relevant information, often used in legal contexts?

Lie By Omission Law and Legal Definition

Lying By Omission

Criminal Liability for Omissions – A Brief Summary and Critique of the Law in the United States

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