Connect with us


Election integrity scores a small, but key, win

Election integrity scored a key victory this week when a voting machine warehouse keeper withdrew his suit against two poll watchers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



Two principles, of supreme importance to the American republic, won a small, but very important, victory this week. First – as every lawyer knows and in which every commentator can take comfort – truth is a complete defense against the familiar “lying and bad-mouthing” charges of libel, slander, and defamation of character. Second – and more important still – election integrity matters. Two front-line defenders of election integrity pushed back against a voting machine warehouse keeper accusing them of lying about him. They won – because, to paraphrase the incomparable Laura Loomer, they had the receipts. Their victory, while small in the grand scheme, sets precedents in election law and in patriotic tactics in organized societies.

Important election integrity roles

The two most important roles patriots can play in ensuring – or reestablishing – election integrity are poll watchers and poll workers. Poll workers are the precinct-level Officers of Election, and their chiefs and their assistants. An Officer of Election might greet you at the door, check you in, hand you a ballot, wave you to a booth where you can mark it, or guard a scanner-tabulator or Ballot Marking Device while you use either machine. Chiefs and their assistants, in many jurisdictions, have the authority to register you to vote that day, hand you a provisional ballot, or override some machine function in case of machine or human error. The chief also runs the tape on the scanner-tabulator and reports the vote to the registrar. (Thus when a news organ says, “with such-a-percent of precincts reporting,” that’s what they mean.)

A poll watcher is an observer, which his unit Party committee has accredited in advance to the Registrar of Elections. He may sit where he can observe everything except information personal to a particular voter. If he knows someone is voting improperly, he may complain to the chief. And in theory, his presence ensures that the chief and his crew will not “pull any funny business.”

This case involves two poll watchers who went above and beyond the call of duty. A senior election official alleged that they exceeded their authority.

The particular election integrity case

Delaware County, Pennsylvania, sits on the eastern third of the “hump” that is the Pennsylvania-Delaware border. Jim Hoft, editor-in-chief of The Gateway Pundit, has a summary of the case, and appropriate links. Last year, Brian Lupo filed another report while the case was still ongoing.


This case involved the Election of 2020. Mr. James Savage, the Delaware County Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor and Chief Custodian, sued:

  • Then-President Donald Trump and his campaign,
  • Attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Phillip Kline, and Mr. Giuliani’s law firm,
  • The Thomas More Society, and
  • Two Republican poll watchers, Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes,

for libel/slander, defamation of character, putting him in a false light, and civil conspiracy. Savage v. Trump et al., Case No. 211002495, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, October, 2021. Mr. Savage buried Stenstrom and Hoopes’ names in the middle of the defendants’ list. But those two, without question, are at the heart of this case. (See also this report from The Delco Times.)

Mr. Stenstrom and Ms. Hoopes accused Savage of tampering with the Universal Serial Bus (USB) “v-cards” to add 50,000 votes for Joe Biden. Biden allegedly carried the State by 80,555 votes – but Trump had been ahead by 700,000 votes at least.This allegation was one of many Stenstrom and Hoopes made at “The Gettysburg Hearing” of November 25, 2020. At that hearing, Mr. Stenstrom said this part, relevant to the case:

So I personally observed … USB v-cards being uploaded to the voting machines by the … voting machine warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions. I saw this personally. I brought it to the attention of the deputy sheriff who was there stationed who was a senior law enforcement officer, and I brought it to the attention of the clerk of elections… I objected, and I said, “This person is not being observed, he’s not part of the process that I can see,” and he’s walking in with baggies which we have pictures of, and that were submitted in our affidavits, and he was sticking these USBs into the machines. So I personally witnessed over that happen twenty four times, over twenty four times. We have multiple other witnesses who saw it including Democrat poll watchers…

And we were told, the next day by … the attorney that we had secured, that they said every election they leave a couple of USBs in the voting machines and they’re brought back and generally the warehouse manager comes over and puts them in. So in talking to US Attorney General McSwain and other law enforcement officers, I found out that was not the case. That generally uh, you know, more than more than two is unusual.

So they denied they did it, but um as of today 47 USB v-cards are missing, and they’re nowhere to be found. So I was told personally that these 32, these 24 to 30, cards that were uploaded um weren’t there, those cards I demanded that they, they didn’t update the vote live time, they only updated it about once every two or three hours, I demanded they updated the vote so I could see what the, the uh, what the what the result was, and it was … 50,000 votes. And I think as a computer scientist, an American, and a patriot, it doesn’t matter who those 50,000 votes were. I’ll tell you they were for Vice President Biden. But what was shocking to me, as an American, as someone who has gone to sea, gone to war, that that could even happen…

You know, people ask me all the time, “how do people commit crimes,” um I know there’s a lot of theories here and I always look for the simplest thing. People that stuff, you know, sticking USB sticks in, putting ballots in, very simple thing. So we have a situation where we have 100,000 ballots to 120,000 ballots, both mail in and USB, that are in question.

The fight continues

History cannot determine whether those allegations might have been proved, had the United States Supreme Court taken the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Mr. Savage denied flatly that he did, or even could have, altered the Delaware County vote total. In his lawsuit, Savage alleged that he suffered two heart attacks, and had certain persons unknown threaten him with bodily harm. But whether he would have had the wherewithal to file this action on his own, is an open question. No disinterested observer can doubt that whoever paid Mr. Savage’s legal bills, sought to shake the testimony of two poll watchers to some of the most serious types of election fraud that took place on November 3-4, 2020.

Why the Thomas More Society maintains no landing page about Savage v. Trump, though they were defendants, none can say. Incredibly, the two poll watchers represented themselves in this case.


Somehow this case dragged on for two and one-third years. In May 2023, Stenstrom and Hoopes appeared on podcasts to explain their positions and their continued fight for election integrity.

Note that Stenstrom also has information about the story by Jesse Morgan, a United States Postal Service contract truck driver. He drove a load of about 250,000 ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. After he parked it for a night’s rest, trailer and load disappeared.

See also these posts, from June 2023:

It was all true – and the plaintiff has effectively admitted it

The rest of this information comes from two posts on the Patriot Online social-media platform, from Gregory Stenstrom’s account:


On January 10, 2024, someone, presumably through Savage’s lawyers, offered Stenstrom and Hoopes a settlement. Under it, Stenstrom and Hoopes would be out of the case, and Savage would proceed against Trump and Giuliani only. Obviously those two were the “big fish” and “deep pockets.”

Nothing doing, said the two poll watchers – who then proceed to file an impressive archive of documents at this link.

Five days ago they filed this massive trove of video clips of what, apparently, they had seen.


They were prepared, apparently, to show at trial that Savage took part in the destruction and obfuscation of evidence. Obviously this would have been monumentally embarrassing to Mr. Savage – and to various State and federal officials. Perhaps his financiers abruptly served notice they would throw him under the bus if he continued. In any event, the poll watchers filed motions for summary judgment and monetary and other sanctions.

On Wednesday, February 28, less than twenty-four hours before the summary-judgment hearing was to take place, Savage withdrew his complaint. The judge accepted that and canceled all remaining hearings – after citing Savage’s attorney for unprofessional conduct.

What can we take away

First and foremost, this case demonstrates the role of poll watchers in maintaining election integrity. Had they not been present, and made nuisances of themselves, Mr. Savage would have gotten away with his misconduct. But let no one suppose that this misconduct was Mr. Savage’s idea. A tremendous rot of ideological corruption exists in many county and municipal election offices.

As important as poll watchers are, poll workers are even more important. Patriots must sign up to be poll workers, and work their way up the ladder. This case revealed corruption at the top of the election-official food chain. But that no poll worker ever questioned it, should shame their pride. Poll watchers like Stenstrom and Hoopes can take falls for the team, but their authority goes only so far. Poll workers – as Dr. Steve Turley told your editor directly – are “in the belly of the beast.” Better to be a poll worker than to complain about their conduct afterward. True patriotic poll workers might also have made Mr. Savage think twice before doing what he now admits to doing.


As Stenstrom said in his Patriot Online posts, truth is a complete defense. Your editor learned that as a senior in medical school, from no less authorities than associate members of the venerable law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski. (Yes, that Jaworski, as in Leon, the Special Prosecutor who took Nixon down.) Savage’s whole case depended on showing those poll watchers were lying. They weren’t, and his case fell apart.

The objective

Besides all the above, the most important thing to decide, in going to literal or figurative war, is: objective. In this case, patriots must have a goal. Sadly, it cannot be canceling out more than three years of an illegitimate Presidency. The Supreme Court threw away the only chance to change that result – because the Chief Justice feared riots on First Avenue Southeast, in front of the Supreme Courthouse.

The objective must be to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And to achieve that, requires absolutely the elimination of electronic voting machines. Electronic poll books might remain, so that voters don’t have to sort themselves into, say, the A-K and L-Z lines. But scanner-tabulators and Ballot Marking Devices must go, so that future Messrs. Savage positively cannot do what he did. And under no circumstances must electronic poll books connect to the Internet! We must also abolish mail-in voting – no more transporting ballots across State lines in mail trucks!

France votes on paper, and in person, even allowing pre-registered proxies. The United States can – indeed must – do the same.

Nevertheless, election integrity scored a significant victory this week. It is the first case in which the “Trump position” won the day. Patriots need to follow up on this, and recruit both poll watchers and poll workers. Then we can start drafting city and county ordinances to get rid of The Machines.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

1 Comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald R. Laster, Jr

And the evidence off vote rigging in in the public arena and is being ignored by mnay.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x