by Sharon Rondeau
(Nov. 5, 2022) — On Saturday night, True the Vote (TTV) spokesman Brian Glicklich posted on his Twitter account a link to a response filed by Konnech, Inc., the election software company suing TTV for “defamation” over its claim that Konnech improperly stored U.S. poll-worker data on Chinese servers.
As a result of the litigation, TTV founder Catherine Engelbrecht and her colleague, Gregg Phillips, refused Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt’s request to provide the name of a witness at the time Phillips observed a demonstration making the claim of Konnech’s alleged illegal activity.
In a Saturday morning interview, Glicklich told “War Room” host Steve Bannon that the temporary restraining order (TRO) Konnech claimed TTV violated for which it should be held in contempt was issued based solely on Konnech’s claims and without TTV’s knowledge or participation.
Engelbrecht and Phillips have stated they do not believe the witness whose identity they are protecting is covered by the TRO.
On Monday morning, Hoyt ordered the two to federal prison, where they have been since that time, with their legal team filing an emergency motion for release with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Those documents are here:
Konnech’s response was due by 5:00 p.m. Saturday, Glicklich told Bannon.
In the 25-page document, Konnech asked the court to deny TTV’s motion. “This case involves Petitioners’ direct and admitted defiance of a District Court order and the District Court’s use of its coercive contempt power to encourage their compliance,” Konnech wrote. “In this proceeding, Petitioners brazenly seek to strip the District Court of its contempt power.”
Continuing, the company’s attorneys claimed:
Petitioners have no one but themselves to blame for their confinement. Petitioners defied the District Court’s orders by refusing, among other things to: (1) as required by the TRO, “identify each individual and/or organization involved in accessing Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected computers;” (2) as required by the TRO and the District Judge during examination in Court, identify the third person in the room whenRespondent’s data was accessed; (3) as required by the TRO, “disclose to Konnech[Respondent]how, when, and by whom Konnech’s [Respondent’s]protected computers were accessed;”and (4) as required by the TRO, “identify all persons and/or entities, in Defendants’ who have had possession, custody or control of any information or data from [Petitioners’] knowledge, who have had possession, custody or control of any information or data from Konnech’s [Respondent’s] protected computers.”Petitioners had 54daysto purge their contempt. However, Petitioners still refuse to identify the third person who was in the room when Respondent’s data was accessed because they claim that he is a confidential informant for the FBI in an unrelated matter. Petitioners’ excuse was manufactured in an attempt to avoid turning in one of their own. Even Petitioners admitted under oath that the FBI was contacted about the need to disclose what Petitioners believed was confidential information to comply with the TRO and that the FBI stated that it was not interested in protecting the information. Petitioner Phillips also admitted in an affidavit submitted after the show cause hearing that Petitioners have still not disclosed to Respondent“how, when, and by whom” Respondent’s protected computers were accessed but promised to do so at some undetermined future date of their choosing rather than satisfying the TRO’s requirement that it be done “immediately.”
As Konnech recounted on page 11 of its brief, both Konnech and Hoyt wish to see the unidentified witness included in the lawsuit.
