Leah Hoopes The Delco Patriot

The more I investigate, the more comes into the light. A government that has nothing to hide, hides nothing. Pennsylvania has two different laws called Act 77 ,one reshaped mail-in voting, the other amended mental health procedures, including firearm relinquishment after certain involuntary commitments. Critics in both areas describe the processes as 'black boxes', because so much happens out of public view. Whether it's voting, firearms or involuntary commitment, when the state acts in ways that touch constitutional rights, transparency, independent oversight, and accountability, should be the default, not the exception. Public trust comes from verification, not blind faith. Continue this story on my Substack Delcopatriot2020

I miss my old life. I miss the time I could have had with my family and friends. I miss the bright spark I once had, the version of me that existed before years of fighting consumed so much of my life. Those days are gone, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. Myself and others have watched our lives and livelihoods torn apart. We have been harassed, defamed, dragged through litigation, financially damaged and traumatized. There are years we will never get back. But I will not go quietly.I want the truth to prevail. And the truth cannot prevail when people are expected to remain silent, look the other way, or accept wrongdoing because “the movement is what matters most.” Nonsense. No movement is more important than the truth. No person, organization, political cause or supposed greater good gets a pass simply because exposing what happened might be inconvenient. Teamwork does not require blind loyalty. It requires honesty. It requires trust. It requires accountability. And above all, it requires credible people bringing credible information supported by evidence. If telling the truth threatens a movement, the problem isn't the person telling the truth. The problem is what that movement has chosen to protect.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM.YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE The work wasn't done in a vacuum. This investigation became a true community effort. Delaware County residents spent months reviewing public records, filing Right-to-Know requests, mapping business relationships, documenting municipal liens, examining Department of Health records, and asking difficult questions. Independent journalists also continued reporting on the story. Most recently, Broad + Liberty reported on MD Sayduzzaman's resignation and published his resignation letter, in which he stated he was leaving to devote his full attention to New Hope Home Care. Whether the resignation was motivated solely by the reasons stated in his letter or by other factors is something only he can answer. What is undeniable is that sustained public scrutiny, investigative reporting, and citizen oversight placed these issues squarely in the public eye. This is what accountability looks like in a constitutional republic. Ordinary citizens doing extraordinary work. No special titles. No government funding. Just people willing to read public records, compare documents, ask questions, and refuse to let important issues disappear. Take care of your own backyard. When citizens organize, investigate, and hold public officials accountable, transparency wins. And this investigation is far from over. Upper Darby Township - Government United States Attorneys' Offices U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The people screaming "No Kings" are the same people who spent years demanding Americans obey unelected bureaucrats without question. They defended censorship, applauded mandates, accepted government deciding who was "essential," and cheered while people lost their jobs, businesses, and access to society over private medical decisions. They mocked doctors who challenged prevailing policies, dismissed informed consent, and labeled anyone asking questions as "anti-science." That's not what science is. Science is challenged. It is debated. It evolves. The moment dissent is punished and discussion is silenced, it stops being science and becomes dogma. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic built on limiting power not blind obedience to government officials or self-appointed experts. If your definition of "No Kings" only applies to elected politicians while giving unelected bureaucrats, agencies, and powerful institutions a free pass from scrutiny, then you don't oppose authoritarianism. You've simply chosen different rulers. https://delcopatriot2020.substack.com/p/no-kings-then-stop-bowing-to-unelected?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=24vfjx

In my opinion, for the last six years, I've been called just about every name imaginable by government officials, political operatives, and the media. I've been labeled a seditionist, an insurrectionist, a terrorist, a racist, an antisemite, frivolous, and crazy. I've received hate mail, death threats, disgusting voicemails, and have been defamed on a national stage. My son became a target simply because I exercised my First Amendment rights and refused to stop speaking. I've been dragged through endless lawfare. The FBI has been at my front door. Agents from the during Josh Shapiro Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office came to my home not to trace calls, investigate the crimes, or take affidavits, but to intimidate and harass me. I've watched government institutions use their power against citizens who dared to challenge them. So no, I don't feel obligated to perform outrage or sympathy every time a public official claims to be the victim. I've watched people lose their livelihoods, lives their reputations, and their freedom. I've watched constitutional rights treated as inconveniences instead of guarantees. I've watched due process ignored, political prosecutions celebrated and Americans demonized for holding views that those in power disliked. I've also watched families destroyed in family courts, while children remain caught in systems that, too often fail the very people they are supposed to protect. I've watched ordinary citizens crushed by government while the people responsible rarely face meaningful accountability. Did I receive 3 time a day perimeter checks on my home? NO, Did I get to expand the security on my home with someone else's money? NO. Did the Sheriffs department, DA, PA AG investigate the government officials who came for me? NO GOVERNMENT SERVES THE PEOPLE, YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THIS FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPAL. YOU HAVE LEARNED NOTHING. After everything I've experienced, I'm not going to pretend that one offensive, threatening voicemail suddenly outweighs years of government overreach, intimidation, and attacks on constitutional rights. My focus remains exactly where it has always been: holding public officials accountable, defending the Constitution, and exposing corruption wherever the evidence leads. You don't have to agree with me. But don't expect me to forget what has been done, or to stop speaking because it's politically convenient.

For six years, I've watched ordinary Americans sacrifice everything to expose the truth only to have others take the credit, build the brands, and profit from their work. This isn't about jealousy. It's about protecting the people who built the evidence, preserving investigations, and telling the real history of the grassroots movement. History won't remember the promoters, and personalities... It will remember who actually did the work. My latest Substack is live. https://open.substack.com/pub/delcopatriot2020/p/they-built-the-evidence-others-built?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=24vfjx

Leah Hoopes The Delco Patriot pinned a video

Follow-Up: The Cover-Up Is in the Redactions Delaware County and Duane Morris have a serious credibility problem, and their own records prove it. In 2024, they produced billing records that contained factual descriptions of election administration, Right-to-Know requests, ballot issues, records retention, and other governmental activities. Those records documented the very issues Gregory Stenstrom and I were publicly questioning.

Then something changed. Internal County emails now reveal that the Right-to-Know Officer asked Duane Morris: > "Would you like to check the already redacted ones and see if you would like to add any redactions..." Duane Morris responded with one word: > "Yes." Think about that. The law firm whose invoices were being requested was allowed to decide whether more information should be hidden from the public. But it gets even worse. Those same invoices are now being used by Delaware County to support its claimed attorney-fee damages against Gregory Stenstrom and me. So let's be clear about what happened. The invoices became both a shield and a sword. A shield to prevent the public and the defendants from seeing factual descriptions that supported our concerns about election administration. A sword to demand that we pay those same legal bills as alleged damages. You don't get to redact evidence that undermines your case while simultaneously asking a court to rely on those same records as proof of damages. And there is another discovery buried in the production. The records show that Ray McGarry was originally communicating through his FKM Law email address. Later, Delaware County issued him an official @co.delaware.pa.us email account. From that point forward, he was included in internal communications involving the Dragonetti litigation, RTKL productions, preservation notices, and legal strategy alongside County officials and Duane Morris attorneys. RAY was a politicak candidate for Judge in Montgomery county during this time mind you. Ray is a personal friend of Josh Shapiro, Shapiro appointed him in 2012 as the solicitor for Montgomery County.  No conflict at all.... That raises obvious questions. Who authorized the County email account? What was Mr. McGarry's official role? Under what authority was a private attorney provided a County email account? Why was he participating in internal County legal communications? The public deserves those answers. This investigation has never been about speculation. It is about comparing what the County said with what its own documents show. Every production reveals another inconsistency. Every email fills another gap. Every invoice tells a different story than the one presented in court. The deeper I dig, the more the County's own records corroborate why we asked questions in the first place. They thought they were producing documents. What they were really producing was evidence. BTW DELCO GOP THIS IS WHAT ACTUAL FIGHTING LOOKS LIKE. HEY FRANK AGOVINO I WON'T BE INVITING RICHARD WOMACK FOR A CHEESESTEAK AND A SIT DOWN. I WILL BE SENDING HIM RAMEN AND AAA BATTERIES IN PREPARATION FOR HIS TIME IN JAIL. See if Delco Times will pick up this story...

Applies only in specific circumstances involving bribery or kickback schemes. Ethics / Professional Responsibility (Non-Criminal) Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7 – Conflict of Interest Rule 1.9 – Duties to Former Clients Rule 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel Rule 3.7 – Lawyer as Witness Rule 8.4 – Professional Misconduct Respectfully, Leah Hoopes Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Delaware County has a continuing obligation to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, including electronically stored information. This includes emails, text messages, Microsoft Teams communications, handwritten notes, memoranda, calendars, mobile devices, cloud storage, server logs, backup media, metadata, and any other records within the possession, custody, or control of the County or its agents. Please ensure that an immediate litigation hold is implemented. No potentially responsive records should be deleted, altered, overwritten, or destroyed. Please also confirm whether a litigation hold has been issued regarding the Dragonetti litigation, the related Right-to-Know matters, and the records identified above. I can not give legal advice, but I would like to remind you to lawyer up independently. And Govern yourselves accordingly. This correspondence is intended to preserve evidence and obtain factual clarification. It should not be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies available to me under Pennsylvania or federal law, all of which are expressly reserved. Also a a reminder Potential Pennsylvania Criminal Statutes 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 – Unsworn Falsification to Authorities False written statements submitted to a governmental agency. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903 – False Swearing Knowingly making false statements under oath. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902 – Perjury Material false testimony under oath. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911 – Tampering with Public Records or Information Altering, concealing, destroying, or falsifying public records. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4910 – Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence Altering, concealing, or creating evidence with intent to impair its availability. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101 – Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function Obstructing governmental functions through unlawful means. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5105 – Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution May apply only if facts establish assistance in avoiding investigation or prosecution. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301 – Official Oppression Public servant knowingly denying or impeding another's rights under color of law. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5302 – Speculating or Wagering on Official Action or Information If facts implicate misuse of official information (fact-specific). 18 Pa.C.S. § 3922 – Theft by Deception If public funds were obtained through materially false representations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3927 – Theft by Failure to Make Required Disposition of Funds Fact-dependent where entrusted funds are misapplied. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101 – Forgery If documents were altered or falsely executed. 18 Pa.C.S. § 4107 – Deceptive or Fraudulent Business Practices If applicable to billing or procurement practices. 18 Pa.C.S. § 903 – Criminal Conspiracy Agreement to commit a criminal offense plus an overt act. 18 Pa.C.S. § 902 – Criminal Solicitation Encouraging another person to commit a crime. Pennsylvania Public Records / Government Transparency Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq. Bad-faith searches. Improper denials. Failure to preserve responsive records. Improper redactions. Failure to produce non-exempt records. Federal Statutes (Fact-Dependent) 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Requires proof of an agreement to impair or obstruct a lawful federal function. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements Materially false statements in matters within federal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Obstruction of Justice Obstruction of pending federal judicial proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Witness Tampering / Evidence Tampering Intimidation, persuasion, or destruction of evidence affecting an official proceeding. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records Altering or concealing records with intent to impede a federal investigation or matter. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud Use of the mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud Electronic communications used in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 – Honest Services Fraud

To: Lee Awbrey, Solicitor Delaware County Solicitor's Office Mrs. Awbrey, Please accept this correspondence as a formal preservation demand regarding all records relating to Delaware County, et al. v. Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes, the County's handling of Pennsylvania Right-to-Know requests concerning that litigation, and the participation of Raymond McGarry in communications relating to the matter. Through records produced by Delaware County pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, I have obtained internal email communications concerning the Dragonetti litigation that are expressly designated "Attorney-Client Privilege" and "Attorney Work Product." Those records reflect that Raymond McGarry was copied on multiple communications concerning the litigation, including email chains dated April 18, 2025, and April 29, 2025. Based upon the records presently available, Mr. McGarry's legal role in the Dragonetti litigation is not apparent. Publicly available information reflects that, at the time these communications were transmitted, Mr. McGarry was a candidate for the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and had previously served as Montgomery County Solicitor. Accordingly, I request that Delaware County immediately preserve all records sufficient to identify: Mr. McGarry's role, if any, in the Dragonetti litigation. Who authorized his inclusion on attorney-client privileged and attorney work-product communications. Any engagement letters, retention agreements, consulting agreements, common-interest agreements, joint-defense agreements, conflict waivers, or other documents authorizing his participation. Any invoices, billing records, purchase orders, Controller approvals, payment records, or procurement documents relating to Mr. McGarry or any law firm with which he was affiliated. All communications between the Solicitor's Office, Duane Morris LLP, Delaware County officials, insurers, and Mr. McGarry concerning the Dragonetti litigation. All metadata identifying when Mr. McGarry was added to litigation communications, by whom, and for what purpose. Additionally, Delaware County is on notice that multiple Right-to-Know requests and appeals concerning the Dragonetti litigation remain pending or reasonably foreseeable. The Office of the Solicitor has retained outside counsel, including Robert Scott and his law firm, in connection with Right-to-Know matters. Throughout my RTKL litigation, I have alleged that the County's responses have included inadequate searches, incomplete productions, delayed disclosures, extensive redactions, and other actions that I contend obstruct access to public records and demonstrate bad faith under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. Those allegations remain disputed and are the subject of ongoing proceedings. Accordingly, this preservation demand also extends to all records relating to: Communications with Robert Scott and his firm regarding my Right-to-Know requests and appeals. Instructions concerning record searches, custodians, search methodologies, and electronically stored information. Decisions regarding redactions, privilege assertions, withholding of records, and production decisions. Communications regarding metadata, attachments, archived emails, backup media, and preservation of electronically stored information. Litigation strategy concerning RTKL requests involving Gregory Stenstrom, Leah Hoopes, the Dragonetti litigation, or related matters. Invoices, billing narratives, payment approvals, purchase orders, engagement letters, contracts, and all financial records relating to Robert Scott's representation. Communications among the Solicitor's Office, Robert Scott, Duane Morris LLP, County Council, the Controller's Office, and any County employee concerning my Right-to-Know requests or appeals.

https://open.substack.com/pub/delcopatriot2020/p/why-was-a-judicial-candidate-copied?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=24vfjx

🚨 NEW INVESTIGATION 🚨 For nearly six years, Gregory Stenstrom and I and other great Patriots have been investigating Delaware County. We testified under oath. We submitted disclosures to the DOJ. We filed Right-to-Know requests. We defended ourselves pro se and defeated two defamation lawsuits. Then Delaware County hired one of the largest law firms in the country and sued us. Most people know about the lawsuit. Very few know what came before it. Over the past several years, I've obtained more than 40,000 pages of invoices, contracts, engagement letters, procurement records, Council agendas, meeting packets, court filings, and financial records. I reconstructed the timeline from the government's own documents. The result raises serious questions about public spending, transparency, litigation strategy, media monitoring, and government accountability. This article isn't asking you to take my word for anything. I'm inviting you to follow the documents, review the timeline, and draw your own conclusions. Read the article here: 🔗 https://open.substack.com/pub/delcopatriot2020/p/how-two-citizens-became-the-target?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=24vfjx This is only the beginning. The records tell a story no press release ever will.

.In 2020 and 2021, we did not sit online repeating rumors. We investigated. We preserved evidence. We submitted formal disclosures under penalty of perjury. We provided sworn declarations to federal authorities. We testified publicly before the Pennsylvania Senate. We filed complaints, pursued public records, petitioned government officials, and published The Parallel Election in 2021 so the evidence, system vulnerabilities, witness accounts, and documented failures could not simply be erased or buried. We specifically raised concerns involving insider access, centralized election-management systems, removable media, third-party vendors, remote access, ballot preparation, chain of custody, electronic records, system logs, election databases, tabulation infrastructure, and the ability of individuals with privileged access to alter, conceal, transfer, overwrite, or manipulate election-related data. We raised those issues while government officials, media outlets, political operatives, and so-called experts dismissed the entire subject as “misinformation” and attacked the people demanding an investigation. These were not casual accusations. I personally signed disclosures under penalty of perjury. That means I placed my name, credibility, liberty, and legal exposure behind the facts I reported. I did not hide behind anonymous sources. I did not rely on government talking points. I identified what I witnessed, what was documented, what records existed, what systems were vulnerable, and what government officials had a legal duty to investigate. The newly declassified National Intelligence Council and CIA materials now identify the same categories of risk we were warning about years ago: insider threats during voting-machine preparation; vulnerabilities in centralized election-data repositories; Internet-connected systems used in ballot preparation; inadequate password and encryption controls; third-party vendor and supply-chain exposure; malware introduced during machine configuration; vulnerabilities affecting voter-registration databases and electronic pollbooks; physical access capable of altering machine functions or installing malicious software; manipulation of electronic records, hash files, virtual-machine data, and centrally counted results; attacks against result-transmission and public-reporting systems; and cyber operations capable of delaying results, creating uncertainty, and undermining public confidence. That is the point. We were not demanding that government officials accept our conclusions without investigation. We were demanding that they perform their constitutional and statutory duties: preserve the evidence, examine the machines and systems, secure the records, investigate insider access, obtain communications, review vendor relationships, inspect logs, trace removable media, audit the election-management system, and answer sworn allegations submitted by citizens under penalty of perjury. Instead, the government dismissed us, defamed us, withheld records, resisted transparency, and used litigation and public resources against the people who petitioned for redress. The declassified documents do not create the issues we raised. They confirm that the federal intelligence community had already assessed these vulnerabilities as real, serious, technically feasible, and worthy of classified analysis. We identified those same vulnerabilities publicly, documented them, testified about them, published them, and placed them before government agencies years before these records were released. We did exactly what citizens are supposed to do in a constitutional republic: investigate misconduct, preserve evidence, swear to the truth of our disclosures, testify, publish, and petition the government. The government’s response was not investigation. It was suppression, retaliation, ridicule, concealment, and lawfare. The record now speaks for itself.

Today I served Delaware County with a formal Litigation Preservation Notice. Every email. Every text. Every Teams message. Every backup. Every server log. Every phone record. Every metadata trail. No excuses. No "routine deletion." No missing records. The duty to preserve evidence has been triggered. The public deserves the truth, and the record will speak for itself. #DelawareCounty #Transparency #RightToKnow #CivilRights #Lawfare

Furthermore, Delaware County is already aware that I possess evidence raising serious questions regarding its prior redaction practices. In a previous Right-to-Know production, counsel for the County inadvertently produced an unredacted billing page that revealed the information previously withheld was not, in my view, protected by attorney-client privilege as represented. That production demonstrated that at least some redactions were not supported by the asserted privilege claim and calls into question the County's redaction methodology and representations made in subsequent RTKL responses. This evidence will be preserved and may be relied upon in future administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the County's compliance with the Right-to-Know Law. Please provide written confirmation that Delaware County has implemented a litigation hold and has instructed all custodians, departments, contractors, and third-party vendors to preserve all potentially relevant evidence. Given this history, Delaware County should reasonably anticipate that its search procedures, privilege determinations, redaction decisions, metadata, withheld attachments, billing records, and internal communications concerning these productions will be subject to discovery. Accordingly, those materials must be preserved in their original native format, including all associated metadata, audit logs, and version history. Delaware County is hereby placed on notice that the destruction, alteration, deletion, overwriting, replacement, migration, or failure to preserve potentially relevant evidence after litigation became reasonably foreseeable may subject the County and responsible individuals to sanctions under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the inherent authority of the courts. The County is further reminded of its obligations under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law, including 65 P.S. §§ 67.506, 67.901, and 67.902, and that any knowing alteration or destruction of public records may implicate 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911. Public officials are likewise reminded of their duties under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. Chapter 11, and, where applicable, the criminal provisions governing official misconduct, including 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301. This email is supplemental to US certified mailing. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Govern yourselves accordingly. Respectfully, Leah Hoopes Pro Se Litigant Delaware County District Attorney's Office Delaware County Council Delaware County Daily Times FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation 6abc Action News Joe Holden

My email and certified letter sent this morning to Delaware County PA. Dear Solicitor Awbrey, Please accept this correspondence as formal notice that Delaware County is under an immediate and continuing legal obligation to preserve all documents, electronically stored information ("ESI"), metadata, communications, system logs, backup media, and other potentially relevant evidence relating to my pending Right-to-Know Law requests, Office of Open Records appeals, and reasonably anticipated litigation. This obligation is neither new nor speculative. Delaware County has been a respondent in multiple Right-to-Know appeals filed by the undersigned, including: OOR Docket No. AP 2023-2757 OOR Docket No. AP 2024-0241 OOR Docket No. AP 2024-1191 OOR Docket No. AP 2026-2145 (currently pending) These matters establish a longstanding pattern of disputes concerning the County's compliance with the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. Despite years of litigation, the County has repeatedly delayed production, provided inconsistent representations regarding the existence and volume of responsive records, failed to produce records on a rolling basis, failed to identify withheld attachments or metadata, and failed to provide any privilege or redaction log sufficient to permit meaningful review of withheld information. The County is further on notice that I have submitted reports concerning these matters to federal authorities. Accordingly, Delaware County should reasonably anticipate continued administrative review, civil litigation, and any other proceedings authorized by law. As County Solicitor, I request that you immediately implement a litigation hold directing all County departments, elected officials, employees, contractors, consultants, information technology personnel, third-party vendors, and any individual acting on the County's behalf to preserve all potentially relevant evidence, including but not limited to: Emails, attachments, calendars, text messages, Microsoft Teams messages, instant messages, and other electronic communications; Native electronic files and all associated metadata; Records identifying custodians, search methodologies, search terms, repositories searched, and documentation relating to my Right-to-Know requests; Records reflecting redactions, withheld documents, omitted attachments, withheld metadata, and privilege determinations; Server logs, audit logs, authentication logs, firewall logs, VPN logs, backup logs, security event logs, and system access records; Backup media, archived email, cloud storage, disaster recovery images, snapshots, forensic images, and other recoverable electronically stored information; Records relating to the County's reported cyber incident, including forensic reports, incident response materials, restoration efforts, server replacements, backup restoration, communications regarding preservation or loss of electronically stored information, and all communications with outside vendors or consultants concerning those matters. The County's reported cyber incident only heightens its preservation obligations. Any destruction, deletion, overwriting, alteration, migration, restoration without preservation, or failure to preserve potentially relevant evidence after receipt of this notice may constitute spoliation of evidence and may be presented to the appropriate tribunal in support of requests for sanctions, adverse evidentiary inferences, and any other relief authorized by law. Please also preserve all communications concerning my pending Office of Open Records appeals, including discussions relating to extension requests, production schedules, record searches, redactions, exemptions asserted, and internal deliberations concerning responsive records. Given the County's repeated requests for additional time based upon the alleged volume of records, I further request that no responsive records, backup media, metadata, or system logs be altered, deleted, replaced, or destroyed while these matters remain pending.