Konnech CEO Eugene Yu vs. LA District Atty. George Gascon Etal Dated Sept 14th 2023 274 Pages

1 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
2 Constantine Z. Pamphilis (pro hac vice application to be submitted)

DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
3 1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
4 (713) 220-8800
(713) 222-0843 (fax)
5
Daniel A. Saunders
6 California Bar No. 161051
DSaunders@kasowitz.com
7 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90067
8 (424) 288-7900
(424) 288-7901 (fax)
9
Attorneys for Petitioners Konnech Inc. and Eugene Yu
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
13
KONNECH INC., and Case No. _______________
14 EUGENE YU,
15 Petitioners, PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM
v. GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT
16 CLAIM PRESENTATION
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, and REQUIREMENT
17 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, [CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6]
18
19 Respondents.
20
21
Petitioners Eugene Yu (“Mr. Yu”) and Konnech Inc. (“Konnech,” and together with Mr.
22
Yu, “Petitioners”), under a full reservation of rights and without waiver of their position that
23
Petitioners have fully complied with the Government Claims Act (CAL. GOV’T CODE §§ 900 et
24
seq.) and all requirements thereunder, hereby petition the Court pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE §
25
946.6 for an order relieving them from the government claim filing requirements of CAL. GOV’T
26
CODE § 945.4 regarding certain of Petitioners’ government claims (“Claims”) that were presented
27
to Respondents Los Angeles County (“LA County”) via the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles
28
-- 1 --
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT CLAIM PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT
1 County (the “Board” and, collectively with LA County, “Respondents”) on May 5, 2023 (the
2 “Claims Notices”).1 This Petition is based upon Respondents’ contention that some unspecified
3 portion of Petitioners’ Claims were untimely and subsequent denial of Petitioners’ Application to
4 Present Claims Not Timely Filed (the “Application”),2 which was deemed denied by operation of
5 law on or about July 14, 2023. While Petitioners contend that all of the Claims in the Claim Notices
6 were timely presented and thus Petitioners fully complied with the Government Claims Act in all
7 respects—as set forth more fully in the Complaint Petitioners have concurrently filed in the related
8 action pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 23STCV221093—because any
9 alleged failure to timely present claims resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
10 neglect, and because Respondents were not prejudiced by any such failure, Petitioners file this
11 petition for relief pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6 out of an abundance of caution and request
12 relief from the tort claim presentation requirement set forth in CAL. GOV’T CODE § 945.4. In
13 support thereof, Petitioners would show as follows:
14 INTRODUCTION
15 1. Konnech is a small, Michigan-based company built from the ground up by its
16 President and CEO, Petitioner Eugene Yu. Mr. Yu is a U.S. Citizen of Chinese descent who
17 attended college at Wake Forest University and renounced his Chinese citizenship when he became
18 a U.S. Citizen over 27 years ago. Konnech provides governmental entities, including LA County,
19 with an election logistics software product called PollChief that, before Mr. Yu’s arrest by
20 Respondent LA County, was used by three dozen cities and counties to recruit, train and schedule
21 poll workers, and to coordinate the distribution of equipment and supplies. Konnech has never
22 provided any voting-related services like voter registration, ballot generation or tabulation, and thus
23 Konnech’s services could not affect voting results.
24
25
1
26 Copies of the Claim Notices are attached hereto as Attachment 1 and fully incorporated herein by
reference.
27 2
A Copy of the Application is attached hereto as Attachment 2 and fully incorporated herein by reference.
3
28 A Copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Attachment 3 and fully incorporated herein by reference.
-- 2 --
1 2. As more fully explained in the Complaint, Respondent LA County, along with its
2 employees, investigators and consultants, including LA County District Attorney George Gascón
3 (“Gascón”), LA County Deputy District Attorney Eric Neff (“Neff”), LA County District
4 Attorney’s Office Senior Investigator Andrew Stevens (“Stevens”), and consultants Harry Haury
5 (“Haury”) and Nate Cain (“Cain”) of Cain & Associates (collectively, LA County, Gascón,
6 Stevens, Neff, Haury and Cain will be referred to as the “LA County DA’s Office”),4 brazenly
7 violated Petitioners’ constitutional rights through the use of threats, intimidation and coercion to
8 improperly subject Petitioners to a politically biased arrest, an unlawful search, seizure of property
9 and detention, and a malicious prosecution mere weeks before the 2022 midterm election (the
10 “2022 Midterm Election”). Only after the frivolous charges were voluntarily dismissed did
11 Petitioners learn that the LA County DA’s Office’s investigation and prosecution lacked probable
12 cause and were based solely on frivolous claims espoused by discredited election fraud conspiracy
13 theorists and grifters, True the Vote, Inc. (“TTV”), Catherine Engelbrecht (“Engelbrecht”), and
14 Gregg Phillips (“Phillips,” and together with TTV and Engelbrecht, the “Election Deniers”), who
15 line their pockets by selling thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, including unsupported
16 claims that 3 million non-US citizens voted in the 2016 Presidential Election and that the 2020
17 Presidential Election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.
18 3. Despite knowing exactly with whom they were dealing, the LA County DA’s Office
19 maliciously and recklessly relied on and knowingly aligned itself with the Election Deniers to
20 spread further discredited conspiracy theories concerning election malfeasance and, in the process,
21 to destroy Petitioners’ reputation and business under color of law through an abuse of the LA
22 County DA’s Office’s official powers. More specifically, Stevens and Neff—who Petitioners
23 eventually learned were closely aligned with the Election Deniers—sought to weaponize the
24 Election Deniers’ frivolous and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud to gin up a political
25 controversy that would funnel money to the Election Deniers on the eve of the 2022 Midterm
26 Election under the guise of “political fundraising.” Gascón, a “progressive” prosecutor who had
27 4
Respondent LA County, Gascón, Stevens and Neff are all named Defendants in the Complaint. See
28 Attachment 3.
-- 3 --
1 recently faced public scrutiny including recall attempts and a torrent of no-confidence votes issued
2 by as many as 30 city councils, attempted to take advantage of this newly created political
3 controversy in an effort to dispel accusations that he was too soft on crime in a county faced with
4 numerous scandals about its lack of criminal enforcement.
5 4. Petitioners were not aware of, and could not reasonably discover through the
6 exercise of reasonable diligence, the political, racial and xenophobic biases underlying the LA
7 County DA’s Office’s conduct until after the criminal charges asserted against Petitioner Yu were
8 dropped on November 9, 2022, because, prior to that time, the LA County DA’s Office had
9 intentionally concealed from Petitioners and the general public all connections between their
10 investigation and the Election Deniers’ frivolous conspiracy theories. The LA County DA’s Office
11 sealed the original indictment upon which the original arrest, search and seizure were based to hide
12 this fact, and the public statements they made to media outlets in conjunction with Mr. Yu’s arrest
13 expressly (and falsely) claimed that the LA County DA’s Office was unaware of the Election
14 Deniers’ “investigation" and that the Election Deniers had no input into the LA County DA’s
15 Office’s investigation.
16 5. Only after the criminal charges against Mr. Yu were dismissed on or about
17 November 9, 2022, did the LA County DA’s Office’s concealment of the political, racial and
18 xenophobic biases underlying their actions become apparent. Numerous media reports beginning
19 on November 10, 2022, included statements from Respondent LA County’s spokespersons raising
20 “concerns” about “the potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence” and
21 indicating, for the first time, that Respondent LA County’s investigation and prosecution were, in
22 fact, based on the Election Deniers’ frivolous conspiracy theories. Indeed, on or about November
23 22, 2022, media reports indicated that Neff had been placed on administrative leave due to his role
24 in the “questionable prosecution” of Mr. Yu. Petitioners also learned in February 2023 that
25 Respondent LA County had retained close associates of the Election Deniers as “consultants” to
26 participate in the raid on Petitioners’ home and business offices.
27 6. Because the LA County DA’s Office prevented Petitioners from learning about the
28 lack of probable cause and corresponding unlawful nature of the LA County DA’s Office’s
-- 4 --
1 investigation and prosecution until no earlier than November 9, 2022, and because Respondent LA
2 County refused to comply with a November 16, 2022 court order compelling it to return the
3 property seized during the raid on Petitioners’ home and business offices, Petitioners reasonably
4 believed they had to submit their Claim Notices within six months of the November 9, 2022
5 dismissal of charges against Mr. Yu at the earliest. Petitioners presented the Claim Notices to LA
6 County via U.S. mail on May 5, 2023, within the applicable statutory period. While Respondent
7 LA County acknowledged that the Claim Notices set forth timely claims, it purported to reject as
8 untimely any claims raised in the Claim Notices that “pertain” to “activities” occurring prior to
9 November 8, 2022, without any substantive analysis of which claims were timely and which were
10 untimely, and without analyzing when each claim accrued as required by CAL. GOV’T CODE § 901.
11 In response, Petitioners submitted their Application to File Claims Not Timely Presented pursuant
12 to CAL. GOV’T CODE § 911.4 (the “Application”), to which Respondents did not respond.
13 7. Petitioners’ Application should have been granted because the LA County DA’s
14 Office’s efforts to conceal the political, racial and xenophobic nature of their investigation and
15 prosecution prevented Petitioners from learning of claims they had against the LA County DA’s
16 Office despite Petitioners’ exercise of reasonable diligence and caused Petitioners to believe that
17 the triggering date for presenting tort claims to Respondents was November 9, 2022, at the earliest.
18 Any failure to present claims allegedly accruing prior to that date was thus the result of mistake,
19 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Petitioners acted in the same way a reasonably prudent
20 person would under similar circumstances, and it was Petitioners’ own diligent investigation
21 throughout the statutory time period that allowed Petitioners to uncover the LA County DA’s
22 Office’s efforts to conceal the biased nature of its investigation and prosecution. Moreover,
23 Respondents will not be prejudiced by the requested relief due to, among other reasons, the prompt
24 presentation of Petitioners’ Application—which was presented less than two weeks after Petitioners
25 received notice of Respondents’ finding that certain unspecified claims were allegedly untimely—
26 and Respondent LA County’s repeated claims that it is still reviewing the data that was improperly
27 seized from Petitioners when it arrested Mr. Yu and executed the search warrants (and that
28 Respondent LA County continues to retain in violation of a court order).

-- 5 --
1 8. Petitioners thus respectfully request that, for the unspecified claims that
2 Respondents contend were not timely presented, the Court grant this petition pursuant to CAL.
3 GOV’T CODE § 946.6 and issue an order relieving Petitioners from the claim filing requirement of
4 CAL. GOV’T CODE § 945.4.
5 PARTIES
6 9. Petitioner Konnech, Inc. is incorporated in Michigan and headquartered in East
7 Lansing, Michigan.
8 10. Petitioner Eugene Yu is an individual residing in Michigan.
9 11. Respondent Los Angeles County is a public entity established and maintained by
10 the laws and Constitution of the State of California, and operates, manages, and controls the LA
11 County DA’s Office, and employs and/or is responsible for Gascón, Stevens and Neff, as well as
12 Cain & Associates and consultants Haury and Cain. Defendant Los Angeles County is vicariously
13 liable for the acts and omissions of Gascón, Stevens and Neff, as well as Cain & Associates and
14 consultants Haury and Cain, and any investigators described herein pursuant to common law and
15 California Government Code § 815.2.
16 12. Respondent Board of Supervisors of LA County is a public entity located within the
17 County of Los Angeles that is established and maintained by the laws and Constitution of the State
18 of California, and operates, manages, and controls Respondent LA County.
19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20 13. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE §
21 946.6(a) because the Court is a superior court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action
22 on the causes of action to which the Claims at issue here relate.
23 14. Los Angeles County is a proper venue for this action pursuant to CAL. CIV. PROC.
24 CODE § 394, as Respondents are located there, and the acts and omissions that are the subject of
25 this Petition arose and occurred there.
26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 15. Mr. Yu was originally arrested in Michigan on October 4, 2022. Despite this being
28 his first alleged offense, and despite having voluntarily traveled to Los Angeles for his arraignment,
-- 6 --
1 the LA County DA’s Office asked that Mr. Yu be held without bail, first in Michigan and then
2 again in Los Angeles.5 While the LA County judge ultimately granted bail, Mr. Yu was required
3 to wear two different ankle bracelet monitors (one for Michigan and one for California) and remain
4 in Los Angeles under house arrest at a Los Angeles hotel, more than 2,200 miles away from his
5 home and Konnech’s offices in Michigan.6 Respondent LA County did not dismiss the criminal
6 charges asserted against Mr. Yu until November 9, 2022, after which he was finally released from
7 confinement.7 Prior to that time, neither Mr. Yu nor Konnech knew or had reason to know that
8 improper political motivations may have prompted the charges and the unlawful search and seizure
9 of Petitioners’ property, primarily because the indictment on which the charges and seizure were
10 based was sealed, and remains sealed to this day.8 Moreover, when a spokesperson for Respondent
11 LA County had previously been questioned about the Election Deniers’ involvement in the days
12 following Mr. Yu’s arrest, the spokesperson initially claimed that the LA County DA’s Office was
13 unaware of the Election Deniers’ investigation and stated that the Election Deniers had no input
14 into the LA County DA’s Office’s investigation.9
15 16. On or about November 9, 2022, Respondent LA County dismissed all charges
16 against Mr. Yu.10 The following day, on or about November 10, 2022, Petitioners first learned
17 through media reports from a reporter with National Public Radio (“NPR”) that Respondent LA
18 County dismissed the case because it was “concerned about both the pace of the investigation and
19 the potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence.”11 That same NPR report
20
5
See Declaration of Eugene Yu, dated May 27, 2023 (“Yu Decl.”), attached as Exhibit C to Attachment 2,
21 at ¶ 4.
6
22 See id.
7
See id. A true and correct copy of the court docket for this criminal proceeding is attached as Exhibit C-1
23 to Attachment 2.
8
24 See id.
9
See Natalia Contreras, Federal judge demands True the Vote identify who provided access to poll worker
25 data, VoteBeat Texas (Oct. 7, 2022), available at https://texas.votebeat.org/2022/10/7/23393718/true-the-
26 vote-konnech-lawsuit-data-china.
10
See Yu Decl. at ¶ 5; see also Exhibit C-1 to Attachment 2.
27 11
See Yu Decl. at ¶ 5; see also Exhibit C-2 to Attachment 2.
28
-- 7 --
1 further confirmed for the first time that, despite the public statements previously made by
2 Respondent LA County’s spokesperson to the contrary, the “district attorney’s office
3 acknowledged to NPR that the investigation began after a tip from [Election Denier] Gregg
4 Phillips.”12 Petitioners were not aware of this fact, and had no reason to be aware of it through the
5 exercise of reasonable diligence, prior to November 10, 2022.13
6 17. On or about November 22, 2022, the Los Angeles Times published a report
7 indicating, for the first time, that one of the Deputy District Attorneys responsible for the
8 investigation and prosecution—Neff—had been placed on administrative leave for his role in the
9 “questionable prosecution” of Mr. Yu “that may have been sparked by conspiracy theorists who
10 deny the validity of the 2020 presidential election.”14 The Los Angeles Times confirmed that this
11 leave was connected to Gascón’s decision to drop the charges against Mr. Yu, and further expressly
12 noted that in the previous news conference announcing the charges Gascón “did not mention that
13 his office’s investigation was sparked by a conversation with one of the founders of [Election
14 Denier TTV],” and that “[t]he district attorney’s office has previously sought to downplay [Election
15 Denier TTV’s] role in the investigation.”15 The article also noted that “the extent of [Election
16 Denier TTV’s] involvement in the investigation remains unclear.”16
17 18. Petitioners then learned, though discovery in a separate lawsuit that Petitioners had
18 previously filed against the Election Deniers in a Houston, Texas federal court (the “Houston
19 Lawsuit”), of further evidence of political, racial and xenophobic bias in the LA County DA’s
20 Office’s unlawful investigation and prosecution, including the fact that Respondent LA County had
21 retained close associates of the Election Deniers to participate in the raid on Petitioners’ home and
22 business offices. Through an affidavit received on or about February 24, 2023, in the Houston
23 Lawsuit, Petitioners learned that Respondent LA County had retained Harry Haury, purported CEO
24 12
See Exhibit C-2 to Attachment 2.
13
25 See Yu Decl. at ¶ 5.
14
26 See id. at ¶ 6; see also Exhibit C-3 to Attachment 2.
15
See Exhibit C-3 to Attachment 2.
27 16
See id.
28
-- 8 --
1 of Cain & Associates, to participate in the search and seizure of Petitioners’ property in conjunction
2 with Respondent LA County’s investigation.17 Then, in response to a February 27, 2023, subpoena
3 served in the Houston Lawsuit, Cain & Associates confirmed that Haury had been retained and
4 further indicated that, even though they were no longer retained by Respondent LA County, they
5 nevertheless retained possession of some of Petitioners’ property that had been seized during the
6 LA County DA’s Office’s unlawful search at the time of Mr. Yu’s arrest.18
7 19. Finally, in response to a subpoena issued to Right Side Broadcasting Network, LLC
8 on February 27, 2023, in the Houston Lawsuit, Petitioners obtained for the first time a copy of the
9 full, previously unpublished video of the August 13, 2022, invitation-only event called “The Pit,”
10 an event held by the Election Deniers in Arizona where they spread fabricated conspiracies about
11 Petitioners.19 Through that video, Petitioners first learned that Mr. Haury not only attended the
12 invitation-only event, but he actually appeared on stage as a speaker and solicited people to send
13 money to the Election Deniers.20 That video further revealed that Haury explicitly expressed racial
14 and xenophobic views at The Pit, which was attended by Stevens, by claiming that “any Chinese
15 nationalized citizen is a risk.”21
16 20. Due to Respondent LA County’s efforts to conceal the improper political, racial and
17 xenophobic motivations underlying the unlawful arrest, search, seizure, detention and malicious
18 prosecution of Petitioners, and despite Petitioners’ reasonably diligent investigation of the
19 underlying facts, Petitioners did not have reason to believe that their civil claims described in the
20
17
See Yu Decl. at ¶ 7.
21 18
See id. at ¶ 7; see also Exhibit C-4 to Attachment 2.
22 19
See Yu Decl. at ¶ 8; see also Exhibit C-5 and Exhibit D to Attachment 2.
20
23 See id.
21
Petitioners continue to learn new facts about the close alignment between Respondent LA County and the
24 Election Deniers even to this day. In a podcast published on September 11, 2023, Haury admitted that he
testified before the Los Angeles County grand jury that investigated Mr. Yu and after testifying, Respondent
25 LA County hired Haury (and Cain & Associates), at Haury’s recommendation, as forensic experts to build
a case against Mr. Yu and to participate in the raid on Plaintiffs’ home and business offices. See Information
26
Operation podcast Episode 183, available at
27 https://creativedestructionmedia.com/video/2023/09/11/livestream-7pm-est-bill-barr-stopped-bethpage-
ballot-trafficking-investigation/.
28
-- 9 --
1 Claim Notices accrued until November 9, 2022, at the earliest.22 Even then, Respondent LA County
2 stated publicly that it was continuing to investigate Petitioners and it continued to negotiate with
3 Petitioners’ criminal defense counsel through at least April 2023, including before and following
4 at least seven hearings (as reflected in Exhibit C-1 to Attachment 2) regarding Respondent LA
5 County’s obligation to return Petitioners’ personal property pursuant to the November 16, 2022,
6 order, regarding the continued seizure of Petitioners’ personal property, and the propriety of Mr.
7 Yu’s prosecution, including whether that prosecution would be reinstated, all of which caused
8 Petitioners to mistakenly believe that there would be no need to present a tort claim to
9 Respondents.23
10 21. Petitioners timely presented the Claim Notices to Respondents pursuant to the
11 California Government Claims Act by depositing the Claim Notices in the U.S. mail on May 5,
12 2023.24 In the Claim Notices, Petitioners set forth in substantial detail the multiple violations of
13 state law that the LA County DA’s Office perpetrated on Petitioners, causing substantial and
14 ongoing economic and noneconomic monetary damages to Petitioners that continue to this day, as
15 well as the specific facts that underlie Petitioners’ claims.
16 22. On or about May 17, 2023, Respondents sent each Petitioner a letter responding to
17 Petitioners’ Claim Notices (the “Response Letters”) that improperly rejected some unspecified
18 portion of Petitioners’ claims as untimely to the extent they “pertain[] to activities occurring from
19 May 8, 2023 to November 7, 2022,” because it alleges such claims were “not presented within six
20 months after the event or occurrence as required by law.” As for “activities” that occurred on or
21 after November 8, 2022, Respondents considered claims based on such unspecified “activities” to
22 be timely but subsequently rejected them via letter on or about July 3, 2023.
23
24
25
22
26 See Yu Decl. at ¶ 9.
23
See id.
27 24
See Attachment 1.
28
-- 10 --
1 23. With regard to the unspecified claims that “pertain[] to activities occurring from
2 May 8, 2023 to November 7, 2022,”25 Petitioners corrected Respondents’ misunderstanding of
3 California law concerning the timeliness of their claims and, out of an abundance of caution, also
4 submitted an Application to Present Claims Not Timely Filed on May 30, 2023.26 That Application
5 noted that Respondents incorrectly assessed the date of accrual for all of Petitioners’ causes of
6 action, asserted that all of Petitioners’ claims were timely presented, and alternatively sought leave
7 to submit any claims that Respondents failed to specify and incorrectly deemed to be untimely
8 pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE §§ 911.4 and 911.6, establishing all requisite elements of same.27
9 Petitioners’ Application was filed less than two weeks after Petitioners received notice of
10 Respondents’ finding that certain unspecified claims were untimely, and approximately seven
11 months after the earliest possible accrual date of any of Petitioners’ claims, and thus well within
12 the one-year deadline for filing such applications as set forth in CAL. GOV’T CODE § 911.4(b).
13 24. Respondents never responded to Petitioners’ Application, which was thus deemed
14 rejected by operation of law on or about July 14, 2023. This Petition was filed within six months
15 of the date on which the Application was deemed denied.
16 25. Because Respondents found that some unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims
17 were, in fact, timely—and because Petitioners disagree with Respondents’ contention that any of
18 Petitioners’ claims were not timely presented—Petitioners concurrently filed their Complaint in
19 Los Angeles Superior Court on or about Wednesday, September 13, 2023, to ensure compliance
20 with applicable statutes of limitations for the unspecified claims Respondents agree are timely, and
21 to preserve Petitioners’ argument that all claims were timely presented.28
22 25
Respondents’ May 17, 2023 letters improperly contended that Petitioners’ claims were presented on May
23 8, 2023, and thus determined that claims would be untimely to the extent they “pertain” to activities
occurring before November 8, 2022. There can be no question, however, that Petitioners presented their
24 Claim Notices on May 5, 2023, and sent them via both certified mail and Federal Express on that date. See
Attachment 1. Pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE § 915(f), a claim is deemed presented once mailed. As a
25 result, and despite Respondents’ contentions regarding an alleged November 8, 2022 trigger date for claims
presentation, the claims presentation period actually began on November 5, 2023.
26 26
See Attachment 2.
27 27
See id.
28
28 See Attachment 3.
-- 11 --
1 PETITION FOR RELIEF
2 26. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 25, as if fully
3 set forth herein.
4 27. Pursuant to CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6, Petitioners thus hereby petition the Court to
5 enter an order relieving Petitioners of any obligation under CAL. GOV’T CODE § 945.4 to timely
6 present whatever unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims that Respondents impliedly rejected by
7 operation of law.
8 28. As an initial matter, Respondents’ Response Letters’ conclusory statements about
9 timeliness simply do not comport with California law, as the timeliness of presented claims is not
10 measured by the date on which any particular event or occurrence took place, but instead by the
11 date on which Petitioners’ specific causes of action accrued. CAL. GOV’T CODE § 901. Section
12 911.2 governs the timeliness of claims presented under the California Tort Claims Act and states
13 that claims relating to a cause of action for injury to person or to personal property shall be
14 presented “not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action.” CAL. GOV’T CODE
15 § 911.2 (emphasis added). Causes of action generally accrue upon the occurrence of the last
16 element essential to a cause of action. See, e.g., Garcia v. Rosenberg, 42 Cal. App. 5th 1050, 1060
17 (2019). The discovery rule applies when a plaintiff does not discover or have reason to discover
18 one or more of these essential elements until after the date of the injury. See WA Southwest 2, LLC
19 v. First American Title Ins. Co., 240 Cal. App. 4th 148, 156 (2015).
20 29. Notably, neither Section 901 nor Section 911.2 requires that claims be presented
21 within “six months after the event or occurrence” as stated in the Response Letters. As a result, the
22 Response Letters’ statement that some unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims are untimely
23 because they were not presented within six months of some similarly unspecified event or
24 occurrence—particularly when, as in the instant matter, no single injury-causing event exists—
25 simply does not properly apply the applicable statutory provisions governing timeliness. As the
26 Response Letters are devoid of any relevant analysis—including of the causes of action being
27 asserted, the date on which those causes of action would be deemed to have accrued under the
28 relevant statute of limitations, and whether that accrual occurred within six months of the date the
-- 12 --
1 claims were presented—Respondents simply have not established and cannot establish that any
2 portion of Petitioners’ claims are untimely. As more fully set forth in the Application, all of the
3 claims Petitioners presented in the Claim Notices were timely as they did not accrue until
4 November 9, 2022, at the earliest.29
5 30. While Petitioners’ causes of action in the Claim Notices were timely presented as
6 set forth in the Complaint attached hereto as Attachment 3, out of an abundance of caution and to
7 the extent any of Petitioners’ causes of action are determined to be untimely, Petitioners hereby
8 request relief from CAL. GOV’T CODE § 945.4 for any claims determined to be untimely because
9 any alleged failure to timely present such claims was based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
10 excusable neglect, and because LA County has not suffered any prejudice as a result of any late
11 filing.
12 31. More specifically, CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6 states that
13 [t]he court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of
14 Section 945.4 if the court finds that the application to the board
15 under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to
16 exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was
17 denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or
18 more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the
19 claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
20 neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be
21 prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the
22 petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.
23 32. First, Petitioners’ Application was properly presented to the Board “within a
24 reasonable time” not to exceed the time period identified in CAL. GOV’T CODE § 911.4(b), which
25 sets the outer limit for such filings at one year after the accrual of the cause of action. Even if
26 Respondents had correctly determined that one or more of Petitioners’ causes of action accrued
27
29
28 See Attachment 2.
-- 13 --
1 more than six months before May 5, 2023—the date the Claim Notices were deemed to have been
2 presented under CAL. GOV’T CODE § 915—the earliest possible date for the accrual of any cause of
3 action asserted in the Claim Notices would be October 4, 2022, the date of Mr. Yu’s unlawful arrest
4 and the unlawful search and seizure of Petitioners’ personal property. Petitioners’ Application was
5 filed on May 30, 2023, seven months after that earliest possible accrual date, and thus well within
6 the one-year period authorized by § 946.6 and § 911.4(b). Moreover, Petitioners promptly
7 submitted their Application within two weeks of their receipt of the Response Letters, which
8 informed Petitioners, for the first time, that one or more of their claims may be untimely.
9 33. Second, Petitioners have shown or will show that their Application was deemed
10 denied by Respondents’ refusal to issue any ruling on the Application. CAL. GOV’T CODE §
11 911.6(c) provides that if the Board fails or refuses to act on the Application within the 45-day time
12 period set forth therein, the Application shall be deemed denied on the 45th day. Petitioners’
13 Application was filed on May 30, 2023, and Respondents did not respond to that Application in
14 any manner. As a result, the Application was deemed denied by operation of law on or about July
15 14, 2023.
16 34. Third, Petitioners have shown or will show that any alleged failure to present any
17 untimely claims was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Petitioners’
18 Application and supporting exhibits established that the underlying facts of this case do not involve
19 a solitary injury-causing event that would provide a single starting point for measuring statutory
20 time frames for claim presentation, and instead involve a series of threatening, intimidating and
21 coercive acts by Respondent LA County and its employees, investigators and consultants to
22 weaponize unsubstantiated and frivolous conspiracy theories as part of a politically motivated
23 investigation, arrest, search, seizure, detention and malicious prosecution in violation of
24 Petitioners’ constitutional and statutory rights. The difficulty in establishing precisely when the
25 clock started running for the presentment of various tort claims was then further compounded by
26 the LA County DA’s Office’s efforts throughout the relevant statutory time period to conceal from
27 Petitioners—and the public at large—the improper biases underlying the LA County DA’s Office’s
28 actions, a key fact that underlies all of Petitioners’ causes of action, such that Petitioners did not
-- 14 --
1 learn of these improper motives until after the charges against Mr. Yu were dismissed on November
2 9, 2022.30
3 35. More specifically, and as fully set forth in the Application and the Complaint, the
4 indictment that originally led to Mr. Yu’s arrest and the seizure of Petitioners’ personal property
5 was sealed and remains under seal to this day, presumably because the indictment would reveal
6 that the charges were based entirely on untrustworthy allegations made by the Election Deniers.31
7 Respondent LA County went out of its way to conceal this fact until after it voluntarily dismissed
8 the criminal charges against Petitioner Yu, such that Petitioners did not know and could not have
9 discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that the LA County DA’s Offices’ arrest
10 and search and seizure warrants lacked probable cause and were unlawful.
11 36. Indeed, despite initially publicly claiming that the Election Deniers were not
12 involved with the arrest of Mr. Yu, Respondent LA County was later forced to correct this statement
13 once the criminal charges were dismissed, admitting via press reports that were not published until
14 November 10, 2022, or later, that Respondent LA County had “concerns” about “potential bias in
15 the presentation and investigation of the evidence,” and that the investigation was actually based
16 entirely on tips provided by the thoroughly debunked Election Deniers. 32 Due to the LA County
17 DA’s Office’s efforts to conceal the improper sources and motivations behind their conduct,
18 Petitioners did not learn of these facts until November 10, 2022, at the earliest, and thus did not
19 know and had no reason to know that any of the causes of action alleged in the Claim Notices had
20 accrued prior to that date.33 Then, through media reports dated November 22, 2022, Petitioners
21 first learned that Neff had been placed on administrative leave due to his role in the LA County
22 DA’s Office’s investigation and prosecution efforts.34 Petitioners further did not learn until
23 February 2023 through an affidavit submitted in a separate lawsuit that Respondent LA County had
24 30
See Yu Decl. at ¶¶ 4-9.
31
25 See id. at ¶ 4.
32
26 See id. at ¶ 5.
33
See id. at ¶¶ 4-5.
27 34
See id. at ¶ 6.
28
-- 15 --
1 also retained close associates of the Election Deniers—Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates—as
2 consultants to participate in the raid on Petitioners’ home and business offices, and that Haury had
3 personally spoken on stage at The Pit and had solicited donations on behalf of the Election
4 Deniers.35 Petitioners also learned from the video that Haury explicitly expressed racial and
5 xenophobic views at The Pit, which was attended by Stevens, by claiming that “any Chinese
6 nationalized citizen is a risk.”36
7 37. The LA County DA’s Office’s efforts to conceal the political motivations for its
8 malicious prosecution and the resulting seizure of Petitioners’ personal property—which
9 Petitioners did not begin to grasp until November 9, 2022, at the earliest, and did not truly
10 understand until much later—thus made it impossible for Petitioners, through the exercise of
11 reasonable diligence, to ascertain any earlier that they had the claims described in the Claim
12 Notices.37 Even then, Respondent LA County continued through at least April 2023, including
13 during at least seven hearings held before the Los Angeles Superior Court who ordered the LA
14 County DA’s Office to return Petitioners’ property,38 to negotiate with Mr. Yu’s criminal defense
15 counsel the return of Petitioners’ personal property and the propriety of Mr. Yu’s prosecution,
16 including whether that prosecution would be reinstated, causing Petitioners to mistakenly believe
17 that a resolution could be reached with the LA County DA’s Office that could eliminate the need
18 to file some of Petitioners’ claims.39
19 38. For all of these reasons, the LA County DA’s Office’s efforts to conceal the true and
20 unlawful nature of its investigation and prosecution tolled the running of any applicable statutes of
21 limitation, limitations periods, and timeline for submittal of claims under any applicable
22 35
See Yu Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8.
36
23 As explained earlier, Petitioners also recently learned via a podcast published on September 11, 2023, that
Haury testified before the Los Angeles County grand jury that investigated Mr. Yu and after testifying was
24 hired (along with Cain & Associates) by Respondent LA County as forensics experts to build a case against
Mr. Yu and to participate in the raid on Plaintiffs’ home and business offices. See Information Operation
25 podcast Episode 183, available at https://creativedestructionmedia.com/video/2023/09/11/livestream-7pm-
est-bill-barr-stopped-bethpage-ballot-trafficking-investigation/.
26 37
See Yu Decl. at ¶ 9.
27 38
See id.; see also Exhibit C-1 to Attachment 2.
39
28 See id.
-- 16 --
1 procedures, ordinances or laws, for any of the Claims or causes of action alleged by Petitioners,
2 and Petitioners reasonably believed that the November 9, 2022, dismissal of criminal charges
3 against Mr. Yu, along with the concurrent release of statements and news stories highlighting the
4 abnormal nature of the LA County DA’s Office’s actions, constituted the triggering date for the
5 six-month claim presentation period under Section 911.2. Only through Petitioners’ own
6 reasonably diligent investigation throughout the statutory time period did Petitioners learn the true
7 nature of the LA County DA’s Office’s conduct, at which point Petitioners retained counsel to
8 specifically prepare and present claims to Respondents within six months of November 9, 2022.
9 To the extent this belief was mistaken and any cause of action identified in the Claim Notices
10 accrued earlier than November 9, 2022, Petitioners contend that the highly unusual and complicated
11 facts and circumstances that underlies their claims demonstrate that Petitioners’ alleged failure to
12 timely present these claims was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,
13 and that Petitioners acted in the same way a reasonably prudent person would under similar
14 circumstances.
15 39. Moreover, if any particular claim was untimely, the Claim Notices were presented
16 only one month late at most, given that the earliest possible accrual date for any cause of action
17 was the October 4, 2022, arrest of Mr. Yu and initial seizure of Petitioners’ personal property.
18 Petitioners’ claims were deemed presented on May 5, 2023, a mere 31 days after this earliest
19 possible accrual date. Further, to this day Respondent LA County still retains possession of
20 evidence that underlies Petitioners’ claims—in the form of Petitioners’ laptops, thumb drives,
21 notebooks, hard drives, memory cards, RSA keys, cell phones, computer servers, desktops,
22 workstations, firewall equipment and other personal property—and the Response Letters made
23 clear that the Board continued to investigate some unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims until
24 July 3, 2023, at which point Respondents denied the unspecified portions of the Claim Notices that
25 were determined to have been timely presented. For these reasons, there can be no reasonable
26 argument that Respondents have been prejudiced in any way by the short delay in presenting these
27 claims. See Flores v. Board of Supervisors, 13 Cal. App. 3d 480, 485 (1970). In Flores, the
28 appellate court specifically noted that the short delay of only 23 days “deserves special emphasis,”
-- 17 --
1 and the same remains true here, particularly given that Respondent LA County sought to conceal
2 facts about its own wrongdoing, and still possesses all of the relevant evidence that was seized as
3 part of Mr. Yu’s unlawful arrest.
4 40. As required by CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6(b), all information required by CAL.
5 GOV’T CODE § 910 is explicitly set forth in the Claim Notices attached hereto as Attachment 1 and
6 is fully incorporated herein by reference.
7 41. Because any alleged failure to timely present claims was the result of mistake,
8 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and because Respondents have not suffered any
9 prejudice, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant this Application and permit
10 Petitioners to assert all claims identified in the Claim Notices.
11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
12 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment against Respondents as follows:
13 a. Entry of an order relieving Petitioners of any obligation under CAL. GOV’T CODE §
14 945.4 to timely present whatever unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims that
15 Respondents impliedly rejected by operation of law; and
16 b. All such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to
17 which Petitioners may show themselves to be justly entitled or as this Court may
18 deem appropriate.
19
20
Dated: September 14, 2023
21
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
22
23 By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

Constantine Z. Pamphilis
24 Pro Hac Vice to be submitted
Texas State Bar No. 00794419
25 DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
26 Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 220-8800
27 (713) 222-0843 (fax)
28
-- 18 --
Daniel A. Saunders
1 California Bar No. 161051
DSaunders@kasowitz.com
2 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90067
3 (424) 288-7900
(424) 288-7901 (fax)
4
Attorneys for Petitioners Konnech, Inc. and
5 Eugene Yu
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- 19 --
Attachment 1
May 11, 2023
Dear Customer,
The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 772062963006
Delivered Mailroom
A.MENDOZA
FedEx Priority Overnight
Deliver Weekday
LOS ANGELES, CA,
May 8, 2023 09:22
772062963006 May 5, 2023
0.5 LB/0.23 KG
LOS ANGELES, CA, US, HOUSTON, TX, US,
111Konnech/Los Angeles County

timekeeper id
Signature image is available. In order to view image and detailed information, the shipper or payor account
number of the shipment must be provided.
Thank you for choosing FedEx

Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
DECLARATION OF EUGENE YU
1. My name is Eugene Yu. I am over eighteen years of age, of sound mind, have
never been convicted of a felony, and am competent in all respects to make this declaration. The
facts stated herein are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
2. I am the president and CEO of Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”). Konnech is a small,

Michigan-based company that provides governmental entities—including LA County—with an
election logistics software product called PollChief that cities and counties have used to recruit,
train and schedule poll workers, and coordinate the distribution of equipment and supplies in a
warehouse.
3. On May 5, 2023, my legal counsel presented claims to the Board of Supervisors of

the County of Los Angeles (“LA County”) on behalf of both myself and Konnech. The claims
presented all arose as a result of an unlawful and politically-motivated prosecution of frivolous
criminal charges against me by the Los Angeles County District Attorneys’ Office (the “LA
County DA’s Office”), as well as the resulting seizure of my and Konnech’s personal property.
4. I was originally arrested in Michigan on October 4, 2022. Despite this being my

first alleged offense and having voluntarily traveled to Los Angeles for my arraignment, the LA
County DA’s Office asked that I be held without bail, first in Michigan and then again in Los
Angeles. While the LA County judge ultimately granted bail, I was required to wear two different
ankle bracelet monitors (one for Michigan and one for California) and remain in Los Angeles
under house arrest at a Los Angeles hotel, more than 2,200 miles away from my home in Michigan.
The LA County DA’s Office did not dismiss the charges asserted against me until November 9,
2022, after which I was finally released from confinement. A true and correct copy of the court
docket for this criminal proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit C-1. Prior to that time, I did not
know or have reason to know of the improper political motivations that prompted the charges and
the unlawful search and seizure of my and Konnech’s property, primarily because the indictment
on which the charges and seizure were based was sealed, and to my knowledge remains sealed to
this day.
5. On or about November 9, 2022, the LA County DA’s Office dismissed the charges
against me. And on or about November 10, 2022, I first learned through media reports that the
dismissal was due to concerns over potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the
evidence against me, and that the LA County DA’s Office had admitted that the investigation was
originally based on a tip provided by far-right wing conspiracy theorists (the “Election Deniers”)
who had previously leveled a racist and xenophobic attack against me and Konnech. A true and
correct copy of a November 10, 2022 article is attached hereto as Exhibit C-2.
6. I then learned on or about November 22, 2022, that the Los Angeles Times had
published a report indicating that one of the Deputy District Attorneys responsible from my
prosecution had been placed on administrative leave as a result of the role he played in the
investigation and prosecution of the charges against me. A true and correct copy of this article is
attached hereto as Exhibit C-3.
Exhibit C-1
Exhibit C-2
5/26/23, 7:26 AM Los Angeles County DA drops charges against CEO of Konnech : NPR
HOURLY NEWS
Play Live Radio
LISTEN LIVE
PLAYLIST
DONATE
INVESTIGATIONS
LA County drops charges against election software

executive, citing 'potential bias'
November 10, 2022 · 6:31 PM ET
Juma Sei
A man wearing American flag pants casts his ballot at a voting station in Los Angeles on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the LA
County district attorney dropped charges against the CEO of Konnech, which makes scheduling software for poll workers.
Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP
In an abrupt reversal, Los Angeles County has dismissed charges against the chief
executive of an election software company, marking the end of a case that prominent
election deniers cited as evidence of foul play in American elections.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135839608/los-angeles-county-dropped-charges-konnech-true-the-vote 1/15
Eugene Yu, CEO of the Michigan-based firm Konnech, was charged in mid October
with illegally storing the personal information of poll workers on Chinese servers, a
violation of its contract with LA County. Konnech has provided its PollChief software
to cities and counties across the country, including a $2.9 million contract with Los
Angeles County.
On Wednesday, the district attorney's office said that it had moved to dismiss the case.
A judge in Los Angeles Superior Court granted the motion without prejudice.
"We are concerned about both the pace of the investigation and the potential bias in
the presentation and investigation of the evidence," spokesperson Tiffiny Blacknell
said in a statement. The county did indicate that it hasn't ruled out refiling the charges
after reviewing the evidence, saying it would "assemble a new team, with significant
cyber security experience to determine whether any criminal activity occurred."
In a statement, Yu's defense attorney Gary Lincenberg called him an "innocent man,"
adding. "Mr. Yu's good name was tarnished by false narratives from fringe conspiracy
theorists who bragged about enlisting Los Angeles prosecutors to further their political
agenda."
INVESTIGATIONS
Election software CEO is charged with allegedly giving Chinese contractors data
access
INVESTIGATIONS
Prominent election deniers are facing growing legal trouble
In October, the district attorney's office acknowledged to NPR that the investigation
began after a tip from Gregg Phillips, a prominent election denier associated with the
controversial group True the Vote, which executive produced and provided the basis
for the claims in the widely debunked film 2000 Mules.
Phillips has said that the group's interest in Konnech was spurred, in part, by
information provided by followers of the far-right conspiracy QAnon and suggested
that it was part of a "red Chinese communist op-run against the United States."
Konnech and Yu have consistently denied the district attorney's charges, noting True
the Vote's shady affiliations and suggesting that xenophobia is a driving force behind
the original probe. Yu immigrated to the U.S. from China in the 1980s and became an
American citizen in 1997.
In September, Konnech filed a lawsuit in federal court against True the Vote and
alleged that the group had hacked Konnech's data, defaming the company with a
xenophobic "smear campaign."
Both Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote's founder, were recently briefly
jailed after refusing to release the name of the suspected hacker.
Catherine Engelbrecht, seen here in 2015, founded the controversial nonprofit True the Vote.
Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
True the Vote did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Yu's arrest and the controversy surrounding Konnech ahead of the November
midterms alarmed the few voting offices across the country that use the company's
software. Worried how the arrest could impact voter confidence in a climate where
election security is already a top concern for many, at least four jurisdictions stopped
using Konnech's software entirely.
In a statement to NPR member station WDET, Detroit city Clerk Janice Winfrey wrote
that the city was terminating its contract with Konnech "out of an abundance of
caution."
The district attorney in Los Angeles County gave no timeline for when they might
make a decision about filing new criminal charges, saying only that they had an
"immense volume of digital data" to process, and that it could take months.
voting stories
More Stories From NPR
Exhibit C-3
5/26/23, 7:28 AM L.A. prosecutor on leave over case sparked by election deniers - Los Angeles Times
L.A. prosecutor put on leave over questionable case sparked by

election conspiracy theories
A Los Angeles County deputy district attorney has been placed on administrative leave
for his role in the questionable prosecution of a Michigan software executive that may
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-22/l-a-prosecutor-placed-on-leave-over-bungled-case-sparked-by-election-conspiracy-theories 1/6
have been sparked by conspiracy theorists who deny the validity of the 2020
presidential election.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Neff’s leave comes in the wake of Dist. Atty. George Gascón’s
decision to drop charges against Eugene Yu, chief executive of Michigan-based
Konnech, according to three sources with knowledge of the situation. The sources spoke
on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss a personnel matter.
Yu’s firm, which has contracts with L.A. election officials, had been accused of storing
data about poll workers on Chinese servers.
Gascón announced Yu’s arrest Oct. 4, claiming that the 51-year-old chief executive had
endangered the personal information — including Social Security numbers — of an
unknown number of L.A. County poll workers by storing it on an overseas server.
At the news conference, Gascón did not explain what crime Yu had committed but said
the firm had violated its contract with the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk’s office.
A week later, Yu was charged with embezzlement and conspiracy, as prosecutors alleged
that the contract violation was tantamount to theft of public funds. But by November,
prosecutors had dropped all charges against Yu.
During his initial news conference, Gascón did not mention that his office’s
investigation was sparked by a conversation with one of the founders of True the Vote, a
Texas-based nonprofit that has fomented conspiracy theories about the 2020
presidential election.
While Gascón stressed that he had no evidence that any alleged misconduct by Konnech
or Yu had an impact on an election or involved ballot counting, the news conference
sent a shock through the conservative media ecosystem.
Former President Trump praised Gascón and called on him to dig further into the 2020
election, while far-right commentator Charlie Kirk said Yu’s arrest was confirmation of
“another election integrity ‘conspiracy theory.’”
True the Vote was integral to the debunked documentary “2,000 Mules,” which claimed
to prove that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party stole the 2020 election from Trump
through ballot harvesting. True the Vote this year publicly accused Konnech of taking
part in a Chinese government operation to influence U.S. elections. Konnech has since
sued the group in federal court for defamation.
The extent of True the Vote’s involvement in the investigation remains unclear. Co-
founder Gregg Phillips initially claimed that he played a “small role” in the probe.
Gascón did not acknowledge True the Vote’s involvement in the case at his initial news
conference but days later issued a statement confirming that a “report” from Phillips
had sparked the probe.
In sworn testimony in the Texas defamation case, Phillips said he was first contacted by
Neff in July. Phillips said a district attorney’s office investigator was present at an
August event hosted by True the Vote that was dubbed “the Pit.”
The event was attended by QAnon faithful and Kari Lake, a Republican running for
Arizona governor who has raised questions about the state’s election integrity, without
evidence. The event marked the first time that True the Vote claimed Konnech had
provided the personal information of about 1.8 million poll workers to the Chinese
government.
In the wake of the Pit, Yu and his family began receiving death threats, according to
Konnech’s lawsuit. A number of election offices across the U.S. cut ties with Konnech
after Gascón filed charges. The L.A. County Registrar’s Office was not among them,
despite Gascón’s allegation that the office was the victim of a crime.
During the Oct. 4 news conference, Gascón amplified some of True the Vote’s claims
that Konnech had stored information overseas — an allegation that was conspicuously
absent from a criminal complaint a week later charging Yu with embezzlement and
conspiracy.
During an October hearing seeking to jail Yu, Neff claimed without evidence that the
“data breach” was among the largest in U.S. history.
Gascón has not explained the discrepancy, and his office has declined to answer most
questions about the case. The office declined to comment on Neff’s status because it is a
personnel matter.
Neff did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday and has
previously referred questions to Gascón’s chief spokeswoman, Tiffiny Blacknell.
Blacknell previously said the office decided to dismiss the case against Yu due to
concerns about the pace of the investigation and potential bias in the presentation of
evidence.
The case is being reevaluated, according to Blacknell, who said earlier this month that
after the charges were brought, upper management in the district attorney’s office
became aware of “irregularities in how the case was presented.” She did not offer
specifics.
The district attorney’s Public Integrity Division, which filed the case against Yu, this
week was brought under the control of Gascón’s chief of staff, Joseph Iniguez, according
to a document reviewed by The Times. Blacknell did not respond to questions about
whether the move was linked to the handling of the Konnech case.
The district attorney’s office has previously sought to downplay True the Vote’s role in
the investigation. It remains unclear if prosecutors used any evidence provided by the
group or if Phillips testified before a grand jury that returned an indictment against Yu
earlier this year.
Phillips has said under oath that he testified before an L.A. grand jury. He and the
group’s leader, Catherine Engelbrecht, testified that they spoke repeatedly with officials
in the district attorney’s office over the summer.
According to court records, prosecutors alleged that Konnech employees “sent personal
identifying information of Los Angeles County election workers to third-party software
developers who assisted with creating and fixing” its proprietary PollChief software.
Those developers were based in China, according to the complaint.
PollChief is used by election officials in several major cities to register and schedule poll
workers, according to Konnech.
A project manager for Konnech said Chinese administrators had “‘superadministration’

privileges for all PollChief clients,” according to the complaint. It is unclear what such
privileges entail.
Times Staff Writer Sarah D. Wire in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
James Queally
James Queally writes about crime and policing in Southern California, where he
currently covers Los Angeles County’s criminal courts and the district attorney’s
office for the Los Angeles Times.
Exhibit C-4
1415 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 2100 ATLANTA
LOS ANGELES
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 MIAMI
DEAN PAMPHILIS NEW YORK
DIRECT DIAL: (713) 220-8852 (713) 220-8800
NEWARK
DIRECT FAX: (713) 583-6006
DPAMPHILIS@KASOWITZ.COM FAX: (713) 222-0843 SAN FRANCISCO
SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON DC
February 27, 2023
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY

Cain & Associates LLC
c/o Dennis Cain, Member
391 Chesapeake Lane
Hedgesville, WV 25427
Re: Konnech, Inc. v. True The Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht,
Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-03096; In The United States District Court For The
Southern District Of Texas, Houston, Texas
Subpoena
Dear Mr. Cain:
Enclosed and served upon you, is a subpoena issued by The United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas in connection with a lawsuit brought by Konnech, Inc. against
True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht. The enclosed subpoena requires
the production of documents set forth in Attachment A to the subpoena, on or before March 20,
2023.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
/s/ Constantine Z. Pamphils

DZP/vle
Enclosures
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District
__________ District of
of __________
Texas
KONNECH INC.
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
)
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., et al.
)
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
CAIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
To: c/o Dennis Cain, Member, 391 Chesapeake Lane, Hedgesville, WV 25427
or Harry Haury, acting CEO, 391 Chesapeake Lane, Hedgesville, WV 25427
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
’ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Attachment A to this Subpoena.
Place Date and Time:

Monday, March 2 , 2023 @ 9:00 A.M. (CST)
’ Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 02/27/2023
CLERK OF COURT
OR
/s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
KONNECH INC. , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Constantine Z. Pamphilis, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 220-8852; DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .
’ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO CAIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
I. DEFINITIONS
1. “You” or “Your,” refers to Cain & Associates, LLC and all of its agents, employees,
representatives and all persons and entities acting and purporting to act on its behalf.
2. “Lawsuit” means the lawsuit captioned Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., Gregg
Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht; No. 4:22-cv-03096 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
3. “Defendants” refers to True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht and
all of their agents, employees, representatives and all persons and entities acting and
purporting to act on their behalf.
4. “Nate Cain” refers to Dennis Nathan Cain, aka Nate Cain.
5. “Plaintiff” or “Konnech” refers to Konnech, Inc. and all of its agents, employees,
representatives and all persons and entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf.
6. “The Pit” means the August 13, 2022 event in Arizona called “The Pit.”
7. “Konnech Computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other

high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and
includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating
in conjunction with such device, that is owned or otherwise controlled by Konnech.
8. “Konnech Data” means any information that is owned, possessed, or controlled by

Konnech, including but not limited to any electronic information stored on, transferred
through, or otherwise accessible by a Konnech Computer.
9. “Poll Worker Data” means any data or information, including but not limited to the
personal identifying and/or banking information, of any poll worker, election worker, or
election judge of any voting district in the United States, regardless of whether or not you
believe such data or information is owned, possessed, or controlled by Konnech.
10. “FBI” means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
11. “Social Media” refers to Truth Social, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok,
Pinterest, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, Rumble, Substack, Tumblr, and Locals any other
online interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of ideas, thoughts,
information and other forms of expression through virtual networks and communities.
12. “Communication” or “Communications” means all exchanges of information, regardless

of form, including, without limitation, all conversations, discussions, inquiries,
correspondence, notes (handwritten or otherwise), message slips, logs, emails (or other
similar electronic communications, text messages, instant messages, or other such
transmittals of information, including but not limited to any encrypted messaging
application such as Variety, Signal, Wickr, Ding Talk, Telegram or WhatsApp. The terms
“Communication” and “Communications” includes internal and external communications.
13. “Electronically Stored Information” is defined broadly to give the full scope of that term
as contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and refers to all computer or
electronically stored or generated data and information, and shall include all attachments
to and enclosures with any requested item, and all drafts thereof. Electronically Stored
Information includes information stored in any format and on any storage media, including
but not limited to: hard disks; floppy disks; optical disks; flash memory devices; and
magnetic tape, whether fixed, portable, or removable. Electronically Stored Information
also includes: word-processing documents; electronic spreadsheets; electronic presentation
documents; e-mail messages; image files; sound files; and material or information stored
in a database, or accessible from a database. Electronically Stored Information also
includes all associated metadata that is maintained or saved, which includes: document
title or name; file name; date and time of creation; date and time of last edit; identity of
author; identity of owner; identities of editors; identities of recipients; changes; history of
changes; e-mail header information; history of who viewed an e-mail and when; and e-mail
routing information. Electronically Stored Information further includes: correspondence;
telegrams; memoranda; Communications; minutes or records of meetings and conferences;
lists of persons attending meetings or conferences; summaries; records of conversations;
drafts; notes; notebooks; logs; invention records and disclosures; translations; drawings;
graphs; charts; photographs; sound recordings; images data compilations; computer
records or printouts; specifications; reports; opinions; summaries; agreements; forecasts;
plan drawings; mask works; engineering drawings; expressions or statements of policy;
consultations; brochures; pamphlets; advertisements; publications; circulars; trade letters;
press releases; and drafts of any of the foregoing.
2
15. The singular form of a word shall be construed to include the plural, and the plural form of
a word shall include the singular, so as to bring within the scope of these requests for
production any information that might otherwise be considered to be beyond their scope.
16. “And” and “or” shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as required by the
context.
17. “Any” and “all” shall be construed as “any and all,” and the term “each” shall be construed
as “all and each.”
18. The terms “relating to,” “concerning,” and “reflecting” (or any form thereof) shall mean
constituting, comprising, respecting, supporting, contradicting, stating, describing,
recording, noting, embodying, containing, mentioning, studying, analyzing, discussing,
evaluating, or relevant to.
19. The term “including” shall mean “including without limitation” or “including but not
limited to” the referenced items or information. The use of “including” in describing
categories of documents should not be read to narrow any request.
20. The terms “identify” or “identity,” unless otherwise defined in an interrogatory shall
require you to provide:
(a) With respect to a NATURAL PERSON, the full name, present title, present
business and resident address (last known if present addresses are unknown), and
business and residence telephone numbers, and the title of the last position held;
(b) With respect to a CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION OR

OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, its name, address, and legal form (e.g. corporation,
partnership, etc.);
(c) With respect to a DOCUMENT, its title, number, date, authors, signers, subject
matter, addressee(s), addressor(s), or other designation, including, but not limited
to, subject matter or general nature, person(s) receiving copies of such document,
present location and custodian;
(d) With respect to an ORAL STATEMENT OR COMMUNICATION, the maker, the

recipients, when made, where made, persons present when made, mode of
communication and subject matter;
(e) With respect to an ACT, ACTION, OR ACTIVITY, its description, the identity of
the person(s) participating in the act or activity, the date or approximate date on
3
which the act or activity was committed, and the identities of any person(s)
observing the act or participating in the activity;
(f) With respect to a MEETING, the identities of the persons attending the meeting,
the date of the meeting, the subject matter of the meeting, and the place of the
meeting; and
(g) With respect to a STATEMENT, the person(s) making the statement, any person(s)
present at the time the statement was made, the approximate date of such statement,
the subject matter of the statement, and, if possible, the exact words used.
II. INSTRUCTIONS
In addition to the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
Plaintiff incorporates herein, the following instructions apply to each of the discovery requests
set forth below, and are deemed to be incorporated in each individual Request:
1. The Documents covered by these Requests include all Documents in Your possession,
custody or control.
2. These discovery requests are continuing in nature and require supplementation or

amendment to include information subsequently acquired or as required by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. If for any reason You are unable to respond to any request set forth herein, explain in detail
Your inability to respond. If for any reason You are unable to respond to a part of any
request but able to answer other parts of the request, respond to as much of the request as
You can and explain in detail Your inability to respond to the remainder of the request.
4. If You contend that any of the information requested herein is protected or privileged, so
state and set forth the protection or privilege claimed, the facts upon which You rely to
support the claim of protection or privilege, and the scope of said protection or privilege,
but proceed to disclose or produce all requested information for which protection or
privilege is not claimed. With respect to each requested Document that is being withheld,
You are hereby requested to furnish a privilege log identifying the basis for the claim of
privilege or protection and a description of the Document, including:
(a) the title of the Document and the nature and subject matter of its contents;
(b) the date the Document was prepared or any date appearing on the Document;
(c) the number of the Document’s pages, attachments and appendices; the names of
the persons who authored or prepared the Document, and an identification by
employment and title of each such person, and if the person is an attorney, a
statement so saying;
(d) the names of each person to whom the Document, or a copy thereof, was sent,
shown or made accessible, or to whom it was explained, together with an
4
identification of each such person and entity with which they are employed or
associated, and if the person is an attorney, a statement so saying;
(e) the number of each paragraph of these Document Requests to which the
Document relates;
(f) the portion(s) of the Document as to which privilege is claimed; and
(g) the type of privilege asserted.
5. Counsel for Plaintiff is willing to discuss with You or Your counsel any questions
regarding perceived ambiguities in, or claims regarding the burdens involved in or
compliance with the discovery requested herein in an effort to resolve any such issues
without the necessity of Court intervention. If You cannot clarify any perceived
ambiguities by reference to the Definitions, contact counsel for Plaintiff for
clarification.
6. You shall produce all documents in the manner in which they are maintained in the
usual course of Your business and/or You shall organize and label the documents to
correspond with the categories in these Requests. A Request shall be deemed to include
a request for any and all file folders within which the document was contained,
transmittal sheets, cover letters, exhibits, enclosures, or attachments to the document in
addition to the document itself.
7. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the file, folder, department,
branch or office in which they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in
whose possession it was found and the business address of each document’s
custodian(s).
8. Documents attached to each other should not be separated. If any portion of any
document is responsive to the document Requests, then the entire document must be
produced.
9. Electronically Stored Information should be produced in the following format: As

single-page TIFF images, at 300 dots-per-inch, with an iPRO LFP image load file and
a Concordance delimited dataload file (*.DAT) with the following fields: BEGNO,
ENDNO, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGES, VOLUME, RECORDTYPE,
SENTDATE, SENTONTIME, CREATEDATE, CREATETIME, LASTMODDATE,
LASTMODTIME, RECEIVEDDATE, RECEIVEDTIME, PARENTFOLDER,
AUTHOR, TO, CC, BCC, SUBJECT/TITLE (fields combined), ORIGSOURCE,
CUSTODIAN, NATIVEPATH, ATTACHCOUNT, FILEEXT, FILENAME,
FILETYPE, FILESIZE, APPLICATION, MD5HASH, and FULLTEXT. All
spreadsheets responsive to these Requests that are maintained in the usual course of
business in electronic format shall be produced in their native format (along with
theTIFF images, linked using NATIVEPATH field).
10. Under no circumstances should Electronically Stored Information be converted from

the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more
5
difficult or burdensome to use. Electronically Stored Information should not be
produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades the ability to search the
Electronically Stored Information by electronic means where the Electronically Stored
Information is ordinarily maintained in a way that makes it searchable by electronic
means. Databases or underlying data should not be produced without first discussing
production format issues with the Plaintiff’s counsel. If You decline to search or
produce Electronically Stored Information on the ground that such Electronically
Stored Information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,
identify such information by category or sources and provide detailed information
concerning the burden or cost You claim is associated with the search or production
of such Electronically Stored Information.
11. If You have reason to believe there are e-mails created that are responsive to these
Requests that have not been retained, state the name and address of the e-mail provider
(e.g., MSN, Yahoo!, Thunderbird, Gmail, Bloomberg, AOL, etc.) or program used by
You and what efforts You have made to retrieve the requested information.
12. In the event that any document responsive to any Request was, but is no longer, in Your
possession, custody or control, or has been lost, destroyed, discarded or otherwise
disposed of, You shall provide sufficient information to identify the document as
completely as possible and state, in writing, the details and circumstances surrounding
the disposal of the document.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1:
All video, audio and/or transcripts, and photographs of The Pit.
RESPONSE:
Any and all demonstratives, speeches, presentations, including PowerPoint presentations and
outlines of presentations, including drafts of same, concerning The Pit.
RESPONSE:
Any and all Documents and Communications concerning or relating to The Pit.
RESPONSE:
6
Any and all agreements, contracts, and/or memorandums of understanding between You and any
of the Defendants concerning The Pit, Konnech, Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data,
Poll Worker Data and/or this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All agreements between You on the one hand, and Los Angeles County, Los Angeles District
Attorney’s Office, or any other government entity on the other hand, concerning or relating to The
Pit, Konnech, Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data, Poll Worker Data and/or this
Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All communications between You and the following, concerning or relating to The Pit, Konnech,
Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data, Poll Worker Data and/or this Lawsuit:
(a) Any of the Defendants;
(b) Los Angeles County;
(c) Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office;
(d) Andrew Stevens;
(e) Marc Beaart;
(f) Eric Neff;
(g) Grant Bradley;
(h) Any current or former Konnech employee;
(i) Mike Hasson;
(j) OPSEC Group, LLC;
(k) Allegheny County;
(l) Farfax County;
7
(m) Dekalb County;
(n) Johnson County;
(o) The FBI, or any other government agency, or any agent working for the FBI or any
other government agency;
(p) Harry Haury;
(q) Nate Cain;
(r) Any other government entity; and
(s) Any other person.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications, including but not limited to any Konnech Data, obtained
during Your, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, or any other
government entity monitoring of Konnech’s Computers on or after October 4, 2022.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting any default and/or backend user name and/or
password for accessing any Konnech Computer and/or Konnech Data.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting all users of any Konnech Computer.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting any and all Konnech employee or staff credentials
used to access any Konnech Computer and/or Konnech Data.
RESPONSE:
8
All court orders and/or warrants that You contend permitted You to monitor activity on Konnech’s
Computers after October 4, 2022.
RESPONSE:
All connection logs and audit logs which reflect any access to any Konnech Computer or server in
China which housed any Konnech Data and/or Poll Worker Data.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications with any confidential informant concerning Konnech or
Eugene Yu.
RESPONSE:
All agreements with any confidential informant concerning Konnech or Eugene Yu.
RESPONSE:
All documents reflecting any payments made to any confidential informant concerning Konnech
or Eugene Yu.
RESPONSE:
Any and all Konnech property, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data and/or Poll Worker Data in
Your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE:
9
Any and all video, audio, photographs, or other media recorded at Konnech’s offices and/or
Eugene Yu’s home.
RESPONSE:
Any and all documents demonstrating Your affiliation with Harry Haury, including but not limited
to documents reflecting his position as acting CEO.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting all Social Media account usernames, including but
not limited to burner accounts, URLs and/or domain names claimed by, owned, and/or controlled
by You.
RESPONSE:
10
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District
__________ District of
of __________
Texas
KONNECH INC.
)
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
)
TRUE THE VOTE, INC., et al.
)
Defendant )
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION
To:
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
’ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
See Attachment A to this Subpoena.
Place Date and Time:

Monday, March 2 , 2023 @ 9:00 A.M. (CST)
’ Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place: Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date: 02/27/2023
CLERK OF COURT
OR
/s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
KONNECH INC. , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Constantine Z. Pamphilis, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, 1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 220-8852; DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-03096
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .
’ I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$ .
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

AO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:
transacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
expense.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.
fails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
hearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and
the following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
order compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
significant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
specified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.
development, or commercial information; or
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO HARRY HAURY
I. DEFINITIONS
1. “You,” “Your,” or “Haury” refers to Harry Haury and all of his agents, employees,
representatives and all persons and entities acting and purporting to act on his behalf.
2. “Lawsuit” means the lawsuit captioned Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., Gregg
Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht; No. 4:22-cv-03096 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
3. “Defendants” refers to True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht and
all of their agents, employees, representatives and all persons and entities acting and
purporting to act on their behalf.
4. “Nate Cain” refers to Dennis Nathan Cain, aka Nate Cain.
5. “Plaintiff” or “Konnech” refers to Konnech, Inc. and all of its agents, employees,
representatives and all persons and entities acting or purporting to act on its behalf.
6. “The Pit” means the August 13, 2022 event in Arizona called “The Pit.”
7. “Konnech Computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other

high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and
includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating
in conjunction with such device, that is owned or otherwise controlled by Konnech.
8. “Konnech Data” means any information that is owned, possessed, or controlled by

Konnech, including but not limited to any electronic information stored on, transferred
through, or otherwise accessible by a Konnech Computer.
9. “Poll Worker Data” means any data or information, including but not limited to the
personal identifying and/or banking information, of any poll worker, election worker, or
election judge of any voting district in the United States, regardless of whether or not you
believe such data or information is owned, possessed, or controlled by Konnech.
10. “FBI” means the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
11. “Social Media” refers to Truth Social, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok,
Pinterest, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, Rumble, Substack, Tumblr, and Locals any other
online interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of ideas, thoughts,
information and other forms of expression through virtual networks and communities.
12. “Communication” or “Communications” means all exchanges of information, regardless

of form, including, without limitation, all conversations, discussions, inquiries,
correspondence, notes (handwritten or otherwise), message slips, logs, emails (or other
similar electronic communications, text messages, instant messages, or other such
transmittals of information, including but not limited to any encrypted messaging
application such as Variety, Signal, Wickr, Ding Talk, Telegram or WhatsApp. The terms
“Communication” and “Communications” includes internal and external communications.
2
15. The singular form of a word shall be construed to include the plural, and the plural form of
a word shall include the singular, so as to bring within the scope of these requests for
production any information that might otherwise be considered to be beyond their scope.
16. “And” and “or” shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as required by the
context.
17. “Any” and “all” shall be construed as “any and all,” and the term “each” shall be construed
as “all and each.”
18. The terms “relating to,” “concerning,” and “reflecting” (or any form thereof) shall mean
constituting, comprising, respecting, supporting, contradicting, stating, describing,
recording, noting, embodying, containing, mentioning, studying, analyzing, discussing,
evaluating, or relevant to.
19. The term “including” shall mean “including without limitation” or “including but not
limited to” the referenced items or information. The use of “including” in describing
categories of documents should not be read to narrow any request.
20. The terms “identify” or “identity,” unless otherwise defined in an interrogatory shall
require you to provide:
(a) With respect to a NATURAL PERSON, the full name, present title, present
business and resident address (last known if present addresses are unknown), and
business and residence telephone numbers, and the title of the last position held;
(b) With respect to a CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION OR

OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, its name, address, and legal form (e.g. corporation,
partnership, etc.);
(c) With respect to a DOCUMENT, its title, number, date, authors, signers, subject
matter, addressee(s), addressor(s), or other designation, including, but not limited
to, subject matter or general nature, person(s) receiving copies of such document,
present location and custodian;
(d) With respect to an ORAL STATEMENT OR COMMUNICATION, the maker, the

recipients, when made, where made, persons present when made, mode of
communication and subject matter;
(e) With respect to an ACT, ACTION, OR ACTIVITY, its description, the identity of
the person(s) participating in the act or activity, the date or approximate date on
3
which the act or activity was committed, and the identities of any person(s)
observing the act or participating in the activity;
(f) With respect to a MEETING, the identities of the persons attending the meeting,
the date of the meeting, the subject matter of the meeting, and the place of the
meeting; and
(g) With respect to a STATEMENT, the person(s) making the statement, any person(s)
present at the time the statement was made, the approximate date of such statement,
the subject matter of the statement, and, if possible, the exact words used.
II. INSTRUCTIONS
In addition to the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
Plaintiff incorporates herein, the following instructions apply to each of the discovery requests
set forth below, and are deemed to be incorporated in each individual Request:
1. The Documents covered by these Requests include all Documents in Your possession,
custody or control.
2. These discovery requests are continuing in nature and require supplementation or

amendment to include information subsequently acquired or as required by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. If for any reason You are unable to respond to any request set forth herein, explain in detail
Your inability to respond. If for any reason You are unable to respond to a part of any
request but able to answer other parts of the request, respond to as much of the request as
You can and explain in detail Your inability to respond to the remainder of the request.
4. If You contend that any of the information requested herein is protected or privileged, so
state and set forth the protection or privilege claimed, the facts upon which You rely to
support the claim of protection or privilege, and the scope of said protection or privilege,
but proceed to disclose or produce all requested information for which protection or
privilege is not claimed. With respect to each requested Document that is being withheld,
You are hereby requested to furnish a privilege log identifying the basis for the claim of
privilege or protection and a description of the Document, including:
(a) the title of the Document and the nature and subject matter of its contents;
(b) the date the Document was prepared or any date appearing on the Document;
(c) the number of the Document’s pages, attachments and appendices; the names of
the persons who authored or prepared the Document, and an identification by
employment and title of each such person, and if the person is an attorney, a
statement so saying;
(d) the names of each person to whom the Document, or a copy thereof, was sent,
shown or made accessible, or to whom it was explained, together with an
4
identification of each such person and entity with which they are employed or
associated, and if the person is an attorney, a statement so saying;
(e) the number of each paragraph of these Document Requests to which the
Document relates;
(f) the portion(s) of the Document as to which privilege is claimed; and
(g) the type of privilege asserted.
5. Counsel for Plaintiff is willing to discuss with You or Your counsel any questions
regarding perceived ambiguities in, or claims regarding the burdens involved in or
compliance with the discovery requested herein in an effort to resolve any such issues
without the necessity of Court intervention. If You cannot clarify any perceived
ambiguities by reference to the Definitions, contact counsel for Plaintiff for
clarification.
6. You shall produce all documents in the manner in which they are maintained in the
usual course of Your business and/or You shall organize and label the documents to
correspond with the categories in these Requests. A Request shall be deemed to include
a request for any and all file folders within which the document was contained,
transmittal sheets, cover letters, exhibits, enclosures, or attachments to the document in
addition to the document itself.
7. Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the file, folder, department,
branch or office in which they were located and, where applicable, the natural person in
whose possession it was found and the business address of each document’s
custodian(s).
8. Documents attached to each other should not be separated. If any portion of any
document is responsive to the document Requests, then the entire document must be
produced.
9. Electronically Stored Information should be produced in the following format: As

single-page TIFF images, at 300 dots-per-inch, with an iPRO LFP image load file and
a Concordance delimited dataload file (*.DAT) with the following fields: BEGNO,
ENDNO, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGES, VOLUME, RECORDTYPE,
SENTDATE, SENTONTIME, CREATEDATE, CREATETIME, LASTMODDATE,
LASTMODTIME, RECEIVEDDATE, RECEIVEDTIME, PARENTFOLDER,
AUTHOR, TO, CC, BCC, SUBJECT/TITLE (fields combined), ORIGSOURCE,
CUSTODIAN, NATIVEPATH, ATTACHCOUNT, FILEEXT, FILENAME,
FILETYPE, FILESIZE, APPLICATION, MD5HASH, and FULLTEXT. All
spreadsheets responsive to these Requests that are maintained in the usual course of
business in electronic format shall be produced in their native format (along with
theTIFF images, linked using NATIVEPATH field).
10. Under no circumstances should Electronically Stored Information be converted from

the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more
5
difficult or burdensome to use. Electronically Stored Information should not be
produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades the ability to search the
Electronically Stored Information by electronic means where the Electronically Stored
Information is ordinarily maintained in a way that makes it searchable by electronic
means. Databases or underlying data should not be produced without first discussing
production format issues with the Plaintiff’s counsel. If You decline to search or
produce Electronically Stored Information on the ground that such Electronically
Stored Information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,
identify such information by category or sources and provide detailed information
concerning the burden or cost You claim is associated with the search or production
of such Electronically Stored Information.
11. If You have reason to believe there are e-mails created that are responsive to these
Requests that have not been retained, state the name and address of the e-mail provider
(e.g., MSN, Yahoo!, Thunderbird, Gmail, Bloomberg, AOL, etc.) or program used by
You and what efforts You have made to retrieve the requested information.
12. In the event that any document responsive to any Request was, but is no longer, in Your
possession, custody or control, or has been lost, destroyed, discarded or otherwise
disposed of, You shall provide sufficient information to identify the document as
completely as possible and state, in writing, the details and circumstances surrounding
the disposal of the document.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
All video, audio and/or transcripts, and photographs of The Pit.
RESPONSE:
Any and all demonstratives, speeches, presentations, including PowerPoint presentations and
outlines of presentations, including drafts of same, concerning The Pit.
RESPONSE:
Any and all Documents and Communications concerning or relating to The Pit.
RESPONSE:
6
Any and all agreements, contracts, and/or memorandums of understanding between You and any
of the Defendants concerning The Pit, Konnech, Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data,
Poll Worker Data and/or this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All agreements between You and/or Cain & Associates, LLC on the one hand, and Los Angeles
County, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, or any other government entity on the other hand,
concerning or relating to The Pit, Konnech, Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data, Poll
Worker Data and/or this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All communications between You and the following, concerning or relating to The Pit, Konnech,
Eugene Yu, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data, Poll Worker Data and/or this Lawsuit:
(a) Any of the Defendants;
(b) Los Angeles County;
(c) Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office;
(d) Andrew Stevens;
(e) Marc Beaart;
(f) Eric Neff;
(g) Grant Bradley;
(h) Any current or former Konnech employee;
(i) Mike Hasson;
(j) OPSEC Group, LLC;
(k) Allegheny County;
(l) Farfax County;
7
(m) Dekalb County;
(n) Johnson County;
(o) The FBI, or any other government agency, or any agent working for the FBI or any
other government agency;
(p) Cain & Associates, LLC;
(q) Nate Cain;
(r) One America News Network;
(s) RSBN;
(t) Steve Bannon;
(u) Any other government entity; and
(v) Any other person.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications, including but not limited to any Konnech Data, obtained
during Your, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, or any other
government entity monitoring of Konnech’s Computers on or after October 4, 2022.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting any default and/or backend user name and/or
password for accessing any Konnech Computer and/or Konnech Data.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting all users of any Konnech Computer.
RESPONSE:
8
All Documents and Communications reflecting any and all Konnech employee or staff credentials
used to access any Konnech Computer and/or Konnech Data.
RESPONSE:
All court orders and/or warrants that You contend permitted You to monitor activity on Konnech’s
Computers after October 4, 2022.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications with any “confidential informant” that You refer to in
paragraph 6 of Your February 2023 affidavit submitted in connection with this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All agreements with any “confidential informant” that You refer to in paragraph 6 of Your
February 2023 affidavit submitted in connection with this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All documents reflecting any payments made to any “confidential informant” that You refer to in
paragraph 6 of Your February 2023 affidavit submitted in connection with this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
All connection logs and audit logs which reflect any access to any Konnech Computer or server in
China which housed any Konnech Data and/or Poll Worker Data.
RESPONSE:
9
All exhibits, including but not limited to Exhibit F, to Your February 2023 affidavit submitted in
connection with this Lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
Any and all Konnech property, Konnech Computer, Konnech Data and/or Poll Worker Data in
Your possession, custody or control.
RESPONSE:
Any and all video, audio, photographs, or other media recorded at Konnech’s offices or Eugene
Yu’s home.
RESPONSE:
Any and all documents demonstrating Your affiliation with Cain & Associates, LLC, including
but not limited to documents reflecting Your position as acting CEO.
RESPONSE:
All Documents and Communications reflecting all, Social Media usernames, including but not
limited to burner accounts, URLs and/or domain names claimed by, owned, and/or controlled by
You.
RESPONSE:
10
Exhibit C-5
Exhibit
1 Plaintiffs Eugene Yu , together with Mr. Yu,
2 , for their complaint against Defendants LA County District Attorney George Gascón
3 ,
5 , allege as follows:
6 INTRODUCTION
7 1. This lawsuit arises from one of the most shocking, outrageous and disgraceful
8 violations in modern American history of a US citizen s most basic constitutional rights by
9 powerful government officials in charge of law enforcement in one .
10 2. Defendants, using threats, intimidation and coercion, and with no cause, let alone
11 probable cause, subjected Plaintiffs, an elections logistics firm and its founder, to a politically
12 motivated arrest, an unlawful detention and search and seizure of property, and malicious
13 prosecution all based solely on frivolous conspiracy theories espoused by discredited, far-right
14 extremist , and Gregg
15 Phillips ( with TTV and Engelbrecht Election Deniers , who line their
16 pockets by fundraising off of thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, including unsupported
17 claims that 3 million non-US citizens voted in the 2016 Presidential election and that the 2020
18 Presidential election was stolen from former President Donald Trump. Despite knowing exactly
19 with whom they were dealing, Defendants, in targeting Plaintiffs, maliciously and recklessly relied
20 on and knowingly aligned themselves with the Election Deniers and their further discredited and
21 utterly false conspiracy theories concerning supposed election malfeasance by Plaintiffs. In the
22 process, under color of law through an abuse of official powers, Defendants have
23 severely damaged and destroy and personal safety.
24 3. Konnech is a small, Michigan-based company built from the ground up by its
25 President and CEO, Plaintiff Eugene Yu. Mr. Yu is a U.S. citizen of Chinese descent who attended
26 college at Wake Forest University and renounced his Chinese citizenship when he became a U.S.
27 citizen over 27 years ago. Konnech provides governmental entities, including LA County, with an
28 election logistics software product called PollChief that, before arrest by Defendants, was
-- 2 --
COMPLAINT
1 used by three dozen cities and counties to recruit, train and schedule poll workers and to coordinate
2 the distribution of equipment and supplies. Konnech has never provided any voter registration,
3 ballot generation, tabulation or other such voting-related services,
4 could not affect election results.
5 4. Defendants violated Fourth and Fourteenth
6 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, CAL. CIV. CODE § 52.1,
7 by using threats, intimidation and coercion and improperly and unlawfully subjecting Plaintiffs to
8 an improper arrest, search, seizure and malicious prosecution weeks before the 2022 midterm
10 5. The motive of Defendants Stevens and Neff who it turns out were closely aligned
11 with the Election Deniers was to weaponize the Election Deniers
12 debunked election fraud claims to gin up a political controversy and publicity to enable the Election
13 Deniers to raise even more money on the eve of the 2022 Midterm Election under the guise of
14 political fundraising.
15 6. As for Defendant Gascón, a self-proclaimed progressive prosecutor endorsed by
16 individuals affiliated with the Communist Party USA, who has come under severe criticism for his
17 soft-on-crime policies, he saw an opportunity to use Mr. Yu , in a public atmosphere of
18 strong anti-China sentiment, for his own political gain to try to burnish his anti-crime credentials.
19 In fact, immediately after Gascón issued a press release and held a press conference
20 to brag about it. And this is apparently not the first time Gascón has abused his power for personal
21 gain; he has come under public scrutiny, and has been sued by over a dozen of his own LA County
22 prosecutors (including one who recently won a $1.5 million verdict against Defendant LA County),
23 for allegedly abusing his powers and retaliating against them for questioning his sweeping
24 prosecutorial policy changes, such as eliminating cash bail, refusing to prosecute juveniles as
25 adults, refusing to prosecute misdemeanor crimes, and rejecting sentencing enhancements. Gascón
26 also narrowly avoided a recall election and has faced a torrent of no-confidence votes by as many
27 as 30 city councils due to his soft-on-crime policies. Accordingly, Gascón, like Stevens and Neff,
28 but for his own purposes, also sought to weaponize the conspiracy theories advanced by former
-- 3 --
COMPLAINT
1 President Donald Trump and the Election Deniers by abusing his prosecutorial powers against
2 someone whom the Election Deniers had accused of being an operative of the Chinese Communist
3 Party.
4 7.
5 excess of $80 million. Following Mr. Yu , seizure of property, and Gascón
6 conference and press release, Konnech lost most of its customers, over 60% of its income, and has
7 since struggled to survive without any new customers. Mr. Yu
8 and his family have also suffered extreme emotional distress and have had to vacate their home and
9 office due to death threats and vandalism.
10 8. Defendants involvement with the Election Deniers began at least as early as August
11 13, 2022, two months before they arrested Mr. Yu, -only event in Arizona
12 organized and promoted by the Election Deniers, who themselves were catapulted onto the national
13 scene following their claims in 2017 that over 3 million non-US citizens voted in the 2016
14 Presidential election. After failing to provide any support for those claims, the Election Deniers
15 again sought to attract national media attention through the release of their thoroughly debunked
16 election was plagued by fraudulent
17 ballots. The Election Deniers advertised The Pit as an event where they would finally release
18 that the 2020 Presidential Election was
19 stolen.
20 9. , the Election Deniers instead used The
21 Pit as a platform to publicly launch their newest baseless conspiracy theory an attack against
22 Konnech and its CEO, Mr. Yu. At The Pit, the Election Deniers openly claimed that they had
23 hacked into and stolen data from a Konnech server in China allegedly including the personal
24 identifying and financial information of 1.8 million U.S. poll workers D
25 and that Konnech was a vehicle for international espionage on behalf of the Chinese Communist
26
27 10. Present at The Pit was a host of election fraud conspiracy theorists, including Kari
28 Lake and Christina Bobb, and other QAnon adherents. Defendant Stevens himself also attended
-- 4 --
COMPLAINT
1 The Pit after being personally invited by the Election Deniers. In fact, according to the Election
2 Deniers, , and the information disclosed
3 at The P However, Defendants apparently were the only law
4 enforcement officials willing to weapon
5 Plaintiffs.
6 11. The Election Deniers hoped to convince Defendant Stevens to use his official
7 powers to further bolster and spread the Election Deniers disinformation and baseless conspiracy
8 theory that Plaintiffs were Chinese spies, and to further enhance the Election Deniers
9 off of their purported political, racist and xenophobic beliefs. As the Election
10 Deniers revealed to Defendant Stevens and others at The Pit, they had previously peddled their
11 election fraud conspiracy claims about Konnech to the FBI in an effort to have Plaintiffs prosecuted
12 for what they claimed was CCP interference in U.S. elections. According to statements made by
13 the Election Deniers at The Pit, the FBI spent 15 months investigating
14 accusations concerning Plaintiffs. The FBI, however, apparently found no evidence of wrongdoing
15 and refused to prosecute Plaintiffs. Instead, the FBI opened an investigation into the Election
16 Deniers U.S. Poll Worker Data. Indeed, the
17 notion that a vast international conspiracy concerning election fraud would be ignored or even
18 concealed by the FBI, yet proven by armchair conspiracy theorists and con artists using nothing
19 more than basic internet searches and posts on social media, itself demonstrates that Defendants
20 were motivated by politics, headlines, and personal gain rather than probable cause. Again,
21 Defendants knew all of this before they arrested Mr. Yu and raided his home and offices, and before
22 they charged him with a crime, as law enforcement official Defendant Stevens was present at The
23 Pit when the Election Deniers candidly admitted to having committed the crimes of computer
24 hacking and stealing data.
25 12. Less than a month after The Pit, Konnech sued the Election Deniers on September
26 12, 2022, in a Houston, Texas federal court for, among other things, defamation, hacking, and theft
27 . U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt immediately granted Konnech a
28 temporary restraining order which found that, based on the same statements the Election Deniers
-- 5 --
COMPLAINT
1 made to Defendant Stevens at The Pit, Konnech had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
2 on its claim that the Election Deniers
3 prohibited the Election Deniers and anyone acting in concert with them from hacking into
4 and ordered the Election Deniers to identify all persons
5 involved in accessing return
6 any data they had taken from Konnech. The Election Deniers, however, later denied ever
7 possessing such data, thus proving the falsity of the basis for all of their statements about Konnech
8 at The Pit. As would later become apparent, the Defendants were aware of the Houston Lawsuit
9 and the TRO before they decided to proceed with Mr. Yu search and seizure of
10 .
11 13. In the days following the filing of the Houston Lawsuit, and before Defendants
12 executed their unlawful arrest, search and seizure, news outlets covering the Houston Lawsuit
13 published several articles online highlighting that the Election Deniers numerous claims of election
1
14 fraud and that they have
2
15 have . These articles which at
16 a minimum put Defendants on notice of the Election Deniers obvious lack of credibility were
17 available to Defendants had they conducted even a cursory Google search about the Election
18 Deniers whose unsubstantiated allegations spurred .
19 14. Defendants thus knew or should have known that a federal judge had found it likely
20 that the Election Deniers had engaged in conduct amounting to crimes, that the FBI had investigated
21 and found no evidence to support those accusations, and that the Election Deniers had a history of
22 fabricating election malfeasance. Defendants nevertheless chose to take the word of the discredited
23 Election Deniers over that of a United States District Judge and the FBI.
24
1
See Natalia Contreras, and targeted small election
25 vendor with racist, defamatory campaign, The Texas Tribune (Sept. 14, 2022), available at
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/14/texas-true-the-vote-lawsuit-konnech/.
26
2
See Benjamin Wermund By, Taylor Goldstein, Texas lawsuit seeks to rein in True the Vote over alleged
27 hacking, defamatory remarks, Houston Chronicle (Sept. 15, 2022), available at
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-lawsuit-seeks-to-reign-in-True-the-Vote-
28 17445102.php.
-- 6 --
COMPLAINT
1 15. In the Houston Lawsuit, after several delays by the Election Deniers which, in
2 hindsight were purposely aimed at ensuring that Defendants had sufficient time to execute their
3 based
4 on their claiming they were only available for the hearing on a date that they knew would follow
5 was set for October
6 6, 2022, during which Mr. Yu was to testify on behalf of Konnech and against the Election Deniers.
7 The Election Deniers knew that if the hearing proceeded as scheduled, they would be forced to
8 answer for their non-compliance with the TRO, including their failure to identify all persons
9 involved in allegedly hacking into Ko .
10 16. However, on October 4, 2022, after Mr. Yu left his Michigan home to drive to the
11 airport for his flight to Houston to meet with his attorneys and prepare for the preliminary injunction
12 hearing, Mr. Yu was arrested, and his home and car, located in the Meridian Charter Township,
13 along with two Michigan business offices, located in the Meridian Charter Township
14 and East Lansing, were raided in a joint operation between local Michigan and LA County law
15 enforcement, with law enforcement personnel in Michigan acting as an arm of Defendant LA
16 specifically
17 including Defendant Stevens. Shockingly, the arrest, search and seizure were all conducted without
18 probable cause and, although touted by Defendant Gascón at a press conference as involving theft
19 of personal identifying information, was based purely on an alleged technical breach of a contract
20 between Konnech and LA County, and purportedly based on Konnech
21 Worker Data on a local server. Mr. Yu, however, was not a party to that contract, he received no
22 payments under the contract, and LA County had received all the services for which it had
23 contracted. Defendants further seized data and information related to time periods that pre-dated
24 the contract at issue, and for which probable cause could not exist because they could not remotely
25 relate to any criminal charges asserted in connection with that contract. Notably, the LA County
26 Registrar who worked very closely with Konnech as its biggest customer told the media that
27 the LA Office did not involve the LA County Registrar in its investigation of
28 Plaintiffs and that they did not learn of the been

-- 7 --
COMPLAINT
1 arrested. In other words, even though the LA County Registrar had worked closely with Konnech
2 for over two years on LA County elections and had conducted two security audits in the two years
3 since contracting with Konnech all of which provided it with
4 product and services Office purposely excluded the LA County Registrar
5 from the investigation and instead relied solely upon unsupported allegations made by infamous
6 and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theorists.
7 17. Although Office told reporters that the
8 Election Deniers had not provided any information to Defendants about the purported case against
9 Mr. Yu, counsel for the Election Deniers, at the October 6, 2022, preliminary injunction hearing
10 Judge Hoyt to call the LA County to discuss the arrest of Mr. Yu in an effort
11 to prevent the judge from requiring their compliance with the TRO and ruling on the preliminary
12 injunction. Judge Hoyt, however, rejected that request, expressing
13 [i.e.,
14 the preliminary injunction hearing] because [Mr. Yu] has been arrested by people who are intent
15
16 18. Apparently undeterred, during a subsequent show cause and contempt hearing in the
17 Houston Lawsuit on October 27, 2022, counsel for the Election Deniers informed the court that
18
19 Court [Judge Hoyt] Election Deniers. Judge
20 Hoyt, a federal judge for more than 30 years, n
21 Mr.
22
23 19. Without a doubt, Defendants and the Election Deniers were adamant that the
24 Election Deniers avoid testifying about their violation of the TRO and patently false conspiracy
25 theories, so much so that Defendants deprived Mr. Yu of his liberty to travel to Houston, and
26 succeeded in holding him in custody without bail for an alleged breach of a contract to which Mr.
27 Yu was not even a party. to demonstrate contempt
28 and the right to a preliminary injunction, by arresting Mr. Yu and preventing him from testifying,
-- 8 --
COMPLAINT
1 the Election Deniers knew that they would not have to take the stand to testify. While Mr. Yu was
2 eventually released from jail, he was nevertheless confined to a hotel in Los Angeles under house
3 arrest which he could only leave to
4 visit his defense attorney, and was further required to wear two different ankle monitors (one for
5 Michigan and one for California). Mr. Yu was also prohibited from speaking with any Konnech
6 employees or conducting any business for Konnech, which was particularly damaging given that
7 the 2022 Midterm Election was quickly approaching and news of his arrest had sent the company
8 into turmoil.
9 20. at the October 6, 2022 hearing, Judge Hoyt
10 ordered Election Deniers Phillips and Engelbrecht to appear on October 27, 2022, to testify in the
11 Houston Lawsuit in connection with their contempt of the TRO. Their testimony demonstrated to
12 the Defendants that they should not and could not have continued to rely on the Election Deniers
13 as the basis for their actions against Plaintiffs. Both Election Deniers testified, under oath, that they
14 did not have and never had possession of any Konnech data or U.S. Poll Worker Data and provided
15 directly conflicting accounts of whether the U.S. Poll Worker Data that they claimed were stored
16 on a Konnech server in China were actually stored on a Konnech server. This testimony
17 demonstrates that the Defendants could not have received, and based on their testimony never
18 actually had, any of the U.S. Poll Worker Data at the heart of their criminal action from the Election
19 Deniers, and instead chose to take their word for it despite their obvious lack of credibility.
20 Shockingly, the Election Deniers refused to identify all persons involved in allegedly accessing the
21 U.S. Poll Worker D ,
22 even after a United States District Judge ordered them to do so. As a result, four days later, the
23 Election Deniers were jailed for contempt.
24 21. Knowing he had done nothing wrong, Mr. Yu was left questioning how such a thing
25 could happen to him and why the business he created was being destroyed by Defendants, even
26 though the LA County Registrar was, and remains to this day, Konnech st customer.3 After
27 3
On July 14, 2023, Konnech and LA County entered into an amended contract for Konnech to continue to
28 provide LA County with election logistic services.
-- 9 --
COMPLAINT
1 the eventual dismissal of the charges against Mr. Yu, and in light of statements made by the LA
2 it became clear that Defendants had aligned themselves with the
3 Election Deniers in a scheme to destroy Plaintiffs for their own personal gain and in support of their
4 own political, racial and xenophobic beliefs.
5 22. Election Deniers is undeniable. As alleged above,
6 Defendant Stevens personally attended The Pit at the invitation of the Election Deniers. Moreover,
7 the Election Deniers testified in the Houston Lawsuit that Defendant Neff spoke to the Election
8 Deniers as part of his supposed investigation into Plaintiffs, and that the Election Deniers testified
9 before the grand jury which led to the indictment against Mr. Yu.
10 23. Perhaps even more shocking, Defendant LA County hired, as purported forensic
11 investigators to accompany and assist law enforcement on the unlawful
12 offices, the Election Deniers close allies, including Harry Haury and Nate Cain, the
13 CEO and founder of a so-called cyber security business Cain & Associates, respectively.
14 Defendants did so with knowledge that Haury had appeared on stage at The Pit as a speaker where
15 he espoused his views on CCP interference in U.S. elections, demonstrated racism and xenophobia
16 by saying that any and asked people to send money to the
17 Election Deniers under the guise of political fundraising in advance of the 2022 Midterm Election.
18 On September 11, 2023, Haury stated on a podcast that he testified before the grand jury that
19 indicted Mr. Yu , meaning that LA County hired
20 a purported fact
21 offices, and to serve as a purported expert after he had already testified as fact witness, and upon
22 even though Defendants had at their disposal the fourth largest law
23 enforcement agency in the county with over 300 employees, including their own forensic computer
24 experts. that the entire prosecution
25 and that Defendants would do anything, and hire
26 anybody, that they knew would achieve the result they wanted.
27 24. Cain had also publicly asked people to send money to the Election Deniers in
28 furtherance of political, racial and xenophobic beliefs, and years earlier he had his own home raided
-- 10 --
COMPLAINT
1 by the FBI for allegedly stealing federal property in an attempt to implicate Hillary Clinton and the
2 Clinton Foundation in a scandal concerning the U.S.
3 One to Rosatom, a Russian nuclear energy agency, while he was an FBI contractor. Defendants
4 also were or should have been aware of additional red flags demonstrating the bias and lack of
5 credibility of Cain based on a previously submitted expert report publicly available to
6 Defendants before they hired him as a consultant to engage in the unlawful raid and seizure of
7 in connection with an Arizona lawsuit, in which he brazenly claimed that the
8 results of the 2020 Presidential election should not be certified.
9 claim to have spent in excess of 600 hours performing work as consultants to Defendants, including
10 in executing a search warrant against Plaintiffs.
11 25. And at least equally appalling, Haury admitted in a February 2023 affidavit filed
12 in the Houston Lawsuit that
13 in the process of being imaged, -connected e-mail accounts and
14 conducted an illegal wiretap by monitoring those accounts and communications, including
15 potentially attorney-client privileged communications, for four days after the unlawful LA County
16 search warrants were executed. Haury apparently did so for the purpose of pursuing his shared
17 goals with the Election Deniers and with the power and authority granted to him by Defendants.
18 Defendants even failed to require Haury or Cain to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure
19 agreement in connection with their work on the investigation. This was particularly important
20 because Haury and Cain later admitted that they kept materials seized from Plaintiffs that they
21 received through their work with Defendants, and they have publicly threatened to release those
22 materials. Defendants have done nothing to stop the release of such materials or otherwise to seek
23 their repeated requests that Defendants do so.
24 26. Although Defendants initially claimed to reporters that the Election Deniers were
25 not involved with the investigation or arrest of Mr. Yu, Defendants were later forced to correct their
26 lie and admit that the Election Deniers were in fact involved after the Election Deniers published
27 their own statement taking credit for the arrest of Mr. Yu, and after the attempt by Deputy District
28 Attorney Beaart to interfere in the October 6 preliminary injunction hearing. Election Denier
-- 11 --
COMPLAINT
1 Phillips also confirmed in a legal filing in the Houston Lawsuit that he was called to testify before
2 the LA County grand jury that indicted Mr. Yu.
3 27. In an effort to further conceal from Plaintiffs and the general public the politically
4 biased underpinnings of the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Yu, Defendants sought to cover their
5 tracks as Defendant Gascón himself directly ordered by abandoning the original sealed criminal
6 indictment of Mr. Yu that was the basis for the unlawful search warrant executed on Plaintiffs.
7 Instead, Defendants chose to proceed on a felony complaint against Mr. Yu that was devoid of any
8 mention of the Election Deniers. But instead of providing Mr. Yu and his defense counsel with a
9 copy of the complaint, and in order to ensure maximum damage, Defendants first leaked a copy of
10 the criminal complaint to national media, including the New York Times. Notably, however, this
11 new criminal complaint was signed by Defendant Stevens, who attended The Pit event at the
12 Election Deniers , and Defendant Neff, who admittedly worked with the Election Deniers
13 as part of his investigation both of whom aligned themselves with the Election Deniers. Despite
14 Defendants prior public claims that the case concerned the theft of personal identifying
15 information and one of the largest data breaches in the history of the United States, when the
16 criminal complaint was finally released, it alleged only that Mr. Yu embezzled funds from LA
17 gistics software for LA
18 charges asserted against Mr. Yu in his personal capacity
19 ultimately constituted nothing more than a purported breach of contract by Konnech, a contract to
20 which Mr. Yu was not himself a party and pursuant to which he was not paid any money in his
21 individual capacity, which unquestionably does not constitute a crime.
22 28. Because the criminal complaint was meritless, legally untenable and lacked any
23 indicia of probable cause, Mr. Yu immediately filed a motion to dismiss the baseless charges
24 brought against him. And on November 9, 2022 precisely one day after the 2022 Midterm
25 Election, and thus one day after the Election Deniers no longer had seemingly plausible grounds
26 for their supp engineered through baseless election fraud conspiracy
27 theories about Plaintiffs Defendants dismissed the case and dropped all charges against Mr. Yu
28 without even attempting to defend the complaint.

-- 12 --
COMPLAINT
1 29. Even more incredibly, in the days after the charges were dropped, the LA County
2 ly admitted that the arrest and prosecution had been improper. First, an LA
3 confirmed the course of this prosecution, upper-
4 level management became aware of irregularities in how the case was presented That admission
5 included an obvious but unavailing attempt to exonerate Gascón who, given his press statement
6 and press conference announcing the arrest, had to have been aware of what occurred. The
7 spokesperson further stated the
8 potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence. In other words, the
9 investigation had obviously been rushed for the sole purpose of arresting and charging Mr. Yu
10 before he was due to testify against the Election Deniers and before the 2022 Midterm Elections.
11 It was also done in an apparent effort to gin up publicity and a political controversy personally
12 supported by Defendants Neff and Stevens and consultants Cain & Associates, Cain and Haury,
13 and to accelerate the Election Deniers fundraising efforts in the weeks leading up to the 2022
14 Midterm Election. The charges against Mr. Yu also provided Defendant Gascón with a scapegoat
15 to appease his DA subordinates that had rejected him and to help dispel accusations that he was too
16 soft on crime. But once that election had passed, and once Defendants had made the headlines they
17 set out to make, Defendants immediately dismissed the transparently baseless criminal charges
18 against Mr. Yu.
19 30.
20 it was reported that Defendant Neff had been placed on administrative leave because of his conduct
21 in connection with the malicious investigation and prosecution of Mr. Yu. Indeed, according to
22 statements made by consultant Cain on a September 7, 2023, podcast, Defenda
23 that pressed forward with things and the search
24 .
25 31. misconduct is
26 equipment. Despite the fact that Konnech had not been charged with any crime, and despite the
27 lack of any probable cause and on the apparent basis of a sealed criminal indictment premised on
28 the testimony of the Election Deniers (which Defendants abandoned within a week), Defendants
-- 13 --
COMPLAINT
1 valued at approximately $1 million that
2 Konnech desperately needed to support its election logistics software to fulfill its customer
3 contracts and to ensure that the many cities and counties that rely on Konnech for its election
4 logistics, including LA County, could properly manage the 2022 Midterm Election (which was
5 only a month away at the time of arrest). Eventually, on November 16, 2022, a California
6 However, to this date, which is more than
7 eleven nine months since a California court ordered
8 Defendants to do so, Defendants have still refused to return to Konnech its equipment.
9 32. In the fallout from the baseless arrest and malicious prosecution of Mr. Yu, Konnech
10 lost over 60% of its income which caused damages in excess of $80 million. But despite the
11 dismissal of the charges, misconduct is still damaging Konnech. Konnech is still
12 losing customers, Konnech has been unable to obtain any new customers, Mr. Yu and his family
13 are still suffering extreme emotional distress, and Mr. Yu, his family, and
14 have been the subject of repeated death threats and vandalism.
15 33. Ironically, despite the best efforts of the
16 and Defendants to crush Plaintiffs through baseless and politically motivated
17 charges, and the enormous damage they have caused, LA County itself has remained a steadfast
18 customer of Konnech s which only confirms the
19 outrageousness of Defe misconduct and the necessity to hold them accountable.
20 34. Plaintiffs therefore file this action to recover the damages they have suffered as a
21 constitutional rights and their continued wrongful
22 seizure of computers and equipment, and to require the immediate return of
23 computers and equipment.
24 PARTIES
25 35. Plaintiff Konnech Inc. is incorporated in Michigan and headquartered in East
26 Lansing, Michigan.
27 36. Plaintiff Eugene Yu is an individual residing in Michigan.
28
-- 14 --
COMPLAINT
1 37. Defendant Los Angeles County is a public entity established and maintained by the
2 laws and Constitution of the State of California, and owns, operates, manages, and controls the LA
3 County DA for the other Defendants, as well as Cain
4 & Associates and consultants Cain and Haury, in this action. Defendant Los Angeles County is
5 vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the other Defendants, as well as Cain & Associates
6 and consultants Cain and Haury, and any investigators described herein pursuant to common law
7 and California Government Code § 815.2.
8 38. Defendant George Gascón is an individual residing in Los Angeles County,
9 California.
10 39. Defendant Eric Neff is an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California.
11 40. Defendant Andrew Stevens is an individual residing in Napa County, California.
12 41. The names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of
13 of their roles in this case,
14 are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue said Doe Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs
15 further allege that each of said fictitious Doe Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts
16 and occurrences set forth herein. Doe Defendants will be identified through discovery, and
17 Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities, and the manner in
18 which each fictitious Doe Defendant is responsible, when ascertained.
19 42. Defendants are and at all material times have been the agents and servants of, and
20 acted in concert with, one another with respect to the acts and conduct herein alleged, and are
21 responsible for and liable to Plaintiffs for the damages arising out of such conduct.
22 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23 43. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because it has general subject matter jurisdiction
24
25 specific subject matter pursuant to California Government Code § 946.6.
26 44. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395
27 because (i) some of the Defendants are residents of Los Angeles County; and (ii) events giving rise
28
-- 15 --
COMPLAINT
1 45. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to California Code of
2 Civil Procedure § 410.10 because they are citizens of California and because they committed
3 tortious and other unlawful misconduct against Plaintiffs while in California.
4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5 Konnech
6 46. Konnech is a U.S. company which is incorporated in Michigan and was founded by
7 its President and CEO, Eugene Yu, who is a U.S. citizen of Chinese descent. Mr. Yu built Konnech
8 on his own from the ground up. Konnech provides governmental entities including Los Angeles
9 County with an election logistics software product called PollChief which those governmental
10 entities use to recruit, train and schedule poll workers; coordinate the distribution of equipment and
11 supplies to polling places; and dispatch support personnel to address technical and other issues.
12 Konnech does not select, communicate, or otherwise interface with any poll workers. And
13
14 production, distribution, scanning, or processing of ballots, nor the collection, counting or reporting
15 of votes. Konnech never handles any ballots and no ballots or other voting counts ever enter any
16
17 47. Los Angeles County has been a Konnech customer since 2020. Konnech has
18 provided its PollChief software to LA County for use in both local and federal elections. LA
19 contract with LA County,
20 LA County, along with a large third-party consulting firm, conducted two security audits of
21 Konnech in the first two years of their contract. In fact, LA County was in the middle of its second
22 security audit of Konnech at the time of Mr. LA County has continued to use
23 since conducting those security audits and despite the arrest
24
25 Defendant Gascón and LA County
26 48. LA County District Attorney George Gascón is a progressive prosecutor who was
27 elected to office in 2020. Defendant Gascón
28 system, pursued an agenda premised on reducing incarceration by eliminating cash bail, refused to
-- 16 --
COMPLAINT
1 ever charge juveniles as adults, rejected application of enhancements to sentencing lengths, and
2 established a policy of not prosecuting certain misdemeanors associated with homelessness and
3 trespassing. S
4 however, the county became plagued by scandal due to his lack of criminal enforcement.
5 49. As a result, Defendant Gascón was subjected to an initial recall effort in March 2021,
6 which eventually failed. Then, another recall effort began, needing 566,857 signatures to place his
7 job on the ballot. Although the recall efforts obtained 715,833 signatures, nearly 200,000 signatures
8 were determined to be invalid, meaning Defendant Gascón narrowly avoided a recall election in
9 August 2022.
10 50. But perhaps most embarrassing for Defendant Gascón, 30 city councils in LA
11 County issued a vote of no confidence in Defendant Gascón, and virtually all (98%) of the LA
12 County prosecutors who participated in a vote representing an astounding 83% of all prosecutors
13 in the county along with the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys supported the
14 recall, believing that Defendant Gascón to his prosecutors violated state law. And even
15 , Defendant Gascón has been
16 sued by over a dozen of his own LA County prosecutors for abusing his power and retaliating
17 against them by demoting the prosecutors from long-held positions after they questioned the
18 legality of his sweeping policy changes. In fact, one such prosecutor recently was awarded a $1.5
19 million verdict for her retaliation claims against Defendant Gascón.4
20 51. In an apparent effort to change his soft-on-crime image, appease his rank-and-file
21 prosecutors, and ward off future recall attempts less than two months after the latest recall efforts
22 failed, Defendant Gascón made Mr. Yu his own political pawn, knowing that if he trumpeted Mr.
23 Yu arrest, the high-profile nature of the arrest would garner national headlines, divert attention
24 away from the recall and improve his public image. In doing so, Defendant Gascón recklessly
25 ignored the lack of any probable cause and the unreliable, not credible and untrustworthy source of
26
4
27 James Queally, Gascón loses retaliation case, a grim omen for the L.A. County D.A., Los Angeles Times
(March 6, 2023), available at, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-06/jury-awards-l-a-
28 prosecutor-1-5-million-in-retaliation-suit-against-d-a-george-gascon.
-- 17 --
COMPLAINT
1 53. Even the Los Angeles Times was so confused by Defendant Gascón
2 they released an article titled: Gascón end up launching a criminal probe sparked by far-
5
3
4 54. But the truly outrageous nature of these charges is also underscored by the fact that,
6 with which Mr. Yu was charged
7 and worked hand-in-hand with Konnech employees in the 2022 Midterm Election, as well as city
8 elections within LA County in 2023, as the Los Angeles Times article also highlighted.6
9 55. Moreover, despite the fact that the LA County Registrar contracts directly with
10 Konnech, had worked with Konnech on a near-daily basis and conducted two security audits under
11 was never contacted about the LA
12 vestigation until after Mr. Yu
13 was arrested. Despite that, since they are all employees of LA County, the knowledge of the LA
14 County Registrar Office, and specifically to the
15 Defendants in this action. As such, Defendants cannot use ignorance as an excuse for their
16 malfeasance directed at Plaintiffs.
17 The Election Deniers
18 56.
19 with the Election Deniers who, based purely on racism and xenophobia and their own desire for
20 money, fame and notoriety, saw Plaintiffs as easy targets for political conspiracy theories that could
21 enrich the Election Deniers under the guise of fundraising in the weeks leading up to the
22 2022 Midterm Election, particularly
23 China.
24
25
5
James Queally, Sarah D. Wire, How did Gascón end up launching a criminal probe sparked by far-right
26 election conspiracy theories?, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 16, 2023), available at
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-11-16/gascon-targeted-poll-worker-registration-company-at-
27 heart-of-conspiracy-theories.
6
28 Id.
-- 19 --
COMPLAINT
7
1 Phillips That same day,
2 Election Denier Phillips appeared on a nationally televised interview on CNN during which he
3 refused to provide (and still refuses to provide) evidence that even one person, let alone 3 million
4 people, voted illegally.8 Notably, some comments from viewers of those interviews in 2017 noted
5 [i]f Trump considers this
6 guy to be a credible source we
8 60. The Election Deniers re-appeared on the national scene following the 2020 U.S.
9 Presidential election and sought to capitalize on claims of election fraud through their involvement
10 in the production of a so-called documentary titled 2000 Mules, in which they sought to convince
11 t fake
12 ballots into ballot boxes for the 2020 Presidential election which they concluded changed its
13 outcome. The theories peddled in 2000 Mules, however, have been repeatedly disproven, and
14 Defendants knew this.9
15 61. Indeed, Defendants knew exactly who the Election Deniers were when they decided
16 to join forces against Plaintiffs. Aside from the fact that Defendant Stevens attended The Pit,
17 rudimentary due diligence into the Election Deniers, such as a simple Google search, would have
18
7
19 See Jan. 27, 2017 @realDonaldTrump Tweet, available at,
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824968416486387713.
20 8
See Election Denier Phillips CNN interview with Chris Cuomo (Jan. 27, 2017), available at,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MSSLUhevto&t=3s; see also
21
interview with John Berman (Jan. 28, 2017), available at,
22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4ogfo19kaM.
9
See Fact Check- ,
23 Reuters (May 27, 2022), available at, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules-
idUSL2N2XJ0OQ; , Associated Press
24 (May 3, 2022), available at, https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-03/fact-focus-gaping-
holes-in-the-claim-of-2k-ballot-mules; Tom Dreisbach, A pro-Trump film suggests its data are so accurate,
25 , NPR (May 17, 2022), available at,
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1098787088/a-pro-trump-film-suggests-its-data-are-so-accurate-it-
26
solved-a-murder-thats-fals; Phillip Bump, , The
27 Washington Post (May 19, 2022), available at, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/even-
geolocation-maps-2000-mules-are-misleading/.
28
-- 21 --
COMPLAINT
1 62. Rudimentary internet searches would have further revealed to Defendants that
2 Election Denier Phillips had been accused by lawmakers of ethics violations and using his prior
3 government positions in Mississippi and Texas to steer government contracts to his own affiliated
4 companies to financially benefit himself.12 In fact, one Senator from Mississippi was quoted as
13
5
6 63. The Election Deniers have also been the subject of many public lawsuits premised
7 on false claims of election fraud, which should have served as additional red flags demonstrating
8 the Election Deniers . For example, the Election
9 Deniers are the subjects of a pending voter intimidation lawsuit in Georgia, filed in December 2020,
10 in which they are alleged to have improperly challenged 364,000 voter registrations particularly
11 Black and brown voters and first-time voters based on unreliable records of mailing address
12 changes which, in and of themselves, are insufficient to challenge voter eligibility.14 Ironically, it
13 was reported in 2017 that Election Denier Phillips was himself registered to vote in three different
14 states.15 In that case, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the proceedings against the Election
15 Deniers at the Georgia federal c .16
16 64. The Election Deniers are also defendants in a civil rights lawsuit in Georgia, in
17 which the plaintiff claims that the Election Deniers caused him to suffer threats and live in fear
18 after their movie 2000 Mules falsely accused him of voter fraud in connection with the 2020
19
12
See id.; see also R.G. Ratcliffe, Privatization role reveals ethics gap in state law, Houston Chronicle (Jan.
20 2, 2005), available at https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/privatization-role-reveals-ethics-
gap-in-state-law-1940898.php.
21 13
Jerry Mitchell, Voter fraud probe traced back to ex-MS welfare head, The Clarion-Ledger (Jan. 26, 2017),
22 available at, https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2017/01/26/voter-fraud-probe-traced-back-to-ex-
mississippi-welfare-head/97094430/.
23 14
See Fair Fight, Inc., et al. v. True the Vote, et al., No. 2:20-mi-99999-UNA in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia Gainesville Division.
24
15
Peter Walker, ,
25 Independent (Jan. 31, 2017), available at, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-
trump-electoral-fraud-expert-gregg-phillips-registered-to-vote-three-states-alabama-texas-mississippi-3-
26 million-illegal-votes-a7554551.html.
16
27 See Democracy Docket (Dec. 20, 2022), available at, https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/doj-
joins-georgia-voter-intimidation-lawsuit-against-right-wing-group-true-the-vote/.
28
-- 23 --
COMPLAINT
1 Presidential election. Notably, the suit accuses the Election Deniers of violating the Ku Klux Klan
2 Act and the Voting Rights Act.17
3 65. It was also widely Office had similar
4 concerns about the Election Deniers and their unproven claims of election fraud over the course of
5 2022. Specifically, the Election Deniers
6 Office in connection with their false claims in the 2000 Mules film long before the LA County
7 olous criminal
8 charges. Specifically, throughout 2022, the Election Deniers refused multiple requests from the
9 Arizona Attorney General's Office to provide evidence or data supporting the ballot-harvesting
10 allegations raised in their 2000 Mules film. In fact, a spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney
11 Election Deniers to clarify that no
12 evidence of voter fraud had ever been presented to the office.18 Additionally, in May 2022, the
13 Election Deniers met with Republican Arizona lawmakers where they shared their conspiracy
14 theories about the 2020 election, but the Election Deniers again failed to present any evidence in
15 support. Instead they asserted that those complaining about the lack of evidence are simply
16
17 claiming their methods are proprietary.19 Accordingly, after repeated failure by the Election
18 Deniers to present any evidence of fraud, the Arizona Attorney General published an open letter in
19 October 2022, calling for a federal investigation into the Election Deniers, explaining that Arizona
20 investigators had met with the Election Deniers on multiple occasions to obtain evidence of the
21 Election Deniers -spread voter fraud, but no evidence of fraud was ever actually
22 produced.20
23
t al., No. 1:22-cv-04259-SDG, in the United States District Court for the Northern
24 District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.
18
See "2000 Mules" group ignored Arizona AG's requests for info, Axios, available at
25
https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2022/09/02/2000-mules-group-ignored-arizona-ags-requests-info.
26 19
See Arizona Lawmakers Hear From Election Conspiracy Theorists, US News, available at
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2022-05-31/arizona-lawmakers-hear-from-
27 election-conspiracy-theorists.
20
28 See Oct. 14, 2022 Letter from AG Brnovich, available at 202210141445.pdf (azag.gov).
-- 24 --
COMPLAINT
1 amount of money raised to collect alleged evidence of fraud which apparently did not exist and
2 given Election Denier
3 Id.
4 66. It has also been well reported that, in November 2020, the Election Deniers were
5 sued by a conservative megadonor who, after speaking with Election Denier Engelbrecht, donated
6 alleged efforts to fight election fraud and, specifically, to hire a
7 lawyer to file lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. The donor later discovered, however,
8 that his money was instead siphoned through TTV and other entities established by the Election
9 Deniers for their own personal gain.21 And even more telling, that same lawyer who was hired by
10 the Election Deniers (purportedly) using funds of the conservative megadonor, has since sued the
11 Election Deniers for nearly $1 million in unpaid legal fees.22
12 67. And as yet another example of the Election Deniers recent legal troubles, the
13 Georgia State Election Board has sued Election Denier TTV for refusing to provide state
14 investigators with evidence of its claims of alleged voter fraud after it previously determined that
15 to the level of probable cause that a crime has been
16 Consistent with their modus operandi, the Election Deniers insisted that they have an
17
23
18 per an argument identical to the one they made when they
19
20
21 21
See Eshelman v. True the Vote, Inc., OSPEC Group, LLC, Engelbrecht, Bopp, Jr., Phillips, and The Bopp
Law Firm, 4:2020-cv-04034, filed November 25, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
22 of Texas; see also Richard Salame, Was Election Denial Just a Get-Rich- Lawsuits
Look for Answers (Feb. 6, 2021), available at,
23 https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2021/02/06/was-election-denial-just-a-get-rich-quick-
scheme-donors-lawsuits-look-for-answers/.
24
22
See The Bopp Law Firm, PC v. True the Vote, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-120 in the United States District
25 Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
23
See Kate Brumback, Election officials sue conservative voting group over refusal to produce ballot-
26
harvesting evidence, Associated Press, available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/election-
27 officials-sue-conservative-voting-group-over-refusal-to-produce-ballot-harvesting-evidence/ar-
AA1dMCsB.
28
-- 25 --
COMPLAINT
1 in allegedly Pit and the attacks against
2 Plaintiffs), which saw them jailed for contempt of court.24
3 68. Then, in early 2022, after the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, Election Denier
4 Phillips began soliciting donations to allegedly bring a mobile hospital to the war-torn region in
5 Ukraine. Although Election Denier Phillips claimed that they were halfway to their goal of raising
6 $25 million, lawyers for the Election Deniers were eventually forced to admit that the project had
7 raised only $268.25 In fact, lawyers for the Election Deniers had said that the Election Deniers
8 decided to abandon the project as early as April 2022, but Election Denier Phillips had continued
9 to solicit donations for the project for months thereafter.26
10 69. All of this information should have been known to Defendants, who were relying
11 on the Election Deniers, as Defendants were required to determine the reliability, credibility, and
12 suitability of the Election Deniers and the information they provided which Defendants used to
13 .
14 70. Apparently realizing that their 2000 Mules grift had run its course, and needing a
15 scapegoat to divert attention from the FBI investigation against the Election Deniers themselves,
16 the Election Deniers made Plaintiffs their new target, and they enlisted Defendants to do their dirty
17 work for them. In doing so, they invited Defendant Stevens to join them at The Pit, where they
18 planned to publicly announce their baseless attack against Plaintiffs.
19 The Pit Event
20 71. In the summer of 2022 long after they had already developed public notoriety as
21 far-right conspiracy theorists peddling frivolous claims of election fraud the Election Deniers
22 advertised an invitation-only event they d
23 constitute definitive proof
24 24
See Paul P. Murphy, Leaders of right-wing election conspiracy group jailed after being found in contempt
of court, CNN (Nov. 1, 2022) available at https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/politics/true-the-vote-leaders-
25
jail-contempt-of-court/index.html.
26 25
Cassandra Jaramillo, Lauren McGaughy and Allie Morris, Promoters of Election Lies Also Hyped a
Hospital for Ukraine. That Never Happened Either, ProPublica (Jan. 23, 2023), available at
27 https://www.propublica.org/article/ukraine-freedom-hospital-true-the-vote-phillips-engelbrecht.
26
28 Id.
-- 26 --
COMPLAINT
1 that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from former President Trump. The Pit was a
2 clandestine event held in the desert in Arizona where attendees were shuttled on buses from a hotel
3 to an undisclosed site and asked to put away their cell phones in Faraday bags to purportedly hide
4 their locations.
5 72. The Pit was hosted by the Election Deniers and attended by over 100 by-invitation-
6 only guests, including Kari Lake, Christina Bobb, QAnon adherents, and other conspiracy theorists
7 who were handpicked by the Election Deniers based on who they believed would be supportive of
8 their conspiracy and who would best spread the disinformation they planned to disclose. Ironically,
9 despite efforts to conceal their identity, the Election Deniers decided to film The Pit and the
10 audience and ultimately published a permanent record of those who attended The Pit.
11 73. The event featured many different speakers, including Election Deniers Engelbrecht
12 and Phillips, and Harry Haury of Cain & Associates, and served
13 as a pep rally for election fraud conspiracy theorists ahead of the 2022 Midterm Election. But the
14 main attraction for The Pit was the supposed proof that the Election Deniers claimed they planned
15 to disclose, which was not part of 2000 Mules, but, in their words, would serve as definitive proof
16 that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.
17 74. Although a portion of The Pit was livestreamed by Right Side Broadcasting
18 Network, the Election Deniers announced that they had turned off the livestream, but continued
19 recording, before they began discussing Plaintiffs and disclosed to attendees that they had been
20 the code name and hashtag for
21 their campaign against Plaintiffs pursuant to which the Election Deniers claimed to have allegedly
22 hacked into and downloaded U.S. Poll Worker Data from a Konnech server in China.
23 75. Election Denier Phillips claimed at T
24 ys in Dallas called me to a meeting . . . at a Hilton . . .
25 and they had rented this room upstairs and I get there and the guys are like all just sort of weird . .
26 . towels under the door . . . and we pulled up on the screen . . . in essence a database. And the
27 database had in it, um, every bit of information you would want to know about 1.8 million
28
-- 27 --
COMPLAINT
1 that he had given them five copies of
2 the data he claims to have stolen
3 information from the Chine
4 76. As it turned out, however, the Election Deniers blatantly lied to their invited guests
5 at The Pit. When forced to testify under oath in a federal court in the Houston Lawsuit, Election
6 Denier Phillips admitted that he never had a copy of any such alleged data. Specifically, Election
7 Denier Phillips wa
9 Election Denier Phillips further testified under oath that he the alleged
10 Konnech data himself, and that he never attempted to confirm that the data he was shown in that
11 Dallas hotel room by a person who Election Denier Phillips had only met on one prior occasion,
12 no less was actually Konnech data or otherwise data from a Konnech computer. Accordingly,
13 and as discussed further below, it begs the question how Defendants could reasonably rely on what
14 the Election Deniers were telling Defendants about Plaintiffs when the Election Deniers admitted
15 under oath in federal court they never even had a copy of any Konnech data, and thus could not
16 have given a copy to Defendants as part of any investigation.
17 Defendants and Election Deniers Align Themselves in a Scheme to Destroy Plaintiffs
18 77. One other particularly notable invitee to The Pit was Defendant Stevens who, as an
19
20 enforcement activities outside of the county. Upon information and belief, the Election Deniers
21 had been in prior contact with Defendant Stevens before The Pit and had disclosed to Defendant
22 Stevens that the Election Deniers planned to publicly announce their attack against Plaintiffs at The
23 Pit, and thus invited him as a representative of LA County in an effort to lend an air of credibility
24 to their conspiracy. The Election Deniers had also hoped that Defendant Stevens would share their
25 political, racial and xenophobic beliefs and would use The Pit as an investigative opportunity and
26 take the conspiracy about Plaintiffs back to the and ultimately charge Mr.
27 Yu with a crime after the FBI refused to do so following a 15-month investigation of Election
28 . The Election Deniers believed that if Defendant

-- 28 --
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs based solely on the Election Deniers , without probable
2 cause, and in a clear abuse of power.
3 84. Defendants knew or should have known that what they were doing represented an
4 abuse of their powers, a dereliction of their code of ethics, and a violation of LA County policies
5 that prohibit discrimination and engaging in any deceit or intentional misrepresentation, and that
6 required Defendant Stevens to never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, or
7 political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence his decisions. The notion that
8 a vast international conspiracy concerning the U.S. Presidential election would be ignored by the
9 FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and the LA County Registrar, yet proven by infamous and
10 thoroughly debunked armchair conspiracy theorists and con artists posing as investigators using
11 basic internet searches and posts on social media, demonstrates that Defendants were motivated by
12 politics, headlines, and personal gain rather than probable cause.
13 Konnech Sues the Election Deniers
14 85. Less than a month after The Pit, on September 12, 2022, Konnech filed suit against
15 the Election Deniers for, among other things, hacking, theft, and defamation. That same day,
16 Konnech obtained a temporary restraining order against the Election Deniers which required them
17
18 them
19 computers or taking its data.
20 86. on for preliminary injunction was initially set for
21 September 26, 2022. The Election Deniers, however, sought to delay the hearing on more than one
22 , a date after which they knew Mr.
23 Yu would be arrested. Accordingly, without knowledge of the imminent arrest, Konnech agreed
24
25 Election Deniers But as it turned out, the
26 Election Deniers were merely delaying until the date that they knew Defendants would unlawfully
27 arrest Mr. Yu so that they would not be forced to testify and reveal that they had no evidence of
28 their claims. To be clear, because

-- 32 --
COMPLAINT
1 to a preliminary injunction, by arresting Mr. Yu and preventing him from testifying, the Election
2 Deniers knew that they would not have to take the stand to testify.
3 87. Indeed, on the morning of October 4, 2022, a lawyer for the Election Deniers
4 emailed lawyers for Konnech and stated their intent to appear at the hearing on the preliminary
6 before the Cou
7 agreement to make Mr. Yu available for the hearing. Of course, the Election Deniers knew what
8 was happening. They knew that Defendants would arrest Mr. Yu would that morning, which is
9 why they wanted to push the hearing until after his arrest; Defendants were keeping the Election
10 Deniers informed about exactly what was going to happen, and when it was going to happen.
11 Mr. Yu is Wrongfully Arrested and His Home, Vehicle and Offices Are Raided; Defendants
12 Attempt to Interfere in the Houston Lawsuit
13 88. the Election Deniers
14 lawyer, and while Mr. Yu was on his way to the airport to fly to Houston and meet with his attorneys
15 to prepare for the October 6 hearing, Mr. Yu was arrested. Simultaneously, but only after Mr. Yu
16 was already in custody and had already handed over the keys to enter his house, LA County and
17 law enforcement personnel in Michigan working in conjunction with each other, and with law
18 enforcement personnel in Michigan operating as an arm of Defendant LA County at the direction
19 pecifically including Defendant
20 Stevens approached home in the Meridian Charter Township with weapons drawn, and
21 then used a battering ram to force their way into his home even though they encountered no
22 resistance and despite the fact that Defend
23 wife had called 911 from inside the house to report what she believed was a home invasion in
24 progress.28
25
26
28
27 Defendants were specifically required to conduct searches with due regard and respect for private property
interests and first attempt to obtain keys, combinations or access codes for the search of locked property
28 before using forcible entry.
-- 33 --
COMPLAINT
1 where her husband was being taken, spent the entire day trying to find him with no success.
2 Ultimately, she was able to contact an attorney on her own after her phone was finally returned
3 many hours later, and that attorney eventually located Mr. Yu in the middle of the night, more than
4 15 hours after he was arrested.
5 92. , along with its consultants Cain and
6 Haury of Cain & Associates and law enforcement personnel in Michigan operating as an arm of
8 specifically including Defendant Stevens, two offices in Michigan located
9 in the Meridian Charter Township and East Lansing, Michigan. There, Defendants intimidated
10
11 of computer equipment from the company, without regard to its contents, relevance, or date of the
12 materials including information and data relating to wholly irrelevant time periods for which no
13 probable cause could possibly exist, including time periods pre-dating contractual
14 relationship with LA County that did not begin until Konnech executed its contract with LA County
15 on or about October 20, 2020 , and in violation of LA County policies acknowledging that since
16 a computer belongs to a business it may not be feasible to seize the entire computer and that it may
17 be possible to perform an on-site inspection, or to image the hard drive only.
18 93. To be clear, Defendants took all equipment, including 12 computer
19 servers, 14 hard drives, laptops, desktops, workstations, and firewall equipment. In total,
20 Defendants seized approximately 350 Terabytes of data, including all privileged email
21 and substantial information and data relating to time
22 periods that pre-date contractual relationship with LA County
23 2022 Midterm Election
24 was only one month away.
25 94. While the arrest, search, seizure and detention were purportedly based on a warrant,
26 on information and belief, Defendants obtained that warrant based on misrepresentations and/or
27 omissions material to any purported finding of probable cause, including, without limitation:
28
-- 35 --
COMPLAINT
Intentionally and maliciously relying on, and/or acting with reckless
1
disregard for the truth of, the fabricated nature of the Election Deniers
2
3 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were publicly known to
be discredited conspiracy theorists who were not reliable, credible, suitable
4 or trustworthy;
5 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were being investigated
6
of election fraud, and that repeated failures to provide any evidence of
7 alleged vot
federal investigation into the Election Deniers and their status as a
8 nonprofit organization;
9 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers had presented these same
10 frivolous claims about P to the FBI
and other law enforcement agencies that chose not to pursue any charges
11 against Plaintiffs, and that the FBI had investigated the
accusations concerning Plaintiffs for 15 months and had instead chosen to
12 open an investigation into the Election Deniers for computer hacking and
theft of the personal identifying information of U.S. poll workers;
13
14 Acting with knowledge that Defendant Stevens had personally attended

The Pit event held by the Election Deniers, which was advertised as an
15 event where the Election Deniers
Presidential election
16 was stolen, but was instead used to publicize fabricated conspiracy theories
about Plaintiffs;
17
18 Acting with knowledge that Defendant Neff had personally reached out to
the Election Deniers, despite the fact that other baseless conspiracies
19 concocted by the Election Deniers had already been publicly challenged in
courts
20
Retaining consultants Cain and Haury of Cain & Associates and having
21 them participate in the raids on Mr. Yu Konnech
offices even though Cain and Haury are known to be close associates of the
22
Election Deniers, with Haury appearing on stage as a speaker at The Pit
23 event (which was attended by Defendant Stevens) during which he
any Chinese
24 nationalized citizen is a risk, and even though Haury previously testified
as a fact witness before the grand jury and Defendants had at their disposal
25 the fourth largest law enforcement agency in the county with over 300
26 employees, including their own forensic computer experts;
27 Intentionally concealing the close ties that Defendants Stevens and Neff,
as well as consultants Cain and Haury of Cain & Associates, had with the
28 Election Deniers and their attempts to fabricate and monetize baseless
-- 36 --
COMPLAINT
conspiracy theories about election fraud generally and about Plaintiffs
1 specifically to obscure the political bias and lack of any true investigation
2 before obtaining warrants despite the lack of any probable cause; and
3 Seizing information and data that pre-dated contractual

relationship with LA County and thus could bear no relevance whatsoever
4 to any criminal charges asserted against Mr. Yu.
5
95. Defendants knew or should have known that the Election Deniers and the
6
information they provided were unreliable, not credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a
7
basis for a finding of probable cause. Moreover, on information and belief, the warrant was also
8
obtained on the basis of materially false allegations of crimes involving data breaches and theft of
9
personal identifying information, only to see the original sealed indictment abandoned after the
10
warrant was executed and after Mr. Yu was arrested, to be replaced by a criminal complaint that
11
alleged no such crimes.
12
96. Defendants thus engaged in judicial deception by obtaining the warrant on the basis
13
of material misrepresentations and omissions that they knew or should have known were false, and
14
these misrepresentations and omissions were made intentionally for political, racist and xenophobic
15
reasons or, alternatively, with reckless disregard for the truth. Based on the totality of the
16
circumstances, no reasonably prudent person could have concluded that probable cause existed
17
based on the information provided. This is only further evidenced by the fact that, on information
18
and belief, Defendant Neff was subsequently placed on administrative leave and the criminal
19
20
investigation of the evidence, and in what the Los Angeles Times h
21
.29 Indeed, according to statements made by consultant Cain on a September
22
7, 2023, podcast, it was Defendant Neff that
23
apparently referring to the prosecution of Mr. Yu .
24
97. Meanwhile, Defendant Gascón sought to capitalize on the events by calling for and
25
holding ,
26
29
27 James Queally, L.A. Prosecutor put on leave of questionable case sparked by election conspiracy theories,
Los Angeles Times (Nov. 22, 2022), available at, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-22/l-a-
28 prosecutor-placed-on-leave-over-bungled-case-sparked-by-election-conspiracy-theories.
-- 37 --
COMPLAINT
1 that ran on the newswire for all media channels to pick up, offering scant details about the
2 investigation and accusing Konnech of stealing and storing personal identifying information on
3 Chinese servers.30 The publicity stunt worked. The press conference and press release were widely
4 disseminated both locally and nationally, by Defendants themselves on the LA County DA Twitter
5 page and elsewhere.31
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
98. At the press conference, Defendant Gascón
17
custody e theft of personal identifying information of election workers.
18
But, as reflected in the criminal complaint ultimately used to charge Mr. Yu, no such charges of
19
theft were alleged. Defendant Gascón also stated that the personal identifying information at issue
20
the criminal complaint
21
makes no mention whatsoever of a server located in China. Defendant Gascón also failed to
22
mention that the charges against Mr. Yu were based on information provided by the Election
23
Deniers and their associates, Defendant Stevens, Defendant Neff, and consultants Cain &
24
30
25 See October 4, 2022: Head of Election Worker Management Company Arrested in Connection with Theft
of Personal Data,
26 https://da.lacounty.gov/media/news/head-election-worker-management-company-arrested-connection-
theft-personal-data.
27 31
See https://vimeo.com/756956667.
28
-- 38 --
COMPLAINT
1 Associates, including Haury who had testified as a purported fact witness before the grand jury.
2 Defendant Gascón also failed to mention that, as his spokesperson later confirmed, much of the
3 information Defendant Gascón

32
4 meaning Defendant Stevens and Neff. In other words, Defendant Gascón
5 failed to conduct any meaningful investigation himself, and served as a rubber stamp to publicly,
6 maliciously and recklessly tout the charges that Defendants Stevens and Neff had fabricated in a
7 joint operation with the Election Deniers.
8 99. Election Deniers released a press statement,
9 which also ran on the newswire for all media to pick up, taking credit , claiming
10
11
12 world did you all get progressive DA Gascóne [sic] on

33
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
32
33
27
election fraud-related activities, and to paint a picture that the country is under attack and that what they are
28 doing is cloaked in patriotism. It i
-- 39 --
COMPLAINT
1 100. Despite the arrest, civil action against the Election Deniers continued.
2 At an October 6, 2022, hearing on a preliminary injunction in the Houston Lawsuit, counsel for the
3 Election Deniers District Judge Hoyt to call the LA County District Attorney to discuss
4 in an effort to prevent the preliminary injunction hearing which would reveal the
5 Election Deniers from proceeding. Judge Hoyt, however,
6 the Houston Lawsuit and described
7 [i.e., the preliminary injunction hearing] because [Mr. Yu] has
8 been arrested by people who are intent on flippin
9 The October 6 hearing
10 proceeded and the Election Deniers
11 was involved in allegedly accessing the U.S. Poll Worker records at the heart of the lawsuit. The
12 Election Deniers
13 other person involved and therefore did not comply with Judge Hoyt
14 Mr. Yu is Subjected to Unwarranted Detainment and Restrictions
15 101. Because Mr. Yu was arrested in Michigan but charged in LA County, Mr. Yu would
16 need to appear in LA County for his arraignment. But, in a further clear attempt to maximize its
17 political specta
18 Los Angeles at his arraignment in order to force Mr. Yu to undergo an unnecessary and costly bail
19 hearing and extradition proceeding in Michigan. Then, after Mr. Yu prevailed in Michigan, he had
20 to face yet another arraignment and bail hearing in LA County on October 12, 2022. However,
21 when he voluntarily appeared for the arraignment and bail hearing on October 12, 2022, the LA
22 ared to proceed at the time. After waiting two
23 days for the LA County DA to prepare, the arraignment and bail hearing finally was held on October
24 14, 2022.
25 102. But first, t
26 to use Mr. Yu as a prop by instructing law enforcement to shackle and perp-walk him through
27 the courtroom even though, by that point, Mr. Yu had already voluntarily sat in that same courtroom
28 for two days awaiting his arraignment. All of this conduct was part of the political charade that the
-- 40 --
COMPLAINT
1 Election Deniers. Fortunately,
3 allow Defendants to carry on with their charade.
4 103. When Mr. Yu was finally arraigned, Defendants, upon direct orders from Defendant
5 Gascón himself, abandoned the original sealed indictment on which his arrest and the search and
6 seizure had been based, and instead decided to proceed with a new criminal complaint. In other
7 words, Defendants knew there was a problem with the indictment and that, if the indictment was
8 unsealed, they would be forced to reveal the unreliable, not credible and untrustworthy sources of
9 their i.e., the thoroughly debunked Election Deniers
10 the lack of any actual evidence of any supposed data breach, and the lack of any probable cause
11 underpinning the unlawful arrest, search, seizure and detention of Plaintiffs and their property.
12 Defendants instead drafted a new criminal complaint that was devoid of any reference to the
13 Election Deniers and their rampant involvement with the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Yu.
14 But instead of providing Mr. Yu and his defense counsel with a copy of the complaint as soon as it
15 was ready, Defendants first leaked a copy of the complaint to national media, including the New
16 York Times.
17 104. After significant delay, Plaintiffs finally received a copy of the criminal complaint
18 against Mr. Yu, which was signed by the Election Deniers s, Defendants Stevens and
19 Neff. That criminal complaint was legally untenable on its face. While Defendant Neff had
20 previously claimed in open court that the charges against Mr. Yu stemmed from one of the largest
21 data breaches in United States history, the complaint failed to allege any such crime. Instead, the
22 complaint attempted to plead that Mr. Yu embezzled public funds paid to Konnech pursuant to
23 o Defendants, poll worker data was stored
24 in a manner that violated the contract. In other words, the complaint alleged nothing more than a
25 purported civil breach of contract by Konnech not Mr. Yu, who was not a party to that contract
26 in any event even though a breach of contract unquestionably does not constitute a crime and
27 even though LA County had indisputably received all services called for under that contract.
28
-- 41 --
COMPLAINT
1 105. Regardless, the charges against Mr. Yu were based on information Defendants
2 obtained from the Election Deniers, who later testified under oath in the Houston Lawsuit that they
3 themselves did not access the alleged Konnech data, that they never even had a copy of any alleged
4 Konnech data or U.S. Poll Worker Data, and that they did nothing to confirm that the data actually
5 belonged to Konnech or otherwise came from a Konnech computer. Specifically, Election Denier
7 computer or otherwise in your indivi
8 Accordingly, Defendants simply took infamous and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theorists at
9 their word, which was already widely known as unreliable, given that the Election Deniers admitted
10 under oath in federal court they never even had a copy of any Konnech data, and thus could not
11 have given a copy to the Defendants as part of any investigation.
12 106. At the bail hearing immediately following the arraignment, the
13 Office incredibly argued that Mr. Yu who has no criminal history whatsoever and who had
14 already surrendered his passport should be denied bail because, consistent with the Election
15 Deniers political, racist and xenophobic views, Mr. Yu had connections
16 agree to Mr. Yu release on bail further
17 demonstrated their nefarious intent behind the prosecution.
18 107.
19 However, Mr. Yu was forced to wear two ankle monitors one for Michigan, and one for Los
20 Angeles and was detained under house arrest some 2,200 miles from his home in a Los Angeles
21 hotel, the confines of which he was not permitted to leave except to meet with his defense lawyer.
22
23 seizure of Mr. Yu and Konnech
24 California, travel costs between Michigan and California, and housing costs in California while Mr.
25 Yu was held on house arrest in a Los Angeles hotel for approximately one month.
26 108. Another unwarranted restriction placed on Mr. Yu was a prohibition on him
27 communicating with Konnech ees or doing any business on its behalf. So, not only did
28 Defendants seize all of the equipment Konnech needed to operate its election logistics software
-- 42 --
COMPLAINT
1 business, they prohibited its CEO from assisting with the crisis management of the company that
2 Defen to fulfill its
3 customer contracts with the 2022 Midterm Election mere weeks away.
4 The Election Deniers Are Found in Contempt and Jailed
5 109. On October 27, 2022, Judge Hoyt held a show cause and contempt hearing at which
6 the Election Deniers were ordered to appear and show cause to avoid being held in contempt of the
7 the Election Deniers
8 that Mr. Beaart
9 record, either in camera or in a sealed courtroom, to explain that Mr. Yu, the CEO of Konnech, is
10 Recognizing the impropriety involved, Judge
11
12 that he would not permit Mr. or to conduct any
13 of the proceedings in secret. also
14 present at the hearing and d in open court concerning
15 and to disclose information he claimed to have found in connection with the

34
16 execution
17 110. Ultimately, in the Houston Lawsuit, the Election Deniers were held in contempt of
18
19 identify all persons involved with allegedly
20
21 Yu. Rather, consistent with their longstanding pattern of not being able to back up their frivolous
22 claims of election fraud in the 2016 and 2020 Presidential elections (as discussed above), the
23 Election Deniers claimed they could not identify their other conspirator because he was an FBI
24 confidential informant. But tellingly, when the FBI was contacted about the information ordered
25 to be disclosed, the FBI stated that it was not interested in protecting the information. Furthermore,
26 when pressed under oath as to whether the Election Deniers ever had any of the 1.8 million records
27 34
See Live Tue Night Bible Study with Nate D Cain (Nov. 16, 2022), available at,
28 https://rumble.com/v1ut2rs-live-tue-night-bible-study-with-nate-d-cain.html.
-- 43 --
COMPLAINT
1 of U.S. Poll Worker Data allegedly stored on a Chinese server at the center of the Houston Lawsuit
2 the Election Deniers admitted, consistent with
3 their past claims of election fraud in Arizona and Georgia, that they never had possession of it and
4 could not produce a copy of it. In other words, the Defendants arrested Mr. Yu and sought to hold
5 him without bail, and searched
6 to this date, because they took the Election Deniers at their word despite their obvious lack of
7 credibility and admission that they do not actually possess the most important piece of evidence
8 that they claimed would
9 criminal complaint against Mr. Yu which was filed nine days after Defendants seized all of
10 Defendants knew at the time they criminally charged Mr.
11 Yu that they did not possess any evidence to support their original charge that Plaintiffs had stored
12 U.S. Poll Worker records on a server in China. Indeed, the criminal complaint makes no mention
13 whatsoever of a server located in China.
14 Defendants Tried to Hide their Affiliation With the Election Deniers
15 111. In a clear attempt to conceal their wrongdoing, Defendants intentionally hid their
16 close affiliation with and reliance on the Election Deniers. When a spokesperson for the LA County
17 Office was questioned about the Election Deniers ,
18 the spokesperson initially claimed Defendants were unaware of the Election Deniers
19 and stated that the Election Deniers had no input into Defendant investigation.35 Only after the
20 baseless charges against Mr. Yu were voluntarily dismissed did Defendants later confirm that a tip
21 from Election Denier Phillips had sparked their inquiry into Mr. Yu and Konnech, though
36
22 Defendants attempted to downplay the Election Deniers
23
24
35
25 See Natalia Contreas, Federal judge demands True the Vote identify who provided access to poll worker
data, VoteBeat Texas (Oct. 7, 2022), available at https://texas.votebeat.org/2022/10/7/23393718/true-the-
27 36
See Juma Sei, ,
National Public Radio (Nov. 10, 2022), available at https://www.npr.org/2022/11/10/1135839608/los-
28 angeles-county-dropped-charges-konnech-true-the-vote.
-- 44 --
COMPLAINT
1 112. But the Election Deniers subsequently testified in the Houston Lawsuit that they had
2 assisted the Defendants with their investigation of Plaintiffs and prosecution of Mr. Yu after
3 Defendant Neff reached out to them to discuss Plaintiffs, and after Defendant Stevens and
4 consultant Haury attended The Pit. They also testified that they had spoken with Defendants
5 multiple times about the investigation and Konnech. Moreover, Election Denier Phillips claimed
6 in a legal filing in the Houston Lawsuit that he was called to testify before the LA County grand
7 jury that indicted Mr. Yu.
8 Defendants Dismiss the Charges Against Mr. Yu After the Election, Admit Bias in their
9 Investigation, and then Suspended Defendant Neff Because of His Conduct in Connection
10 with the Investigation
11 113. Because no actual criminal violation was alleged in the new criminal complaint, Mr.
12 Yu filed a motion to dismiss the charges that Defendant LA County had leveled against him.
13 114. The motion to dismiss thus highlighted the unmistakable facts that (1) Mr. Yu was
14 not a party to the contract with LA County; (2) the payments made under the contract were made
15 to Konnech (not Mr. Yu), and those funds were used by Konnech (not Mr. Yu) to cover payroll and
16 other expenses incurred by Konnech while performing its contractual duties for the services it
17 indisputably provided to LA County under that contract; and (3) the complaint failed to identify
18 any criminal conduct but merely alleged a technical breach of contract. Quite simply, the motion
19 to dismiss made clear that alleged failure to comply with a contractual data security
20 provision of its contract with LA County was not a basis to prosecute Mr. Yu for embezzlement.
21 115. Instead of defending the charges, on the day after the 2022 Midterm Election and
22 thus after the Election Deniers and Defendants had lost any plausible grounds to continue their
23
24 malfeasance as part of that election Defendants decided to voluntarily drop all charges against
25 Mr. Yu. But not only did Defendants drop the charges, in the days thereafter the LA County
26 Office made astonishing admissions about the political motivation behind the prosecution and how
27 the investigation had not followed normal protocols.
28
-- 45 --
COMPLAINT
1 116. Specifically, speaking only to a journalist in print media rather than through a press
2 release or press conference of any kind ommunication
3 when announcing the arrest of Mr. Yu a spokesperson for the LA County Office said:
4 -level management became aware of irregularities in
5 how the case was presented pace
6 of the investigation and the potential bias in the presentation and investigation of the evidence
7 117. And importantly, knowing that what had happened to Mr. Yu was illegal, the LA
8 County Office placed Defendant Neff on leave due to his role in the investigation and
9 prosecution of Mr. Yu. The Los Angeles Times confirmed that this leave was connected to
10 oted that
11 in the previous news conference announcing the charges,
12
13 has previously sought to downplay [Election

37
14
15 118. On information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that the LA
16 County Office intentionally presented evidence in a biased manner, which was intentionally
17 and recklessly ignored by Defendant Gascón and the other Defendants for their own personal gain,
18 all of which led to the wrongful arrest of Mr. Yu
19 .
20 Election Deniers Uncovered that Defendants Hired the
21 Election Deniers
22 119. Election Deniers progressed, the political and
23 racial bias investigation and prosecution of Mr. Yu became even more apparent.
24 On February 24, 2023, the Election Deniers filed a motion in the Houston Lawsuit to obtain a mirror
25 image copy of all ~350 Terabytes of data Defendants seized from Konnech in their raid. As part
26
37
27 James Queally, L.A. Prosecutor put on leave of questionable case sparked by election conspiracy theories,
Los Angeles Times (Nov. 22, 2022), available at, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-22/l-a-
28 prosecutor-placed-on-leave-over-bungled-case-sparked-by-election-conspiracy-theories.
-- 46 --
COMPLAINT
1 of that motion, the Election Deniers included an affidavit of consultant Haury, the purported CEO
2 LA
3 County s Office Bureau of Investigation in the execution of the court-
5 Consultant Cain, the founder of Cain & Associates, has confirmed that
6 Defendant Neff had directly hired Cain & Associates for the job, but only after, as confirmed by
7 Haury, that Haury had testified before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Yu and recommended that
8 LA County hire Haury and Cain & Associates.38 The Haury affidavit also made the shocking
9 admission that, after Defendants had seized , Haury
10 -connected e-mail accounts and conducted an illegal wiretap by
11 monitoring those accounts for four days after the search warrant was executed, all apparently for
12 the purpose of furthering the Election Deniers
13 xenophobic goals, and to monitor after-the-fact communications, including attorney-client
14 privileged communications.
15 120. Upon further investigation, it became clear that Haury, Cain, and Cain &
16 Associates who claim to have spent in excess of 600 hours working on the investigation with
17 Defendants were not independent. Rather, they had significant ties to the Election Deniers, with
18 Haury and the Election Deniers hiring the same lawyers to represent them in connection with the
19 Houston Lawsuit, and were adamant proponents of their conspiracy theories concerning Plaintiffs
20 in furtherance of their shared political, racial and xenophobic beliefs. Haury, in fact, appeared on
21 stage as a speaker at The Pit where he spoke about his theories on CCP interference in U.S.
22 elections, any Chinese nationalized citizen is
23 and even solicited people to send money to the Election Deniers while giving an interview
24 to One America News Network.39 Haury also recently admitted on a podcast that he testified as a
25
38
See 4/14/2023 Prather Point: Jeffrey Prather ft. Nate Cain, BrighteonTV,
26 https://www.brighteon.com/e05cd685-e5e6-403c-9a04-22a0104366d5 (segment at 22:10)
39
27 See Media Matters, OAN (August 15, 2022), available at, https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3994024)
(Segment from 3:25 to 4:13).
28
-- 47 --
COMPLAINT
1 fact witness before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Yu which he said was done in
2 and that Cain & Associates was hired by LA County after such testimony and
3 recommendation.40
4 121. Additionally, and in what should have been another giant red flag to Defendants,
5 consultant Cain, the founder of Cain & Associates, previously had his own home raided by the FBI
6 for allegedly stealing federal property while he was an FBI contractor.41 Consultant
7 motives are further revealed by his previous filings in other lawsuits and his statements on several
8 podcasts. For example,
9 which he brazenly claimed that the results of the 2020 Presidential election were fraudulent and
10 should not be certified. Additionally, on October 31, 2022, the date the Election Deniers were
11 jailed for contempt, consultant Cain appeared on a podcast during which he also solicited people to
12 send money to the Election Deniers and implicitly threatened Judge Hoyt using scripture from the
42
13 Indeed, Cain, who is
14 now running for a West Virginia seat in the U.S. Congress, has appeared on QAnon podcasts, such
15 -wing conspiracy theories.
16 122. Now, realizing what Defendants had done and who they aligned themselves with in
17 investigating and prosecuting Mr. Yu, Defendants have apparently refused to pay Cain &
18 Associates for their work on the investigation. As a result, Cain has declared that he intends to
19 publicly release his investigative report, which is particularly concerning given that Defendants
20 have admitted that they failed to execute any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement with Cain
21 & Associates.
22
23 40
See Bill Barr Stopped Bethpage Ballot Trafficking Investigation, CDM (Sept. 11, 2023), available at,
24 https://rumble.com/v3gwp6q-livestream-7pm-est-bill-barr-stopped-bethpage-ballot-trafficking-
investigat.html.
25 41
See Richard Pollock; FBI Raids Home of Whistleblower On Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says, Daily
Caller (November 29, 2018), available at, https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/29/fbi-whistleblower-clinton-
26 uranium/.
42
27 See Texas Judge Jails Gregg & Catherine for Protecting FBI CHS w/ Nate Cain, Red Pill News (Oct. 31,
2022), available at https://rumble.com/v1qrmsg-judge-threatens-gregg-and-catherine-with-jail-for-not-
28 breaking-federal-law-.html (Segment from 36:43 to 38:30).
-- 48 --
COMPLAINT
1
2 123. Ever since their servers, computer equipment and other property were seized over
3 eleven months ago, Plaintiffs have sought the return of that property. Despite the fact that
4 Plaintiffs computer equipment was seized without probable cause and on the basis of an invalid
5 warrant premised on the testimony and so-called-investigation of the unreliable Election Deniers,
6 Defendants have refused to return Plaint equipment and servers, claiming that they
7 are struggling to properly assess the data and map the data that they contain.
8 are in stark contrast to and contradicted by the statements made by Chief Robert Arcos with the
9 Los
10 forensic computer expertise, how they are the
11 fourth largest law enforcement agency in the county with over 300 employees, how diligently they
12
13 ridiculousness in hiring consultants Haury and Cain as purported forensic experts, and in relying
14 on the Election Deniers to conduct the investigation for Defendants.
15 124. Notwithstanding repeated demands to have the seized items returned on October 15,
16 18 and 26, 2022, the LA County office refused to commit to a timeline to return the items.
17 On November 16, 2022, after the criminal complaint against Mr. Yu was dismissed, the Los
18 Angeles County Superior Court granted motion for return of the property.
19 125. Despite that order,
20 instead waited until April 25, 2023, to provide Plaintiffs with two external hard drives of
21 forensically encrypted data which Defendants
22 personal laptop, cell phone and other external electronic storage devices but not
23 personal laptop, external electronic storage devices or .
24 126. To date, however, Mr. Yu, has been unable to access his personal data that was
25 returned due to its forensic encryption which Plaintiffs are unable to access without their original
26 computer hardware which Defendants refuse to return to Plaintiffs. And although Plaintiffs pressed
27 for the return of all of their equipment and data at Court hearings in Los Angeles County Superior
28
-- 49 --
COMPLAINT
1 Court on November 22, 2022, December 2, 2022, December 7, 2022, January 9, 2023, February 9,
2 2023 and March 2, 2023, the LA County DA any of the seized items.
3 127. To this date, Defendants still refuse to return the actual original equipment that
4 Plaintiffs need to access and utilize the data. To be clear, without having its computer equipment
5 and hardware, Plaintiffs cannot access the data or host the data even if it were unencrypted. LA
6 County refuses to provide the equipment based on the ruse that it cannot be certain that its copy is
7 accurate, yet it asks Plaintiffs to rely on a potentially inaccurate copy without the necessary
8 equipment to host the data. The Deputy District Attorney in charge of the investigation has since
9 refused to provide a time frame for the return of
10 Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have incurred
11 substantial costs attempting to overcome the unlawful seizure and obtain the return of the seized
12
13 o return
14 the unlawfully seized equipment.
15
16 Konnech for its Election Logistics Software
17 128. malicious arrest and prosecution of Mr. Yu is further demonstrated by
18 the rampant hypocrisy of LA County. D
19 allegations against him and Konnech, LA County has continuously used
20 software, including for the 2022 Midterm Election in November 2022 and other local elections in
21 2023, and sought and agreed to an amended contract misconduct directed
22 at Plaintiffs to ensure a continued, long-term relationship with Konnech. If LA County believed
23 that accusations that led to Mr.
24 had any merit, it would have terminated its contract with Konnech. But LA
25 County has conducted two security audits pursuant to its contract with Konnech, and not only
26 continues to use Konnech for election logistics services, but knowingly and intentionally extended
27
28 for the foreseeable future.

-- 50 --
COMPLAINT
1 129. Remarkably, nobody within the LA County D the LA
2 County to question them about Konnech, or whether they had experienced any
3 security concerns. In fact, the ich works closely with Konnech
4 on an almost daily basis, was wholly unaware of the investigation into Plaintiffs, and was shocked
5 by the arrest and allegations. Office confirmed that
6 prosecutors have never provided evidence that Plaintiffs stored data overseas.43
7 Def
8 130.
9 suffered immense mental anguish and emotional distress. As explained above, Mr. Yu was
10 subjected to treatment typically reserved for violent criminals. His front door was broken open
11 with a battering ram, his wife was harassed, and his home and personal belongings were upended
12 by overzealous law enforcement backed by a fraudulent warrant that lacked any probable cause.
13 131. agged through the mud by Defendant Gascón
14 during a press conference and press release, along with the numerous articles written about him
15 that incorrectly branded him a criminal. Even after the criminal charges were dropped against Mr.
16 Yu, he has since lived in fear that police could kick in his front door again to reassert charges
17 against him after claiming that the investigation is still ongoing.
18 132. And if that were loyees became
19 the subjects of repeated death threats, by e-mail and phone, which forced Mr. Yu and his family to
20 flee their home and live in hotels to stay safe
21 received an email stating that, [t]he citizens should drag you all in to the street & hang you for
22
23 [Y]
24 sq
25
26 43
-- 51 --
COMPLAINT
1 A BITCHES!!!!!!!! BELT&ROAD INITIATIVE SUKEE SUKEE!!!!!! KUNG FLU!!!!!!! BAT
2 FLIED LICE!!!!!!! SUZI WONG!!!!!! CHARLIE CHAN!!!!!! FANG FANG!!!!!! FJB!!!!!!
3 as another
4 apparent threat.
5 133. targeted by vandals, including people egging the
6 office. And even more frightening, someone began posting videos online of them roaming the halls
7 remote
8 locations for safety amidst the death threats. The distress suffered by Mr. Yu and his family as a
9 is simply unfathomable.
10 134.
11 misconduct directed at Plaintiffs, resulting in
12 income including, most recently, Lake County, who canceled its contract with Konnech after
13 . Though the Election
14 Deniers started spreading far-right co
15 Defendants lent credibility to those conspiracy theories and essentially rubberstamped
16 them as true. Specifically, Konnech had 36 after Mr.
17 arrest and even after the dismissal of all charges against Mr. Yu, Konnech lost 14 customers
18 that accounted for 60% of its .
19 COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT
21 set forth herein.
22 136. Prior to commencing this litigation, Plaintiffs presented timely tort claims to
23 Defendant LA County pursuant to the California Government Claims Act and which were
24 . In the Claim Notices, Plaintiffs set
25 forth in substantial detail the multiple violations of state law that Defendants perpetrated on
26 Plaintiffs, causing substantial and ongoing economic and noneconomic damages to Plaintiffs that
27
28
-- 52 --
COMPLAINT
1 137. On or about May 17, 2023, Defendant LA County improperly rejected some
3 occurring from May 8, 2023 to November 7, 2022, it alleges
4 activities
5 that occurred on or after November 8, 2022, Defendant LA County considered claims based on
6 such unspecified to be timely but subsequently rejected them via letter on or about July
7 3, 2023.
8 138. ring from

44
9 Plaintiffs
10 misunderstanding of California law concerning the timeliness of their claims and, out of an
11 abundance of caution, also submitted an Application to Present Claims Not Timely Filed (the
12
13 , and asserted
14 claim were timely presented. More specifically, the Application explicitly noted that, under
15
16
17 applicable statute of limitations. This is particularly true where, as is the case here, there exists no
18 single injury-causing event from which the statutory time period can be measured, as Plaintiffs
19 continue to suffer damages as a result of a continuing series of acts perpetrated by Defendants that
20 continue to this date.
21 139. Moreover, and as fully explained in the Application, to the extent any particular
22 cause of action accrued prior to November 5, 2022 the beginning of the statutory period for claim
23 prese
24
44
25
26 occurring before November 8, 2022. There can be no question, however, that Plaintiff presented their Claim
Notices on May 5, 2023 and sent them via both certified mail and Federal Express on that date. Pursuant to
27 CAL. GOV. CODE § 915(f) a claim is deemed presented once mailed. As a result, and despite Defendant LA
ding an alleged November 8, 2022, trigger date for claims presentation, the claims
28 presentation period actually began on November 5, 2023.
-- 53 --
COMPLAINT
1
2 arrest, search, seizure, detention and malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs prior to the November 9,
3 2022, dismissal of charges against Mr. Yu actively prevented Plaintiffs from discovering the
4 accrual of any such cause of action. Consequently, Plaintiffs did not discover, and could not have
5 discovered through the exercis and
6 the resulting accrual of any causes of action against Defendants prior to November 9, 2022, and
7 that date
8 or later.
9 140.
10 of action presented in the Claim Notices or the dates on which those causes of action accrued,
11 ms based on their timeliness was
12 improper. Consequently, Plaintiffs have complied with the claim presentation requirements of the
13 California Government Claims Act for all claims presented, including the unspecified portion of
14 that Defendant LA County purportedly and incorrectly found to be untimely.
15 141. Alternatively, in the Application, Plaintiffs also sought leave to submit any claims
16 that Defendant LA County failed to specify and incorrectly deemed to be untimely pursuant to CAL.
17 GOV. CODE §§ 911.4 and
18
19 finding that certain unspecified claims were untimely, and approximately seven months after the
20 -year deadline
21 for filing such applications as set forth in CAL. GOV. CODE § 911.4(b).
22 142. and supporting exhibits established that the underlying facts
23 of this case do not involve a solitary injury-causing event that would provide a single starting point
24 for measuring statutory time frames for claim presentation, and instead involve a series of
25 threatening, intimidating an
26 weaponize unsubstantiated and frivolous conspiracy theories as part of a politically motivated
27 investigation, arrest, search, seizure, detention and malicious prosecution in violation of Plaintiffs
28 constitutional and statutory rights. The difficulty in establishing precisely when the clock started
-- 54 --
COMPLAINT
1 running for the presentment of various tort claims
2 efforts throughout the relevant statutory time period to conceal from Plaintiffs and the public at
3 large the improper
5 143. More specifically, and as set forth in Plaintiffs Application, Defendants
6 intentionally and repeatedly concealed the substantial connections between the Election Deniers
7 and those responsible for investigating Plaintiffs, including Defendants Stevens and Neff and
8 consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates, particularly including the fact that
9 actions were entirely based on baseless conspiracy theories propounded by the Election Deniers
10 who have been repeatedly discredited. For example, in October 2022, a spokesperson for the LA
11 had not received any information on the case
12 from the Election Deniers.45 Defendants also sealed the indictment and grand jury testimony that
13 led to the unlawful arrest, search, seizure and detention, and that indictment and grand jury
14 testimony remain sealed to this day, presumably because the indictment is based entirely on
15 allegations made by the Election Deniers that Defendants knew were unreliable, not credible and
16 untrustworthy. Even after Defendants abandoned that sealed indictment in favor of a criminal
17 complaint signed by Defendants Stevens and Neff, Plaintiffs did not learn of the substantial
18 connections between Defendants and the Election Deniers until on or about November 9, 2022,
19
20
21 144. In the weeks and months following that date and despite earlier media statements
22 by a Plaintiffs learned through news
23 media reports that Defendants recanted their previous statements and admitted that their
24 investigation was originally based on a tip from the Election Deniers, and that Defendant Neff was
25 reportedly placed on administrative leave as a result of his role in the investigation. Plaintiffs
26
45
27 See Natalia Contreas, Federal judge demands True the Vote identify who provided access to poll worker
data, VoteBeat Texas (Oct. 7, 2022), available at https://texas.votebeat.org/2022/10/7/23393718/true-the-
-- 55 --
COMPLAINT
1 further learned in or about February 2023 in an affidavit filed by the Election Deniers in the Houston
2 Lawsuit, and then in discovery in that suit, that two other known associates of the Election
3 Deniers consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates had been retained by the LA County
4 Mr.
5 home and Ko
6 Defendants had seized, and that Haury was a speaker at The Pit event. And Plaintiffs did not learn
7 until September 11, 2023, that Haury actually testified as a fact witness before the grand jury, and
8 that Haury and Cain & Associates were not hired as so-called forensics experts for Defendants until
9 after
10 145. their alignment with and reliance on the Election
11 Deniers for their unlawful arrest, search, seizure and detention which Plaintiffs did not begin to
12 grasp until November 9, 2022, at the earliest, and did not truly understand until much later made
13 it impossible for Plaintiffs to ascertain any earlier than November 9, 2022, that they had any
14 potential causes of action against Defendants.46 Indeed, as previously explained, Plaintiffs did not
15 discover, and could not have reasonably discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence,
16 the n
17 For all of these
18 reasons, and as a result of their own diligent investigation throughout the statutory time period,
19 Plaintiffs reasonably believed that the November 9, 2022, dismissal of criminal charges against Mr.
20 Yu, along with the concurrent release of statements and news stories highlighting the abnormal
21 tions, constituted the trigger date for the six-month claim presentation
22 period under CAL. GOV. CODE § 911.2, and did in fact present their claims to Defendant LA County
23 within six months of that date. As more fully explained in the Application, Plaintiffs thus contend
24 that the highly unusual and complicated facts and circumstances that underlie their claims
25
26 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and Plaintiffs acted in the same way a reasonably
27 46
28 claims pertaining to activities occurring since November 8, 2022, were considered timely.
-- 56 --
COMPLAINT
1 prudent person would under similar circumstances. See CAL. GOV. CODE § 946.6(b). Moreover,
2 Defendants would not be prejudiced by the relief sought in the Application due to, among other
3 reasons, the prompt presentation of the Application which was presented less than two weeks
4 after Plaintiffs received no
5 were allegedly untimely
6 was improperly seized from Plaintiffs when it arrested Mr. Yu and executed the search warrants.
7 146.
8 deemed rejected by operation of law on or about July 14, 2023.
9 147. Plaintiffs are concurrently filing a separate Petition for Relief from Government
10 Claims Act Claim Presentation Requirement pursuant to CAL. GOV. CODE § 946.6 which seeks an
11 order relieving Plaintiffs of any obligation under CAL. GOV. CODE § 945.4 to timely present
12
13 operation of law.
14 CAUSES OF ACTION
15 COUNT ONE
16 Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1 et seq.
17 (Against All Defendants)
20 149. Plaintiffs had firmly established rights to be free from unreasonable search and
21 seizure, to be free from unreasonable seizure of a person, to be free from false arrest and false
22 imprisonment, and to be free from malicious prosecution, all without probable cause, under the
23 Fourth Amendment and/or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,
24 Sections 7 and 13 of the California Constitution.
25 150. Defendants, acting individually, jointly and/or in conspiracy with others,
26
27 search and seizure, unreasonable seizure of a person, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious
28
-- 57 --
COMPLAINT
1 prosecution, all without probable cause, through the use of threats, intimidation and coercion,
2 including, without limitation, the following:
3 Subjecting Plaintiffs to an improper and unlawful arrest, search and seizure,

4 detention and the malicious prosecution of frivolous criminal charges based
on unsubstantiated and baseless conspiracy theories concocted by the
5 Election Deniers with full knowledge of the falsity of those conspiracy
theories and the Election Deniers -known history of making
6 thoroughly debunked claims about election malfeasance or, alternatively,
with reckless disregard for the truth of said conspiracy theories;
7
8 Raiding Mr. Yu excessive force,

with weapons drawn, using a battering ram to force their way into Mr. Yu
9 home despite having Mr. Yu in custody, keys and his
complete lack of any criminal history and the non-violent nature of the
10 frivolous criminal charges ultimately asserted against Mr. Yu, which
effectively amounted to nothing more than an alleged breach of contract
11 (something that is not, in fact, a criminal offense);
12
Confiscating phones during their illegal search and seizure to prevent Mr.
13 Yu
14 Refusing to present a search warrant to Mr. Yu or to disclose where

Mr. Yu would be detained and refusing to permit Mr. Yu to make a phone
15 call to reach his attorney, which served to prevent Mr.
attorney from locating Mr. Yu until the middle of the night, more than 15
16
hours after his unlawful arrest;
17
Intimidating Konnech
18
counsel present, confiscating all of Plaintiffs computer equipment, hard
19 drives and servers which included privileged email communications
between Plaintiffs and their legal counsel that to this date have yet to be
20
returned which interfered with Plaintiff s performance under contracts
21 with various governmental entities in the 2022 Midterm Election that was
then mere weeks away;
22
Requiring Mr. Yu to undergo unnecessary and costly bail hearings in both
23 Michigan and California, an unnecessary and costly extradition
proceedings in Michigan, and unreasonably rejecting Mr.
24
voluntarily travel to Los Angeles for his arraignment;
25
Attempting to shackle and perp-walk Mr. Yu through the courtroom even
26 though Mr. Yu had, by that time, been voluntarily sitting in the LA County
courtroom for two days awaiting his arraignment;
27
28
-- 58 --
COMPLAINT
Unlawfully detaining Mr. Yu in California for a period of approximately 37
1
days while Defendants unsuccessfully sought to deny him bail;
2
Seeking unjustifiable bail restrictions in yet another bail hearing in LA
3 County after Mr. Yu prevailed in Michigan and voluntarily traveled to Los
Angeles for his arraignment, all despite Mr. Yu
4 history and the fact that he had already surrendered his passport, which
ultimately resulted in Mr. Yu being held in Los Angeles under house arrest
5
at a Los Angeles hotel more than 2,200 miles from his home and
6 Konnech while wearing two different ankle monitors
(one for Michigan and one for California), and also prohibited Mr. Yu from
7 communicating with any Konnech employees during the weeks leading up
to the 2022 Midterm Election leading to a failure to fulfill election-related
8 contracts and a resulting crippling loss of revenue; and
9 Refusing to drop the frivolous criminal charges against Mr. Yu until
10 November 9, 2022 one day after the 2022 Midterm Election once the
transparently political stunt no longer served any meaningful purpose in
11 terms of maximizing the Election Deniers , and after
Defendants had already garnered the press they sought.
12
13 151. While Defendants purportedly acted pursuant to a warrant, on information and
14 belief, Defendants obtained that warrant based on misrepresentations and/or omissions material to
15 any purported finding of probable cause, including, without limitation:
16 Intentionally and maliciously relying on, and/or acting with reckless

disregard for the truth of, the fabricated nature of the Election Deniers
17
;
18
Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were publicly known to
19 be discredited conspiracy theorists who were not reliable, credible, suitable
or trustworthy;
20
Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were being investigated
21
claims
22 of election fraud, and that repeated failures to provide any evidence of
23 federal investigation into the Election Deniers and their status as a nonprofit
organization;
24
Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers had presented these same
25 to the FBI
26 and other law enforcement agencies that chose not to pursue any charges
against Plaintiffs, and that the FBI had investigated the
27 accusations concerning Plaintiffs for 15 months and instead had chosen to
open an investigation into the Election Deniers for computer hacking and
28 theft of the personal identifying information of U.S. poll workers;
-- 59 --
COMPLAINT
Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were the subject of a
1
pending voter intimidation lawsuit in Georgia, filed in December 2020, in
2 which they are alleged to have improperly challenged 364,000 voter
registrations and first-time
3 based on unreliable records of mailing address changes which, in
and of themselves, are insufficient to challenge voter eligibility;
4
Acting with knowledge that Defendant Stevens had personally attended The
5
Pit event held by the Election Deniers, which was advertised as an event
6 where the Election Deniers
Presidential election
7 was stolen, but was instead used to publicize fabricated conspiracy theories
about Plaintiffs;
8
Acting with knowledge that Defendant Neff had personally reached out to
9 the Election Deniers, despite the fact that other baseless conspiracies
10 concocted by the Election Deniers had already been publicly challenged in
courts a
11
13 Election Deniers, with Haury appearing on stage as a speaker at The Pit
14 event (which was attended by Defendant Stevens) during which he
any Chinese
15 nationalized citizen is a risk, and even though Haury previously testified
as a fact witness before the grand jury and Defendants had at their disposal
16 the fourth largest law enforcement agency in the county with over 300
employees, including their own forensic computer experts;
17
18 Intentionally concealing the close ties that Defendants Stevens and Neff, as
well as consultants Cain and Haury of Cain & Associates, had with the
19 Election Deniers and their attempts to fabricate and monetize baseless
conspiracy theories about election fraud generally and about Plaintiffs
20 specifically to obscure the political bias and lack of any true investigation
before obtaining warrants despite the lack of any probable cause; and
21
22 Seizing information and data that pre-dated contractual

relationship with LA County and thus could bear no relevance whatsoever
23 to any criminal charges asserted against Mr. Yu or the search or seizure of
.
24
25 152. Defendants knew or should have known that the Election Deniers and the
26 information they provided was unreliable, not credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis
27 for a finding of probable cause. Moreover, on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained
28 on the basis of materially false allegations of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal
-- 60 --
COMPLAINT
1 identifying information, only to see the original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was
2 executed and after Mr. Yu was arrested, to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such
3 crimes.
4 153. Defendants thus engaged in judicial deception by obtaining the warrant on the basis
5 of material misrepresentations and omissions that they knew or should have known were false, and
6 these misrepresentations and omissions were made intentionally for political, racist and xenophobic
7 reasons or, alternatively, with reckless disregard for the truth. Based on the totality of the
8 circumstances, no reasonably prudent person could have concluded that probable cause existed
9 based on the information provided. This is only further evidenced by the fact that, on information
10 and belief, Defendant Neff was subsequently placed on administrative leave and the criminal
11 charges were voluntarily dismissed as a result of potential bias in presentation and
12 investigation of the evidence.
13 154. The manner in which Defendants executed the unreasonable search and seizure,
14 seizure of a person, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, all without probable
15 cause and using excessive force, constitutes operational decisions that are incident to
16 normal functions and the ministerial implementation of basic policy.
17 155. Defendants perpetrated this intentional and reckless interference of Plaintiffs
18 Constitutional rights in violation of California Civil Code § 52.1.
19 156. Defendant LA County is liable through respondeat superior pursuant to common
20 law and California Government Code § 815.2 and/or is vicariously liable for the negligence of its
21 employees, investigators, consultants and agents within the course and scope of their employment,
22 consultancy or agency as alleged herein. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants
23 Gascón, Neff, Stevens, Cain & Associates and consultants, Haury and Cain, and any investigators
24 were acting in the course and scope of their employment, consultancy or agency with Defendant
25 LA County.
26 157. Defendants, acting in concert with one another and with other known and unknown
27 co-conspirators including, without limitation, the Election Deniers, Cain & Associates, Cain, Haury
28 and law enforcement personnel in Michigan, reached an agreement amongst themselves to violate
-- 61 --
COMPLAINT
1 in connection with Count One and conspired by
2 concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In addition, these co-
3 conspirators agreed amongst themselves to protect one another from liability for these violations
4 in connection with Count One. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the
5 co-conspirators committed overt acts and was otherwise a willful participant in joint activity, and
6 each co-conspirator was acting as individuals for their individual advantage in furtherance of
7 political, racial and xenophobic beliefs. The violations of law described herein were accomplished
9 undertaken intentionally, in total disregard of the truth regarding the baseless conspiracy theories
10
11 in connection with Count
12 One.
13 158. As a direct and foreseeable result
14 extensive economic and non-economic damages, including, without limitation, lost profits, lost
15 wages, lost business opportunities, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and
16 embarrassment.
17 159. nduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of
18 California Civil Code § 3294 and punitive and exemplary damages should be assessed against
19 Defendants.
20 COUNT TWO
21 Violation of Ralph Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51.7
25 161. Defendants, acting individually, jointly and/or in conspiracy with others, committed
26 or threatened violent acts against Plaintiffs and/or their property for political, racist and xenophobic
27 reasons search and seizure, unreasonable seizure of a person, false arrest
28 and false imprisonment, all without probable cause, were motivated by Mr. Yu
-- 62 --
COMPLAINT
1 national origin, citizenship or immigration status, and the Election Deniers
2 . Moreover,
3 Defendants retained consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates to participate in the raid on
4 on
5 stage as a speaker at The Pit event (which was attended by Defendant Stevens) during which Haury
6 any Chinese nationalized citizen is
7 The violent acts threatened or committed against Plaintiffs include:

9 with weapons drawn, using a battering ram to force their way into Mr. Yu
home despite having Mr. Yu in custody and keys and his
10 complete lack of any criminal history and the non-violent nature of the
frivolous criminal charges ultimately asserted against Mr. Yu, which
11 effectively amounted to nothing more than an alleged breach of contract
(something that is not, in fact, a criminal offense);
12
13 Intimidating Konnech
s business office and subjecting them to interrogation without
14 counsel present, confiscating all of computer equipment, hard
drives and servers which included privileged email communications
15 between Plaintiffs and their legal counsel that to this date have yet to be
17 then mere weeks away;
18 Attempting to shackle and perp-walk Mr. Yu through the courtroom even

though Mr. Yu had, by that time, been voluntarily sitting in the LA County
19 courtroom for two days awaiting his arraignment; and
20 Unlawfully detaining Mr. Yu for a period of approximately 37 days despite
Mr. Yu fact that he had already
21
surrendered his passport, by holding Mr. Yu in Los Angeles under house
22 arrest at a Los Angeles hotel more than 2,200 miles from his home and
Konnech while wearing two different ankle monitors
23 (one for Michigan and one for California), and also prohibiting Mr. Yu from
communicating with any Konnech employees during the weeks leading up
24 to the 2022 Midterm Election leading to a failure to fulfill election-related
25 contracts and a resulting crippling loss of revenue.
26 162. In performing the acts and/or omissions as alleged herein, Defendants, acting
27 individually, jointly and/or in conspiracy with others, caused Plaintiffs to be subjected to violence
28
-- 63 --
COMPLAINT
1 or intimidation by threat of violence as a result of Mr. Yu ry, national origin,
2 citizenship or immigration status, and the Election Deniers
3 .
4 163. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under California Civil Code § 51.7,
5 including, without limitation, to compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
9 any purported finding of probable cause, and further acted unreasonably under the circumstances.
10 Defendants had reason to doubt the truthfulness and reliability of this information, and knew or
11 should have known that the Election Deniers and the information they provided was unreliable, not
12 credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis for a finding of probable cause. Moreover,
13 on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained on the basis of materially false allegations
14 of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal identifying information, only to see the
15 original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was executed and after Mr. Yu was arrested,
16 to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such crimes.
24 charges were voluntarily dismissed as a result of potential bias in the presentation of evidence
25
26 166.
27 rial implementation of basic policy.
28
-- 64 --
COMPLAINT
1 167. Defendants
2 acts or omissions as alleged herein were performed within the course and scope
3 of their employment, consultancy or agency with Defendant LA County. Defendant LA County is
4 thus liable through respondeat superior pursuant to common law and CAL. GOV. CODE § 815.2
5 and/or is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, investigators, consultants and agents within
6 the course and scope of their employment, consultancy or agency as alleged herein. At all times
7 material to this cause of action, Defendants Gascón, Neff and Stevens, Cain & Associates and
8 consultants Cain and Haury, and any investigators were acting in the course and scope of their
9 employment, consultancy or agency with Defendant LA County.
13 in connection with Count Two and conspired by concerted action to
14 accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed
15 in
16 connection with Count Two. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators
17 committed overt acts and was otherwise a willful participant in joint activity, and each co-
18 conspirator was acting as individuals for their individual advantage in furtherance of political, racial
19 and xenophobic beliefs. The violations of law described herein were accomplished by Def
20 conspiracy. The misconduct described herein was objectively unreasonable, was undertaken
21 intentionally, in total disregard of the truth regarding the baseless conspiracy theories that served
22 tiffs and all subsequent acts, and with willful
23 in connection with Count Two.
24 169.
25 extensive economic and non-economic damages, including, without limitation, lost profits, lost
26 wages, lost business opportunities, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and
27 embarrassment.
28
-- 65 --
COMPLAINT
1 170. Defendant conduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice within the
2 meaning of California Civil Code § 3294 and punitive and exemplary damages should be assessed
3 against Defendant LA County.
4 COUNT THREE
5 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
6 (Against Defendants Gascón, Neff and Stevens)
8 set forth herein.
9 172. Defendants, acting individually, jointly and/or in conspiracy with others, subjected
10 Mr. Yu to an unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful seizure of a person, false
11 arrest and false imprisonment, all without probable cause, based entirely on unsubstantiated and
12 frivolous conspiracy theories concocted by the Election Deniers, with whom Defendants knowingly
13
14 as part of continued efforts to profit from patently false and thoroughly debunked claims that the
15 2020 U.S. Presidential election was stolen from former President Trump.
16 173. Defendants further subjected Konnech to the same unlawful and unreasonable
17 search and seizure, again without probable cause, and based on the same unsubstantiated and
18 frivolous conspiracy theories concocted by the Election Deniers, with whom Defendants knowingly
19 aligned themselves, for the same purposes.
20 174. Mr. Yu was unlawfully detained without probable cause for a period of
21 approximately 37 days while Defendants unsuccessfully sought to prevent bail. While Mr. Yu
22 offered to voluntarily appear in Los Angeles for his arraignment, Defendants unreasonably rejected
23 this offer and subjected Mr. Yu to an unnecessary and costly bail hearing and extradition proceeding
24 in Michigan. After Mr. Yu prevailed in Michigan and voluntarily traveled to Los Angeles for his
25 arraignment, Defendants once again subjected Mr. Yu to yet another bail hearing in LA County,
26 and incredibly attempted to shackle and perp-walk Mr. Yu through the courtroom even though
27 by that point he had been voluntarily sitting in the LA County courtroom for two days awaiting his
28 arraignment. Defendants then argued that Mr. Yu who has no criminal history whatsoever
-- 66 --
COMPLAINT
1 should be denied bail due to his supposed connections to China even though Mr. Yu had already
2 surrendered his passport.
3 175. Mr. Yu bail, but based
4 Mr. Yu under house
5 arrest at a Los Angeles hotel and did not permit Mr. Yu to leave the confines of that hotel other
6 than to meet with his legal counsel. Mr. Yu was further restricted from communicating with anyone
8 re business into turmoil mere weeks before the 2022 Midterm Election.
9 176. Defendants deprived Mr. Yu of his freedom of movement as part of a series of
10 threats, intimidation and coercion designed to maximize publicity for a transparently political
11 arrest, search, seizure and criminal prosecution. Mr. arrest, seizure and detention was thus
12 unreasonable, unnecessarily prolonged, and degrading and involved undue invasion of privacy.
13 Mr. Yu did not consent to being confined.
14 177. In service of their illicit objectives, and in addition to the unlawful search and
15 seizure, seizure of a person, false arrest and false imprisonment, Defendants engaged in misconduct
16 in the investigation that led to the unlawful search, seizure, arrest and detention, including:
Defen the fabricated nature of
17
the Election Deniers
18 investigation;
19 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were publicly known to
be discredited conspiracy theorists who were not reliable, credible, suitable
20 or trustworthy;
21 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were being investigated
22
of election fraud, and that repeated failures to provide any evidence of
23
federal investigation into the Election Deniers and their status as a nonprofit
24 organization;
25 Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers had presented these same
26 to the FBI
and other law enforcement agencies that chose not to pursue any charges
27 against Plaintiffs, and that the FBI had investigated the
accusations concerning Plaintiffs for 15 months and instead had chosen to
28
-- 67 --
COMPLAINT
open an investigation into the Election Deniers for computer hacking and
1 theft of the personal identifying information of U.S. poll workers;
2
Acting with knowledge that the Election Deniers were the subject of a
3 pending voter intimidation lawsuit in Georgia, filed in December 2020, in
which they are alleged to have improperly challenged 364,000 voter
4 registrations -time
vo based on unreliable records of mailing address changes which, in
5 and of themselves, are insufficient to challenge voter eligibility;
6
Acting with knowledge that Defendant Stevens had personally attended The
7 Pit event held by the Election Deniers, which was advertised as an event
where the Election Deniers
8 Presidential election
was stolen, but was instead used to publicize fabricated conspiracy theories
9 about Plaintiffs;
10
Acting with knowledge that Defendant Neff had personally reached out to
11 the Election Deniers, despite the fact that other baseless conspiracies
concocted by the Election Deniers had already been publicly challenged in
12 courts and by the Arizona Atto
13 Retaining consultants Cain and Haury of Cain & Associates and having
them participate in the raids on Mr. Yu Konnech
14
event (which was attended by Defendant Stevens) during which he
16 any Chinese
even though Haury previously testified as a
17 fact witness before the grand jury, and both Haury and Cain have previously
18 and publicly solicited donations for the Election Deniers as part of supposed
Election
19 Deniers for their own financial benefit;
20 Intentionally concealing the close ties that Defendants Stevens and Neff, as
well as consultants Cain and Haury, had with the Election Deniers and their
21 attempts to fabricate and monetize baseless conspiracy theories about
election fraud generally and about Plaintiffs specifically to obscure the
22
political bias and lack of any true investigation before obtaining warrants
23 despite the lack of any probable cause; and
24 Replacing the original, sealed indictment with an unsealed criminal

complaint that was signed and certified by both Defendant Stevens, who
25 had attended the Election Deniers
admittedly relied on the Election Deniers
26
27
28
-- 68 --
COMPLAINT
3 any purported finding of probable cause, and further acted unreasonably under the circumstances
4 when executing the warrant. Defendants had reason to doubt the truthfulness and reliability of this
5 information, and knew or should have known that the Election Deniers and the information they
6 provided were unreliable, not credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis for a finding
7 of probable cause. Moreover, on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained on the basis
8 of materially false allegations of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal identifying
9 information, only to see the original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was executed
10 and after Mr. Yu was arrested, to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such crimes.
19
20 180. Ignoring the unreliable, not credible and untrustworthy source of information and
21 under the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution and the
22 Michigan Constitution had been violated without any evidence or probable cause, Defendant
23 Gascón made public statements to the media about Plaintiffs, maliciously or recklessly touting the
24 Gascón publicly claimed that
25 reat to our digital
26
27 ultimately based did not allege a data breach of any kind. He further publicly and falsely claimed
28
-- 69 --
COMPLAINT
1 that Plaintiffs had failed to properly maintain LA County confidential data, including personal
2 identifying information, with which they had been entrusted.
3 181. Ironically, even as he made these allegations, Defendant Gascón
4 retained consultants Haury and Cain Haury, a known racist and xenophobe, and both known
5 associates of the Election Deniers who initially concocted the baseless conspiracy theories about
6 Plaintiffs without requiring them to sign a confidentiality agreement of any kind, and then
7 provided them access to Plain
8 worker data as well as privileged communications between Plaintiffs and their attorneys, and
9 further took no action to retrieve this data even after the Election Deniers threatened to publicly
10 disclose the data. Defendant Gascón
11 employees, investigators and consultants who unlawfully conducted the arrest, search and seizure
12 intrusions against government
13
14 atmosphere that seriously impaired the fairness of the judicial proceedings against Mr. Yu and
15 caused him to suffer loss of freedom, mental anguish and humiliation.
16 182. When a spokesperson for the was questioned about the
17 Election Deniers Election Deniers
18 involvement and that the Election Deniers had no input on Defendant LA C
19 However, after the frivolous criminal charges against Mr. Yu had been voluntarily dropped, online
20
21 Plaintiffs was based on a tip from the Election Deniers. Moreover, a spokesperson for Defendant
22 LA County further -
23 level management became aware of irregularities in how the case was p
24
25
26 administrative leave due to his role in the reckless and malicious investigation.
27 183.
28 searches and seizures, unlawful seizures of a person, false arrest and false imprisonment under the
-- 70 --
COMPLAINT
1 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as under the
2 California Constitution and Michigan Constitution.
3 184. The conduct complained of herein
4 investigators performing investigative functions attempting to support a finding of probable cause,
5 and further was performed in the complete absence of probable cause.
6 185.
7 prudent persons would
9 rights.
13 in connection with Count Three and conspired by concerted action
14 to accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed
15 in
16 connection with Count Three. In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators
17 committed overt acts and was otherwise a willful participant in joint activity, and each co-
18 conspirator was acting as individuals for their individual advantage in furtherance of political, racial
19 and xenophobic beliefs. The viola
20 conspiracy. The misconduct described herein was objectively unreasonable, was undertaken
21 intentionally, in total disregard of the truth regarding the baseless conspiracy theories that served
22 a
23 in connection with Count Three.
24 187. ained, and
25 will in the future sustain, physical and pecuniary injury and other compensable injuries.
26 188.
27 general damages including pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
28
-- 71 --
COMPLAINT
1 189.
2 constitutional rights. The wrongful acts, and each of them, were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and
3 malicious such that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages.
4 COUNT FOUR
5 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Liability: Policy, Practice or Custom
6 (Against Defendant LA County)
8 set forth herein.
9 191. Defendant LA County promulgated and maintained an unconstitutional policy,
10 practice or custom which caused , investigators and
11 consultants to unlawfully arrest, search, seize and criminally prosecute citizens for transparently
12 political, racist and xenophobic reasons, particularly with regard to citizens of Asian ancestry
13 living, traveling and/or working in or with Los Angeles County as well as businesses owned by
14 citizens of Asian ancestry employees, investigators and consultants
15 were also authorized or permitted to prepare and fabricate evidence and to subject such persons to
16 politically biased arrests, searches, seizures and detentions without probable cause.
17 192. Defendant LA County, as a matter of custom, practice and policy, repeatedly and
18 ,
19 investigators and consultants deliberately deprived citizens of state law and Constitutional
20 protections against malicious prosecution and unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth
21 and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution based on blatantly political, racist
22 al origin.
23 193. Defendant LA County, as a matter of custom, practice and policy, also failed to
24 , investigators
25 and consultants necessary to educate said employees, investigators and consultants as to the
26 constitutional rights of citizens to be free from such politically motivated wrongful acts, to prevent
27 consistent and systematic denial of Constitutional rights for blatantly political motives, and to
28 prevent politically biased malicious prosecutions and unlawful searches and seizures.
-- 72 --
COMPLAINT
1 194. Defendant LA County knew or should have known, based on investigation
2 documents, arrest reports, departmental reports, claims for damages and lawsuits, that the
3 inadequate training and supervision was likely to result in a deprivation of the right of citizens to
4 be free from unreasonable searches, seizures and malicious prosecutions.
5 195. Defendants Gascón, Neff and Stevens, as well as Cain & Associates and consultants
6 Cain and Haury, in their capacity as LA , investigators and
8 prosecutions.
9 196. Defendant LA County was deliberately indifferent to the widespread misconduct on
10 the part of , investigators and consultants in engaging in
11 unlawful searches, seizures and malicious prosecutions for transparently political, racist and/or
12 xenophobic reasons.
13 197. to provide adequate training and supervision was
14 the direct and foreseeable cause of the d
15 searches, seizures and malicious prosecutions.
16 198. The abuses in question were the product of a culture of tolerance within the LA
17 County -ranking LA
18 County officials, including without limitation Defendants Gascón, Stevens and Neff and any other
19 high ranking official, individually or acting in concert with one another, to the widespread
20 , investigators and consultants
21 in recklessly engaging in unlawful arrests, searches, seizures and criminal prosecutions.
22 199.
23 customs, policies or practices which resulted in the targeting of persons of Asian ancestry, such as
24 Mr. Yu, and businesses owned by persons of Asian ancestry, all of whom were singled out for
25 disparate treatment and subjected to politically biased investigations, arrests, searches and seizures,
26 all without probable cause, specifically because of race, national origin or political motivations.
27 Despite having notice of these customs, policies and practices, Defendants and other high ranking
28
-- 73 --
COMPLAINT
1 officials of Defendant LA County have failed to take any appropriate or remedial action to prevent
3 200. During the relevant ti ,
4 investigators and consultants were acting under the color of law.
5 201. , investigators and consultants
6 deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from unconstitutional searches, seizures and malicious
7 prosecutions under the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
8 Constitution.
9 202. ,
10 investigators and consultants were acting purs
11 custom.
12 203.
15 204.
16
17 have understood that Defenda
18 rights.
19 205.
20 economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to lost profits, lost wages, lost
21 business opportunities, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
22 COUNT FIVE
23 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Liability: Ratification
27 207. After the unlawful arrest, search and seizure, all of which lacked probable cause,
28 Defendant Gascón, the LA County DA, intentionally and/or recklessly ignored the unreliable, not
-- 74 --
COMPLAINT
1 credible and untrustworthy source and patent inaccuracy of the information that prompted the
2 frivolous and unjustified arrest, search and seizure in order to bring frivolous criminal charges
3 against Mr. Yu which effectively amounted to allegations of a breach of a contract to which Mr.
4 Yu was not even a party while publicly touting entirely different charges premised on the theft of
5 U.S. Poll Worker Data.
6 208. Defendant Gascón claimed that the charges were based on a supposed data breach
7 , though the criminal complaint
8 upon which the frivolous criminal charges were based was eventually shown to not even allege a
9 data breach of any kind.
10 209. Defendant Gascón further claimed that Plaintiffs failed to properly maintain LA
11 County confidential data, including personal identifying information, with which they had been
12 entrusted.
13 210. Defendant Gascón ,
14 investigators and consultants who unlawfully conducted the arrest, search and seizure without
15 probable c
16
17 211. Defendant Gascón was acting as an official spokesperson for Defendant LA County
18 at the time he made these comments.
19 212. Defendant Gascón had final policymaking authority from Defendant LA County
20 ,
21 investigators and consultants and the proper motives for same.
22 213. Defendant Gascón had final policymaking authority from Defendant LA County
23 , investigators and
24 consultants with regard to legal requirements for proper investigations, searches, seizures and
25 criminal prosecutions.
26 214. Defendant Gascón knew or should
27 employees, investigators and consultants routinely instigated unlawful searches, seizures and
28 criminal prosecutions for transparently political, racist and/or xenophobic reasons.

-- 75 --
COMPLAINT
1 215. Defendant Gascón consciously and affirmatively ratified and approved the actions
2 , investigators and consultants in this regard.
3 216.
6 217.
7 were clearly established at the time of D
9 rights.
10 218.
11 economic and non-economic damages, including but not limited to lost wages, lost business
12 opportunities, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
13 COUNT SIX
14 Conversion
18 220. Defendant LA County currently possesses data and computer hardware owned by
19 Plaintiffs, or to which Plaintiffs otherwise have an entitlement to possession. Defendant LA County
20 willfully seized Pl including, without limitation, computers, servers, phones and
21 other equipment as part of Defendant s improper and unlawful search, seizure, arrest
22 and criminal detention that lacked any probable cause whatsoever.
23 221. On or about November 16, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge
24 ordered Defendant LA County to return the seized property, yet, to date, Defendant LA County has
25 continually refused to do so. While Defendant LA County purported to provide Plaintiffs with an
26 electronic copy of the data that was contained on the seized computer equipment; that copy is
27 encrypted and Plaintiffs were unable to access it without their original computer hardware which
28 Defendants refuse to return to Plaintiffs. Moreover, Plaintiffs have no ability to access that data
-- 76 --
COMPLAINT
1 without the computer equipment Defendant LA County unlawfully seized without probable cause
2 and that Defendant LA County continually refuses to return.
3 222. Defendant LA County thus unlawfully and without probable cause assumed and
5 rights as owners of the property, which removed the need for Plaintiffs to demand the return of the
6 property. However, Plaintiffs have demanded the return of said property on multiple occasions and
7 Defendant LA County has continually refused to return said property.
12 should have known that the Election Deniers and the information they provided was unreliable, not
13 credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis for a finding of probable cause. Moreover,
14 on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained on the basis of materially false allegations
15 of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal identifying information, only to see the
16 original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was executed and after Mr. Yu was arrested,
17 to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such crimes.
26
27 225. Moreover, any warrant upon which the seizure was originally based is no longer
28 relevant in light of the existence of a court order compelling Defendant LA County to return
-- 77 --
COMPLAINT
1 and Defendant LA County continued refusal to comply with that order
2 constitutes wrongful conversion.
3 226. The manner in which Defendant LA County has continued to refuse to return
4 constitutes an operational decision that is incident to its normal functions and
5 the ministerial implementation of basic policy.
6 227. As remedies for Defendant conversion, Plaintiffs seeks compensatory
7 and exemplary damages, a constructive trust over the converted materials, and an order requiring
8 Defendant LA County to return the converted materials to Plaintiffs, including any materials
9 currently in the possession of Cain & Associates and consultants Haury and Cain, without keeping
10 copies of any privileged communications that Plaintiffs demanded be returned approximately 11
11 months prior to the date of this Complaint.
12 228. Defendant conduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice within the
13 meaning of California Civil Code § 3294 and punitive and exemplary damages should be assessed
14 against Defendant LA County.
15 COUNT SEVEN
16 Negligence
20 230. Defendants Gascón, Stevens and Neff, as well as Cain & Associates and
21 consultants Cain and Haury, while acting within the course and scope of their employment,
22 consultancy or agency with Defendant LA County, owed Plaintiffs the duty to exercise reasonable
23 care with regard
24 any probable cause and to be free from the use of excessive force.
25 231. Defendants Gascón, Stevens and Neff, as well as consultants Cain and Haury of
26 Cain & Associates, by their conduct alleged herein, negligently, carelessly and wrongfully breached
27 the duty to use reasonable care owed to Plaintiffs.
28
-- 78 --
COMPLAINT
1 232. Defendants LA County and Gascón knew or should have known that Defendants
2 Stevens and Neff, as well as consultants Cain and Haury of Cain & Associates, were associates of
3 the Election Deniers and had aligned themselves with the Election Deniers in their pursuit to
5 233. Defendants LA County and Gascón further knew or should have known that
6 consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates were unfit or incompetent to participate in an
7 or
8 retained for same. Defendants LA County and Gascón further knew or should have known that
9 they should have required consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates to execute
10 confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements before retaining them to participate in a search and
11 seizure of Pl
12 234. Defendants LA County and Gascón further knew or should have known that the
13 hiring and retention of consultants Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates to investigate, search and
14 risk of harm to Plaintiffs, particularly given
15 Election Deniers and their racist and
16 xenophobic views of Chinese Americans, and thus should not have hired or retained consultants
17 Haury and Cain of Cain & Associates for that purpose.
18 235. Defendants LA County and Gascón further failed to maintain adequate and proper
19 training and supervision of Defendant Neff, Defendant Stevens and consultants Haury and Cain of
20 Cain & Associates as to the constitutional rights of citizens, and failed to
21 require Cain & Associates, Haury and Cain to execute confidentiality and non-disclosure
22 .
23 236. Defendants LA County and Gascón knew or should have known, based on
24 investigation documents, arrest reports, departmental reports, claims for damages and lawsuits, that
25 the inadequate training and supervision was likely to result in a deprivation of the right of citizens
26 to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the use of excessive force.
27 237. Defendant Stevens knew or should have known that he is ethically bound, as a
28 member of , not to, among other things, (a) permit personal feelings,
-- 79 --
COMPLAINT
1 prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence his decisions; (b)
2 use the wrongful or unlawful exercise of authority for a malicious purpose, personal gain, willful
3 deceit or any other improper purpose; (c) discriminate against, oppress or provide favoritism to any
4 person because of race or national origin; and (d) fail to disclose or misrepresent material facts, or
5 make false or misleading statement on any application, examination form, or other official
6 document, report or form, or during the course of any work-related investigation.
7 238. Defendants Neff and Stevens, as well as consultants Cain and Haury of Cain &
8 Associates , investigators and consultants,
9 negligently and seizures and the use
10 of excessive force.
11 239. Defendants LA County and Gascón were deliberately indifferent to the widespread
12 ffice employees, investigators and consultants in
13 engaging in unlawful searches, seizures for transparently political, racist and/or xenophobic reasons
14 as well as the unnecessary use of excessive force.
15 240. Gascón de adequate training and
16
17 from unreasonable searches and seizures and the use of excessive force.
22 should have known that the Election Deniers and the information they provided were unreliable,
23 not credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis for a finding of probable cause.
24 Moreover, on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained on the basis of materially false
25 allegations of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal identifying information, only to
26 see the original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was executed and after Mr. Yu was
27 arrested, to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such crimes.
28
-- 80 --
COMPLAINT
8 charges against Mr. Yu were voluntarily dismissed as a result of potential bias in the presentation
10 243. t are
11
12 244. Defendant LA County is liable through respondeat superior pursuant to common
13 law and California Government Code § 815.2 and/or is vicariously liable for the negligence of its
14 employees, investigators, consultants and agents within the course and scope of their employment,
15 consultancy or agency as alleged herein. At all times material to this cause of action, Defendants
16 Gascón, Neff and Stevens, as well as Cain & Associates and consultants Cain and Haury, and any
17 investigators were acting in the course and scope of their employment, consultancy or agency with
18 Defendant LA County.
19 245. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants
20 damages and injuries as alleged herein.
21 COUNT EIGHT
22 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
26 247.
27 the scope of conduct that should be tolerated by citizens in a democratic and civilized society.
28 Defendants, acting individually, jointly and/or in conspiracy with others, committed extreme and
-- 81 --
COMPLAINT
1 outrageous acts with the intent to inflict severe and extreme mental anguish and emotional distress
2 upon Plaintiffs, including:
3 Subjecting Plaintiffs to an improper and unlawful arrest, search and seizure

4 and detention based on unsubstantiated and baseless conspiracy theories
concocted by the Election Deniers with full knowledge of the falsity of
5 those conspiracy theories and the Election Deniers -known history of
making thoroughly debunked claims about election malfeasance or,
6 alternatively, with reckless disregard for the truth of said conspiracy
theories;
7

with weapons drawn, using a battering ram to force their way into Mr. Yu
9 home despite having Mr. Yu in custody, keys and his
complete lack of any criminal history and the non-violent nature of the
10 frivolous criminal charges ultimately asserted against Mr. Yu, which
effectively amounted to nothing more than an alleged breach of contract
11 (something that is not, in fact, a criminal offense);
12
event (which was attended by Defendant Stevens) during which he
15 any Chinese
16 nationalized citize even though Haury previously testified as a
fact witness before the grand jury, and both Haury and Cain have previously
17 and publicly solicited donations for Election Deniers as part of supposed
d diverted by the Election
18 Deniers for their own financial benefit;
19 Confiscating phones during their illegal search and seizure to prevent Mr.
20 Yu
21 Refusing to tell Mr. Yu Mr. Yu would be detained and refusing

to permit Mr. Yu to make a phone call to reach his attorney, which served
22 to prevent Mr. Mr. Yu until the middle
of the night, more than 15 hours after his unlawful arrest;
23
Intimidating Konnech
24
25 counsel present, confiscating all of computer equipment, hard

drives and servers which included privileged email communications
26 between Plaintiffs and their legal counsel that to this date have yet to be
then mere weeks away;
28
-- 82 --
COMPLAINT
Requiring Mr. Yu to undergo unnecessary and costly bail hearings in both
1
Michigan and California, an unnecessary and costly extradition
2 proceedings in Michigan, and unreasonably rejecting Mr.
voluntarily travel to Los Angeles for his arraignment;
3
Attempting to shackle and perp-walk Mr. Yu through the courtroom even
4 though Mr. Yu had, by that time, been voluntarily sitting in the LA County
courtroom for two days awaiting his arraignment;
5
6 Unlawfully detaining Mr. Yu in California for a period of approximately 37

days while Defendants unsuccessfully sought to deny him bail; and
7
Seeking unjustifiable bail restrictions in yet another bail hearing in LA
8 County after Mr. Yu prevailed in Michigan and voluntarily traveled to Los
Angeles for his arraignment, all despite Mr. Yu
9 history and the fact that he had already surrendered his passport which
10 ultimately resulted in Mr. Yu being held in Los Angeles under house arrest
at a Los Angeles hotel more than 2,200 miles from his home and
11 Konnech while wearing two different ankle monitors
(one for Michigan and one for California), and also prohibited Mr. Yu from
12 communicating with any Konnech employees during the weeks leading up
to the 2022 Midterm Election leading to a failure to fulfill election-related
13 contracts and a resulting crippling loss of revenue.
14
248. While Defendants purportedly acted pursuant to a warrant, on information and
15
belief, Defendants obtained that warrant based on misrepresentations and/or omissions material to
16
any purported finding of probable cause, and further acted unreasonably under the circumstances.
17
Defendants had reason to doubt the truthfulness and reliability of this information, and knew or
18
should have known that the Election Deniers and the information they provided were unreliable,
19
not credible, untrustworthy and could not serve as a basis for a finding of probable cause.
20
Moreover, on information and belief, the warrant was also obtained on the basis of materially false
21
allegations of crimes involving data breaches and theft of personal identifying information, only to
22
see the original sealed indictment abandoned after the warrant was executed and after Mr. Yu was
23
arrested, to be replaced by a criminal complaint that alleged no such crimes.
24
249. Defendants thus engaged in judicial deception by obtaining the warrant on the basis
25
of material misrepresentations and omissions that they knew or should have known were false, and
26
these misrepresentations and omissions were made intentionally for political, racist and xenophobic
27
reasons or, alternatively, with reckless disregard for the truth. Based on the totality of the
28
-- 83 --
COMPLAINT
5 during
6 250.
8 251. Defendants , and Cain
9 acts or omissions as alleged herein were performed within the course and scope
10 of their employment, consultancy or agency with Defendant LA County. Defendant LA County is
11 thus liable through respondeat superior pursuant to common law and CAL. GOV. CODE § 815.2
12 and/or is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, investigators, consultants and agents within
13 the course and scope of their employment, consultancy or agency as alleged herein. At all times
14 material to this cause of action, Defendants Gascón, Neff and Stevens, and Cain & Associates and
15 consultants Cain and Haury, and any investigators were acting in the course and scope of their
16 employment, consultancy or agency with Defendant LA County.
20 in connection with Count Eight and conspired by concerted action to
21 accomplish an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed
22 amongst themselves to protect one ano .
23 In furtherance of the conspiracy, each of the co-conspirators committed overt acts and was
24 otherwise a willful participant in joint activity, and each co-conspirator was acting as individuals
25 for their individual advantage in furtherance of political, racial and xenophobic beliefs. The
26
27 described herein was objectively unreasonable, was undertaken intentionally, in total disregard of
28
-- 84 --
COMPLAINT
1
2 law rights in connection with Count Eight.
3 253.
4 Plaintiffs suffered severe and extreme mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, degradation,
5 physical and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and damages.
6 254. Defendant conduct constitutes oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of
7 California Civil Code § 3294 and punitive and exemplary damages should be assessed against
8 Defendants.
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
11 a. Compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at
12
13 b. A constructive trust for the ,
14 including any property currently in the possession of Cain & Associates and
15 consultants Haury and Cain, without keeping copies of any privileged
16 communications;
17 c. pursuant to statute;
18 d. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
19 e. All costs of suit; and
20 f. All such other and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to
21 which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled or as this Court may deem
22 appropriate.
23 JURY DEMAND
24 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
25 Dated: September 12, 2023

26 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
27
By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis
28
-- 85 --
COMPLAINT
2 DPamphilis@kasowitz.com
J. Michael Wilson
4 MWilson@kasowitz.com
Nathan W. Richardson
6 NRichardson@kasowitz.com
1415 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
7 Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 220-8800
8 (713) 222-0843 (fax)
9 Daniel A. Saunders
California Bar No. 161051
10 DSaunders@kasowitz.com
2029 Century Park East, Suite 200
11 Los Angeles, California 90067
(424) 288-7900
12 (424) 288-7901 (fax)
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Konnech, Inc. and
Eugene Yu
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- 86 --
COMPLAINT

Konnech CEO Eugene Yu vs. LA District Atty. George Gascon Etal Dated Sept 14th 2023 274 Pages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Konnech CEO Eugene Yu vs. LA District Atty. George Gascon Etal Dated Sept 14th 2023 274 Pages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

2 Constantine Z. Pamphilis (pro hac vice application to be submitted)

11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

13 support thereof, Petitioners would show as follows:

15 1. Konnech is a small, Michigan-based company built from the ground up by its

23 Konnech’s services could not affect voting results.

17 Presidential Election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

4 numerous scandals about its lack of criminal enforcement.

26 participate in the raid on Petitioners’ home and business offices.

28 Respondent LA County continues to retain in violation of a court order).

4 CAL. GOV’T CODE § 945.4.

6 9. Petitioner Konnech, Inc. is incorporated in Michigan and headquartered in East

8 10. Petitioner Eugene Yu is an individual residing in Michigan.

15 California Government Code § 815.2.

18 of California, and operates, manages, and controls Respondent LA County.

19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22 on the causes of action to which the Claims at issue here relate.

25 this Petition arose and occurred there.

14 into the LA County DA’s Office’s investigation.9

15 16. On or about November 9, 2022, Respondent LA County dismissed all charges

2 Respondent LA County’s spokesperson to the contrary, the “district attorney’s office

5 exercise of reasonable diligence, prior to November 10, 2022.13

16 Denier TTV’s] involvement in the investigation remains unclear.”16

15 nationalized citizen is a risk.”21

18 prosecution of Petitioners, and despite Petitioners’ reasonably diligent investigation of the

15 well as the specific facts that underlie Petitioners’ claims.

2 May 8, 2023 to November 7, 2022,”25 Petitioners corrected Respondents’ misunderstanding of

15 of the date on which the Application was deemed denied.

21 to preserve Petitioners’ argument that all claims were timely presented.28

3 set forth herein.

8 28. As an initial matter, Respondents’ Response Letters’ conclusory statements about

24 occurrence—particularly when, as in the instant matter, no single injury-causing event exists—

4 November 9, 2022, at the earliest.29

12 31. More specifically, CAL. GOV’T CODE § 946.6 states that

13 [t]he court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of

15 under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to

16 exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was

17 denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or

18 more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the

19 claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

20 neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be

21 prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the

22 petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.

22 weaponize unsubstantiated and frivolous conspiracy theories as part of a politically motivated

23 investigation, arrest, search, seizure, detention and malicious prosecution in violation of

6 nationalized citizen is a risk.”36

8 malicious prosecution and the resulting seizure of Petitioners’ personal property—which

18 to file some of Petitioners’ claims.39

3 part of Mr. Yu’s unlawful arrest.

6 is fully incorporated herein by reference.

10 Petitioners to assert all claims identified in the Claim Notices.

11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for judgment against Respondents as follows:

14 945.4 to timely present whatever unspecified portion of Petitioners’ claims that

15 Respondents impliedly rejected by operation of law; and

23 By: /s/ Constantine Z. Pamphilis

The following is the proof-of-delivery for tracking number: 772062963006

FedEx Priority Overnight

May 8, 2023 09:22

772062963006 May 5, 2023

LOS ANGELES, CA, US, HOUSTON, TX, US,

111Konnech/Los Angeles County

Thank you for choosing FedEx