Florida Election Candidate Christopher Gleason, Representing Himself, Alleges Official Misconduct By Julie Marcus In Public Records Scandal – JP

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter  

In a dramatic development in the Florida election landscape, Christopher Gleason, a candidate for Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections, has accused the current Supervisor, Julie Marcus, and her legal team of deliberately obstructing his access to public records in a bid to harm his campaign and secure her own re-election. Representing himself pro se (without a lawyer), Gleason brought the allegations forward during an August 29, 2024, court hearing, where he exposed a pattern of delays, concealment, and misconduct that he claims were orchestrated to benefit Marcus’s campaign at his expense.

Exaggerated Time Estimates to Delay Access to Public Records

One of the most startling claims made during the hearing was the defense’s assertion that it would take 18,000 hours to produce public records related to vote-by-mail ballots that Gleason had requested. These records, which are stored electronically, should be easily accessible, according to Gleason. As a self-represented litigant, he argued that the requested data could be generated in minutes, not the thousands of hours the defense claimed were necessary.

Gleason contended that this inflated time estimate was an intentional tactic to delay his access to important records, preventing him from timely reviewing and challenging potentially illegally requested or returned vote-by-mail ballots. He emphasized that access to these records is crucial for monitoring the integrity of the election process, and the delays were designed to limit his ability to act before any potential issues could be addressed in court.

Unlawful Barriers: The Oath of Acquisition

Another key point Gleason raised was the defense’s sudden introduction of an Oath of Acquisition requirement, which Marcus’s attorneys claimed was necessary before he could obtain the public records. This requirement had never been mentioned before, and Gleason argued that it was an unnecessary and unlawful barrier to his right to access public records, especially since the records in question were electronic and did not fall under any legal provision requiring such an oath.

Gleason, representing himself without legal counsel, noted that this surprise requirement was part of an effort to delay and obstruct his access to important voting data. He argued that under Florida law, electronic public records must be made available quickly and without unnecessary cost or delay. The introduction of the oath was merely a tactic to block him from obtaining information that could expose wrongdoing in the vote-by-mail process.

Concealment of Key Evidence to Protect Marcus

According to Gleason, these barriers were not only delaying his access to public records, but they were also part of a broader attempt to conceal evidence of election irregularities, particularly involving illegally returned and undeliverable vote-by-mail ballots. He argued that Marcus and her team were deliberately stalling to prevent the exposure of felonies being committed within the Supervisor of Elections office.

By withholding these records, Gleason claimed that Marcus was able to avoid scrutiny that could have damaged her campaign or even disqualified certain votes. These actions, he argued, gave Marcus an unfair advantage over him in the election, as he was unable to challenge the legitimacy of certain ballots in time. As a result, Gleason believes his pro se status, while allowing him to fight back, also made him more vulnerable to delays and legal tactics designed to obstruct his efforts.

Harm to Gleason’s Campaign and the Public

The delays and legal obstacles erected by Marcus and her attorneys directly harmed Gleason’s ability to monitor the vote-by-mail process and challenge illegal ballots. Since election-related legal challenges must be filed within a strict timeframe, the delays in accessing public records effectively blocked Gleason from taking timely action. This not only compromised his own campaign but also jeopardized the integrity of the entire election process.

Gleason argued that the obstruction not only harmed him but also violated the public’s trust. By intentionally delaying the release of key voting data, Marcus’s office allowed potentially illegal votes to be counted without proper oversight, undermining confidence in the election’s fairness. As a self-represented candidate, Gleason has had to navigate the complexities of Florida’s legal system on his own, making it even more challenging to hold public officials accountable for their actions.

A Fight for Transparency and Accountability

Christopher Gleason’s case highlights the challenges faced by self-represented litigants in navigating the legal system, particularly when they are up against well-resourced incumbents and legal teams. Despite these hurdles, Gleason has remained determined to expose what he calls intentional concealment and misconduct aimed at protecting Julie Marcus’s campaign and damaging his own.

His case raises broader questions about transparency in Florida’s election system and whether public officials should be allowed to impose unnecessary barriers on access to records that are critical for ensuring free and fair elections. As the case continues, Gleason’s fight for accountability may have far-reaching implications for how elections are conducted and how public officials handle requests for transparency.

For now, Gleason remains committed to representing himself and continuing his battle in the courts, seeking to ensure that no public official can use their position to conceal the truth or gain an unfair advantage in an election.

This ongoing legal battle could not only affect the outcome of Gleason’s race but also raise serious concerns about the integrity of Florida’s election process as a whole.