Scandal In The Sunshine State: Judges Entangled In Election Fraud Internet – A Professional Se Crusader’s Battle For Justice – JP

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

Tallahassee, FL – November 7, 2025 – In an explosive courtroom drama ripping through Florida’s judiciary, a lone warrior against election corruption has unmasked a shocking web of conflicts that could shatter public trust in the very guardians of justice. Christopher Gleason, a defiant pro se litigant, former candidate for Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections, and frequent CDM/JP contributor is waging an all-out war in the Florida Supreme Court, accusing a cadre of judges of being either victims or material witness and beneficiaries of the same vote-by-mail fraud they’re supposed to adjudicate. What started as a routine election challenge has escalated into a high-octane thriller, complete with forged ballots, stonewalled recusals, and the looming specter of voided verdicts that could upend the 2024 election results.

Picture this: Gleason, armed only with public records and unyielding determination, storms the gates of the judicial system after losing to incumbent Julie Marcus in a race marred by allegations of rampant ballot tampering. His bombshell filings in the Sixth Judicial Circuit reveal a sinister pattern – unauthorized vote-by-mail requests flooding the system, violating Florida’s ironclad election statutes. But the real bombshell? Official Department of State records expose that four key judges – Second District Court of Appeal’s Craig Villanti, Nelly Khouzam, Morris Silberman, and trial judge Patricia Muscarella – had fraudulent requests submitted in their own names during the chaotic 2024 cycle.

These weren’t mere clerical errors; as “protected voters” under §97.0585, Fla. Stat., the judges couldn’t have legally requested ballots on those dates. Gleason’s verified declaration thunders: “This transforms them into material witnesses; the only ones who can swear under oath whether they authorized these forgeries; and direct victims of the fraud at the heart of my case!” The implication is chilling: How can judges rule impartially when they’re personally ensnared in the scandal they’re judging, bearing the dual burden of victimization as both material witnesses and unwitting beneficiaries of a flawed system that preserved their own electoral security?

Far from speculative rants of an election denier, Gleason’s allegations are anchored in the government’s own irrefutable and undeniable data;  raw, unassailable records from the Florida Division of Elections that conclusively reveal 219,675 vote-by-mail ballots were illegally requested on Sunday, June 23, 2024 (when election offices were shuttered), and the pattern repeated on September 9, 2024. Notably, this massive wave included the CEO of the Tampa Bay Times and his wife, as well as the parents of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, all listed as having made their requests online on that improbable Sunday. These requests, Gleason asserts, were impossible without fraud, as the only feasible method on off-days would be online – a channel strictly blocked for all conflicted judges, 6th Circuit State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, and other protected voters due to ironclad security protocols designed to shield their sensitive information. Any such requests for these individuals could only stem from deliberate override or illicit tampering, turning the system’s safeguards into smoking guns of misconduct, wire fraud, mail fraud and election fraud.

The intrigue deepens with three more appellate judges – Anthony Black, Edward LaRose, and Susan Rothstein-Youakim; who faced retention votes in the same tainted election. Gleason charges that their livelihoods and reputations hang in the balance, creating a “direct financial and reputational stake” that screams bias. “They’re beneficiaries of the very election I’m dismantling,” he roars in his amended petition for a writ of prohibition, invoking U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), where hidden biases were deemed “structural errors” that poison the entire process, untouchable by appeals or excuses.

But the drama doesn’t stop at conflicts – Gleason unleashes a jurisdictional grenade, alleging the trial court never had power to proceed because Marcus, sued in both her official role as Supervisor and her personal capacity as candidate, ghosted the case in her individual guise. Despite personal service, her attorneys appeared only for the office, not the woman – a fatal flaw under §102.168 and precedents like Sanford v. Rubin (1970). He further argues that judges disqualified as a matter of law also have no jurisdiction to rule on cases, rendering their actions null and void from the outset. “The court was jurisdictionally crippled from day one,” Gleason declares, demanding defaults and vacaturs that could nullify everything. Compounding the outrage, with serious allegations of election crimes and official misconduct leveled against her, Marcus is barred by Florida statutes and numerous Florida Attorney General opinions from using taxpayer funding for her legal defense of the election crimes linked to her personal election – a prohibition Gleason hammers home, citing cases like Ervin v. Collins (1956) and Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach (1990), along with AGO 2001-51, which explicitly states public funds cannot defend a public officer in their individual capacity in election contests. Florida Statute §111.07 further bars defense for bad faith actions outside the scope of official duties, including “Official Misconduct” and felony fraud, as reinforced by Florida Attorney General Opinion 77-87, which flatly declares that neither county funds nor office budgets may be spent to defend a successful candidate in an election contest, as such litigation is purely personal. This stance is echoed in a 2008 informal AG opinion, which advised that a city could not pay legal fees for an elected commissioner named as an indispensable party in an election contest under §102.168(4), emphasizing that the defense pertains to the individual’s candidacy, not official duties; drawing directly from prior opinions like AGO 77-87 and AGO 2001-53 to underscore that public coffers are off-limits for what amounts to a private political battle. Adding to the firestorm, Chief Judge Shawn Crane has had numerous judicial ethics complaints filed against him for his conduct related to the events directly at issue in this case, further fueling questions about oversight in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.

As tensions boil, the Second District Court of Appeal barrels ahead, ignoring Gleason’s pleas. Their November 5, 2025, order – denying his motions to expose the conflicts and enter defaults – ominously declares the appeals “will proceed” to a merits decision, potentially any day now. Gleason, racing against the clock, fired off an emergency stay application to the Supreme Court on November 6, warning of “imminent irreparable harm”: mooted petitions, procedural mayhem, and a mandate unleashing trial court chaos before the high court can intervene. “If these disqualified judges rule, the proceedings are void ab initio – dead on arrival,” he warns, quoting Rivera v. State (1998) to underscore the irreversible taint.

Gleason’s pro se odyssey reads like a legal thriller: A September 2025 Supreme Court smackdown struck his initial petition on technicalities, only for him to rebound with a rehearing motion, securing acceptance on October 6 and thrusting the case into the spotlight. Freshly discovered evidence – sworn affidavits, election logs, and acknowledgments of fraud – pours fuel on the fire, filed in a November 6 notice that cements the judges’ victimization. Every piece of this damning puzzle has been submitted to the courts under sworn declarations under penalty of perjury, including Gleason’s massive 1,907-page Judicial Conflict Appendix, meticulously organized into Tabs A-Z. This trove details individual conflicts for judges like Villanti (fraudulent VBM on his record), Khouzam (September 9 request), Silberman (family member affected), Rothstein-Youakim (June 23 fraud), LaRose (personal entry), Black (September victimization), Muscarella (witness status), Ramsberger (direct tampering), and Crane (improper assignments and ignored complaints). Backed by affidavits from witnesses like John W. Liccione (confirming “N/N” concealment), Christine Peters, and John Siamas; protected voter logs; administrative orders showing cover-ups; and hearing transcripts exposing county attorneys’ falsehoods (e.g., exaggerated “19,000 hours” claims, contradictions on fraud, and bogus “critical infrastructure” seals to hide software bugs or glitches enabling the anomalies).

In a stunning escalation, over 200 sworn elector petitions under §104.43, F.S., demand grand jury probes into Marcus’s alleged crimes, all hand-delivered to Chief Judge Crane—who’s done nothing, Gleason charges. Meanwhile, State Attorney Bruce Bartlett stands accused of stonewalling investigations, burying material facts like the systemic “N/N” entries (potentially from software bugs allowing unauthorized logging), and refusing to act on affidavits despite direct deliveries to his office. Transcripts reveal desperate attempts to seal records, framing vulnerabilities as “hacking risks” while concealing the fraud’s true scale.

Skeptics may brand Gleason a sore loser tilting at windmills, but his arsenal of precedents – from Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) on bias to Livingston v. State (1983) on judicial integrity – paints a damning portrait, all backed by the state’s own data proving systemic fraud. “Public confidence in justice hangs by a thread,” he intones, arguing a brief stay averts catastrophe: wasted resources on phantom rulings, eroded faith in elections, and a judiciary exposed as fallible.

As the Florida Supreme Court deliberates – with no ruling yet on the stay or petition – the stakes couldn’t be higher. Will Gleason’s crusade expose a rigged system, forcing recusals and resets? Representatives for the courts and Marcus remain tight-lipped, her office insisting the election was pristine. But in this powder keg of politics and power, one thing’s certain: Florida’s judicial halls are echoing with accusations that could redefine impartiality  or ignite a firestorm of reform.

If you live in Pinellas County and you received a vote by mail ballot for the 2024 Primary Election, you too are a potential victim and material witness to this explosive election fraud case. Numerous concerned Pinellas County voters have reported via sworn affidavits that their ballots had been illegally requested on Sunday June 23, 2024. As a concerned voter if you were a victim of this scheme, you should contact the Tampa FBI office to report the crime.

This article draws from explosive public filings in Florida Supreme Court Case No. SC2025-1102. Stay tuned for detonations as the drama unfolds.