• BREAKING: Gleason Files Affidavit In Pinellas County Accusing Officials Of Perjury, Forgery, Altering Election Documents

    May 20, 2023
    1 Comment

    Please Follow us on GabMinds, TelegramRumble, Gab TV, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter

    Election integrity activist Chris Gleason has filed court documents today alleging PInellas County election officials have committed multiple serious crimes, including forgery, perjury, altering election documents, etc.

    1. In the “AFFIDAVIT OF JULIE MARCUS, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS” referenced as Exhibit A by Defendant(s) – on page 3 of 5 in Section 11, Marcus states being duly sworn, under penalty of perjury that the EL45A, EL30A, and EL52 reports are not mandated by Florida Statute. While Florida Statute does not specifically mention the reports by the names used by election system manufacturer ES&S the data contained in these reports are 100% mandated by Florida Statute 98.0981. See attached Exhibit A -Page1of10,Page2of10–FIGURE1
    2. Furthermore, Defendant(s) Julie Marcus falsely claims under penalty of perjury that she retains discretionary authority over the content incorporated within these or similar reports generated from tabulation systems. Florida Statute 98.0981(2) is very clear that the required duty to provide the data is REQUIRED, as in mandatory and non-discretionary as evidenced by the word SHALL.
    3. On March 13, 2023, at 10:55 am Plaintiff submitted a public records request to Defendant(s) requesting the following documents:

    “November 2018 General Election - EL45A, EL30A, EL52 - OFFICIAL RESULTS”

    “November 2020 General Election - EL45A, EL30A, EL52 - OFFICIAL RESULTS”

    “November 2022 General Election - EL45A, EL30A, EL52 - OFFICIAL RESULTS”

    1. On March 13, 2023, at 11:05 am the Defendant(s) sent an email acknowledging the request.
    2. On March 29, 2023, at 1:39 pm Defendant(s) responded to the request by attaching scanned paper images in the .pdf file format for the November 2018,

    Page 2 of 8

    2020, and 2022 General Elections. The documents provided by the Defendant(s) did not conform to the public records request as they were requested in a digital format, such as .csv or XML.

    9. Furthermore, the data provided in the document provided did not meet the mandatory, non-discretionary requirements set forth in Florida Statue 98.098(2)(a) “...The results shall specifically include for each precinct the total of all ballots cast for each candidate or nominee to fill a national, state, county, or district office or proposed constitutional amendment, with subtotals for each candidate and ballot type.”

    According to Florida Statue 98.098(2)(a) “...“All ballots cast” means ballots cast by voters who cast a ballot whether at a precinct location, by vote-by-mail ballot including overseas vote-by-mail ballots, during the early voting period, or by provisional ballot.

    10. Defendant(s) intentionally altered/forged/uttered the requested “FINAL OFFICIAL RESULTS” records requested to exclude “ALL BALLOTS CAST” data. This data is mandatory, and non-discretionary per Florida Statute, 98.098(1) and 98.098(2)(a). These actions on the part of Defendant(s) were done knowingly and willingly. Referring to attached EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 10, Figure 2 and Page 3 of 10, Figure 3.

    In the documents that the Defendant(s) submitted in response to the public records request the altered/forged/uttered documents clearly show that the Defendant(s) forged “FINAL OFFICAL RESULTS” To prove forgery, the following elements are typically required: a. Falsification: It must be demonstrated that someone intentionally altered, made, completed, executed, or authenticated a document, writing, or instrument in a fraudulent manner. b. Fraudulent intent: There should be evidence to show that the act of falsification was done with the intent to deceive or defraud another person or entity. c. Materiality: The forged document or writing should be of legal significance or have some legal consequences. To prove uttering, the following elements are typically required: a. Knowledge of forgery: It must be established that the person knew or had reason to know that the document was forged. b. Presenting or using: There should be evidence to demonstrate that the person knowingly presented or used the forged

    Page 3 of 8

    document as genuine. c. Intent to deceive or defraud: It must be shown that the person had the intent to deceive or defraud another party by using the forged document.

    11. The evidence of the forging and uttering of “FINAL OFFICAL RESULTS” can be seen clearly in attached Exhibit A, Pages 4 of 10, FIGURE 4, Page 5 of 10, FIGURE 5, and Page 6 of 10, Figure 6.

    12.Defendant(s) willfully and knowingly produced forged and uttered documents in a format that did not meet the mandatory, non-discretionary file requirements as set forth in Florida Statute 98.098(2) nor in the uniform format in which they are generated, kept and transmitted. See attached Exhibit A, Page 7 of 10, Figure 7.

    13.Additionally, Defendant(s) provided a cost estimate to Plaintiff for printing, reviewing, and redacting the EL30A and EL52 reports for November 2018, 2020, and 2022 General Elections. Plaintiff had specifically requested the digital formats, such as .csv or XML.

    14.According to page 3 of 5 in section 13, Defendant, Julie Marcus admits that the data contained in the EL30A is maintained. However, Defendant, Julie Marcus claims that it is not generated during the normal course of conducting elections. This statement is false. The data contained in the EL30A is required under: Florida Statute

    attached Exhibit A

    15.The image contained in attached Exhibit A, Page 8 of 10 FIGURE 8 clearly shows that REPORT EL30A had been generated on 11/1/20 11:39 AM. The image also shows that the mandatory, non-discretionary data for “Ballots Cast – Blank” and “Provisional Ballots” is missing.

    16.In order to generate a report that does not contain “Ballots Cast – Blank” and “Provisional Ballot” the Defendant(s) would have to intentionally alter the mandatory, non-discretionary, and statutorily required data formats and reports.

    ELECTION RESULTS. See

    Page 4 of 8

    98.0981 (2) PRECINCT-LEVEL

    , Page 7 of 10 and Page 8 of

    10, FIGURE 8.

    Therefore, the statement made by Defendant(s) Marcus and counsel for the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections office that the reports were not generated is patently false.

    17.Furthermore, the information that Defendant(s) claim to be contained in the EL30A is false through the “OMISSION” of “PROVISIONAL BALLOTS”. 18.On page 3 of 5 in section 15. Defendant claims that the data contained in the

    EL52 REPORT is maintained, however, is not generated during the normal course of conducting elections. Counsel for Plaintiff claims that the EL30A Reports and EL52 Reports are not in existence.

    If the EL30A Reports and EL52 Reports are not in existence, then the Defendant(s) have violated Florida Statute 98.0981, they have also failed to perform the mandatory, non-discretionary duties required by law.

    19.The counsel for Defendant(s) also claims that there is a massive amount of work that must be done to generate these reports. This statement is also patently false.

    Defendant(s) use this as an excuse to charge an unreasonable service charge, with the expressed intent to prevent the disclosure of the mandatory, non- discretionary production of public records in order to conceal the evidence of their neglect of duty, crimes, and corrupt practices.

    The requested data and reports are routinely supplied by Supervisors of Elections across the State of Florida and in other states free of charge without unreasonable costs. See attached Exhibit B

    20.Attached as EXHIBIT C are screenshots of these EL45A, EL30A, and EL52 reports.

    The screenshots of these reports show with absolute certainty that the Defendant(s) - Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections and the select, high- ranking personnel with access to this data are the only individuals who are capable of altering, forging, and uttering these mandatory, non-discretionary reports and data.

    Page 5 of 8

    21.On page 4 of 5 in section 16. Defendant(s) claim “that the security apparatus and computer systems containing the data and software used are complex in nature.”

    22. The important caveat is “SECURITY APPARATUS”. The ES&S software and hardware contain security features such as encryption and hash verification.

    23.When a file is modified there is an entry in an Audit Log and the file has a hash verification code. Each modification to the file is tracked and logged. Every action is tracked and logged. This Audit Log is called the EL68A. There is also a log that tracks changes made to election results called the EL68. See attached Exhibit A, Page 9 of 10, Figure 9

    24.Not one document produced by Defendant(s) in the public records requests conformed to mandatory, non-discretional requirements under Florida Statute 98.098(1) or Florida Statute 98.098(2).

    25.Not one document produced by Defendant(s) was in the electronic format in which they were generated, stored, or transmitted. A scanned paper copy of an altered printed document does not qualify as compliance with any statute.

    26.A detailed explanation of the importance and relevance of “BLANK BALLOTS – CAST” and the contents of the ES&S Election Systems reports is attached as Exhibit D - PRELIMINARY REPORT ON MARYLAND ELECTIONS BLANK BALLOTS.

    27.On May 2, 2023 at 12:57 PM, May 16, 2023 at 4:24 PM, May 17, 2023 at 4:04 PM, Plaintiff made repeated additional public records requests for the following ES&S Election Systems reports:

    o “November 2018 General Election - Report EL68A System Log, EL68, Manual Entry Report, & Results Corrections Log”

    o “November 2020 General Election - Report EL68A System Log, EL68, Manual Entry Report, & Results Corrections Log”

    Page 6 of 8

    o “November 2022 General Election - Report EL68A System Log, EL68, Manual Entry Report, & Results Corrections Log”

    The records request specifically requested that this data be provided in the digital format in which this report is generated, kept and transmitted which is a .LST file. See attached Exhibit E

    28. On May 18, 2023 at 1:42 PM Defendant(s) responded to the Plaintiff’s public records request. See attached Exhibit F. The Defendant(s) response to the request did not comply with the mandatory, non-discretionary duties required Pursuant to Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapter 119, Chapter 98 F.S.,

    29.Defendant(s) intentionally, knowingly, and willfully did not produce the documents in the file format requested by Plaintiff in violation of their mandatory, non-discretionary duty.

    30.Defendant(s) once again attempted to not comply with their mandatory, non- discretionary duties through the imposition of unreasonable service fees in an effort to conceal the evidence of their neglect of duty, crimes, and corrupt practices in violation of the Florida Constitution Article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and Chapter 119, Chapter 98 F.S., .

    You can read the entire court filing below:

    ‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!  

    ·        Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Describes Ties From Pre-911 To Bioweapons And Pandemic

    ·        Organization Forms In Cherokee County – To Move Away From GOP?

    SHARE THIS ARTICLE

    Continue Reading

    guest

    1 Comment
    Oldest
    Newest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Don Smith
    Don Smith
    7 months ago

    Lock her up. She’s a cheater. There’s another Supervisor of elections in a county just north of pinellas that needs to be fired. Pasco is corrupt. Can we look into Pasco?

    Follow Us

  • Miami has long suffered from a lack of opposing opinions to the corporate media narrative. We aim to create Miami's and Florida's premier investigative newspaper and will bring the truth, no matter where that truth lands
    Copyright © 2024 The Miami Independent
    contact@creativedestruction
    media.com
    magnifier