Failure of the Federal Election Commission to Investigate Complaint of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election
"I reject the violent rampage at the U.S. Capital January 6, 2021. I believe those folks are angry because they know something is terribly wrong in American; they are right about that fact. But their frustration and lack understanding of the seditious conspiracy by the judicial branch that has usurped our Republic has caused them to lash out in wrong ways that brings discredit to themselves and discredit to their cause"
- - Neil J. Gillespie, Paragraph 23, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, RULE 17, PROCEDURE IN AN ORIGINAL ACTION, Supreme Court of the United States, January 13, 2021, Re: FEC Complaint Of Election Fraud In The 2020 Presidential Election.
_________________________________________________________
FEC FORM 99 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION, JUN-25-2026NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT, ID C00627810
As the Candidate, and Treasurer of my committee, NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT, Committee Id: C00627810, I hereby file my WRITTEN OBJECTION to the administrative termination my committee pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §30103(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and Commission regulations at 11 CFR §102.4, as described in the letter dated May 27, 2026 from Deborah Chacona, Assistant Staff Director, Federal Election Commission (FEC).
My objection to the administrative termination of my committee is made, in part, in support the Department of Justice (DOJ) Anti-Weaponization Fund. If the FEC had properly acted on my Complaint of Election Fraud in the 2020 Election, the incident at the Capital on January 6, 2021 may have been avoided. Attached you will find the following copies:
1. My email Monday, December 14, 2020 3:43 PM, FEC COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
2. A response email Tuesday, December 15, 2020 1:29 PM from the FEC.
3. My email Thursday, December 17, 2020 7:40 PM FEC COMPLAINT OF ELECTION FRAUD IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (Mailed).
4. A response letter January 6, 2021 from CELA, the FEC Complaints Examining & Legal Administration. Tellingly the letter is wrongly dated January 6, 2020. However the accompanying email from CELA correctly shows it was sent on Wednesday, January 06, 2021 5:29 PM, from Trace Keeys Paralegal, Federal Election Commission Complaints Examination & Legal Administration.
Also see my MISCELLANEOUS REPORT TO FEC filed 01/31/2026 (147 pages)
The letter of Ms. Chacona, addressed to me as "Dear Treasurer", states in part:
"Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §30103(d)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, and Commission regulations at 11 CFR §102.4, the Commission intends to administratively terminate your committee. As such, your committee is no longer obligated to file reports. However, any receipt or disbursement of funds by the committee for the purpose of influencing a Federal election or supporting a federal candidate will void the administrative termination. In such an event, the committee will be required to begin filing reports with the appropriate office. The first such report will include any activity since the date of the last report filed by the committee. The treasurer of the committee has 30 days from the day of receipt of this notice to object to this administrative termination. If a written objection is not received by the Commission within 30 days, this action will take effect."
On May 4, 2026 I filed a Form 99 for my committee, NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT, Committee Id: C00627810, suspended activity while I participate in my campaign for the United States Senate for Florida. On April 24, 2026 I qualified as a No Party Affiliation (NPA) candidate for the United States Senate for Florida in the 2026 general election on November 3, 2026. While I am running for the Senate, I am not actively campaigning for the presidential committee (i.e. raising or spending funds).
I filed the aforementioned Form 99 after email correspondence with my RAD analyst Chris Jones, Reports Analysis Division. RAD analyst Jill Sugarman, Reports Analysis Division, advised that I am not required to terminate my presidential committee. It may remain open with the FEC.
NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT, Committee Id: C00627810
NEIL J GILLESPIE, Candidate ID: P60022993
NEIL J GILLESPIE FOR US SENATE, Committee ID: C00943399
NEIL J GILLESPIE, Candidate ID: S6FL00863
The letter dated May 27, 2026 from Deborah Chacona concluded, "If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jacqueline Gausepohl in the Reports Analysis Division"
On May 28, 2026 at 2:03 PM I telephoned Jacqueline Gausepohl at 202-694-1277 to discuss the intention of Federal Election Commission to terminate my committee. During my eight minute phone call, Ms. Gausepohl said once my committee was terminated, I would no longer be required to file reports. I responded that my campaign had already suspended activity while I campaigned for the senate, and therefore no reports would be due. I also cited my email November 21, 2025 to FEC Chair Shana M. Broussard, et al, my FOIA request of April 24, 2025, and evidence of lawfare against me as a candidate for president in 2020. That lawfare included evidence of negligent homicide of my associate Sarah Thompson by state actors on May 12, 2021.
I also clarified with Ms. Gausepohl that I have not accepted any outside contributions for my presidential campaign, but that I was required to disclose my own in-kind contributions, as a content creator online for my campaign, and as pro se litigant representing my interest as a candidate, in lieu of paid legal fees to a law firm. I would estimate my in-kind contributions would be worth perhaps $250,000. There is no limit on a candidate's contributions to his own campaign. On May 19, 2022 I was evicted at gunpoint by the Marion County Sheriff's Office on a writ of possession by counsel for the Federal National Mortgage Association, a.k.a. FANNIE MAE on a HECM reverse mortgage. At the time of eviction the home was my campaign office as shown on the deed, Neil J. Gillespie For President.
On May 29, 2026 I telephoned Ms. Gausepohl at 1:59 PM and objected to the termination of my committee, and said I would file a written objection within 30 days.
I plan to intervene in Trump v IRS, USDC, SDFL Case No. 1.26-cv-20609 (Anti-Weaponization Fund) U.S. Judge Kathleen Williams and Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett presiding.
In Dunn v Trump et al, USCD, District of Columbia Case No. 1.26-cv-01719, U.S. Judge Richard Leon presiding, two Capital Policemen, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges, sued over the Anti-Weaponization Fund. Officer Dunn and Officer Hodges have a right to know the FEC failed to act on a legitimate Complaint of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election.
In Andrew Floyd v DOJ, USDC, Eastern Division Virginia, Case No. 1.26-cv-1399, Plaintiffs Andrew Floyd, Jonathan Caravello, City of New Haven, National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause, contend "The Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury have created a $1.776 billion slush fund—from taxpayer dollars—to dispense payment to those the Trump-Vance administration favors. Since its inception, this fund has been on a collision course with the United States Constitution." No. My complaint shows a lawyer admitted to practice law is an officer of the court, and a member of the judicial branch of government, and constitutionally prohibited from serving as vice president. That means J.D. Vance, as a lawyer admitted to practice, should be removed from office. U.S. Judge Leonie Brinkema and Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis are presiding.
In two other cases, Perkins Coie LLP v DOJ et al, DC Circuit Court of Appeal No. 25-5241, Trial Judge Beryl Howell; USDC, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:25-cv-00716-BAH, and American Bar Association (ABA) v Trump DOJ et al, DC Circuit Court of Appeal No. 25-5128
Trial Judge Amir H. Ali, USDC-District of Columbia Case No. 1.25-cv-01888, each of those cases argue separation of powers prevents President Trump from jurisdiction over lawyers and law firms. The ABA even cites the same case I rely upon: Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866).
The enclosed Transcript of the CBS News 60 Minutes episode with Scott Pelly, The Rule of Law, May 2, 2025, shows this quote by John Keker:
"John Keker: We don't have to agree on politics but we do have to agree that the legal profession has to protect the rule of law in the United States. Which means lawyers and judges need to be independent from the executive branch. [Yes; see Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)]"
This means the executive branch and the legislate branch also need to be independent of lawyers and judges. Ex parte Garland held that lawyers are governed by the judicial branch. But law firms are something different. The enclosed Affidavit of Kenneth L. Marvin of The Florida Bar shows the Bar only regulates lawyers, but not law firms. The affidavit is dated October 7, 2010, during the foreclosure crisis when "foreclosure mill" law firms were taking the homes of Americans without due process. The Florida Bar ignored wrongdoing by foreclosure mills on that basis. President Trump (as the executive) therefore has an oversight duty of law firms. Of course, law firms only want other lawyers to regulate them, lawyers admitted to practice like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The latter scheme offends the Constitution of the United States.
I affirm that Neil J. Gillespie is my legal name. I have both court documents and drivers license that can attest to this. If there is any question, these documents will be provided for verification.
Neil J. Gillespie, Treasurer
NEIL J. GILLESPIE FOR PRESIDENT, Committee Id: C00627810
NEIL J GILLESPIE, Candidate ID: P60022993
How law firms targeted by Trump are responding to White House pressure
Scott Pelley: It was nearly impossible to get anyone on camera for this story because of the fear now running through our system of justice. In recent weeks, President Trump has signed orders against several law firms. Orders with the power to destroy them. That matters because lawsuits have been a check on the president's power. Many firms and attorneys have been targeted. Among them, Mark Elias, a longtime opponent of Trump, who is the only lawyer the president has named, who was willing to appear on 60 Minutes. Elias and others are warning that Trump's assault on the legal profession threatens the rule of law itself. Elias says that for him, it began with the President's personal grudge.
Automated voice: The story will continue in a moment.
Mark Elias: Donald Trump hates me because I fight hard, and I fight for free and fair elections. I insist on fighting for democracy in court, fighting for voting rights in court, and insist on telling the truth about what the outcome of the 2020 election was.
Scott Pelley: Are there risks in doing the work that you're doing?
Marc Elias: I'd be an idiot not to be worried. The question though is what do you do? Right? Do you just cower in the corner? Do you just try to disappear? Do you just leave democracy to fend for itself? Or do you stand tall and do the best you can every day to represent your clients and try to preserve the rule of law?
Scott Pelley: Mark Elias first cross Trump in 2016. He was the top lawyer for the Clinton campaign. Then in 2020 when Trump and Allies challenged the election results, Elias fought in court and won.
Marc Elias: The walking...
Scott Pelley: Trump calls him a thug.
Marc Elias: Donald Trump is the walking embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American political system. And so when Donald Trump says that I am unethical or that I am undermining his vision of America, I say, boy, I must be doing something right.
Scott Pelley: Elias was top of mind for Trump this past March. Both he and another lawyer who had once investigated the president.
President Trump: With the help of radicals like Mark Elias, Mark Pomerance, and these are people that nobody's ever seen anything like it. So many others. But these are people that are bad people. Really bad people. They tried to turn America into a corrupt, communist, and third world country. But in the end the thugs failed and the truth won.
Scott Pelley: Beginning in February, the president signed the orders attacking the law firms.
President Trump: Wait, I just wanna savor this one, please.
Scott Pelley: Six firms in six weeks. Including Mark Elias's former firm. Each had a connection to an investigation or legal case related to Trump or his allies, including Robert Mueller's 2017 probe of Russian election meddling, subversion of the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents.
President Trump: This is an absolute honor to say what they've done is. And it just terrible.[crosstalk]
Scott Pelley: Targeted firms say what the president signed amounted to a corporate death penalty.
President Trump: And it should never be allowed to happen again.
Scott Pelley: The orders threaten to bar attorneys from where they work, courthouses and federal agencies. And cancel the contracts of law firm clients. For example, an aerospace company could lose its federal contracts if it stayed with the firm. A senior partner at one firm told us the president's orders were "diabolical", intended to bankrupt us. He said within hours his major clients were threatening to drop his firm. It took only a matter of days before America's wealthiest and most powerful law firms buckled. In a shock to the legal community, nine major firms went to the White House to make a deal. Some say they were pressured not by a written order but by a message from the White House threatening an order.
Marc Elias: He is trying to intimidate them. The way in which a mob boss intimidates people in the neighborhood. That he is seeking to either exact protection money from or engage in other nefarious conduct. I mean, the fact is that these law firms are being told, if you don't play ball with us, maybe something really bad will happen to you.
Scott Pelley: The nine firms did not admit wrongdoing but altogether they agreed to give nearly $1 billion in legal services to causes that the firms and Trump support.
Donald Ayer: Our whole system of government is at stake.
Scott Pelley: Attorney Donald Ayer should know he argued before the Supreme Court for the Reagan administration. He was Deputy Attorney General for George HW Bush.
Donald Ayer: And that's their argument. And what anybody...
Scott Pelley: Today he teaches at Georgetown Law.
Donald Ayer: The idea that the president would issue executive orders aimed at any either specific person or organization, and stating that they're being punished because they're doing things that are politically disapproved by the people in power. That- that is completely unprecedented.
Scott Pelley: Nobody has that right, including the president.
Donald Ayer: No, absolutely not. I think the president... President's an elected person and he has the right to do a great many things. But he doesn't have the right to essentially cancel out your right to have a lawyer of your choosing represent you in court by scaring the lawyer through threats that their personal livelihood will be destroyed.
Scott Pelley: Now, America's legal community is torn between those who want to fight and those who made a deal. One firm that reached an agreement with Trump was Skadden Arps.
Brenna Frey: System...
Scott Pelley: Where Attorney Brenna Frey resigned in protest.
Brenna Frey: I think the message it sends to the country is power is what matters. If you have power, you can exercise that power however you want. And if that's true, why have a legal system at all? Why have law firms or lawyers at all?
Scott Pelley: You thought that Skadden would fight?
Brenna Frey: Absolutely.
Scott Pelley: Why did you think so?
Brenna Frey: Because that's a foundational principle of the firm. That we are zealous advocates for the law.
Scott Pelley: Why did this mean so much to you that you felt you had to quit?
Brenna Frey: The law firm is tacitly saying, we'll, listen to the administration. We won't fight in court. If we won't fight over this what else won't we fight over in court against the federal government?
Scott Pelley: In a note to its staff, Skadden Arps called its deal with Trump extraordinarily difficult but the best path to protect our clients, our people, and our firm.
Brenna Frey: I think that they're naive if they think this makes the issue go away.
Scott Pelley: Naive. What do you mean?
Brenna Frey: There was nothing in these agreements that prevents the president from issuing another executive order against the law firm in the future.
Donald Ayer: Someone must stand up to this because it is a direct attack on the whole functioning of our judicial system.
Scott Pelley: Four firms are standing up and fighting in court. Judges protected them with temporary restraining orders. Law Professor Donald Ayer says in his view, Trump's orders violate the constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and the right to counsel.
Donald Ayer: Everyone's got a right to a lawyer, everyone's got a right to go to court, and it's something we've always assumed to be true and now it's threatened.
Scott Pelley: So if the president targets a few specific law firms, the message to law firms across the country, in a nutshell, is what?
Donald Ayer: I think the message is, that this can happen to you. But it's a real effort to prevent zealous representation of your client's legal interest when that results in something unacceptable to the administration.
John Keker: You're at the mercy of the government and it, it really, it's like a protection racket.
Scott Pelley: John Ecker is a prominent attorney and Democrat in San Francisco. You're not suggesting that the president's running a protection racket?
John Keker: I am. I'm, I'm, I'm suggesting that he is, uh, violating the rule that says you can't offer a thing of value in return for an official act. That happens to be the definition of bribery. Anybody else who came to Washington and said, I will give you a hundred million dollars of free legal services if you do this for me, would be convicted of a bribe.
Scott Pelley: Ecker is helping recruit law firms nationwide to fight back. More than 500 firms, large and small have signed up in support.
John Keker: We don't have to agree on politics but we do have to agree that the legal profession has to protect the rule of law in the United States. Which means lawyers and judges need to be independent from the executive branch. [Yes; see Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)]
Scott Pelley: If the president brings the legal profession to heal, what situation is the country in then?
John Keker: No rule of law. You're in a dictatorship. That's what happened in China, it happens in Russia, these are legal systems that look like legal systems, but in fact are controlled by a dictatorship.
President Trump: I just think that, uh, the law firms have to behave themselves.
Scott Pelley: Trump's attack on the law firms has been described by a federal judge as a personal vendetta. None of his targets is charged with any crime. Trump, however, was indicted by federal grand juries in cases about the 2020 election and allegedly concealing classified documents. He pleaded not guilty. Those prosecutions were dropped only because he was reelected. Last year, a state jury convicted him of falsifying business records, making him the first felon in the Oval Office.
President Trump: I've been targeted for four years longer than that. So you don't tell me about targeting. I was the target of, uh, corrupt politicians for four years and then four years after that, uh... So don't talk to me about targeting.
Scott Pelley: In Trump's defense government lawyers argue in court that his orders against the firms ensure that tax money is not supporting unlawful or unsavory practices. Another filing says the executive branch is merely managing who it does business with, not punishing anyone. And the government argues that the orders are "well within the scope of presidential prerogative."
President Trump: Well, the law firms all wanna make deals. You mean the law firms that we're going after that went after me for four years, ruthlessly, violently, illegally. You mean the... Are those are law firms you're talking about? They're not babies. They're very sophisticated people. Uh, those law firms did bad things. Bad things. They went after me for years. Uh, Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, all a hoax.
Scott Pelley: What Trump means by a hoax were allegations in 2016 of shady dealings with Russia by Trump and his campaign. He's right that the FBI could not corroborate what was described as rumor. At least one allegation was promoted to the media by Clinton campaign representatives when Mark Elias was general counsel. In this memo, six weeks ago, Trump says Elias is an example of grossly unethical misconduct. The President directs the Attorney General to seek sanctions against any lawyer anywhere for unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the government. Unreasonable apparently, in the eye of the president.
Scott Pelley: Are we reaching a point where a person will go to a law firm with a case that is opposed to the president of the United States, and the law firm will think, do we really want to take this case?
Marc Elias: We're already there. They are deciding not to take on certain kinds of clients that might upset the administration. Or not bring- taking on certain kinds of causes that might put them in the crosshairs of the administration.
Scott Pelley: If lawyers give up their independence, what is lost?
Marc Elias: The rule of law. And this is why the business community ought to care. Today it might be that, you know, Donald Trump thinks he can take over the election system through one of his executive orders. Tomorrow, maybe it's the banking system. After that, maybe it's contracts, maybe he decrees, I'm gonna decide which contracts are binding, and which contracts aren't binding. So the legal system is fundamental to how our society operates, how capitalism operates, and everyone should have a stake in that.
Scott Pelley: Conservative law Professor Donald Ayer is optimistic the courts will strike down the president's orders. The question then he told us, is whether Trump will obey.
Donald Ayer: This is a very big deal. What's happening now is a very big deal. It's a whole nother chapter in our history and we need to call upon the values that have brought us to where we are, um, in order to get through it.
Scott Pelley: In a late development Friday evening a federal judge permanently blocked President Trump's order against one of the law firms. Saying that the order is unconstitutional. No word yet on whether the administration will appeal.
[END]
This document was prepared by Neil J. Gillespie. 17 U.S. Code § 101 et seq. Fair Use in the public interest for justice education in the United States of America. (Edited June 29, 2026)
No comments:
Post a Comment