Virginia Lawsuit Seeks Court Judgment on Election Officer’s Vetting of Kamala Harris

“DID THEY DO IT OR NOT?”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 8, 2020) — On September 28, the organization Rural & Red Political Action Committee (PAC) of Clarksville, VA filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” in the Mecklenburg County, VA Circuit Court naming Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Elections Robert H. Brink, Esq. as defendant as to the question of whether or not he properly vetted Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s constitutional eligibility to serve in that capacity should she and running-mate Joseph R. Biden win the November 3 election.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen,” and the 12th Amendment mandates that a vice-presidential candidate meet all of the requirements for president.

Rural & Red President Harold Gielow, a 22-year Marine veteran, writer and non-lawyer, is listed on the case as “Plaintiff 2” and will be presenting his argument unassisted, he told us in an interview on Wednesday.  When we asked him his reason for launching the lawsuit, he replied, “I served as a United States Marine officer for 22 years and I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, foreign and domestic, for 22 years, and I took it seriously, and I believe our Constitution is being trampled.”

The court docket does not contain the complaint, but rather, only rudimentary information on the case.  Scheduled for an initial hearing on October 15, the complaint, which Gielow sent to us directly, claims that Brink failed to “ensure that major risks to election integrity are (i) identified and assessed and (ii) addressed as necessary to promote election uniformity, legality, and purity” in accordance with state statute.

“Defendant Robert H. Brink, Esq., Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Elections, is responsible under Virginia law for supervising and coordinating the work of the county and city electoral boards and of the registrars to obtain uniformity in their practices and proceedings, and legality and purity in all elections, to wit, that all candidates be legally qualified to hold the office for which they are a candidate,” the complaint states.

Under the subheading “Nature of Complaint,” Gielow wrote, “Lack of clarity on the natural born citizen issue necessitates state action under Virginia state law requiring pursuit of election integrity and that candidates be legally qualified for the office they seek.  The only action the defendant has available to remove this controversy is to seek clarity from a three judge Federal District Court with prompt review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the only entity which can resolve the issue.  Defendant’s failure to take such action, plaintiff alleges, is a violation of their responsibilities under Virginia state law.”

Virginia Code 24.2-103 begins, “The State Board, through the Department of Elections, shall supervise and coordinate the work of the county and city electoral boards and of the registrars to obtain uniformity in their practices and proceedings and legality and purity in all elections.  Its supervision shall ensure that major risks to election integrity are (i) identified and assessed and (ii) addressed as necessary to promote election uniformity, legality, and purity. It shall make rules and regulations and issue instructions and provide information consistent with the election laws to the electoral boards and registrars to promote the proper administration of election laws.”

Gielow said his seeking of a Declaratory Judgment from a court of law stems from a telephone call he had with an official at the Virginia State Board of Elections who informed him, in response to his question as to Harris’s eligibility, that “There was no need” to look into the matter.

“We’ll see what the judge says, but the law is clear,” Gielow continued.  “It clearly says the chairman of the State Board of Elections for Virginia is tasked with identifying and assessing threats and any issues with respect to the legality and purity in our elections, especially that candidates who are on the ballot for a position are eligible for that position.  It’s clearly in the law. So the question is, ‘Did what they did satisfy the law?” and I would say clearly it doesn’t.  They’re saying they didn’t ask a Title III court; what they did ask is the DNC, ‘Is she eligible?’ ‘Oh, yes, she’s eligible,'” he said.

“Given that there’s a clear controversy on what the eligibility requirements are; even though the president has talked about it, although he didn’t go into depth but it’s been an issue that was on national news; given that Newsweek has printed John Eastman’s article questioning Kamala Harris’s eligibility; and it’s been an issue since Obama was elected and since Chester Arthur was elected, I would say that they must know or they were expected to know that there is a controversy,” Gielow further reasoned.

He filed the case locally, he said, because “in my research, I found that the best chances of getting a hearing on this is in the state courts, especially for a declaratory judgment-type case, because the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have review authority of state courts for declaratory judgments.  So they can’t dismiss it out of hand.”

The October 15 hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. EDT, according to the court docket, and, according to Gielow, will take place in a traditional, in-person format.

Summarizing, Gielow said, “It’s a simple question:  ‘Judge, what do you think?  This is what the law says; did they do it or not?'”

The entire complaint as received from Gielow reads:

VIRGINIA:  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG

RURAL AND RED

Harold R. Gielow

3006 Trottinridge Rd.

Calksville, Virginia 23927

v.

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Robert H. Brink, Esq

Washington Bldg

1100 Bank St. First Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

​​_____________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT

1.  Pursuant to Virginia Code 24.2-103 and 8.01-184, Plaintiff Gielow, President of Rural and Red Political Action Committee, pro se, respectfully requests that this court provide declaratory judgment as to defendant Brink’s failure to uphold Virginia election law.

PARTIES

2.  Plaintiff Harold Gielow is President of Rural and Red Political Action Committee (PAC), a PAC registered in Virginia and with the Federal Election Commission.  He claims for the PAC uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon lack of defendant’s action under Virginia Code 24.2-103 to “ensure that major risks to election integrity are (i) identified and assessed and (ii) addressed as necessary to promote election uniformity, legality, and purity.”  The by laws of Rural and Red PAC, under purposes and powers, state as the number 1 core principle to advocate for candidates who will “Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States.”

3.  Defendant Robert H. Brink, Esq., Chairman of the Virginia State Board of Elections, is responsible under Virginia law for supervising and coordinating the work of the county and city electoral boards and of the registrars to obtain uniformity in their practices and proceedings, and legality and purity in all elections, to wit, that all candidates be legally qualified to hold the office for which they are a candidate.

NATURE OF COMPLAINT

5.  Lack of clarity on the natural born citizen issue necessitates state action under Virginia state law requiring pursuit of election integrity and that candidates be legally qualified for the office they seek.  The only action the defendant has available to remove this controversy is to seek clarity from a three judge Federal District Court with prompt review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the only entity which can resolve the issue.  Defendant’s failure to take such action, plaintiff alleges, is a violation of their responsibilities under Virginia state law.

TIMELINESS

6.  No contest provisions are provided in the Code of Virginia for a presidential primary, and rules for contest of elections of electors for President provide no recourse for pre-election filing.  This request seeks a resolution in order to solicit action before the conclusion of the 2020 elections for President and Vice President of the United States and subsequent to the commencement of early voting in which plaintiff’s representative, Mr. Gielow, participated and first observed Mrs. Harris on the ticket. As such, this complaint seeks a timely resolution of the controversy.

STANDING

7.  Plaintiff maintains standing based on actual injury.  Such injury accrues from the failure of the Virginia State Board of Elections to follow state law to ensure that major risks to election integrity are identified, assessed, and addressed, to wit, that all candidates be legally qualified to hold the office for which they are a candidate.  Such injury consists of the inability of Rural and Red PAC to effectively or rationally fulfill their core principle, electing candidates who will support and defend the Constitution, a critical piece of that advocacy consisting of knowing if candidates are even constitutionally eligible.  Such determination impacts advocacy as well as opposition, several “constitutionally conservative” candidates in the past having similar eligibility issues as Mrs. Harris.  It is a right of every American citizen to clearly know what the constitutional eligibility requirements for the highest political office in the land are.  It is also clear that there is a lack of clarity on this issue.  It is a necessity for political advocacy in support of the Constitution to know what the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States mean and that candidates meet those requirements.  Lack of clarity on this issue directly impacts the ability of Rural and Red PAC to fulfill its purpose as filed.  In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, the court stated the following.  “The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.  Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.’”  Connally v General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).  Plaintiff maintains a chilling effect on their free speech because of a double vagueness: the State Board of Elections responsibilities under the law to ensure that all candidates be legally qualified to hold the office for which they are a candidate; the vagueness of the constitutional eligibility requirement that a presidential candidate, and candidate for Vice President by virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, be a natural born citizen.  In the absence of clarity on the latter, those voices of opposition to Mrs. Harris because of this issue are met with charges of racism and conspiracy.  In the volatile climate of today, it is not unreasonable to anticipate violent responses to speech criticizing Mrs. Harris and the Democratic Party on this account.  Additionally, the reputation and credibility of the PAC is thereby attacked, impacting its ability to raise funds.  The State Board of Elections failure to seek clarity on this eligibility requirement results in uncertainty as to what their responsibilities under the laws of Virginia are in this regards.  There being only one body which can remove the uncertainty of the constitutional meaning of the natural born citizen eligibility requirement, and there being national debate regarding Mrs. Harris’ eligibility in this regards, it would follow the Virginia law implies a responsibility on the state board to seek their opinion.  Additionally, injury consists of the costs expensed in bringing this complaint to settle an issue central to political advocacy which has been left, intentionally, vague.

JUSTICIABILITY

8.  Plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not follow Virginia state law to determine if Mrs. Harris is legally qualified to hold the office for which she is a candidate.  As there is only one path by which that determination may be made, and that path has not been taken, plaintiff is not seeking a non-binding interpretation of Virginia law, but rather a simple declaratory finding of whether it was followed or not.  The facts present an existing substantial controversy.  Mrs. Harris is on the ballot for U.S. Vice President in Virginia.  Questions of her eligibility have been publicly discussed by the President of the United States and prominent legal scholars.  Additionally, plaintiff does not ask for judgment on the underlying issue of whether Mrs. Harris is, in fact, constitutionally eligible, but only if the defendant executed his responsibility under Virginia law to seek an answer to that question.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9.  WHEREAS the meaning of the eligibility requirement for President of the United States, that the candidate be a natural born citizen, is a subject of national debate, and

WHEREAS this issue has never been adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and

WHEREAS the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the Vice Presidential candidate to also be eligible for the office of President, and

WHEREAS the Virginia Code requires the State Board of Elections to ensure that major risks to election integrity are identified, assessed and addressed as necessary to promote election uniformity, legality, and purity, including that all candidates be legally qualified to hold the office for which they are a candidate, and

WHEREAS the only body which can rule on the constitutional eligibility requirement for the office of President of the United States of natural born citizen is the U.S. Supreme Court, and

WHEREAS the State Board of Elections has taken no action to put this question before the U.S. Supreme Court,

Plaintiff hereby prays that the Court issue a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s responsibility under the law of Virginia requires action to put this question before the U.S. Supreme Court.

17 Responses to "Virginia Lawsuit Seeks Court Judgment on Election Officer’s Vetting of Kamala Harris"

  1. Schuyler Colfax   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 1:09 PM

    The court’s online docket shows this case continued for two more weeks.

    Reply
    1. Harold Gielow   Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 8:35 PM

      It was strongly hinted by the judge that a new date be set to allow the defendant his legally required time to respond. I requested a continuance for this purpose. Still looking for pro bono legal assistance.

      Reply
      1. Schuyler Colfax   Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 10:36 PM

        Have you contacted Larry Klayman? He’s filed these kinds of suits before.

        Reply
  2. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:52 AM

    I called Harold Gielow recently, and wished him success herein; maybe his local effort will, finally, spark a professional legal response, in lieu of a nationally syndicated, politically correct, response.

    To assist Harold, I emailed this letter to The White House and DOJ, although it is slightly re-worded in two areas herein, to meet The P&E standards of editing:

    SETTING LIMITS Part 14 JAIL TIME JUSTICE FOR OUTLAWYERS

    https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-elections-archive-bb887a6d591b4532627e9a23a401d418

    WHERE IS JAIL TIME JUSTICE 2020?

    ALL TALK and NO SHOCK!

    While the sickening jaundice journalism of the yellow stream media has abandoned accountable professionalism for many years, by insulting us peons on Main Street USA with its opinionated fake news, the legal profession, I believe, is also shamefully lacking in self-policing of its own legions of unaccountable attorney-criminals: https://www.sidneypowell.com/

    It is no wonder that many consider lawyers to be state-licensed liars for hire and pimps of Lady Justice with the apparent lawlessness displayed daily on tunnel vision television:

    >INELIGIBLE presIDent Soetoro-Obama II undermining 2016 and 2020 elections, and tenures, of President Trump
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0&feature=youtu.be

    >natural born Criminal Biden running for president instead of prison for his complicit role in Spygate et al
    https://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_presidential_election,_2020

    >Hillary RICO Clinton selling out USA with 100% immunity-impunity
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    >INELIGIBLE female Obama, Kamala, a Jamaican citizen, allowed to abandon the 12th Amendment

    >Attorney-criminal DA Becton: https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/das-policy-to-consider-looters-needs-before-charging-them/

    >Attorney-criminal Kimberly Gardner indicts McCloskeys for defending their property from a mob of BlacksLootersMurderers: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/519862-grand-jury-indicts-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-protesters

    >LAWLESSNESS = Defund Police, Sanctuary cities, $atan “$anta” $oros funding chaos, black privilege looting et al!

    AG Barr and US Atty. Durham: your strength of personal convictions is directly related to your strength of criminal convictions! GIVE US JAIL TIME JUSTICE!

    Reply
  3. Ana Nimity   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 9:52 PM

    Couldn’t happen in a better place; Virginia, the state that has been over-run with anti-American rabid socialists who have been dismantling the rule of the constitution for Virginians. Let them weasel out of this.

    Reply
  4. Lindsay Boxer   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 10:44 AM

    That section does not apply as;

    1) for primary election held in March 3rd, 2020 (moot) for which Harris was not on the ballot (she withdrew from race in December, 2019).

    2) only applies to Virginia state and local races as it requires primary candidate to be a registered voter in Virginia.

    § 24.2-519. Qualification of primary candidates.

    “In order to qualify as a candidate at any primary, a person must be legally qualified to hold the office for which he is a candidate and be qualified to vote in the primary in which he seeks to be a candidate.”

    Reply
    1. Lindsay Boxer   Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 10:27 AM

      BTW, anyone remember the Post & Email article about only men can be President because the Framers used the term “he”?

      https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/09/24/constitutionally-can-a-woman-serve-as-president/

      The Virginia Law appears to only allow men to run for public office.

      § 24.2-519. Qualification of primary candidates.

      “In order to qualify as a candidate at any primary, a person must be legally qualified to hold the office for which HE is a candidate and be qualified to vote in the primary in which HE seeks to be a candidate.”

      Seems kinda unconstitutional.

      Reply
  5. Schuyler Colfax   Friday, October 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM

    It sounds like the plaintiffs are asking the judge whether the Election Board has a duty to vet candidates.

    If this judge is like other judges who have been asked similar questions, the answer is going to be either “no” or “I can’t give legal advice.”

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 12:49 AM

      That State Election Boards in every State, by law, HAVE a sworn duty to ensure that all candidates meet the legal criteria for seeking said office is an immutable fact.

      For any Judge to deny this is malfeasance and worthy of legal sanction against the Judge.

      The plaintiffs are entitled to move the court to ensure that the requirement of Virginia Code Sec. 24.2-103, et seq. are adhered to and enforced.

      The VC Code provides for sanctions & penalties including removal of any election official who does NOT discharge his/her official duties as an elections official. See: VC Sec. 24.2-103, E.

      The General duties of the Elections officials that they MUST by law perform are delineated in VC Sec.24.2-103 A.

      Reply
      1. Schuyler Colfax   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 1:13 PM

        Section 24.2-103 doesn’t say that the State Board has an affirmative duty to vet every candidate that appears on a ballot.

        Reply
        1. James Carter   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 3:33 PM

          “It [the State Election Board] shall make rules and regulations and issue instructions and provide information consistent with the election laws to the electoral boards and registrars to promote the proper administration of election laws.”

          That means all “election laws” and, per Virginia ballot access law, candidates for President or Vice-President must meet only one qualification:
          “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

        2. Schuyler Colfax   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 6:50 PM

          Section 24.2-103 authorizes the State Board to make rules and regulations. The section does not require the State Board to make a rule or regulation requiring it to affirmatively vet every candidate.

          Has the State Board vetted any other candidate for any other election for any other year?

  6. Lindsay Boxer   Friday, October 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM

    “Here we go again.”

    Exactly, it is almost as if no lessons have been learned.

    Reply
  7. Cort Wrotnowski   Friday, October 9, 2020 at 10:24 AM

    Here we go again. The struggle is to discover which are the right questions to ask and how to frame them.

    Reply
  8. Lindsay Boxer   Friday, October 9, 2020 at 9:38 AM

    Sorry that link takes you to the wrong section of the code.

    This is the one:

    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title24.2/chapter5/article6/

    Reply
  9. Lindsay Boxer   Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 10:18 PM

    “They’re saying they didn’t ask a Title III court; what they did ask is the DNC, ‘Is she eligible?’ ‘Oh, yes, she’s eligible,’” he said.”

    Unclear if this section of Virginia law concerning Presidential elections applies, if it does then the election board shall certify based on state party certifications.

    § 24.2-542.1. State Board to be furnished names of electors selected by political parties; certain national conventions.

    “ (ii) the State Board of Elections shall certify candidates to the local electoral boards and ballot preparation shall proceed based on the state party chairman’s certifications”

    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter5/section24.2-539/

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 1:11 AM

      See:VC 24.2-519 “Qualifications of primary candidates…a person must be legally qualified to hold the office for which he is a candidate…”

      https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter5/section24.2-519/

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.