1.05 - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Election Anomalies */

2026-09-15T17:52:54Z

Election Anomalies

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 15 September 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored. Deficient internal controls are less likely to be identified when Ombudsmen do not have the legally defined independence from the line organization.		Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored. Deficient internal controls are less likely to be identified when Ombudsmen do not have the legally defined independence from the line organization.

	~~=== Election Anomalies ===~~
	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===
	==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====		==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====

Neil thibodaux: /* June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman */

2026-09-15T17:52:32Z

June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:52, 15 September 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

	==== [[June 8, 2026: ~~Maricopa County's~~ Ombudsman]] ====		==== [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] ====
	Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored. Deficient internal controls are less likely to be identified when Ombudsmen do not have the legally defined independence from the line organization.		Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored. Deficient internal controls are less likely to be identified when Ombudsmen do not have the legally defined independence from the line organization.

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-15T13:42:25Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 15 September 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

			==== [[June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman]] ====
			Maricopa County's Ombudsman are ethically deficient to Arizona State Ombudsman. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. Senior leadership apparently condones the practice of using a dictionary definition of Ombudsman as the criterion for using Ombudsman in a Job Title. A model program is available at the State level, which is being ignored. Deficient internal controls are less likely to be identified when Ombudsmen do not have the legally defined independence from the line organization.

			=== Election Anomalies ===
	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===
	==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====		==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====
Line 62:		Line 66:
	* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]		* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		==== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] ====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing */

2026-09-15T03:07:55Z

March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 14 September 2026
Line 17:		Line 17:
	==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====		==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
	Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.		Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

			==== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] ====
			A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]], "Defendants have no duty to explain." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. As described in Attribute 1.05 "doing the minimum" attitude may adversely impact the internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
Line 25:		Line 28:
	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

	===== [[~~May 15~~, ~~2025~~: ~~Let’s Play Hot Potato~~]] =====		==== [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision]] ====
	A Maricopa County ~~employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions~~.~~” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included~~ the ~~following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]]~~, ~~"Defendants have no duty to explain." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for~~ the ~~purpose of maintaining a~~ minimum ~~level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations~~. ~~As described in Attribute 1.05 "doing the minimum" attitude may adversely impact the internal control system~~, ~~the entity's risk identification may be incomplete~~, ~~risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information~~ and ~~communication may falter,~~ and ~~results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon~~ to ~~remediate deficiencies~~.		The Runbeck and Dominion contracts were delivered by Maricopa County. However, the Judge ruled the other requested documents were not required by law. Therefore, the minimum was fulfilled. Meanwhile, MC withheld documents that could demonstrate their integrity, ethical behavior and accountability to its citizens had they been created and made available to the public.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court */

2026-09-14T03:02:51Z

March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 13 September 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.		Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: ~~This is How~~ Maricopa County ~~Wants to be Represented in Court~~]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]] ====
	This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).		This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).

	The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona MVD. This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I can assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.		The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona MVD. This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I can assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.

	~~<u>Potential Green Book Deviation:</u>~~

	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

Neil thibodaux: /* Election Anomalies */

2026-09-11T20:20:36Z

Election Anomalies

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 11 September 2026
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.		Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.

			===== [[May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato]] =====
			A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their [[March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing]], "Defendants have no duty to explain." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. As described in Attribute 1.05 "doing the minimum" attitude may adversely impact the internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.

	=== Election Anomalies ===		=== Election Anomalies ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-10T00:34:38Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 9 September 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership <u>~~directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day~~</u>~~ contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.		* Maricopa County Leader directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
	* Maricopa County ~~Leadership~~ asked personnel to ~~<u>~~stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day~~</u>~~ in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The inspectors were informed of issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers. Yet, the email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day after issues and concerns with the use of Sharpie Pens had been identified. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ensuring secure elections apparently complied with the request to distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers. The Maricopa County Leader seeks to ensure everyone is passing out Sharpie Markers contrary to the ballot instructions. Everyone is alerted to issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers, but apparently no one questioned their extensive use on Election Day. This email message was delivered by the Elections Department Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training. In this case, numerous temporary workers are hired for a short period of time, for the single purpose of supporting an election. The Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training would have been more influential to newly hired temporary workers. It seems odd that a staff management position (i.e., Training) would be communicating a line management decision, or what should be a line management decision.
	* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day ~~in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are~~ issues with the use of Sharpie Pens ~~on ballots prior to October 22, 2020~~. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ~~directing compliance~~ with the ~~ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told~~ to ~~violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers~~ distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.		* An investigation into 2022 Mid-term election anomalies confirmed that Sharpie Markers bled through some ballots, which would be consistent with the reports of "issues and concerns" identified with the use of Sharpie Markers before October 22, 2020.
			* As Maricopa County tells the story, they were concerned about long lines at voting centers. Their story goes on to attribute ballot tabulator fouling as the cause of long lines; delays and long lines occurred when voting stopped to clean the tabulators. They attributed fouling of the ballot tabulator to the wet ink from ballpoint pens being transferred to the tabulator. Their solution was to distribute Sharpie Markers at the Voting Centers to the voters; Sharpie ink apparently dries faster than ballpoint pen ink. The problem with their story is that it sounds more like an excuse than a plan. If any part of their story had been documented, which showed a thoughtful investigation, then most of the public's suspicions of foul play even would have been resolved, even if the corrective action to use Sharpie Markers was wrong.

Neil thibodaux: /* Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens */

2026-09-06T21:56:34Z

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 6 September 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:

	===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====		===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
	This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, ~~emphasis~~ the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:		This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

	* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.		* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
	* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.		* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
	* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.		* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.

Neil thibodaux: /* Arizona Senate Allegations */

2026-09-06T21:50:40Z

Arizona Senate Allegations

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 6 September 2026
Line 57:		Line 57:
	* Allegation #5, [[The Anomalies#Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)\|Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)]]		* Allegation #5, [[The Anomalies#Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)\|Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)]]
	* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]		* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]

			===== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens\|Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens]] =====
			This Green Book Attribute, 1.05, emphasis the importance of integrity and ethics. The appropriate remediation action to address a known deficiency is to stop using Sharpie Markers. Instead, the email appear to avoid premature detection by external sources by suspending the use of Sharpie Pens and then reinstating their use on Election Day. This action is contrary to any remedial action to address a deficiency. Thefollowing unethical practices were revealed by this Maricopa County email:

			* Maricopa County Leadership <u>directed the use of ''Sharpie Markers'' on Election Day</u> contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020.
			* Maricopa County Leadership asked personnel to <u>stop using S''harpie Marker''s and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day</u> in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
			* Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.

Neil thibodaux: /* Jamies Story */

2026-09-04T20:51:43Z

Jamies Story

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 4 September 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== Jamies Story ===		=== Jamies Story ===

			==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
			Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for <u>all</u> Arizona county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 1.02, she refused to recuse herself from the oversight role, from which ethical questions arose. She was setting the tone at the top, complying with the law was important, but ethics, not so much. This sends a signal to subordinates; they may also demonstrate unethical behavior as long as it is legally compliant.

	==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ====		==== [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ====