Interesting Takeaways - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Can you see a pattern? */

2026-10-11T19:03:04Z

Can you see a pattern?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:03, 11 October 2026
Line 240:		Line 240:
	Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.		Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.

	In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "~~9.05~~ Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur '''[documentation requirement].'''"		In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book [[9.05\|Attribute 9.05]], which states "Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur '''[documentation requirement].'''"

	* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]		* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]

Neil thibodaux: /* Can you see a pattern? */

2026-10-11T19:01:39Z

Can you see a pattern?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 11 October 2026
Line 240:		Line 240:
	Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.		Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.

	In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."		In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur '''[documentation requirement].'''"

	* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]		* For additional details, see [[June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered]]

Neil thibodaux: /* Who is Watching the Hen House */

2026-10-11T19:00:16Z

Who is Watching the Hen House

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:00, 11 October 2026
Line 53:		Line 53:
	The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.		The [https://www.azoca.gov/ Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide] is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.

	The Maricopa Ombudsmen are ~~not trained~~ to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]		The Maricopa Ombudsmen are deficient when compared to the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agency. Arizona state complies to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)]. Maricopa County Ombudsman do not have the training, the support structure or statutory independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]

	In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in ~~other~~ court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?		In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence? Laws and statutes were never intended to direct day-to-day internal controls of county operations.

	Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.		Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.
Line 100:		Line 100:
	According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.		According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.

	Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to ~~compare~~ the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?		Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier realistically be expected to completely fulfill the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?

	* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]		* For additional details, see Gov. Examples, [[Signature Verification]]

Neil thibodaux: /* 86,391 Fictitious People */

2026-10-11T18:53:10Z

86,391 Fictitious People

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 11 October 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	** from multiple USPS workers that were transporting early ballots from one holding location to another, and		** from multiple USPS workers that were transporting early ballots from one holding location to another, and
	** from multiple USPS workers, which had separate job assignments that were in close proximity to 56,226 stored early ballots without any extra precautions for treatment of store early ballots.		** from multiple USPS workers, which had separate job assignments that were in close proximity to 56,226 stored early ballots without any extra precautions for treatment of store early ballots.
	* The single USPS worker was stealing '''inconspicuous''' envelopes whereas early ballots are easy to identify.		* The single USPS worker was stealing '''inconspicuous''' envelopes whereas early ballots are '''easy to identify''' from the other first-class mail.
	* The single USPS worker was stealing mail with enclosed checks. Therefore, the intended recipient could raise concern when their check did not arrive. There is no intended recipient when the early ballots were non-deliverable because of a fictitious address so there is no ~~one~~ to raise concern.		* The single USPS worker was stealing mail with enclosed checks. Therefore, the intended recipient could raise concern when their check did not arrive. There is no intended recipient when the early ballots were non-deliverable because of a fictitious address so there is no recipient to raise concern about the possibility of stolen mail.
	* There is more opportunity to steal ballots and cast fraudulent votes when there is a longer duration of early ballot handling by the USPS, between the date early ballots are first mailed out to fictitious addresses and the final date the Election Center accepts ballots after election day.		* There is more opportunity to steal ballots and cast fraudulent votes when there is a longer duration of early ballot handling by the USPS, between the date early ballots are first mailed out to fictitious addresses and the final date the Election Center accepts ballots after election day.

Neil thibodaux: /* 86,391 Fictitious People */

2026-10-11T18:49:42Z

86,391 Fictitious People

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 11 October 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.		These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.

	If you still can't believe mail theft is possible, consider a single USPS worker stole nearly 6,500 pieces of mail from his route according to the United States Department of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/ex-postal-worker-admits-stealing-checks-massive-34-million-fraud-scheme US Attorney's Office for the District of Southern Indiana] in an October 9, 2026, Press Release. Granted, it took this USPS worker to 18 months to steal 6,500 pieces of mail. However, consider the following:		If you still can't believe mail theft is possible, consider a single USPS worker stole nearly 6,500 pieces of mail from his route according to the United States Department of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/ex-postal-worker-admits-stealing-checks-massive-34-million-fraud-scheme US Attorney's Office for the District of Southern Indiana] in an October 9, 2026, Press Release. Granted, it took this USPS worker to 18 months to steal 6,500 pieces of mail. However, consider the following comparisons.

	* A single USPS worker stole 6,500 from his assigned route whereas early ballots could have been stolen from multiple USPS workers, such as:		* A single USPS worker stole 6,500 from his assigned route whereas early ballots could have been stolen from multiple USPS workers, such as:
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* The single USPS worker was stealing '''inconspicuous''' envelopes whereas early ballots are easy to identify.		* The single USPS worker was stealing '''inconspicuous''' envelopes whereas early ballots are easy to identify.
	* The single USPS worker was stealing mail with enclosed checks. Therefore, the intended recipient could raise concern when their check did not arrive. There is no intended recipient when the early ballots were non-deliverable because of a fictitious address so there is no one to raise concern.		* The single USPS worker was stealing mail with enclosed checks. Therefore, the intended recipient could raise concern when their check did not arrive. There is no intended recipient when the early ballots were non-deliverable because of a fictitious address so there is no one to raise concern.
	* There is more opportunity to steal ballots and cast fraudulent votes when early ballots are mailed out ~~well in advance of~~ the ~~election and accepted for tabulation~~ after election day~~. The opportunity arises from longer duration to steal more ballots~~.		* There is more opportunity to steal ballots and cast fraudulent votes when there is a longer duration of early ballot handling by the USPS, between the date early ballots are first mailed out to fictitious addresses and the final date the Election Center accepts ballots after election day.

	For more details,		For more details,

Neil thibodaux: /* 86,391 Fictitious People */

2026-10-11T18:41:12Z

86,391 Fictitious People

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 11 October 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.		These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.

	If you still can't believe mail theft is possible, consider a single USPS worker stole nearly 6,500 pieces of mail from his route according to the United States Department of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/ex-postal-worker-admits-stealing-checks-massive-34-million-fraud-scheme US Attorney's Office for the District of Southern Indiana] in an October 9, 2026, Press Release. Granted, it took this USPS worker to 18 months to steal 6,500 pieces of mail. However, the following:		If you still can't believe mail theft is possible, consider a single USPS worker stole nearly 6,500 pieces of mail from his route according to the United States Department of Justice, [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/ex-postal-worker-admits-stealing-checks-massive-34-million-fraud-scheme US Attorney's Office for the District of Southern Indiana] in an October 9, 2026, Press Release. Granted, it took this USPS worker to 18 months to steal 6,500 pieces of mail. However, consider the following:

	* A single USPS worker stole 6,500 from his assigned route whereas early ballots could have been stolen from multiple USPS workers, such as:		* A single USPS worker stole 6,500 from his assigned route whereas early ballots could have been stolen from multiple USPS workers, such as:

Neil thibodaux: /* 56,226 Fictitious Addresses */

2026-10-11T18:40:32Z

56,226 Fictitious Addresses

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
   There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.
 These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.
 For more details,

Neil thibodaux: /* To Be Developed */

2026-10-04T01:57:30Z

To Be Developed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 3 October 2026
Line 257:		Line 257:
	Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):		Meanwhile, the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):
	Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...		Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow '''Maricopa County Election Procedures''' '''mandated by the Arizona Secretary''' of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. '''Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures''' to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...
	The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county.		The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county. Implying no records exist to share.

	Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452.		Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. In inspector concluded Maricopa County Election Procedures for drop boxes had been violated based on the documentation the investigator reviewed.

	~~Contrary~~ to the ~~legal team~~'s ~~position~~, ~~it appears~~ that the Election Procedures Manual ~~for Maricopa County does exist~~. Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. ~~The request~~ seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.		Maricopa County's legal team' claimed Maricopa County has no records to "create" the documents Jamie requested in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-452. The Arizona Attorney General's inspector found Maricopa County must create election procedures in accordance with the Arizona Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual, which was established to comply with A.R.S. § 16-452. In fact, the investigator found the county had violated county and state election procedures based on documentation that was not stated in A.R.S. § 16-452, but contained in the State's Election Procedures Manual, which was mandated to the county.

			Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. Maricopa's legal team may have been legally corrected by ethically wrong. Maricopa County is required to maintain documentation to fulfill A.R.S. § 16-452 as mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State, which has responsibility for A.R.S. § 16-452. Jamie's requests seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.

	* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]		* For additional details, see Allegation #2 [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]]
Line 267:		Line 269:

	=== To Be Developed ===		=== To Be Developed ===
	<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way ~~to the~~ Election Management System!</u>		<u>Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way t,Election Management System!</u>

	<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u>		<u>Let's Play Hot Potato</u>

Neil thibodaux: /* Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day? */

2026-10-04T01:29:47Z

Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 3 October 2026
Line 197:		Line 197:
	By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:		By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:
	#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']		#SharpieGate was already [https://elections.maricopa.gov/asset/jcr:5308566a-1480-4b3a-be39-23665b19a494/Aguilera%20v.%20Fontes%20II%20-%20ME%20(11-29-20)%20Dismissed%20113020.pdf '''debunked in court.''']
	The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County ~~did prevail in~~ court~~, but it's~~ a ~~lie~~ to ~~say the Sharpie Gate was debunked by~~ this court case.		The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County won their court against a citizen wanting their vote to be counted. However, Maricopa County is lying when they claim their court victory for this court case debunked Sharpie Gate.

	* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]		* For additional details, see [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]]

Neil thibodaux: /* Catch-22 for Governance */

2026-10-04T01:23:28Z

Catch-22 for Governance

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 3 October 2026
Line 42:		Line 42:
	The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]		The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the [https://www.usombudsman.org/ United States Ombudsman Association (USOA)], do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the [https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ombuds-related-networks-groups Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).]

	In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. ~~Howe~~ can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?		In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the [[June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision\|Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County]]. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?

	Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.		Citizens are allowed [https://www.maricopa.gov/324/Board-of-Supervisors-Meeting-Information two-minutes] to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them.