Investigative Report Parts 1, 2, & 3: “They Sued Us for Asking for Public Records” — Inside Santa Cruz County’s Culture of Concealment, Retaliation, Missing Millions, and an unjustified SLAPP Lawsuit
By John R. Brakey, Director, AUDIT Elections USA — Exploring the culture of corruption in Santa Cruz County, AZ V1.2 @ 9M 7/20/25
📽️ Prefer to watch instead of read?
🎧 Podcast-Style Narrated Report – Part 1, 2, & 3: Wednesday July 16, 2025
Part 1: Press Release: AUDIT USA’s Investigator Report – Santa Cruz County, AZ
(11 minutes)
PRESS RELEASE - TO INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
By John R. Brakey, Director, AUDIT Elections USA & Team
Santa Cruz County: They Sued Us for Asking
Contact:
John R. Brakey
Director, AUDIT Elections USA
JohnBrakey@gmail.com
(520) 339-2696
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025
TUCSON, AZ – A remarkable report by John Brakey, director of the nonpartisan nonprofit organization AUDIT USA, exposes unlawful litigation, intimidation tactics, and cover up by government officials in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, in their retaliatory efforts to silence him, bankrupt his organization, and put an end to his 20-year quest to make elections transparent, trackable, and publicly verified.
From the founding of AUDIT 20 years ago, Brakey and his team, including Attorney Bill Risner, have worked tirelessly to expose unlawful election practices and improve election procedures across Arizona and the U.S. But in Santa Cruz County, they found themselves drawn into a deeply embedded culture of corruption that has included the recent conviction of the county treasurer for embezzling over $38 million; the recent conviction of the county assessor for a decade of accepting bribes to reduce taxes on selected properties; funds missing from the county attorney’s office; and more.
When Brakey requested several public records from the Santa Cruz August 2, 2022 primary election, the county promised to deliver the records to him on August 18. Instead, without any warning, they sued him on that very same day, asking the court for a declaratory judgment as to whether the Cast Vote Record (CVR) is a public record or not. The problem with this lawsuit, as the Superior Court judge has now ruled twice, is that a county is not allowed by law to sue a requester of public records. But the private law firm hired by the county, Pierce Coleman, continues to appeal the case, racking up huge legal fees for itself at taxpayers’ expense—pursuing a case it has lost twice and will lose again, and forcing AUDIT USA to spend its limited funds defending itself against a lawsuit that should never have been brought in the first place.
What began as a simple public records request has escalated into a three-year legal battle, costing taxpayers more than $100,000, and exposing a pattern of misconduct and abuse at the highest levels of Santa Cruz County government.
Brakey documents a series of deeply troubling revelations:
● Intimidation tactics and threats against him personally
● A lawsuit ruled twice by the court to be unjustified, yet continuing at taxpayers’ expense
● Missing surveillance footage
● Unlawfully redacted legal invoices that attempt to hide Pierce Coleman’s huge legal fees
● A chilling retaliation campaign against Brakey and AUDIT USA
● A statewide crackdown on election records tied directly to this case
Brakey’s sweeping 10,000-word investigative report isn’t just about one county, however. It’s about a systemic, nationwide problem: concealment, retaliation, and suppression of public records—especially the records that allow We the People to verify election outcomes.
“This matter extends beyond me or any individual county,” Brakey stated. “If governments can initiate lawsuits simply because someone files a public records request, then the principles of transparency—and democracy itself—are in jeopardy.”
Despite clear rulings from Pima County Superior Court that Santa Cruz County’s lawsuit was improper, the county continues to appeal, wasting public funds. Meanwhile, other Arizona counties are now refusing to release CVRs, citing the unresolved case as justification.
“This is a textbook SLAPP case—a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” said Brakey’s attorney, Bill Risner. “We’ve filed a cross-appeal to have the case dismissed, seek sanctions, and request a culprit hearing. We want to know: Who devised this scheme? Was it county officials? Their attorneys? Or were outside influences involved?”
Brakey’s report includes firsthand documentation of threats, false accusations, and retaliation. It also exposes the misuse of Arizona’s A.R.S. §16-625 to suppress nearly all digital election records statewide.
In response, AUDIT USA is calling for:
● Creation of a Santa Cruz County Citizens Election Transparency Commission
● Full enforcement of Arizona’s public records laws
● Protection for whistleblowers and citizens from legal retaliation
● Implementation of ABE (Auditable Ballot Examination)—a free tool that allows the public to verify elections using ballot images and cast vote records, or similar solution.
“We stand at a crossroads,” Brakey said. “Our country is being pulled toward deeper division, distrust, and disinformation. More than ever, Americans are losing faith in the very process that underpins our republic—our elections. And if people stop believing their vote counts, it’s only a matter of time before some turn away from ballots—and toward autocracy. That’s why I’ve spent the last three years documenting what happened in Santa Cruz County, Arizona—and why this new investigative report may be one of the most important I’ve ever published.”
“Democracy dies in darkness—but it can be revived in the light,” Brakey added.
“It’s time to turn on the lights in Santa Cruz County.”
**30**
*Full Investigative Report & Media Assets:
Part 1 PDF: Press Release: AUDIT USA’s Investigator Report – Santa Cruz County, AZ
Part 2 PDF To the Voters of Santa Cruz Co AZ . They Sued Us for Asking, then Tried to Bury the Truth
Part 3 PDF: Investigative Report, Santa Cruz County, Culture of Corruption -They Sued Us for Asking:
Link to file that has 6 PDF press releases since the case started in August 18 of 2022 to 2025
Go to John Brakey Substack: They Sued Us for Asking – Full Report:
Videos in Podcast format:
· Video Demo on How AUDIT USA’s ABE works: (Auditable Ballot Examination) by Ellen Theisen 19 mins—a free, public tool to verify election results using ballot images and CVR database
Video Ken Bennett explains how ABE works and the 5 Key Steps to Verifiable Elections And prove to the public that our elections are real while taking away any impunity a hacker might have by making elections transparent, trackable, and publicly verifiable.
Part 2: Open Letter To the Citizens of Santa Cruz County, Arizona:
Part 2: To the Voters of Santa Cruz Co AZ – They Sued Us for Asking, Then Tried to Bury the Truth.
(11 minutes)
Dear Citizens of Santa Cruz County, Arizona:
Democracy functions effectively when the public has visibility into the process and confidence in the results. In pursuit of this goal, I, as a Democrat, together with former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican, are presenting solutions designed to foster unity beyond political affiliations. Regardless of individual political perspectives, it is essential that elections become more transparent, trackable, and subject to public verification.
That’s what this report is also about—and more importantly, that’s what ABE helps deliver.
ABE (Auditable Ballot Examination) is an accessible, cost-free tool designed to enable the public to verify election results by examining ballot images in conjunction with the Cast Vote Record (CVR) at the precinct level, utilizing Microsoft Excel as the database platform. These are Anonymous public records that all counties already possess—but due to this case, many are now refusing to release them.
Abe shines a light on the process—without ever compromising voter privacy.
Like, share, get informed and help spread the truth. I believe in the power of local action. As Margaret Mead said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
WE connect the dots—and name names.
We don’t just tell the story. We back it up with documents.
Full PDF Report:
Voting must always remain a secret process. But counting Anonymous ballots must be a public process done by precinct after the election—especially when it comes to taxpayer-funded elections that shape our future.
Ken Bennett explains this well in his video, 5 Key Steps to Verifiable Elections—and I encourage everyone to watch it. When the counting process is open to public oversight, trust is earned, not assumed.
Show Me the Ballots!
By Steven Rosenfeld October 29, 2023
Excerpt: To combat rampant disinformation and public distrust in elections, a bipartisan group of politicians is advocating for a much-needed form of transparency: post all cast ballots online.
Adrian Fontes (Now SOS AZ) was having a drink after a conference for state and local election officials in January 2017 when he first heard about giving the public access to images of every ballot cast. Fontes, then the newly elected Maricopa County recorder, was talking to a former state election director and UN election observer, who was praising, of all places, Mongolia.
The man was saying, Fontes recalled, that in Mongolia 98 percent of voters report very high confidence in the outcome of their elections.
Fontes asked the guy what the country’s trick was. “He said, ‘Well, this place actually publishes their ballots online, by precinct, so that the population can go count it their doggone selves. ” Fontes said.
When he got home, he began researching and found that, unlike most election records, which are kept in databases, spreadsheets, or coded computer logs, ballot images are visceral documents that reflect human errors—like errant pen marks or smears, or when someone circles an oval rather than filling it in. But voters almost never see such documents; they only hear the results on the nightly news, which seem to have emerged by some unknown process performed by shadowy forces elsewhere.
To most voters, the logistics of how ballots are counted are, at best, opaque. So the idea of taking a page out of Mongolia’s book and letting voters in on the ground level—inviting them to examine, sort, and scrutinize the same ballot images that election officials are using—seemed like an “incredibly powerful” idea, Fontes said. “We’ve gotten to a place where I think it’s high time that we have that public verifiability.”
Link to article: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/10/29/show-me-the-ballots/
Pew Foundation reports that democracy is in crisis: 1958 - 2024
According to respected studies, public trust in U.S. elections is at a 70-year low. The Pew report show only 17% of Americans still have confidence in our elections. But the real number might be even lower—closer to 3–4%. Most people only trust the results when their “Party” wins. And that’s not how a functioning democratic republic is supposed to work.
Voter turnout in the U.S. ranks among the lowest in the developed world. Many Americans believe elections are rigged or meaningless. As the old quote (often misattributed to Mark Twain) goes:
“If elections made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
So, how do we fix it? Prove it’s real! And that’s what Abe does. Restoring the trust that many Americans have lost is essential for everyone, as the health and future of our democracy depend on it. The foundation of our democratic system relies on confidence that every vote is counted accurately.
It took years of work by me and the AUDIT USA team to develop ABE: the Auditable Ballot Examination system.
So please—take a few minutes to watch former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s video on the Five Key Steps to Verifiable Elections.
Video Ken Bennett explains how ABE works and the 5 Key Steps to Verifiable Elections. Video above.
The problems in our elections may be complicated. But the solution is not: Its Transparency – Verification and Public Using simple independent tools like Abe.
Our inspiration for naming our program Abe was drawn from the words of Abraham Lincoln.
“I have faith in the people. They will not consent to disunion.
The danger is, they are misled. Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.”
Here's another Incredible quote:
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be the author and finisher.”
Abraham Lincoln
I've learned that when you shine, a light, shadows retreat.
Abe—and tools like it—are that light, and there are other programs .
Abe, along with similar tools, serves as an example of that innovation, and there are additional options available.
Let’s use them—together.
Let’s use these digital tools they don’t want us to know about.
Because:
“Democracy dies in darkness—but it can be revived in the light of transparency.” Seeing is believing.
Let’s turn on the lights—together. Transparency = Truth.
In the 2016 presidential election, approximately 94.1 million eligible voters did not participate. If non-voters had represented a presidential candidate, that candidate would have won by a significant margin.
Investigative Report Part 3: “They Sued Us for Asking” — Inside Santa Cruz County’s Culture of Concealment, Retaliation, Missing Millions, and an unjustified SLAPP Lawsuit
(66 minutes)
By John R. Brakey, Director, AUDIT Elections Part 2 of 4: Wednesday July 16, 2025
🎧 Podcast-Style Narrated Report: Prefer to watch instead of read? You can view the full 66-minutes investigative video version above of this report on YouTube:🔗 Watch now.
Introduction
Santa Cruz County, Arizona, faces serious challenges rooted in long-standing institutional misconduct. To restore public confidence, we recommend a framework of independent public oversight, required employee training, and a commitment to transparent reform. A full list of our recommendations starts on page 24 of PDF report.
In recent years, a wave of scandals has revealed just how deep the misconduct runs. The County Treasurer pleaded guilty to embezzling $38 million in public funds. The County Assessor admitted to accepting bribes for over a decade to lower property taxes on select properties. Funds have also gone missing from the County Attorney’s office—just the tip of the iceberg. This report investigates the systemic corruption within Santa Cruz County government, how it has directly impacted me and my organization, AUDIT USA, my former home county, and—most importantly—how it has harmed the people of Santa Cruz County.
On Monday June 23, 2025 Former Santa Cruz County Treasurer sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for $38 million theft.
At the conclusion of this report, we outline a clear and actionable roadmap for breaking the grip of corruption on this border county.
A Simple Request Led to an Unjustified Lawsuit Against AUDIT and Me
I’ve spent the last 21 years investigating election systems across the United States. I believe in public oversight, accountability, and that election records belong to “We the People.” But my simple records request to Santa Cruz County turned into a 3-year nightmare of retaliation, intimidation, and legal shenanigans–and it’s still ongoing.
On July 28, 2022, I submitted a routine, lawful public records request for the Cast Vote Record (CVR) from Santa Cruz County’s August 2 primary election, a record that the county had provided in the past. The county responded by filing a lawsuit against me and AUDIT USA in connection with the CVR request.
For nearly three years, AUDIT USA and I have been at the center of a legal battle that began with this simple, lawful request. What happened next was outrageous–and just one example of the disturbing pattern of obstruction, retaliation, and concealment that has plagued this county for decades.
Instead of complying with Arizona public records law, the County took an unprecedented step: it retained the private law firm Pierce Coleman to sue me and my nonprofit organization, AUDIT USA, to prevent the release of the CVR. This retaliatory lawsuit —later ruled legally indefensible by Pima County Judge Casey McGinley—was just the beginning.
The stated goal was to determine whether CVRs are public records. But in truth, the aim was to target me in retaliation for my past interactions with the county, to bankrupt my organization, stall public access to key election records statewide, and intimidate me and others to keep us from asking questions.
Santa Cruz County should have dropped its lawsuit against AUDIT USA and me when the Superior Court Judge made it clear, at the very beginning of the case, that the county had no right to sue me simply for requesting a county record.
Under Arizona public records law, a requester of records is entitled to sue the county (or any governmental entity) if they are not satisfied with the county’s response. The law does not provide the option for the county to sue the requester of records.
Despite the judge’s clear statements and rulings on this matter, and despite the clear intent of Arizona’ public records law, Pierce Coleman has delayed the process for almost 3 years—filing multiple appeals and running up huge legal bills that are wasting taxpayer money while avoiding accountability.
The County's SLAPP lawsuit appears intended to exert pressure on me and place financial strain on AUDIT USA.
Press freedom organizations have termed lawsuits of this nature, such as this one that Santa Cruz County filed against AUDIT and Brakey, as SLAPPs, which stands for “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation.” This describes the practice of using legal action as a means to silence individuals, including journalists, activists, and citizens. Such litigation is intended to suppress free speech and participation, and it is too often effective in achieving that aim.
Santa Cruz County filed an unjustified lawsuit against me and AUDIT USA, also seeking reimbursement of its legal fees.
Furthermore, all of the counties in the state of Arizona are refusing to provide the CVR Database until this case is resolved.
To make matters worse, they're claiming that Arizona Statute A.R.S. 16 625 makes ALL electronic records non-releasable. That's nearly all the election records.
The History that led to the County’s Retaliation Against AUDIT and Me
Santa Cruz County, Arizona, has a corruption problem—and it’s time the public understands just how deep it runs and how it works.
The editor of the local newspaper, Manuel Coppola the Nogales International, noted in a 2024 editorial that the Board of Supervisors display “complacency, arrogance and disregard for their constituents.” He observed that the County Manager’s main concern about the $38 million embezzlement by the County Treasurer seemed to be that it had been leaked to the public.
In an executive session YouTube video that was released publicly, either by mistake or intentionally, “Supervisors Manny Ruiz and Bruce Bracker expressed concern about the newspaper informing school districts of their plan to file a civil complaint on Aug. 2. These are officials from the same districts that have been victimized and lost at least $27 million of the missing $38 million, thanks to poor or nonexistent oversight.”
They certainly have not liked my observations and reports over the past 17 years which cast light on the county’s flawed election procedures.
In 2014, I successfully sued the county after it denied me access to basic election records, and the county had to pay $38,000, something I had every legal right to do. But I now realize that resentment among the members of the Board of Supervisors in office at that time continues to run deep regarding that lawsuit and other investigations conducted by AUDIT AZ/USA.
When I asked for the CVR in 2022, they saw an opportunity to retaliate against me. (Note: Two of those supervisors were voted out of office in 2024.)
That's why I stated, "Santa Cruz County may be one of the most corrupt in the country.” This is my fourth investigation into the County. A summary of previous Santa Cruz County investigations by AUDIT AZ/USA since 2008 will be included as addendum #1.
Santa Cruz wasn’t the first time a public treasurer orchestrated a major embezzlement scheme.
A strikingly similar case happened in Dixon, Illinois—the birthplace of President Ronald Reagan. Rita Crundwell, who served as Dixon’s comptroller and treasurer from 1983 until her arrest in 2012, embezzled approximately $53.7 million over 22 years. That’s a staggering amount for a town of just 15,000 residents. She siphoned the funds into a secret bank account and used the money to bankroll an extravagant lifestyle, including building a nationally recognized Quarter Horse breeding empire.
Watching the documentary about the Dixon case helped me better understand just how these schemes work—and how communities can become complacent in the face of obvious warning signs. The patterns are familiar: lack of oversight, misplaced trust, and a culture of silence.
Frankly, if Santa Cruz County Treasurer Elizabeth Gutfahr had continued undetected for another 12 years at the pace she was draining county funds, she would have surpassed even the Dixon embezzlement. At the current rate, the losses would have exceeded $75 million. Here’s a link to the documentary that explains how this kind of fraud unfolds—and just how easily it can happen: Watch the video. ‘Lies, fraud and deceit’: Gutfahr sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Press Release: United States Attorney’s Office Chicago, Illinois Rita Crundwell was sentenced on February 14, 2013, to 19 years and 7 months—a total of 235 months—in federal prison after pleading guilty to wire fraud for embezzling approximately $53–57 million from the City of Dixon, Illinois. This nearly 20-year term was the maximum sought by prosecutors. Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney said; “Unfortunately, this case serves as a painful lesson that trust, without verification, can lead to betrayal.”
Election Night Incidents —and a Pattern of Intimidation and Threats
On the evening of August 2, 2022, during the Primary Election, I was present at the Elections Department to observe ballot processing from the public viewing area after being invited by Elections Director Alma Schultz.
Upon arrival, I quietly took a seat in the designated public viewing area against the wall. After I had been sitting there for a few minutes, a woman turned around and asked me if I was Mr. Brakey. She introduced herself to me as Chief Deputy County Attorney Kim Hunley. Initially, she was cordial. However, after several trips into her office across from the election department, her attitude changed, and she became hostile.
Apparently, on her trips into the office, she was reporting to someone by telephone, very likely Supervisor Rudy Molera. When Hunley returned the last time, her demeanor had changed dramatically. She called over two sheriff’s deputies and directed them to me, claiming my photographs were taken illegally and demanding that I delete them.
I explained that I was in a public space and had every right to take photos—particularly since a public livestream camera was also broadcasting from inside the Elections Department to the world. ACLU AZ: Know Your Rights: Photographers.
Nevertheless, after taking the photos of the counting area—perfectly legal under Arizona’s open government standards–under pressure from the officers and the threat of arrest, I reluctantly deleted two of the three photos.
Being a little rattled by this incident, after a few minutes I decided to leave and said good night. Someone appears to have followed me to the Holiday Inn, where I met with candidates. Five minutes after my arrival, Supervisor Rudy Molera showed up - poorly dressed, unshaved, disheveled, and agitated. He charged right at me, immediately began to verbally attack me, and then abruptly left.
It appeared to be another effort to incite a confrontation and prompt me to react recklessly, but I remained calm. The two candidates I was speaking with, who witnessed Molera’s verbal assault against me, were as stunned as I was. Former mayor John Doyle was not surprised and mentioned that Molera was known for such behavior.
Following these two incidents, I said goodbye and concluded my evening and returned home to Tucson.
During my journey home, I had to stop on the side of the road for about 45 minutes because I experienced a significant anxiety attack, which was likely caused by the adrenaline from being threatened twice.
County made false accusations against me
Exhibit: “RE: Disruptive Conduct by AUDIT USA Director John Brakey” Link to letter and my detailed notes. On August 4, two days after the incidents described above, my attorney received a letter from Pierce Coleman on behalf of the county, falsely accusing me of “disruptive conduct” and further accusing me of having broken the law by observing the central count area and taking photographs. The letter did not mention that I had been personally invited to observe by the Elections Director.
Additionally, the law that Pierce Coleman referenced in accusing me of unlawfully observing. A.R.S. 16 621 (A), clearly states that “the public” is allowed to observe.
In response to the county’s accusatory letter, my attorney, Bill Risner, and I submitted multiple public records requests regarding the events that occurred on Election Night:
Knowing that at least two surveillance cameras were present in the hallway. We specifically requested the footage. The official response? “No footage exists.”
We also requested incident reports from the Sheriff’s Department related to this event. Their response: no reports were filed.
The complete absence of documentation—no video, no reports—destroys the credibility of the county’s accusatory letter. The claim that there was no footage from the surveillance cameras, which would have destroyed their claim that I was disruptive, also seems to be a lie, since surveillance cameras were present in the area where I was confronted by the deputy sheriffs.
Below is a labeled photograph showing the observation area at the Santa Cruz Elections Department. I document everything carefully, including immediate notes taken after any serious incident.
IMPORTANCE OF CAMERAS AT ELECTION OFFICES
Santa Cruz County informed my attorney, Bill Risner, that no surveillance footage existed from the public observation area where I was wrongly confronted and threatened by a county attorney and two Sheriff’s deputies. This claim is highly questionable—especially since two surveillance cameras are clearly mounted in that area.
If the footage had been preserved, it would have shown that I did nothing wrong—and just how aggressively they came after me.
This incident underscores a much larger problem: the critical importance of surveillance cameras—not just in public viewing areas, but also in “back room” operations where ballots are managed. Conducting sensitive election procedures in unmonitored spaces violates public trust, professional standards, and legal safeguards.
Surveillance isn’t just a deterrent—it’s a vital protection against misconduct and manipulation.
Link to video: Santa Cruz County Sued AUDIT Elections USA & John Brakey for Filing a Public Records Request—and Lost Badly! (40-minute interview)
There is concern regarding the county's statement about the absence of camera footage, as such recordings would have demonstrated proper conduct on my part. This situation underscores the critical role of surveillance cameras, not only in public viewing areas but also in overseeing essential "backroom" operations. It is important that ballot handling in these areas is monitored in accordance with legal requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
EXAMPLE: PIMA COUNTY 2015 — WHY SURVEILLANCE MATTERS
In 2015—nine years after the disputed 2006 RTA bond election, and the first bond election since our legal case concluded—I personally observed, via a livestream from my Home office, Pima County election staff accessing the Election Management System (EMS) computer several hours after the Logic and Accuracy (L&A) test had been completed.
Fortunately, I was there and filmed it.
According to state procedure, once the L&A test is complete, a tamper-evident seal must be placed on the EMS room door and must remain unbroken until counting begins the next morning. But in this case, the seal had been improperly affixed, allowing it to be easily removed and reattached without showing any signs of tampering. In the footage, the operator is seen managing the seal carefully—indicating they knew what they were doing.
When confronted, Pima County officials lied—claiming they had simply forgotten to print a ZERO report and had re-entered the room to retrieve it. But my video from earlier in the day clearly shows them printing that report during the L&A test. I caught it on film.
So why did they really go back in?
I believe they re-entered the EMS computer to launch a “Fraction Magic” macro—a program designed to manipulate vote totals, likely to push some of the nine bond measures to victory. None passed. Their plan failed because we caught them. What they did was not only unethical—it was illegal and a direct violation of protocol.
Also Short Video 5 minutes - Fraction Magic by Bennie Smith.
I had already left the elections office that day. But later, while watching the department's public livestream, I witnessed the unauthorized activity. I immediately documented it and emailed key officials—including then Secretary of State Michelle Reagan and Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller and local media.
How did I know the seal was mismanaged?
Having observed a demonstration with Supervisor Ally Miller, she requested that Election Director Brad Nelson illustrate the application of the seal. Mr. Nelson applied one seal to a metal windowsill and gently rubbed it; upon removal, the word “VOID” did not appear. He then affixed another seal and, this time, pressed it firmly back and forth with his thumb. When this seal was removed, “VOID” was clearly visible. This experience provided insight into the proper method for applying the seal and underscored its significance.
Procedural Breakdown
I also returned to the elections office. Under Arizona law, any time the EMS system is accessed, the public observation room must be unlocked so that any member of the public may enter and observe. That law was violated.
Additionally, state election protocol requires two people—each with half of the EMS password—to power on the system. This is meant to prevent the exact kind of tampering I witnessed.
That safeguard was also ignored.
THE TAKEAWAY
This kind of breach—done off-camera, without bipartisan oversight, and in direct violation of election law—is precisely why we need 24/7 transparent surveillance systems in every election department in the country.
Our elections must be:
1. Transparent, 2. Trackable, 3. Publicly verifiable. And they must be backed by a complete, publicly accessible ballot image library, so We the People can verify that our votes were counted as cast.
VP: Watch the footage: John Brakey on Wake-Up Tucson: Pima County Tried to Rig Another Bond Election – October 29, 2015 (11-minute video)
So this is what cheating with impunity looks like!
This incident took place several hours after the completion of the Logic and Accuracy (L&A) Test, when a seal was deliberately not correctly attached to the closed system door. Following the L&A test, the EMS is required to be sealed and remain unopened until the following morning in the presence of party observers at the commencement of ballot counting. If the seal is broken, it should clearly display “voided.” However, this protocol was not followed due to improper application of the seal. The event occurred after I, Brakey, had left the observation room. Upon returning home, I documented and emailed several individuals regarding the L&A Test.
Following my routine, I accessed the election department's live feed via a hyperlink. Shortly thereafter, I observed the event taking place. Here is a link to my letter to the Secretary of State Michelle Reagan.
The result of my observations meant they had to redo the L & A test before the start of counting. I believe that my observations foiled their attempt to alter the voting system to pass the unpopular multi-million dollar bond issues. All seven bond measures failed. (See results below on slide)
Santa Cruz Redaction and Coverup
I made a request to Santa Cruz County for all the Pierce Coleman invoices related to the county’s lawsuit against me.
The county responded by providing invoices that are heavily redacted, concealing basic billing data such as by whom and task descriptions—all of which are clearly public under Arizona law. Their rationale? That disclosure would be “detrimental to the county.” That’s not a legal exemption. It’s an excuse. (samples of redacted invoices on next slide)
In addition to substantial redactions on all the invoices provided to AUDIT USA, it appears that the county is withholding invoices for a seven-month period from August 1, 2024 to February 1, 2025. No invoices for that period have been provided, even though Pierce Coleman was conducting legal work on our case during that time. This information is verified by our responses to those filings.
Additionally, here is a link to the billing from August 2, 2022, to July 30, 2024.
Note that the redactions make it difficult to evaluate details which are not confidential information or legal strategies, just invoices.
That’s why I’ve renewed my formal demand for full, unredacted invoices—and I may have to file a special action under A.R.S. § 39-121.02 to compel compliance if necessary.
I’ll seek legal sanctions, attorney fees, and an official investigation into this County’s misconduct.
However, the public shouldn’t have to rely on the courts just to get at public records.
Santa Cruz County has not disclosed the total payments made to Pierce Coleman related to its legal action against me. The released billing invoices have been redacted in a manner that makes it difficult to associate them directly with my case, and several months of invoices have been withheld, resulting in an incomplete representation of the overall expenditure.
There are several possible explanations for why the county is redacting invoices and trying to conceal the money spent on this case.
One reason is that it is a complete waste of taxpayer money to keep paying Pierce Coleman for a case that the county has already lost twice in Pima Superior Court and will lose again.
Pierce Coleman Misstatements to the Court
Another possible reason is that Justin Pierce of Pierce Coleman falsely told the Superior Court judge during a hearing that the county had spent "nowhere near" the $70,000 estimated by my attorney, Bill Risner. In fact, Bill was correct—the amount was close to $70,000 at the time. Today, it’s estimated to be around $100,000.
An additional inaccurate assertion presented by Pierce Coleman to the court concerns its summary of the letter originally sent to Bill Risner at the commencement of the lawsuit against me. The sequence of events was as follows:
On August 11, 2022, my attorney Bill Risner received a letter from Pierce Coleman, written on behalf of Santa Cruz County, stating that the “records requested… will be transmitted to you by 5:00 pm on August 18, 2022 via a file share link provided by the County.” The requested records included the CVR. This letter contained no conditional language.
However, just hours before the promised delivery time on August 18th, Santa Cruz County filed its unexpected lawsuit against AUDIT-USA and me personally.
This legal action contradicted Pierce Coleman’s August 11th letter stating that the county would provide the requested records on August 18th. The county’s legal action also contradicted its past practice of releasing the Cast Vote Record.
To quote from the August 11, letter from the County’s attorney explicitly stated:
“For items 2-6, we have identified these records requested and determined the time allotted to produce the records, which will be transmitted to you by 5:00 PM on August 18th, 2022, via a file share link provided by the county.”
Not only did the county fail to act in good faith to fulfill its commitment to provide the CVR to AUDIT, but Pierce Coleman later misrepresented the contents of this letter to the court. Instead of acknowledging that Pierce Coleman, on behalf of the county, had made a clear commitment to provide the requested records on August 18, 2022, Pierce Coleman misled the judge by changing the wording of the letter.
In its court filing, Pierce Coleman stated:
“On August 11, 2022, the county wrote to the defendant that the ballot images were not subject to disclosure due to statutory protection under A. R. S. 16-625, but the remaining records were “likely” to be ready for disclosure during the week of August 15, 2022, and would be transmitted electronically following the completion of statutory election duties, including the election canvas.”
This was false. The original letter contained no such uncertainty.
On Page 3, line-8, point 11 Pierce Coleman complaint
The County’s revised court filing altered the definitive statement that was in its August 11th letter and attempted to mislead the court.
For any ethical public official or attorney, this distortion of the facts should be considered disqualifying. That's one of the reasons my attorney Bill Risner is asking for a “culprit hearing” to determine who authorized this SLAPP-style lawsuit. We want to know:
Who devised this scheme?
Was it county officials? Their attorneys?
Or were there outside influences involved?”
Obstructed Communication and Misinformation Under the Guise of “Law”
When I included all three members of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in a public email—as allowed under Arizona law—County Attorney Robert May falsely claimed it violated open meeting laws. Link to Robert May email and my response and the law 3/7/2025.
After realizing that the Board of Supervisors had been misinformed by their attorneys, I decided to make a good faith effort to open a dialogue, I then requested a meeting with newly elected Supervisor Luis Carlos Davis. What followed was disheartening. Rather than engaging in a productive discussion, I was met with a scripted, one-sided session. Davis was accompanied by Assistant County Manager Chris Young, who made it clear that neither he nor Davis would answer any questions but would only listen.
Excerpt from my letter of June 4, regarding our meeting on Monday June 2: I wrote: “I was disappointed by the lack of open dialogue during our meeting. As an elected Supervisor, your role goes beyond simply listening—it requires engaging in meaningful, two-way conversations, especially when the public raises serious matters affecting the integrity of county government. The presence of Assistant County Manager Chris Young—who stated you were both there “only to listen”—effectively restricted the exchange of information. It gave the impression that your ability to speak freely was being deliberately constrained, and it limited your access to essential facts.” Link to letter to Supervisor Davis of 6/4/25.
A Pattern of Retaliation and Coverup
Santa Cruz County’s actions demonstrate its fear of transparency, and its actions constitute a deliberate, targeted campaign of intimidation and retaliation against me personally. Since I submitted my records request on July 28, 2022, Santa Cruz County has:
Filed a lawsuit against me simply for exercising my rights under public records law—for simply asking for county election records.
Reversed course without notice, suing me on the same day they promised to deliver records—a promise made in writing to my attorney. They did not deliver the records on August 18, 2022 as promised but filed a lawsuit instead.
Threatened me with arrest—twice—for taking photographs in a public viewing area at the Elections Department, despite clear First Amendment protections.
Falsely accused me of disruptive conduct
Heavily redacted Pierce Coleman invoices, concealing all basic information
Withheld months of Pierce Coleman billing records, despite evidence of ongoing legal work.
Filed an inaccurate document to mislead the court
Blocked or attempted to block meetings with elected officials—who are legally obligated to serve the public.
In addition to the county’s actions against me, I was followed to a public event by County Supervisor Rudy Molera, who verbally assaulted me in front of witnesses.
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
If Santa Cruz County is allowed to get away with this, it sends a dangerous message: that governments can sue citizens for asking questions, hide financial records under bogus legal claims, and weaponize litigation against watchdogs.
“This case is a direct threat to democracy,” said Ken Bennett, Chair of AUDIT USA & Former SOS of AZ “If governments can hire private attorneys to weaponize the courts against citizens who ask legitimate questions, then our Constitutional right to ask for governmental records is in peril, and seeking transparency becomes a liability rather than a right.”
This isn’t just wrong—it’s a threat to open government, democracy, and our democratic republic.
AUDIT USA RESPONSE
My legal team has filed a cross-appeal with the Arizona Court of Appeals on Feb 14, 2025 asserting, as did the Pima County Superior Court judge, that the county’s lawsuit is not justiciable—meaning the county had no right to sue a member of the public simply for requesting an elections record, and, as the Superior Court Judge also noted, there was no actual dispute at the time the county filed its lawsuit.
This isn’t incompetence. It’s a calculated effort to bury the truth—and taxpayers are footing the bill.
Defending ourselves against the Santa Cruz lawsuit is not about the CVR. It’s about the lawful ability of “we the people” to request public records as part of our Constitutional right to oversee our government —and to do so without fear of retaliation.
“This lawsuit is not only baseless—it’s punitive,” said attorney Risner. “It violates both the spirit of transparency and the letter of the law. This is about protecting every Arizonan’s right to ask questions without fear of retaliation.”
AUDIT USA urges the public, press, and elected officials to take notice and stand up for open government and our First Amendment protections.
Pierce Coleman Incompetence
Although Pierce Coleman claims to have expertise in election and public records law, their incompetence has made itself clear in several instances, including the lawsuit they filed against me and my organization. To date, Santa Cruz County has wasted approximately $100,000 in taxpayer money on litigation in this case, and they’re not yet done wasting money.
The Superior Court Judge made clear from the beginning that the county was not justified in suing me simply for requesting a public record. In the judge’s own words, the county’s lawsuit against me is “not justiciable” because it is “outside the bounds of public records law.”
Despite clear rulings against the county, Pierce Coleman has dragged the case out for nearly three years, appealing multiple times, earning huge legal fees, and squandering taxpayer funds in the process.
Additional instance of Pierce Coleman’s incompetence can be found in the letter they wrote to Bill Risner on August 4, 2022 after I observed the August 2, 2022 primary election at the Santa Cruz elections office. They accused me of being an unlawful observer at the Elections Department on Election Night because I wasn’t appointed by a political party, but the statute they referenced, A.R.S. 16 621 (A), clearly states that “the public” can observe at the central counting location. The county paid Pierce Coleman taxpayer money to write me this legally inaccurate letter.
Another blatant example of Pierce Coleman’s incompetence was its representation of the town of Prescott Valley in Yavapai County in defense of the town’s attempt to keep an issue off the ballot. Pierce Coleman argued on behalf of the town that the group collecting signatures for the ballot issue had to get 10% of all votes cast in the last election–not 10% of all voters–meaning they wanted the county to be able to add up every vote on every ballot cast in the last election and take 10% of the total votes.
This wacky interpretation of Arizona law would have meant that 5,709 signatures would have had to be gathered, instead of just 1,455. The group collecting signatures knew this was unlawful and decided to sue the town. Instead of advising the town properly, Pierce Coleman collected legal fees to defend against an indefensible argument—again wasting taxpayer money. Prescott Valley lost the case, and rightfully so. Pierce Coleman’s reading of Arizona law was deemed to be “unconstitutional.”
County government should consider the implications of hiring private attorneys who may prioritize their own financial interests over effective governance.
A New Vulnerability: When Control Replaces Oversight
In my 2022 review of Santa Cruz County’s election infrastructure, I found no evidence of active manipulation within the Elections Department itself. In fact everything I saw going on in the election department looked good compared to what I dealt with in 2014.
However, I identified a much greater risk in the Recorder’s Office, particularly in the procedures overseen by then-Recorder Suzanne “Suzie” Sainz, who held the office for 27 years. Her mother, Mary Lou Sainz, served in the same role from 1980 through the early 1990s. (In fact, Mary Lou was a guest at my wedding in 1978.)
Suzie Sainz ran an absentee ballot system that lacked even the most basic checks and balances:
She maintained sole control over vote-by-mail ballots—from their receipt and signature verification to their submission to the elections department. Sainz developed a new system in 2020, her re-election year, where she had external ballot drop boxes placed at each precinct. Sainz then personally retrieved the ballots, taking them back to her office—without any public observation or bipartisan oversight of the intake or handling process.
The public was completely shut out of verifying how these ballots were processed.
This system of total control enabled a situation ripe for abuse—even if no wrongdoing was proven. It was a structure built to conceal, not to reassure. Sainz conveniently implemented the new VBM system just before her last re-election in 2020.
And that 2020 Democratic primary stats tells the story:
Suzie Sainz narrowly defeated Anita Moreno by just 96 votes—3,275 to 3,179, a margin of 1.5%.
Moreno won handily on Election Day, receiving 514 in-person votes to Sainz’s 357 a margin of 157 votes, or 58.7% to 41.3% for that segment of the electorate.
Provisional ballots told the same story: Moreno 16, Sainz 9. A margin of 64% to 36% for Sainz.
Sainz’s election outcome was decided by the vote-by-mail process—controlled entirely by her.. In a race that close, process matters. And control without oversight is not just a vulnerability—it’s an invitation to corruption.
This wasn’t just bad practice. It was a system designed to cheat and avoid scrutiny.
That’s not how democracy should function.
And let’s not forget: during that same campaign, Sainz admitted she didn’t work on Fridays and only worked 5 to 7 hours a day. Except during elections!
Yet she had full control over the most sensitive part of the election process. That’s not public service—it was unchecked power.
Whether the outcome was manipulated or not, the system itself was built to allow it. And in any functioning democracy, that is unacceptable.
Previously, Vote-By-Mail (VBM) drop-off ballots were collected in a simple secure sealed Box inside the precinct, or mailed in. The ballots were inventoried at the precinct and turned over to the recorder's office, with the count of VBM recorded in the precinct's end-of-day report.
Sainz was aware that I had knowledge of her improper handling of the vote-by-mail ballots, which made her particularly cautious around me. Whenever I asked a straightforward simple question, she would insist on me formally submitting a records request.
Susie Sainz may have been one of those who provoked the lawsuit by making false allegations against me. However, Sainz preferred to resign than have her unlawful VBM procedures exposed in court, and that’s what she did, resigning on December 22, 2022.
Link to the notes regarding County Recorder Suzanne Sainz and the events on election night. Links to sources of information: Nogales Int: source one, source two
Past Examples of Election Misconduct in Santa Cruz County
The county’s current retaliatory acts against me are based on past history.
In 2014, I filed a public records lawsuit against Santa Cruz County. My top request was simple: identify who was programming the county’s Diebold/GEMS election system.
Testifying under oath, County Clerk also-Elections Director Melinda Meek testified that no outside vendor was involved and that she managed all the programming herself. That testimony was false.
After winning the case and obtaining the records, we discovered that the Santa Cruz voting system had long been programmed by William E. Doyle, a private contractor operating out of Glendale, Arizona.
Melinda Meeks was so close to the Doyles that she referred to them in writing as Mom and Dad.
Doyle accessed election systems remotely using modem lines—technically enabling him to load or adjust election databases from afar. If the system had a problem Doyle would instruct them to turn on the modems so he could enter the system and fix the problems or load the database to the system.
This activity was illegal at the time and banned in Arizona. Likely due to its exposure, Doyle canceled his corporation and became a DBA (Doing Business As) to avoid public visibility. Meeks provided false testimony in court to protect herself and the Doyles and to avoid admitting that she had been breaking the law. The fact that Meeks was willing to lie under oath also raises questions about her overall performance as elections director and what else she might have been willing to do.
You can view Meek’s perjured testimony here:
Meek’s Court Testimony – Starts at 6:47
Question: County attorney. “Why doesn’t it exist?”
Answer: Meeks, “Because there’s not one—because I do it myself.”
Question by JOHN HOLMAN County attorney. Answers by Melinda Meek on Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Question: Okay. If I could draw your attention to have a look side by side at Exhibit 6 and also Exhibit 1, which on page 3 identifies the ten itemized requests made by plaintiff Brakey. The response made by the county is that the document as requested does not exist. What do you mean by that, what's meant by that?
Answer: The one you're referring to, is that item --
Q: Item No. 1. We're going to go down the stream. Item No. 1?
A: So it's my understanding that in the public records request, as the item was requested, it does not exist.
Q: Okay. And why is that?
A: Because there is not one.
Q: Okay. And I guess just for the Court's benefit, what was being requested was an electronic copy of the contract with the vendor who programs the central county election computer and the AccuVote memory card, and you're saying that does not exist?
A: It doesn't exist because I do that myself; it's done in house.
Q: So there is no contract, there is no vendor that would satisfy --
A: In my opinion, no. (END)
GEMS audit logs proved otherwise. Doyle was not only programming Santa Cruz County's system—he was programming voting systems for multiple counties.
Doyle would “fork” the central database after statewide races were configured and then tailor it for each county. See other counties in GEMS audit log. Counties shown on slide below:
Apache, Gila, Greenlee, La Paz, and Mohave Counties.
Even more concerning: Doyle had access to the same phone modem lines used to transmit precinct results on election night. These channels provided a potential "man-in-the-middle" vulnerability and enabled election interference techniques like Fraction Magic and Santa Cruz County, AZ.
These were not hypothetical risks—--the actions of William Doyle, allowed by the elections director, Melinda Meeks, created real opportunities for the purposeful or accidental introduction of malware and the alteration of election results.
Shortly after we exposed this setup, Doyle quietly retired. For more details, see:
William E. Doyle: The Hidden De Facto Statewide Election Director
Andrew Appel’s 2018 report: “Are voting-machine modems truly divorced from the Internet
County ordered to pay $38K for records delay to AUDIT’s Attorney.
By Curt Prendergast -Nogales International Mar 20, 2015
Can the System be Rigged?
Following are some of my concerns about the 2024 Election. 2024 ELECTION DAY BOMB THREATS -
At least 227 bomb threats were reported in key counties across the U.S. on Election Day, including sixteen in Arizona.
What better distraction for a cyber operation?
Here’s the scary part—just look at this device. A simple USB "utility knife" can hack an Election Management System (EMS) in seconds.
How confident are we that Cochise County wasn’t compromised? Or Any county? Cochise At 7:00 PM on Election Night their central count operations went dark for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
That’s more time than a bad actor would need. Just plug in a device that is self-activated, with a hidden Wi-Fi connection and walk away. It can even be left behind—inside the machine or hidden in a wire going through a wall.
Now consider how Congressional District-CD 6—spanning five counties—raised red flags. Nearly $14 million was spent by both parties. A last-minute new Green Party member became a candidate, changed her name, and appeared on the ballot, possibly to siphon off or switch votes. We don’t know what really happened—because we can’t verify elections. On behalf of AUDIT USA, I filed Records Requests in all five District 6 counties for the CVR in CD-6 but was refused because of the ongoing Santa Cruz lawsuit against me claiming that the CVR is not a public record.
Nobody should walk away from an election wondering if it was real.
Not in a Democratic Republic, and not with so much at stake.
The founders warned us:
Democracy only survives if we remain vigilant.
Join the Movement.
Demand elections that are:
1) Transparent 2)Trackable and 3) Publicly Verified
Voting is a secret process! But counting must be a public process again!
Anonymous digital ballot images must be available for independent review with a CVR database for auditing!
That’s how we fight corruption in the digital age.
That’s how we protect democracy.
Read Full Report by Ray Lutz:
“USB Hacker Tool Could Change Virtually Any Election Results, Given Access.”
A USB “utility knife” can quickly take over and subvert any system—if someone gets inside.
Can election systems be hacked?
Yes. Absolutely. —Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight on Substack: https://substack.com/home/post/p-156649711
Please also Follow “Lulu Friesdat” of Smart Elections, Lulu is doing incredible work: https://smartelections.us/
SMART Elections Substack Voting Machine Details Requested in Lawsuit Challenging 2024 Election Rockland County Lawsuit Discovery Submitted… Read more
What’s the Difference Between a Logic and Accuracy Test and an Emissions Test? Not Much—And That’s the Problem.
When I ask election officials how they know their election results are accurate, the most common response is, “We ran a Logic and Accuracy test.”
That’s where the conversation usually get interesting. (with groupthink mentality) they ask: “Are you a conspiracy theorist?”
I typically reply by stating, "I do not engage in conspiracy theories; I focus on verifiable information and empirical evidence. There is documented proof that systems are capable of being manipulated, as demonstrated by the Volkswagen case.”
Let’s go back to the now-infamous VW emissions scandal.
From 2006 to 2015, Volkswagen marketed its so-called “Clean Diesel” vehicles in the U.S. as environmental game-changers—cars that combined performance, fuel efficiency, and ultra-clean emissions. The company’s PR campaign included glossy ads and even Super Bowl commercials. Over 580,000 vehicles were sold in the U.S. under the VW, Audi, and Porsche brands. However, it was a complete fraud!
How VW cheated on emissions tests.
VW secretly installed software that could detect when a car was undergoing an emissions test. During testing, the software would activate the pollution controls, allowing the cars to “pass.” But once the vehicle left the testing station, those controls were disabled, and the cars emitted nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the legal limit.
This was not simply an act of dishonesty; it had fatal consequences.
In Europe alone, it’s estimated that 72,000 people die prematurely each year due to NOx emissions from diesel . It causes asthma and respiratory problems.
A Logic and Accuracy (L&A) test is similar to an emissions test.
It’s a controlled, pre-election (and sometimes post-election) procedure where test ballots are run through voting machines to confirm they are counting correctly. The idea is to assure the public that the election system is functioning properly. But, like the emissions test, the L&A test can be easily gamed.
Warnings from a Security Expert: Mickey Duniho—an expert witness and retired NSA master programmer—who retired after 37 years, has long warned about these limitations. ► Courtroom testimony:
“A logic and accuracy test only tells you that someone programmed the database so that it has the correct races and candidates on a particular day. Unfortunately, the computer is a black box. It doesn’t tell you anything about what happens minute to minute on Election Day. It is entirely possible to program the database, so it behaves one way during the test—and another way during the election itself.”
As to being called a conspiracy theorist, which is a weaponized word developed a long time ago but elevated by the CIA..
“In 1967, the CIA circulated Memo #1035-960,” instructing agents to label critics of the Warren Commission as “conspiracy theorists’—a tactic meant to marginalize dissent and promote compliance with the official story. This wasn’t about truth—it was about control. By stigmatizing critical inquiry, the term 'conspiracy theorist' became a psychological weapon.
It's a textbook case of Groupthink: a powerful system rejecting uncomfortable facts to preserve the illusion of consensus.
When critical thinking is shamed and conformity is rewarded, democracy itself is in danger “I typically smile, respond, and state that I’m a conspiracy factualist, since I deal with facts and we know how the systems could be programmed to cheat, and I try to explain how Volkswagen did it, and why random audits are essential!”
While these L&A test procedures are important, they are not audits. L&A tests only confirm that the system functions correctly at the time of testing—they do not ensure the overall integrity of the election.
The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal: A Warning!
The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal illustrates how easily systems can be programmed to cheat during testing.
Volkswagen (VW) designed software intended to cheat emissions tests, misleading 11 million vehicle owners worldwide about the environmental impact of their diesel engines. As reported by the BBC, the scandal cost VW over $33.3 billion in fines and settlements in the United States alone. You can learn more about the incident on Wikipedia.
OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS:
Restoring Trust Through Transparency in Santa Cruz County, Arizona
1. Establish the Santa Cruz County Citizens Election Transparency Commission
Purpose:
Create an independent commission to oversee elections, budget practices, public records compliance, and more.
Structure:
One appointment from each County Supervisor (or they may serve themselves).
Five additional members from Arizona’s major voter affiliations:
Democrat
Republican
Libertarian
Green
Independent (Arizona’s second-largest group)
This ensures diversity of thought and protection from partisanship or groupthink.
Powers:
Monitor election processes (mail ballots, CVRs, ballot image handling)
Audit election-related spending and grant use
Hold public meetings monthly (live-streamed and archived)
Issue annual public reports and recommendations
Model:
Based on the successful Pima County Election Integrity Commission, operating since July 1st 2008. Link to: PIMA COUNTY ELECTION INTEGRITY COMMISSION BYLAWS
Proposed Mission Statement:
The mission of the Santa Cruz County Election Integrity and Transparency Commission is to restore public trust by promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen oversight in all government operations.
We are committed to ensuring that elections—and all public affairs—are conducted lawfully, openly, and with the highest standards of integrity.
Per A.R.S. § 39-121, Arizona’s foundational public records law:
“Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.”
This law guarantees public access to government records, unless exempted. Transparency is mandatory by law.
We believe that transparency is not just a buzzword—it is the cure for corruption.
That’s why we advocate for openness across all government sectors, including elections, budgeting, contracting, legal expenditures, and administrative decision-making. The Commission stands for truth, accountability, and the principle that voting is a secret process—but counting—and governing—must be public.
2. Enforce Public Records Laws—No More Excuses
End unlawful redactions of legal invoices, contracts, and vendor payments
Immediately publish ballot images, Cast Vote Records (CVRs), audit logs, and tabulator reports post-election
Launch a Public Records Dashboard to track open records requests and response times
Accountability starts with accessibility.
3. Protect Whistleblowers & End Legal Retaliation
Pass a local Whistleblower Protection Ordinance for county employees, citizens, and vendors
Prohibit using county funds to sue citizens who request records or speak out—uphold anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) principles
Require independent legal review of all lawsuits filed by the County against individuals or nonprofits
4. Upgrade Election Department Surveillance Systems.
To ensure proper security and transparency, the County must modernize its camera systems in all areas related to election operations. These upgrades should include:
Motion-activated recording: Cameras must automatically activate when anyone enters the Election Department.
Full coverage of critical systems: Cameras must provide continuous, clear visibility of the EMS (Election Management System) computer and both DS450 central count scanners.
Ballot storage under surveillance: All areas where ballots are stored must be under continuous video monitoring.
Functionality audit and repair: Any non-functioning hallway or room cameras must be promptly inspected and repaired to ensure no gaps in coverage.
Why it matters: Transparency doesn’t just apply to records—it includes physical processes. Surveillance deters misconduct and provides a verifiable chain of custody for election materials. This is standard best practice in counties prioritizing election integrity.
Exhibit: AZ SOS 2023 ELECTIONS PROCEDURES MANUAL (Page 201) B. Live Video Recording at Central Counting.
For any statewide, legislative, or county election, and subject to local appropriation, the county officer in charge of elections must provide a live video recording of the custody of all ballots when ballots are present in the tabulation room in the central counting place… The county officer in charge of elections must timely provide the website hyperlink to the Secretary of State, who must publish those hyperlinks on the Secretary of State’s website. A.R.S. § 16-621(D).
5. Implement Programs like ABE: Auditable Ballot Examination
Adopt ABE, a cost-free, citizen-powered election audit tool that uses:
Ballot images
Cast Vote Records
Batch-level vote totals
Chain-of-custody and audit logs
Why programs like ABE?
It’s low-cost and ABE is free (Microsoft Excel is available)
It reconciles election results with the actual ballots images
It empowers citizens to “trust but verify” enhancing voter turnout
Maintaining transparency in the interpretation of each vote and its documentation within the CVR database is of utmost importance.
This objective can be supported by implementing a risk-limiting-type- audit that provides hyperlinked ballot images corresponding to each row in the CVR is one anonymous ballot.
6. Oversee Federal and State Grant Spending
Require that all federal/state grants—especially those for law enforcement, border security, and health crises—undergo:
Independent financial audits
Transparent line-item public reporting
Public dashboards for real-time tracking
Public comment periods before fund allocation
Unmonitored money fuels corruption. Oversight prevents it.
7. Promote Civic Education and Empower Grassroots Oversight
Host community forums, town halls, and “Know Your Government” teach-ins
Develop civic report cards rating departments and officials based on transparency and responsiveness
Partner with schools, colleges, and veterans’ groups to train the next generation of civic watchdogs, commissioners, and reform candidates.
An informed and engaged public is the best defense against corruption.
8. The Path Forward: From Exposure to Action
This plan does not seek to tear down Santa Cruz County—it seeks to build it back better through transparency, truth, and accountability.
Santa Cruz County is not alone in facing systemic corruption, but it can be a national leader in reform. By creating an independent Citizens Transparency Commission, enforcing public records laws, adopting ABE, and protecting civic participation, we can transform Santa Cruz from concealed and corrupt to open and accountable.
The Supervisor’s Role: To Oversee Bureaucracy, Not Serve It
According to the Arizona Clean Elections Commission:
“County Supervisors are elected to provide oversight and direction for county operations. Their responsibilities include approving budgets, setting tax rates, conducting elections, and ensuring that county departments operate ethically and efficiently.”
— azcleanelections.gov
In conclusion, an effective investigation answers three key questions: Who, What, and Why.
Some major 'WHO’S' AND WHY’S are highlighted in this article. Please read Chapter 17: “Technofeudalism—Are We Living Under Its Rule?”
Chapter 17- Technofeudalism: Are We Living Under Its Rule? Has Big Tech Become the New Monarchs and What Does That Mean for Elections, Democracy and Our Democratic Republic? John R Brakey
Several months ago, while conducting research, I came across an article by Mike Brock titled: “The Plot Against America.” Once I began reading, I found it exceptionally compelling—so much so that I couldn’t put it down. I highly recommend it to anyone trying to understand the deeper “Who, What, and Why” behind the troubling shifts we’re witnessing in our country. As I often say, nothing is fixed until we understand why it broke: Read full story
Reading Brock’s article was a powerful experience. It reminded me that we are not alone, and I’m not crazy, or you. Others see the same patterns. While our terms may differ, I view mine through my work as a nonpartisan election transparency activist full-time for the past 21 years.
Hannah Arendt, the German-American political theorist wrote:
“Constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore.”
“A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong.”
“With such people, you can do whatever you want.”
That insight struck a deep chord with me.
My Personal Background and Perspective:
When I became “woke,” I realized something essential. It’s better to understand than to be understood—especially if being understood means being taken for a fool or a mark.
At 15, I ran away from home to escape a dysfunctional family and the control of the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult.
At the age of 17, I resided in Berkeley, California, and travelled periodically to Mexico. During one such trip, I was apprehended for attempting to bring marijuana into the United States. As a consequence, I returned to Maine and was placed on five years of federal probation—of which I served three years before being granted early release do to my work as a therapist assisting others.
Shortly after returning to Maine, I encountered some difficulties that led to my placement in a young men’s correctional facility. During my time there, I met a priest whose guidance played a pivotal role in positively transforming my life. (As a side note: I cast my first vote at 18 while incarcerated. That was possible in Maine—and it should be possible everywhere. That vote reminded me I was still part of society.)
Father Gerard Bolduc helped me get into a therapeutic community. I was 18, and that program saved my life. Therapy taught me to stop running and start facing my demons. I learned a key lesson:
What doesn’t kill you can make you stronger—but only if you take the time to understand it.
After completing the program, I stayed on to work there for nearly four years, helping others overcome addiction and trauma. I discovered that helping others helps you grow. That belief—sharing knowledge and compassion—became the foundation of who I am today as a husband, father, grandfather, and citizen transparency activist.
Later, Governor James Longley of Maine granted me a pardon—along with a scholarship to the University of Maine to study psychology. I also received two years of academic credit for my work at Elan.
Soon after, I teamed up with a colleague from Illinois to start a new therapeutic center. It didn’t work out—but the experience led me to the next adventure. And there have been many since.
Big adventure: Married Marisela Campos on September 23, 1978; together, we raised three successful children and are proud grandparents of seven.
Arizona Brakey Tribe (Family Photograph July 2024)
My advocacy for election transparency is rooted in the belief that safeguarding a strong democracy is the most significant thing I can leave for my children and grandchildren.
In my view, an activist is someone propelled by a genuine commitment to causes greater than themselves.
Their motivation does not derive from the pursuit of power, wealth, or recognition, but from a profound sense of purpose.
Heightened awareness of injustice, cruelty, or inequity inspires me to take substantive action with others.
Today, 53 years later, I am 71 years old. In some respects, I continue to reflect on the motivations of my younger self—pursuing truth and striving to live in a way that does not cause harm to others. While this can be challenging at times, I consistently aim to act responsibly and contribute positively to those around me.
I approach every problem with a guiding principle:
“Nothing is truly fixed until I understand why it broke.”
While this can be challenging at times, I consistently aim to act responsibly and contribute positively to those around me.
I also teach the seven "7 Cs" of being an effective activist. See slide.
If you have reached this point, you are likely aware that our democratic system faces considerable challenges.
YES—Democracy is in Crisis.
According to respected studies, public trust in U.S. elections is at a 70-year low. The Pew report show only 17% of Americans still have confidence in our elections. But the real number might be even lower—closer to 3–4%. Most people only trust the results when their “Party” wins. And that’s not how a functioning democratic republic is supposed to work.
Voter turnout in the U.S. ranks among the lowest in the developed world. Many Americans believe elections are rigged or meaningless. As the old quote (often misattributed to Mark Twain) goes:
“If elections made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”
So, how do we fix it? We prove it’s real. And that’s what ABE does.
It took years of work by me and the AUDIT USA team to develop ABE: the Auditable Ballot Examination system.
So please—take a few minutes to watch former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s video on the Five Key Steps to Verifiable Elections.
The problems in our elections may be complicated. But the solution is not:
Transparency
Verification
Public tools like Abe
I've learned that when you shine, a light, shadows retreat.
Abe, along with similar tools, serves as an example of that innovation, and there are additional options available.
Let’s use them—together.
Let’s use these digital tools they don’t want us to know about.
Because:
“Democracy dies in darkness—but it can be revived in the light of transparency.” Seeing is believing.
Let’s turn on the lights—together.
Transparency = Truth.
Best regards,
John R. Brakey
Director, AUDIT Elections USA
📧 JohnBrakey@gmail.com
(520) 339-2696
🔗 My Substack Page
Our inspiration for naming our program Abe was drawn from the words of Abraham Lincoln.
“I have faith in the people.
They will not consent to disunion.
The danger is, they are misled.
Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.”
Here's another Incredible quote.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be the author and finisher.”
Abraham Lincoln
Why I Got Involved
Because I was a witness to a crime in the 2004 election. I was a precinct committeeman on the edge of the Indian Reservation, in one of the largest precincts in Pima county —and what I saw disturbed me.
These workers cursed and menaced John until he withdrew [see p. 132 in Mark Crispin Miller's book, Fooled Again - How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)].
After returning from Mexico 22 years ago, I dedicated myself full-time to investigating elections stating election day 2004.
I used benchmarking to study systems and people, discovered Arizona’s problems are both local and national. That one of the reasons AUDIT USA in Florida working with Susan Pynchon, well known transparency activist also for the last 21 years.
Before that, I ran a marine business recreational and led Amigos del Mar de Cortés, an environmental group.
But when I returned to the U.S., I realized the most endangered ecosystem might be our democracy.
I discovered that the Diebold voting system was built on Microsoft Access—with no password protection. Anyone could remove the database, modify it on a personal computer, and reinsert it into the system. From there, the outcomes could be manipulated without detection.
On the night of the RTA bond election May of 2006, machines began crashing.
Ted Downing filmed operators flipping through a Microsoft Access manual, trying to fix errors in memory card programming. Soon after, we learned that the county purchased a special machine capable of programming those memory cards with vote-switching logic—using positive and negative numbers to skew results. This is all laid out in bill Risner's statement of facts in the RTA case.
Here the invoice for that device:
To determine how much they need to switch, they used early vote-by-mail data as polling information.
Bennie Smith, a member of our board, subsequently developed Fraction Magic—a tool that revealed the possibility of dividing and reallocating votes within the Diebold System without public awareness. Mr. Smith currently holds a position on the Tennessee State Board of Elections.
I lived in Santa Cruz County, AZ from 1977 to 1999 and married into the Campos family in 1978, who have deep roots in Nogales on both sides of border.
When friends from Nogales asked me to look into local election problems, I got involved—because this is personal.
📺 Watch this powerful segment—every minute matters.
An oligarch is someone who belongs to a small, elite class wielding outsized economic or political power. These individuals thrive in systems where democracy is weak or corrupted.
These Guys learn from each other! Anne Applebaum’s ‘Autocracy, Inc.’
While the term often evokes Russian oligarchs post-Soviet Union, technofeudal oligarchs are rising in democracies too—especially when media, infrastructure, and public opinion are shaped by a handful of billionaires.
Oligarchies can undermine democracy by shaping policies that benefit a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.
President Reagan often said, "Trust but Verify."
I would add to that: “Without Verification, Trust cannot be Established.”
AUDIT USA is a 501(c)(3) organization. Your donations are tax-deductible!
Send donation check to:
AUDIT USA P.O. Box 26361
Tucson, AZ85726
We appreciate donations of any size.
Investigative report by John R Brakey Director AUDIT (Elections) USA & Team - A 501-C3 nonprofit
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/10/06/santa-cruz-county-elections-data-subject-of-court-action/
When it comes to artificial intelligence and the development of Omniscience, who are the big players and financiers, and does it tie to the PayPal Mafia?
“Oh yes—it absolutely ties to the PayPal Mafia and then some. The development of artificial intelligence and the march toward “digital omniscience” is being fueled by a familiar cast of tech oligarchs and mega-financiers”
Here's a breakdown of the major players:
🔧 The Architects of AI Omniscience
1. Elon Musk
Ties to PayPal Mafia: Co-founder of PayPal.
AI Ventures: o xAI (2023): Musk’s latest foray, aimed at creating a “truth-seeking AI” as a counter to what he calls “woke” AI. o OpenAI: Co-founder, though he later distanced himself, claiming it strayed from its original mission.
Ties to Omniscience: Owns X (Twitter) and Neuralink. Collects data across social, cognitive, and neurological domains.
2. Peter Thiel
Founding Member: PayPal Mafia godfather.
AI/Surveillance Power: o Palantir Technologies: A data-mining behemoth used by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. o Founders Fund: VC firm that backs AI and surveillance tech.
Ideological Angle: Believes in using technology to re-engineer society—often through libertarian and nationalist lenses.
3. Reid Hoffman
PayPal Mafia Member, co-founder of LinkedIn.
AI Ventures:
o Co-founder of Inflection AI, building powerful large language models. o Close to Microsoft, which has invested billions into OpenAI (makers of ChatGPT).
4. Sam Altman
CEO of Open AI.
Deep connections to: o Microsoft ($13B+ investment in OpenAI). o Worldcoin: A project aiming to scan people’s irises to verify digital identity — a biometric gateway to global data control.
Ambitions: Known for openly discussing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and the post-capitalist world it could usher in.
Is Technofeudalism Worse Than Capitalism?
YES! Here’s why:
1. It eliminates competition—consolidating economic and cultural power into just a few hands. 2. It creates digital dependence, forcing individuals and governments to rely on a few corporate platforms. 3. It turns people into products, reducing our data, behavior, and attention to commodities.
Can We Escape Technofeudalism?
There are still pathways to reclaim our digital and democratic future:
Decentralization – Supporting open-source, blockchain-based platforms that empower users.
Regulation – Enforcing antitrust laws to break up monopolies and restore market competition.
Public Digital Infrastructure – Building government-backed platforms that serve the public good, not private profit.
The Big Question: Are We Already Trapped?
Technofeudalism suggests that we no longer live in a free market but in a digital regime ruled by high-tech oligarchs. They control access, profits, speech, and even elections.
So I ask you?
Are we already living under technofeudal rule?
If so, how will you vote?
Because your vote may be the last line of defense against a future where democracy is replaced by permanent Technofeudalism domination.
Conclusion:
Mitigating the challenges presented by technofeudalism necessitates a unified endeavor among policymakers, civil society, and the general public to steadfastly uphold democratic values in this digital era.
Breaking the Grip: Time to Use Antitrust Laws Against Technofeudal Lords
This raises a critical question: Can we reclaim democracy by breaking up these digital oligarchs? It’s time to bring antitrust law back into the spotlight — not just for the economy, but for the survival of democratic governance.
This is precisely what antitrust legislation was made for — to check concentrated power when it becomes dangerous not just to fair markets, but to democracy itself.
We must dust off and sharpen our antitrust tools again:
Break up Big Tech conglomerates that are vertically integrated — like Amazon or Google controlling both the platform and the product.
Regulate key algorithms as public utilities when they control essential communications and commerce.
Enforce data portability and interoperability, giving smaller competitors and the public a fair shot at participation.
End surveillance capitalism by limiting behavioral data harvesting and dark patterns that exploit users.
Rein in political power of monopolies — stopping them from using lobbying and influence operations to tilt legislation and elections.
The Anti-Democracy Machine Behind JD Vance. by Shannon Vavich
The Flying Kitchen by Shannon Vavich 7.82K subscribers
John Brakey with Dean Polales, my best man, at my wedding in Nogales, Arizona September 23, 1978.
