SaveMCSO

IF COMPLIANCE ISN’T ENOUGH, WHAT IS Judge Snow?! The only consistent person involved in the Melendres case is you! Even Arpaio was gone a decade ago! Yesterday’s Melendres ruling raises a question every Maricopa County taxpayer should be asking: What exactly is the finish line? MCSO has achieved 100% Phase 1 compliance. The policies and leadership responsible for the original constitutional violations are long gone. Multiple sheriffs have led this agency since then. Even the United States supported substantial relief from these orders. Yet the Court denied MCSO’s request for relief. So I have some questions. If Full and Effective Compliance doesn’t result in ending oversight of compliant provisions, what does “Full and Effective Compliance” actually mean? How can MCSO prove it can operate without the Monitor when it is never permitted to operate without the Monitor? If statistical disparities alone do not establish intentional racial discrimination—as the Court itself acknowledges—what evidence establishes that today’s MCSO is intentionally discriminating? And while the federal court continues demanding accountability from MCSO, taxpayers should demand accountability for the Monitor itself. Records obtained after Judicial Watch pursued the Monitor billing records raise questions that should concern every taxpayer. One November 2025 Warshaw invoice totaled $428,744.42, including 1,305.9 professional-service hours billed at $300 per hour. The public-facing invoice does not identify employee-by-employee time entries supporting those 1,305.9 hours. Thank you @JudicialWatch Yet taxpayers were ordered to pay. The records also show repeated lodging, meal per diem and mileage reimbursements for Chief Sherry Kiyler, whom Judicial Watch identified as living in Chandler. Some invoices specifically describe “Roundtrip Mileage to Phoenix, Chief Kiyler” and “Roundtrip Mileage for Chief Kiyler to MCSO Offices.” So why were Maricopa County taxpayers also paying for local hotel rooms and per diem? Maybe there is a legitimate explanation. Then show us. Where are the written business-necessity approvals? What travel policy authorized the expense? Who reviewed it? Were any Monitor charges rejected or reduced? What documentation did the Court examine before determining these invoices were “reasonable”? That is the problem. This is not an accusation of fraud or corruption. It is a demand for transparency and equal accountability. If a federal court is going to compel Maricopa County taxpayers to fund a private monitoring operation year after year, then the public deserves to see enough information to independently determine whether those expenses are necessary, reasonable and properly authorized. The federal government demands that MCSO show its work. The people should be allowed to demand the same from the federal oversight system. After more than a decade, hundreds of millions of dollars in overall compliance-related public expenditures, multiple sheriffs and extensive institutional reform: What is the finish line? What exactly are taxpayers paying for? And if compliance isn’t enough to end federal oversight— tell the people you are supposed to serve what is? Your Honor…..? #Melendres #MaricopaCounty #TaxpayerAccountability #GovernmentTransparency #FederalOversight #FollowTheMoney #Arizona #Accountability @GoldwaterInst @PORACalifornia @SenMarkKelly @JudicialWatch @POTUS

How federal courts are quietly defunding American police washingtonexaminer.com/op-ed… @andybiggs4az @MarkStewart_AZ @sherifflamb1 @ThomasGalvin @DebbieLesko

Will the Senate vote for the people or for the for profit machine that indirectly funds campaigns: The House has now passed H.R. 8365 — the “Monitor Accountability Act” — and the bill now heads toward the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. The American people deserve to know: Will the Senate vote for transparency, accountability, and taxpayers… or will politics and private industry interests tied to endless federal litigation prevail? For years, Americans have watched court-appointed monitoring systems grow into massive taxpayer-funded industries involving attorneys, consultants, and monitors with limited public accountability. Critics argue some organizations involved in this broader litigation ecosystem have historically aligned financially and politically with Democratic causes and candidates — raising concerns about conflicts of interest and partisan incentives. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee will play a major role in deciding whether meaningful monitor reform moves forward. Current Senate Judiciary Committee: Chairman @ChuckGrassley @LindseyGrahamSC @JohnCornyn @BasedMikeLee @tedcruz @HawleyMO @SenJohnKennedy @SenThomTillis @MarshaBlackburn @SenKatieBritt @AshleyMoodyFL @Eric_Schmitt Ranking Member @SenatorDurbin @SenWhitehouse @amyklobuchar @ChrisCoons @SenBlumenthal @maziehirono @CoryBooker @AlexPadilla4CA @PeterWelch @AdamSchiff Arizona voters also deserve clear answers from: @SenMarkKelly @RubenGallego Will they support transparency and limits on indefinite federal monitoring systems funded by taxpayers? Or will they oppose reform? The public is watching, Democrats, Republicans and Independents deserve to know where their tax dollars are going and to not have them abused. #HR8365 #MonitorAccountabilityAct #JudicialReform #GovernmentTransparency #TaxpayerRights #FederalOversight #ConsentDecree #CourtMonitor #Arizona #MCSO #TransparencyMatters #Accountability #Politics #Oversight #WeThePeople

This 14-second clip is exactly why Congressman Andy Biggs’ “Monitor Accountability Act” is so important. For more than 11 years, Maricopa County taxpayers have funded the Melendres monitoring system at a cost exceeding $302 MILLION. Monitor fees alone exceeded $30 million, while identified victim compensation totaled roughly $266,000. Yes he is still profiting and has made over 100 times more compensation than all the “Victims” combined. Now watch as Monitor Robert Warshaw tells concerned taxpayers that information regarding how their tax dollars are being spent is “not for public consumption.” Keep in mind he is getting away with this because Federal Judge Snow sealed the invoices from public view in 2014-2015 That mindset is precisely why transparency protections are needed. Not to get rid of oversight but to benefit the taxpayers. The Monitor Accountability Act would require: • Public accounting of monitor spending • Transparency for taxpayers • Term limits for monitors • Judicial rotation after lengthy oversight • Public comment before monitor appointments This is not about politics. It is about ensuring constitutional oversight remains accountable to the people funding it. Oversight matters. Civil rights matter. But taxpayer transparency matters too.