Arizona State University (ASU) and the State Department have teamed up to train students to become disinformation specialists.
The new program, announced on the 22nd anniversary of 9/11 on Monday, is part of a globalist effort to unify government response to disinformation.
ASU will partner with the State Department’s European Digital Diplomacy Exchange (EDDE) program to produce a new class coming in the spring, “Democratic Resilience in the Digital Age.” ASU students will collaborate with both State Department leaders and representatives from 21 different European governments to develop content for press briefings and government social media accounts.
.@GPA_AS Bill Russo traveled to Arizona to launch a new partnership between @EDDEplomacy and @ASU to create new coursework and internship opportunities for ASU students to promote democratic resilience across Europe.
We appreciate @MZEZ_RS's ongoing support for EDDE.…
EDDE was created by the Slovenian government’s Centre for European Perspective (CEP) and the State Department in October 2017. The State Department funds EDDE, while CEP executes it. One of EDDE’s co-founders and directors, Matthew (Matt) Jacobs, is an ASU alumni who has worked in the State Department since 2013. Assistant Secretary of State for Global Public Affairs Bill Russo credited Jacobs for making the initiative possible.
Russo told State Press that ASU was “fertile ground” for foreign affairs and creating “a pipeline of talent” for State Department hires. Russo dismissed concerns that the partnership would be influenced by government interests.
“What we [the federal government] are offering here is independent and rigorous research that is not influenced by the U.S. government,” said Russo.
Good morning from Arizona!
I’ll be out west for the next few days, meeting with students, academics, elected officials, and other community leaders to discuss why foreign policy matters here at home and how the @StateDept delivers for the American people every day. pic.twitter.com/nG2Mt8o6v6
In EDDE’s most recent guide published last summer, the program outlined a four-step approach for how governments should handle disinformation: compiling a database documenting disinformation by identifying its sources and collecting occurrences of it; creating media campaigns and a call-to-action network among government officials to uniformly counter disinformation; investigating those who repeatedly disseminate disinformation and enacting policies against them, such having social media platforms label them as disinformation spreaders; and punishing those who spread disinformation with hate speech bans, sanctions, and country bans.
EDDE also suggested certain tactics for gaining government trust online, such as issuing informal or trendy content. EDDE also suggested amplifying citizens’ content to create positive feedback loops between the government and citizens.
“Occasional, intentional ‘off-brand’ messages should be strategically deployed to maintain interest of, amuse, delight, or even surprise audiences and make them take action,” stated the guide. “By differing somewhat from government messaging, this type of content is more likely to be perceived as independent and credible by those who are suspicious of the government and may move them closer to the government than they were before encountering a partially-aligned message from a non-government communicator.”
Be A Digital Diplomat Compendium is now FREELY AVAILABLE!
— European Digital Diplomacy Exchange – EDDE (@EDDEplomacy) June 20, 2022
EDDE has trained and advised over 200 high-level government representatives across 19 different countries since its founding, furthering the establishment of a globalist network on information warfare. EDDE announced its recent approval for a three-year renewal earlier this month.
“Participants consistently recognize EDDE as a platform for fostering productive regional cooperation, transcending borders to achieve common goals,” stated EDDE. “EDDE achieves these goals by developing and enhancing national-level digital strategic communication strategies and counter-disinformation policies, not only bolstering public trust in government communications but also combatting the influence of disinformation.”
As part of their renewal, EDDE received another $500,000 last month from the State Department to produce “shared, substantive global outcomes” through September 2025. To date, EDDE has received over $1.2 million in federal funding since 2018.
From March through November of last year, $21,500 of that federal funding went toward establishing a joint counter-disinformation campaign concerning the Russia-Ukraine war.
In 2020, the U.S. Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Office of Public Diplomacy (EUR/PPD) used EDDE to develop COVID-19 safety information and contract-tracing apps for governments provided by tech sector leaders including Google and Apple.
In its 2023 annual performance plan, the State Department declared a performance goal, “Demand for Democracy,” to establish a five percent increase in citizen ability to counter disinformation and propaganda by Sept. 30, 2026. “Disinformation” wasn’t mentioned in the department’s prior annual plans.
The goal was expanded in the department’s 2024 annual performance plan. As part of this expanded goal, the State Department expressed its intent to host the 2027 World Expo in the U.S. and establish a three-country study on Media Literacy training programs.
The State Department is currently undertaking an evaluation activity, “Measures to Limit the Spread of Disinformation and Shape the Information Environment Cases Outcomes Meta-Assessment” through December. The evaluation by the Global Engagement Center (GEC) — an entity established by former President Barack Obama and refined by Arizona’s late Senator John McCain — pertains to the department goal of confronting the rise in “global disinformation” and its negative effects on domestic security and prosperity.
Approaches within this assessment include “digital and media literacy training; fact-checking, labeling, and nudges; factual and positive messaging, information campaigns, and pre-bunking; training and capacity building; independent media support; open-internet access tools; and detection and monitoring efforts.”
The State Department conducted two evaluations similar to the ongoing evaluation from September 2020 to February 2022 and March 2021 to December 2022, respectively, called the “Media Literacy Program (Eastern Europe and Eurasia) Evaluation” and the “Media Literacy Training Evaluation.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A Pima County sheriff is accused of delaying an investigation into an alleged sexual assault of a female deputy, prompting community outcry.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos reportedly put the investigation into the incident “on hold.”
A female deputy accused her supervisor, Ricardo Garcia, of sexual assault following a party at his residence last December. A hospital rape kit confirmed the presence of Garcia’s DNA on the victim. Garcia was arrested in January and subsequently fired.
Last month, the deputy filed a $900,000 claim against Garcia and Pima County. The deputy filed a formal complaint alleging that her chain of command were aware of her being sexually assaulted that December night, and refused to intervene for over 80 minutes.
“Defendants and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department conducted themselves in a manner, in their individual or official capacities that clearly violated the established rights of the deputy,” stated the claim. “Their actions caused and/or contributed to serious ongoing, and likely permanent injuries sustained by the deputy that resulted in her assault and rape, and the mismanagement of the following investigation.”
Wintesses report Ricardo Garcia, Pima County Sheriff’s Deputy, sexually assaulted a female deputy at his house party last Saturday. No charges filed & he's on admin leave with pay. Did we mention there are witnesses?
The Pima County Deputy’s Organization (PCDO) issued a statement expressing outrage at Nano’s actions.
“Sheriff Nanos failed to launch his own investigation in the months that followed to determine why her Lieutenant, Captain, and Chief allowed her to continue to be assaulted,” stated PCDO. “Her Lieutenant even responded to the location and stood outside, doing nothing, while she was assaulted inside for over an hour.”
PCDO added that the suspect and the chief, Joseph Cameron, were “well-known friend(s),” and questioned why Cameron was transferred to oversee Internal Affairs after the incident.
“Was there an attempt to cover up their involvement or complicity in the aftermath?” asked PCDO. “We at the Pima County Deputy’s Organization are outraged that Sheriff Nanos has failed to investigate the serious misconduct amongst his own command that allowed the prolonged sexual assault of a deputy.”
Cameron’s profile on the Pima county Sheriff’s Office website stated that his leadership style is the Golden Rule: “treat others the way you want to be treated.”
Sheriff Nanos delays deputy's request for investigation into command misconduct. Our statement: pic.twitter.com/HFMESqpvTn
Just months before the sexual assault incident, Nanos endorsed Gov. Katie Hobbs’ candidacy and was featured in one of her campaign videos. Nanos, a registered Democrat, has been dismissive of the ongoing border crisis.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) is questioning why the Capitol wasn’t secured during the Jan. 6, 2021 breach.
Lesko posed the question in response to an interview aired last month by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his newer, independent show platformed by X (formerly known as Twitter). Tucker interviewed the Capitol Police Chief at the time of the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol, Steven Sund. Fox News never aired the original interview with Carlson, which occurred in April.
“Why wasn’t [the] Capitol secured on Jan. 6?” asked Lesko. “Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police…”
🚨MUST WATCH: Why wasn't Capitol secured on Jan. 6? Tell all from Capitol Chief of Police… https://t.co/wAU6lgcW6q
In an interview just shy of an hour long, Sund painted a picture of intentional neglect to properly secure the Capitol by federal intelligence, Congress, and military leadership.
U.S. Capitol Police has its own intelligence agency, Intelligence Agency Intelligence Coordination Division (IIACD), which coordinates with other intelligence agencies. Sund said that all intelligence he received indicated that the planned Jan. 6 protest would be “just like the other MAGA rallies” that occurred in November and December, with “limited skirmishes” involving Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM).
However, Sund said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the military had intelligence not received by Capitol Police, such as planned attacks on Congress and violence against police officers.
Federal reports assessing the government preparation and response to the Jan. 6 breach are linked below, and arranged in order from oldest to newest:
Sund said neither the FBI or DHS put out a single official document specific to Jan. 6, which he said was unusual. Sund reported that normally one or both agencies would issue briefings addressing anticipated dangers, such as a Joint Intelligence Bulletin (JIB). None were issued ahead of the incident, as noted by the Senate Rules Committee. It was only after the attack that the intelligence agencies issued a JIB about potential future attacks inspired by the Jan. 6 events.
The GAO put together a timeline of open source data that government agencies collected concerning planned attacks on the Capitol months prior to Jan. 6.
On Jan. 5, the day before the attack, Sund said he had a conference call with then-chief of police at the Metropolitan Police Department, Robert Contee; then-assistant director of the FBI Washington Field Office, Steve D’Antuono; then-commander of the Army Military District of Washington, Omar Jones; then-commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, William Walker. Sund said not one person on the call expressed concerns about any threats of violence at the Capitol. DHS was absent from the call.
A Senate committee report released in July revealed that intelligence agencies repeatedly ignored planned threats of violence concerning Jan. 6. Some of those threats were addressed in emails to D’Antuono leading up to the attack. Yet, Sund said D’Antuono said nothing about those warnings.
Sund said that he wasn’t the only police chief in the dark, citing Contee as another leader who didn’t receive notifications on potential dangers, like the Norfolk memo. That Situational Information Report (SIR) from the Norfolk division of the FBI warned of the potential for violence in connection to the planned Jan. 6 rally. Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he never read the memo.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller discussed locking down the city and revoking permits on Capitol Hill, according to Sund. Sund said he never received requests to revoke the permits, though that was under his purview.
“Instead, on Jan. 4, what does Miller do? He puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying various weapons, any weapons, any civil disobedience equipment that would be utilized for the very demonstrations or violence that he sees coming. It just doesn’t make any sense,” said Sund. “When I was calling begging for assistance on Jan. 6, they weren’t allowed to respond at first.”
Sund said the CPB denied him federal resources twice due to “optics” and “because the intelligence didn’t support” his requests. The CPB included Paul Irving, House Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mike Stenger, Senate Sergeant of Arms, who responded directly to Minority Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, at the time.
“Even when we’re under attack, I have to go to those same two people to request the National Guard to be brought in,” said Sund.
The third and final member of the CPB is the Architect of the Capitol. From 2020 until February, that was Brett Blanton. President Joe Biden fired Blanton in February over extensive allegations of misconduct detailed in an inspector general report last year. Blanton told investigators that wasn’t at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because he was working remotely that day; Blanton further stated that neither he nor his staff spoke with Capitol Police about a request for an emergency declaration or National Guard support in advance of the Capitol breach.
Sund recounted the key timeline of that fateful day.
According to Sund, there were at least 150-180 National Guard members in the Capitol at law enforcement’s disposal, many within eyesight of the Capitol. The Capitol was breached at 12:53; by 12:55, Sundcalled the Washington, D.C. police department and spoke with Jeff Carroll for help. At 12:58, he called Sergeant Arms asking for additional assistance from the military. Irving said he would “run it up the chain,” implying Pelosi. The law allows Irving to make the decision himself in an emergency situation, such as that which occurred Jan. 6.
Stenger also deferred to Irving when Sund called. Over the next 71 minutes, Sund reported calling 32 people for help, including 17 police agencies. 11 of those calls were follow-up calls to Irving. After all that time, Irving finally issued approval for federal assistance.
We know that the President of the United States incited this insurrection – this armed rebellion – against our American democracy. He must go. pic.twitter.com/pIxOv2hOQv
Irving testified to the Senate in 2021 that he disagreed with Sund’s recollection. Sund said that testimony almost didn’t happen. When the Senate initially issued its call for testimony, it reportedly asked for only current security employees — which would’ve excluded Irving, Stenger, and Sund. Those three men were at the top of the security apparatus on Jan. 6. It wasn’t until Sund contacted the rules committee to ask to testify that the three men were included.
To date, Irving has never explained why it took him 71 minutes to obtain permission to deploy federal assistance that day. He resigned promptly after Jan. 6, and he is retired according to his LinkedIn, where he was last active at least seven months ago. Stenger passed away last June.
Pelosi, the head of Irving’s chain of command, was exempted from congressional inquiries into Jan. 6; Rep. Bennie Thompson effectively said that there was no need to look into Pelosi.
“Bennie Thompson said there is only one request: Nancy Pelosi is off limits…Shouldn't the very first question be, why was the Capitol so ill-prepared that day?" – @GOPLeader on Pelosi's illegitimate partisan witch-hunt👇 pic.twitter.com/xTKBH9txw2
The day after the Jan. 6 incident, there appeared to be a lockstep effort to assign blame for the Capitol invasion on Sund.
Pelosi called for Sund’s resignation, and falsely claimed that Sund hadn’t contacted her since the Capitol invasion. Yet, Sund spoke with Pelosi on the evening of Jan. 6.
Then, the intelligence agencies told mainstream media outlets through anonymous sources that Capitol Police turned down federal resources in the days leading up to Jan. 6.
Sund resigned after the Jan. 6 incident; in January, Sund released a memoir, “Courage Under fire: Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 on January 6,” detailing the events of that day.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Republican lawmakers are warning the Flagstaff City Council that their proposed ban on firearms ads would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
In a letter obtained by AZ Free News, State Reps. David Marshall (R-LD07), Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), and Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) told the council that the ban presented multiple constitutional concerns such as viewpoint discrimination and would violate state law, citing A.R.S. §13-3108.
“We trust that you realize, however, that the draft policy has nothing to do with ‘violence’ or ‘antisocial behavior.’ As written, the draft policy raises a host of constitutional concerns, including viewpoint discrimination,” said the lawmakers.
Flagstaff is set to vote today on a new radical ad policy discriminating against firearms-related speech. I joined my @AZHouse colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ and @Leo4AzHouse in calling out its potential constitutional violations and likely breach of state law. #1A#2Apic.twitter.com/cBWUBsgaTP
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) agreed with his fellow lawmakers’ assessment of the policy.
“This can’t stand, what is repugnant to the Constitution should be void,” said Gillette.
During the meeting, Councilmember Lori Matthews said that firearms-related businesses should still be allowed to advertise, and proposed more specific restrictions on depictions of violence rather than banning all display of firearms in general.
“I feel uncomfortable thinking we would turn off a whole industry,” said Matthews.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy compared massage parlors, marijuana and cigarette shops to firearms, saying that none of those business owners were complaining of their inability to advertise. McCarthy claimed that the firearms-related businesses wouldn’t be hurt by this policy.
“This will have no effect on the operation of any of these businesses. What they can do or not do is determined by state law and other regulations,” said McCarthy. “[This policy will] have no impact on free speech in general.”
Councilmember Deb Harris said she didn’t need any more explanation of the policy changes, and that she was in full support of the draft policy as it stood.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen recommended requiring firearms-related companies to include compelled speech consisting of a “safety message” in their advertisements.
Hansen further disclosed that their rejection of an ad placement by Timber Firearms and Training was due to the fact that the ad video depicted a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
It appears that Timber Firearms and Training ad placement request was the motivator for the new proposed policy.
Wilson spoke out against the policy during Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that ads do have an impact, contrary to what some on the council implied.
“Sadly, some of our customers are like the single mother that just left the judge’s chambers. She has an order of protection but knows the abuser’s not going to honor that. She has to come someplace where she can get training and where she can get armed to defend herself and her children,” said Wilson. “If she didn’t know we existed, what would the result be?”
Wilson further warned the council that the proposed policy would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Citizens Defense League (ACDL), also voiced opposition to the policy. Infanzon said that the policy ran afoul of the Constitution and Arizona statute.
“[Municipalities] cannot enforce a complete ban unless they can demonstrate that such advertising constitutes a threat to public health and safety,” recited Infanzon.
Councilmember Miranda Sweet said Timber Firearms and Training may have to compromise.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Vice Mayor Austin Aslan said the proposed policy was “far too descriptive” and suggested changing the language to reflect “weapons” rather than “firearms.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) will not reveal the identity of the student who threatened to shoot up the James E. College of Law campus over “transphobes” this past spring semester.
Police records reflect that the threats were made in the days leading up to April 10th, prompting concerns that lasted throughout the month and moved the law school to hold its last week of classes and finals remotely.
UArizona told AZ Free News that they redacted the student’s name from official records due to privacy and confidentiality issues.
According to records first obtained by 13 News, the University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) reported finding “threatening messages referencing killing people at UA campus” on the student’s phone. They found a search history that included questions around shooting accuracy, mass shootings, the Michigan State shooting, and Tucson shooting ranges. In an Instagram post included within police records, the student said they would rather kill a transphobe than be killed.
“All the gay people I know in the US are afraid for their life every day,” read the post. “I pack a loaded 9mm around with me because I’d rather kill a transphobe than get killed. But even then, I’d still probably die in a gunfight.”
Also according to police records, a friend reported to police that the student expressed an intent to shoot people. A friend also reported that the student would carry a gun onto campus property, despite knowing that it violated university policy.
“[The student] was talking oddly and that within the odd speech, [the student] stated, ‘I’m gonna shoot people’ as well as ‘they’re gonna come to shoot me’ and ‘I’m gonna shoot them before they shoot me,’” said the report. “[The student] has a gun and takes it to the university even though [the student] knows [they’re] not supposed to but uses it for protection in case [they’re] attacked.”
These threats emerged just weeks after the Christian elementary school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. The shooter — 28-year-old Aiden Hale, formerly known as Audrey Hale — was a woman who identified as a transgender man and a former student of the school. Three children and three adults were murdered by Hale before police stopped her.
Police records reflected that the UArizona student was hospitalized for mental health issues on April 10. Yet, on April 28, UAPD was notified that the student’s NetID WiFi was used in an attempted log-in on a campus computer. The student was not on campus. The interim public safety officer said the student was “in care” and not on campus at the time of the log-in.
In May, the student was reportedly entered into a federal database to prevent the future purchase of a firearm.
At the time of the threats and in a statement last week, the university repeatedly declared that the student posed no threat to campus. Interim Chief Safety Officer Steve Patterson said as much in a statement last Friday on the incident.
“UAPD has categorized the matter as a mental health-related case rather than a criminal matter,” said Patterson. “The investigation by the University of Arizona Police Department found that friends identified a student in crisis off-campus in April and sought care for their friend. While the student was in supervised care — and therefore posed no threat to the campus community — the student’s friends turned in a loaded handgun to the Tucson Police Department and informed them that the student had made verbal threats, although later statements indicated that the threat was less clear.”
Yet, Patterson advised students to remain vigilant on campus.
“The April incident is an important reminder that all of us must remain vigilant in the face of threatening or concerning behavior,” said Patterson.
According to the report, the student was banned from campus and university activities.
The University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) maintains a public list of banned individuals. Their policy maintains that these exclusionary orders are issued for a minimum of six months and potentially up to one year from the date of the offense. According to that list, there are 90 individuals who were banned within the potential same time frame as the student who issued the shooting threat.
At least one of the individuals within that time frame on the Exclusionary Orders list identifies as a transgender individual. It also appears that one of those individuals could have the ability to log in remotely to a campus computer — as it appears the student did on April 28 — having been an information technology services employee for the university until around May.
Questions concerning the ability of UArizona students to “remain vigilant” of an unidentified, banned student remain unanswered. UArizona referredAZPM to the redacted police report and Patterson’s statement when asked. The university also wouldn’t confirm whether the student is included in the UAPD exclusionary orders list.
The entire list of those banned within the same potential time frame as the student who made the shooting threat are listed below:
Timothy Hallman, exclusion through Oct. 11, 2023
Lawrence Littlefield, exclusion through Oct. 12, 2023
Eric Gates, exclusion through Oct. 13, 2023
Joseph Mackinder, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jeffery Garland, exclusion through Oct. 19, 2023
Jorge Howard, exclusion through Oct. 20, 2023
Kyle Narreau, exclusion through Oct. 25, 2023
Christopher Bravo, exclusion through Oct. 28, 2023
Jacob Ficek, exclusion through Oct. 29, 2023
Daniel Frescura, exclusion through Nov. 2, 2023
Bob Bernal, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jack Music, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Eva Arevalo, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jerry Johnson, exclusion through Nov. 3, 2023
Jordan Daniel, exclusion through Nov. 9, 2023
Peter Fass, exclusion through Nov. 10, 2023
David Petersen, exclusion through Nov. 14, 2023
Ronald Andrews, exclusion through Nov. 15, 2023
Luis Leveta, exclusion through Nov. 16, 2023
Randy Elam, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Kieth Davis, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Chester Carroll, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Joshua Neuser, exclusion through Nov. 17, 2023
Benjamin Burch, exclusion through Nov. 18, 2023
Kimberly Meadows, exclusion through Nov. 22, 2023
Wallace Leight, exclusion through Nov. 23, 2023
Victor De Anda, exclusion through Nov. 26, 2023
Roderick Davis, exclusion through Nov. 27, 2023
James Aguilar, exclusion through Nov. 29, 2023
Jarrod Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Chana Fligg, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Jamal Shannon, exclusion through Dec. 1, 2023
Carlos Castillo, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Lucas Griffith, exclusion through Dec. 3, 2023
Adrian Davis, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Gregory Nelson, exclusion through Dec. 5, 2023
Victor Zevallos, exclusion through Dec. 12, 2023
Matthew Verheyen, exclusion through Dec. 18, 2023
Wayne Martino, exclusion through Dec. 21, 2023
Mariah Ruiz, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Aaron Collelmo, exclusion through Dec. 22, 2023
Sandra Steinmetz, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Brittney Garcia, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Selahattin Toprak, exclusion through Dec. 30, 2023
Steven Helming, exclusion through Jan. 2, 2024
David Meracle, exclusion through Jan. 4, 2024
Curtis Linner, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Zachary Kindell, exclusion through Jan. 5, 2024
Christian Diaz De Leon, exclusion through Jan. 7, 2024
Dustin M. Klett, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Cody Hill, exclusion through Jan. 13, 2024
Gregory Schmitt, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Robert Ramsey, exclusion through Jan. 15, 2024
Steven Asmar, exclusion through Jan. 17, 2024
Michael Todd, exclusion through Jan. 18, 2024
William Turnbow, exclusion through Jan. 20, 2024
Russell Higgins, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Leona Arreola, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Elijah Salzwedel, exclusion through Jan. 26, 2024
Derek Kirven, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Jeffrey Jorgenson, exclusion through Feb. 4, 2024
Paul Curran, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Jorge Ruiz, exclusion through Feb. 8, 2024
Joseph Hardin, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Johnathan Keeney, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Chad Harvey, exclusion through Feb. 9, 2024
Arik Ruybe, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Anthony Fuentes, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Isaac Gracia, exclusion through Feb. 13, 2024
Jordan Young, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
Raymond Ramirez, exclusion through Feb. 14, 2024
John Lawicki, exclusion through Feb. 16, 2024
Tristen Dejolie, exclusion through Feb. 17, 2024
Richard Bowlby, exclusion through Feb. 18, 2024
Roman Arriero, exclusion through Feb. 21, 2024
Aric Ballard, exclusion through Feb. 22, 2024
Jason Blaylock, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Ryan Kuhns, exclusion through Feb. 24, 2024
Andrea Young, exclusion through Feb. 25, 2024
Michael Burks, exclusion through Feb. 26, 2024
Leonard Johnson, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Michael Clampitt, exclusion through Feb. 29, 2024
Kevin Huma, exclusion through March 3, 2024
Shannon Baker, exclusion through March 4, 2024
Enrique Lopez, exclusion through March 7, 2024
Kenton Landau, exclusion through March 21, 2024
Herbert Forreset, exclusion through March 30, 2024
Gabriel Sethi, exclusion through March 31, 2024
Jamie Chacon, exclusion through April 7, 2024
Leo Tift, exclusion through April 27, 2024
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
