2016 Dennis Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

Last Updated: Mar. 29, 2017

« 2015

2017 »

IMPORTANT NOTE

Testimony and exhibits in the Melendres proceedings have revealed a substantial amount of additional information regarding the Seattle Operation. This information is currently being incorporated first in the WYE Timeline - in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. The Seattle Operation information will be incorporated into this timeline in the near future (as time permits) but, in the meantime, if you seek additional information specifically the Seattle Operation, please see the WYE Timeline - beginning at Oct. 18, 2013 and through the present.

January 2016

Jan. 5, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Magistrate Goodman presides over the schedule hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. See Minute Entry (ECF 215; paperless); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 230).

Among several truly remarkable claims made today, Larry Klayman declares as follows:

MR. KLAYMAN: Well, there was a point in time, your Honor -- and in fact, Defendants put this on the record -- when Mr. Montgomery was -- his premises were raided ironically by the FBI. He was tied to a tree [*] as they searched his house and when they took everything that he had [*].

There was a court in Nevada that ordered that the FBI return the materials to Mr. Montgomery not because the materials were not -- repeat, not -- classified [*], but because the agent had lied in an affidavit and also had not shown probable cause to seize all of this material.

Now, under the circumstances, it's likely that he never got everything back [*]. May have kept that on behalf of the CIA.

ECF 230 at 53. The Judge is incredulous:

THE COURT: Your position -- and I want you to tell me if I'm wrong or not understanding this correctly -- your position is that Mr. Montgomery now realizes most likely that he no longer has the software at issue because the FBI removed it from his house illegally when he was tied to a tree; and when it was brought out that the FBI special agent lied in an affidavit, the judge ordered the seized materials to be returned, and apparently, although materials were returned, the software was not returned.

Do I have that right?

MR. KLAYMAN: That's the only logical explanation, based upon the fact that he now doesn't believe he has it and the FBI can't find it.

Id. at 63.

Notes.

Klayman asserts: "[Montgomery] was tied to a tree."

1. Klayman admits that is not accurate upon the Judge's questioning. See id at 63.

2. Compare this claim to Montgomery's account -- under oath -- of the search/seizure here (including, e.g., fact that he got in car and moved it). Notably, nowhere in that nearly contemporaneous declaration (nor any others we can locate), did Montgomery assert that he was tied to a tree.

Klayman asserts "[the FBI] took everything that [Montgomery] had."

1. Montgomery testified under oath - more than once and in great detail during the eTreppid hearings about how how he was able to hide 30-40 hard drives from the FBI, and keep them hidden for months.

See, e.g., Montgomery testimony during the June 10, 2008 Order to Show Cause Hearing (ECF 732 at, e.g., 149-159); Montgomery testimony during the June 24, 2008 OSC hearing continuation (ECF 731 at 17-73); Montgomery testimony during the Aug. 18, 2008 OSC hearing continuation (ECF 833 at, e.g., 47-55, 65-68).

2. According to Montgomery's own prior sworn testimony, "Neither Warren Trepp, nor Sloan Venables, nor Patty Gray, nor anyone working at eTreppid, nor any official of any. federal agency, ... ever had access or the means to access, any of the software programs I worked on in connection with certain Special Access Programs." See. e.g., Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration of Dennis Montgomery at ¶ 3.

3. According to Montgomery's own prior sworn testimony, he continued to provide the same services to the government following his departure from eTreppid (and the raid): "[S]ince my departure from eTreppid, I have in good faith protected those national security concerns and I have worked as long as 18 hours a day to improve on my prior. technology with the financial assistance of my new employers." Id. at ¶ 6.

Klayman asserts that the FBI took Montgomery's source code and failed to return it.

1. Montgomery previously testified under oath that he continued to use - and refine - his source code/software after the FBI raids. See, e.g., Feb. 28, 2007 Declaration of Dennis Montgomery at ¶ 3, 6.

2. Montgomery did previously allege that the FBI failed to return all his property and, in fact, demanded an evidentiary hearing on the matter. However -- even though the Court had issued order to show cause re: his failure to turn over the source code, - and imposed a $2,500 per day sanction on him until the turnover, Montgomery never once argued that he could not do so because the FBI had taken it and failed to return it. See, e.g., series of pleadings filed between Mar. 11, 2008 and Oct. 2, 2008.

3. After Montgomery unsuccessfully attempted to get the evidentiary hearing he requested cancelled, his own counsel failed to produce any evidence to support his claim and, indeed, conceded that Montgomery may have been "mistaken" in accusing the FBI of failure to return materials. (See Sep. 5, 2008). And....

4. After the FBI filed a post-hearing brief demonstrating that Montgomery's accusations of failure to return materials were false, Montgomery entered into a stipulation to settle the matter, pursuant to which Montgomery expressly stated that he "“do[es] not ... challenge the adequacy or completeness of the FBI return of 24 seized property to Mr. Montgomery on March 29 and April 6, 2007, as ordered by this court.”

Klayman contends that the Nevada Court "ordered that the FBI return the materials to Mr. Montgomery not because the materials were not -- repeat, not -- classified.

See Nov. 28, 2006 Order Unsealing Case/Ordering Return of Property (ECF 86) - e.g. at 8 ("Based upon SA West's affidavit, the court found probable cause existed that [Montgomery] may have unlawfully retained classified material and stolen trade secrets, and it issued the search warrant. The court also granted the Government's motion to seal the affidavit (#3).'); id. at 13 ('Here, the Government has conceded that none of the seized material is classified; therefore, there is a question whether the Government displayed callous disregard for Montgomery's constitutional rights"); id. at 18 ("It is now clear that no probable cause existed to believe that Montgomery had removed classified information from eTreppid and improperly stored it at his home because after the warrants issued, it was determined that the material was, in fact, not classified. . . Three months after the search was executed, the Government determined that the information sought was not classified."); id. at 24 ('The court concluded there was probable cause to believe that Montgomery breached his security clearance and took classified materials in violation of the law."); id. at 26 ("As is now clear, there was no secret material and there was no classified material; therefore, no probable cause existed that Montgomery unlawfully retained national defense information
5 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e). The court agrees with SA West's testimony on one fact: Nothing was more influential to this court in the issuance of these search warrants than the information that Montgomery might unlawfully be in possession of secret material belonging to the United States." (emphasis in original)); id. at 27 ('Based upon this section of SA West's affidavit, the court concluded that probable cause existed that the nine eTreppid hard drives were classified as secret by the appropriate government agency, that they contained information of importance of the United States government.... It is now abundantly clear that this conclusion was incorrect because there was no classified material").

As the court concludes: "Once the Government conceded that "nine Secret hard drives" were not, in fact, classified and that the material "was not properly classified by an Original Classification Authority within the U.S. Air Force," the obvious question is whether the search warrant can stand based on probable cause that Montgomery violated 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), unlawful retention of national defense information. ..." Id. at 31.

In other words, the only reason the Court looked at other issues is because it found - based on the info provided by US at the time - that the property seized by the FBI was not, in fact, classified.

Note. Of course, it apparently turned out that some of the information seized - and returned- by the FBI was in fact classified and also that classified information was contained on the hard drives that the FBI did not seize. See, e.g., Montgomery's June-August 2008 testimony in the Order to Show Cause Hearings (re: Montgomery's failure to produce discovery in the eTreppid proceedings) (links above).

Jan. 6, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Magistrate Goodman issues a Post-Sanctions Hearing Administrative Order. See ECF 217.

Judge Martinez issues an order granting Montgomery’s Dec. 27, 2015 Motion to Exceed Page Limitations (response to Summary Judgment). See ECF 216 (paperless entry).

Jan. 7, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. ECF 218.

Jan. 8, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file

Unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney by Micah J. Ratner. See ECF 219.

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, Consent to Designation, and Request to Electronically Receive Notices of Electronic Filing for Lisa B. Zycherman. See ECF 222.

Opposition to the 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. See ECF 220.

Montgomery files Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer(opposition to motion for summary judgment). See ECF 221.

Judge Martinez issues order granting the Jeffrey Scott Shapiro Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ECF 225.

Jan. 10, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Opposition to Montgomery’s Jan. 8 Motion for Extension of Time. See ECF 223.

Montgomery files Reply to Defendants’ opposition (above). See ECF 224.

Jan. 11, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files, pursuant to Magistrate Goodman’s Jan. 6 Order):

Notice of Filing of List of Authorities – “to support the view espoused at the [Jan. 5] hearing that a defamation plaintiff may prove either falsity or recklessness (and that recklessness can substitute for falsity” (ECF 217 at 1 (emphasis in original)). See ECF 226.

Notice of Filing – “pinpointing page numbers from the [Aug. 21, 2015 transcript] where Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff was not sure if he actually possessed the software at issue and/or did not know if he, in fact, had turned it over to the FBI….”(ECF 217 at 2.) See ECF 228.

Defendants file, pursuant to Magistrate Goodman’s Jan. 6 Order at 3-4):

Notice of Filing of [Montgomery’s Aug. 20, 2015] Deposition Transcript. See ECF 227.

Notice of Conventional Filing (of videotape of Montgomery’s Aug. 20 Deposition) See ECF 229.

Jan. 13, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Mediator John Barkett issues his Final Mediation Report (case did not settle). See ECF 231.

Defendants file Notice of Filing of List of Authorities (per Magistrate Goodman’s Jan. 6 order that “Defendants may, by January 13, 2016, submit a reciprocal list of authorities for the proposition that a defamation plaintiff must show falsity, regardless of whether recklessness is demonstrated….”) See ECF 232.

Montgomery files:

Opposition to Defendants’ Dec. 14, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF 233; see also ECF 233-7 (included at link) (Third Declaration of Dennis Montgomery*).

Statement of Disputed Material Facts. See ECF 234.

Notes. Included among the several remarkable statements contained in the Montgomery Third Declaration is the following: "Furthermore, Mr. Flynn has been sanctioned recently by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for making false statements in court documents." (Montgomery Third Declaration, ¶ 22.)

This statement is inaccurate. Flynn was not sanctioned for making false statements. Rather, as noted here, Flynn was sanctioned for submitting two emails into evidence that he obtained from Dennis Montgomery -- without disclosing that "affidavits and supporting documents ... conclusively demonstrate that" the emails Montgomery gave him "[were] forged."

Jan. 14, 2016

Montgomery v. IRS. Judge Holmes issues an order dismissing Montgomery's case and setting income tax and penalties due for Years 2005 and 2006:

"This case was on the Court's October 26, 2015 trial calendar for Los Angeles, California, but petitioners did not appear. There had been minimal pretrial preparation in the more than six years that this case has been docketed and on November 18, 2015 respondent moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. We ordered petitioners to respond by December 30, 2015. They did not do so, and it is therefore

ORDERED that respondent's November 18, 2015 motion to dismiss this case for lack of prosecution is granted."

Case No. 9008-09, Jan. 14, 2016 Order. Additionally, the Court finds Montgomery's deficiencies in income tax and penalties due as follows: Year 2005 - $58,786 (deficiency); $11,757 (penalties); Year 2006 - $79,210 (deficiency); $15,842 (penalties). Id.

Jan. 15, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files:

Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (docs re: opposition to motion for summary judgment). See ECF 236.

Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. See ECF 235.

Motion for Leave (for Jeffrey Shapiro, who just joined the case on Jan. 8) to Withdraw as Attorney. See ECF 237.

Jan. 19, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Opposition to Plaintiff’s Jan. 15 Motion to Remove Documents from Protective Order and Cross-Motion to Maintain Documents under Seal. See ECF 238. In this Motion, Defendants assert that Klayman has violated the Protective Order entered in this case by publishing information clearly covered by the Protective Order.

Jan. 20, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Motion to Exceed Page Limitations (in support of Dec. 14, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgment/Reply to Montgomery’s Jan. 13 Opposition and Reply to Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Disputed Facts.) See ECF 240.

Istvan Burgyan Discovery Proceedings (W.D.Wash). Judge James L. Robart issues a Minute Order requiring Burgyan and Montgomery to appear in court on Feb. 3, 2016 at 10:00 AM and directing the US Marshal to affect service of the order and related documents on Burgyan. See ECF 11.

Jan. 21, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer (in support of Dec. 14, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgment/Reply to Montgomery’s Jan. 13 Opposition). See ECF 241.

Jan. 22, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Martinez issues two orders:

Order granting Defendants’ Jan. 20 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. See ECF 242 (paperless order).

Order granting Defendants’ Jan. 21 Consent Motion for Extension of Time (until Jan. 27) to file Reply in Support of Summary Judgment. See ECF 243 (paperless order).

Jan. 25, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Martinez issues an order granting Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to D.C.. See ECF 247.

Jan. 26, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. The case is transferred to D.D.C.

Istvan Burgyan Discovery Proceedings (W.D.Wash). The US Marshal’s Office submits Return of Service, indicating they served Istvan Andras Burgyan with the Judge’s Jan. 20 order today. See ECF 12.

Jan. 27, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. The D.C. Federal District Court receives the case. The transferred case is assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00126. Judge Rudolph Contreras is assigned to the case.

Defendants file (in D.C. Federal Court):

Reply in Support of their Dec. 14, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgment (in response to Montgomery’s Jan. 13 opposition. See ECF 250.

Reply to Montgomery’s Jan. 13 Statement of Additional Material Disputed Facts. See ECF 251.

Istvan Burgyan Discovery Proceedings (W.D.Wash). Defendants file Notice of Supplemental Authority (notifying court of the Florida court’s order transferring case to D.D.C.) See ECF 15.

Jan. 28, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Sealed Motion for Leave to file Documents under Seal. ECF 253.

February 2016

Feb. 2, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files:

Motion for Protective Order (seeking to have DC judge order, based on papers filed in Washington federal court, that the Istvan Burgyan deposition not proceed. See ECF 255.

Consent Motion for Status Conference. See ECF 256.

Feb. 3, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Contreras issues an order directing the parties to meet and confer then submit a joint status report on or before Feb. 17, 2016. See ECF 257. In this order, Judge Contreras notes:

"On January 25, 2016, the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue, transferring the action to this Court. . . . The Court did not rule on the remainder of Defendants’ motion, which seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim, and that motion remains pending. . . . In addition, this action arrived before this Court with no less than 12 other pending motions, including a motion for summary judgment. . . . Three more motions have been filed since the transfer of venue last week." (Id. at 2-3.)

Istvan Burgyan Discovery Proceedings (W.D.Wash). Judge Robart presides over the scheduled hearing. Per the Minute Entry,

“[t]he court hears from the parties regarding the Motion to Compel, Dkt. #1. The court grants the motion to compel and directs the parties to schedule the deposition of Mr. Burgyan within the next 30 days. The court denies the oral motion for an interlocutory appeal. The court denies as moot the Motion to Strike, Dkt. #8.”

See ECF 16 (text only entry); ECF 18 (Transcript, as filed by defendants in D.D.C.)

Feb. 10, 2016

Criminal Case. A status conference is held today in Nevada v. Montgomery -- the criminal case pending over Montgomery's alleged passing of bad checks -- Montgomery's alleged passing of bad checks. Per the minutes:

"Deft. not present. Ms. Phenix standing in for Mr. Paulson on behalf of deft. and requesting a continuance. Further, counsel advised she has a doctor's letter that deft. lives in Washington and is unable to travel due to strokes. COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUED to the date given. CASH BAIL 05/11/16 8:30 A.M. STATUS CHECK: TRIAL SETTING"

See Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Status Check - Minutes.

Feb. 17, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. The parties file a Joint Status Report (per Judge Contreras’s Feb. 3 order). ECF 258.

Feb. 19, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Opposition to Montgomery's’ Feb. 2 Motion for Protective Order (re: Istvan Burgyan discovery). ECF 259.

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Montgomery files suit in Washington state court against Penumbra Inc, the maker of a device used during his May 2013 surgeries), and a couple doctors and the hospital where his surgery was performed, alleging a variety of tort claims. See Montgomery v. Penumbra et al, No. 16-2-0450-1 Sea (Wash. King Cty. Sup. Ct., filed Feb. 19, 2016) (available for purchase here).

Note: We are researching this case and will provide more details as they become available. In the meantime, see Martha Bellisle, "Lawsuit claims medical device caused brain damage after Bellevue surgery," The Seattle Times, Mar. 26, 2016 for a local report on the case.

Feb. 25, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files a reply in support of his Feb. 2 Motion for Protective Order (re: Istvan Burgyan discovery). ECF 260.

March 2016

Mar. 1, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants depose Istvan Burgyan (Montgomery’s son-in-law. (See Mar. 4, 2016 notice.)

Mar. 4, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file a Notice that the deposition of Istvan Burgyan took place on Mar. 1, 2016. See ECF 261.

Mar. 7, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Contreras issues two orders:

Order denying Montgomery’s motion for Protective Order as moot (given that the deposition Montgomery sought to prevent per the motion already took place). (Paperless order not assigned ECF#.)

Order regarding status of the case as follows:

“Upon consideration of [The Feb. 17 Joint Status Report filed by the parties], and the entire sizeable record transferred from the Southern District of Florida, the Court will review and resolve the pending dispositive motions before conducting any further proceedings in this case. The Court is cognizant of Plaintiff's health issues and, if a trial is necessary in this matter, the Court sees no reason that it will not be able to schedule a trial in 2016.” (Paperless order not assigned ECF#.)

Mar. 22, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file unopposed Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record regarding the Air Force’s response to Defendants’ prior discovery requests. See ECF 262. The Air Force response read, in part, as follows:

“First, the Air Force conducted a search of its records, including records of former Air Force employee Paul Haraldsen, and did not locate a "copy of Montgomery's software, including but not limited to video compression software, object detection or recognition software, facial recognition software, or noise filtering software that Montgomery allegedly used in Air Force contracts." ...

Second, with respect to the document subpoena, you seek "[a]ny documents in which the Air Force questioned the utility of Montgomery's software, found that the software did not work, or found that the software did not exist" as well as "[a] copy of the 'Government['s] ... own independent tests of Plaintiff Montgomery's software' that 'confirmed its effectiveness and reliability"' as alleged in paragraph 48 of Montgomery's Amended Complaint. Id. at ¶¶ 13a and 13c. The Air Force located records relating to its efforts to validate Montgomery's software in early 2009 pursuant to a contract with Blxware. While the Air Force attempted to conduct a validation of Montgomery's software, it was not able to execute that validation because Blxware failed to provide a copy of the software. These records are classified or otherwise subject to privilege and currently undergoing a review to determine if any portion of them can be disclosed to document that Blxware did not provide a copy of the software pursuant to the contract.

ECF 262-1 at 5.

Judge Contreras issues a minute order granting Defendants’ motion to supplement the record: “It is hereby ORDERED that the record in this case is supplemented with the Supplemental Declaration of Laura R. Handman attached to Defendants' motion (ECF No. 262-1).” (Paperless order not assigned ECF#.)

April 2016

April 5, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files motion requesting oral argument. ECF 264.

April 6, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Response to Montgomery's motion for oral argument ECF 265.

Montgomery files Response to Defendants' Response to motion for oral argument. ECF 266.

May 2016

May 6, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files notice of availability for oral argument. ECF 267.

May 11, 2016

Criminal Case. A status conference is scheduled for today in Nevada v. Montgomery -- the criminal case pending over Montgomery's alleged passing of bad checks -- Montgomery's alleged passing of bad checks. Per the minutes of this hearing:

Deft. not present. Mr. Paulson advised deft. lives in Seattle Washington, and he's still recovering from the effects of a stroke. Further, counsel submitted documentation, and requested a continuance. There being no opposition, COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUED to the date given. CASH BAIL 08/10/16 8:30 A.M. STATUS CHECK: TRIAL SETTING

See Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Status Check Minutes.

May 13, 2016

Melendres. Judge Snow issues a 162-page FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER SETTING A HEARING. ECF 1677. For a general summary of the order, see WYE Timeline - May 13, 2016.

On matters relating specifically to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation, Judge Snow found, as follows:

"349. In April 2015, the Court asked questions eliciting testimony that the MCSO had received communications and information from a confidential informant who then lived in the Seattle area named Dennis Montgomery.

350. Mr. Montgomery had purported to conduct certain inquiries involving this Court for Sheriff Arpaio. In doing so, Montgomery purported to use a vast number of files that had been illegally harvested by the CIA from American citizens. (Ex. 2726 at MELC1292695.)

* * *

353. At the time that the Court issued Sheriff Arpaio the order, Arpaio knew that Mr. Montgomery had given the MCSO 50 hard drives that Montgomery claimed to be the master database of records he had supposedly purloined from the CIA. (Doc. 1458 at Tr. 2561–62.)

* * *

357. In addition to the 50 hard drives, the MCSO also failed to produce a report from two former NSA computer specialists, Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, whom the MCSO had engaged to inspect the hard drives in November 2014. In that report, Drake and Wiebe advised the MCSO that the contents of Mr. Montgomery’s purported master database were fraudulent, and did not result from any CIA harvest of information. (Ex. 2531 (“We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD.”).) Detective Mackiewicz forwarded the email and accompanying memorandum to Chief Deputy Sheridan. (See id.) Sheridan received the memorandum and shared it with Sheriff Arpaio."

"359. There were many reasons Sheriff Arpaio would not have wanted the hard drives and their fraudulent nature disclosed.

360. First, Mr. Montgomery committed a fraud on the MCSO. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1562-64; Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2455.) Having paid large sums of money to Montgomery for his investigations, the MCSO was a victim of that fraud. Disclosure could therefore bring embarrassment to Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO.

361. Second, Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Montgomery shared the same attorney and had shared this attorney since at least November 2014.

362. Third, Sheriff Arpaio testified that the MCSO continued to engage Mr. Montgomery as a confidential source up through and including the time of the hearing, despite Arpaio’s repudiation of the substance of Montgomery’s reports, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Montgomery’s fraud.

363. These are all powerful motivations to avoid disclosure of the fraudulent hard drives."

* * *

"369. It was also in October 2013 that the MCSO launched the “Seattle” investigation involving Mr. Montgomery. (Doc. 1455 at Tr. 2055–57; Ex. 2962 at Zullo_000803.)

[] The MCSO’s “Seattle” Investigation Involving Mr. Montgomery Demonstrates Sheriff Arpaio’s Many Intentional Misstatements Under Oath and His Attitude of Hostility Toward the Court’s Orders.

370. The Seattle investigation was conducted under the direct supervision of Sheriff Arpaio. Arpaio consulted daily with Posseman Zullo over the phone or in person regarding the investigation. (Ex. 2079 at MELC199518 (Zullo telling Sergeant Anglin in December “in this thing he calls me almost every day wanting updates.”); Doc. 1455 at Tr. 2061–63; see also Doc. 1389 at Tr. 1264–65; Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2359.) The lead detective, Detective Mackiewicz, reported directly to Arpaio during this operation. It is unusual for a detective to be supervised directly by Arpaio. (Doc. 1498 at Tr. 3877.)

371. In an initial session with Mr. Montgomery in Seattle, Posseman Zullo directed Montgomery to search his CIA database for “Murray Snow” (the name of this Court). (Doc. 1495 at Tr. 3689–92, 3713–14.) After researching such information, Montgomery prepared a timeline. (Doc. 1498 at Tr. 3733–35.) Sheriff Arpaio received the initial timeline on November 5, 2013, and showed it to and discussed it with Chief Deputy Sheridan. (Doc. 1455 at Tr. 2067, 2273; see Ex. 2074A; Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2263.) Arpaio was given various updated versions of the timeline and an accompanying schematic graph. (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2326–27; see, e.g., Ex. 2072.)

372. The timeline reveals a conspiracy theory suggesting an elaborate scheme to undermine Sheriff Arpaio. The scheme involves many parties, including this Court, Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General Lanny Breuer, United States, former Arizona United States Attorney Dennis Burke, this Court’s former law clerk John Gray, Covington & Burling (the law firm representing the Plaintiff class), Senator Jon Kyl, former MCSO Chief Brian Sands, and the United States Department of Justice. (Ex. 2072.)

373. The conspiracy was largely concocted by Mr. Montgomery, but Sheriff Arpaio played a role in creating it. For example, Arpaio maintained a page of notes with three typewritten entries, which he acknowledges he may have typed in November 2013, and additional notes in his handwriting. (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2303–04.) The third entry refers to an article in The Arizona Republic that indicated that now retired Senator Kyl had begun working for the Covington & Burling law firm. The note then asserts (incorrectly) in Arpaio’s handwriting that “Snow’s wife works there.” (Ex. 2074B.) Arpaio further goes on to note that Kyl nominated the undersigned for a federal judgeship, and that the undersigned was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with Kyl on the judiciary committee in June 2008. Arpaio wrote at the top of the page the incorrect statement that this Court’s sister-in-law works for Covington & Burling.¹⁴ Montgomery began to find purported evidence of Kyl’s involvement in the conspiracy only after Arpaio made these connections in the notes he drafted.

¹⁴ When writing his notes, Sheriff Arpaio misremembered the facts. A year and a half earlier, prior to trial and after Covington and Burling’s entry into this lawsuit, the Court disclosed to the Parties that his brother-in-law was a partner at the D.C. offices of Covington & Burling and asked if the Parties wished him to recuse in light of Covington’s representation of the Plaintiff class. Both Parties indicated that there was no conflict because the Court’s brother-in-law had no substantial interest in the litigation. Both Parties requested that the Court remain on the case, which it did. (See, e.g., Doc. 1149 at Tr. 20–29; Doc. 537; Doc. 538; Doc. 539; Doc. 542.)

374. Sheriff Arpaio testified that he continued to receive updates of this timeline through the early part of 2014. (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2574–76.) He reviewed the updated timelines and schematics with Chief Deputy Sheridan and discussed with him the fact that the documents implicated the Court into the overall scheme involving the Department of Justice, wiretaps, and communications. (Id. at Tr. 2576–78.) Arpaio understood that the document alleged that this Court authorized the placement of a wiretap on Arpaio’s cell phone. (Id. at Tr. 2577–78.) These documents stayed in the MCSO’s files. (Id. at Tr. 2581.)

375. Others at the MCSO, including the attorneys, expressed their belief that the information provided by Mr. Montgomery was not credible. Sheriff Arpaio held at least one meeting with his lawyers and various members of his staff at which these timelines were discussed and one of the graphs depicted in Exhibit 2072 was shown. Captain Bailey told Arpaio that he did not think the graph “was anything.” Arpaio responded “you don’t know.” (Doc. 1498 at Tr. 3882.) Bailey responded that he knew that there was no evidence to validate what was in the graph. Bailey had the impression that all four attorneys in the room shared his view that the information was not credible. (Id. at 3883–84.) Mr. Casey similarly testified that all of the attorneys present believed that the allegations were “hogwash” and that he stated this to Arpaio. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1727.)

376. Nevertheless, the investigation continued.

377. In early January 2015, the MCSO was representing to third parties that “[Dennis Montgomery] is continuing to work with the Sheriff’s office at this time.” (See Doc. 1558 at Tr. 4362.) Further, despite the analysis revealing that the hard drive data was invalid, Posseman Zullo stated that the MCSO was “unable to determine whether any evidence has been in fact manipulated by [M]ontgomery.” (Ex. 2969A.) Sheriff Arpaio acknowledged that his people were still working with Mr. Montgomery in January 2015. (Doc. 1457 at 2387.) In fact, the MCSO kept the Montgomery investigation open throughout the hearing. (Doc. 1465 at Tr. 1307–09, 1335; see also Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2407, 2421–22; see Ex. 2858.)

378. Nevertheless, on April 23, 2015, the third day of the hearing, Sheriff Arpaio testified that not only had the MCSO never been involved in investigating this Court but that he was not aware that the Court or any of the Court’s activities had ever been investigated by anyone. (Doc. 1083, Ex. 1.) He reaffirmed this statement three weeks after his initial testimony in a statement made under penalty of perjury filed with the Court. (Id., Ex. 1 ¶¶ 5, 7 (Sheriff Arpaio stating: “Judge Snow asked if I was aware of anyone investigating him. I responded, ‘No[,]’ . . . [a]t no time was an investigation initiated against Judge Snow or any of his family members.”).) These statements, made while Arpaio was under oath, constitute deliberate misstatements of fact made in bad faith.

379. In his October testimony, Sheriff Arpaio attempted to explain his earlier testimony by asserting that he simply did not think of Mr. Montgomery’s timelines when he was asked the questions. (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2457.) In light of the extent of Arpaio’s personal participation in the Montgomery investigation, this testimony is not credible. Arpaio further testified that what Montgomery was doing for him could not be called an “investigation.” (Doc. 1458 at Tr. 2580.) This testimony is also not credible.

380. Sheriff Arpaio also asserted that any mention of the Court by him, Mr. Montgomery, Posseman Zullo, or other assigned MCSO personnel would have been because Montgomery identified the Court as a victim of the CIA’s illegitimate harvest of financial information. There is no credible evidence to confirm such a claim, and much, including the content of the timelines themselves, disproves it. Only 40 people were ever specifically identified by Montgomery and investigated by the MCSO as potential victims of the CIA’s harvest. The Court was not among them. Further, the investigation of those forty people produced nothing sufficient to suggest the truth of Montgomery’s allegations.

381. Sheriff Arpaio also testified that he understood Mr. Montgomery’s allegations involving the Court, but that he never believed them and that he and Chief Deputy Sheridan advised the investigators to not investigate the Court. (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2577–79.) The evidence demonstrates that at some point, Sheridan expressed reluctance to investigate this Court. (Doc. 1389 at 1265–68; Ex. 2256.) Nevertheless, although Sheridan instructed Sergeant Anglin not to investigate this Court, Sheridan later removed Anglin from the Montgomery operations, (Doc. 1465 at Tr. 1331), and returned Posseman Zullo to his role. At that point, the investigation into this Court resumed. (Ex. 2960.) There is no credible indication that Arpaio was part of the decision to temporarily suspend the investigation, and in light of ample evidence of Arpaio’s enthusiasm for and participation in the investigation, the Court does not find the suggestion credible."

* * *

"[] Chief Deputy Sheridan Also Knowingly Made Misstatements of Fact Under Oath About the Montgomery Investigation.

382. In his April testimony, Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that the MCSO was not investigating this Court. Further, he testified that the MCSO had received nothing from Mr. Montgomery that would suggest that there was any collusion between this Court and the Department of Justice. (Doc. 1043 at Tr. 1003.)

383. In his September testimony, Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that Mr. Montgomery suggested investigating the Court only after the MCSO threatened to stop paying him to investigate other matters, and that the MCSO rejected Montgomery’s invitation to investigate the Court. (Doc. 1465 at Tr. 1299–1300, 1464–65; see also Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1564.)

384. In fact, although the MCSO did make confidential informant payments to Montgomery, they did not begin making such payments until after Montgomery had provided them with false material alleging the involvement of this Court in a conspiracy with the U.S. Department of Justice. (Doc. 1498 at Tr. 3721–23; Ex. 2085 at page 2; Ex. 2906; Ex. 2907; Ex. 2908; Ex. 2909; Ex. 2910; Ex. 2911; Ex. 2912; Ex. 2913; Ex. 2914; Ex. 2915.) Sheridan would have been aware of this, as he authorized such payments. (Doc. 1465 at Tr. 1318–20.) Further, Sheridan was fully aware that the MCSO accepted Montgomery’s invitation to pursue such an investigation.¹⁵ (Doc. 1457 at Tr. 2263–64, 2576–78, 2582.)

¹⁵ Further, Chief Deputy Sheridan’s testimony that he had never seen any of Mr. Montgomery’s timelines that included this Court in the conspiracy until April 24, 2015, was directly contradicted by the testimony of Sheriff Arpaio and Detective Mackiewicz.

385. The Court finds that Chief Deputy Sheridan’s testimony, made under oath, constitutes deliberate misstatements of fact made in bad faith."

May 16, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Judge Patrick Oishi grants, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss Montgomery's complaint. More specifically, his order provides as follows:

It is hereby ordered that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Certain claims and Request for More Definite Statement is GRANTED.

It is further ordered that:

A. Plaintiffs' claims for res ipsa loquitur and their claim pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts §876 are dismissed with prejudice;

B. Plaintiffs shall amend their Complaint to include their location of residence, [and] provide facts to support their claim for defective construction and design[]; and

C. Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages under California law is dismissed with prejudice.

D. If plaintiffs believe discovery develops a basis to vacate the order dismissing the punitive damages claim, they may bring a motion at that time.

E. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this order.

See Montgomery v. Penumbra et al, No. 16-2-0450-1 Sea, May 13 Order, Doc. 29 (Wash. King Cty. Sup. Ct.) (available for purchase here).

May 18, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files a "renewed" emergency motion to expedite his Ninth Circuit appeal. No. 15-16626, Doc. 40, 41.

May 19, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. Melendres Plaintiffs file opposition to Montgomery's renewed motion to expedite his appeal. No. 15-16626, Doc. 42.

May 23, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues order that Montgomery's opposed motion to expedite is denied. No. 15-16626 Doc 43.

May 24, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files motion for reconsideration on denial of motion to expedite. No. 15-16626 Doc 44.

The Ninth Circuit issues an order stating that yesterday's order "was issued in error and is vacated. The reply in support of the emergency motion has been filed. The motions shall be addressed in a separate order. Briefing is complete in these consolidated cases." No. 15-16626 Doc 45.

May 27, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues an order as follows:

"The motion to expedite consideration of these consolidated appeals (Docket Entry No. 43) is granted. These appeals shall be placed on the next available calendar.

All other requests for relief contained in appellant’s renewed requests to expedite consideration of these consolidated appeals (Docket Entry Nos. 43, 44, 47) are denied.

Briefing is complete."

No. 15-16626, Doc 46.

May 30, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files "Appellant’s Supplemental Authority to Appellant’s Expedited Appeal," which attaches the May 27 briefs filed by the Melendres Plaintiffs and the US DOJ, as well as a Stephen Lemons article about the filings. No. 15-16626, Doc 47.

May 31, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues notice that "This case is being considered for the September 2016 San Francisco oral argument calendar." No. 15-1996, Doc 48.

June 2016

June 7, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Conteras issues an order directing the parties to refile materials previously filed under seal in the Florida proceedings:

Upon review of the parties’ various motions for leave to file documents under seal, it appears that the materials attached to the motions filed in the Southern District of Florida are contained in supplemental attachments that were either not filed electronically on the docket or not made available to this Court upon transfer. See, e.g., ECF No. 156-1 (referring to supplemental attachments contained in a paper court file). These documents are not only relevant to the Court’s consideration of the merits of the parties’ motions to seal and Defendants’ motion for sanctions, but are in some instances cited in the parties memoranda concerning Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

ECF 268 at 1. After listing the various documents, Judge Conteras orders as follows:

[O]n or before June 14, 2016, the parties shall file a separate renewed motion to seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(h) for each of these motions, attaching the relevant documents for the Court’s review. Each renewed motion should incorporate by reference the argument contained in the original motion. No new substantive arguments to seal should be made. In the alternative, if the documents are already available to the Court elsewhere in the electronic docket but have been overlooked, the parties should direct the Court to each document.

Id. at 3. Additionally the Court notes that Defendants apparently "have erroneously attached the incorrect document to their motion for leave to file document under seal filed in this Court" and he orders them to file the correct document. Id. at 4.

June 9, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file:

Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal (Unredacted copy of ECF 211). ECF 269.

Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal (Unredacted copy of ECF 251). ECF 270.

June 13, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Montgomery files Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) and Corrected Amended Complaint. Doc. 31 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

June 14, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files Notice of Withdrawal of Request to Seal Documentation.

In short, despite repeatedly (e.g., ECF 159; ECF 160; ECF 180) and emphatically proclaiming that his communications with the FBI must be filed under seal to protect national security and an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Montgomery (Klayman) now says all documents in case should be matter of public record (then adds in that all defendant documents currently filed under seal also should be a matter of public record). ECF 271.

June 15, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Contreras issues a minute order:

Denying Montgomery’s prior motions to seal FBI communications in light of his withdraw of such motions on June 14;

Requiring Montgomery to file, by June 17, the FBI communications referenced in the prior motions (ECF 159, 160, 180) on the public docket.

Requiring Montgomery to file, by June 17, documents underlying ECF 236 under seal in light of Defendants’ opposition to remove such documents from the protective order

ECF 271 (Text Only Entry).

Montgomery ) files – under seal yet again, in contravention of the Court’s order earlier today – the FBI communications documents (underlying his now-withdrawn 159, 160, 180 motions to seal), as well as the documents underlying ECF 236. ECF 272.

June 17, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Defendant Overlake Hospital files Motion for Summary Judgment arguing, in brief, that (a) Plaintiffs’ common law negligence claims are preempted by the WPLA and (b) Overlake is exempt from the WPLA. Doc. 34 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

June 20, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Contreras issues a minute order:

MINUTE ORDER: The Court's June 15, 2016 Minute Order directed Plaintiff to file the underlying documents to ECF Nos. 156, 159, 160, and 180 on the public docket, and further ordered Plaintiff to file a single set of documents, those underlying ECF No. 236, under seal. Upon review of 272 Plaintiff's filing, however, it appears that Plaintiff has filed all four sets of documents under seal. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before June 22, 2016, Plaintiff shall refile the underlying documents to ECF Nos. 156, 159, 160, and 180 as a publicly available filing on the docket, not under seal.

(Text Only Entry; no ECF number assigned).

Montgomery files the FBI communications (underlying his now-withdrawn 159, 160, 180 motions to seal) on the public docket, per today's order. ECF 273.

July 2016

July 5, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Plaintiffs file Opposition to Overlake’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 36 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

Defendants Penumbra, Schafeitel and Speck file a Joinder in Overlake’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 38 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

July 6, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Defendant Overlake files Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Doc. 39. (Documents available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1).)

July 11, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Defendant Overlake files Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 44 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

July 15, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Judge Contreras issues an order, as well as a rather scathing 74-page opinion, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case. ECF 274 (Order); ECF 275 (Opinion). He also resolves all pending motions.

With respect to Defendants’ motion for sanctions arising from Montgomery’s failure to produce the alleged software at issue in the case (and the myriad of shenanigans re: same), the Court denies the motion without fully considering the merits, in light of his ruling to dismiss the case on the merits:

Although the Court is substantially troubled by Montgomery’s and his counsel’s conduct in this case, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion. As explained below, the Court ultimately finds summary judgment warranted in favor of Defendants on the merits of this case. In favorably resolving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court provides Defendants in practical terms much of the result they seek in their spoliation motion—judgment in their favor—albeit by a different route. As Magistrate Judge Goodman’s pre-hearing order indicated, a number of factual and legal questions are raised in the particular context of this case which would make resolution of the spoliation issue labor intensive. …. Despite Montgomery’s and his counsel’s actions, the Court is hesitant to allocate additional judicial resources to this discovery dispute, beyond the considerable resources already expended, for little additional gain. Therefore, in light of the Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions.20

20 If the judgment in this case were ever reversed, thereby removing the basis for the Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions, the Court would entertain a renewed motion.

ECF 275 at 37.

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. Court holds hearing on Defendant Overlake’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 47 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

Defendants Penumbra, Schafeitel and Speck file Answer. Doc. 48 (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

August 2016

Aug. 5, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Defendants file Bill of Costs (totalling $7060.37). ECF 276.

Aug. 8, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files Notice of Appeal (ECF 277), although, because Klayman enters the filing incorrectly, it must be refiled (see Notice of Error on docket).

Aug. 9, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery refiles his Notice of Appeal. ECF 278.

Aug. 10, 2016

Deft. not present. Ms. Bachman requested a continuance due to deft's medical condition. Further, counsel advised the medical records have been submitted to the court. COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUED to the date given

See Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Status Check Minutes.

Aug. 12, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery files

Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF 201] for Summary Judgment As Required by Order of July 15, 2015 (ECF 280); and

Statement of Disputed Material Facts Pursuant to Court's Order of July 15, 2016 (ECF 281).

Aug. 15, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Montgomery’s notice of appeal is docketed in D.C. Court of Appeals and assigned No. 16-7096. Doc. 1630387. Clerk issues order setting various deadlines. Doc. 1630390.

September 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery's consolidated appeals are argued and submitted. No. 15-6440, Doc. 60; No. 15-16626, Doc 57.

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Defendants file Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1635765.

Sept. 21, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Montgomery files Motion for Leave to File Initial Submissions. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1636983.

Sept. 22, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Montgomery files

Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases (No. 16-7096, Doc. 1637140);

Docketing Statement (Doc. 1637141);

Statement of Intent Regarding Appendix Deferral (Doc. 1637144)

Statement of Issues (Doc. 1637147)

Transcript Status Report (Doc. 1637148)

Underlying Decision in Case. (Doc. 1637149)

Sept. 27, 2016

Melendres - Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit dismisses Montgomery’s consolidated appeals. No. 15-16440, Doc 64; No. 15-16626, Doc 61. The Court also denies Montgomery's Sept. 22 motion to supplement record. No. 15-16440, Doc 63.

October 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Defendants file Statement filed with Disclosure Listing. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1638991.

Oct. 4, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. Montgomery (Klayman) files Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit. No. 16-73233.

Oct. 7, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Court Clerk grants Montgomery’s motion for leave to file; Appellant's initial submissions are deemed timely filed. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1639870.

Oct. 25, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit issues order: “This petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). Accordingly, within 14 days after the date of this order, the real parties in interest shall file an answer. The district court, within 14 days after the date of this order, may address the petition if it so desires. The district court may elect to file an answer with this court or to issue a supplemental order and serve a copy on this court. Petitioner may file a reply within 5 days after service of the answers. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court and District Judge G. Murray Snow. No. 16-73233, Doc 3.

Oct. 26, 2016

Melendres. The Ninth Circuits’ mandate, dismissing Montgomery’s appeals, is docketed. ECF 1850.

Oct. 27, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit’s Oct. 25 order requiring real parties in interest to file an answer and granting the District Court an opportunity to address the petition is docketed in Melendres. ECF 1857.

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Court Clerk sets briefing schedule: “APPELLANT Brief due 12/06/2016. APPELLEE Brief due on 01/05/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 01/19/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 01/26/2017. Final Briefs due 02/09/2017.” No. 16-7096, Doc. 1643205.

November 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. Arpaio files answer to Montgomery’s petition for writ of mandamus. No. 16-73233, Doc. 6.

Nov. 6, 2016

Montgomery v. Penumbra et al. The Court grants defendants' motion to continue trial, resetting trial date to Oct. 30, 2017 (Doc. 61A), and resetting the case schedule accordingly (Doc. 61B) (available for purchase here (Case No. 16-2-04050-1)).

Nov. 8, 2016

Arpaio loses to Paul Penzone in today's race for Maricopa County Sheriff. See, e.g., Michael Kiefer and Rebekah L. Sanders, "Maricopa County voters oust Sheriff Joe Arpaio, elect Paul Penzone," Arizona Republic, Nov. 8, 2016; Fernanda Santos, "Sheriff Joe Arpaio Loses Bid for 7th Term in Arizona," New York Times, Nov. 9, 2016.

Melendres October Writ Petition. Melendres Plaintiffs file files answer to Montgomery’s petition for writ of mandamus. No. 16-73233, Doc. 7.

Melendres. Judge Snow issues “Supplemental Order in Response to Mr. Montgomery’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus" (in 16-73233). ECF 1870.

Nov. 9, 2016

Mr. Paulson stated that the Defendant is undergoing treatment for a medical condition and can't fly to Las Vegas for a hearing. Ms. Wong requested a letter from the Defendant's physician as well as verification that he cannot travel. COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUED. CASH BAIL CONTINUED TO: 12/5/16 8:30 AM

See Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Status Check Minutes.

Nov. 16, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. Judge Snow’s Nov. 8 Supplemental Order in Response to Writ of Mandamus is docketed. No. 16-73233, Doc. 8.

Nov. 17, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit issues order: “Because the district court’s November 8, 2016 supplemental order was served on petitioner today, petitioner may file a reply to the supplemental order within 5 days of the date of this order.” No. 16-73233, Doc. 9.

Nov. 21, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. Montgomery files Reply to answer to Writ of Mandamus petition. No. 16-73233, Doc. 10.

Nov. 29, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Montgomery files unopposed motion to extend time to file brief to Jan. 6, 2017. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1648293.

December 2016

Dec. 2, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Court Clerk grant’s Montgomery’s motion for extension and resets deadlines as follows: “APPELLANT Brief due 01/06/2017. APPELLEE Brief due on 02/06/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 02/21/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 02/28/2017. Final Briefs due 03/14/2017.” No. 16-7096, Doc. 1649168.

Dec. 5, 2016

Deft. not present. Mr. Paulson advised deft. is still unable to travel. Further, deft. lives in Washington State and is undergoing treatment there. Copy of letter and records submitted. Ms. Thomson requested a warrant. COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUED to the date given. Court noted this is the last continuance and counsel needs to work out a deal or a plea in absentia. CASH BAIL 03/06/17 8:30 A.M. STATUS CHECK: TRIAL SETTING...NEGOTIATIONS

See Nevada v. Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Status Check Minutes.

Dec. 9, 2016

Melendres October Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit denies Montgomery’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

“Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The district court’s orders denying petitioner’s counsel pro hac vice admission were not clearly erroneous. See DeGeorge v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2000) (the absence of the third Bauman factor, clear error, will usually defeat a mandamus petition). Because the clear error standard is deferential and this court reviews a district court’s denial of pro hac vice status for abuse of discretion, “our review of a decision to deny pro hac vice admission is especially deferential in a mandamus proceeding.” In re U.S., 791 F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court’s orders denying attorneys Jonathon Moseley and Larry Klayman pro hac vice admission were based upon a potential conflict of interest, the attorneys’ unprofessional behavior before the district court, attorney Klayman’s status as a potential witness, and concerns regarding pending attorney discipline. Viewing the orders under the requisite highly deferential standard, we conclude the district court’s orders denying petitioner’s counsel pro hac vice admission were not clearly erroneous. See In re U.S., 791 F.3d at 756-58. “There is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” U.S. v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996). Petitioner was not denied intervention. The district court struck petitioner’s motion to intervene. Indeed, the district court’s November 8, 2016 supplemental order expressly invited petitioner to seek intervention pro se or via competent counsel. Thus, mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for petitioner to seek intervention. For the reasons set forth herein, the petition is denied. DENIED.”

No. 16-73233, Doc. 8.

Dec. 23, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Montgomery files another unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief to Jan. 27, 2017. No. 16-7096, Doc. 1652905.

Dec. 27, 2016

Montgomery v. Risen Appeal. Court Clerk grant’s Montgomery’s motion for extension and resets deadlines as follows: “APPELLANT Brief due 01/27/2017. APPELLEE Brief due on 03/27/2017. APPELLANT Reply Brief due 04/10/2017. DEFERRED APPENDIX due 04/17/2017. FINAL BRIEFS due 05/01/2017.” No. 16-7096, Doc. 1653045.

«2015

2017 »

A Timeline of Dennis L. Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

2016 Dennis Montgomery Litigation and Related Events

Comments

Search