2013 Key Melendres v. Arpaio Case, Arpaio Cold Case Posse, and Arpaio Seattle Operation Events

Melendres Parties | Grissom Matter | Misc Other
Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse/Birther Investigation | Seattle Operation | Dennis Montgomery (Other)

Notes: *For additional information on 2013 Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse events, see here. *For information on 2013 Dennis Montgomery litigation-related events that are unrelated to Melendres, see here.

January-March 2013

According to the Third Quarter FY2013 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $213,186 in State/Local RICO Funds between January 1 and March 31, 2013

Professional/Outside Services: .................... $ 3,475

Travel:.............................................................. $ 2,623

Other Operating Expenses:...................... $ 207,088

(OOE includes informant payments, per this)

Jan. 17, 2013

The MCSO issues a Press Release: WEST VALLEY ASIAN/INTERNATIONAL SUPERMARKET UNDER INVESTIGATION BY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ARPAIO SAYS AS MANY AS 21 SUSPECTS MAY BE ARRESTED ON FELONY CHARGES (PDF). The release includes the following:

Today marks the 70th criminal employment operation undertaken by Sheriff Arpaio’s office since 2008. These operations have resulted in the arrests of 684 suspects, all of whom were later determined to be in the U.S. illegally. Of those, 499 were charged with I.D. theft, a serious felony offense. “Until the laws are changed, my deputies will continue to enforce state and federal immigration laws,” Arpaio says.

Jan. 29, 2013

Phoenix New Times covers status of the Arpaio-Zullo birther investigation. See Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio's "Birther" Investigation Still Exists; Lead "Birther" Swears Evidence Coming Soon,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 29, 2013.

February 2013

Dennis Montgomery apparently joins Twitter. He uses a photo from the 2010 Playboy article, The Man Who Conned the Pentagon" (released in late December 2009) as his header photo and describes his account as "Commentary and fan space for Dennis Lee Montgomery, follow if you are intrigued." See Dennis L. Montgomery | @NCoder_Dennis.

Mar. 14, 2013

The MCSO issues a Press Release: 72st Operation Targeting False Identifications Used to Gain Employment (PDF). The release includes the following:

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is announcing today that it has conducted a simultaneous Workplace ID Theft Operation at three locations of the restaurant chain America’s Taco Shop. A total of 11 arrests have been made, including four individuals who are being booked on felony charges related to identity theft and forgery into the 4th Ave Jail. The remai... This is the 72nd workplace identity theft operation conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. ...

April-June 2013

MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Fourth Quarter FY2013 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $190,002 in State/Local RICO Funds funds between April 1 and June 30, 2013

Professional/Outside Services: .................. $ 1,136

Travel:............................................................. $ 9,346

Other Operating Expenses:..................... $ 168,840

(OOE includes informant payments, per this)

Equipment:.................................................. $ 10,680

(Equipment includes computer purchases per this)

Apr. 17, 2013

The MCSO issues a Press Release: Seven Booked on Human Smuggling Charges by HSU Detectives in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (PDF). The release includes the following:

Comment by Sheriff Arpaio: “During the past few weeks, my detectives have arrested and booked into the 4th Ave Jail 36 suspects in connection with felony human smuggling violations,” said Arpaio. “We will continue to aggressively enforce these and all state laws.”

May 24, 2013

Judge Snow issues his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Melendres. See ECF 579. As later summarized in a joint statement developed by the parties, this decision provided as follows:

Summary of Findings:

"On May 24, 2013, the Court, in a 142-page written order, made the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:

MCSO Deputies Do Not Have Authority to Enforce Federal Civil Immigration Law

The MCSO has no authority to detain people based only on a belief (whether reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or more) that such persons are in this country without authorization.

The MCSO lost authority to enforce the civil administrative aspects of federal immigration law upon revocation of its 287 (g) authority in 2009.

It is not a violation of state or federal criminal law to be in this country without authorization.

The "LEAR" policy as described by the court impermissibly required MCSO deputies to detain persons based only upon suspicion of unauthorized presence in the United States, without any basis to believe the person had committed a crime. Further, MCSO deputies impermissibly used race or ethnicity as an indicator of unlawful presence when applying the "LEAR" policy.

A policy requiring a deputy (I) to detain persons she or he believes only to be in the country without authorization, (2) to contact MCSO supervisors, and then (3) to await contact with ICE pending a determination how to proceed, would result in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

In the absence of a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, the MCSO lacks authority to engage in a detention of someone pending contact with ICE.

The extension of a traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures if the deputy does not have reasonable suspicion that the individual occupants of the vehicle are engaging in criminal conduct. Without such additional legal justification, traffic stops cannot be prolonged beyond the time it reasonably takes to deal with the traffic violation.

The MCSO mistakenly believed that state and local law enforcement officials, even in the absence of 287(g) authority, had the general/inherent power to investigate and arrest violators of federal civil immigration violations such as unlawful presence in the United States.

The MCSO mistakenly instructed its deputies that mere unlawful presence in the United States was a crime rather than a civil violation.

The MCSO impermissibly prolonged traffic stops to investigate the immigration status of the occupants, detaining the individuals for longer than the amount of time necessary to dispose of the traffic infraction that resulted in the stop. The extension of stops in this manner violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the occupants of the vehicles.

Suspicion of Unauthorized Presence Also Is Not An Adequate Basis for Detention Under Arizona State Law

The knowledge that a person is in the country without authorization does not, without more, provide sufficient reasonable suspicion that a person has violated Arizona criminal laws such as the Arizona Human Smuggling Act. The knowledge that a person is in the country without authorization does not, therefore, by itself justify a Terry stop for purposes of investigative detention.

The Arizona Employer Sanctions law does not provide criminal sanctions against either employers or employees and is not a sufficient basis on which the MCSO can arrest or conduct Terry stops of either employers or employees.

The MCSO Impermissibly Used Race or Ethnicity In Making Law Enforcement Decisions

The district court found that the MCSO, as a matter of policy and practice, impermissibly used race or ethnicity in conducting traffic stops, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The use of race or ethnicity as a factor, even as one factor among others, in arriving at reasonable suspicion or forming probable cause to stop or investigate persons violates the Fourth Amendment and the right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The only exception is when there is a specific suspect description that includes the race or ethnicity and other characteristics of the suspect of a particular crime.

The MCSO's written operational plans and policy descriptions improperly informed deputies that, in the context of immigration enforcement, the MCSO could use the ICE indicators which incorrectly indicated that deputies could consider race or ethnicity as one factor among others.

MCSO deputies were improperly instructed regarding investigating citizenship.

The consideration of race or ethnicity by iviCSO deputies in determining whether to take a law enforcement action was unconstitutional. This is true despite any training to the contrary received from ICE.

ICE did provide erroneous training that race or ethnicity can be considered as one factor among others in forming reasonable suspicion or probable cause about immigration status. But the district court also found that MCSO had an independent policy to consider race or ethnicity in making law enforcement decisions, from the planning criteria for saturation patrols, to individual traffic stops and questioning.

All such policies relying on the use of race or ethnicity are unconstitutional.

Sheriff Arpaio's public statements about the Human Smuggling Unit ("HSU") operations and the saturation patrols signaled to MCSO deputies that the purpose of those operations and patrols was to arrest people who were not legally present in the United States. Such statements may have created the impression both in and out of the MCSO that considering a person's race or ethnicity when evaluating whether that person was legally present in the United States was appropriate and endorsed by the MCSO. Race or ethnicity, including Latino or Hispanic ancestry or appearance, cannot be used in forming reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The MCSO impermissibly used race or ethnicity as one factor in selecting the locations for at least some day labor operations, small-scale saturation patrols and large-scale saturation patrols.

The MCSO impermissibly used race or ethnicity as a factor in choosing vehicles to pull over during such operations.

The MCSO impermissibly used race or ethnicity as a factor in determining whom to investigate and arrest during such operations.

The MCSO was more likely to investigate the identities of Hispanic passengers than non-Hispanic passengers during small-scale saturation patrols.

The MCSO appeared to conduct saturation patrols and day laborer operations in response to citizen complaints, including those with racial or ethnic statements.

The purpose of the MCSO's large-scale saturation patrols was to enforce immigration laws. The operations targeted Latinos because MCSO policy and practice was to use race or ethnicity as an indicator of unlawful immigration status.

The court cited to statistics showing that MCSO's practices affected Latinos. Based upon arrest reports, nearly one-half or more of the arrests from large-scale saturation patrols were of persons not in the country legally,

Based upon a surname analysis, 71 % of the arrests from large-scale saturation patrols were of Hispanic persons.

During large-scale patrols, MCSO deputies arrested a disproportionate number of persons with Hispanic surnames."

See ECF 674, Exhibit 1 at 3-5; see also Apr. 17, 2014 (Order requiring dissemination of this summary after Arpaio backed out due to negative publicity.)

Injunctive Relief Granted:

"Based on the Court's findings, the Court issued several injunctions. MCSO personnel are enjoined from, meaning MCSO personnel cannot do any of, the following:

1. Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization.

2. Following or enforcing "LEAR" policy, as defined by the court, against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County (i.e., holding a person to turn over to ICE or Border Patrol when no state or federal crime exists to charge that person).

3. Using race or ethnicity or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant.

4. Using race or ethnicity or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without authorization.

5. Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law.

6. Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle in Maricopa County for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present.

7. Detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act."

Id. at 6.

Additional Corrective Measures to be Issued:

In addition to the immediately effective relief summarized above, Judge Snow invited the parties to develop "mutually acceptable" proposals on what additional steps are necessary to ensure compliance with the stated orders, while stating that "in the absence of such proposals will proceed to enter such orders as are necessary to effectuate the above relief." ECF 579 at 140-42. He specifically invited the parties' input on the following issues:

"(1) To what extent, if any, should any law enforcement operations of the MCSO that have the potential to involve members of the Plaintiff class be subject to the direct oversight and pre-approval?

(2) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel including posse members concerning the inappropriate use of race as an indicator of legal violations?

(3) To what extent, if any, should the MCSO be required to provide training to all of its personnel concerning the elements of the Arizona Human Smuggling Statute and the requirements necessary to have reasonable suspicion that the statute is being violated?

(4) To what extent, if any, does the MCSO still hold itself out to the general public as enforcing laws against illegal aliens or as currently engaged in immigration enforcement?

(5) To what extent should the MCSO be required to keep publicly available records of all persons with whom it has law enforcement contact in vehicles so long as it is engaged in the enforcement of state laws that have immigration-related elements such as the state Human Smuggling Act?

(6) To what extent should those records be required to contain the purpose of any law enforcement stops, the names of persons contacted, and the resulting length of the stop?"

Id. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Doomsday: Arpaio Loses ACLU Civil Rights Lawsuit, MCSO Enjoined from Racially Profiling Latinos,” Phoenix New Times, May 24, 2013; and Stephen Lemons, “Judge Snow's Decision Damns Not Just Arpaio, but All of Maricopa County,” Phoenix New Times, May 30, 2013; Jude Joffe-Block, “Bill Montgomery responds to racial profiling ruling,” KJZZ, May 30, 2013; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Finds Legal Errors In ICE Training," Fronteras, May 31, 2013.

May 29, 2013

Arpaio issues a videotaped response to the Court's May 23 Order. See RealSheriffJoe, Sheriff Arpaio responds to federal ruling on racial profiling, YouTube, May 29, 2014; see also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Blames Feds for MCSO's Racial Profiling, and Why He's Full of It,” Phoenix New Times, May 30, 2013.

Mike Flynn and four other attorneys write a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, demanding an investigation into "Montana Political and Judicial Misconduct." See Mike Flynn May 29, 2013 letter to DOJ, as published by WND (July 2013). According to that letter,

Throughout relevant time periods in this matter, a Whistle Blower on behalf of, and paid by Edra Blixseth hacked into the computers of Mr. Blixseth and his counsel. The hacked information was provided to a laundry list of Mr. Blixseth’s “enemies” in a list created by Edra Blixseth. In June, 2012, the Whistle Blower severed their relationship. The Whistle Blower informed Mr. Blixseth that he and the DOJ had been hacking into Tim's and Tim’s counsel's emails; and he and the government were wiretapping their phone calls on behalf of Edra and Burkle. Edra had paid the Whistle Blower over $6.0M to conduct her requested hacking, at the rate of $100,000 per month from April, 2006 through January, 2009 plus millions in bonuses. The Whistle Blower and Mr. Blixseth’s counsel have been attempting to secure immunity for the Whistle Blower for the past year to blow the whistle on this entire matter, but the Holder controlled DOJ has thwarted it at the risk of exposing their own corrupt conduct. (See Immunity Proffer and documents sent under separate cover.) In the event The Public Integrity Section gives immunity to the Whistle Blower will expose the entire YC scheme, the misconduct of Judge Kirscher in connection with very specific electronic evidence, and the criminal conduct of Burkle, Byrne and Schweitzer in their scheme to use the Montana Bankruptcy Court to perpetrate the “brilliant but evil, billion dollar plan.” (Id. at 10-11.)

The letter also accuses a judge of illegal misconduct:

See May 4, 2012 letter and Memorandum and exhibits. See Immunity Proffer of the whistleblower sent under separate cover, specifically regarding the misconduct of Judge Kirscher and his relationships with attorneys and their clients financially benefitting from his illegal rulings in amounts over $20 MILLION! (Id.at 8.)

Note that although Flynn does not name the whistleblower in this letter, in a 2010 affidavit, Flynn accused Dennis Montgomery of, among other things, (a) hacking into the computers of Tim Blixseth and his attorney (Flynn) (¶ 13, pp. 10, 14); (b) fabrication of bribery emails (¶ 13, p. 12); and (c) fabrication of fake Grand Jury Target Letters (¶ 12, p. 10). See Affidavit Of Michael J. Flynn dated January 2010, filed as part of ECF 2109-1 (Jan. 13, 2011), in In re: Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-61570-11 (Bankr. D. Mont.). It is also worth noting that, while Flynn's 2013 letter to the DOJ asserts that Montgomery was paid over $6 MM for the alleged hacking, his January 2010 Affidavit asserts that Montgomery was paid over $6MM "for non-existent technology, which raises the inference that it was paid to perform computer hacking."

After May 2013

According to James Risen, “After former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents about the NSA's domestic surveillance operations in 2013, Montgomery suggested to me [Risen] that he could provide the documents that would prove not only that he had been telling the truth, but that he had also been used by top U.S. intelligence officials in highly questionable intelligence operations." See James Risen, Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Oct. 14, 2014, page 24 (Montgomery v. Risen, ECF 44 at p. 85).

June 2013

Klayman files CIA/NSA cases in D.D.C. He makes no mention of Montgomery or of unnamed whistleblower in his complaint. See, e.g., Klayman v. Obama et al, Case No. 1:13-cv-00851 (D.D.C), Complaint [ECF 1]; see also RECAP of docket.

Dennis Montgomery will later claim (June 2015), that he sought "legal assistance" from the ACLU and/or the ACLU Foundation regarding his "efforts as a whistleblower" with information about various US intelligence agencies starting in early June 2013:

"Dennis Montgomery consulted with the ACLU and the other Defendants herein, including but not limited to the lead litigation attorney, Mike German, at the ACLU’s national headquarters, with regard to his efforts as a whistleblower having information about the unconstitutional and illegal acts by the National Security Agency (“NSA”), the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and other U.S. Government intelligence agencies."

See Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Foundation et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-22452 (S.D. Fla.) Complaint [ECF 1] at ¶¶ 14-15.

However, the ACLU Foundation and related entities deny Montgomery's claims. See, e.g., Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union et al, No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM, ECF 18 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2015); and ECF 19-25 (declarations filed in support of motion to dismiss).

As set forth in that Motion and accompanying materials, Mike German is not an attorney, much less a "lead litigation attorney."

"The publicly available rosters of the New York and D.C. bars, of which the Court can take notice, do not include Mr. German at all (for the very good reason that he is not, and never has been, an attorney, and thus has never taken a bar exam or sought bar admission; never held himself out to be an attorney, and never purported to render legal advice to any ACLUF client)."

See ECF 18 at 15; see also July 22, 2015 Declaration of Michael German [ECF 21] (German worked for at time at the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office); and June 25, 2015 Letter from Cecillia Wang (ACLU Foundation) to Larry Klayman (ECF 1 at 44(""I am in receipt of your letter of June 22, 2015 and am responding on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the ACLU Foundation of Arizona. We disagree with the factual and legal claims in your letter and see no reason to take any further action.").

June 13, 2013

The United States (DOJ) submits a "Statement of Interest." See ECF 580. In the Statement, the DOJ provides a couple recent consent decrees (id. at 2), along with the draft consent decree it previously proposed to the MCSO (id. at 3 and Ex. C). The DOJ also outlines the minimum requirements it believes are necessary to ensure compliance "given the nature of the violations in which the Court has found the Sheriff to have engaged, and the resistance he has demonstrated to lawful checks on his power," Id. at 3-4. Finally, the DOJ states:

"The United States has engaged in preliminary conversations with plaintiffs in this
case and would welcome the opportunity to participate more directly with the parties in negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement on the form of appropriate relief. The United States believes that such talks appropriately could address the possibility of a global settlement encompassing the United States’ claims against the Sheriff in United States v. Maricopa County, et al. Such an agreement would be in the interests of all of the parties, the Court, and the people of Maricopa County. The United States respectfully requests that the Court provide the parties and the United States with an opportunity to further discuss mutually acceptable measures."

Id. at 4-5.

Jude Joffe-Block reports on the upcoming Melendres hearing. See Jude Joffe-Block, “Debate Over Arpaio Policing Kicks Off In Phoenix," Fronteras, June 13, 2013. Joffe-Block also reports on recent developments since the Court's May 23 ruling, including:

The "MCSO has temporarily suspended human smuggling patrols on highways, as well as operations that target unauthorized immigrants working with fraudulent documents."

There has been "notable change in tone in the sheriff’s communications. The agency used to publicize arrests of “illegal aliens” on human smuggling and drug charges, but lately it’s announcing what it’s calling “rescues” of border crossers lost in the desert."

"Arpaio’s legal defense on this case has already cost the county $1,025,241.46 as of May 31. And since the losing side must pay opposing counsel’s legal fees, that figure is likely to double when the plaintiffs’ lawyers fees are added."

Id.

June 14, 2013

Judge Snow holds a status conference. [ECF 581 (Minute Entry); ECF 586 (Transcript).] See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio B-Day Bomb: Judge Wants Monitor in Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, June 14, 2013.

Following the hearing he issues an order (a) setting a status conference for August 30 and (b) ordering the parties to "file a joint memorandum on the status of their agreement on a consent decree and lodge the consent decree on or before August 16, 2013. If the parties need to supplement the memorandum, they may do so no later than August 28, 2013." [ECF 582.]

June 18, 2013

The Phoenix New Times reports that the Arizona State Bar is investigating Larry Klayman. Matthew Hendley, “Larry Klayman Under Investigation by Arizona Bar,” Phoenix New Times, June 18, 2013.

June 21, 2013

Arpaio and the MCSO appeal Judge Snow's May 24 Decision. [ECF 587 (Notice of Appeal); ECF 588 (assignment of Case Number 13-16285).

June 23, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger NBC publishes “Birth certificate forger Identified – Xerox Work Centre – 7655.”

June 24, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger NBC publishes “The Proof – Forgery done by Xerox Workcentre 7655,” which essentially demonstrates that all the Obama birth certificate anomalies alleged by the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse were in the result of the White House’s use of a Xerox Workcenter machine to create a PDF of his long form birth certificate.

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “How 2 make a long form PDF,” which summarizes the work performed by NBC noted above.

June 25, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger NBC appears on Reality Check’s Blog Talk Radio to discuss his recent findings.

July-September 2013

MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the First Quarter FY2014 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $617,326 in State/Local RICO Funds funds between July 1 and September 30, 2013

Professional/Outside Services: ................... $ 6,914

Travel:........................................................... $ 28,549

Other Operating Expenses:...................... $ 429,559

(OOE includes informant payments, per this)

Equipment:................................................. $ 152,305

(Equipment includes computer purchases per this)

July 3, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “Blogger NBC Identifies the “Forger” for the CCP: Grande Commandante Zullo – Better Go Slap the Cuffs on the Xerox Machine,” which summarizes recent developments in debunking the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse's birth certificate forgery claims (i.e., NBC’s Xerox experiments and related work).

July 8, 2013

Mike Zullo is reportedly in Washington DC “to meet with several high-ranking VIPS on Capitol Hill about the Sheriff Arpaio Obama Fraud case.” See PPSimmons, “Mike Zullo hits Washington D.C. – Again!,” as published on the Tea Party Tribume, July 8, 2013.

July 16, 2013

WND reports on recent developments in the Tim Blixseth bankruptcy case. See Jerome Corsi, “Fraud claim against Holder bolstered after ruling,” WND, July 16, 2013. According to that article,

"Among recent developments is the entry into the Yellowstone case of a whistleblower who claims to have been paid $6 million by Blixseth’s former wife to hack into Blixseth’s computers to obtain highly confidential information that she shared with Burkle and Department of Justice criminal investigators.

Flynn explained to WND his current concern that Holder may have ordered the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to block the whistleblower’s application for immunity to prevent disclosure of corruption by the various Democratic Party political operatives involved in the Yellowstone case, including Holder and Breuer." (Id.)

The article includes a link to a May 29 letter from Mike Flynn et al to the DOJ, referring to unnamed whistleblower who alleged that he and DOJ had hacked into computers, hacked into emails and wiretapped phones of Mr. Blixeth and his counsel. Flynn was Blixseth’s attorney, and was formerly Dennis Montgomery’s attorney. See May 29 Timeline entry for more details on that letter.

July 30, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Birthers scrambling, after Xerox bombshell,” which reports on birther reaction to NBC et al’s findings.

Aug. 6, 2013

Arpaio issues a signed fundraising letter today in which he declares (in part) as follows:

"I am known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” for good reason. I will never back down – not even an inch – when it comes to the job I was elected to do. I will continue enforcing all the state criminal laws on the books no matter what the consequences.

And what do I get for doing my job and being the only law enforcement official in the state to enforce these Arizona criminal laws?

A federal judge recently ruled my office engaged in “racial profiling.” The lawsuit was filed by open border activists lead by the ultra-liberal ACLU."

* * *

…Ultimately they [the DOJ] want to have a “federal monitor” in my office looking over my shoulder, making sure everything I do is politically correct. I was elected by the people and I won’t stand for it …"

Id. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Makes Moolah off Melendres, Promises to "Never Back Down",” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 21, 2013; and Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Letter Shows Why Judge Snow Must Appoint a Monitor in Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 3, 2013.

Aug. 7, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes Any Fool Can See, which summarizes how NBC, Kevin Vicklund, and others demonstrated that the “proof” of forgery alleged by the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse is simply explained by the fact that a Xerox WorkCentre

Aug. 11, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “Xerox for Dummies,” which summarizes, in “layman” terms, the research performed by NBC, Kevin Vicklund, and others.

Aug. 13, 2013

Phoenix New Times reports that Brian Sands has retired from the MCSO. See Ray Stern, “Brian Sands, Longtime Aide To Sheriff Arpaio, Retires Ahead Of Racial-Profiling Mess He Helped Create,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 13, 2013.

Birther debunker/blogger NBC appears on Reality Check’s Blog Talk Radio to discuss his recent findings.

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Understanding the long form PDF.”

Aug. 14, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Halos revisited,” in which, among other things, he demonstrates that the alleged Obama birth certificate PDF used by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse expert Garrett Papit is not the same PDF that was released by the White House.

Aug. 15, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Cold Case Posse: The clock is ticking,” which discusses how Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse has failed to respond to the Xerox WorkCenter information.

Aug. 16, 2013

The Melendres parties submit the "Parties Joint Report Regarding Status of Consent Decree Negotiations," which sets forth matters upon which the parties agree as well as those matters that remain in dispute. See ECF 592. See also Jude Joffe-Block, “Attorneys Disagree On New Rules For Arpaio's Office,” Fronteras, Aug. 16, 2013; Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio, Serial Racist, Says No to Melendres Monitor, But Agrees Deputies Need Re-Training,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 16, 2013.

Carl Gallups, Mike Zullo’s unofficial spokesperson, appears on Mike Volin’s Blog Talk Radio show. [Full BlogTalk Radio Show; Excerpt courtesy of Reality Check.] Most of the interview is spent lamenting the refusal of various Congress members to meet with Zullo and other birthers, or to take any action on the Zullo information, and encouraging people to continue contacting their congresspersons.

Towards the end of the show [Excerpt~26:17], Mike asks Carl to consider responding to people who "want to know about the Xerox thing. I guess people are saying that the birth certificate can be put in the Xerox copier and come out the way it is." Gallups responds [~26:23] "I can answer that. I can answer that." But first, they take another caller.

When they return to the Xerox matter [~30:50]. Gallups states as follows (layperson's unofficial transcript):

[Excerpt~31:04] GALLUPS: Here is what I am at liberty to say. ... Mike Zullo is completely aware of every bit of those allegations and that information and here is my 30-second statement: It is of no concern. It is of no concern. That's all I'm gonna say. It is of no concern. Do you understand, Mike?

Later, in responding to a caller, Gallups returns to the Xerox matter.

[Excerpt~38:53] GALLUPS: ... You were asking about the Xerox machine. Here's the thing. The Obamabots are dying for me or Zullo to talk about what we know about that. They think they found the goose that laid the golden egg. And they're dying to know what we know about it. Well, Zullo and I - we are not going to expose; this is a part of a criminal investigation and when it comes before Congress, then Congress will know everything. But I can tell you, it is of no concern. And you gotta ask yourself, why would these guys - five years into this - all of a sudden say, Oh, we've got a particular machine that can do these things. I mean, just think about what they're doing and the timing of what they're doing. ...

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check reports on this development in his article, “Carl Gallups claims ‘The Xerox evidence is of no concern’.”

Aug. 17, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Samples,” which discusses the Xerox testing issues.

Aug. 19, 2013

Judge Snow issues an order permitting the parties to file, by August 23, separate supplemental briefs containing "concise discussion of the parties' justifications for their competing positions on the terms of the Proposed Consent Decree." [ECF 593]

Aug. 21-22, 2013

“On or about August 21-22, 2013, a person named Karen Morris Grissom sent [Arpaio] a private message on [his] Facebook page purporting to have had a conversation in 2012 with Judge Snow's wife wherein Mrs. Snow reported that her husband, Judge Snow, did not like [Arpaio] and wanted [him] out of office.” Nov. 6, 2013 Letter from Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 111] at p. 8-9. The actual text of the message was as follows:

"Karen Morris Grissom
Judge Snow I know his wife and talked with her one day she recognized me from our childhood she told me that her husband hates u and will do anything to get u out of office.
This has bothered me since last year when I saw her."

Id. Thereafter, Arpaio/MCSO notified attorney Tim Casey of this matter and directed him to follow up on the matter. Id. (“Upon being advised of the foregoing and directed by your office to do so, I began to try to locate Ms. Grissom and interview her. I eventually sent a message to Ms. Grissom on her Facebook page…” Id.)

Aug. 23, 2013

The Melendres parties file their supplemental briefs addressing contested provisions of the consent decree (as authorized by the Court on Aug. 19). [ECF 595 - MCSO/Arpaio Brief; ECF 596 - Melendres Plaintiffs' Brief].

On his “Freedom Friday” radio show, Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo discuss the state of the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse investigation. [Archived version of show.] During this show, Gallups and Zullo – for the first time – begins to refer to a new branch of investigation, apparently started in response to the Xerox explanation.

Relevant excerpts include (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~3:32] GALLUPS: But Mike, what's your response to these Obots [referring to the Xerox explanation] and my opinion, these nobodies, these irrelevant little people running around crying on national talk radio about how you won't tell them anything. And you're a professional criminal investigator in a criminal case getting information before Congress, but they're whining because you won't tell them what you know.

[~3:53] ZULLO: Well Carl, I think they're delusional. I think they're delusional. They are some vessel of authority somewhere, I don't know in what stratosphere, but I don't owe them anything; I've never engaged them in two years; I don't really pay a lot of attention to them. And what little I do know of them, aside from the identities of a few and one that I am intently focused on now,... it really just seems to me to be nothing more than a big disinformation campaign, because they aren't even disinformation ... and per definition, it's false information that is deliberately and a lot of times covertly spread, in order to influence public opinion or to obscure the truth. And that to me is about what it is and so to even deal with them ... as far as I'm concerned ... brain damage. I don't see any reason to do it.

* * * *

[~5:47] GALLUPS: … Let me just do this. I'm going to be very careful here because I will not divulge criminal investigation information that I know about ... and you're the one doing it so I'm know you're not.. but since there was this lengthy conversation, let me just give a ... surface understanding for our listeners about this Xerox machine thing. So I was on the air; this guy calls up, this Obamabot, and he makes this allegation. He says, "we have found, we have got a xerox machine," and he gave the serial number and all that, make and model, and said, "it will produce the same anomalies that's on the PDF that came on the White House website, etcetera etcetera," and he said, "So therefore, we've basically disproven the whole Zullo ... investigation."

Now, again, I'm not going to give away the details of what we know and don't know and what you've done and haven't done and yada yada yada, but my response was, because of what I know, I said, "I will not give any details of the criminal investigation, but I can say this: that allegation that just made about the Xerox machine, it is of no concern to the Arpaio investigation." I said, "Zullo and Arpaio are miles down the road ahead of that. And, I mean, if that's what they think is the golden bullet, they're gonna be sorely disappointed. Did I answer that correctly, and should we say anything else; is there anything else you wanna say or is that just kinda where it needs to be, or, if I said something wrong, correct me.

[~7:17] ZULLO: No, you answered it as the way I would answer it. It is absolutely nothing of concern. ... It is not exculpatory on any level. And there isn't anything I'm going to say about it. Now if these people think they have exculpatory evidence, then sign the affidavits with your computer files and the experts with the analysis and we'd be more than happy to look at it, but don't disseminate this nonsense over the internet and think that I have some obligation to you. Because I don't.

* * * *

[~8:45] GALLUPS: But the bottom line is, Mike, if I'm correct, and if I'm incorrect, then straighten me out, but you guys are way down the road ahead of this Xerox machine thing; you're aware of it; you're aware of every details of their allegations; you guys have done your thing; you're way beyond that; and your case does not rest on that; nor does it really rest totally on the PDF. I mean there's just so much to this that people don't know. You've got three to four hundred pages of criminal investigation stuff. And ... am I right about all of that?

[~9:15] ZULLO: Well Carl, you know better than anyone because you and I have become very dear friends and you're a confidant, you know, as far as this investigation is concerned. And if these people think that they have the holy grail, I have - you know - I have a bridge to sell. ...

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes, “Xerox Theory Consistent with Ivan Zatkovich Report.”

Aug. 24, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “The importance of the Xerox 7655 identification.”

Aug. 27, 2013

Michele Vendredi (Sheridan's executive assistant) emails Tim Casey (attorney) re: "Contact information for Karen Morris Grissom with Facebook message attached." See Melendres ECF 1206-1 at 6.

Aug. 28, 2013

Phoenix New Times reporter Matthew Hendley reports on the work of birther debunkers/bloggers NBC and Reality Check demonstrating that the alleged "anomalies" contained in the PDF of President Obama's long form birth certificate -- i.e., the basis of claims by the Arpaio/Zullo Cold Case Posse that the document was forged -- are merely natural artifacts resulting from use of a particular model of the Xerox WorkCenterl. See Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio's Sham "Investigation" Into Obama's Birth Certificate Exposed (Yet Again),” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 28, 2013.

Ms. Karen Grissom responded to Arpaio Attorney Tim Casey's post-Aug. 21 Facebook message to her, and they discussed the private message she had sent to Arpaio. Casey later noted:

I wanted to meet Ms. Grissom in person to evaluate her credibility, and obtain from her either a recorded statement or a statement tl11der oath before a court reporter. Ms. Grissom advised that she was willing to meet with me in person, to provide a statement under oath, and that she would call me back after her job interview. She was adamant that she was telling the truth about what the judge's wife had said to her. She expressed no fear or reservation about telling the truth. Ms. Grissom again told me she would call me back after her job interview. The call ended.

As I reported initially to you and Chief Sheridan, Ms. Grissom came across telephonically as sincere and credible (despite not knowing the date of the encounter, the name of the woman, and 'the 12-13 month delay in repmiing the incident) but I reserved final credibility judgment until I could meet her in person and speak with. her in detail. Ms. Grissom, however, did not call me back after the job interview. She also did not take my two separate telephone calls to her arourid 5:30 pm that same date (08/28/13).

See Nov. 6, 2013 Letter from Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 1115] at p. 8-9; see also ECF 1206-1 at 6 (email from Tim Casey to Sheridan and his assistant re: ""Contact information -- UPDATE re T. Casey locating Karen Morris Grissom").

Aug. 28 - Oct. 17, 2013

As Arpaio attorney Tim Casey later reported to Arpaio:

"Over the next four weeks, Ms. Grissom and I had no contact despite my occasional telephone call into her. It appeared to me that Ms. Grissom did not wish to talk further for whatever reason. I reported the same to you and your chiefs and fu1iher shared my prior historical experience with witnesses sometimes being willing to say certain things privately on a telephone call to an attorney and then decline fmiher involvement or more formal documentation of the substance of the earlier communication. The absence of fmiher contact from Ms. Grissom after-August 28, 2013 led me to personally conclude the matter was over and the information from Ms. Grissom lacked substance or merit."

See Nov. 6, 2013 Letter from Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 1115] at p. 8-9.

Aug. 29, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes, “Phoenix media attacks birther investigation,” in which he discusses defects in the Xerox experiments performed by the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse’s expert Papit.

Carl Gallups again discusses the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation on his 1330 WEBY AM - Gulf Coast Talk Radio radio show. See PPSimmons, Obamabots Now SUSPECTS?! Obots going CRAZY over Obama Fraud Case!, YouTube, Aug. 29, 2013.

This marks the first time that Gallups expressly refers to the “new branch” of investigation - and the fact that this new "branch" was started in direct response to the Xerox explanation. Relevant excerpts include (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~00:55] The Obots are going absolutely nuts about the Obama Fraud Investigation. Because, as you have been aware of course I have been working with Mike Zullo, Sheriff Arpaio in helping them to disseminate information through PPSimmons and through Freedom Friday Radio. And of course you will remember that Mike Zullo and I traveled together to CPAC 2013 and in Washington DC. You know of course that we both have been in contact with Congressmen and various important people all around the nation who can get this matter before Congress. ...

* * * *

[~4:43] Zullo was telling me the other day that he has between three and five hundred pages of information that has not been released concerning this investigation. So there’s nothing about Arpaio’s investigation that has been proven to be a sham. ...

* * * *

[~8:52] Well, Mike Zullo’s response to this – and I have been saying this all over the airwaves … So the Obamabots believe that they’ve found the golden bullet. Here is the deal. The Xerox machine they’re talking about – it is of no consequence to this investigation. It is of no concern. Zullo and his team completely … I gotta be careful what I say here … because I don’t want to give away any information, but – the bottom line is that they are very aware of the whole allegation; they have investigated it to the hilt; it is of no concern. It is of no concern. There is no machine anywhere in the world that exists wherein a birth certificate can be placed in it, the button pushed one time, and every one of the anomalies that’s on the Obama birth certificate that can be replicated exactly.. … Especially some of the most condemning anomalies. And that’s as far as I’m gonna go. …

[~10:17] The Obamabots may have found a machine that produces several anomalies that appear to be similar to those on the Obama Birth Certificate but that does not derail this investigation. But let me tell you what it does do. It opens up a whole other branch of the investigation. That’s for certain. Because – listen. I’m not gonna speak for Zullo now but let me speak for myself – when I was in criminal investigations and when I was a sworn law enforcement officer, if I had a criminal case going and all of a sudden I had these people on the outskirts and the fringes who were jumping up and down claiming they had derailed my investigation and had the evidence – and spoke very nebulously and spoke falsely? And then started disseminating that information to the public? They would be my prime suspects in the case from the beginning. They would be persons of interest.

[~11:09] I can tell you this. The Zullo investigation is now looking at persons of interest, specific people, specifically because of the Obamabots going frenetically crazy over this so-called Xerox machine evidence. So, the bottom line is, again, it is of no concern. They can keep printing their little articles and their little news rags and talk to themselves on their little party-line BlogSpot radio programs with 10 or 20 people as they scream among themselves. They can continue to call into the real radio programs and try to derail the conversation, but that’s all they can do. In the meantime a whole different line of investigation has been opened now. …

[13:26] And now you can see why Zullo and company have begun to focus on specific persons of interest who all of a sudden have made themselves front and center in this investigation.

Aug. 30, 2013

Judge Snow holds the scheduled status conference to discuss the parties' various positions regarding the consent decree. [ECF 599 - Minute Entry; ECF 603 - Transcript.] As later reported:

"Attorneys from both sides of the class action lawsuit spent Friday morning negotiating the reforms. Even without a final order yet, Friday’s hearing made clear what some of the coming changes will likely be. Among them, an independent monitor to oversee MCSO's compliance with the order, more thorough data collection during traffic stops, and cameras in deputies vehicles.

Attorneys from both sides seemed pleased with the process and with Judge Snow.

“It was a very productive and constructive session today and will lead to an order that will be meaningful and hopefully will lead to significant change in the county,” said Dan Pochoda of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona which represents the plaintiffs.

Attorneys for Arpaio had previously objected to the appointment of an independent monitor, but after court on Tuesday, MCSO attorney Tom Liddy said he was “pleased” with the arrangement because Snow clarified the monitor would not have veto power over Arpaio."

See Jude Joffe-Block, “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Office Back In Court,” KJZZ, Aug. 30, 2013. While some issues were resolved, others -- such as creation of a community advisory board and whether MCSO must record reason for traffic stop before approaching the vehicle at issue -- remain open issues. Id. Judge Snow asked for additional briefing on the traffic stop recordation issue. Id. See also Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio Doesn't Get His New Monitor . . . Yet,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 30, 2013; JJ Hensley, “Judge: Monitor has limited role to guard against MCSO racial profiling,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 30, 2013; Matthew Hendley, “Does Joe Arpaio Need a Monitor?,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 3, 2013.

September 2013

The first MCSO - Montgomery contact occurs, according to documents reviewed by Judge Snow as of May 14, 2015. [Melendres, ECF 1097 at 45.]

Fall 2013

Arpaio reportedly is ready to shut down the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse’s birth certificate investigation when "this whistleblower walked into Arpaio’s office basically and had information about how the… now this is what I’m told, I’m not part of the investigation I should add… but what I’ve learned is that this whistleblower had information about, you know, how the birth certificate was produced, who… you know who might have done it, where it was done. And even pointed the finger towards CIA Director John Brennan. So…" See Peter Boyles Show - Sep 12, 2014 - Hr 4, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 12, 2014 (interview with Lawrence Sellin during which Sellin discloses this information); Peter Boyles Show - Sep 22, 2014 - Hr 2, 710KNUS News/Talk Radio (Podcast), Sept. 22, 2014 (another interview with Sellin during which he reports this again).

Notes: This statement that a whistleblower walked in the door seems at least somewhat consistent with the claims made by Arpaio's Melendres attorneys, in June 2015, that Montgomery " voluntarily, and on [his] own accord, came to MCSO and provided information regarding Judge Snow.The record is devoid of any evidence that the Defendants in this action solicited these sources. Moreover, upon receiving the information voluntarily reported by [Montgomery], Defendants and counsel had a duty to investigate further to determine the veracity of the allegations made by these informants." See Melendres ECF 1160 at 10.

However, according to a complaint filed in July 2015 by Larry Klayman, Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse approached Montegomery - not the other way around. Per that complaint, Montgomery was "approached by Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) under MCSO’s “Cold Case Posse” project concerning the same topics ... as it concerned Arizona citizens and illegal surveillance of them by the federal government." See Montgomery v ACLU ECF 1 at ¶ 31.

Sept. 3, 2013

Phoenix New Times reports on Carl Gallups' show mentioning the paper. See Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio's Birther Mouthpiece Suggests New Times Forged Obama's Birth Certificate,” Phoeniz New Times, Sept. 3, 2013.

Sept. 4, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Doc Conspiracy publishes “[Arpaio-Zullo] Cold Case Posse tests Xerox (or not).”

Sept. 6, 2013

★ According to the "Whistleblower Chronicles" later drafted by Dennis Montgomery, he "gives interview to MCSO at home in Yarrow Point home" on Sept. 6, 2013. See Plaintiffs Exhibit 2919 (PDF) (admitted into evidence during the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings).

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Unresponsive,” in which he notes that the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse has utterly failed to respond to the Xerox information.

Carl Gallups again discusses the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation on his “Freedom Friday” radio show. (As uploaded YouTube- SHOCK REVEAL! Obot Calls Mike Zullo's Personal Phone! Carl Gallups Listens In!).

Among other things, Gallups discusses being a secret witness to a telephone call between an “Obamabot” and Mike Zullo. Gallups describes the call in some details. According to Gallups, the primary reason for the call was to determine whether the caller was a suspect in the birther case – something Zullo refused to address. Gallups then [~4:25] refers again to his August 29 show, in which he'd expressly referred to a "new branch" of investigation initiated in response to the Xerox explanation:

“.. the fact that one of the latest developments in the Arpaio case is that the, I gotta be careful of what I say here, but that the investigation is now pointing to some people of interest who are known Obamabots. And they have been doing deep investigations of these people. And they’ve discovered some amazing ties across this land to some very important people. And that’s all I’m gonna say right now. Amazing. Here before unknown ties. So folks, hang on. This saga is getting really deep and interesting. … But this is getting good.

📄 ZULLO DOC. A 15-page pdf, file name "Cantwell 09-06-2013.pdf" (ZULLO 003663-77) is later listed in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log prepared in connection with Zullo's Fall 2015 document production, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Sept. 6, 2013? (or 2014?)

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 114-page document -- MCSO Special Investigation Division Interview with Confidential Informant #1437 dated 9/6/2013 (MELC184916 - MELC185029) -- is later listed as potential Exhibit 2926 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.

The contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this is a Seattle Operation-related document. If so, and assuming the 2013 date noted is correct and not a typo, this would be the first - or one of the first - documents created by MCSO relating to Dennis Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Sept. 8, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “We Accept Your Challenge Mr. Zullo,” in which he publishes a letter sent to Mike Zullo.

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes "Xerox Corporation may become “person of interest” in Cold Case Posse investigation."

Sept. 11, 2013

Arpaio/MSCO file a "Brief Re Court's Proposal to Require MCSO Deputies to Announce Basis for Each Traffic Stop Over Radio." [ECF 604.]

Gallups appears on Mike Volin’s wheresobamasbirthcertificateXcom show. (Youtube) The discussion included (layperson's unofficial transcript) the following:

GALLUPS: “I can promise you that Mike Zullo, Sheriff Arpaio, are going to move it forward as far as they can take it. Their goal is to get it to a Congressional investigation. If that happens it will blow this thing wide open. If it doesn’t happen, let’s say Stockman backs out, or some other congressmen back out, let’s say everybody just gets cold feet and doesn’t deal with it, then we have a Plan B. And I don’t want to give it all away right now. But Zullo and Arpaio have talked about it at length. Mike and I have talked about it. Other people who are involved in this. We have a Plan B to get every piece of evidence that they have, and it’s amazing what they have that they haven’t even released not counting the affidavit that’s been released with 200 points of evidence, uh, but they will release every bit of it in a multi-faceted releasing fashion.

* * *

This thing is moving along. It’s getting deeper and deeper and darker and darker. And, and people are making promises to us that they’re going to move it to a Congressional investigation and all we can do is wait for them to keep their promise. If they keep it, you will see the results of it. If they don’t keep it, then Mike Zullo has a Plan B.

Sept. 13, 2013

Carl Gallups interviews Mike Zullo again regarding the state of the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse investigation. (Excerpt as later posted on YouTube - Beyond The Birth Certificate! Posse Investigation Yields Surprising Finds!).

Gallups theorizes that there is something sinister about the timing of the Xerox explanation, and both Gallups and Zullo hint of a deeper/darker investigation now under way. Relevant excerpts of the interview include (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~9:23] GALLUPS: I will ask you this very generally. Apparently, from everything else you’re finding out – and it’s a lot – the birth certificate thing – which is huge – is kind of the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, this thing gets really dark and really deep and your investigation is leading to some stunning connections to people, places, events, and things across this land. And am I .. can you speak to any of that?

[~9:51] ZULLO: You know Carl, I really can’t , can’t speak to it … to any length, but you’re not off in what you’re saying. Like I said earlier, if you think that Sheriff Arpaio just has me looking at the birth certificate on the computer screen .. you’re wrong. There’s, there’s a lot of stuff here. And I think … a lot of this focus on the certificate is being done for the purpose of using this as a focal point to keep attention drawn to that certificate so everything else could just go on by.

* * * *

[~10:23] GALLUPS: Right. And, as the consummate professional investigator you are, that was just one of the first red flags to you when your face was just continually being shoved into the details of that. I suppose that’s when you had an “A-Ha” moment and when you started turning your head left and right, that’s when other things just really, really started rolling, huh?

[~10:44] ZULLO: Well, you know, you have to look at it from my perspective is if you’re on the other side, I don’t care what side you are on this thing, if you’re on the other side and you truly wanted to help law enforcement get to the bottom of this, you wouldn’t do it the way these guys are doing it. …

* * * *

[~12:24] GALLUPS: Well I just have a question for you Mike, before I let you go. Am I a suspect in your case?

[~12:30] ZULLO: No, Carl … But I can tell you this, that after the last week of events, the individual that called, if you weren’t, right now you look like the Hindenburg on my radar screen, and we all know what happened to the Hindenburg. …

Sept. 18, 2013

The Melendres Plaintiffs file a Response to "Defendants' Brief Regarding Courts Proposal to Require MCSO Deputies to Announce Basis for Each Traffic Stop Over Radio." [ECF 605.]

Sept. 23, 2013

As later reported in "God’s Birther" (by Frank Arduni):

On September 23rd, The Fogbow’s Bill Bryan received an email from Mike Violin who had been progressively raising his profile among the birthers in association with “Sheriff’s Kits” he had assembled from [Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse] materials. Bryan had offered to enter the lion’s den and give Volin a full two hour interview with the de facto “head obot” on Volin’s blogtalk radio program. Volin was turning him down.

“After close consultations with members of the team it would not be prudent for me to interview you, mainly due to several obots are now the focus of a law enforcement criminal investigation this would only be a conflict due to my attachment to the Sheriff’s Kits.”

October-December 2013

MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Second Quarter FY2014 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO received and spent $585,975 in State/Local RICO Funds between October 1 and December 30, 2013

Admin........................................................... $ 13,994

(Employee overtime is included in Admin, per this and above linked report)

Travel:........................................................... $ 15,628

Other Operating Expenses:...................... $ 268,055

(OOE includes informant payments, per this)

Equipment:................................................. $ 288,299

(Equipment includes computer purchases per this)

Oct. 2, 2013

Judge Snow issues a Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order. [ECF 606, later amended by ECF 670]. As summarized in the docket:

“[T]he Court's injunction of December 23, 2011 is made permanent. The Court's injunction of May 24, 2013 shall remain permanent. For removal of doubt, both the December 23, 2011 injunction and the May 24, 2013 injunction shall survive the termination of this Order until and unless specifically dissolved or modified by the Court or an appellate court of competent jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is an appealable final judgment. … IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction over this case for the purposes of implementing this Order."

As later summarized in a joint statement developed by the parties, the Supplemental Injunction requires as follows:

The MCSO must revise its policies and procedures in various ways to ensure that none of the [conduct deemed illegal in the May 23 Decision] occurs.

The MCSO must create an approved template for pre-planned operations that ensures that they are not conducted in a discriminatory or unconstitutional manner.

The MCSO must provide additional training in the areas of bias-free policing, detentions/arrests, and enforcement of immigration-related laws.

The MCSO must provide additional training to supervisors.

The MCSO must collect certain data regarding traffic stops, including the deputy's perceived impression, based upon the deputy's best effort, of the race and ethnicity of the driver and passengers after every stop without asking such persons about their race or ethnicity.

The MCSO must review and analyze the collected traffic stop data.

The MCSO must eventually ensure that all traffic stops are recorded.

The MCSO must implement and provide training on an early identification system ("EIS") to identify and respond to potentially problematic behaviors, including racial profiling, unlawful detentions and arrests, and improper enforcement of immigration-related laws.

The MCSO shall ensure that no more than 12 deputies are supervised by a single supervisor and implement additional procedures for supervisors.

The MCSO must ensure that all complaints regarding misconduct are tracked and investigated.

A monitor shall be appointed by the Court to make recommendations to the MCSO and the Court regarding the MCSO's compliance with the Court's orders.

See ECF 674, Exhibit 1 at 5-6 (footnote omitted); see also Apr. 17, 2014 (Order requiring dissemination of this summary after Arpaio backed out due to negative publicity.)

See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Heads to the Woodshed: Judge G. Murray Snow Orders Monitor, Retraining, Video Cameras on Patrol Cars, and More in Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 2, 2013; JJ Hensley, “Racial-profiling lawsuit ruling: Judge imposes conditions on Arpaio, Sheriff's Office,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 2, 2013; David Schwartz, “Judge orders monitor appointed to oversee controversial Arizona sheriff,” Oct. 2, 2013.

Sheriff Arpaio issues statement regarding the Melendres ruling: “I have received a copy of the court order and I am in the process of discussing it with our attorneys. We are identifying areas that are ripe for appeal. To be clear, the appointed monitor will have no veto authority over my duties or operations.* As the constitutionally elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, I serve the people and I will continue to perform my duties and enforce all laws.“ MCSO Press Release.

*Note: As reporters have pointed out, no party ever proposed that the monitor would have "veto" authority. See, e.g., JJ Hensley, “Judge: Monitor has limited role to guard against MCSO racial profiling,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 30, 2013; Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Hate Campaign Against the Undocumented Persists Despite New Rules,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 9, 2013.

Oct. 11, 2013

During his Freedom Friday radio show Gallups and Zullo talk again. (Later published on YouTube by BirtherReport - Full: Team Arpaio: Another Congressman Engaging; Obots Knocked Down). Much of the show is taken up discussing the supposed outing and extensive disparaging of some birther debunkers.

After all this, Gallups and Zullo conclude as follows (based on Dr. Conspiracy’s unofficial transcript available here).

GALLUPS: You are the lead investigator in this case, assigned by Sheriff Arpaio. You represent him around the nation, actually you represent him around the world. He is still engaged. You speak with him all the time. You just with him less than an hour ago. This is not going away. You are reporting directly to him. Sheriff Arpaio knows what’s going on with this investigation. …

ZULLO: … And you know what Carl, I think that at this point for the sake of your listeners, I think, I’m gonna turn off the switch on this group of guys, this five or six.

GALLUPS: I agree

ZULLO: They got their own [talk?] line.

GALLUPS: I agree. It’s a waste of your time. It’s a waste of your time.

ZULLO: It is a waste. If they come through with an affidavit, and not an affidavit signed by Dr. Conspiracy, because quite frankly RC who’s the one out there saying he’s doing all this work.

GALLUPS: Right, right, right, right, right. Mike had to cut you off because we’re out of time.

Oct. 13, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “In defense of Foggy & RC,” in response to statements made by Gallups and Zullo during Gallup's October 11 Freedom Friday show.

Oct. 14, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Gallups and Zullo ‘turn off the switch’,” which includes a layperson’s unofficial transcript of a portion of Carl Gallup’s October 11 Freedom Friday radio show.

Oct. 16, 2013

The Melendres Plaintiffs file a Bill of Costs. [ECF 607.] (Generally, the prevailing party is entitled to obtain reimbursement from defendants for such costs.)

Plaintiffs also file a Motion for Attorney Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses. [ECF 608.] (Generally, the prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights actions are entitled to reimbursement from defendants.)

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Zullo and Gallups put on trial, and a great time was had by all.”

Oct. 17, 2013

Arpaio/MCSO lodge, under seal, a Proposed Written Protocol for a Significant Operation by MCSO. [ECF 610, filed as ECF 615 per Order at ECF 614.] See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Thumbs Nose at Federal Judge, Plans Sweep to Start Friday,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 17, 2013.

The Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Statement Regarding MCSO's Planned Signfiicant Operation." [ECF 611.] See Jude Joffe-Block, “Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Announces Crime Suppression Operation In Southwest Phoenix,” KJZZ, Oct. 18, 2013; and Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's "Circumventing" Federal Court, Claims Lawyer for Plaintiffs in Melendres v. Arpaio,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 18, 2013.

Pursuant to direction from Arpaio, attorney Tim Casey retains private investigator Don Vogel to interview Ms. Karen Grissom regarding the claims made in her Facebook message to Arpaio:

Pursuant to the conversation we had at your office on October 17, 2013 with Chief Sheridan regarding Ms. Grissom, I formerly retained on October 23, 2013 investigator Don Vogel. The scope of Mr. Vogel's services were the following: (1) to try to interview Ms. Grissom (and possibly, her husband Dale Eugene Grissom) in order to learn the details of the communication from Ms. Grissom to your Facebook page that occuned on or about August 21- 22, 2013, and to try to learn her motivations and timing for communicating with you; (2) to voluntarily obtain, if allowed, a recorded and/or sworn statement about the same from Ms. Grissom and/or her husband; (3) to provide me with Mr. Vogel's candid assessment of the credibility of Ms. Grissom (and possibly her husband); and (4) to provide me with Mr. Vogel's findings and any statement(s) from the Grissoms.

See Nov. 6, 2013 Letter from Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, as docketed in the Melendres case [ECF 1115 at p. 10]; see also Brahm Resnik, “Arpaio ordered hiring of private eye, attorney says” (12News, May 28, 2015) (“Arpaio's attorney at the time, Tim Casey, says the investigator was hired " with Sheriff Arpaio's express direction and with his authorization," according to ethics attorney Karen Clark, who is representing Casey” and “Oct. 17: Arpaio tells Casey he wants a private eye to interview Grissom. He directs Casey to get authorization from [County Attorney Bill] Montgomery.”)

Shortly before October 18, 2013

Sheridan and Arpaio hold a pre-Significant Operation training/briefing. The meeting is videotaped. The videotape will later be revealed to the Court (in 2014). As later summarized by Judge Snow in March 2014:

"In the training given by Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio to the deputies that were participating in the Significant Operation on October 18, 2013: (1) Chief Deputy Sheridan summarized the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Melendres and indicated that the Injunction is “absurd” and “ludicrous.” (2) He provided specific instruction to those participating in the Significant Operation as to how to approach the obligation to record their impression of the race of the person stopped during traffic stops. ...

In his training Chief Deputy Sheridan summarizes this Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which lead to the Injunction as follows.

With the Melendres case, Judge Snow did not say that we were racist. He did not find that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office was racist. What Judge Snow found was that three deputy sheriffs used the ICE training that they received by the federal government in determining the alienage of some individuals; to determine whether they were here legally or not. He found that that was unconstitutional. He found that we detained Hispanic drivers fourteen seconds longer than non-Hispanic drivers. So, therefore, he found that we violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment with those two things. That’s why we’re here today. And we have the same--this judge put the same constraints on us that a federal judge did with the City of New Orleans Police Department. And their police officers were murdering people. That tells you how ludicrous this crap is.

Chief Deputy Sheridan then briefly observed that the Injunction was nevertheless the law, which the MCSO was obliged to implement, but that the MCSO was appealing the ruling. He offered his prediction, based on his apparently unfavorable view of the Ninth Circuit, that the Ninth Circuit would not only uphold the ruling but commend the District Court. He then stated that Defendants would be appealing to the Supreme Court

because it is not just my opinion, and the Sherriff’s opinion, but every lawyer that I’ve talked to that it is Judge Snow that violated the United States Constitution. It’s Judge Snow that violated the Tenth Amendment. The Federal Government does not have the authority to do what he did.

Also, at the same training, Chief Deputy Sheridan presented a new form that had been created to comply with the data collection requirements of the Injunction. According to the form, deputies are required to record their perception of the race and ethnicity of all of the vehicles occupants both before and after every stop they make.1 During the training on how to complete this form Chief Deputy Sheridan indicated that determining ethnicity would be hard to do without asking and he said that he felt it was “absurd” for the deputies to be asked to guess. He then asked for the door to be closed because did not want the media to hear what he had to say. After the door closed he said they were “safe,” but he then noted the camera in the room. He then emphasized that perceiving the ethnicity before the stop would be particularly hard to do. He emphasized that there might be reasons that someone might not be able to ascertain the racial identity of occupants of a stopped vehicle and he offered several reasons why they might find it impractical. In doing so, it appears ... that he was suggesting to the deputies that they were not obliged to use their best reasonable efforts to comply with the Court’s order.

Immediately after Chief Deputy Sheridan’s remarks, Sheriff Arpaio spoke. He apparently ratified Chief Deputy Sheridan’s comments by saying, “What the Chief Deputy said is what I’ve been saying.” Sheriff Arpaio went on to say, “We don’t racially profile. I don’t care what everybody says. We’re just doing our job. We had the authority to arrest illegal aliens under the federal programs.” As noted, these comments were given as part of a formal training meeting."

See Order Setting Status Conference, ECF 656, filed Mar. 17, 2014. This training session will become the subject of a March 24, 2014 hearing and Sheridan will testify that he is "ashamed of some of the things that [he] said during that briefing. See Transcript of March 24, 2014 Hearing [ECF 662] at 25.

Oct. 18, 2013

The MCSO carries out it's planned "crime suppression" sweep. See, e.g. Jude Joffe-Block, “MCSO Operation Begins Without Court-Ordered Monitor,” KJZZ, Oct. 19, 2013.

★ Arpaio, Mackiewicz, and Zullo meet with Timothy Blixseth with respect to Dennis Montgomery. See Arpaio Oct. 1, 2015 testimony at 2056; id, at 2053-56 (discussing Exhibit 2858, which contains a Outlook calendar reference to a meeting with Mackiewicz).

★ Portions of this meeting recorded by Zullo are entered into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2977 and Exhibit 2978. These recordings are later published by Stephen Lemons (Phoenix New Times) - see Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Posse Investigator Mike Zullo's Secret Recordings,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 16, 2015:

Note. According to a source, this is not the first time Arpaio met with Blixseth. Reportedly, Arpaio and Zullo met with Tim Blixseth and Michael Flynn on June 15, 2012 (more than a year ago) at 11 a.m. on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo Building. Apparently, the meeting was arranged by Jerry Corsi of WND and concerned Blixseth’s “troubles” with the DOJ - which, coincidentially were at least in part based on claims made by Montgomery that the DOJ had wiretapped/hacked into Blixseth's attorney files. See, e.g., May 4, 2012, June 2012, and June 15, 2012; see also May 29, 2013 for more detailed information re: Blixseth's claims based on Montgomery allegations).

Per Arpaio's testimony, he "believe[s]" this is the first time he's heard about Dennis Montgomery. Oct. 1, 2015 testimony. at 2052 (re: first time). He "believe[s]" that Blixseth told him that he had "been in contact with an individual who had been employed by a federal intelligence agency"(attorney) ... who "had a lot of information to turn over (Arpaio). Id. at 2056.

Per Arpaio, this information "had to do with thousands of computer information penetrating the banking system, obtaining ID, money transactions, many other private issues from people in the county, I believe 150,000, and elsewhere in this state." Id. Judge Snow was not mentioned during this meeting. Id. at 2056-57.

"Q. Mr. Blixseth during that meeting explained that – to you -- that the former intelligence agency employee had developed different software programs in order to gather large amounts of data surreptitiously for the United States Government, is that right?

A. I'm not sure if he said for who or what, but I was concerned about the number of names or victims that was penetrated. That was my main concern.

Q. And that was a large amount of personal data that you talked about, including banking information, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Blixseth provide you and Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz with some memory sticks that contained information that he said had been collected by the U.S. Government?

A. Yes.

Id. See also Arpaio's Oct. 8 testimony (on cross) at 2504.

Douglas Vogt files a complaint in federal district court. (Case No. 2:13-cv-01880 (W.D. Wash.).) In his complaint, Vogt asserts that he has identified "identified the person who actually forged the COLBs and of the identities of those who assisted in [the alleged forgeries]." Vogt Complaint [ECF 1] at 2.)

Vogt lists several John/Jane Does he says are identified in an accompany sealed document, who were involved in the alleged forgeries and/or the conspiracy to cover up the forgeries. Id. at 7. In the accompanying Motion to File Sealed Document [ECF 3], Vogt asserts that the allegations contained in his materials “relate to the U.S. Attorney's Office.” The affidavit later becomes “unsealed” on May 12, 2014 when www.protectourliberty.com publishes a copy and NewsBlaze (among others) reports on the disclosure.

After the Oct. 18, 2013 Arpaio-Blixseth Meeting

★ After the Oct. 18 meeting described above, Arpaio directs Zullo and Mackiewicz to go to Seattle to work with Montgomery. See Arpaio Oct. 1, 2015 testimony at 2057 (Transcript, ECF 1455).

Note. It is not yet clear whether this direction occurred "after the meeting on Oct. 18 (i.e., the same day), or whether it occurred on a day following Oct. 18. But see Oct. 31.

★ Also at some point after the Oct. 18 meeting, Arpaio personally meets Montgomery. Per Arpaio, Judge Snow's name did not come up during that meeting. Id. Per Arpaio, "I think he came here and we had a short meeting at a hotel; I don't recall where." During his direct examination, Arpaio testifies that he "believes" this occurred "way at the beginning of the investigation." See Arpaio Oct. 1, 2015 testimony at 2058. During cross-examination, when asked when the meeting was, Arpaio testifies, "I'm not sure whether it was the first part of 2014. Could be." See Arpaio Oct. 8 testimony at 2507.

A photograph of Arpaio sitting with Montgomery is entered into evidence as Exhibit 2982 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. Stephen Lemons later publishes the photo. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Posse Investigator Mike Zullo's Secret Recordings,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 16, 2015.

Fall 2013

★ Arpaio and Sheridan learn of the existence of the 50 Montgomery hard drives. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2333 (referencing Exhibit 2730 (Defendant Arpaio's Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Arpaio RE Contempt dated 9/15/2015).

Sometime between Oct. 18 and Dec. 11, 2013

★ Sometime after the Oct. 18 meeting with Blixseth and the Dec. 2013 "free talk" agreement meeting between Montgomery and the Arizona Attorney General's office, there are a couple meetings between MCSO personnel and the Arizona Attorney's General Office personnel to discuss the matter -- including one meeting that both Arpaio and then-Arizona AG Tom Horne attends. See Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2339. See also, e.g., Sheridan's Sept. 25 testimony at 1296-1297; 1300- 1301; and 1461-1462; Sheridan's Sept. 29 testimony at 1558-1561, and 1588; and Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony at 2336-2344.

See also Dec. 3, 2013 (referencing Mackiewicz's reported testimony that Arpaio arranged and attended meeting with AZAG Horne on Dec. 3).

Per Arpaio's testimony, Montgomery is represented by counsel - "David Smith" - during this process but Mr. Smith (per Arpaio) "unfortunately passed away right after that." Id. at 2338.

Note. David Burnell Smith, identified in ECF 1507-10 (at 5) as person involved in this matter, and who died in October 2014, formerly represented both Arpaio and Mike Zullo’s wife. See, e.g., Stephen Lemons, “David Burnell Smith, Ex-Lawmaker, Teams Up with Larry Klayman in Fight of Arpaio Recall,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 28, 2013 (reporting that “Former Republican legislator David Burnell Smith, a birther and DUI attorney recently arrested for alleged DUI, is doing Larry Klayman's bidding in the fight against the recall of Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” by serving as local counsel on the matter); Arizona v. Alicia Zullo, No. LC2005-000588 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Maricopa County, Aug. 8, 2005) (case in which Alicia Zullo who, upon information and belief is Mike Zullo’s wife, was represented by David Smith).

According to MCSO's later submissions to the Court Monitor, the following Arizona Attorney General's Office personnel were involved in this matter:

Attorney General Thomas Horne
Assistant Attorney General Andrew Pacheco
Assistant Attorney General Waters
Ismael Fuentes

See ECF 1507-10 at 5, 6 (Memo from MCSO's Bill Knight to Iafrate & Monitoring Team re: Response to Monitor Request re: Seattle Operation documents/information, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time).

Oct. 22, 2013

Judge Snow issues an order granting MCSO's Oct. 17 Motion to file its notice regarding the planned "significant operation" under seal. [ECF 614.] However, the Judge also orders that since " the period for temporarily filing the written protocol under seal has lapsed, the Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged written protocol (Doc. 610) in the public record." Id.

See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Sweep Plan Unsealed by Court, No "Exigent Circumstances" Offered,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 22, 2013; and Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Sweep of the West Valley Could Turn Judge Snow's Order Into a Paper Tiger,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 24, 2013.

Oct. 23, 2013

Tim Casey sends letter retaining Vogel Investigations, LLC "re interviewing Karen and Dale Grissom. See Melendres, ECF 1206-1 at 7.

Oct. 25, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part I,” the “first installment in a series of articles I plan to write in which I will clearly demonstrate that there is no doubt that the forgery claims made by the Maricopa County Arizona [Arpaio-Zullo] Cold Case Posse concerning the validity of the President’s long form birth certificate are false.”

📄 ZULLO DOC. A 25-page pdf, file name "Wolfe 10-25-2013.pdf" (ZULLO 003911-35) is later listed in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log prepared in connection with Zullo's Fall 2015 document production, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Oct. 26, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Doug Vogt names certificate forger (under seal).”

Private Investigator Don Vogel, hired by attorney Tim Casey pursuant to direction from Arpaio, conducted a 20-21 minute recorded interview with Karen Grissom regarding the clams she made in her Facebook message to Arpaio. See Nov. 6, 2013 Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 1115] at p. 10; Karen Grissom Interview Transcript [Melendres ECF 1117-6]; see also The Grissom’s Statements for a comparison of the varying statements made to Arpaio, Casey, and Vogel.

Oct. 28, 2013

Private Investigator Don Vogel, hired by attorney Tim Casey pursuant to direction from Arpaio, conducted a 20-21 minute recorded interview with Mr. Don Grissom regarding the clams his wife, Karen Grissom, made in her Facebook message to Arpaio. See Nov. 6, 2013 Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 1115] at p. 10-11; Don Grissom Interview Transcript [ECF 1117-7]; see also The Grissom’s Statements for a comparison of the varying statements made to Arpaio, Casey, and Vogel.

Private Investigator Don Vogel, hired by attorney Tim Casey pursuant to direction from Arpaio, conducted a recorded interview with Mr. Scott Grissom regarding the clams his mother, Karen Grissom, made in her Facebook message to Arpaio. See Nov. 6, 2013 Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Melendres ECF 1115] at p. 11; see also The Grissom’s Statements for a comparison of the varying statements made to Arpaio, Casey, and Vogel.

Late October 2013

Zullo is reportedly traveling around the country in the two weeks prior to November 8, as a result of the “new branch of investigation” that allegedly results in a “monumental breakthrough.” See, e.g., PPSimmons, Freedom Friday update (Nov. 8, 2013), YouTube, Nov. 8, 2013. Gallups will later claim (Nov. 22) that Zullo “went out for a three hour meeting and [he’s] been there a month.”

According to MCSO's Travis Anglin, Brian Mackiewicz went to Seattle "either in late October or beginning of November of '13, and I don't believe he returned until the beginning of January. Because when I went on January 10th, I flew up there with Mackiewicz and Zullo. They stayed when I returned, and I don't think that Brian returned more than twice from then until May when I came home with him." See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 20 (Anglin Depo at 120).

Oct. 31, 2013

Arpaio/MCSO appeal the Court's Oct. 2, 2013 Permanent Injunction. [ECF 616 - Notice of Appeal; ECF 617 - Assignment of Case No. 13-17238 to appeal.]

★ Mackiewicz and Zullo meet with Blixseth, who introduces them to Montgomery, according to Mackiewicz's Oct. 28 testimony, as reported by Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Fave Deputy Primed To Take Fifth During Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 28, 2015. See also Exhibit 2726 ("Elmers Case Summary) at MELC1292700.

Nov. 1, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Mark Gillar: The lost comment.”

Nov. 2, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part II,” the second installment in his series demonstrating that the forgery claims that Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse made were wrong.

Early November 2013

Zullo is reportedly traveling around the country in the two weeks prior to November 8, as a result of the “new branch of investigation” that allegedly results in a “monumental breakthrough.” See, e.g., PPSimmons, Freedom Friday update (Nov. 8, 2013), YouTube, Nov. 8, 2013.

Nov. 5, 2013

The Melendres Court issues judgment for taxable costs in the amount of $18,688.24 against defendant. [ECF 618.]

The MCSO issues a press release announcing that it will hold an after-action meeting regarding the crime suppression sweep conducted October 18-19. See MCSO Nov. 5, 2013 Press Release. See also Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio's Office To Hold Community Meeting," Fronteras, Nov. 08, 2013; and Matthew Hendley, “Joe Arpaio Issues a Press Release en español, and Not Because He Wanted to,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 5, 2013.

★ Dennis Montgomery faxes to Arpaio a "DOJ / ARPAIO 2007 - 2013" Timeline. See fax here (courtesy Phoenix New Times). While the fax does not mention Judge Snow by name, it clearly refers to him hearing the Melendres case and ruling on it. This document is later admitted into evidence in the Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2074A (Sept. 25, 2015 transcript at 1292).

Arpaio later testifies that he talked to Sheridan, Zullo, and Mackiewicz about this fax. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2266). See also, generally Arpaio's Oct. 1, 2015 transcript, beginning at p. 2064; Oct. 2 hearing transcript at 2261-2278; Oct. 8 transcript at 2510; id. at 2564-2568. See also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2013 testimony at 1291 (testifying that Arpaio showed him a copy of 2074A in Arpaio's office); id. at 1292-1307 (additional testimony relating to this exhibit).

★ Note: Arpaio will later testify that he doesn't know how Montgomery got his telephone number. See Arpaio Oct. 1 Testimony@ 2268 (Question: "Do you know how Dennis Montgomery got your phone number and Chief Sheridan's phone number?" ARPAIO. "That's a good question. I don't have an answer."); id. at 2270 (Question: "Had you authorized them to give your cell phone number to Mr. Montgomery?" ARPAIO. "No.")

However, as is made clear from the Oct. 18 meeting audio recordings, Arpaio repeatedly and expressly asked whether he was in the database, stating "that's important." See this recording at about 10:15 (unofficial transcription):

Blixseth: ... and I see myself in there, I see people I know, I mean, I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg's in there and---

ARPAIO: Am I in there---

Blixseth: We’re looking for you right now---

ARPAIO: Mike Zullo?---

Blixseth: We’re---

ARPAIO: That’s important.

Blixseth: It takes a long time to go through….

Additionally, during this recording - at about 12:15, as Blixseth is explaining Montgomery's allegations that there are 150,000 Maricopa County victims - rich, poor, white, black, white, Hispanic, etc. Arpaio interrupts (~12:23) Blixseth to say it'd be great to see if he - Arpaio - was in there and that it would be great if he was in there (unofficial transcription):

ARPAIO (interrupting): [Great] to see if I'm one of them. <cross-talk> Wouldn’t surprise me.

<cross-talk>

Blixseth: I mean, they're random across the board---.

ARPAIO (interrupting): And you [apparently referring to Zullo].

ZULLO: [~12:26] Both of our phone numbers, watch.

<cross-talk>

ARPAIO: Our phone numbers are in there?

Blixseth: Well, you’re not in this. This is only about 3 million. You’re not in this 3 million. I checked last night. But we’ve got another 840 million phone calls.

ARPAIO: It’d be great if we were in there…

ZULLO: Watch. Has to be.

ARPAIO: Watch. Of course.

* * *

Then again at 55:51, the following exchange occurs:

ARPAIO: So is the CIA laying the groundwork for <unclear>they got information that the cartels are after me? Are they trying to <unclear>

Zullo: Do they think <cross-talk>

Arpaio: Ever think of that?

Zullo: I didn’t think of that.

Arpaio: Huh?

Zullo: I didn’t think of that.

Arpaio: Cause they sure know who you and I are. I’m sure our name is <crosstalk> somewhere in there.

* * *

ARPAIO (interrupting): I GOTTA be in there. Somewhere--

Zullo: You’re gonna be in there.

Arpaio: What?

Zullo: You’re gonna be in there.

* * *

[Blixseth tries to call Montgomery to see if he’s found Arpaio’s name yet, but can’t get through.]

In other words, Arpaio repeatedly expressed -- to Blixseth, Zullo, and Mackiewicz -- that he wanted to know whether Montgomery had any information on him. As such, his testimony that he did not know how Montgomery might have gotten his number -- and didn't authorize anyone to give Montgomery his number - is just not credible.

★ Arpaio makes both handwritten and typewritten notes on the back of this fax (see here, courtesy Phoenix New Times), which is later admitted into evidence in the Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2074B (Oct. 2, 2015 transcript at 2288). On this document, Arpaio specifically mentions Judge Snow and refers to several purported "links" (or ironies) between Snow and others. Per Arpaio's deposition testimony, he made these notes shortly after receiving the fax. See Nov. 6 for more details.

See also Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 hearing testimony regarding his notes, at 2287-2325 for further testimony about this document.

--- details under construction ---

Nov. 6, 2013

Attorney Tim Casey sends letter to Arpaio. Although much of the letter has been redacted, a general description of the facts (including at least a couple inconsistencies in Ms. Grissoms’ statements) are revealed, as is Mr. Casey’s conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, I respectfully recommend and strongly advise you against any use of the Grissom information.

Additionally, it is important to note that the Grissom information is, in my judgment, so fundamentally flawed in its substance that it likely cannot be used in a Rule 60 motion, appeal, or otherwise without the lawyer doing so violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 42, Arizona Supreme Court Rules, at ER 3.2 (Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See Nov. 6, 2013 Letter from Tim Casey to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Melendres ECF 1115 at p. 10; see also ECF 1206-1 at 6 (privilege log reflecting Vogel email to Casey attaching Karen, Dale, and Scott Grissom interview transcripts); id (privilege log reflecting e-mail string "re: Melendres Vogel Transcripts" between Casey, Arpaio (via assistant Amy Lake), Sheridan, and Jack MacIntyre).

★ Arpaio receives a call from a "JC" indicating that his and his wife's phones have been tapped, according to his notes later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2074B [PDF] in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. JC's reported source is a "Kimberly" who works for the SD Examiner. Id.

See also Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2289-2302; Arpaio's Oct. 8 testimony at 2511 - 2215; id. at 2568.

--- Details under construction ---

See here for unconfirmed speculation at The Fogbow as to who "JC" and "Kimberly" might be.

★ The MCSO (presumably Mackiewicz and Zullo) interviews Montgomery, according to information revealed in Mackiewicz's Oct. 29, 2015 testimony as reported by attendee at that hearing. (Note: This information will be confirmed or clarified/corrected upon review of the actual transcript.)

★ Mackiewicz also reportedly testified regarding a Google search on Judge Snow. (Note: Date of this search is currently unclear.) As later reported, Mackiewicz's testimony included his description of

"being in Montgomery's home office in Seattle in early November 2013, as he and Zullo looked over Montgomery's shoulders at a computer screen, where Mackiewicz saw the "surname of Snow," part of a "list of names on a computer."

Mackiewicz told Morin that either Montgomery or Zullo then decided to Google the judge's name, pulling up the name "Murray Snow."

At this point, Morin played part of Mackiewicz's videotaped deposition.

"It was actually [Cold Case Posse commander] Mike Zullo's idea [to Google Snow's name]," said Mackiewicz [during the deposition]. "I had no idea who the judge was in the [Melendres] case."

See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Fave Deputy Primed To Take Fifth During Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 28, 2015 (reporting on Montgomery's Oct. 27, 2015 testimony). As reported by Megan Cassidy regarding Mackiewicz's Oct. 28, 2015 testimony:

"During his testimony, Mackiewicz described a scene in Montgomery’s Seattle garage, when he and sheriff's posse member Mike Zullo were examining Montgomery’s information.

Mackiewicz said Montgomery showed the two the contents of a computer screen, which showed a database of names of people whose identities had been compromised.

The name “Snow,” Mackiewicz said, was one of the names. At some point, one of the men Googled what the judge’s name was on the racial-profiling case, and discovered it was G. Murray Snow."

See Megan Cassidy, “Detective Backs Sheriff Joe Arpaio In Contempt Hearing,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 28, 2015. And, as reported by KJZZ reporterse:

"Mackiewicz also described a trip he had taken to the Seattle area in which another investigator [i.e., Zullo] suggested doing an Internet search on Snow. The detective said the search was actually carried out by Montgomery, who also searched the last name Snow in his database.").

Alexandra Olgin, Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio Contempt Case: MCSO Captain Answers Questions About Not Disclosing IDs,” KJZZ, Oct. 28, 2015 (reporting on Mackiewicz's Oct. 28, 2015 testimony).

Shortly after Nov. 5, 2013

At least three witnesses have testified that a meeting took place with Arpaio, several MCSO attorneys and -- attending via teleconference while in Seattle -- Mackiewicz and Zullo, regarding Dennis Montgomery and the Seattle Operation, apparently shortly after Arpaio receives the Nov. 5 fax.

★ CASEY TESTIMONY

Per Casey's Sept. 30, 2015 Testimony, he recalls the following attendees:

"[1718] I'm going to start off with the lawyers: It was myself; my co-counsel, Tom Liddy; at this meeting I do not believe my partner, James Williams, was present; John Masterson was present; Joe Popolizio was present; I believe Steve Bailey was present. I believe that Jerry Sheridan was present, but as I said at my deposition, I can't be certain about Jerry Sheridan. And I believe that Jack MacIntyre was present, but I cannot be certain about his presence. I believe that Lisa Allen was present, but I'm not certain. * * *

A. Well, the sheriff was there.

Q. Anyone else?

A. Did I mention Bailey? * * *

A. And there were two guys that were on a speakerphone. * * *

A. My understanding is they were both employees of MCSO. [1720]

Q. And you don't know who they were?

A. No. You mentioned in the deposition the names, but I don't re -- I don't remember.

Q. Okay. Was it your impression that they were calling in from the same location?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know whether that was in the Seattle, Washington area?

A. That's my memory."

When asked what he remembers about the meeting, Casey testifies (beginning at 1722):

". . . My memory of this is there was an offer of proof, if you will, that the MCSO folks on the phone were explaining what this CI, the confidential informant, could offer MCSO if MCSO continued to seek his services, his consultation, his informant status, whatever.

And I do remember there was a discussion about him -- the CI wanting to have some type of immunity. I don't remember the details of that or what that's about. I'm not a criminal lawyer; I don't practice in that area.

I remember that there were discussions about him having access to a duplicate set of NSA or CIA data that he could mine, m-i-n-e. And that his preliminary research indicated from that data that he could mine that there was either telephone or e-mail surveillance on, I think it was Joe Popolizio at Jones, Skelton. Could be other people. There also was discussion about a connection between the Court, DOJ, and people in the federal administration.

Q. On the latter point, Mr. Casey, did you hear anyone purport that the confidential informant had evidence of a conspiracy among those parties: this Court, the Department of Justice, and the law firm of Covington & Burling against Sheriff Arpaio?

A. That's what was being reported.

Q. Was that report -- who was that reported by?

A. One or both of the fellows on the phone were reporting that [1723] there was this collusion involving the Court that had an adverse effect on Joe Arpaio, and that it could be proven if MCSO would go forward with using the CI's services.

Q. Did you hear any mention of a purported telephone call between the Department of Justice and Judge Snow's chambers?

A. Yes.

Q. And was it purported that that information came out of data that Dennis Montgomery had mined from the NSA or the CIA?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention that former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke was involved in that same conspiracy?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention of the then-Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it alleged that he was involved in that purported conspiracy?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear any mention of then-Deputy Attorney General Lanny Breuer being involved in that purported conspiracy?

A. I believe he was included in that, but I'm not certain.

Per Casey, he recalls seeing at this meeting, a timeline and a chart contained in Exhibit 2072 ("Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) (MELC199917-MELC199935)." Id. at 1724. Per Casey,

A. I don't remember the judge specifically being addressed, but he had either a law clerk or a former law clerk that was supposedly a conduit for communications.

Q. In connection with this purported conspiracy against the sheriff?

A. That was my impression.

Id. Per Casey, lawyers at the meeting expressed their view on "he reliability of the information about the purported conspiracy against Sheriff Arpaio." Id. at 1727. When asked what was expressed, Casey replied:

"I'll tell you my conclusion, what I mentioned in the deposition: It was hogwash. It was unbelievable. And I believe that the other lawyers shared that same sentiment, that same conclusion, and that was expressed.

This is someone to be avoided."

Id. Per Casey, MCSO personnel at the meeting were "silent" on this issue -- except for Arpaio:

"He said something that indicated that he was enthusiastic and it needed to be looked into.

Q. The purported conspiracy involving the Court?

A. That was my impression."

Id. Per Casey, as the meeting was breaking up, he expressed his concern about the fact that, per one of the people talking from Seattle, the source of the information had been mined from the CIA or NSA -- i.e., that the use of such data might be illegal. Id. He expressed that concern to one of the chiefs. Id. at 1725. He understood that the MSCO would look into that matter. Id. at 1727.

When asked whether he'd had "any further involvement in the Dennis Montgomery investigation after this meeting," Casey responded; None. Id. at 1727-1728.

Note. Other witnesses recall that Casey attended the Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Casey also testified that, as the meeting was breaking up/people were walking out of the meeting, Arpaio “added an additional fact.” Arpaio “had his finger out and he says: You know that Jon Kyle is at Covington, and Kyle got the judge his job.” Id. at 1728-1729.

Casey was asked whether he heard “hear anything indicating why the sheriff was interested in following up on this information about a purported conspiracy.” He did not answer this because whatever he heard did not occur during the meeting but thereafter (revealed in response to objections) – “ I think it was a course of about 30 or 40 days. And I thought this is November of '13, not January '14, but it would have been in 30 to 40 days is when I gathered that.” Id. at 1729.

When asked whether Arpaio “express[ed] any attitude towards Judge Snow,” Casey replied “He did not express any attitude during that meeting or while it was breaking up." Id.

★ SHERIDAN TESTIMONY

Sheridan recalls a meeting with attorneys held in the old MCSO headquarters (i.e., on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building). Sheridan Sept. 29 Testimony at 1565 -- from which they moved in December 2013 (id. at 1599). This meeting was the “next time” – after learning about the November 5 Montgomery Fax – he recalls hearing about Montgomery’s allegations regarding a DOJ investigation. [1564-1565]:

“I recall being at a meeting with Joe Popolizio, John Masterson, Tom Liddy, Tim Casey, the sheriff, myself, where we talked on the phone with Mike Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz. We were in the old building, the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building, I don't remember when it was, when Dennis Montgomery had given them information that the DOJ had hacked into the Jones, Skelton, Hochuli server and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office server, and that's what that meeting was about.”

Id. at 1565. Asked by the Court who called the meeting, Sheridan responded:

“It may have been me, because -- and again, Your Honor, I'm trying to put these memories together. I hate to create memories, but it probably was me. Thinking that Mackiewicz, Detective Mackiewicz would have called me, I would have thought, Hmm, this is something I should let my counsel know about and get everybody together.”

Id. at 1567. Per Sheridan, no documents were distributed during that meeting. Id. Asked by the Court what was said at that meeting, Sheridan responded:

“Just that. That Montgomery had come up with an e-mail fragment, and we learned a lot about -- and this was from Mackiewicz and Zullo -- about how e-mails were -- were sent. You type an e-mail on your computer. Your computer sends it out in bits and pieces. It could go around the world and come back in seconds, or if you know sometimes by practical nature, sometimes it takes minutes for it to come back; sometimes they get lost for some time. And that's how e-mails get sent out. But the problem that Montgomery has is that he has these e-mails from the DOJ or whoever, the NSA, the CIA, the ones that he collected while he was a contractor, and his – [1566]

* * *

Allegedly. And I should say everything. Maybe can we stipulate everything's allegedly?

* * *

And so he had an e-mail fragment that he believed was about Mr. Popolizio's daughter playing a soccer game, but it was just a fragment. And the reason that he couldn't put the whole e-mail together -- and never did put any e-mails together for us -- is because he needed this supercomputer like the hammer that was able to take those fragments from the -- and I'm just going to make this number up, but from the hundred million terabytes of information that he had on his servers that was able to blend those back together. And so, therefore, we never got any other information from him about the e-mails or any of that stuff.

However, the meeting was called because there was concern that there was a lot of attorney-client privilege information on the Jones, Skelton and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and I learned that day how important attorney-client privilege is to lawyers.”

Id. at 1555-1566. Asked whether he recalls whether what anyone said at that meeting, Sheridan responded:

"Well, I know all the lawyers did, because that's -- I think [1569] they were jumping up and down about how important the attorney-client privilege was, and I know that --

* * *

A. And I also remember Mr. Liddy.

Q. So it was your impression that Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Casey, Mr. Liddy, were concerned about the possibility that the Department of Justice was operating hammer on MCSO, Jones, Skelton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was each one of them concerned about this?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you remember anything that any of them said specifically?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay.

A. I remember that Mr. Liddy said that he grew up near the building that housed the hammer. And we all know who his [1570] famous father is. And his father told him what that building was and what they did there. And that Mr. Liddy at that meeting knew all about the hammer. I'd never heard of it before.

And he gave, in my opinion, he gave Mr. Montgomery a lot of credibility that day for knowing about all these issues. And that's what I remember specifically that Mr. Liddy had said. So in my mind, it gave us some credibility to what Mr. Montgomery had to say.

Q. All right. Do you remember anything else about that meeting?

A. No, sir. It was in the evening. It was late -- later in the day.”

Id. at 1569-1570. Sheridan later clarifies his statement re: Liddy's comment giving Montgomery credibility:

Q. So when Mr. Liddy discussed the hammer, you indicated that that gave some credibility to what Montgomery was saying. . . .

A. It gave me credibility that day that we sat there on the 19th floor, before we really knew who Montgomery was and what he was all about.

Id. at 1572. See also Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 testimony on redirect (id. at 1605-1606) (reconfirming that the meeting he attended was not the Jan. 2, 2014 meeting discussed at his deposition).

★ ARPAIO TESTIMONY

From the Oct. 8, 2015 Examination by the Court

[2564] Q. I want to make sure -- I'm hopping around again. I want to make sure that I understand the chronology of what you're talking about with respect to that November 5th memo, which is 2074A [PDF], November 5th, 2013 memo that you -- that Montgomery faxed to you.

Shortly after he faxed that to you, you had -- you met with Chief Deputy Sheridan and you discussed the fact that you were on -- you both indicated that you were -- had your wire, that you'd been a subject of a wiretap, right?

A. Yes.

Q. There was nothing else that struck you about that memo at that time?

A. No.

Q. Subsequently, you had another meeting, and this one involved Chief Deputy Sheridan, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio. And at that meeting, did you receive any new memos or any updated version of the former memo you had received?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. May have, but you don't recall.

A. I don't think we did.

Q. All right. But at that meeting there was some new information offered, I gather. And I don't want to put words [2565] in your mouth; I'm just trying to get a correct chronology. So if I say something that's wrong, correct me.

But at that subsequent meeting, somehow you were told that not only were you wiretapped, not only was Chief Deputy Sheridan wiretapped, but your offices were wiretapped, the Maricopa County Attorney's Offices were wiretapped, and your attorney's law firm, at least your attorney in what was then the DOJ firm, which is now the same two attorneys you have here, Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, were also wiretapped.

A. I don't think, excuse me, it was wiretap. I know that the chief deputy and myself, because it said wiretap. The other incidences were that they infiltrated the e-mails, especially the --

Q. I see.

A. -- law firm. It wasn't --

Q. Okay, so --

A. -- a wiretap.

Q. It wasn't a wiretap. The wiretaps were you and the chief deputy. And then your concern was that the DOJ had breached your domains as it pertains to your computers and your Internet connectivity and whatever would be on your computers, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. They breached your computers, they breached Maricopa County's computers, and they breached your law firm's [2566] computers.

A. Or e-mails or whatever.

Q. Right. And I'm assuming e-mails. I guess e-mails can be done from cell phones or whatever, but they had breached the electronic domains of those places.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember discussing with me in April that somehow you heard that my domain was breached?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you hear that my domain was breached?

A. I'm not sure of the time frame, but when they were reviewing -- or Montgomery was giving information from who was in that, those bank situations, that your name, three, four Snows came up.

Q. And was this after this meeting that you had with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson?

A. Yes.

Q. Who else was present at that meeting? The meeting I'm talking about now where you first learned that -- well, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Did you learn before the meeting that there had been a potential breach of your electronic information domain and Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's electronic information domain and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office electronic information domain? [2567]

A. You know, I'm not sure the timing, but I think that triggered -- triggered me to be concerned, and I believe the detective, Mackiewicz and Zullo, were on the telephone.

Q. Okay. So Zullo and Mackiewicz were on the telephone. They may have told you previously that these domains had been breached. You called the meeting, had Popolizio and Masterson there.

A. Yes.

Q. And who else was there besides Zullo and Mackiewicz, Popolizio and Masterson, and you and Sheridan?

A. I think Tim Casey was there.

Q. Okay.

A. And probably Tom Liddy.

Q. All right. How long after the November 6th meeting, the November 5th meeting that you had with Chief Deputy Sheridan, did this meeting occur?

A. I think that's the meeting we're talking about, the --

Q. Well, do you remember first you testifying that you had a meeting with just Chief Deputy Sheridan to discuss the November 5th memo when it came in? And then later you said you found out that there may have been a breach of domains and you had another meeting in which you called in Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey, and Zullo and Mackiewicz were on the phone?

A. I'm not sure that -- I may have discussed that with the [2568] chief deputy, and then we had the meeting when the information came out that the wiretaps and all that other thing -- * * * -- wires.

Q. I understand that. So how long after your meeting with the chief deputy did you have that meeting?

A. It may have been rather quickly.

Q. May have been quickly?

A. Yeah.

Q. So that would have been at the same time that you were sending, roughly -- and again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to get a chronology -- would have been about the same time that you were sending Zullo from Seattle to Southern California to talk to the photographer gentleman who told you that your phones were being wiretapped?

A. I believe that happened the next day. When I got information about the wiretap, the next day other information came out, I don't believe related to this, and sent Zullo down here to talk to the people, see what the story was about.

Q. Okay. I'm not under -- I'm not sure I understood what you just said. Let me see if I can piece it back -- or go ahead.

A. The first information on the tap[p]ing the telephone I believe came out around November 5. The next day, another -- other information came out that my wife's phone, home phone, was being tapped. [2569]

Q. I got that. And that's from this photographer phone call.

A. Yes. And so back to back --

Q. I got that. But then when did you get the information that your electronic information domain, Jones and Skelton's electronic information domain, and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office information domain had been breached? And you heard the information about somebody knowing about Mr. Popolizio's daughter's soccer game.

Was that all part of the same meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you get that information?

A. I'm not sure if it came out in that November 5 --

Q. I think you've already testified that there wasn't anything in the November 5 meeting. And again, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

A. No, I mean the -- the form.

Q. Well, there wasn't anything in the form that mentions any of that stuff. I will tell you that there appears to be in the record, but it's not entered into evidence, a form that appears to be an update of that which does mention that stuff, but it's an updated memorandum.

A. I think that the -- the --

Q. Let me ask --

A. November 5th --

Q. -- maybe it'll make sense. [2570]

A. -- from November 5th mentioned the tapes.

Q. It did men -- November 5th mentioned the tapes, but it did not mention the penetration of domains.

A. That's correct, not in that form, yes.

Q. When did you find out about the penetration of the domains?

A. I think verbally from one of the investigators that --

Q. Yeah, but when in relation to that November 5th meeting?

A. That would be pretty close.

Q. Pretty close, but probably after.

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you --

And gentlemen, I'm just going to show him document number 7 in Exhibit 2082.

THE CLERK: Which exhibit?

THE COURT: It's Exhibit 2082, and 2082 is divided up into documents. And I just want the sheriff to look at document number 7.

BY THE COURT:

Q. If you need a minute, take it, but it's a six-page document, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it shows down at the bottom a revision, 2.3.

* * *

Q. And you see that it has the same title as the document you received on November 5th, which is "DOJ/Arpaio Timeline" at the top?

A. Yes.

Q. But it has Revision 2.3 down in the bottom right-hand corner?

A. Yes.

Q. And does the document on the first page seem to be essentially the same information that was faxed to you on November 5th?

A. Yes.

Q. But it doesn't have -- if you look at the entry, for example, for 10-15-2009 and 8-15-2010, it doesn't have on the document you received November 5th, it doesn't have those [2572] entries that your domains were breached, or that Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's domains were breached, or that the Maricopa County Attorney's domains were breached, right?

A. No.

Q. So this appears to be an addition to that time line, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you ever remember seeing this document?

A. The one that I am reading now?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Okay. And you see on the third page that it talks about some of the other things that you've said that, you know, 135,000 residents in Maricopa County had information harvested, and 462,000 residents of the state of Arizona. Do you ever remember seeing that number or that figure?

A. No.

Q. Do you see that that is information that had been harvested supposedly between 2001 and 2008, up at the top?

A. Yes.

Q. And then if you turn the next page, do you see the references to Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson and somebody's daughter's soccer game and softball game?

Do you see that?

A. Yes. [2573]

Q. You don't think that you may have received this document in conjunction with your meeting with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson?

A. You mean the document I'm reading?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. No.

Q. But that was, as best you recall, regardless of whether or not you received this document, that was the information that essentially you received in that meeting that you had when you discussed this matter with Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Casey, and Chief Deputy Sheridan, with Mr. Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo on the line?

A. Yes.

Q. So this is sort of an increase in the information that you'd received from November 5th.

A. Yes.

Q. And you received that several days later. But still fairly close in time, I think you've said.

A. Yes.

* * * [2583]

Q. You were here for Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember him mentioning something about Mr. Liddy [2584] talking about an operation called "the hammer"?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you first hear about the hammer?

A. I think that was at that meeting that we initially had with all the attorneys.

Q. When you say "that meeting," you mean the meeting where you discussed Mr. Popolizio's -- * * * -- daughter?

A. Yes.

Q. You discussed the hammer at that meeting?

A. Mr. Liddy, I think, brought that up.

Q. Did you ever discuss the hammer again with anyone?

A. No.

Q. You've indicated in your testimony that you continued to investigate and have your investigators investigate the wiretaps on your phone, correct?

A. Well, I was concerned because of the numbers next to it, which probably signifies a wiretap, and the main thing to the test the credibility of the informer, which we were losing confidence in him. But I think he came up and said that he could get the audio of the tape.

Now, I'm not a technical guy. So it was almost like "put up or shut up" if you're saying our wire -- our phones have been taped -- or tapped. [2585]

Q. Did he ever give you the audio of the tape?

A. No.

Arpaio Oct. 8, 2015 Testimony (upon Examination by the Court), at 2564-2585. See also Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 Testimony at 2349-2355 and 2362-2363; and Arpaio Oct. 8 Testimony (on Cross Examination) at 2516-2519.

Nov. 8, 2013

During his Freedom Friday radio show (PSimmons, BREAKING! EXCLUSIVE! MONUMENTAL BREAKTHROUGH in Birth Certificate Case!, YouTube, Nov. 8, 2013), Carl Gallups asserts the following (layperson's unofficial transcript):

“While I am not an official spokesperson for Mike Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio - here is what I can tell you at this point: The investigation has never gone silent and it has never stopped. Mike Zullo and I have been telling you (for months) that this investigation took a deeper turn some time back. Well – it not only took a deeper turn – but it has now become much, much deeper! Deeper than you could ever imagine!

Mike has been traveling around the country the last two weeks as a result of this new branch of investigation. The implications of what has been uncovered (with hard documentation and evidence) are absolutely astounding – it is beyond monumental. As a result - the investigation work has increased 100-fold in intensity. This is why Mike Zullo has made no recent comments. The necessity for absolute 100% confidentiality is too important. I would not expect a detailed comment from Mike Zullo or Sheriff Arpaio for a while. This is simply too big to let even a hint out about what they now know.”

***

Let me add – this is the first time that Mike Zullo hasn’t told me everything that he knows. There is simply too much and it now goes too deep. I know enough to tell you with confidence what I have just told you. Trust me – this is huge… it is so monumentally huge.”

Later on in that show (as posted on YouTube at Freedom Friday update (Nov. 8, 2013)), Gallups continues discussing the matter. (layperson's unofficial transcript):

[3:22] Mike Zullo and I have been telling you, if you'll remember, for months, that this investigation a couple months ago, took a deeper turn. You remember that? I told you it took another turn? Well, not only did it take a deeper turn, but now it has gotten deeper. Deeper, deeper, darker than you could ever imagine. ...

[3:44] Mike has been traveling around the country the last couple of weeks as a result of this new branch of investigation. I mean it's all connected and interconnected, but it goes way deeper, way more than the birth certificate. ...

[4:00] I have to be very careful with this, because the implications of what...has been uncovered - and this is with hard documentation and evidence, hard evidence, hard documentation is now in their hands. It is absolutely astounding. It's ... beyond monumental. It could be ... it could be historical. It could be history changing. ...

[4:38] I wish I could tell you what has been discovered. And it's not just one thing. It's ... a handful of unbelievably monumental things. And remember, and they now have the hard document evidence, and more evidence that I'm not allowed to say what in their hands on this stuff.

[4:58] So, as a result, the Cold Case Posse investigation, the Zullo investigation has increased a hundredfold in intensity. ...

See also, e.g., BREAKING! EXCLUSIVE! MONUMENTAL BREAKTHROUGH in Birth Certificate Case!; Astounding New Revelations! Obama Fraud Case - Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups; and CONFUSION! Multiple BHO Birth Certificates On Display In Alabama Court Case! published by Gallups on PPSimmons for various “print” versions of these “announcements.”

Nov. 9, 2013

The MCSO holds the after-action community meeting noticed earlier this week. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Flunky Dave Trombi Tangles with Dennis Gilman, Gilman Wins (w/Video),” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 20, 2013. See also Jude Joffe-Block, “First Mandatory Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Community Meeting Held," Fronteras, Nov. 10, 2013 (noting that the meeting was held outside and there were no chairs for attendees).

Nov. 10, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Reality Check publishes “Driving the final nail into the [Arpaio-Zullo] Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part III,” the third installment in his series demonstrating that the forgery claims that Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse made were wrong.

Nov. 11, 2013

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “Birther Blogger shows Obama birth certificate artifacts caused by Xerox machine: no joy in Birtherville.”

Nov. 12, 2013

★ According to Arpaio's notes taken on the back of the Montgomery Nov. 5 fax, follows up on the Nov. 6 call from JC by calling "JC" back to ask why Kimberly hasn't called him back. See here, courtesy Phoenix New Times), admitted into evidence in the Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2074B (Oct. 2, 2015 transcript at 2288).)

Per Arpaio's notes, when he called JC to ask why Kimberly hasn't called back, JC reported that [sic]:

"she is afraid, received info that info that My wife and mv eel~ phone were tapped He said her source was from East coast, said she has white hous credentials. Mentioned CIA. she had or was going to pick up sensitive documents, afraid to do so by crossing state lines could be arrested. Told JC I would have Milk Zolus call JC."

Id. See also Arpaio's Oct. 2, testimony at 2295.

Arpaio testified that he did, in fact, have Zullo contact JC. Id. at 2299-2302. Per Arpaio, Zullo traveled to San Diego to meet with JC (id. 2301) and, based on that meeting, reported to Arpaio that "it was his opinion that there was no really substance that he could come up with. Id.

Arpaio testified that he chose Zullo for this task because "he was dealing with the allegations of -- of, you know, tapping my lines, or he knew -- I believe that Montgomery, as I testified earlier, knew that -- or suggested my lines were being penetrated by the feds or CIA." Id. at 2300.

Before Thanksgiving 2103

According to a November 3, 2014 email from Brian Mackiewicz to Montgomery, he and Mike Zullo give Montgomery "200.00 dollars a piece out of our own pockets so [he] could have a Thanksgiving with [his] family.... Just to later find out [Montgomery] worked Tim for 500.00 dollars also."

★ See also Exhibit 2085 (admitted as evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings and later docketed as ECF 1507-9, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time) (undated listing of Seattle Operation expenses, indicating $400 in "out of pocket personal money" paid to Montgomery for Thanksgiving).

Nov. 22, 2103

Zullo appears on Gallups' show. See PPSimons, “BREAKING! Lt. Zullo: We have UNIVERSE shattering new information!," Nov. 22, 2013; see also Youtube video. Below is a layperson's unofficial transcript excerpts from that show:

[00:20] ZULLO: This is moving in a direction that was not anticipated by us and, uh, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is now deeply involved in other aspects of this and we're working closely together as one team and one unit moving forward on this. ...

* * * *

[2:04] GALLUPS: We are having to be very general and a bit nebulous right now because this thing has gone so much deeper and darker than even you and I ever dreamed. But the evidence is mounting, you're getting hard copy documented mountains of evidence ... that takes this thing in a whole different direction that is just earth shattering, history making ... potentially, and it all started because of your deep investigation into the birth certificate debacle.

But Mike, I want to ask you something. Now several months ago, the birth certificate investigation took a turn because the obots were claiming they had a xerox machine that was reproducing the anomolies and therefore your entire investigation should just be flushed down the toilet. And you and I both smelled a rat ... because that was awfully convenient ... at just the right time they supposedly had discovered the machine that did the thing. But - you've got something to say about that.

* * * *

[3:07] ZULLO: That's a nice fairy tale. ... And I'm going to tell you, and I'm telling you now [just like?] I have in the past, that is a fallacy. ... They're wasting a lot of ink.

* * * *

[5:13] GALLUPS: .. Especially knowing what you now know. Especially, the direction this investigation has turned. ... I know it's all connected to the birth certificate, but now the information that's piling in has turned kind of away from that and it's almost like people knew that that was out there and they were trying desperately to keep you away from it, and keep you busy on the birth certificate. And Kaboom! ... Your crack investigation skills and Arpaio and everybody that surrounds you has opened this thing up and [it's] wide open now, right?

[5:49] ZULLO: It is. And, you know like I said, I can't go into what this is but I can tell you that the magnitude is so great that Sheriff Arpaio has allocated resources from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. ... He is fully invested in this and, I don't think ... I don't think I've been home ... more than two days all this month.

[6:10] GALLUPS: …You went out for a three hour meeting and you've been there a month.

ZULLO: ... That's exactly what it turned into.

GALLUPS: ... And you've been several places. ... But this thing is just, has just blown into a monumental thing.

* * * *

[8:19] ZULLO: And I am going tell you - and you can take this show and play it in the future - that when this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering. ... This is beyond the pale of anything you could imagine.

* * *

And it wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for Sheriff Arpaio and his dedication, because the man knows in his gut that something's wrong. ... It's because of Sheriff Arpaio that this is even happening.

(Emphasis added). See "Mike Zullo presents the 'meatball hypothesis'," Obama Conspiracy Theories, May 19, 2015, for a more complete transcript of the Zullo interview.

Nov. 23, 2013

Western Journalism published an interview with Arpaio. (YouTube). Below is a layperson's unofficial transcript of relevant excerpts from that show:

[00:45] ARPAIO: .. I've been in law enforcement over 50 years and ... coincidentally over 26 years with the Department of Justice, which Holder is now the Attorney General, appointed by the President. And, after that administration took office, they seemed to be target in on me. Especially the Department of Justice and the attorney general also. I've been a target almost four years. I think basically it probably had to do with the immigration, my fight against illegal immigration. The birth certificate investigation which we started two years ago and is still in progress and we're finding more .. fire .. and that's another issue. I don't know if that has any bearing. I will say that I do not get a Christmas card from the President who I met about three years ago. So, he's there. He's still there. You have to give him credit - he's still there. And I hope he gives me some credit, to say Sheriff, no matter what we're doing after you, you're still around too. So, we're both in the same boat, Mr. Holder.

* * *

[2:12] ARPAIO: First of all, The 1070 had nothing to do with enforcement. I started the fight against illegal immigration six years ago, before anyone knew what 1070 was. And I was certified by the federal government, ICE, Homeland Security, they swore in 100, 160 of my deputies to enforce the federal laws, which I think we did a pretty good job. And, by saying I think we did a good job, I think that's [why] they took away all of my certification, but in the meantime, I was and I still am enforcing the state laws - human smuggling and the workplace employer sanction, and I know that a judge just ruled against me, and my people are not racists, but we will be appealing his ruling.

<Question: Are your immigration activities being monitored?>

[3:24] ARPAIO: The federal court said I have to have a monitor. And, you know what? I'm not concerned. I've been monitored by the White House, the Justice Department, the ACLU, the media. I could go on and on, so what's one more? Doesn't bother me at all.

* * * *

[5:00] ARPAIO: Let me say this. I do have a little experience of the diplomatic attache overseas too, so I know how they operate. And we'll see what happens as time progresses, regarding intelligence "slash" national security.

Nov. 24, 2013

Mark Gillar comments on city-data.com forum, as follows: "As someone who knows what they [the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse] have, I can assure it's irrefutable. I don't know what made Obama think he could get away with this, but he will not. Obama, as well as many at the HDOH, Hawaii Gov. Office, Hawaii Attorney General's office, the Selective Service System, and U.S. Post office will be wearing orange jumpsuits within a year." (11-24-2013, 11:34 PM Posting.)

Mark Gillar comments on a city-data.com forum, as follows: “When crimes were committed against the MCSO in an attempt to thwart the Obama document fraud investigation, it opened the door for department resources to be used. The circumstances changed since Arpaio made that first statement." (11-24-2013, 11:37 PM Posting.)

Around Thanksgiving 2013

According to Melendes Plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Young, "[I]t's my understanding from other documents that the first payment that your office [MCSO] gave to Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013. See Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2274 (Plaintiffs' counsel states: "I'll tell you it's my understanding from other documents that the first payment that your office gave to Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013.")

But see Dec. 6, 2013 (first reported cash payment to Montgomery per document prepared by Mackiewicz, although Zullo and Mackiewiz gave Montgomery $400 cash for Thanksgiving and spent $2,100 in cash for drives and computer supplies).

★ Arpaio testified about this matter as follows:

Q. Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that he thought the reason for Mr. Montgomery sending you this time line was in order to keep the money flowing from your office to Mr. Montgomery.

I'll tell you it's my understanding from other documents that the first payment that your office gave to Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013.

Does that seem right to you? [2275]

A. That may have been about the time that this information came to us about the bank investigation.

Q. Let me just ask you, Sheriff: When you received the fax on November 5, 2013, had your office yet paid anything to Mr. Montgomery?

A. I don't recall. I wasn't involved in the payments.

Q. Well, if the documents that your office has given us show that the first payment was made after this fax, would you dispute that?

A. Would I refute that?

Q. Do you know of any reason to believe that any payments were made to Mr. Montgomery before you received this fax?

A. I don't know.

See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2274-75.

Nov. 30, 2013

📄 Seattle Operation Document: Brian Mackiewicz authors a 1-page MCSO Memo to Clint Doyle Re: Investigative Trip ( (MELC199821; dated 11/30/2013), per description of potential Exhibit 2902 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.

December 2013 - January 2014 (and beyond)

According to Judge Snow, Montgomery begins creating "work product" in December and January, and at least their properties indicate that they have been revised many times over a period of substantial months”, per documents reviewed by Judge Snow as of May 14, 2015. [ECF 1097 at 45.]

Judge Snow will later characterize these documents as follows:

[44]The documents that I have seen pertain to what appears to be some of the activities of the Seattle operation we involve Dennis Montgomery as a confidential informant. The documents seem to reveal that as at least part of their operations, the Seattle operatives attempted to construct an alleged conspiracy that supposedly involved this Court; one of this Court's former law clerks; Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States; Lanny Breuer, the Chief Deputy Attorney General of the United States in charge of the criminal division; Phil Gordon, the mayor of Phoenix; and Brian Sands, the executive chief of the MCSO. The purpose of the alleged conspiracy was apparently to covertly investigate the MCSO and deprive the sheriff and the MCSO of the due process of law in this particular case and in a related case brought against the sheriff by the DOJ.

This Seattle operation work product seems to purport that by allegedly using a database of information harvested by the CIA and confiscated by him, Mr. Montgomery was able to reproduce fragments of e-mails that had been sent in 2009 and [45] 2010 between persons within the Department of Justice, Mayor Gordon, and Brian Sands.

As it pertains to this Court, the Seattle operation work product, which was apparently prepared and revised over a number of months, not a few, it began apparently -- the first contact was in September of 2013. There were meetings in December. These documents began being created in December and January, and at least their properties indicate that they have been revised many times over a period of substantial months.* Anyway, the documents purport to track telephone calls between this Court, Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer, and Dennis Burke to reproduce those phone calls which occurred years earlier. And between the Court and one of its former law clerks, who apparently allegedly was supposed to have served as this Court's liaison with the Department of Justice regarding this case.

The documents appear to allege or suggest that this Court had contact with the Department of Justice about this case before the Court was ever assigned to it. It further seems to suggest that when Judge Murguia recused from this case, the random selection process of this Court was subverted so that the case was deliberately assigned to this Court. The documents further suggest that thereafter this Court had conversations with Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer about this case, and it also alleges that this Court issued an order to [46] tap the MCSO's phones after being assigned as the judge in this case.

It also seems to allege that this Court had conversations, as I've indicated, with the Department of Justice, through one of its former law clerks as an intermediary.

May 14, 2015 Hearing Transcript [ECF 1097] at 44-46.

*Note: On July 20, 2015, the Court issued an order unsealing a Cecilia Wang Declaration attaching Seattle Operation documents, which had been filed by Plaintiffs under seal. See Melendres ECF 1165. As a result, the Cecilia Wang Declaration - and attached documents - was unsealed. See Melendres ECF 1166.

★ These documents are later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2072. See Sept. 29 Transcript [ECF 1417] at 1724; see also, e.g., Tim Casey's Sept. 29 testimony re: same.

The Wang Declaration contains several versions of timelines and charts with information that generally comports with Judge Snow's characterization of some of the documents he reviewed:

"JOE ARPAIO BRIEF; Timeline" Rev 1.3a (id. at 28-31);
"JOE ARPAIO BRIEF; Timeline" Rev 1.4c (id. at 32-35);
"JOE ARPAIO BRIEF; Timeline" Rev 1.5a (id. at 36-39);
"JOE ARPAIO BRIEF; Timeline" Rev 2.0 (id. at 40-43).
Chart titled "ARPAIO BRIEF" Rev 1.4c (id. at 44);
Chart titled "ARPAIO BRIEF" Rev 1.5a (id. at 45);
Chart titled "ARPAIO BRIEF" Rev 2.0 (id. at 46).

December 2013

“[T]here were meetings” (presumably between Montgomery and MCSO personnel), per documents reviewed by Judge Snow as of May 14, 2015. Melendres ECF 1097 at 45.

MCSO Sergeant Travis Anglin receives three revisions of the Seattle Operation “flowchart-looking documents purporting to show a Judge Snow-DOJ conspiracy from Mike Zullo via email exchanges. See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 3 (Anglin Sept. 9, 2015 Depo at 34).

The MCSO reportedly asks for a $200,000 donation from a nonprofit that raises funds for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Posse. See Donna Rossi, “Nonprofit cuts ties with MCSO's animal posse,” cbs5az.com, July 22, 2014. The nonprofit will decline to do so and will later sever ties with the posse. Marsha Hill, president of the new nonprofit, will explain the decision to sever ties because “she and the other board members felt bullied by the sheriff's office to turn over most of the board's bank account with no accountability for how MCSO was going to spend the money.” Id. See also “Another Arpaio investigation, no lessons learned,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 8, 2014.

Dec. 1, 2013

📄 ZULLO DOC. Mackiewicz emails Zullo at 14:46 re: "Fwd: Flynn." (ZULLO 003733). He attaches two documents to this email: Flynn.pdf (ZULLO 003734-38) and Untitled attachment 00145.htm (ZULLO 03739). This document is listed on the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Dec. 2, 2013

Arpaio/MCSO file a "Notice of Filing a Written Protocol for MCSO Participation in a Holiday DUI Task Force that may, on Occasion, Constitute a Significant Operation Under the Order." [ECF 623.] See Ray Stern, “Humbled Arpaio Submits DUI Task Force Plan for Review by Judge and Lawsuit Plaintiffs,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 4, 2013.

Dec. 3, 2013

★ MCSO personnel -- arranged and attended by Arpaio -- meet with Tom Horne at the Arizona Attorney General's Office, according to Mackiewicz. See Mackiewicz Oct. 27, 2015 testimony at 3692. See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Fave Deputy Primed To Take Fifth During Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 28, 2015.

Dec. 4, 2013

★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A document – "Document 7: DOJ / Arpaio Timeline" dated 12/4/2013" is later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2923 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at tbd.

Note. This document is an excerpt from "PX 2082."

Dec. 6, 2013

★ MCSO CI Payment to Montgomery. Mackiewicz makes a $1,000 cash payment to Montgomery. See Exhibit 2085 (admitted as evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings).

📄Note. See also potential Exhibit 2903 (identified in Melendres Plaintiff's Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits (ECF 1462-2) as "Record of Informant and MCSO Memo from Brian Mackiewicz to Clint Doyle re: Confidential informant payment dated 12/6/2013 (MELC198431-MELC198432).

★ Cold Case Posse equipment purchase. The Arpaio/Zullo Cold Case Posse purchases a $2,100 video processing card for Montgomery's computer. See Exhibit 2085 (admitted as evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings); see also Mackiewicz Oct. 28 testimony at 3721 (confirming purchase made in 2013 and that the card was paid for with Cold Case Posse funds).

★ Montgomery is signed as "Confidential Informant," and assigned Confidential Informant No. 1437, according Mackiewicz. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at 3694.

★ Note. See also Exhibit 2081 (Confidential Informant File dated 12/6/2013), referenced Id.

ObamaReleaseYourRecords posts new article: CCP Researcher Unloads: Multiple Counts Of Document Fraud (see also YouTube Video), stating (among other things): “Gillar said he is in contact with the [Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse] almost daily and never has there been so much enthusiasm and confidence as there is right now regarding the Obama document fraud investigation. He said there's extreme reason for hope right now and that it's not just about the birth certificate it's about multiple counts of document fraud.”

Dec. 9, 2013

The Melendres parties file their submissions of proposed candidates for Court Monitor. See ECF 625 (Plaintiffs' submission) and ECF 626 (Defendants' submission). See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Top Monitor Pick Howard Safir Once Hit A Pregnant Lady With His Escalade, Thinks Stop-And-Frisk Is Cool,” Phoenix New Times, Dec. 11, 2013.

Hereafter, a flurry of additional papers regarding the Monitor will be filed, including ECF 627 (Plaintiffs' Dec. 10 supplemental submission); ECF 629 (Defendant's Dec. 10 Objection to ECF 627); ECF 632 (Defendants' Dec. 16 supplemental submission); ECF 636 (Plaintiffs' Dec. 20 Notice of Filing Additional Information for Candidate for Monitor); ECF 637 (Defendants' Dec. 20 Notice of Supplemental Information); ECF 638 (Plaintiff's Dec. 20 Response to Defendant's Allegations (ECF 637).

The MCSO issues a “News Brief.” (PDF) The release includes the following

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office will hold our first community outreach meetings on Saturday December 21, 2013 at 9:30am in all patrol districts throughout the county. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The purpose of these meetings is to answer, where possible, public questions or concerns about the Sheriff’s Office patrol operations, to outline the changes to patrol policy regarding traffic stops and to inform the public of the upcoming changes to policy, training, data collection and records management. English and Spanish-speaking Sheriff’s personnel will be present and available to answer questions from the public.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: Zullo emails Mackiewicz "Re: Oz" [i.e., re: Montgomery)(MELC202048; dated 12/9/2014), according to a description of potential Exhibit 2267 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of this document have not yet been made public.

Dec. 10, 2013

PPSimmons publishes “HEAT! Washington Times AD: Obama's Selective Service Form - FORGERY!,” which reports on an ad taken out in the Washington Times, then attaches a "note" from Carl Gallups as follows:

"PPSIMMONS NOTE: From Carl Gallups - "While this is an important piece of information, I want to remind our PPSIMMONS readers that this is a miniscule revelation compared to what the CCP now knows and has hard-copy evidence of regarding the deeply criminal nature that this investigation has now become."

"The birth certificate and other forgeries are merely the tip of the iceberg. Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, and others are fervently involved in the currently ongoing investigation that started with the now proven forgery and fabrication of the birth certificate. That investigation has now morphed into criminal revelations that Mike Zullo (with Sheriff Arpaio's full knowledge and support) has called 'universe shattering.'"…

Dec. 11, 2013

According to Stephen Lemons' later report, there is a meeting at Horne’s AG office, including "Montgomery, an assistant AG, and Sheriff's Office representatives” – as confirmed by “Brnovich's top flack, Ryan Anderson.” See Stephen Lemons, Arpaio Sought Assistance from Former AG Tom Horne's Office in Dealing with Confidential Informant (Phoenix New Times, May 6, 2015).

★ The Free Talk Agreement that Montgomery reaches with the Arizona AG imposes "early 2014" deadlines for Montgomery to produce proof of his allegations -- i.e., deliverables such as harvested phone records, bank records, etc. that prove his claims that the CIA was harvesting data from US citizens. See Anglin Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2858.

MCSO's Brian Mackiewicz will later complain that "It is extremely discouraging to learn most if not all the representations made by Dennis Montgomery to investigators, the State of Arizona Attorney General, and a Federal Judge have been less then truthful." See Melendres ECF 1166 at 17.

Mike Zullo (MCSO Cold Case Posse/Birther Investigator) will later assert Montgomery has breached "a videotaped Free Talk Agreement" between him and the Arizona Attorney General. See Melendres ECF 1166 at 24-25.

Dec. 12, 2013

The Melendres Plaintiffs oppose the appointment of Howard Safir at Vigilant Resources (recommended by MCSO on Dec. 9):

"As demonstrated in his prior statements, Mr. Safir harbors a hostility to Court-ordered change in police agencies as a result of findings of misconduct.

For example, in a recent editorial about the decision by the U.S. District Court in the Floyd v. City of New York matter concerning the practice of stop-and-frisk in New York City, Mr. Safir insisted that the allegations by the Plaintiffs that the New York Police Department was “using stop-and-frisk as a way of profiling” were false. In the same editorial, Mr. Safir criticized the court’s order as a “Draconian order that would have the police monitored by a group of lawyers who know nothing about law enforcement.” http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/safir-stop-and-frisk-ruling-new-yorkers-safearticle-1.1503484. In July 2013, Safir wrote in the New York Daily News that “Alleged racial profiling has been the clarion call of pandering politicians....” http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nypd-police-commissioner-howard-safir-billsinvite- crime-article-1.1408242.

* * *

Finally, Mr. Safir’s record as the chief executive of the New York Police Department from 1996 to 2000 also gives rise to serious concerns about his bias and predilections in cases involving racial profiling. He was an unusually controversial Police Commissioner and his tenure was marked by tension between minority communities and the Department. The Street Crimes Unit touted by Mr. Safir was disbanded shortly after his departure due to serious allegations of abuse and racial discrimination. These highprofile incidents included two cases of police brutality that received national attention: the extremely brutal sexual abuse of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima while in NYPD custody in 1997, and the shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant, with 41 shots fired, in 1999. Based on a study that followed, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer remarked: “I think the perception has been that there is disproportionate stopping of minorities and now we have an analytical basis to say that perception is real.” http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/02/news/mn-39850[.] The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also concluded after an investigation that the police tactic of racial profiling to stop and question people was a factor “in the racial tensions that can lead to ‘tragic and unnecessary’ incidents like the shooting of Amadou Diallo.”http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-06-16/news/0006170030_1_maryfrances- berry-shooting-of-amadou-diallo-commission-on-civil-rights[.]"

See Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Monitor Nominees and Response to Defendants' Nominations of Monitor Candidates [ECF 634 (PDF)], filed Dec. 12, 2013.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will, in May 2014, approve a $100K+ contract with Safir to serve consultant assisting the MCSO in complying with the Injunction.

PPSimmons publishes "DEATH SHOCK! Hawaii's Dept. of Health Loretta Fuddy Dead in Plane," which reports on the tragic death of Loretta Fuddy and includesthe following statement:

“Investigator Zullo has recently reported on PPSIMMONS News and Ministry Network and on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups that the birth certificate issue is now completely and forensically settled, but that the investigation has taken a much deeper and criminal turn due to leads developed while investigating the forged birth certificate. Zullo claims that the information they now have, as hard-copy evidence, is "universe shattering."

Dec. 13, 2013

Zullo appears on Gallups’ show (saying he'd “just got off the phone” with Sheriff Arpaio), and discussed the "new investigation. [Link to archived version of show.] Below is a layperson's unofficial transcript of additional relevant excerpts from that show (emphasis added):

[@2:55]The investigation, going forward, has taken a turn that was unexpected for all of us.....

* * * [Xerox explanation chatter] * * *

[@3:36] Going forward though, the other information now that has come to light; the other evidence that has been developed, was developed during the course of this investigation. At that point, when I was receiving it, we compiled it and we brought it to the attention of Sheriff Arpaio. At that time, that was tabled at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and a decision was made by Sheriff Arpaio to move forward and he has allocated resources and detectives now to assist us in a different line of investigation involving this investigation. It all stems from Sheriff Arpaio's birth certificate investigation; it does walk in tandem with it. I cannot go into detail about it, but I apologize, we will not handle this part of this investigation like we did the birth certificate. And the reason for that is the birth certificate information was already out there in the public venue for years before the Sheriff's Office got involved. Now, this is going to be handled exclusively as a criminal investigation being conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and we are going to regard this in the highest professional manner that is accustomed to a law enforcement investigation.

* * * *

[@7:55] "I want people to really understand this. Sheriff Arpaio is the investigator. I am nothing more than the tools... or an eye, ears, feet, and [?] labor that he is using to further this. He is the investigator. He's the investigating authority.... If it wasn't for Sheriff Arpaio, this wouldn't be happening.”

WND reports on Zullo’s November 22, 2013 comments made on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday show. See Bob Unruh, "Universe-Shattering' Twist in Obama Birth Probe; Arpaio Investigator: 'This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine,'" WorldNetDaily, Dec. 13, 2013. Per this article, Zullo has informed Unruh that the allegations currently under investigation -- "which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March." Id.

Note: It is not yet clear whether this reference to March 2014 disclosure date corresponds to the deadlines imposed by the Arizona Attorney General-Montgomery Free Talk Agreement (referenced on Dec. 11).

Dec. 14, 2013

★ Seattle Operation Exhibit: A 109-page document – “MCSO Internal Affairs Division IA #13-0000, Interview Confidential Informant, dated 12/14/2013 - is later entered into evidence as Exhibit 2927 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Mackiewicz Oct. 28, 2015 testimony at [tbd].

This exhibit is not yet publicly available. However, per reports from an eyewitness at the October 28 hearing, where this document was discussed, it is a transcript of the Dennis Montgomery December 2013 interview with the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

📄 ZULLO DOC. A 15-page pdf, file name "MCSO 12-14-2013.pdf" (ZULLO 003747-61) is later listed in the "Fifth Amendment Privilege Log prepared in connection with Zullo's Fall 2015 document production, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Dec. 16, 2013

★ MCSO makes at $2,500 cash payment to Montgomery. See Exhibit 2085 (admitted as evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings and later docketed as ECF 1507-9, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time) (undated listing of Seattle Operation expenses prepared by Mackiewicz).

Dec. 18, 2013

The Sonoran News reports on Zullo’s November 22, 2013 comments made on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday show. See Linda Bentley, “Obama fraud probe takes a turn that could be ‘universe shattering," Sonoran News, Dec. 18, 2013.

Dec. 20, 2013

The Melendres Plaintiffs file their Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees and Nontaxable Costs. [ECF 639.]

Dec. 21, 2013

The MCSO holds "community meetings" as noticed earlier this month. (See Dec. 9, 2013.) According to one report, some of the meetings were held outside, despite the cold weather. See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block, “Sheriff Arpaio's Office Holds Court-Ordered Meetings, Fronteras, Dec. 23, 2013.

Arpaio reportedly attends the meeting scheduled in Cave Creek. In an interview shortly before the meeting began, Arpaio reportedly stated:

“I’ve been fighting illegal immigration for about 6 years,” he said. “Very proud of our record. Lots of politics involved. Department of Justice been after me since (President Barack) Obama took office … We don’t racial profile. My deputies are not racist.”

Arpaio said he didn’t agree with Judge Snow’s ruling and is appealing the decision, but he also suggested there was a positive side to the mandatory meetings, which will take place annually.

“It’s not a bad idea. I was going to do it anyway,” the sheriff said. “Have meetings like this where—forget the immigration thing—but just able to answer questions to the public.”

Besides media and law enforcement representatives, the meeting in Cave Creek started out with one person in the audience. By the time it ended an hour later, five members of the public were in attendance.

See Eric Quade, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Attends Court-Ordered Meeting,” The Foothills Focus, Dec. 26, 2013.

Dec. 23, 2013

The MCSO appoints Deputy Hector Martinez as the new Community Liaison Deputy, a new position required by the October 2013 Permanent Injunction. See MCSO Announcement; and Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's New "Community Liaison" Officer Participated in MCSO Sweeps Targeting the Undocumented,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 4, 2014 ("MCSO public relations folks confirmed to me that this was, in fact, the same Martinez and that his new assignment was made official on December 23.")

As Lemons reports in his article, the MCSO selected Martinez for this position even though he had actively participated in "arresting undocumented Latinos (among others) caught in the very "sweeps" that Judge Snow addressed in May, when he found the MCSO guilty of prejudiced policing toward Hispanics and ordered an end to its racial profiling." Id.

See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's "Community Liaison" and the Bigoted MCSO E-mails in Melendres,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 7, 2014 (reporting on additional Martinez activities that raise questions as to the appropriateness of his appointment.)

? Dec. ? 2013

Although the record is currently unclear regarding the date of this event, at some point after the November meeting with attorneys re: the Seattle Operation (but apparently before the move to the new headquarters), Mackiewicz calls Sheridan to tell him that Montgomery has tied Judge Snow into to the alleged DOJ wiretap/investigation matter.

★ SHERIDAN'S TESTIMONY

Sheridan later testifies the the next time he heard anything about Montgomery's claims of an alleged DOJ wiretap/investigation was when Mackiewicz called him from Seattle to inform him that Montgomery had tied Judge Snow to the DOJ wiretap/investigation. Sheridan Sept. 29 testimony at 1571 (timing*); id. at 1572 (Mackiewicz in Seattle); id. (Sheridan was in the old headquarters building when this call occurred*). More specifically,

"Detective Mackiewicz advis[ed] me that Mr. Montgomery had some information that the DOJ had phone conversations. He had information about phone calls that went into your [Judge Snow's] office."

Id. at 1571. Asked by the Court what he heard, Sheridan responded:

"A. It was a pretty quick conversation, because, you know, I was not excited to hear that. And I don't really recall a lot other than what I just told you and my response, which I've said several times. I can repeat it if you want me to.

* * * So I told -- I told Detective Mackiewicz that this Montgomery investigation is not to go anywhere near Judge Snow or the Court. I don't want to hear anything about Montgomery investigating Judge Snow. I am giving you a direct order to contact Montgomery and tell him that we will walk away, we'll stop doing business with him if he even attempts to do this in the future.

* * *

... It was a pretty short conversation. I was pretty excited about -- and not in a good way -- excited about hearing that information."

Id. at 1571-1572. See also Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 testimony at 1304 (asserting that when Mackiewicz told him Montgomery had come up with information on Judge Snow, he "told Detective Mackiewicz, We are not going to entertain any further information from Montgomery, and you're to tell him not to investigate anything about Judge Snow, and if he is -- if he does, we will walk away.")

Note. It appears that, as of Dec. 18, 2013, MCSO was in the process of moving from the old Wells Fargo building into the new headquarters: As of Dec. 18, "MCSO Sergeant Brandon Jones estimated the move into the new building was only about 20 percent done, as of yesterday." See, e.g. Stephen Lemons, "Photos: A First Look at MCSO's New $93 Million Headquarters," Phoenix New Times, Dec. 19, 2013.

Dec. 30, 2013

★ According to MCSO Sergeant Travis Anglin’s Oct. 9 Testimony, he is contacted by MCSO Captain Steve Bailey on December 30th and "asked to come into the office (in the Special Investigations Division office) for a briefing. Id. at 2829.

At this meeting, Bailey introduces him to Mike Zullo, then leaves the meeting. Id. Anglin understands that the purpose of this meeting is for "Zullo to tell [him] about the investigation and his work with Dennis Montgomery." Id.

During this meeting, Zullo tells him "about the articles in the New York Times and other public sources referring to Mr. Montgomery . . . as a man who had defrauded the government." Id. at 2829-2830. However, it is Anglin's understanding that Zullo still considers Montgomery to be credible. Id.

Zullo explains “a history of Mr. Montgomery, and how he came to be in possession of what he claims to be harvested information by the CIA” – I.e., “information that the CIA allegedly took from U.S. citizens. The proof of that was allegedly drives stolen by Mr. Montgomery.” Id.

According to Anglin, he does not believe that Zullo brings up information about potential wiretaps during this meeting. Id. Per Anglin:

"The only thing that I was briefed about initially was that Dennis Montgomery was allegedly in possession of hard drives that contained harvested data illegally obtained by the CIA, and that's what I was told initially the case was going to be about."

Id. at 2844.

★ According to Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 testimony, his reason for assigning Anglin to the matter was as follows:

"When I assigned Sergeant Mackiewicz -- Sergeant Anglin to -- as this thing, as this investigation seemed to get bigger with the IDs -- excuse me, with the bank account IDs, and there were some issues about Zullo and Mackiewicz and Montgomery getting along and all those issues like I explained earlier, I thought Sergeant Anglin would be a good person to go up there because of his experience as a detective, to go up there and give the sheriff and I, because we didn't have the luxury of talking to these people or going up there and evaluating it ourselves, to go up there and manage this investigation."

Id. at 1573.

★ According to Arpaio's Oct. 1 testimony.

Q. Later on, not at the outset, but later on, you and Chief Sheridan also decided to have Sergeant TravisAnglin help and work with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Zullo, and Detective Mackiewicz, is that right?

A. I think the chief deputy knew the background of the sergeant on fraud and that type of investigative technique, so decided to send him up to work with the other two.

Q. When you say "fraud," that was banking fraud, is that correct, that you decided, or maybe Chief Sheridan decided, based on Sergeant Anglin's experience with banking fraud, to [2060] have him help with the investigation, is that right?

A. I'm not sure whether it was just banking, but fraudulent activity he was knowledgeable of.

Id. at 2059-60. See also Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2329 (re: Zullo being person to bring Anglin up to speed on the investigation).

Dec. 30 or 31, 2013

★ Mike Zullo sends a text to MCSO's Travis Anglin:

"Sgt
Received this from OZ* just
a little while ago. He’s
mapping out cell phone calls
and then line calls
back to 2009
involving Judge Snow The stuff
looks promising."

This text is admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt hearings as part of Exhibit 2079. See Oct. 9, 2015 Transcript (ECF 1466) at 2838. See image of text here (Stephen Lemons/Phoenix New Times).

See also Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 testimony at 2838-2389 ("Oz" was Montgomery's code name; that "Elmer" was another code name for Montgomery;).

See also Arpaio's Oct. 2, testimony at 2355 ("Oz" was code for Montgomery); id. at 2355-56 (per Plaintiffs' counsel, another text contained in the exhibit indicates that Montgomery was assigned the code name "Oz" because Arpaio couldn't keep the previously assigned name straight).

Dec. 31, 2013

📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo today, with a subject line of "2014." (ZULLO 003650). He attaches PDFs: "JoeArpaio.rev1.3a.pdf" (ZULLO 003651) and "Web.Rev1.3a.pdf." (ZULLO 03655). These documents are reflected in the Fifth Amendment Privilege Log, which is later docketed in the Melendres 2015 proceedings as ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

« 2012

2014 »

Last Updated: Nov. 19, 2015

Be notified of page updates

A Melendres-Arpaio-MCSO Cold Case Posse-Seattle Operation Timeline