2015 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*

*For information on 2015 Dennis Montgomery litigation-related events that are unrelated to Melendres, see here.

January-March 2015

MCSO RICO FUNDS: According to the Third Quarter FY2015 RICO Report published by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, MCSO spent $ 704,204 in State/Local RICO Funds between January 1 and March 31, 2015:

Gang & Drug Prevention & Ed.......................... $ 5,500

Professional/Outside Services: ...................... $ 33,914

Admin Expenses:.............................................. $ 28,290

(Admin Expenses includes employee overtime, per this)

Other Operating Expenses:........................... $ 530,246

(OOE includes informant payments, per this)

Equipment:...................................................... $ 108,253

(Equipment includes computer purchases per this)

Notwithstanding the fact that MCSO's outside "advisors"/ex-NSA employees had informed the MCSO in November 2013 that Montgomery was a "complete and total FRAUD" and that the purported evidence contained in the 50 hard drives re: CIA hacking of bank records was junk, at least Zullo and Mackiewicz apparently continue to work with Montgomery on various Seattle Operation matters.

★ When asked whether, in January 2015, his "people were still working with Mr. Montgomery," Arpaio responded: "They may have been." Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2387. See also id. at 2390 (confirming that his deposition testimony -- "Question: In January 2015 you were still getting reports from Mr. Zullo about what Mr.Montgomery was doing, correct? "Answer: I believe so, yes." -- was accurate.)

Jan. 5, 2015

📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 19:18 re: "Obama." (ZULLO 003862-63). This document is 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).

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Mackiewicz at 18:47 re: "FW: Obama." (ZULLO 003723-24). This document is 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).

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Klayman at 18:48 re: "FW: Obama." (ZULLO 003721-22). This document is 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).

Jan. 5, 2015

Birther debunker/blogger Dr. Conspiracy publishes “DARPA,” in which he speculates that the “deeper darker” investigation repeatedly referenced by Mike Zullo and Carl Gallups is the same MSCO investigation (i.e., the Seattle Operation) reported by Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times in June 2014.

Jan. 8, 2015

Plaintiffs, Arpaio, and Sheridan file their briefs regarding possible contempt proceedings.

Plaintiffs brief [ECF 843] request that the Court issue a show cause order re: civil contempt, setting forth in detail several grounds for such an order.

As an indication of just how Arpaio interpreted the December hearing, his brief’s title is: “Memorandum In Support Of Sheriff Arpaio's Declaration Of Compliance With Court Orders And Opposing The Imposition Of A Criminal Contempt Referral.” [ECF 841.]

The title of Sheridan’s brief ~ “Memorandum Re Criminal Contempt Of Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan.” [ECF 840.]

Jan. 15, 2015

Judge Snow holds a telephonic status conference to address matters relating to the potential contempt proceedings. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 854/text only entry); Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 858).

Jan. 16, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order following yesterday's hearing, permitting the parties to file responsive briefs to those filed last week. ECF 856.

Jan. 19, 2015

📄 ZULLO DOC. Montgomery emails Zullo at 12:51 re: "RE: Updates." (ZULLO 003878-80). This 3-page document is 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).

Jan. 20, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from Mike [Zullo] to David Webb [i.e., Montgomery] RE: CIA Names dated 1/20/2015 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2268 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The full contents of this document have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Montgomery at 16:42 re: "RE: CIA Names." (ZULLO 003873). This document is 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).

Jan. 21, 2015

★ Arpaio meets with Mackiewicz and Zullo today regarding the Seattle Operation (per his Outlook Calendar entry later admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2858 (Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042).

During the Oct. 1, 2015 hearing, when asked whether he met "with Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz on January 21 about the Montgomery investigation," Arpaio initially responds that he "may" have. See Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony at 2387.

However, when presented with an email string, containing a Jan. 22, 2015 1:12 PM email - which (as described by counsel): "Now, that e-mail says that Mr. Zullo did meet with you yesterday*, that is, January 21" -- Arpaio responds, "If [Zullo] said I was there. I didn't check my schedule, but I have to go along with it." Id. at 2388.

*Note. See Jan. 22, for more details about this email.

Stephen Lemons reports that Arpaio has been bragging about investigating Judge Snow (the Melendres judge) and his family according to “credible sources.”

Regarding the Dennis Montgomery investigation that Lemons reported on in June 2014, he notes that MCSO has “over and over again” denied Lemons’ requests for records “because of an ‘ongoing criminal investigation.’”

Lemons also reports that “Now, along come two more reliable sources, both telling me that Arpaio's bragged about how he's investigating Snow, his wife, Cheri, and an already-vetted Snow family link to the law firm of Covington & Burling, which represents (along with the ACLU) the plaintiffs in the big racial-profiling case Melendres v. Arpaio.”

Lemons then predicts that, to avoid the contempt proceedings now scheduled for April, Arpaio will file a motion to recuse on the grounds of conflict of interest.

See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's End Game: Judge Snow Sets the Sheriff's Contempt Hearing for April, But Joe Has Some Tricks Up His Sleeve,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 21, 2015.

Note: While the timing was off just a bit, Lemons' prediction will remarkably accurate - Arpaio and Sheridan will move, in May 2015, for recusal on the very three grounds outlined in Lemon's article.

Jan. 22, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 3-page document – Email from David Webb [i.e., Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: Lawsuit dated 1/22/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2269 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, although Plaintiffs' counsel described it, in part, during Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony. Based on that description, we know the following:

It contains an email from Zullo to Montgomery datestamped January 22, 2015, 1:12 p.m. Id. at 2388.

"[T]hat e-mail says that Mr. Zullo did meet with you [Arpiao] yesterday, that is, January 21." Id.

The rest of the sentence (saying Zullo met with Arpaio the day before) "refers to a hope that you [Arpaio] had" -- apparently something to the effect of thatthey or Montgomery "could get where he needed to go." Id. at 2388-2389.

★ With respect to Zullo's reference to Arpaio's "hope" -- during the Oct. 2 hearing Arpaio equivocated about what that might reference. Id. However, the following portion of his Sept. 18, 2015 deposition was read into the record:

(Deposition video clip played as follows:)

"Question: In January 2015 you were still getting reports from Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?

"Answer: I believe so, yes.

"Question: Now, Mr. Zullo says that you were hoping that they could get where they, or maybe Mr. Montgomery, needed to go. Did you express that hope to Mr. Zullo?

"Answer: I don't know, I don't recall. But there's a possibility that I wanted him to speed this up and find out what the results are."

(Deposition video clip concluded.)

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q. Sheriff, did you testify accurately as we just heard on September 18?

(Deposition video clip concluded.)

Q. Now, one of the things that you wanted Mr. Montgomery to [2391] work on was to produce a recording of your voice having been wiretapped, is that right?

A. Yes.

Id. at 2390-2391.

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Montgomery at 17:18 re: "RE: Lawsuit." (ZULLO 003875-77). This 3-page document is 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).

As reported by Dr. Conspiracy on Obama Conspiracies:

Gary Wilmott (Give Us Liberty 1776) posted 2 comments at Birther Report™ yesterday that give[s] some inside information about the Maricopa County Sheriff’s maybe investigation of Barack Obama or something:

He followed up with:

Once again…for what it’s worth. Of course I don’t have the inside scoop…I am merely putting 2 and 2 together in my mind and giving my opinion. I want this to happen more than you can imagine. I am living a nightmare. However…let me just say this…I am in regular though infrequent communications with someone who DID have access to the investigation (not Gallups) and was privy to SOME of the universe-shattering info. At one time that person thought that something would be released late last August. That person does not think anything will now happen and that is also part of my calculus. Sorry…I pray that I am wrong because this country is in a world of hurt and its only going to get worse. I love RG’s [BR commenter Reagans_ghost] positive attitude…but my hopes are waning. We are in late January and the focus is going to be on the presidential race and all irresponsible wannabes jockeying for position.

Jan. 23, 2015

The parties file their responsive briefs on the potential contempt hearings:

MCSO/Arpaio's Brief - ECF 860.

Plaintiffs' Brief - ECF 861.

Plaintiffs also file a motion for discovery re: contempt matters. ECF 862.

Jan. 24, 2015

Carl Gallups posts the following on Facebook:

Carl Gallups

January 24 · Edited ·

OBAMA FRAUD CASE

LATEST ARPAIO and ZULLO UPDATE - Jan. 23, 2015

We spoke with Carl Gallups. Here is what he told us concerning this matter:

"I have spoken at length with Mike Zullo. He says that he and the sheriff are still proceeding with the investigation and their plans to release the information. They believe it will be soon. HOWEVER, as reported before - they have been involved in jumping some huge legal hurdles that will enable them to bring this info forward. They are still involved in one big legal hurdle now. They hope to have it resolved soon. Any major movement in the case coming forward will be announced on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups (carlGallups.com) and on the PNN internet network."

Jan. 28, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [i.e., Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] RE: Klayman dated 1/28/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2270 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Jan. 30, 2015

Arpaio files a Motion to Set a Rule 16 Settlement Conference. ECF 867.

Jan. 31, 2015

Carl Gallups provides an update on the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation during his Freedom Friday show (PPSimmons, Zullo Update! AND ... Muslim Brotherhood and the Tribulation!, YouTube, Jan. 31, 2015) (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~00:20] The bottom line is that Arpaio and Zullo are still moving foward. ... The criminal investigation is still underway. They've not given up. They've not gone away. No one has gotten to them or no one's gotten to me. I've not gone dark; I've not gone silent. But Mike Zullo said that he is just not going to talk about this publicly anymore until BOOM! they bring it forward. Because it's at that point in the investigation where the stuff they have HAS to be close to the vest. HAS to be kept close and they can't take any chance, any chance at all of any hint of where they're going or what they might do coming forward. Now, I promise. I'm gonna say this again and ... don't read anything into this, this doesn't mean anything, except it's been my promise from the beginning: as we move forward, if for some reason - and Zullo has not said this, and neither has Arpaio - but if for some reason, this thing doesn't come to pass, then I will be at liberty to tell you a lot more about it and why it didn't come to pass and what alls involved in it.*

Note. But see July 10, 2015, where Gallups says "For those of you out there who have said "Now Carl you have promised us that if Zullo is not going to release it you would" I never made that promise......"

[~01:18] But in the meantime, it's still headed that way, looks like it's still gonna come to pass, and those are the assurances that I'm getting. But they're just not talking about it publicly.

* * * *

[~2:31] So Zullo and Arpaio, they're involved in a deep, dark criminal investigation. Let's let them go with it. ... Now, if it all collapses later, we'll tell you about it. We'll report it. And if it comes forward, we're gonna go with it. Right here. Ok?

February 2015

★ Arpaio knows that Montgomery is still working on the banking allegations -- and the birther investigation -- as of February 2015, according to his Oct. 2, 2015 testimony:

[ATTORNEY YOUNG] ". . . Let's -- let's talk about February. In that month you knew that Mr. Montgomery was working on the banking investigation, correct?

[ARPAIO]. Yes.

Q. And on the side he was working on the birth certificate issue, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. For both the banking investigation and the birth certificate investigation you put a lot of faith in Mr. Zullo, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You relied on Mr. Zullo very heavily, correct?

A. Especially on the birth certificate. The ironic part that both those issues actually pertain to fraudulent documents just by chance, they're identity theft.

Id. at 2391. In connection with an email from Zullo to Montgomery datestamped February 2, 2015, 5:46 p.m. re: Judge Snow (see Feb. 2), Arpaio testifed on Oct. 2, as follows:

Q. In early February 2015 you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you were not happy with the information that was coming from Mr. Montgomery, correct?

A. Yes, I was -- no. The answer is I was not happy.

Q. Mr. Montgomery was not providing to Mr. Zullo and you what you wanted, correct?

A. I wanted the information on the wiretaps, the harvesting into other agencies, and also to keep developing the banking situation, and there may have been other issues regarding intelligence that I'm not too familiar with.

Q. So in early February 2015, among other things, you were unhappy because Mr. Montgomery had not yet provided, and Mr. Zullo had not reported to you, any further information on the banking situation, is that right? [2402]

A. And the wiretaps, and infiltration of other agencies, and that I'm not altogether familiar with, they have intelligence ramifications.

Q. Did you have any discussion with anybody in February 2015 about whether Judge Snow would get upset if the work that Mr. Montgomery was doing was ever disclosed?

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. In February 2015, or any other time, did you ever discuss with Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz anything that was referred to as a, quote, bullshit contempt charge, end quote?

A. No.

Q. You're sure about that.

A. What was the -- the semantics?

Q. Well, I'm not going to repeat --

A. What is the three words?

Q. I'm not going to repeat it again, I'm going to use an acronym. Did you ever discuss with Mr. -- well, let me actually change the question. Did you ever discuss at any time with Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz the contempt issue that's brought us to this hearing, that relates to this case?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Is it possible that you had such a discussion?

A. I don't -- I don't know about the trial itself, but I'm saying again that the issue of Judge Snow, I didn't want to hear, and the chief deputy did not want to hear way before, [2403] months before.

Q. Well, I understand what you just said about Judge Snow. My question now is about the contempt proceeding in this case.

Did you ever discuss that in any way, every mention it to Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, or anyone else associated with the Montgomery investigation?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Is it possible that you did?

A. I don't know, I -- whether I had the problem with the hearing. We went through it, and honest, and did the best we could, and that's the system that we live under.

Q. In that early February 2015 time frame, in fact you may have talked to Mr. Zullo about Judge Snow in connection with the banking investigation, because Mr. Zullo was trying to track down information about that matter, is that correct?

A. You talking about the bank investigation?

Q. Correct.

A. Could be.

Q. So in early February 2015 you did know that they were trying to track down the banking information, is that right?

A. I don't know the time element. I do, once again, remember that we sent detectives out to do follow-up. I'm not sure whether that follow-up was continuing.

Q. Do you know what information relating to Judge Snow Mr. Zullo might have been referring to in discussion with [2404] Mr. Montgomery on February 11, 2015?

A. No.

Q. Well, Mr. Zullo did tell you that he was working on getting information about Judge Snow in relation to the banking investigation at that time, correct?

A. What year are we talking about?

Q. 2015, and particularly February 11, 2015.

A. Well, this came up a year before. If I recall, the judge's name, plus many other victims came out.

Q. Well, I recognize that it had been something that you had been talking about a year before, but I'm now asking specifically about February 2015. You did talk to Mr. Zullo about his trying to get information on Judge Snow in relation to the banking investigation, correct?

A. I don't recall.

Q. All right. Well, I'm going to ask you to listen to a segment of your September 18, 2015 deposition, page 608, line 16, through 609, line 2. And I'll represent to you that the preceding question refers to the early February 2015 time period in which you were still talking to Mr. -- in fact, let me just read your testimony starting at line 7 before the clip that we're about to play. 608, line 7:

* * * [2405] * * *

MR. YOUNG: The question is, and I'm quoting from the deposition:

"If you were -- well, I think you said earlier that in February 2015 that you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about the work that Mr. Montgomery was doing. Would you have expected to be told by Mr. Zullo if Mr. Montgomery was working on Judge Snow information?"

* * *

Q. Your answer to that question, Sheriff, was: "I don't know."

* * *

[2406] MR. YOUNG: Okay. So just to be clear, I'm going to reread the two questions for which there was no objection, just so that I make sure I understand what's in the record or not. Starting at line 16 at page 608:

"Question: Well, you knew -- he did tell you that he was working on Judge Snow [2407] information insofar as he was --

"Answer: Yes.

"Question: -- the victim --

"Answer: Right.

"Question: -- potentially of that banking, is that right?

"Answer: Yeah."

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q. Sheriff, you gave that testimony accurately on September 18?

A. About him working on the bank investigation?

Q. As I just read, yes.

A. I may have, yes.

Q. Well, that's your deposition. That was your sworn --

A. Well --

Q. -- testimony. Is it -- is it accurate?

A. I think I said "to the best of my own knowledge" or "I believe"; I'm not sure the wording I used. But I would imagine that my response was correct. That's the way I took it.

Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2401-2407.

Feb. 2, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Response to Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio's Request for Settlement Conference. ECF 868.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 3-page document – Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2090 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of these documents have not yet been made public, although some information has been revealed as follows.

★ With respect to this document, per information revealed during Arpaio's Oct. 2, 2015 testimony:

It contains an email from Zullo to Montgomery datestamped February 2, 2015, 5:46 p.m. Id. at 2399.

At the bottom of that email, there is a reference to Arpaio's contempt charges - i.e., a link to a news story about them. Id. at 2400.

That email apparently refers to some type of "data processing that was going on with Mr. Zullo and Mr. Montgomery that might be contingent on whether the contempt proceeding in this case was going to continue." Id.

That email apparently refers to "information relating to Judge Snow" - apparently in relation to the "banking investigation." Id. at 2404; see also Arpaio testimony summarized above.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 5-page document – Email from David Webb [i.e., Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] re: Work dated 2/2/2015 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2271 in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2.

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Montgomery, copying Larry Klayman at 11:12 re: "RE: Work." (ZULLO 003881-82). This 2-page document is 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).

Feb. 3, 2015

MCSO/Arpaio file a Reply in Support of their Motion for a Rule 16 Settlement Conference. ECF 869.

Feb. 5, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 4-page document – Email from Brian Mackiewicz to Mike [Zullo] Re: Blue Cross dated 2/5/2015 – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2272 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

📄 ZULLO DOC. Zullo emails Montgomery at 17:18 re: "RE: BLUECROSS." (ZULLO 003865-69). This 5-page document is 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).

Feb. 11, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: No Work dated 2/11/2015 ) – is later listed as potential Exhibit 2273 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, , although some information has been revealed as follows.

★ According to information revealed during Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 testimony, the first line of the email contains a "reference 'Judge Snow Info.'" See Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 testimony at 1605-1606.

Feb. 12, 2015

Judge Snow issues a 27-page Order to Show Cause why Arpaio, Sheridan, MCSO, and certain other unnamed parties should not be held in civil contempt. ECF 880. From the conclusion of this order:

Based upon the foregoing facts, Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient evidence that MCSO and the aforementioned individuals acted in contempt of this Court’s “lawful writs, processes, orders, rules, decrees, or commands” by (1) failing to implement and comply with the preliminary injunction; (2) violating their discovery obligations; and (3) acting in derogation of this Court’s May 14, 2014 Orders. See 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).

After an appropriate hearing, the Court will determine whether these individuals have committed contempt of court and the sanctions for any such violations. In conjunction with this Order to Show Cause, an order has also been filed granting Plaintiffs’ requests for expedited discovery in anticipation of an evidentiary hearing in these matters.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED setting an evidentiary hearing for April 21, 22, 23, and 24, 2015. Proceedings will begin daily at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602 of the Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse at 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following parties are to appear before the Court and show cause, as indicated, why the Court should not impose sanctions on them pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d): the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan, Executive Chief (ret.) Brian Sands, Deputy Chief John MacIntyre, Lieutenant Joseph Sousa.

Id. at 26.

Judge Snow also issues an order granting in part Plaintiff's request for discovery re: the contempt matters and granting in part Arpaio's Motion for Settlement Conference. ECF 881.

Non-Party Deputy Chief John "Jack" MacIntyre files a "Motion for Determination that Criminal Contempt Charges Will Not Be Pursued/Referred Against Him Personally." ECF 879.

Feb. 18, 2015

Dennis Montgomery is ordered to vacate his Yarrow Point, Washington home by "noon, April 1, 2015." See Order re: Unopposed Motion to Approve Voluntary Dismissal, Flynn, et al. v. NV Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00360, ECF 66 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2015).

Feb. 19, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file Response to MacIntyre's Feb. 12 Motion for Determination that Criminal Contempt Charges Will Not Be Pursued/Referred Against Him Personally. ECF 885.

Feb. 22, 2015

Carl Gallups provides an update on the investigation during his Freedom Friday show (PPSimmons, ZULLO CONFERENCE FORTHCOMING! And More!, YouTube, Feb. 22, 2015) (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~0:14] Well the bottom line is, I talked to Mike Zullo just the other day, and folks I just wanna tell you, just a couple days ago, ... he tells me, and I'm allowed to say this, that the ... conference is forthcoming, and I'm telling you, I mean, Arpaio and Zullo are both saying this, so ... I'm ... reporting information. ... I'm not conducting the investigation; I'm not gathering all the criminal evidence and investigative information; I'm not flying all over the country interviewing people and searching archives and ... but I'm helping them to get out information and to keep America kind of updated on what's going on. And I told you several weeks ago that Zullo represented that and in fact several months ago on this show represented that ... he was not going to release any more information until the conference came forth. Because every time he did, it was picked apart and dissected and ... plus... there was some concern about ... information leakage that should not have happened and etcetera, etcetera.

[~1:21] So the bottom line is he is not going to give any details of where he's at until it's time for the conference, and the very last word I had just a few days ago was that the conference is still forthcoming. So that's all I know and all I can say at this point.

Feb. 25, 2015

MacIntyre files a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Determination that Criminal Contempt Charges Will Not Be Pursued/Referred Against Him Personally. ECF 895 (Supplemental Memorandum); ECF 896 (MacIntyre Declaration).

Feb. 26, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the scheduled pre-trial conference (pre-contempt hearings). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 889/text entry only); Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 926).

Judge Snow issues a post-hearing order addressing multiple matters. ECF 900, amended by ECF 901. From the docket entry:

"Specially-appearing party Brian Sands' 884 Motion for Discovery is GRANTED. Sands may serve up to seven requests for production in connection with the forthcoming civil Contempt hearing. All such requests shall be served no later than Tuesday, March 3, 2015. Plaintiffs shall serve a Notice of Deposition on former counsel Timothy Casey by Tuesday, March 3, 2015. Any appropriate briefing and/or motions for a protective order in response to the aforementioned discovery requests shall be filed by Tuesday, March 17, 2015. Thereafter, any reply briefs are to be filed by March 24, 2015. Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio shall file a memorandum regarding the maintenance of the information regarding MCSO's completed internal investigations and any corresponding employee discipline under seal by Thursday, March 6, 2015. A hearing on any requests for protective order is set for Friday, March 27, 2015 at 2:00 p.m."

Feb. 27, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: Arpaio dated 2/27/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2274 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Mar. 3, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: Progress dated 3/3/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2275 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Mar. 4, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 2-page document – Email from Larry Klayman to Mike [Zullo] Re: Progress dated 3/4/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2276 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Mar. 10, 2015

The United States files Notice re: Participation in Settlement Negotiations. ECF 924 (PDF).

Mar. 13, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order setting a status conference for Mar. 20. ECF 932 (PDF).

Mar. 16, 2015

Judge Snow issues a notice of issues to be addressed at the upcoming status conference. ECF 939. From the docket entry (spacing adjusted for readability):

"The topics which the Court intends to discuss at the status hearing on Friday, March 20, 2015 include, but may not be limited to, the following:

1. Defendants' Notice concerning the postponement of the date for completing their internal investigations (Doc. 923 ).

2. The merits of scheduling a supplemental hearing or hearings subsequent to the April proceedings in light of such postponement.

3. Whether any privilege attaches to Defendants internal investigations, and, if so, which aspects of the internal investigation process it applies to.

4. Discovery requests for the work product of the Monitor.

5. Whether the compensatory aspect of civil Contempt, if such a remedy is deemed appropriate, should be resolved in April or in separate proceedings, with attention to the following concerns:

a. Providing notice to potential victims and an opportunity for them to opt in or out of any settlement or compensation award.

b. The class definition (see Doc. 494 ) and the remunerability of injuries to victims who are not members of the Plaintiff class.

c. The risk of continuing liability for Maricopa County in the absence of provisions terminating the rights of victims to seek individual relief, or as a consequence of problems in estimating compensation.

d. Whether Maricopa County needs to be separately represented insuch proceedings.

6. The appropriateness of appointing a special prosecutor in light of the United States Attorney's declination to participate in settlement discussions with the named contemnors concerning their potential criminal Contempt liability (see Doc. 924 ), and considerations related to such an appointment."

Mar. 17, 2015

Arpaio and Sheridan file a “Motion to Vacate Order, Set/Reset Hearings and Request for Entry of Judgment. ECF 948. In this motion, they consent to civil contempt and seek to vacate the upcoming contempt hearing. The entire document (and attachment) is worth reading. In essence,

“The purpose of this Motion is to convey to the Court and to Plaintiffs that Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and identified non-party Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan (collectively, “Defendants”) consent to a finding of civil contempt against them and the imposition of remedies designed to address their conduct. Under these circumstances, a 4-day evidentiary hearing, which would cost the county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and which would consume significant time of the Court, is unnecessary.”

ECF 948 at 1-2. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Admits Guilt in Civil Contempt Case, Seeks to Avoid April Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 17, 2015.

Michael Flynn obtains a Writ of Assistance (i.e., assistance from U.S. Marshals in coordinating/ensuring that the Yarrow Point home where Dennis Montgomery has been living at least at some point in the past lived is properly vacated by April 1, 2015) from a federal judge in Washington. See Flynn v. Montgomery et al, No. 2:15-mc-00032-RSL, ECF 3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2015).

Mar. 19, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs promptly oppose Arpaio’s motion to vacate the hearings, filing their brief on March 19. ECF 952. In their opposition, they note that while they plaintiffs recognize the significance of Arpaio et al’s stipulations, “the motion should be denied because Defendants have not yet provided full discovery on why and how they violated the Court’s orders. Material issues of fact, crucial for determining the proper remedies for Defendants’ contempt of this Court’s orders, remain unresolved, and therefore the process set by the Court for discovery and an evidentiary hearing should go forward.” [Id. at 3.] With respect to defendant’s argument about costs to county taxpayers, the plaintiffs responded:

Defendants argue that the evidentiary hearing should be vacated because of the cost to the taxpayers. However, in light of the many unresolved factual issues that go to the heart of Sheriff Arpaio’s and the other contemnors’ multiple violations of federal court orders, this cost argument must fail. The course of the litigation and the Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s orders has incurred a public cost, but the way to avoid such costs is for the Defendants to comply with the Court’s orders in the first place, not to attempt to avoid discovery of the true reasons and intentions lying behind their failure to comply.

Id. at 8.

Mar. 20, 2015

Judge Snow holds a status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 954/text only entry); Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 965. During this hearing, Judge Snow affirms the schedule for the contempt hearing. Id.

See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Tries Diverting Media from Guilt Admission, ACLU Still Wants April Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 20, 2015; and Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Needs "Skin in the Game," Says Judge, Before Any Civil Contempt Settlement,” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 20, 2015 for additional details regarding this hearing.

Mar. 24, 2015

The Writ of Assistance obtained by Micheal Flynn against "Dennis and Brenda Montgomery, all occupants of 3812 94th Ave NE, Yarrow Pt" Washington is served "on the individual... at the address shown above." See Flynn v. Montgomery et al, No. 2:15-mc-00032-RSL, ECF 4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2015).

Mar. 27, 2015

Judge Snow holds a hearing to address several outstanding discovery disputes. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 973/text entry only); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 989). Among other things, he addresses several outstanding motions. See E CF 979 (PDF) for March 31 order resulting from this hearing.

Stephen Lemons reports on Attorney Tim Casey's attempt to avoid testifying in the Melendres contempt proceedings. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Ex-Lawyer Tim Casey Fights Testifying About Joe's Contempt of Court (w/Update),” Phoenix New Times, Mar. 27, 2015.

Mar. 31, 2015

📄 Seattle Operation Document: Two documents –

2-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015 (Exhibit 2277)

2-page document – Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike [Zullo] Re: Place yet dated 3/31/2015 (Exhibit 2278)

– are later listed as potential exhibits in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Plaintiffs’ Oct. 12, 2015 List of Exhibits, ECF 1462-2. The contents of these documents have not yet been made public, but it seems reasonable to speculate that this relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

April-June 2015

April 2015

★ Arpaio is still talking with Zullo about the Seattle Operation in April 2015:

Q. In April 2015 -- we're skipping ahead a couple months now, Sheriff, April 2015 -- you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?

A. Sporadic basis, yes.

Q. Did you know that in April 2015 Mr. Zullo was requesting Mr. Montgomery to complete his work? [2408]

A. I don't know if he was trying to get ready to do a final report or not. That could have been it.

Q. Did Mr. Zullo talk to you about having Mr. Montgomery complete his work any time during April 2015?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Is it possible that he did?

A. Could be.

Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2407-2408.

Apr. 1, 2015

The Parties file their witness lists:

Plaintiffs' Witness List - ECF 985.

Arpaio et al's Witness List - ECF 984.

Sands' Witness List - ECF 983.

Apr. 2, 2015

The Writ of Assistance obtained by Micheal Flynn against "Dennis and Brenda Montgomery, all occupants of 3812 94th Ave NE, Yarrow Pt" Washington is served at 12:00 noon "on the individual... at the address shown above." See Flynn v. Montgomery et al, No. 2:15-mc-00032-RSL, ECF 5 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2015).

Apr. 6, 2015

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues a discovery order. ECF 992. From the docket entry:

"ORDER re 942 Motion for Protective Order, the Court grants Defendants' Motion as to documents 5, 6, and the redacted portions of document 15. The Court denies Defendants' Motion as to documents 4 and 6A, and the unredacted portions of document 15. The Court will issue a supplemental order under seal with documents 4 and 6A, and the redacted version of document 15. Unless the Court receives objections regarding lifting the seal by Defendants by Friday, April 10, 2015 at 5:00 P.M., the Court will unseal the supplemental order, the appended documents 4, 6A, and the appended redacted document 15. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 4/6/2015.(KMG) (Entered: 04/06/2015)."

Apr. 7, 2015

Judge Snow holds another telephonic status conference in Melendres. He instructs parties to clear their calendars for “possibly necessary supplemental hearings on June 16-19, 2015….” See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 995/Docket Text Entry). Although there is apparently no transcript of this hearing, Judge Snow issues the following order thereafter:

"ORDER. The Court met with the parties telephonically to resolve certain issues pertaining to outstanding discovery and scheduling.

First, as it pertains to this Court's discovery order of February 12, 2015 [ECF 881], Defendants shall disclose in detail to all parties the process by which MCSO sought to ascertain and obtain such information, including the method used to solicit responsive information from within the MCSO, the information requested, and the specific persons who were requested to provide or search for such information. Defendants shall also disclose all responses to this request and the specific persons who provided any responses. In light of Lieutenant Sousa's deposition testimony that he was aware of receiving no such requests, the parties will agree on a follow-up process to ensure that the request is received, acknowledged, and responded to by all pertinent and appropriate MCSO personnel in a timely manner. If the parties cannot agree on such a procedure they may promptly raise the matter with the Court in a subsequent telephonic conference tomorrow afternoon, April 8.

Second, Defendants avow that Sheriff Arpaio's complete personal immigration file is being provided to the Plaintiffs. Defendants' counsel further avows that that file contains all immigration-related press releases for the relevant period.

Third, Defendants shall immediately provide the Plaintiffs with all responsive shift summaries, incident reports, and CAD data.

Fourth, to the extent that Counsel have prepared and reviewed with witnesses documents that the witnesses testified refreshed their recollection, the interests of justice in insuring the fairness and accuracy of such information requires that those documents also be disclosed to the Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Evid. 612.

Fifth, the Court also discussed with counsel the need to submit to Magistrate Judge Boyle the documents that it had not previously submitted unless Defendants inform Magistrate Judge Boyle that they no longer claim any privilege or immunity in the documents and have provided them to the parties.

Sixth, the Court further discussed the need to set possible supplemental hearing dates to the extent that MCSO's relevant self-investigative and disciplinary processes have not yet been completed but may be relevant to any appropriate remedy implicated by the April 21-24 hearings. Counsel for Defendant acknowledges that she will promptly ascertain and inform the Court and its monitor concerning the dates for completion of these investigations and the imposition of discipline, if any, by the MCSO. Parties acknowledge their availability for such possibly necessary supplemental hearings on June 16-19, 2015 and are directed to keep these dates clear for possible hearings."

ECF 995 (Text only entry).

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues a discovery order. ECF 993. From the docket entry:

"ORDER that Defendants shall provide Judge Boyle with Documents 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of their privilege log no later than April 7, 2015 at 5:00 P.M. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 4/7/2015. (KMG) (Entered: 04/07/2015)"

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues a sealed discovery order. ECF 993. From the docket entry:

"SEALED ORDER Pursuant to the Court's April 6, 2015 Order (Doc. 992 ), the Court hereby files this Order and the documents appended to this Order under seal. This Order and the appended documents shall remain under seal until otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 4/6/15. (cc: Michele Iafrate, defense counsel; Greg Como, Dane Dodd, and M. Craig Murdy, counsel for Brian Sands)(MAP) (Entered: 04/07/2015)"

Stephen Lemons reports on the mounting costs to Maricopa County taxpayers of Arpaio's violations of law. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Costs Taxpayers $14.2 Million in Melendres and DOJ Lawsuits,” Phoenix New Times, Apr. 7, 2015.

Apr. 9, 2015

Judge Snow holds another telephonic status conference in Melendres. Thereafter he issues the following order:

"ORDER. The Court met this morning on a telephonic status conference at which all parties were represented.

Outside defense counsel shall review the discovery requests with all noticed possible contemnors in an attempt to ascertain and discover documents that may be responsive to the Court's February 12 Order. She will take other reasonable steps the parties deem necessary to ensure adequate compliance with the discovery requests.

The MCSO will also provide the Sheriff's immigration file from 2011 through 2013 which has not yet been provided.

In the event that late-disclosed discovery reveals information or issues not disclosed prior to the April hearings, or to the extent that such matters arise due to MCSO's failure to complete its relevant investigations or otherwise between the April hearing and the June dates set for the supplemental hearing, those matters may be raised in any supplemental hearing that proves necessary."

ECF 1002 (text only entry).

📄 Dennis Montgomery <dennis@ncoder.net> emails Mike Zullo (1tick@earthlink.net), re: “Home.” See Melendres ECF 1166 at 25-26:

I am still trying to find a place to live. My life is in chaos since I have no home As soon as I can get into a home and my needs are met, I will continue the work to the best of my ability. You obviously know by now the sheriff enforced an eviction notice on us, and removed us from the Yarrow property. Our situation is precarious at best.

📄 Mike Zullo sends email to Dennis Montgomery (and Larry Klayman), with copy to Brian Mackiewicz, in response to Montgomery's email referenced above. See Melendres ECF 1166 at 24-25. In this email, Zullo states as follows (emphasis added):

While I understand your situation to some degree, the truth here is you knew for months you would have to move out. You were in fact contractually obligated and paid a total of 15K weeks ago just prior to vacating the residence as you formally agreed. To portray this event as if you were unceremoniously or undeservingly thrown out of that house really is a stretch.

Looking past that, your condition of not working again until you have a residence is understandable to some extent however, the idea that once again we are at the mercy of you or your circumstance is not going to be something we will be able to contend with much longer. On my end of this you were compensated $10,000 from a charitable organization for a service and software that I have yet to receive in any worthwhile or usable configuration. I will not allow this organization to be victimized. This matter is going to have to be resolved very soon. Additionally, the agreement between you and the Sheriff’s Office to forgo official notification to our contact in DC is now very long in the tooth and unproductive for us, as you have again failed to deliver anything as agreed.

You also recall we have 60 hard drives that you created, now in our custody. The Sheriff’s Office painfully drove them back to AZ as purported evidence of classified information gathered by you. You will recall we had those drives examined and discovered there was absolutely nothing of value on them. To be clear there was nothing of a classified nature contained on any of them and as matter of fact there was evidence of fabrication on numinous levels. Dennis I don’t have to tell you what this smells of do I?

With your pending litigation in FL. You are aware that both Brian and I had met with the defendant that last time we were in DC. He has our business cards. It will only be a matter of time before we are contacted by his attorney. Also in light of your most recent attempt to offer testimony as a WB and the fact that we have a videotaped Free Talk agreement you made with the AZAG and you have breached that agreements as well, this is not something I am prepared to allow to move forward without the proper notifications made on our end under these agonizing circumstances.

Sixteen long months of ZERO s and just empty promises and lip service. Enough…

We are going to allow you one last attempt to honor your agreement with us and set a hard date in the very near future to complete the work as agreed. I will wait to hear from you or Larry . Remember this is going to be a make or break moment. Time is of the essences Dennis…

Apr. 10, 2015

Arpaio and Sheridan file a “Supplement” to their motion to vacate the contempt hearings. ECF 1003. Apparently in response to Judge Snow’s reported comments that he wanted Arpaio to have “skin in the game,” defendants modified their proposed remedies to make clear that “Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sheridan will personally make a contribution of a total of $100,000 to a civil rights organization approved by the Court….” ECF 1003 at 2. They requested expedited oral argument on their motion the next day. ECF 1005.

Apr. 13, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs respond in opposition to Arpaio/Sheridan's motion to vacate (ECF 1004), asserting that “the evidence, much of it yet to be seen by the Court, will demonstrate that there were intentional and, as to the December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction, extended violations of the Court’s orders, which is relevant to the inquiry into the proper remedy for those violations. Defendants’ proposed stipulation of facts fails to recite the facts that the scheduled hearing will bring to light.” ECF 1004 at 3.

Apr. 14, 2015

Judge Snow denies Arpaio’s and Sheridan's request to vacate the hearings without prejudice. ECF 1007.

Apr. 15, 2015

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues its opinion in the Melendres appeal, affirming in nearly all aspects, Judge Snow’s permanent (and supplemental) injunction orders. From the Summary (which is not an official part of the opinion but is “prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.):

The panel first held that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, a non-jural entity under Arizona state law, improperly was named as a party in the action. The panel ordered that Maricopa County be substituted as a party in lieu of the Sheriff’s Office and also that on remand, the district court may consider dismissal of Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity because an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.

Addressing the defendants’ sufficiency of the evidence argument, the panel held the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendants’ unconstitutional policies extended beyond the saturation patrol context. Moreover, the panel held that the district court did not err in holding that the named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent class members who were stopped during non-saturation patrols. For the same reasons, the panel held that there was no error in the district court’s class certification order.

The panel held that the injunction was not overbroad simply because it included non-saturation patrols. The panel further upheld specific provisions of the injunction pertaining to corrective training and supervision procedures and provisions requiring specific data collection and videorecording of traffic stops. The panel additionally held that most of the provisions dealing with the scope of the appointed Monitor’s assessment authority were narrowly tailored to remedying the specific constitutional violations.

The panel held that the provisions of the injunction which broadly require the appointed Monitor to consider the internal investigations and reports of officer misconduct created a problem to the extent that such internal investigations and reports were unrelated to the constitutional violations found by the district court. The panel held that these provisions were not narrowly tailored to addressing the relevant violations of federal law. The panel therefore vacated those particular provisions and ordered the district court to tailor them so as to address only the constitutional violations at issue in this case. [9th Cir., No. 13-16285, 13-17238, ECF 69-1.]

Apr. 16, 2015

📄 Mike Zullo [1tick@earthlinknet] emails Larry Klayman, “David Webb” and Brian Mackiewicz. This email is a “reply” to the April 9 email from Zullo referenced above. See Melendres ECF 1166 at 23-24; see also here, for information re: "David Webb." In this email, Zullo states as follows.

Larry,

Per our phone conversation , I need to know Dennis’s intentions on moving forward on a timely basis and honor his agreement with us and set a hard date to complete the paid work on the BC* as he agreed to perform.. This work has nothing to do with the other issues he is dealing with and as of last month he was one week away from completion. That week as others came and went. Open ended e mails of promises of continued efforts simple are no longer reliable given the history. Please let me know of his intentions to provide a completion date in the very near future.

Mike

*Note: BC likely refers to “birth certificate” – i.e., the so-called investigation into Obama’s birth certificate that Zullo and Arpaio have been publicizing since 2011.

Court Monitor Warshaw issues his Third Quarterly Report. [ECF 1010.] From the Concluding Remarks (id. at 112-13):

MCSO has made some noteworthy progress during the review period. We assess compliance with 89 Paragraphs of the Order. MCSO is in Phase 1 compliance with 31 of those Paragraphs, or 44%. In 19 Paragraphs, Phase 1 compliance is not applicable – that is, a policy is not required. MCSO is in Phase 2 compliance with 23 Paragraphs, or 26%.

Most of MCSO’s gains in compliance stem from the successful delivery during this review period of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment training, and the associated publication of policies which were distributed and referenced in this training. MCSO must develop the capacity and processes to develop and distribute policies that are not provided in conjunction with a major training initiative. … While we recognize that by necessity each Patrol District must have some autonomy and the flexibility to address crime and quality of life issues which are unique to its service area, we do note that in too many instances, there is a lack of standardization from District to District in practices impacted by the Order. ... MCSO must be mindful of those practices that should be standardized across the agency, including but not limited to those required by the Order. High, and consistent quality of police service must be a standard value of the organization and its most important deliverable to the public. Anything short of this is wholly unacceptable.

While we will not comment on specific investigations that we are monitoring as part of our expanded duties, a common theme associated with many of them is the mishandling of nonagency property that comes into the possession of MCSO. The suicide of a former deputy brought this issue to the forefront, but subsequent investigations revealed how potentially widespread the problems are, impacting every District and some specialized units. Most troubling is MCSO’s apparent lack of urgency to address the issue. As recently as our December site visit, we were learning of unsecured property – much of it potentially evidentiary in nature – being found in used and unused workspaces and in vehicles. Each District handles seized property differently, but a common theme in each is a lack of generally accepted minimum security measures and appropriate documentation.

Finally, as I stated in my opening comments, complying with the Order cannot be looked at as a written exercise. To its credit, MCSO has made some progress in its technical compliance with many of the Order’s requirements. Much of the credit for this is attributable to CCID’s oversight of compliance processes and its attention to detail in assembling appropriate documentation.

However, at the very same time that MCSO is diligently trying to demonstrate compliance with the letter of the Order, several members of its leadership team – including the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy – are facing potential civil and criminal contempt charges for egregious behaviors which demonstrate a clear lack of respect for the spirit of the Order. Until such time as intent matches practice, MCSO will not be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the community and the Court that meaningful changes have been made to the fabric of the organization.

Apr. 19, 2015

Carl Gallups provides an update on the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation during his Freedom Friday show (PPSimmons, LIKE INVESTIGATING A MURDER!" Zullo Investigation CONTINUES!, YouTube, Apr. 19 2015) (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~00:43] ... First of all, I talked to Mike Zullo recently. He and Arpaio are still going full strong. They're still gathering collecting evidence. They're still jumping legal hurdles that this is a criminal investigation, folks. It's not a political .. witch hunt. ... It's like a murder investigation. And I was cop for years. If you've got a murder investigation, you don't just slap it before the courts before, before it's ready. These things take time. And this is an investigation of fraud, forgery, and possible criminal activity in the White House. That takes time. And so, they're in the process; they tell me that it's still going forward. I can only report to you what they're saying. I can't make them do anything. They don't work for me. I don't snap my fingers and Sheriff Arpaio jumps, or Mike Zullo, ok? So they're telling me that it's all still going forward; in fact, Mike has been telling me some of the things that he's still doing, so I mean, it all sounds very legit to me. So that's all we can do is just wait.

Apr. 20, 2015

Judge Snow holds a teleconference to address open discovery and other matters. Among the matters discussed were MCSO’s failure to turn over required documents in discovery. Per the subsequent order:

ORDER. The Court met telephonically with the parties this afternoon regarding documents that are responsive to the Court's February 12 order that either still have not been provided by the MCSO or were provided by deposition witnesses after the second time that their depositions were re-opened.

The Plaintiffs request that document production be completed and supervised by the Monitor and the supplemental hearing be firmly scheduled to account for this failure to timely produce documents. Defendants raise some objections, while not contesting that responsive documents were not timely provided by the MCSO and may not yet be completely provided.

The Court will address the requested relief at the beginning of tomorrow's hearing.

The parties further discussed procedural matters, Maricopa County's status as a party to this matter as well as MCSO's not-yet-terminated internal investigations and matters presented by the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion.

These matters will also be placed on the record at the beginning of tomorrow's hearing.

Plaintiff estimates that despite the need to continue the hearing to the June dates reserved by the Court, the Plaintiff will have four full days of testimony to present this week given the time likely involved in cross-examination."

ECF 1013 (Text Only Entry).

📄 Mike Zullo <1tick@earthlinknet> emails ? recipient(s). This email is a “reply” to the April 16 email from Zullo to Larry Klayman, “David Webb,” and Brian Mackiewicz referenced above. See Melendres ECF 1166 at 23-24. In this email, Zullo states as follows:

Larry,

This is now my second request asking for a date set for the completion of the work Dennis Montgomery has been promising for over 16 months.. Mr. Montgomery’s behavior and lack of performance flies in the face of his numerous promises pledging to complete the work.. This is especially concerning given the face that Mr. Montgomery needs validation like a drowning man needs oxygen. His behavior simply erodes whatever thread of credibility he may have left. In fact as of this date, our experience dealing with Mr. Montgomery mirrors what has been written about him.. It is apparent to us that this is just a game of running the clock in the hope Montgomery can position himself as a “Whistle Blower” with some jurisdiction and with your help get out from under his obligation to the us. In our opinion Montgomery does not qualify under Federal Whistle Blower protections. A risky game….

I would like a response by close of business on Wednesday April 22nd, 2015. If we do not here from you or your client we will complete final reports, close the matter and make the appropriate notifications.

Larry we have bent over backwards to help your client and you however, it appears that you have changed course and are no longer work to our mutual benefit.

Mike

Larry Klayman responds to the above email from Mike Zullo, copying Dennis Montgomery and "David Webb." See Melendres ECF 1166 at 23. Klayman states as follows: "I'll call tomorrow best"

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 4-page document – Email from Larry Klayman to Mike Zullo copying David Webb [Montgomery] and Dennis [Montgomery] Re: 2nd Request dated 4/20/2015 – is later listed as a potential Exhibit 2279 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation - and this document may well be the same as the 4-page email referenced above and produced at ECF 1166.

Apr. 21-23 2015

Judge Snow presides over four-day evidentiary hearing. See Stephen Lemons, “Judge Snow Rips the Lid Off an MCSO Riddled With Corruption, Confirming My Reporting in the Process,” Phoenix New Times, April 29, 2015, for a summary of highlights from the four-day proceedings.

Apr. 21, 2015

Day 1 of the Civil Contempt Evidentiary Hearing. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1017. Key events during this day included:

MCSO Counsel Liddy (MC Attorney representing Arpaio/MCSO) notified the court that a potential conflict existed with his continued representation.
Chief David Trombi testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs, defendants, and the Court
Sergeant Brett Palmer testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs, defendants, and the Court.
Chief Brian Sands testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs and defendants

For highlights of the day, see Stephen Lemons, “MCSO Sergeant Implicates Arpaio in Willful Defiance of Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, April 22, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, “MCSO Sergeant: Sheriff Arpaio Violated Court Order On Immigration Enforcement,” KJZZ, April 21, 2015.

Apr. 22, 2015

Day 2 of the Civil Contempt Evidentiary Hearing. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1021. Key events during this day included:

Attorney Douglas Schwab (MC Attorney representing Arpaio) notifies the Court of a conflict that may exist with his continued representation.
Chief Brian Sands testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs and defendants
Lieutenant Brian Jakowinicz testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs, defendants, and the Court
Sergeant Michael Trowbridge testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs and defendants
Emily Doan testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs and defendants
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs.

For highlights of the day, see Stephen Lemons, “Noose Tightens Around Arpaio's Neck as He Channels Ronnie Reagan in Day Two of Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, April 23, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio Takes The Stand In Contempt Of Court Case,” KJZZ, April 22, 2015.

Apr. 23, 2015

Day 3 of the Civil Contempt Evidentiary Hearing. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1027. Key events during this day included:

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs and the Court (revealing both the Seattle Operation and the Grissom Matter).
Joseph Sousa testifies in response to questions from plaintiffs

For highlights of the day, see Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Cops to Investigating Federal Judge, Judge's Wife, Confirming New Times Story,” Phoenix New Times, April 24, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio Admits To Secret Investigation Of Judge's Wife“ and “Arpaio's Admission Of Investigation Into Judge's Wife Stuns Courtroom,” KJZZ, April 23, 2015.

Apr. 23-? 2015

MCSO produces some, but not all, Grissom Matter and Seattle Operation investigation documents. On April 23, after Arpaio testified to the allegedly Snow-related investigations undertaken by or on behalf of him/MCSO, the Court “stated that a hold should be placed on all records that related to the subject investigations including electronic data, funding of the operation, all phone records, e-mails, reports, etc. The Court next sent the monitor to take possession of those records.” [ECF 1035 at 1.] More than 3,300 pages were apparently produced in the immediate aftermath (id. at 2) along with an external hard drive containing two terabytes of data (id. at 3).

Apr. 24, 2015

Day 4 of the Civil Contempt Evidentiary Hearing. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1043. Key events during this day included:

Timothy Casey attends, with his counsel, Karen Clark.
Deputy Chief Gerard Sheridan testifies in response to questions from his attorney and the Court. Sheridan confirms several aspects of Arpaio's testimony regarding the Seattle Operation and the Grissom Matter.

For highlights of the day, see Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Chief Deputy Confirms Wack Investigations of Judge's Wife, CIA, DOJ, etc.,” Phoenix New Times, April 25, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, "Arpaio's Second-In-Command Testifies In Contempt Hearing" and “Sheriff Arpaio's Chief Deputy: We Did Not Investigate Judge’s Wife,” KJZZ, April 24, 2015.

Apr. 27, 2015

Judge Snow issues and order, which notes that “[d]uring the evidentiary hearing on April 23, 2015, the Court ordered the MCSO Defendants to immediately disclose certain materials discussed in the Court's colloquy with Sheriff Arpaio [i.e., Grissom Matter and Seattle Operation materials]. Because of the need for the disclosure to occur on an expedited basis, the documents were not initially Bates stamped for control purposes.” [ECF 1032 at 1.] It also noted that the MCSO was still in the process of producing “some such documents.” (Id.) After setting forth a procedure for production of Bates-stamped documents and a privilege log, the Court directed the Monitor to “compare the Bates-stamped documents provided by the MCSO defendants with the set of documents provided by the MCSO Defendants without bates numbers to verify that the two sets of documents are identical. The Monitor will inform the Court as soon as possible as to any lack of identity of the documents sets, and the particulars of such apparent discrepancies. Any issues that arise will be resolved by the Court.” [ECF 1032 at 1-2.]

It appears that, on April 27, Attorneys Thomas Liddy (Maricopa County) and Karen Clark (Tim Casey) notified the Court regarding some documents in their possession, apparently related to the Grissom Matter. [Sealed Order, ECF 1033 .] On April 29, they each submitted to the magistrate judge copies of “(1) an October 23, 2013 letter from Mr. Casey to an outside private investigator, Don Vogel; and (2) a November 6, 2013 letter from Mr. Casey to Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, copied to Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, Deputy Chief John MacIntyre, and Mr. Liddy.” [ECF 1053 at 1.]

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A document – Seattle Investigation (Exemplars of documents produced to the Monitor on April 27, 201[5] and contained on one external hard drive) (P. Ex. 2073) – is later listed as an exhibit 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

Apr. 28, 2015

Arpaio/MCSO filee an “Objection to Court-Ordered Disclosure Procedure,” in which they complain both about the content of Judge Snow’s questions to Arpaio and the Court’s requirement for immediate production of the documents. [ECF 1035.]

Larry Klayman emails Michele Iafrate (Arpaio counsel), copying Zullo. Among other things, he admonishes Iafrate for failing to object to Judge Snow's questioning of Arpaio and Sheridan, stating that "[t]he failure to object may foreclose any appeal on these matters." See Melendres, ECF 1198-2 at 4. This email will later be revealed by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to Klayman's application for pro hac vice admission in the case.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Meeting request from CD Sheridan to Anglin re Conference Call-- Lt. Anglin, B. Mackiewicz, and (tentatively) Capt. Bailey dated 4/28/2014 [2015?] (P. Ex. 2075) – is later listed as an exhibit 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 the Plaintiff's description expressly references the Seattle Operation.

Apr. 29, 2015

Arpaio responds to Klayman's April 28 email as follows:

I am represented by Ms. Iafrate in the Melendres matter civilly. I am represented in that case for purposes of possible criminal content [sic], by Mel McDonald. Your e-mail indicates that you represent Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery. That would, and does, create a conflict here in Arizona. I want to be sure that you know that you do not represent me in this matter, here in Arizona.

See Melendres, ECF 1198-2 at 3. This email will later be revealed by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to Klayman's application for pro hac vice admission in the case.

Klayman responds to Arpaio's email, again copying Zullo:

I agree good client and friend. It was never my intention to represent you, as you have Michelle Iafrate. I just wanted to coordinate my representation of Montgomery and Zullo with her. But she did not return my calls and this is frankly not professional and not in yours or anyone's best interests. We should work together for the common good.

See Melendres, ECF 1198-2 at 3. This email will later be revealed by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to Klayman's application for pro hac vice admission in the case.

The Melendres Plaintiffs respond to Arpaio's objection regarding production of documents, noting prior MCSO history of spoliation of evidence. With respect to the immediate document sequestration, the Plaintiff’s note:

“[T]he Court’s order directing the Monitoring Team immediately to gather and to sequester documents was entirely proper and prudent in light of Defendants’ prior history of noncompliance with the Court’s orders relating to document preservation and production, including the events giving rise to Defendants’ contempt of the Court’s May 14, 2014, order, their spoliation of evidence earlier in this litigation, and their more recent noncompliance with the Court’s February 12, 2015, discovery order.”

ECF 1039. at 3. Regarding the Court’s questioning, plaintiffs note that:

“[T]he Court has ample inherent powers to inquire at any time about possibly improper activities of a party in the context of a case, especially where the activities are the subject of a press article. Further, it is apparent that MCSO had ample notice of the subject matter contained in the Phoenix New Times article by Stephen Lemons: Sheriff Arpaio indicated that he had previously read the article, and an MCSO spokesperson was, in fact, quoted within. If there were any objection to questions on this matter, they should have been interposed during the questioning itself.”

Id.

May 3, 2015

On his Freedom Friday show, Carl Gallups discusses Dennis Montgomery and a recent WND article indicating that Supreme Court Justices were targeted by the NSA. He then attempts to tie that information to the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation. See PPSimmons, The Tangled Web of the Zullo Investigation! Carl Gallups Gives the Latest!, YouTube, May 3, 2015. He then states (layperson's unofficial transcript):

[~3:05] But I DO know, I DO know, after just speaking to Zullo just a day or two ago, that the investigation is still ongoing. And the plan to come forward with the information is still first and foremost. … Now, as I said years ago, any of this can change at any time, but now you’re watching some things unfold, and this is the point I’m trying to get to: now you’re beginning to understand when Mike Zullo has been saying for the last months that there are legal hurdles to jump through. You’re beginning to see the tip of the iceberg of that. But now Arpaio’s being drug into court … I’m not at liberty to say how all that’s connected … but but but it’s connected more than likely to all of this in one way or the other. There are connections and inner-connections and it goes deeper than you can imagine I have been told. And then this name comes up in several articles – Dennis Montgomery – and he’s come up before and is he an informant to the Arpaio case, etcetera. So the bottom line is folks, now you’re beginning to get a little whiff, a little smell, a little taste of what Zullo has been trying to say. You know, this is why he can’t come forward and do a bunch of conferences and news conferences and divulge information, because it’s getting so deep, and now we’ve got federal cases and accusations and outing of people and information and, so, just keep your eyes on it. And what I’m allowed to speak, I will. …

May 4, 2015

Judge Snow rather summarily overrules Arpaio’s “Objection to Court-Ordered Disclosure Procedure.” Regarding the documents, the Court orders the defendants to complete their privilege review and turn over Bates-stamped copies to the monitor and plaintiffs, by the May 8 status conference the following:

“all documents, memoranda, reports, records, notes, e-mails, social media messages, photographs, audio/video recordings, contracts, meeting minutes, timesheets, financial records, or other materials disclosed to the Monitor during the evidentiary hearing that pertain to the Seattle, Washington/Dennis Montgomery and Grissom investigations.” [ECF 1046 at 1-2.]

The Court continues:

"The Court notes that counsel for Defendants were present and conducting a review for privilege contemporaneously with the initial disclosure of documents to the Monitor. Counsel has now had over a week to continue this process. No further production has apparently occurred, however, since the date of this Court’s initial orders on April 23 and 24. The process set forth by the Court with respect to these documents is necessary in light of Defendants’ history of spoliation of evidence and non-compliance with orders relating to document discovery." (Id.)

Additionally, the Court held that “Defendants’ contention that Sheriff Arpaio’s due process rights were implicated by the April 23, 2015 colloquy with the Court is untimely and without merit.” (Id. at 2.)

May 5, 2015

Judge Snow expands the upcoming evidentiary hearing by four days. On May 5, the Court issues an order setting a status conference for May 8. The order outlined several matters to be addressed during that hearing, including the following: “Whether any counsel of record believes steps are necessary to comply with his or her obligations under E.R. 3.3(a)(3), and the appropriate scheduling of such steps.” [ECF 1049 (PDF) at 1, link added.] “The scope of the present hearing and the possible scheduling of additional dates in June” was also included as a subject for discussion.

★ Seattle Operation Exhibit. A 2-page document -- E-mail chain re Melendres Court Order dated 5/5/2015 (MELC417670-MELC417672) -- is later admitted into evidence in the Melendres 2015 contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2014. While this document has not been made public, the following information has been disclosed during the hearings:

The document is an email chain between Julie Ahlquist and Seagraves; other authors/recipients include Jenise Moreno, Jack MacIntyres. See Seagraves' Oct. 1, 2015 testimony at 2162.

Ahlquist contacted Seagraves "in reference to finding out about a FOIA request that had been made for documents relating to the Seattle investigation, and so she was calling to find out if I knew any information about that, because she had no record of a report of an investigation in Seattle, and wanted to know if I could shed some light on that." Id.

Note. It is unclear whether the "found property report" referenced in this document is the same "found property report" dated Nov. 19, 2014.

May 6, 2015

Stephen Lemons reports on the December 2013 meeting between Montgomery, MCSO and the Arizona Attorney General's office. See Stephen Lemons,“Arpaio Sought Assistance From Former AG Tom Horne's Office in Dealing With Confidential Informant," Phoenix New Times, May 6, 2015.

★ Zullo emails Arpaio via Arpaio's assistant, Amy Lake. While the full contents of this email are not currently public, at some information about the email has been revealed via Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony -- namely that the email contains a link to Stephen Lemons' article, "Arpaio Sought Assistance From Former AG Tom Horne's Office in Dealing With Confidential Informant," referenced above.

This email is later admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit 2281 - "MCSO Memo from Joseph Arpaio to Captain Russ Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 3 (Follow-up) dated 8/18/2015)." See Arpaio October 2 testimony at 2419. In connection with the discussion of this document, the following exchange occurred during Arpaio's testimony.

Q. Were you still getting verbal reports from Mr. Zullo about the status of the Montgomery investigation in May 2015?

A. I don't recall the time.

Q. Well, Sheriff, you've never stopped talking, you've never stopped talking to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about Mr. Montgomery's work, correct?

A. Some of the work, yes.

Id. at 2421-2422.

May 7, 2015

Judge Snow orders that Grissom Matter documents must be produced, with redactions, because Arpaio and Sheridan waived the attorney-client privilege when they voluntarily testified as to the factual matters contained in the documents (i.e., the investigation). [ECF 1053 at 3-4.] The two letters, in redacted form, are attached to the order.

Klayman associate Jonathan Moseley files a Motion to Intervene [ECF 1057] and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene [ECF 1058] as well as a "Motion to Disqualify Judge G. Murray Snow Under 28 U.S.C. §144" [ECF 1067] -- all on on behalf of Dennis Montgomery. (These pleadings will be stricken from the record on May 14 because Moseley is not admitted to practice law in the Arizona Federal District Court.) In the Motion to Intervene, Moseley claims that Montgomery claims that the Court has seized his physical property and intellectual property (e.g., ECF 1057 at 4.)

Attached to the Memo in Support of Motion to Disqualify (ECF 1058) is a Declaration of Dennis Montgomery. Among other things, Montgomery asserts:

16) I have become concerned that Judge Snow's personal interests in these matters could cloud the judgment of any normal human being so as to confuse the work of the "Cold Case Posse" and myself as being only about Judge Snow."

ECF 1058 at 78 (emphasis added).

📄 Seattle Operation-Related Document. The MCSO's Bill Knight submits a memo to Michele Iafrate and Monitoring Team re: "Production of Records Request Delivered Monday, April 27, 2015." This document is later docketed as ECF 1507-10, filed in support of Plaintiffs Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney), and contains a substantial amount of information regarding the Seattle Operation.

May 8, 2015

Judge Snow holds a status conference in the Melendres case. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1086. Among other matters, the Court

requires MCSO to notify the CIA regarding documents obtained from Montgomery that he alleged were improperly obtained from the CIA. ECF 1064 at 2];
schedules weekly status conferences until the evidentiary hearings recommence on June 16 (Id. at 1-2);
expands the evidentiary hearing the week after the June 16-19 hearing – i.e., June 23 at 9:30, June 24 at 1:30, June 25 at 1:30 and June 26 at 9:30. (Id. at 2.)

During the hearing, the Dennis Montgomery documents provided to the MCSO are discussed:

THE COURT: * * * [p. 29] Apparently, the materials that you are providing involve records that I -- and, Bob, if I misstate this, tell me -- but I believe the monitor on first cut thinks, based partly on Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony, there was something I hadn't anticipated. I had not anticipated that Mr. Montgomery would have done a file dump with the MCSO of those files that he apparently procured without authoriza- -- or claims to have procured without authorization from the CIA.

Is that an issue?

MS. IAFRATE: That is an issue, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And in those files, at least according to the initial review of my monitor, there is a number of names, addresses, telephone numbers of individuals. [30] So I'm just going to instruct the parties, I've instructed Ms. Iafrate, and I think she's doing her best to comply, to review this material for attorney-client privilege or work product immunity and do a privilege log, but if she doesn't, but all the other documents she's providing in Bates stamped order, and I gather that we may some need to discuss and work that through to all parties so you're all getting material that has peoples names, addresses, and telephone numbers --

MS. IAFRATE: As well as Social Security numbers and banking documents, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So there are some banking documents and Social Security numbers. None of that material can be released without authorization of the Court. All right? You can have it. You can review it. You can use it in preparing for this action. But you cannot review it -- or you cannot release it without authorization of the Court.

Ms. Iafrate, it occurred to me that if in -- and I know that Chief Deputy Sheridan said that -- and again, Chief, you're here. I don't mean to put words in your mouth; I'm just trying to summarize essentially what your testimony was -- that Mr. Montgomery, the MCSO has determined that he was not credible. And again, you can correct that characterization if you wish to.

And so it may be that -- well, I'm sorry. It may be [31] that the doc -- it may be that his assertion that these actually were documents that are a CIA dump are not correct. But it occurs to me that if there is a chance that you believe that you did receive CIA files, if you haven't already done it, if you have not already done it, I'm going to ask you to contact the chief counsel for the CIA and inform him that you received these documents, the date you received these documents, and see if they wish to intervene in this action and take any protective measures with respect to these documents. Do you have any problem doing that?

MS. IAFRATE: I do not have any problem doing that, Your Honor. I think, I think that that would be prudent.

THE COURT: All right. Any objection by anybody if I order Ms. Iafrate to do that?

MR. YOUNG: None from plaintiffs, Your Honor.

MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.

MR. McDONALD: None, Your Honor.

MR. COMO: I have none, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Other issues that you have, Ms. Iafrate.

MS. IAFRATE: I do have other issues regarding -- regarding that production. I received a call from Chief Girvin yesterday very concerned regarding the release of these documents to others rather than the monitors, and I advised them that I was ordered to do so by Your Honor in –[32]

THE COURT: And you were.

MS. IAFRATE: -- docket 1032. So --

THE COURT: No, no, you clearly were. I hadn't anticipated that you had a document dump like this, so you're right, I did make that order.

MS. IAFRATE: So the monitors have received documents well before plaintiffs, because we were given the opportunity to then review them and Bates stamp them and get them in order to send them out to plaintiffs as well as the other attorneys. There is a hard drive that has over two terabytes of data dump on it in sub-folders.

THE COURT: Are these the alleged CIA documents?

MS. IAFRATE: Yes. This has --

THE COURT: Let me ask, are you -- and I'm sorry to interrupt you -- are you able to segregate what the alleged CIA documents are from other documents that were prepared by Mr. Montgomery?

MS. IAFRATE: To a point, Your Honor. This hard drive is the one that's most troubling, and I think that it -- I think that the monitors would agree that it would be the most troubling, not only the content that's on this hard drive is personal in nature to hundreds of thousands of alleged victims of identity theft, but also to duplicate it and get it in a process that would be usable for plaintiffs and other attorneys would require weeks of effort on the part of our third-party [33] vendor, and each shot would be approximately $87,000.

So the paper and the thumb drives and the other information that has been provided to us, we have pushed that out to plaintiffs, but this hard drive that I believe is concerning -- and I won't speak for Chief Girvin, but he expressed concern, too -- this is the bulk of the data dump that I think that we should be most cautious about.

THE COURT: All right. Let me -- well, does anybody have anything else they want to say before I venture some thoughts?

It seems to me that we can do this. In addition to the concern that the monitor raised, he's also indicated to me, at least based on a rough initial look, that there are clearly documents in that file that are very relevant to this litigation. And I believe that the plaintiffs have to have a chance to look at that, and I guess -- so I don't want to prevent them from looking at those things, but I see your point that, you know, this data dump -- whether it's real, whether it's false, whether it's partly real, partly false -- may be very large, and may have lots of information.

Judge Snow also issues an order regarding Moseley's Motion for Admittance Pro Hac Vice (to represent Montgomery), indicating the apparent conflict given Klayman's representation of Arpaio in other matters, and attaching Moseley's letter to his order, apparently to ensure that counsel of record had received it. [ECF 1060.]

Week of May 10-14, 2014

Travis Anglin is apparently in Seattle, meeting with Montgomery. As of this time, Montgomery is still on the MCSO payroll. See Melendres ECF 1365-1 at 10 (Anglin Depo at 74).

May 11, 2015

Montgomery Writ Petition. Larry Klayman files a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit seeking Judge Snow’s disqualification, on behalf of Dennis Montgomery. Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re: Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-71433 (9th Cir. May 11, 2015). In this Petition, Klayman asserts that the ownership of Montgomery's intellectual property has already been litigated, citing to 2006 and 2007 Nevada Federal District Court opinions.* See id. at 7.

Note*: Montgomery's (Klayman's) assertions are - at best - inaccurate, even assuming that the "property" at issue in the Seattle Operation is the same property that was subject to the Nevada opinions.

(1) The Search Case decisions upon which Klayman relies expressly did not address "ownership" of the property. Rather, the decisions required the FBI to return property seized from Montgomery's home and storage units. Indeed, Judge Pro expressly recognized that "ownership" of (at least some) of the seized property was hotly disputed -- and expressly held that such property remained subject to the preliminary injunction previously entered against Montgomery. See Sectec Astronomy Mar. 19, 2007.

(2) During the ensuing eTreppid v. Montgomery/Montgomery eTreppid litigation, Montgomery revealed that some of the materials seized by the FBI was in fact eTreppid property. See, e.g., Sectec Astronomy May 14, 2008, May 23, 2008, June 10, 2008 (Montgomery testimony), Aug. 18, 2008 (Montgomery testimony).

(3) Montgomery entered into a settlement agreement with eTreppid parties on Sept. 16, 2008 to settle the "ownership issues." See Sectec Astronomy Sept. 23, 2008 (and links provided therein). Per that agreement, Montgomery (and co-settlers) agreed that the source code at issue would serve as "collateral" for the required payments to eTreppid. See id. Because Montgomery breached the settlement agreement, eTreppid secured rights to the collateral. See, e.g., Sectec Astronomy Nov. 18, 2008, June 18, 2009.

(4) Additionally, as more fully summarized at Sectec Astronomy Dec. 6, 2012, any then-existing intellectual property that Montgomery did still own was part of his bankruptcy estate. That intellectual property, which he valued at $10,000,000 on his schedules, was included in saleable assets that were sold to Michael Flynn - along with all other salable assets, in early 2013.

As such, whatever "intellectual" property was included in the property seized by the FBI and subject to the Search Case orders that Klayman cites belong to either eTreppid or Flynn -- not Montgomery.

May 12, 2015

Montgomery Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit summarily denies Klayman’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Melendres case. Order, In re: Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-71433 (9th Cir. May 12, 2015).

May 13, 2015

Judge Snow issues another order setting the agenda for the May 14 status conference. Again, the Court included, as an agenda item, “Whether any counsel of record believes steps are necessary to comply with his or her obligations under E.R. 3.3(a)(3), and the appropriate scheduling of such steps.” [ECF 1079 at 1, link added.]

Arpaio's counsel file a “Response to Court’s Inquiry Regarding Ethical Rule 3.3(a)(3). In that document, counsel quoted Arpaio’s testimony from the transcript in which he stated that the Phoenix New Times story regarding Montgomery’s investigation into Judge Snow [i.e., the Seattle Operation] was untrue, and attached a declaration from Arpaio in which he unequivocally stated (among other things) that “At no time was Judge Snow or his wife the subject or target of investigation.” [ECF 1083; 1083-1.] According to the Arpaio declaration attached to this document, Arpaio declared “under penalty of perjury” as follows:

“4. On day three of the hearing (April 23, 2015), Judge Snow asked me some questions.

5. Judge Snow asked if I was aware of anyone investigating him. responded, "No." Next, the judge asked if I was aware of any of his family members being investigated. l responded, Yes." 'Not by our office." (Transcript. p. 647:8-18].”

6. When I stated that I knew of an investigation of the judge's family member, I knew that an investigator was hired to interview a woman named Karen Grissom, her husband and her son regarding the circumstances surrounding the message Mrs. Grissom sent me on Facebook.

7. At no time was an investigation initiated against Judge Snow or any of his family members.

8. At no time was Judge Snow or his wife the subject or target of investigation.

9. As Chief Deputy Sheridan testified the following day, the investigator was not hired to investigate Mrs. Snow, but to investigate the credibility of Mrs. Grissom's statements and to verify the circumstances surrounding them. (4-24-15 Transcript, p. 964: 12-24; 965: 1-6).

[ECF 1083-1, emphasis added.]

Stephen Lemons posts an article discussing. among other things, MCSO's Detective Brian Mackiewicz's involvement in the Seattle Operation and the amounts of money spent on the operation in payments to Montgomery and other expenses. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Stooge's Adventures in Seattle and His Interest in "Swollen" Genitalia,” Phoenix New Times, May 13, 2015.

Klayman associate Jonathan Moseley files, on behalf of Montgomery, a "Notice of Clarification of Motion for Admittance Pro Hac Vice of Jonathon A Moseley" [ECF 1080] as well as a "Notice of Supplemental Memorandum in Support of" Montgomery's Motion to Intervene [ECF 1081].

Notwithstanding Sheriff Arpaio's April 29 message to Klayman that his representation of Montgomery (and Zullo) "would, and does, create a conflict here in Arizona," Moseley states in his PHV "clarification" notice as follows:

Second, the Court may have inquired as to whether the Intervenor Dennis L. Montgomery would be adverse to the Defendants Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO).

Neither Dennis L. Montgomery nor his counsel are adverse to Sheriff Arpaio, his deputies, the Cold Case Posse, or MCSO in any respect, particularly since this case involves a contempt proceeding over allegations of profiling illegal immigrants.

Third, the Movant also requests to clarify that Dennis Montgomery is also a client of The Klayman Law Firm as shown in the attached pro hac vice motion, attached as Exhibit 3. He is also a client of Freedom Watch in a separate matter.

See ECF 1080 at 2. See also Stephen Lemons, "Birther Lawyer Larry Klayman Rushes to the Rescue of Arpaio's 'Snowden'" Phoenix New Times, May 13, 2015.

May 14, 2015

Judge Snow holds a status conference in Melendres. See Transcript of Proceedings, ECF 1097. During conference, the Court reportedly expressed “great concerns” about information revealed in the limited number of Seattle Operation-related documents he had reviewed. “Snow said documents confiscated by the monitor suggested that ‘previous testimony offered in this matter [i.e., regarding the Seattle Operation] may have been untruthful.’” Stephen Lemons, “The $50 Million Sherriff,” Phoenix New Times, May 20, 2015; see also Stephen Lemons, “Snow Blasts Arpaio's 'Bogus Conspiracy Theory'," Phoenix New Times, May 15, 2015.

During the hearing, “Snow chose his words carefully, reading from a prepared document when outlining the conspiratorial tenor of Montgomery's claims. Megan Cassidy, “Judge spotlights Arpaio's bizarre 'Seattle Operation',”AZCentral, May 14, 2015.

From the Transcript [ECF 1097] at 43-46:

THE COURT: Okay. Now, I'd like to talk about how we're going to go forward in light of these new [Seattle Operation] documents. There are a great number of them, even excluding the data dump. And my monitor has had a chance to look at several of them but far from the totality.

He has shown me several, 50 or so documents, that cause me great concern. And I acknowledge that we're all plowing new ground here. But I'm going to say what those documents show, and I'm going to say that it is a concern that I expect the MCSO to address in the resumption of our May hearing, and I'm going to propose how we proceed.

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 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 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.

Now, I will tell you I've looked at these documents closely and I think there are a great deal of problems with them. But I don't intend to put them on the screen and go over those problems because I believe that Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sheridan have both acknowledged that the materials received from Montgomery are not credible and/or are junk. So I'm not presuming at this point that the MCSO is alleging that anything the documents contain in this respect are true.

If, Ms. Iafrate, you're going to assert that, I will tell you that I'm going to require good faith assertions that any of that information is true, and I have a number of questions that you will have to respond to. Nevertheless, assuming, as I do, that the sheriff and Chief Sheridan both will say that those documents are not credible, the very existence of these documents in the MCSO's files causes this Court some concerns.

In addition to their tendency to suggest that previous testimony offered in this matter may have been untruthful, the Court wonders why, when the MCSO should have been spending their time, money, and resources in implementing its order, they were funding a confidential informant as well as three MCSO deputies or posse members to be in Seattle, Washington, and other places, accruing overtime, travel, and salary expenses, as well as significant technology costs, attempting to construct some bogus conspiracy theory to discredit this Court.

The Court notes that as of the monitor's last report, the MCSO was only 29 percent in compliance with the injunctive order entered a year and a half ago, approximately the same time as this Seattle operation began. There may be some explanation for all of this, I realize that these are only documents in MCSO's file, but I'm going to require you to address that in the hearing that's coming up in June.

* * *

Moseley's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is also discussed during this hearing. [ECF 1097 at 32-39.]

See also Joe Dana, "5 Arpaio judge remarks foreshadowing possible trouble," 12News, May 21, 2015 (colored emphasis added); see also Stephen Lemons, “Snow Blasts Arpaio's "Bogus Conspiracy Theory",” Phoenix New Times, May 15, 2015.

Judge Snow issues a post-status conference order:

Judge Snow refers back to Magistrate Judge Boyle consideration of whether attorney-client privilege has been waived as to Casey's Nov. 2013 letter regarding the Grissom Matter in light of the fact that Sheridan "voluntarily disclosed Mr. Casey’s mental impressions, opinions, and advice in an interview with the Arizona Republic." ECF 1093 at 1-2.

Judge Snow denies Moseley’s Motion for admission pro hac vice and strikes Moseley’s motions, filed on behalf of Montgomery to intervene and disqualify the Judge. Id. at 2.

Judge Snow establishes a procedure on how to "effectively manage the discovery period prior to the continuation of the show cause hearing" "[i]n light of the newly disclosed documents." Id. at 2-3.

Judge Snow also issues a 13-page order granting in part/denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery. ECF 1094. From the conclusion:

"Throughout the show cause proceedings in April 2015, Defendants raised the legal advice they received from counsel as a defense or mitigating factor to their failure to take any steps to implement the December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction. In so doing, Defendants waived the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine as to communications on the subject matter of the Preliminary Injunction necessary to Plaintiffs’ evaluation or refuting of this advice of counsel defense. Plaintiffs may also depose defense counsel on whose legal advice Defendants claim to have relied regarding the implementation of the Preliminary Injunction or the Court’s May 14, 2014 directives, or on the subject of the Grissom inquiry. (Id. at 13.)

Arpaio files an "Objection to the Court's Expansion of Plaintiff Class." ECF 1092.

Stephen Lemons reports on Tim Casey's inconsistent statements regarding his involvement in the Grissom Matter. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Ex-Attorney Tim Casey Hired P.I. to Investigate Federal Judge's Wife,” Phoenix New Times, May 14, 2015.

May 15, 2015

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. Maricopa County files in the Ninth Circuit a Petition for Rehearing/Petition for Rehearing en banc, regarding the Ninth Circuit’s April 15, 2015 decision that MCSO was not a proper party to the action and that Maricopa County should instead be the named party. See Melendres. v. Arpaio et al, No. 13-6285 (9th Cir., Doc 77-1).

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Maricopa County also files a Notice of Appeal:

Notice is hereby given that MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, Defendant in the above-named case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from [1] the Judgment entered in this case on May 24, 2013 (Doc. 579, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”), and from [2] the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order, entered on October 2, 2013 (Doc. 606, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”), the [3] Amendment to the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order, entered on April 4, 2014 (Doc. 670, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”), and [4] Court Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, etc., entered on December 23, 2011 (Doc. 494, attached hereto as Exhibit “D”).

See Melendres ECF 1104 (PDF); see also Melendres v. Maricopa County, et al, No. 15-15996 (9th Cir. May 15, 2015).

Briefing on this appeal is suspended pending resolution of the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by appellant Maricopa County in the Melendres v. Arpaio appeals (Nos. 13-16285 and 13-17238). See Order [Doc 2], Melendres v. Maricopa County, et al, No. 15-15996 (9th Cir. May 22, 2015).

May 16, 2015

During his Freedom Friday show, Carl Gallups offers his promised “Sheriff Arpaio Zullo Investigation Update.” See PPSimmons, Obama Fraud Case DEEPER & DARKER! Zullo, Arpaio, Gallups, YouTube, May 16, 2015. Among other things, he states the following (layperson’s unofficial transcript):

[~00:50] You[‘re] going to have to listen carefully, kinda have to read in between the lines, but here’s the deal. … Go to Google and you can put in these words: “Sheriff Joe Arpaio investigation was intended to discredit, judge says.”

* * * *

[~01:40]…[T]he judge has outted Arpaio and a confidential informant that Arpaio had … been doing some work with .. the guy’s first name is Dennis.. his last name’s escaped me right now. … But has some connections to the federal government, CIA, etcetera, etcetera,… some information systems, … reams of government information and in that information the Judge claimed was some, something pointing to the fact that Arpaio might be, might have been investigating this judge … I don’t have time to go into all the details. You need to read that article…

[~2:23]When you read it, you’re going to hear about this confidential informant and you’re gonna hear accusations of Arpaio using a private investigator on this judge, which is not true. Arpaio didn’t run any investigation on this judge. But there are reams and reams, reams and reams, terabytes, terabytes of reams of information that …. that Arpaio and these guys have, and through this confidential informant and other things. …

[~3:00] Apparently, there were people involved in … in tracking information, in collecting information on citizens, including judges, and including law enforcement officials, etcetera around the nation. Coming right out of our government offices. And .. .apparently Arpaio and Zullo are privy to a lot of that, privy to a lot of that. …

[~3:35] And so, read the article and please remember this: these CIA documents that are being spoken of in this investigation, this.. court case. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office didn’t make this stuff up.

[~3:50] This stuff was uncovered through investigation. And you remember all this started with the birth certificate investigation. Okay. That’s why Zullo sometime back was talking about how this thing, why this thing was going deep and dark and there were some legal loopholes and hurdles they had to jump over, and earth shattering evidence and information coming forth. Well, you’re starting to wade around the edges of it now. The edges of it. Go read that article. Read between the lines. Hear what I’m saying. Remember what Zullo said. So folks, this is what we were trying to tell you a long time ago. This is dark. And it gets deep. And it’s gonna get deeper. And probably darker. So you’re gonna want to pay attention to this. And whatever we can tell you, we will, as we move along.

May 19, 2015

Jonathan Moseley files (yet another) Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Snow’s denial of his motion for PHV admittance and motion to intervene on behalf of Dennis Montgomery. [ECF 1112.]

May 20, 2015

Stephen Lemons reports on the mounting costs to Maricopa County Taxpayers arising from Arpaio’s actions, noting that “Melendres alone will have cost the county's general fund at least $51.3 million by June 30, 2016.” Stephen Lemons, “The $50 Million Sheriff,” Phoenix New Times, May 20, 2015; see also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Costs County More Than $44 Million in Melendres Expenses,” Phoenix New Times, May 18, 2015.

As Lemons will later report, "If you're keeping score, Arpaio's misdeeds have cost taxpayer's more than $243 million, close to a quarter-billion dollars since he took office." See Stephen Lemons, “Criminal Enterprise: A Culture of Corruption Pervades Joe Arpaio's Office, Affecting Everyone in Maricopa County,” Phoenix New Times, June 3, 2015.

May 21, 2015

Melendres Magistrate Judge Boyle issues an order finding that Sheridan’s comments to the press regarding the Grissom Matter waived work-product protections as to portions specifically addressed in those statements, and releases a newly redacted copy of the November 6, 2013 Tim Casey Letter. [ECF 1115.] The newly released information reveals that Casey concluded as follows regarding the Grissom matter:

E. 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 3.1 (Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Id. at 18-19, emphasis in original.)

Stephen Lemons reports on Arpaio's plea for cash to cover his legal expenses. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Seeks Cash from Suckers to Fight Criminal Allegations,” Phoenix New Times, May 21, 2015.

May 22, 2015

Arpaio and Sherian file Motion for Recusal/Motion to Disqualify Judge. [ECF 1117.] See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Desperation Move: Lawyers Move to Disqualify Judge Snow,” Phoenix New Times, May 22, 2015.

Judge Snow vacates upcoming status conferences in light of Arpaio/Sheridan Motion for Recusal. See Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1130), Order (ECF 1120 (PDF).

Zullo and Montgomery exchange a series of emails regarding the Seattle Operation, contempt proceedings, and Arpaio's Motion to Recuse. See ECF 1507-5, filed in support of Plaintiffs Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Montgomery to Zullo - May 22 at 11:42 AM

"I guess we will see if the Judge recuses himself now that MCSO filed their motion to recuse Judge Snow.

Good Luck"

Zullo Response at 11:56 AM

"I think he is fucked."

Montgomery response at 12:02 PM

"The judge will recuse himself now. Either way, the June 16 hearings will be delayed until it the motion is ruled on. Unless the judge recuses himself quickly, this will delay everything.

Either way my reputation is just more damaged by this.

Tim is still in jail, trying to recuse the judge, and he is at the Supreme Court, not having much luck.

Have a nice weekend."

Zullo response at 12:10 PM

"Dennis I want you to know that I do believe you have what you say and if I ever have to testify that is exactly what I'm going to say"

Montgomery response at 12:14 PM

"I do, and am upset that Arpaio and Sheridan claimed it was all junk.

Either way, not much I can do.

It is all about survival for me and my family.

Take Care

Zullo response at 12:19 PM

"I had that conversation with them yesterday and advised them that that is notwhat I'm going to testify to

Neither is Brian I talked to him today we're both on the same page."

Montgomery response at 12:24 PM

"I don't think it really matters at this point anyway. The fight will turn to the judge, and the rest of this won't matter.

The damage was done to my reputation.

The fact is the data is right, and no one will ever know how Lanny Breuer and the DOJ used NSNCIA data to win the victory against Arpaio."

Zullo response at 12:54 PM

"Not even U will know"

Montgomery response at 1:01 PM

"I would if I sued him. For the amount of money MCSO has spent on the judges court order in the Melendres case, maybe they should have spent some to expose the DOJ and their involvement in Covington.

Out of my wheelhouse. Up to others at this point."

Zullo response at 1:14

"yep"

Montgomery response at 1:17 PM

"I did not to hurt Sheridan or Arpaio. I don't understand why they decided to hurt me?

They know I have a brain injury, and am struggling just to live."

Zullo response at 1:28 PM

"Dennis they really didn't hurt you .... you got understand we could not corroborate a lot of this. And it was pay on production and you stopped producing. Nothing we could do."

Montgomery response at 1:36 PM

"Arpaio and Sheridan said the data was bogus. That hurt me, they then implied I was slow playing the work. They never even mentioned the fact I had a stroke.

Ironic the very thing that may have hurt them, may be the thing that ends the Judge Snow contempt hearings.

Well they do have to worry about me or the data anymore."

Zullo response at 2:12 PM

"I think you could have played it different. I need Dennis I still don't have the birth certificate finished only you could control that. There's no getting around that would have to be the testimony. Your actions have culpability as well"

Montgomery response at 2:16 PM

"You obviously don't believe I suffered a stroke or you wouldn't be writing what you do.

Take Care"

Zullo response at 2:26 PM

"Stroke yes. You got within a week of completion and stopped.

How do you explain having a stroke getting within a week and then all of a sudden what it's the stroke again.

Come on Dennis just got to get real with this when you don't finish things that hurt your credibility."

Montgomery response at 2:38 PM

"I am not going down this road. You have no idea how much I was injured and the disabilities I suffer from.

Leave it at that."

ECF 1507-5, filed in support of Plaintiffs Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

May 27, 2015

Maricopa County files notice declining to take a position on Arpaio/Sheridan’s recusal motion in light of its pending petition for rehearing (9th Cir.). [ECF 1129.]

May 29 2015

Joseph Sousa and Brian Sands file notices with court declining to take a position on Arpaio/Sheridan’s recusal motion. [ECF 1135 (PDF); ECF 1136 (PDF).]

Non-Parties Thomas P. Liddy, Ann Thompson, Douglas A. Schwab, and Christine Stutz file a notice stating that they “do not intend to file a response to the Motion for Recusal or Motion to Disqualify.” [ECF 1137 (PDF).]

Judge Snow issues an order as follows: “Earlier this week, the Court-appointed Monitor received a request from the United States Department of Justice to copy the documents and hard drives containing materials that Dennis Montgomery delivered to the Maricopa County Sherriff's Office and that were allegedly harvested from the Central Intelligence Agency. The Department of Justice has requested to copy these hard drives on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 under the supervision of a court-appointed security officer. Should any Party wish to be heard regarding this request or procedure, it should immediately notify the Court with its comments or objections and the reasons therefore.” [ECF 1134 (PDF)]

June 1, 2015

Jonathan Moseley files, on behalf of Dennis Montgomery, a "Supplement" to his earlier Motion for Reconsideration [1112] and an objection to the Court’s May 29, 2015 Order. [ECF 1140.]

Judge Snow issues a order addressing various matters [ECF 1141], including the following:

“Neither Defendants’ Motion nor this Court’s May 22, 2015 Order suspended or called into question any of the Court’s previous orders. Specifically, the Order did not suspend the responsibilities of Defendants or the Monitor as are set forth in the Permanent Injunction, the Supplemental Permanent, Injunction, or any amendments thereto, which enforce the terms of this Court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law and which have been upheld in virtually all respects by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. … The Court’s May 22 Order merely aims to preserve the status quo vis-à-vis the civil contempt proceedings that were scheduled to resume in mid-June until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion.”

Nevertheless, until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion, the Monitor shall not seek to conduct independent investigations within the MCSO relating to the subjects of Order to Show Cause. This does not affect, however, the Monitor’s authority to act pursuant to the terms of the Supplemental Permanent Injunction or other self-enforcing orders—e.g., those that do not require further action from this Court. In supervising administrative investigations undertaken by the MCSO that bear relation to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class, including those investigations that may have been triggered by events also relevant to the civil contempt hearing (such as those arising from the posthumous inquiry into Deputy Armendariz), the IA Monitors act pursuant to the terms of the Supplemental Permanent Injunction and self-enforcing provisions of this Court’s November 20, 2014 Order. (See Doc. 795, amended by Doc. 825.) Should the Court be required to enter additional orders to preserve the relative positions of the Parties in the interim period, it will vacate its previous Order (Doc. 1120). [ECF 1141 at 1-2.]

June 3, 2015

Arpaio and Sheridan file a “notice” in response to Moseley’s/Montgomery's June 1 filing, stating as follows:

“Putative intervenor’s attorneys Klayman and Mosley neither represent Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan, nor speak for the interests of MCSO in this action or in any proceeding related to this action.

Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan reject the vitriol and inflammatory attacks set forth in the putative intervenor’s supplement. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan respect the Court and believe such ad hominem attacks have no place in this litigation.” [ECF 1145.]

June 9, 2015

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. Arpaio joins in Maricopa County’s Petition for Rehearing/Petition for Rehearing en banc, regarding the Ninth Circuit’s decision that MCSO was not a proper party to the action and that Maricopa County should instead be the named party. [9th Cir., No. 13-16285, Doc. 82.]

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 3-page document – MCSO Memo from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Captain Russ Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 56 dated 6/9/2015 (P. Ex. 2264) – is later listed as an exhibit 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 relates to Montgomery and the Seattle Operation.

June 10, 2015

In US v. Maricopa County et al, Judge Silver sets bench trial to begin August 10, 2015. [ECF 377.]

See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Noose Tightens: Bench Trial Ordered in DOJ Lawsuit,” Phoenix New Times, June 12, 2015; Stephen Lemons, “A New Federal Judge Enters the Arpaio Fray, Ordering a Trial in the Justice Department's Suit Against the MCSO,” Phoenix New Times, June 17, 2015.

June 12, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs file their Response in Opposition to the Arpaio/Sheridan Motion to Recuse. [ECF 1150 (Response with Exhibits). Plaintiffs also file, under seal, documents in support of their Response. (See ECF 1151 (Notice of Lodging Under Seal certain documents referenced in Wang Declaration, contained in Exhibits to 1150); ECF 1152 (PDF) (Motion to file documents under seal); ECF 1153 (SEALED LODGED Proposed Sealed Declaration of Cecillia Wang in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Recusal or Disqualification of the Court).]

On July 10, 2015, Judge Snow will deny the motion to file under seal and will order that the full Wang Declaration, with exhibits, be published on the docket.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: 3-page document – Memorandum from Lee Ann Bohn to Captain Russ Skinner re Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 59 (records associated with expenses related to the Seattle and Grissom Investigations) dated 6/12/2015– is later listed as potential Exhibit 2084 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 obviously relates to the Seattle Operation.

June 15, 2015

In US v. Maricopa County et al, Judge Silver issues orders on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. [ECF 379.] She denies Maricopa County’s Motion for Summary Judgment; denies Arpaio’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and grants the US’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding (among other things), that “[n]on-mutual, offensive issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues previously decided in Melendres v. Arpaio.”

See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Denied Summary Judgment in DOJ Case,” Phoenix New Times, June 16, 2015; ; Stephen Lemons, “A New Federal Judge Enters the Arpaio Fray, Ordering a Trial in the Justice Department's Suit Against the MCSO,” Phoenix New Times, June 17, 2015.

June 22, 2015

Arpaio and Sheridan file their Reply in support of their Motion for Recusal. [ECF 1158.]

Larry Klayman, on behalf of Montgomery, sends to various ACLU/ACLU Foundation-affiliated individuals, a "Demand to Immediately Withdraw As Counsel And to Mitigate Defamation of Dennis Montgomery." See Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al., No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM (S.D. Fla.), ECF 5 at 67-74. In this letter, Klayman asserts (among other things) that Montgomery consulted with certain individuals at “the ACLU” in 2013 and 2014, and disclosed documents to such individuals. He then accuses various individuals of defaming Montgomery (among other accusations). Id.

June 24, 2015

Jonathan Moseley files a “REPLY/Supplement” to his Motion for Reconsideration. [ECF 1160.]

June 25, 2015

Cecillia Wang responds to the June 22 Klayman/Montgomery "demand" as follows:

"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."

See Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al., No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM (S.D. Fla.), ECF 5 at 76.

June 26, 2015

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit denies Maricopa County’s Petition for Rehearing / Petition for Rehearing En Banc of the Court's April 15 decision that MCSO is not a proper party but Maricopa County is a proper party in the underlying lawsuit. See Order Doc 87, Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. 13-16285 (9th Cir. June 26, 2015).

June 29, 2015

★ Arpaio apparently meets with Sheridan and Zullo today, according to a document (MELC662431) included in Exhibit 2858 (Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042)), which is has been admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings. See Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2422-2423. In connection with a discussion of this document during Arpaio's testimony, the following exchange occurred:

Q. ... My question is: Did you have a meeting with Mr. Zullo and Chief Sheridan on June 29, 2015?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you have any meeting with Mr. Zullo and Chief Sheridan in June 2015 about the Montgomery investigation?

A. I don't recall to the time frame. It's a possibility.

Q. Well, you may recall that Judge Snow asked you some questions about that investigation at the April hearing.

A. Yes.

Q. At any time since that hearing in April have you spoken to Mr. Zullo about the status of the Montgomery investigation?

A. It's a possibility, yes.

Id. at 2423.

June 30, 2015

Montgomery v. ACLU. Dennis Montgomery (via Larry Klayman) files suit against the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLU”), Cecillia Wang, Daniel Pochoda, and a few others in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Complaint [ECF 1], Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union et al, No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2015); see also ECF 5 ("corrected" Complaint).

July 8, 2015

Moseley files a “Fourth” “Supplement to his Motion for Reconsideration on Order on Motion to Intervene and Motion to Disqualify. [ECF 1161.]

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. The mandate of the Ninth Circuit’s April 15, 2015 opinion is issued. [Melendres ECF 1163 (PDF).]

1500 IDs Discovery. “On or around July 8, 2015” MCSO’s PSB personnel learn that Sergeant Jon Knapp has “attempted to turn in a very large number of identification documents to Property and Evidence, apparently for destruction.” Melendres ECF 1319 at 3.

According to Bailey,

Sergeant Darrell Bone and Lieutenant Kratzer walked into my office and - and told me at -- it's probably that day, the morning of that day.

Q. And can you tell me the gist of that conversation.

A. You're not going to believe this.

What's that?

Knapp just showed up at Property with a thousand IDs, is what it originally came out to.

ECF 1319-1 (Bailey Depo excerpts) at 6. Bailey begins “an initial investigation into Sgt. Knapp and the 1500 IDs, but then, at the direction of Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan, suspend[s] the investigation. Id. at 3-4.

Per Bailey, he has (at least) two conversations with Sheridan later today. During a conversation in the afternoon re: the 1,500 IDs, Sheridan has some questions.

Q. You said he asked you some questions. What were those questions?

A. Where did he get them? Why did he have them? And I -- I told him initially I didn't know yet. I was waiting for that memo. And then once I read the memo, I - I gave the chief more details.

Id. at 8. Bailey told Sheridan he has pulled an IA number and is initiating an IA case. Id.

July 9, 2015

Per Bailey, during a conversation with Sheridan about the recently discovered IDs, he tells Sheridan that “I suggested - I – I don't remember the exact chronology, but I said, we should at least interview Knapp so we have some idea of what this is aside from his memo. After that was done, he gave me those instructions to stop the investigation until he could confer with others.” Melendres ECF 1319 (Bailey Depo excerpts) at 3.

July 10, 2015

Zullo's July 10 appearance on Gallups' Freedom Friday

Mike Zullo appears on Carl Gallup’s Freedom Friday Show (before the orders referenced below were issued) to discuss the status of the Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse birther investigation. See Birther Report, "Sheriff Arpaio's Obama Investigator Talks Official Criminal Investigation," YouTube, July 10, 2015. See also Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday, 7-10, Segment 1; Segment 2; Segment 3; Segment 4, 1330WEBY, July 10, 2015.

Among other things, Zullo and Gallups discussed the matters outlined below (unofficial layperson's transcript).

The "three legal hurdles" that Zullo referenced in his interview with WND:

[~8:17] ZULLO: Yeah, let me address that, I actually do want to address that. I won’t go into specifics of the hurdles themselves. … What I need people to understand is that … this last hurdle is something that came up as this was unfolding and, folks you have to understand, this involves not only me or the Sheriff – it involves other people, other legal entanglements that have to be worked out, and it’s gonna also involve and basically rest on the cooperation and protection of other people, and I’m not talking just physically, I’m talking also about legally; it involves attorneys – it’s one of those things that every nut and bolt has to be tightened down, because if one thing isn’t torqued correctly, the whole thing falls apart.

[~9:20] And going back when I first aired ... that we had something, we found something, I thought that was gonna happen in a matter of weeks. As a matter of fact, everybody around us did. These legal problems started to surface that we did not anticipate.* And that’s pretty much where we are. So when I made the statement in the news article that it may never see the light of day, let me clarify for you: That information may never see the light of day; that doesn’t mean I don’t have an idea of what it is; that doesn’t mean I will take it to the grave. Just because it doesn’t see the light of day from my perspective, just means I couldn’t bring it into this legal setting. And, ya know, people are gonna have to understand, I can’t divulge what we’re working on, where we’re at but, for it to have these kind of impediments, it’s not something to be taken lightly.

* * * *

[~28:44] ZULLO: Yeah, and the context is and my thought process when I’m asked anything regarding this, I am thinking of the investigatory sense, the legal sense, what we would be able to release, what we couldn’t release. And in that genre, if we don’t have what we need to be able to do that – like I will not go before the public and release something that I think or I believe – it’s only what I can prove. At that point in time, it would never see the light of day. Now. That doesn’t mean I won’t discuss later on perhaps what it was – or give people a good idea of what happened without disclosing what it is. I mean it’s a very touchy subject. …

How Dennis Montgomery fits into the “universe-shattering information”:

[14:44] ZULLO: Well, Carl, you know, there are legal proceedings going on where Mr. Montgomery is being affected by, so I can’t comment on anything regarding Mr. Montgomery, but I can tell you that Mr. Montgomery has brought a broad base of information.*

*Note: Contrast this statement from Zullo with his April 9 email to Klayman and Montgomery where he described Mr. Montgomery’s contribution as “Sixteen long months of ZERO s and just empty promises and lip service.” [ECF 1166 at 24.]

How much [Seattle Operation] information Zullo provided to Gallup:

[17:54] ZULLO: Well Carl, it wasn’t so much when it kinda took a different little turn – it started to happen when it started to – and I’m just gonna leave it at this, as getting darker. At that point, and again, you’ll know this and some of your listeners that were former investigators are gonna know this: there’s things that you don’t discuss with people. Not only for secrecy reasons, but reasons of conducting an investigation – but you don’t want to put someone else in a position of having any knowledge that they shouldn’t have. And that’s the reason. I mean, if you guys look at it, I’ve stayed off this radio for a very very long time. And people are pounding tables. And I get it, you know – pounding tables, wanting something done, did you turn your back on us.

[18:36] No, let me tell you something – that’s far from it. And I think if you’ve been following anything going on with the sheriff, you can see that my participation in other things are now involved. So it’s not purposeful in a sense to leave people in the dark because I’m choosing to. It’s what’s necessitated in going forward. It has to be done this way.

Whether Arpaio's and Sheridan's "saying that Montgomery’s – that the Montgomery information was quote-junk, diminishes his value to the investigation:

[21:46] ZULLO: I can’t ... I cannot get into that’s related to that litigation. However, the only thing I do want you to understand is, a lot of times in law enforcement circles, information that may n..– that we may not have been able to corroborate is often referred to as junk information. That doesn’t mean what you folks think it means. And … and there wasn’t really ample time for the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy to come up to speed with what was progressing on this front. They were caught – you know, for all intents and purposes, Sheriff Arpaio was caught cold. … So I can’t really … discuss much more on that.

How Larry Klayman got involved in the investigation:

[25:34] ZULLO: Larry Klayman is the founder of Freedom Watch. A very talented attorney. I can’t go into particulars in how he got involved, but I would like to say one thing: I’ve come to know Larry now over three years. And one thing I can tell you about Larry Klayman: Larry Klayman is a patriot. You know, some people bleed patriotism. Larry Klayman bleeds patriotism. He loves his country. And he goes and he takes a lotta hits for trying to do the things that are right. … It’s gonna be a fascinating story when it finally does come out how he became involved.

How Montgomery became involved in the investigation:

[31:31] ZULLO: I cannot, I cannot answer that question. … That’s a set-up question, I gotta tell you Carl. … I think I know the reporter that just put that question over to you. ...

How the birther debunker's "Xerox Evidence"* was the impetus leading Zullo to the "universe shattering information" (i.e, to Montgomery):

[33:28] GALLUPS (reading listener’s question): Mike, you said before that the so-called Xerox evidence is of no concern, yet it’s still out there, unchallenged and even a lot of your supporters have said it seems to refute a lot of your evidence. Is the Xerox evidence the reason you seem to have abandoned much of the original investigation? I know you’ve done a lot of testing in this area – why not release the evidence and just refute it?

[33:48] ZULLO: Well first off, the Xerox machine was the very piece of information that tipped me off that there’s another way to go here. … <Gallups giggles> … I mean, Carl, if those punker-chimps wanna keep pumping the Xerox machine, have at it, because it’s irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. …

[34:06] GALLUPS: Right, and I remember Mike, and I’m just gonna say this then I’m gonna let you go on because they wanna hear from you and not me, but I remember when all of that came up, and, and, and (laughing), I’m not at liberty to go down that whole rabbit trail, but I can remember you saying, “oh my gosh, another whole door has just opened here. And they didn’t even realize what they did. . . .

About Gallups' Jan. 31 promise that...

"Now, I promise. I'm gonna say this again and ... don't read anything into this, this doesn't mean anything, except it's been my promise from the beginning: as we move forward, if for some reason - and Zullo has not said this, and neither has Arpaio - but if for some reason, this thing doesn't come to pass, then I will be at liberty to tell you a lot more about it and why it didn't come to pass and what alls involved in it."

Gallups says the following:

"[38:20] GALLUPS: For those of you out there who have said "Now Carl you have promised us that if Zullo is not going to release it you would" I never made that promise. ... What I said was, when I was just getting to know Mike Zullo, What I said was if I ever discover Mike Zullo or Sheriff Arpaio are blowing smoke in my ear on this then I will tell what I know. I am not an idiot. I know they're in the middle of a criminal investigation. You think I am going to spill the beans on what they have confided in me on that, which is not everything? Of course not. I mean I could go to prison for doing that. People could get hurt doing that. You could blow a criminal investigation. I'm not an idiot. Of course I am not going to tell if Zullo doesn't tell. But what I said was that if I find out they are lying to me ... blowing smoke in my ear? Of course I will out them.

(See here for unofficial layperson's transcript of additional portions of the show.)

July 10, 2015 Order Denying Motion to Recuse

Judge Snow issues an order denying Arpaio/Sheridan’s Motion to Recuse. [ECF 1164.]

In that same document, Judge Snow orders that “any stay on pre-hearing discovery and/or the activities of the Monitor related to the resumption of the show-cause hearings is lifted.”

Additionally, Judge Snow sets a status conference for Monday, July 20, 2015, stating as follows:

All parties and specially appearing non-parties are required to attend. The parties shall be prepared to discuss: (1) Defendants' Motion relating to the definition of the Plaintiff Class (Doc. 1103 ); (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Doc. 1085 ); (3) the status of MCSO's remaining internal investigations; (4) the Department of Justice's request to see the database of documents given by Montgomery to the MCSO, which he claims to have taken from the CIA; (5) the procedures pertaining to Maricopa County's independent review of the Monitor's billing; (6) whether Maricopa County is entitled to representation in this litigation separate from Sheriff Arpaio; and (7) the scheduling of the second phase of the civil contempt hearings.

July 10, 2015 Order to Publish Seattle Operation Documents

Judge Snow issues an order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Document, which was filed June 12, in support of their opposition to the Arpaio/Sheridan motion to recuse and orders that the declaration be filed on the docket as a public record. See ECF 1165 (order denying motion); ECF 1166 (declaration, with exhibits, filed on docket).

The released documents reveal multiple communications between Mike Zullo, Brian Mackiewicz, Larry Klayman, Dennis Montgomery and others between 2013 and 2015. And reveal the Arpaio and Sheridan's acknowledgements that the Seattle Operation information was "junk" as ... accurate.

Revelations include (but are not limited to) the following:

So-called “timelines” and charts were created which – as Judge Snow (and the Plaintiffs, and Stephen Lemons of Phoenix New Times) said – indicate that individual(s) working with or for the MCSO were attempting to construct an alleged conspiracy involving Judge Snow and the DOJ (among many others). See Timeline - December 2013 - January 2014 (and beyond).

On June 29, 2014, Dennis Montgomery complained that he was getting inconsistent instruction: “"... On one hand Anglin tells not to produce information on Judge SNOW. Then I am attacked for not producing information on Judge SNOW. Too many mixed signals from Anglin. ..."

Montgomery also asserted that "Anglin told by me that Sheridan didn’t want to go in front of Judge Snow and be accused of retaliating against the judge." And that "ANGLIN told me stop work on the BC [birth certificate] day one, He told me never to trust Mike Zullo. I was told directly by Anglin not to pass information on to Mike Zullo. I was not allowed to discuss with Mike zullo what I am being told to do or not to do."

Montgomery also shared his belief that Anglin is the person who leaked details of the investigation to the Phoenix New Times.

On November 3, 2014, Brian Mackiewicz, in an email reply to Montgomery, stated that:

“We [Mike, I, and the MCSO] have given you approximately120,000 dollars plus in exchange for information. We brought you before the Arizona State Attorney General, we found you two different Attorneys, and we opened the door to a Federal Judge to give you as much protection as possible.”

“Mike and I went to the Administration several times and asked for extensions to continue this investigation because we believed your "STORY" and the information you provided.”

That same day, Klayman responded to Mackiewicz by stating “I don't appreciate your games...there would be no judge if not for me. I suggest you do not mess with [D.C. Federal District Court Judge] Lamberth. There is no reason to do so at this time and your games are just to squeeze Dennis through me. I don't appreciate being played.”

On November 7, 2014, Brian Mackiewicz, in an email reply to Montgomery (copying Klayman and Zullo), stated (among other things) that:

"Dennis Montgomery represented the hard drives contained classified and sensitive information that he obtained while working at either eTreppid, or Blixware on behalf of federal government as a CIA contractor.

When our experts examined the information contained on the drives, not only did the numerous drives NOT contain any classified or sensitive information, they were instead contained data dumps of you relevant computer information hours off video feeds for Al Jazeera news feed.

After reviewing all the hard drives our experts concluded that Dennis Montgomery deliberately complied massive amounts of data on to these drives for the purpose of obfuscating the fact the data itself contained no evidence to support Dennis Montgomery's claims. There was no sensitive information contained on any of these 50 hard drives. In addition, our experts brought question in the validity concerning an number of emails Dennis Montgomery provided in the same hard drives."

Mackiewicz further stated:

"Dennis Montgomery is leaving us no other alternative but to take this investigation in a completely different course going forward. 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.

On April 9, 2015, Mike Zullo, emailed Montgomery (copying Klayman and Mackiewicz), demanding that he provide information. (Note: We believe the information he was seeking in this and later emails related to his Cold Case Posse birth certificate investigation, though he also notes “additionally” that Montgomery has failed to meet his obligations to the MCSO.) Zullo stated (among other things) as follows:

That Montgomery was “in fact contractually obligated and paid a total of 15K weeks ago just prior to vacating the residence as you formally agreed." … "On my end of this you were compensated $10,000 from a charitable organization for a service and software that I have yet to receive in any worthwhile or usable configuration." ... "Additionally, the agreement between you and the Sheriff’s Office to forgo official notification to our contact in DC is now very long in the tooth and unproductive for us, as you have again failed to deliver anything as agreed.

Zullo reminded Montgomery that, when the MCSO experts examined the information he provided, they “discovered there was absolutely nothing of value on them. To be clear there was nothing of a classified nature contained on any of them and as matter of fact there was evidence of fabrication on numinous levels. …”

Zullo further asserted: “With your pending litigation in FL. You are aware that both Brian and I had met with the defendant that last time we were in DC. He has our business cards. It will only be a matter of time before we are contacted by his attorney. Also in light of your most recent attempt to offer testimony as a WB and the fact that we have a videotaped Free Talk agreement you made with the AZAG and you have breached that agreements as well, this is not something I am prepared to allow to move forward without the proper notifications made on our end under these agonizing circumstances."

Zullo summed up the situation as follows: “Sixteen long months of ZERO s and just empty promises and lip service. Enough… "

On April 20, 2015, Zullo again demanded “date set for the completion of the work Dennis Montgomery has been promising for over 16 months. In so doing, he stated (among other things):

"Mr. Montgomery’s behavior and lack of performance flies in the face of his numerous promises pledging to complete the work.. This is especially concerning given the face that Mr. Montgomery needs validation like a drowning man needs oxygen. His behavior simply erodes whatever thread of credibility he may have left. In fact as of this date, our experience dealing with Mr. Montgomery mirrors what has been written about him.. It is apparent to us that this is just a game of running the clock in the hope Montgomery can position himself as a “Whistle Blower” with some jurisdiction and with your help get out from under his obligation to the us. In our opinion Montgomery does not qualify under Federal Whistle Blower protections. A risky game…."

July 10, 2015 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration on Moseley's PHV Admittance

Judge Snow also issues an order denying Moseley’s Motion for Reconsideration of his prior order [ECF 1093] denying Moseley’s Motion for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice. [ECF 1167.]

In this order, Judge Snow held that that Montgomery’s interests are adverse to Arpaio/MCSO’s interest (id. at 3), noting among other things that ‘Sheriff Arpaio has objected on the record to the positions taken by Mr. Moseley in one of his supplemental pleadings for admission pro hac vice” (id.at 4).

Judge Snow also found that “there is evidence that Mr. Moseley’s representation of Mr. Montgomery would stand in the way of the orderly administration of justice” (id. at 4), providing a laundry list of Moseley’s in this case alone that "demonstrates a substantial likelihood that his conduct would hinder the efficacious administration of justice if he were to be admitted" (id. at 4-5).

Arpaio 2013 Appeal. The Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Motion for attorney fees in the amount of $546,108.84" in the Ninth Circuit. See Doc 89, Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. 13-16285 (9th Cir. July 10, 2015).

At defendant/appellants' request [Docs 90, 91], the Ninth Circuit grants an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion - until August 24, 2015 [Doc. 92].

July 14, 2015

The Melendres Court Monitor issues his Fourth Quarterly Report. [ECF 1170; see also ECF 1170-1 (Plaintiffs' Comments re: Report) and ECF 1170-2 (Defendants' Comments re: Report).]

From the Report's Introduction:

The Maricopa Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) made no appreciable gains during this reporting period in its compliance with the provisions of the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (“Order”) issued by the Honorable G. Murray Snow in the above-referenced litigation. Our last report chronicled the advances made in achieving compliance with the Order’s requirements, primarily as the result of the successful delivery of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment training, accompanied by the issuance of several policies during that training process. There were no such initiatives during this reporting period to significantly bolster the agency’s momentum. To the contrary, the development of the next major block of training required by the Order – Supervisor and Command Level Training – has stalled, despite accommodations made by the Plaintiffs and my Team to deliver the training in two phases in order to speed up the process. This is particularly troubling in light of our observations chronicled in our last report regarding a lack of leadership at all levels of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, and in particular, in the upper command ranks of the Office. The agency is devoid of meaningful management and leadership training, and the successful delivery of the supervisory training required by the Order would only begin to address this systemic issue. Nonetheless, it must be made a priority.

We are encouraged by the progress made in the implementation of an Early Identification System (EIS). ...

Another accountability mechanism for the Office – the administrative investigation process – does not engender similar optimism. We are required to review completed investigations as a result of our obligations to monitor Section XI of the Order (Misconduct and Complaints) and our expanded authority regarding investigations pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 20, 2014. In our review, we found that many of the cases were not thoroughly investigated, findings were not appropriate, discipline was not justified; and in the majority of cases, MCSO’s own policies were not followed. There is a notable and unacceptable disparity in the quality of investigations conducted at the district level, as well as a lack of consistency from district to district. Professional Standards Bureau personnel have been open to the concerns we have brought forward, and are taking steps to address them, but progress is slow.

From the Concluding Remarks (id. at 121):

MCSO’s progress towards compliance has stalled during this reporting period. This is unacceptable – and it speaks to the absence of organizational resolve. We assess compliance with 89 Paragraphs of the Order. MCSO is in Phase 1 compliance with 31 of those Paragraphs, or 40%. In 12 Paragraphs, Phase 1 compliance is not applicable – that is, a policy is not required. MCSO is in Phase 2 compliance with 22 Paragraphs, or 25%. These numbers are very similar to last quarter’s report. No additional Order-related policies were disseminated to agency personnel during the review period. Several drafts of policies have been reviewed by my Team and the Plaintiffs’ attorneys over the past several months, and we anticipate their issuance in the near future. However, some are tied to the mandated Supervisor and Command Level Training, which remains mired in the development stage.

****

In sum and substance, we find ourselves disappointed in the measure of progress achieved, to date, by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. The leadership of the organization bears full responsibility for the agency’s failure to have advanced the implementation of the Court’s Order. While a myriad of legal issues has transpired during this reporting period, these matters have been addressed by attorneys who are well trained for such tasks. On the other hand, the matter of the reforms to the policies, practices, and procedures of the Sheriff’s Office is in the hands of law enforcement executives. These leaders have not succeeded in moving this process along at a pace that the Order envisions and the community deserves.

Arpaio and Sheridan file a Motion to Stay in Melendres [ECF 1171, ECF 1172], seeking a stay in the proceedings. Defendants notify the court that they will file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the 9th Circuit, challenging Judge Snow's July 10, 2015 Order denying their motion to recuse by July 24th, and request a stay in proceedings until that petition is resolved.

Jonathan Moseley files a "Notice of Appeal" [ECF 1173] asserting that he is appealing

(a) Judge Snow's denial of his motion for reconsideration of Pro Hac Vice Admission [ECF 1167];

(b) Judge Snow's order denying Arpaio and Sheridan's Motion to Recuse [ECF 1164]; and

(c) Judge Snow's order denying* striking the Motion to Intervene and Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge that he filed on behalf of Montgomery [ECF 1093].

*Note: While Moseley asserts he is appealing an order denying Montgomery's motion to intervene and to disqualify judge, the fact is that the motions were stricken from the docket - because they were filed by Moseley who was not admitted to practice law in the Federal District of Arizona.

PPSimmons publishes, on YouTube, Carl Gallup's Freedom Friday interview with Mike Zullo from last Friday's (July 10) interview with Mike Zullo. See PPSimmons, "Mike Zullo Does LIVE Q&A on Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups," YouTube, published July 14, 2015.

📄 Seattle Operation Document: A 1-page document – Freedom Friday YouTube page print - "Mike Zullo Does LIVE Q&A on Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups" dated [July] 14, 2015 (P. Ex. 2923) – is later listed as an exhibit 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 appears this is a page print of the YouTube clip referenced above.

July 16, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs file an opposition to Arpaio/Sheridan's Motion to Stay. [ECF 1175.] As Plaintiffs note,

The Movants’ meritless motion to stay seeks to delay these proceedings once again, without providing one scintilla of legal argument or relevant authority. Movants’ only argument is that they “sincerely believe the Court has erred in its recusal decision.” That is not the legal standard. (internal citations omitted.)

July 17, 2015

Arpaio and Sheridan file their Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to their Motion to Stay. [ECF 1176.] They make multiple new arguments for the first time in this document, including an argument - made without citation to any authority, that another judge must decide the motion to stay.

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit, noting that appellants' petitions for rehearing in Melendres v. Arpaio, appeal Nos. 13-16285 and 13-17238, have been denied, issues a briefing schedule for this appeal: "The opening brief and excerpts of record are due October 9, 2015; the answering brief is due November 9, 2015; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief." See Order [Doc 10], Melendres v. Maricopa County et al, No. 15-15996 (9th Cir.July 17, 2015).

MCSO holds a “rehearsal” meeting to prepare for the upcoming Monitor’s site visit (scheduled to occur July 20-24). Sheridan, Bailey, as well as “Lieutenants Seagraves and Kratzer, Sergeants Bone, Sparman, and Bocchino, PSB administrative assistant Lauren Sanchez, and Defendants’ counsel Michele Iafrate” attend the meeting. Melendres ECF 1319 at 4, ECF 1319-1 (Bailey Depo excerpts) at 10.

During the meeting, the subject of the 1500 IDs is discussed. According to Bailey, he is instructed not to disclose the existence of the 1500 IDs to the Monitor team during this meeting. Bailey and Seagraves later testify that this instruction was not given by any MCSO personnel. Id. at 4-5. (By process of elimination, it appears that Iafrate gave the instruction).

July 20, 2015

Judge Snow holds a status conference, in which he

grants the DOL’s request to review the Montgomery/Seattle Operation documents (see Melendres July 20 Transcript [ECF 1186] at 51);

denies Arpaio/Sheridan’s Motion to Stay (id. at 9-15);

sets the next status conference for July 31, 2015 (id. at 72);

orders parties to file, by July 29, 2015, papers on the following issues:

"suggested revisions to the Supplemental Permanent Injunction in light of the recent Mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals...;

schedules for the completion of outstanding internal investigations, document production requests, and/or other discovery; and

responses to Larry Klayman's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice."

ECF 1179 (Text Only Entry). See also Stephen Lemons, “Snow Allows DOJ To Review Montgomery Docs, Denies Stay Request, Sets Dates For Further Contempt Hearings,” Phoenix New Times, July 21, 2015; and Will Stone, “Judge: Contempt Of Court Hearings Against Arpaio To Resume In September,” KJZZ, July 21, 2015; Megan Cassidy, “Arpaio's contempt hearings to resume in September,” Arizona Republic, July 21, 2015; Associated Press, "Judge sets date to resume Sheriff Joe Arpaio's contempt-of-court hearings,"AP/KTAR News, July 21, 2015.

With respect to Klayman's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, Judge Snow expresses his concerns as follows:

[THE COURT]: I have a couple of concerns. I have the concern that you have the same conflicts that Mr. Moseley was subject to as it pertains to your client, Mr. Montgomery, and the testimony that we've already received from your client, Sheriff Arpaio, and Chief Deputy Sheridan that I had outlined in denying his admission pro hac vice. It seems to me like you're subject to those same objections.

It also seems to me, and I don't want to be precipitous on this, but some of the documents that have since been disclosed raise at least the possibility that you yourself might be a witness in this action, and so I'm a little concerned to grant your admission pro hac vice without at least allowing the other parties to be heard on it.

To the extent that you want to speak on behalf of Mr. Montgomery, I will briefly allow you to do so as long as you keep within the confines of ethics and propriety.

Transcript [ECF 1186] at 47. Judge Snow defers ruling on the motion pending full briefing on the matter. Id. at 47-48, 51-53.

With respect to DOJ review of the Seattle Operation/Montgomery documents, Klayman argues (and the Court responds) as follows:

MR. KLAYMAN: That's fine, Your Honor, but we do request that before that's heard, and if Your Honor should grant it -- and I would like an opportunity to reply to that; we just simply submitted the application pro hac vice -- that you not release documents until such time as you make a ruling on that, because Mr. Montgomery would like to renew his motion to intervene to protect what he claims are his property interests in those documents.

THE COURT: Well, the only testimony that we have in this action is that those are documents that he -- I don't know how to -- I don't want to use words other than Chief Deputy Sheridan used, but those are documents that he took from the CIA that the CIA was harvesting from American citizens.

It [50] doesn't sound to me like he has any property interest in such documents.

To the extent that he does have such property interests, and to the extent that -- because there may be other documents in there that are -- and, in fact, there may be no documents taken from the CIA; that possibility has been raised by the evidence. If that is so, how is he damaged by allowing the United States of America to review and confirm that they have no property interest in those documents? What property interest does Mr. Montgomery have in such documents that would in any way be infringed by allowing the United States to review those documents under seal to make sure that they have no security interest in them?

MR. KLAYMAN: We did submit with the motion to intervene, as part of the various pleadings, a court -- and we've cited it -- a court ruling in Nevada where the Department of Justice was ordered to give documents back to Mr. Montgomery.

THE COURT: And that was a 2006 ruling.

MR. KLAYMAN: That's correct.

THE COURT: Well, this case supposedly reconstructed material from a database that pertained to alleged telephone calls and e-mails that occurred in 2009 and 2010.

How does that Nevada 2006 ruling relate to any database that alleges to have 2009-2010 documents in it?

[51] MR. KLAYMAN: That's something that Mr. Montgomery would like the opportunity to argue in front of this Court.

THE COURT: Well, I'm giving you the opportunity right now.

MR. KLAYMAN: I don't have that information, Your Honor. I don't have it. But we want an opportunity to, in a systematic way, put forward a brief to this Court on that issue.

THE COURT: And I think that you can have that opportunity, but you need to explain to me now why any interest that Mr. Montgomery might have in such materials is in any way infringed by allowing the United States to review them under seal to make sure that there are no secured documents that belong to the CIA in those materials.

MR. KLAYMAN: Your Honor, I'm not taking a position on that; I'm simply wanting an opportunity to brief it in the ordinary course. And we came before this Court, and I don't have any conflict with Sheriff Arpaio. We --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. KLAYMAN: -- we stated that we're not --

THE COURT: -- you may take your seat.

MR. KLAYMAN: -- taking any adverse position.

THE COURT: You may take your seat, because I've already ruled on that. I'm going to allow the other parties to address your renewed motion to intervene. ...

* * *

THE COURT: In the meantime, I am going to grant the United States' motion to review the documents that have been provided. I am ordering the United States that while they have the authorization to have government employees and agents review the material, the material will be disseminated to no third party under any condition without the prior approval of this Court.

* * *

Id. at 49-51. See also Notes at May 11 for information calling into question Klayman's claims re: Montgomery's ownership of the "intellectual property."

The United States (DOJ) files a motion to intervene in Melendres. [ECF 1177.] In its motion, the DOJ states (among other things):

Defendant Arpaio’s and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s (MCSO’s) intransigence and contempt of the remedial order in Melendres, as recent proceedings have revealed and confirmed, make clear that the United States’ active participation in the remedial phase of this action as a plaintiff-intervenor is necessary to protect the United States’ interests in the effective nationwide enforcement of civil rights laws relating to police misconduct and in ensuring that the defendants’ equal protection violations are remedied through vigorous enforcement of the remedial orders in this case. [ECF 1177 at 2.]

July 24, 2015

Judge Snow calls an emergency hearing at the court monitor's request, regarding the Monitor's request for access to "certain documents and tangible things on an immediate basis from Defendants, which Defendants have declined." [ECF 1190.]

During the hearing, Court Monitor Warshaw explains his reason for requesting the emergency hearing as follows:

[7] CHIEF WARSHAW: Good afternoon, Judge. The monitoring team is here this week as part of its regular quarterly site visits. Early in the week we had heard that there had been a recent discovery of nearly 1500 identifications that were in the possession of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

During the meeting that we had on this past Monday, the 21st, with representatives of the Professional Standards Bureau, we were apprised of two new cases relevant to ID findings, one regarding 40 IDs and another involving 20, but there was no mention of 1,500 identifications that recently had been found.

Chief Kiyler, who's in the room, was present with me in the room, and we did inquire at the time: Had there been any additional findings other than the two they represented to [8] us, the 40 and the 20? During our investigative inquiries of other matters that --

THE COURT: Well, what was the response?

CHIEF WARSHAW: That there were none other; there were no other.

THE COURT: So they did not indicate that 1500 had been found.

CHIEF WARSHAW: They did not.

THE COURT: All right.

CHIEF WARSHAW: During our investigative inquiries this week regarding other matters that the Court and the parties are aware of, we did query certain MCSO personnel regarding these 1500 IDs. Those queries confirmed for us there were in fact 1500 IDs that had been found. We felt that the significance of these IDs was at the heart of the matter and we chose to pursue more invasive questions regarding this matter. At a minimum, and as a direct result of our questioning, we learned that there had been a meeting last Friday, July 17th, among PSB staff, including Chief Deputy Sheridan and counsel; a meeting, as we understand, that was a preparatory meeting in which the agency was preparing for our site visit. That at some point during that meeting the 1500 IDs did come up, and we learned that there was an instruction given that the existence of those 15 IDs not be volunteered or [9] acknowledged to the monitor.

THE COURT: Did you determine who gave that instruction?

CHIEF WARSHAW: We attempted to, and the answer we received was that would be an attorney-client matter.

THE COURT: All right.

CHIEF WARSHAW: With the full belief that this matter is at the heart of the issue before the Court and our determination to at least see these documents, I instructed one of our two deputy monitors, Commander Girvin, last night to make an attempt to reach out to senior executives of the MCSO for the simple purpose of making arrangements to see if we could see these IDs.

Commander Girvin attempted to call both telephonically and by text message Captain Steven Bailey, the commanding officer of the Professional Standards Bureau, as well as Chief Deputy Sheridan, but with no luck.

Further, at my instruction, and after a reasonable passage of time, Commander Girvin reached out to Captain Russ Skinner, who's the commander of the agency's court compliance implementation division, and he is the official contact of the MCSO for -- the contact for us.

Captain Skinner was very cooperative and he attempted to reach Captain Bailey, Chief Deputy Sheridan, and he reported back to Commander Girvin that he also had attempted to reach [10] counsel but with no luck. At that point, knowing full well that we very much wanted to see these documents but were not getting cooperation with the lack of response, I initiated an e-mail to every attorney involved in this case advising that I might very well ask for an emergency hearing for the purposes of getting relief from the Court so we could in fact access those documents.

This morning I noted an e-mail from Ms. Iafrate. I did call her at approximately 7:45 this morning. She inquired with more specificity as to what it is that we wanted. I advised her that we were looking to gain access to 1500 IDs that had been brought to our attention as well as 50 hard drives that we believed to be in the Property Unit and were associated with the Dennis Montgomery matter.

I would note that back on April 27th, when we received the single hard drive that we did get at that time, we were told by Chief Knight that that material was the only material in the possession of the agency relevant to the Montgomery matter. I gave Ms. Iafrate the DR number, the department report number that was associated with the 50 hard drives.

Though I didn't hear back from Ms. Iafrate, we proceeded to the Professional Standards Bureau and got there about 8:30 this morning, myself, Chief Martinez, and Chief Kiyler. We were met by Lieutenant Kratzer, who advised us that he had been told by Captain Bailey that we were coming. [11] Lieutenant Kratzer gave us some updates regarding some recently found IDs and gave us some details about some of the matters that had been alluded to at our meeting on Monday. When we requested to see the 1500 IDs in question, he did in fact produce them. They were in a large plastic bag in no particular order. There was no subset, sub-packaging; one large bag. Lieutenant Kratzer advised us --

THE COURT: Let me interrupt you, and hold your spot. Did any of the IDs appear to be the identifications of members of the plaintiff class in this matter?

CHIEF WARSHAW: Yes, that was quite apparent. This was a clear plastic bag, and whether it was in the form of driver's licenses or other identification cards, that was very clear.

THE COURT: What kind of other identification cards were there?

CHIEF WARSHAW: There was Arizona identification cards; there were passports; there were other official governmental identification cards.

THE COURT: Like from Mexico and elsewhere, or --

CHIEF WARSHAW: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

CHIEF WARSHAW: Lieutenant Kratzer advised us that the Professional Standards Bureau became aware of these IDs when they were returned to the Property Unit by a sergeant, a [12] sergeant by the name of Sergeant Knapp. Sergeant Knapp had received permission, as we were told, commencing in 2006, to obtain these IDs because he wanted to teach a class on fraudulent IDs. Sergeant Knapp went to the Property Unit on several occasions over the years to obtain what aggregated to 1459, so when I earlier referred to 1500, the actual number is 1,459. Accord- --

THE COURT: 459 or 1459?

CHIEF WARSHAW: 1,459, yes, sir.

According to Lieutenant Kratzer, there was no documentation as to when the sergeant got which IDs, what the circumstances were, and when, specifically, that he returned to receive additional documents. It seemed there was some uncertainty if he had simply gone at will. But a point that was most noteworthy to us was we were advised by Lieutenant Kratzer that Sergeant Knapp has in fact never taught a class in fraudulent IDs.

We asked Lieutenant Kratzer what we believed to be one of the more significant questions, and that was whether he or anyone else knew precisely how the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ever came into possession of these IDs in the first place. He said he had no ID -- he had no idea as to how that would have occurred, but what he did say was that these items, because they were in the Property Unit and were appearing to have no more useful purpose, were in the Property Unit for [13] purposes of being destroyed.

In our discussions -- and counsel for the counsel was present -- the question, or the statement was made that this was a waste of time. Counsel also added that would every piece of property in the Property Unit belonging to a Spanish person, you know, have to be looked at?

But even in the presence of our suggestions that a reasonable attempt should be made to determine how these documents were procured and what the purpose was, there seemed to have been no interest in undertaking any attempt to determine the reasons these IDs had been -- had come into their possession in the first place, or any attempt to reasonably identify whether or not there were still people living in the people who were looking for their lost ID.

We felt, Your Honor, that based on various histories in this particular case relevant to property, whether we saw it in the Armendariz matter or other matters that have been brought before this Court, that our great concern has been and is whether or not this Property Unit is being used as a repository or as a lockbox for holding away from either public scrutiny or court scrutiny documents that were obtained either unscrupulously, illegally, or whether the Property Unit is being used as a lockbox for purposes simply unknown to us. And, of course, our greatest concern, and the matter which we want to bring to this Court's attention, was that [14] these particular documents were slated for destruction, and had this matter not come to our attention and had we not made the kind of inquiry that we made, these items in fact would have been destroyed.

THE COURT: When you talk about the 50 hard drives related to the Montgomery investigation, where did you find out about those?

CHIEF WARSHAW: As a result of document requests that were made of the MCSO, after the initial release of the single hard drive we got on April 27th, it became apparent, in looking at various e-mail streams, that there were references to hard drives that were reposited in the Property Unit.

THE COURT: Did anybody look -- did you request the hard drives in the Property Unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW: We request -- I'm sorry, Judge.

THE COURT: I think -- did you request that the hard drives be turned over that were in the Property Unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW: We request any and all. Yes, we certainly today requested that today, yes, sir.

THE COURT: And you talked about a specific DR number.

Is that a locker? What is that?

CHIEF WARSHAW: The DR number would be -- a DR number is the department report number, so it would be a filing mechanism in which they could find the items in the particular bin based upon what the DR number is.

[15] THE COURT: Did you request what the contents of that particular DR unit was? Did you ask anybody to verify the contents of that unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW: Yes.

THE COURT: And what were you told?

CHIEF WARSHAW: We were told that the number that we gave did in fact correspond to 50 hard drives.

THE COURT: Was there anything else in the unit?

CHIEF WARSHAW: I do not believe. I don't believe.

THE COURT: Okay. And so you haven't had any response in --

CHIEF WARSHAW: We've had no response.

THE COURT: -- in terms of your request to have those 50 hard drives.

CHIEF WARSHAW: That is correct. And we made that very clear to Lieutenant Kratzer, that that was also part of our mission this morning.

Melendres July 24, 2015 Hearing Transcript [ECF 1194] at 7-15. Later in the hearing Arpaio attorney Masterson acknowledges that the IDs were in fact slated for destruction:

MR. MASTERSON: What I have to say about [the 1,459 IDs] is these were documents that were held in Property. They were scheduled for de- --

THE COURT: Slated for destruction.

MR. MASTERSON: Absolutely. I assume every single day there are -- there are evidence -- or evidence and other items in Property scheduled for destruction.

Id. at 28. See also Megan Cassidy, "Judge sends marshals to seize evidence from Sheriff Joe Arpaio," Arizona Republic/AZ Central, July 24, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Orders US Marshals To Seize MCSO Records,” KJZZ, July 24, 2015; and Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Lead Investigator For The Seattle Probe Has Choice Words For Judge Snow,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 5, 2015 for additional reporting on the hearing.

Following the hearing, Judge Snow issues the following order:

The Court held a hearing with the parties on July 24, 2015. Defendants are hereby ordered to turn over all items of evidence associated with DR 14-007250*, including hard drives, documents, and/or any other and materials, to the custody of the United States Marshals Service by the end of the day today, July 24, 2015. The Marshals shall store this evidence in a secure location and make it available, upon request and under secure conditions, to the parties and to the United States Government for copying pursuant to the Court’s previous orders. Defendants are further ordered to produce to the Marshals the 1,459 identifications that lack an associated DR number.

[ECF 1192 (emphasis added).]

*According to Phoenix New Times' Stephen Lemons, when he requested, back in May 2015, documents relating to "DR 14-007250" from the MCSO, he received the following response:

"In researching this request, it has been determined that there is an ongoing investigation and all records related to Incident Report 14-007250 authored by [Detective] Brian Mackiewicz ref: Seattle Washington, or any related investigations are under protective order by the court and shall not be disclosed until authorized and ordered by the court."

Stephen Lemons, Snow Orders Arpaio To Cough Up New Montgomery Files And 1,500 Seized IDs To The U.S. Marshal, Phoenix New Times, July 24, 2015 (emphasis added). Lemons also reported that "Interestingly, I had been told two months back by sources that "DR 14-007250" is a "found property report," and that it was being used to mask the true nature of material related to the Montgomery investigation." Id.

July 27, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Statement of Non-Opposition to United States' Motion To Intervene." [ECF 1195.]

Rick Wells, who has frequently reported on the Arpaio-Zullo birther investigation, speculates that Judge Snow's July 24 order requiring MCSO to turn over evidence to Federal Marshals was really an attempt to see what evidence Arpaio has regarding President Obama's birth certificate:

Now that the investigation into the fraudulent document that Hussein Obama presented as being his birth certificate is moving into the home stretch, a liberal judge has decided to seize documents from Arpaio’s office, supposedly related to an ongoing “racial profiling” case.

* * *

Perhaps this was an attempt by the Obama regime, through their judicial operative, to find out just how much Sheriff Arpaio knows about the fraudulent Obama documents. Raiding the Sheriff’s office and seizing documents is something that would be consistent with a fishing expedition on behalf of a guy who falsified his qualifications and supporting documentation to be president of the United States and has reason to fear his fraud is about to be exposed.

See Rick Wells, "Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Office Raided By Feds As Investigation Into Fraudulent Obama Documents Winds Down," Universal Free Press, July 27, 2015.

July 28, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order requiring the MCSO to turn over additional documents to the U.S. Marshals. The order reads, in part, as follows:

Late Friday Defense Counsel identified the two other DR files that contain materials whose production was previously ordered by this Court. Those DR files include DR 15-14899 and DR 15-011082. Defendants are hereby ordered to turn over each of these Departmental Reports and all items of evidence associated with those DR files to the custody of the United States Marshal. Representatives of the Marshal shall contact the MCSO to coordinate such transfer which shall be timely and efficiently accomplished by the MCSO. The Marshal shall store this evidence in a secure location and make it available, upon request and under secure conditions, to the parties and the Monitor.

See [ECF 1199.]

The Melendres Plaintiffs file an Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Larry Klayman. That motion reads, in part, as follows:

At the July 20, 2015 status conference, Mr. Klayman asserted that he did not have a conflict with Sheriff Arpaio. But this is contradicted by a letter that Sheriff Arpaio wrote to Mr. Klayman, which has been produced by Sheriff Arpaio’s attorneys, in which Sheriff Arpaio expressly told Mr. Klayman that Mr. Klayman’s representation of Mr. Montgomery (and Mr. Zullo) “would, and does, create a conflict here in Arizona.” See Exhibit 2. Mr. Klayman’s failure to disclose to the Court the existence of the Sheriff’s letter, and his affirmative representation to this Court notwithstanding the Sheriff’s letter that there is no conflict, are further grounds for denial of his application.

Mr. Klayman’s behavior when admitted pro hac vice in other courts also indicates that his admission in this case would impede the orderly administration of justice. Mr. Klayman’s application mentions two currently pending disciplinary proceedings against him, in the bars of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania.

The application also mentions two District Court judges, in California and New York, who separately prohibited him from practicing before them again. However, Mr. Klayman’s application fails to mention the fact that two federal Courts of Appeals unanimously affirmed the orders of those District Court judges, in published decisions that explain in some detail how Mr. Klayman abused his pro hac vice admissions in those cases. Baldwin Hardware Corporation v. Franksu Enterprise Corporation, 78 F.3d 550 (Fed. Cir. 1996); MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc., 138 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1998). The Second Circuit expressly found that Mr. Klayman’s challenge to a judge’s impartiality based on the judge’s ethnicity and the identity of the administration that appointed him was “insulting and smacked of intimidation.” MacDraw, 138 F.3d at 38. The Federal Circuit affirmed a sanction against Mr. Klayman’s firm for “unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.” Baldwin Hardware, 78 F.3d at 554.

See Melendres ECF 1198 at 3-4 (hyperlinks to cases added).

July 29, 2015

As of July 29, the Melendres parties have responded to Judge Snow's July 20 Minute Entry order as follows:

(1) suggested revisions to the Supplemental Permanent Injunction in light of the recent Mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs: ECF 1201
MCSO: ECF 1205
Maricopa County: none

(2) schedules for the completion of outstanding* internal investigations, document production requests, and/or other discovery;

Plaintiffs: not applicable
MCSO: ECF 1203
Maricopa County: not applicable

(3) responses to Larry Klayman's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.

Plaintiffs: ECF 1198 (oppose admission)
MCSO: ECF 1204 (take no position; note that admission is at court's discretion)
Maricopa County: ECF 1202 (oppose admission)

July 30, 2015

Tim Casey (Arpaio/MCSO's former attorney) files an objection to the MCSO's proposed schedule for completion of outstanding discovery. [ECF 1206.] Casey argues that MCSO should bear the burden of producing materials responsive to the open discovery requests.

July 31, 2015

Judge Snow holds a status conference during which he addresses the events leading up to last Friday's emergency hearing and events thereafter, as well as several other matters. See ECF 1230 (unsealed portion of hearing); ECF 1246 (originally sealed portion).

Hearing Part I: Matters discussed include:

Additional Possible Hearing Dates. Judge Snow asks parties to hold open several additional dates for possible continued evidentiary hearings. Sept 22-25, Sept. 29-Oct 2, Oct. 8-9, Oct. 13-14, Oct. 27-30, Nov. 2-6 and Nov. 12-13. ECF 1230 at 8-9. To be clear, these are potential dates - it is not contemplated that there will be this many days of hearings; he asks parties to hold them until firm dates can be set. Id. at 9-10.

MCSO Production Deadlines (including matters relating to production of Casey documents. Id. at 10-18.

The 1,500 IDs that were the subject of last Friday's emergency hearing - including revelation of discovery of 42 additional IDs not related to the 1,500 IDs, and a matter to be discussed under seal. See below for more details. Id. at 18-25. Regarding information provided last week indicating that MCSO staff were instructed not to reveal the existence of the 1,500 IDs, Judge Snow -- after a recitation of his prior orders that clearly and unequivocally required disclosure (and production) of the IDs (id. at 31-37), states as follows:

“Now, we had – and again, I don’t mean to mischaracterize it, and it wasn’t under oath, but it was a characterization of the monitor about what some of the witnesses said they were informed in a Friday meeting prior to the monitor’s visit that certain identifications located and found that did contain members of the plaintiffs’ class were not to be discussed with the monitor, or something to that effect.

That violates my orders, and it does so in a direct way. It violates my orders both about what had to be disclosed, and it violates my orders about the access that the monitor has, and should be given, to information in the Internal Affairs Division.

And if in fact there is any effort by the MCSO to subvert those orders by lying to the monitor or telling him less than the truth, or informing or instructing their people to do so, that is in fact even a more serious and gross violation of my order. I’m not saying that happened, and again, everybody has an opportunity to be correctly heard.” (Id. at 37.)

The Montgomery/Seattle Operation Hard Drives.

About the original single hard drive produced in April, Deputy Monitor Girven informs the Court that:

“Chief Knight was interviewed this past week by our monitor and during the course of that interview it was revealed that the hard drive that was initially provided to us, which is purported to have the Montgomery investigation material, is actually a compilation of materials from a couple of different sources.

The first source is a hard drive that apparently Detective Mackiewicz brought into Chief Knight's office when he responded Chief Knight’s request that he provide, you know, the relevant documents. And when Detective Mackiewicz was in Chief Knight’s office, he asked Chief Knight and was granted access to his office computer so that Detective Mackiewicz could access the department’s H drive.
* * *
So we were informed that the contents of the hard drive which we were provided immediately after the April hearing is actually a compilation of material that Detective Mackiewicz had on the personal hard drive which he brought to Chief Knight’s office and material which he downloaded to -- from the H drive. That was downloaded to two hard drives; one was provided to us, and the other we were told was provided to Ms. Iafrate.

During questioning then Chief Knight volunteered that he still has in his possession, and has had since that meeting, the original hard drive that Detective Mackiewicz brought to his office. So we are requesting that we be allowed to take possession of that hard drive, which is really the source material, or supposedly the source material, for a copy that we were provided in April.”

Id. at 25-27. After some discussion, the Court orders the original hard drive turned over to US Marshals.

“IAFRATE: This hard drive is in a secure location and Chief Knight is the custodian of it because he received it from Detective Mackiewicz. Chief Knight is not in today. Could we make some arrangements so that the marshals can come Monday, seeing that it’s Friday afternoon.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to order that the marshals contact you today. . . . And that if they receive assurances that nothing’s going to hap—they receive adequate assurances that it’s in a secure location, they we can have it on Monday. . . . If they don’t, I’m going to send them over to get it.”

Id. at 30.

With respect to the 50 hard drives produced last week, Judge Snow recaps his prior orders (which also clearly and unequivocally required disclosure (and production) of the hard drives (id. at 37-42), then notes that back in April, MCSO asserted that all Montgomery hard drives had been turned over:

“THE COURT: … So one of the many requests that the monitor asked for you to immediately provide is “the work product of Dennis Montgomery, including memoranda, reports, notes, photographs from the Seattle, Washington investigation, and activities referred to in the article by Stephen Lemons in the Phoenix New Times dated June 4th, 2014.

And the response from Chief Knight is: “Deputy Mackiewicz delivered all files in the possession of MCSO provided by Dennis Montgomery on an external hard drives. This information was transferred to another external hard drive and provided to monitor Anders and counsel Michele Iafrate on April 24th and April 27th, 2015.”

Id. at 42-43. Note. Chief Knight's April/May 2015 representation was clearly -- inaccurate, given the 50 hard drives produced last Friday.

Possible New Contempt Charges. In light of the above (i.e., initial failure to disclose/produce 1500 IDs and failure to produce 50 hard drives), Judge Snow states as follows:

“[THE COURT]: Now, let me tell you what I propose to do about it. I do not want to offset the relief that members of the plaintiff class are entitled to, nor do I want to delay any longer corrective action that I think must occur within the [MCSO] and revisions to the injunctive relief order, if that ought to happen.

Further, I recognize that this is a civil contempt hearing that relates to three matters that I have directly set forth, and these two what I view as direct violations of my order – and I’m not sure what they are but they appear to be direct violations of my order – aren’t noticed for this civil contempt hearing.

But I think I’ve made it very plain, which is why we have specially appearing counsel here, that if I determine at the end of the civil contempt hearing that there is a basis and a need to refer any or all of these matters for criminal contempt, I will do so.

It also seems to me that these matters, even though they cannot and should not, in and of themselves, be the subject of civil contempt, are relevant to the civil contempt hearing in terms, as I’ve said all along, about the need and the necessity and the extent of the remedy required that may be sought by the plaintiff class for materials and other matters that were not provided by the [MCSO] prior to the trial in this matter, so here is what I would propose.

I’m not going to adjust these civil contempt hearings to incorporate those matters which I believe may have been but I do not know were direct violations of my order, but I’m not going to view them necessarily as irrelevant. . . . Nor do I make a representation that they will not possibly be the subject of a future criminal contempt hearing if I determine at the end of these hearings that civil contempt cannot serve the purposes that are required by the nature of the contempt itself.”

Id. at 44-45. The ACLU responds that

"[WANG]: . . . [W]e had intended to inform the Court and defendant today that we were going to file a motion for a new order to show cause why defendant Arpaio should not be held in contempt for what appears to be the deliberate withholding of documents in violation of this Court’s orders and after consultation with counsel. It was our intent to file that motion early next week, but Your Honor has now stated a proposal to proceed otherwise.

I think we do agree with the Court that there are issues relating to these new facts . . . that would be related to, and overlapping with, the ongoing civil contempt proceeding. But we do believe that there are new grounds for a civil contempt proceeding, which, of course, would be in the Court’s sole discretion to refer for investigation by the United States Attorney’s office or a special prosecutor."

Id. at 46-47. Judge Snow discusses multiple factors that must be considered in how to proceed, and his plans in light of that. Id. at 47-49.

Larry Klayman's motion for PHV admittance. Klayman does not appear at the hearing and Judge Snow declines to rule on Klayman's motion because the deadline for replying to the objections has not yet run. Id. at 56-57

Additional matters are also discussed, including the parties' proposed modifications to the permanent injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Maricopa County's right to take positions contrary to MCSO positions, and the DOJ's motion to intervene are discussed.

See also "Arpaio's Chief Deputy Shellacked (Again), Judge Decries "Direct Violations" Of Court Orders," Phoenix New Times, Aug. 31, 2015; and Megan Cassidy, "Roundup of Friday's Arpaio hearing," AZ Central/Arizona Republic, Aug. 31, 2015.

Hearing Part II (Sealed):

This portion of the hearing related to the pending administrative and criminal investigations of Brian Mackiewicz. See ECF 1246. <Details under construction.>

Judge Snow issues an order regarding matters discussed at the status conference. [ECF 1208.] Among other things, Judge Snow

orders the MCSO to turn over an original hard drive (given to MCSO Deputy Chief Bill Knight in April) to the U.S. Marshals on Monday, August 3;

orders defendants to "provide the Monitor with the access and materials discussed in the sealed portion of the hearing pursuant to the previous orders of the Court relating to such matters;

"memorializes in writing its Order made during the hearing of July 24, 2015 that the MCSO is not to destroy any materials stored in its property unit until such time as the Monitor may review the unit and its operation more fully with Defendants. Materials that are removed from the property unit are to be accounted for in detail and in writing which records shall be made available on request to the Monitor";

orders parties to hold multiple dates in September, October, and November 2015 for potential continuation of the contempt hearings -- September 22-25, September 29–October 2, October 8-9, 13-14, 27-30, November 2-6, 10, 12-13, 2015; and

sets deadlines for MCSO's production of materials responsive to the outstanding discovery requests.

Aug. 2, 2015

Rick Wells, who has frequently published Arpaio-Zullo birther investigation information, publishes an article indicating that Arpaio has "safely tucked away" the birther investigation evidence:

Judge Snow’s long-running feud with Arpaio has included assertions by the Judge that Arpaio has conducted an investigation of Snow, suspecting collusion between him and federal authorities involved in a separate federal lawsuit against Sheriff Arpaio. Sheriff Arpaio wasn’t born yesterday; he knows what’s going on but proving it might be tough.

* * *

The actions by this judge are suspiciously like what one would expect to see from someone attempting to uncover the documentation related to that case, discover what information and documents are known and to eliminate as much evidence as possible.

It’s too bad for those obstructing the truth about Obama’s document fraud that Sheriff Arpaio already had the evidence safely tucked away. Maybe he already came up with the mini-storage idea on his own. Maybe he too has friends in high places.

See Rick Wells, "Federal Harassment Of Sheriff Arpaio Continues – Office Raided Again, Threatened With Criminal Contempt," Universal Free Press, Aug. 2, 2015.

Aug. 5, 2015

Stephen Lemons publishes an article about Brian Mackiewicz. See Stephen Lemons, "Arpaio's Lead Investigator for the Seattle Probe Has Choice Words for Judge Snow," Phoenix New Times, Aug. 5, 2015.

According to an article published article, Mackiewicz, -- in asserting his belief that the MCSO and DOJ were working out issues before the July 24 Emergency Hearing -- said,

""Then, all of a sudden, Judge Snow pulls, 'My dick is bigger than Joe Arpaio's dick, and this is what I'm going to do because I'm a federal judge,'" Mackiewicz cracked. "And he goes ahead and makes this order to seize the drives.""

Id. Mackiewicz also said "Judge Snow is the most biased, unprofessional, unfair person on the face of the Earth[.] ... And that's just my own personal opinion." However, Lemons reports that:

"Mackiewicz says he'll go ahead and "jump through all these hoops" for Judge Snow, "and all this other bullshit he wants me to do."

But that doesn't mean he'll like it.

"It's about time someone sticks up for their fucking selves," he said, "and tells this judge exactly where to go.""

Id. With respect to Court Monitor Warshaw, Lemons reports Mackiewicz's comments as follows:

"I'm getting killed by the fucking monitor right now," [Mackiewicz] said, adding that the monitor wanted to make him into the "evil bad guy" in all this.

"The monitor wants [to know] everything, including how many times I take a shit," he griped. "But they don't want to sit down and question me about what's going on."

And yet, [Mackiewicz] believes the monitor staff will interview him after they have interviewed everyone else involved in the Montgomery affair, which makes sense from "an investigative standpoint," he acknowledges."

Id. Mackiewicz also denied that the Seattle Operation had anything to do with Judge Snow, asserting that the operation was an investigation into alleged identity theft. When asked about the documents previously revealed -- i.e., timelines and charts naming Judge Snow, Mackiewicz asserted that "Dennis Montgomery did all that on his own." According to Mackiewicz, "[Montogmery] provided us with documentation that he thought would prove to us that Snow was up to no good." Stephen Lemons, "Arpaio's Lead Investigator for the Seattle Probe Has Choice Words for Judge Snow," Phoenix New Times, Aug. 5, 2015.

The Criminal Investigation re: Brian Mackiewicz

Lemons also reports that Lisa Allen (MCSO spokeperson) confirmed to him that Mackiewicz is currently subject to an ongoing criminal investigation (in addition to administrative internal investigations), though she refused to provide details. Per Lemons, his sources indicate that the investigation relates to allegations that Mackiewicz padded his overtime hours while in Seattle and that another possible matter involves allegations that Mackiewicz had Montgomery build him a computer. Id.

MCSO Attorney Iafrate said, during the previously sealed portion of the July 31 transcript, as follows:

"This is a unique situation where criminal prosecution is likely and the investigation is still in a phase where it could be compromised...."

See ECF 1246 at 77. Iafrate will say, during the August 7 hearing, as follows:

" ...I, too, read the newspaper article [i.e., Lemon's Phoenix New Times article referenced above] and was surprised at some of the things that were revealed in that newspaper article.

I do not think that the subject fully understands the extent of the investigation or, quite frankly, what the investigation is fully about, and I would ask the Court to keep these under seal because we do not want to compromise the criminal investigation that is continuing."

See ECF 1232 (Transcript of portion of Aug. 7 hearing) at 10. Iafrate also reveals that the AG is working with the MCSO on the investigation. Id. at 11. Iafrate also asserts that the criminal investigation is a "new" event:

"He was well aware of the administrative investigations for quite some time. This criminal investigation was a new event that he has not been told about."

Id. at 14.

📄 Seattle Operation-Related Document. MCSO's Sgt. Romney #1529 (Enforcement Support Division) submits a memo to Captain Russ Skinner #898 (Court Implementation Division) re: "Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 80." This memo relates to the court monitor's request for information regarding MCSO posse funds and payments to Mike Zullo. See ECF 1507-7 at 2, filed in support of Plaintiffs' Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

📄 Seattle Operation-Related Document. Mike Zullo ("P6980") submits a memo to Captain Russ Skinner #898 (Court Implementation Division) re: "Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 80." This memo relates to the court monitor's request for information regarding MCSO posse funds and payments to Zullo. In this memo, Zullo states in part as follows:

"Cold Case Posse members were not aware of the “Seattle Operation” investigation until such information was released by the Press.

The “Seattle Operation” investigation was being conducted by MCSO and not the Cold Case Posse.

The Cold Case Posse had NO involvement with the MCSO “Seattle Operation” nor did it provide any support on any level.

My participation was that of an “individual activation” separate from the branch known as The Cold Case Posse, as prescribed under the general MCSO Posse Program guidelines GJ-27. This activations was not a posse branch activation, therefor no member of the Cold Case Posse or the Cold Case Posse organization was authorized to assist in this matter on any level. No Cold Case Posse activities were conducted in this matter to date. I have no such records."

See ECF 1507-7 at 3, filed in support of Plaintiffs' Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Week of August 3-7

Brian Mackiewicz is placed on administrative leave. See Transcript of sealed portion of Aug. 7 hearing [ECF 1232] at 10, 12; see also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015 (“On Tuesday, Allen also confirmed to me that Mackiewicz has been on administrative leave for about a week now”).

Gerald Sheridan is interviewed by the Melendres Court Monitor. See Transcript of sealed portion of Aug. 7 hearing [ECF 1232] at 16. The interview lasts about 8 hours. Id. at 17. Sheridan apparently initially refused to answer certain questions on grounds that it was the subject of a criminal investigation, but, upon review of court orders requiring disclosure of the subject matter, he apparently answered the questions posed. See id. at 16-18.

The MCSO submits the Mackiewicz criminal investigation file to the Melendres Court Monitor, "absent one interview that just occurred out of state." See Transcript of sealed portion of Aug. 7 hearing [ECF 1232] at 18.

Aug. 6, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order scheduling a hearing for tomorrow, August 7:

The Monitor has requested an expedited hearing to address Defendants’ failure to timely respond to his requests that the Defendants comply with that part of this Court’s Order entered during that part of the hearing dated July 31, 2015 that was held under seal and subsequently memorialized in the Court’s Order of that same date. The memorialization of that Order required that Defendants “shall provide the Monitor with the access and materials discussed in the sealed portion of the hearing pursuant to the previous Orders of the Court relating to such matters.” (Doc. 1208.)

* * *

Because the requested hearing relates to Orders the Court issued under seal the hearing will, initially, be under seal. Defendants shall address whether in light of developing circumstances the matter should remain under seal. Further, Defendants shall have present the person or persons from Defendants, if any, who have made the decision not to yet respond to the Monitor’s request to obtain access to the matters that the Court ordered to be provided. Defendants shall further identify and have present or available telephonically any knowledgeable representatives from the other state agency referenced by Defendants in the July 31, 2015 sealed hearing. Such representative should be prepared to discuss this matter with the Court. Defendants and the Monitor shall immediately notify the Court, other parties and specially appearing non-parties if this hearing is mooted by Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Order of last week.

* * *

See ECF 1216 at 1, 2.

Brian Sands files a Motion for Summary Judgment on civil contempt charges. See ECF 1214.

Arpaio and Maricopa County both file "Responses" to the DOJ's July 20 Motion to Intervene. See ECF 1217 (Arpaio Response) and ECF 1218 (Maricopa County Response).

Arpaio Writ Petition. Arpaio and Sheridan file in the Ninth Circuit a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking disqualification of Judge Snow. See In re Joseph M. Arpaio and Gerard A. Sheridan, No. 15-72440 Doc 1 (9th Cir. Docketed August 7, 2015).

Aug. 7, 2015

Judge Snow holds the scheduled hearing. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1220.) The initial portion of the hearing is held under seal. See Transcript of Sealed Portion of Proceedings (ECF 1232) and Transcript of Open Portion of Hearings (ECF 1231).

At the last minute, Arpaio's attorney files a "Notice" with the court stating that "on August 7, 2015, Defendant Arpaio provided the Monitor with the materials discussed in the sealed portion of the hearing pursuant to the Court’s Order dated July 31, 2015 (Doc. 1208)." See ECF 1219.

*Note: See for a transcript of the previously sealed portion of this hearing, during which a criminal investigation of Brian Mackiewicz, was discussed.

Brian Mackiewicz is scheduled to be interviewed by the Melendres Court Monitors. See ECF 1232 (Transcript of portion of Aug. 7 hearing) at 22 (noting that "there's a 1:30 interview scheduled for Detective Mackiewicz by the monitors"). According to a later report, Mackiewicz refuses to answer questions upon the advice of his attorney. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015.

📄 Seattle Operation-Related Document. MCSO's Lee Ann Bohn sends memo to Captain Russ Skinner #898 (Court Implementation Division) re: "Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 80." See ECF 1507-7 at 1, filed in support of Plaintiffs' Oct. 30, 2015 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 26 Motion for Extension of Time (to find an attorney).

Aug. 10, 2015

The DOJ files a Reply in support of its July 20 Motion to Intervene. [ECF 1221.]

Larry Klayman files a Reply in support of his Motion for Admittance Pro Hac Vice. [ECF 1223.] This Reply fails to address key issues raised by Judge Snow at the July 20 hearing (as reported by Stephen Lemons) - namely the fact that Klayman may be a witness in the proceedings.

Additionally, while Klayman repeats (Reply at 3-4) his prior allegation that another court already held (in 2006) that similar property belonged to Montgomery,* he fails to address in his Reply how the alleged "Montgomery property" at issue in this case relates to the "Montgomery property" at issue in the 2006 eTreppid case. See also Dec. 6, 2012 entry linking to documents indicating that it appears Montgomery intellectual property was part of his bankruptcy estate and was sold to Michael Flynn in early 2013.

*Note: See Notes at May 11 for information calling into question Klayman's claims re: Montgomery's ownership of the "intellectual property."

Montgomery Appeal I. Dennis Montgomery (Larry Klayman) files an “Emergency Motion for Stay on Appeal” in Montgomery’s appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit. See Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 15-16440, Doc 5 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2015).

Arpaio Writ Petition. Dennis Montgomery (Larry Klayman) files a “Motion to Intervene” in the Arpaio-Sheridan Petition for Writ of Mandamus proceedings pending in the Ninth Circuit. See In re Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc 4 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2015).

Aug. 11, 2015

Judge Snow holds the previously-scheduled (ECF 1208) status conference. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 1226); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1237). The following matters were discussed at the hearing:

Larry Klayman's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Larry Klayman fails to attend the hearing. See Transcript at 11-15. Klayman's motion for PHV admission is denied. In denying Klayman's motion, Judge Snow indicates he believes

"believes Klayman has a conflict of interest because he represents Arpaio in a different lawsuit. Snow also said he believes Klayman may potentially be a witness in the case and that some documents suggest “Klayman may have been involved in efforts to convince the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office that Montgomery was providing them with real stuff.” Snow said Montgomery is welcome to appear in court and represent himself or hire another attorney if he wishes to intervene."

See Jude Joffe Block, "Judge: DOJ May Join Racial Profiling Case Against Sheriff Arpaio," KJZZ, Aug. 11, 2015. Additionally, according to Stephen Lemons,

"Snow was troubled that Klayman had "attacked this court" and had made "unwarranted attacks against Ms. Iafrate."
The judge also worried about Klayman's ability to "infuse invective into this lawsuit," and so denied Klayman's attempt to represent Montgomery in the case. Snow left the door open for Montgomery to be represented by other counsel."

See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015.

The DOJ's Motion to Intervene

The DOJ’s July 20 Motion to Intervene is granted. See Transcript at 8-11. See also Megan Cassidy, “DOJ attorneys may join Arpaio's racial-profiling case,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 11, 2015. Judge Snow declined to impose the restrictions on the DOJ that were requested by Arpaio and Maricopa County in their August 6 filings, although he said that parties could raise objections in the future on an "as-needed basis." Id.

Government Review of the Montgomery/Seattle Operations Materials

The DOJ provides an update on government review of Montgomery documents and materials for classified information. See Transcript at 28-42. Rapheal Gomez,* on behalf of the DOJ reported that:

"A separate division of the DOJ is in the process of copying evidence turned over to the court to see if it contains classified information or documents taken from the CIA. ... [T]he DOJ’s Rafael Gomez told the court he has begun the process of copying two banker boxes and a hard drive Montgomery gave the MCSO. Gomez said he planned to review them for classified information and records belonging to the United States."

See Jude Joffe Block, "Judge: DOJ May Join Racial Profiling Case Against Sheriff Arpaio," KJZZ, Aug. 11, 2015. Stephen Lemons reported additional details:

"Gomez said that his "client entities" — presumably U.S. intelligence agencies such as the CIA — only wanted to review the one hard drive and two bankers boxes of material that had been made available to them previously; they then will decide what to do about the additional 50 hard drives.

Gomez said he could not reveal who these "client entities" are, as that information may be classified pending a review of the material. He said his clients were concerned that by opening the 50 hard drives they could compromise the metadata on the files. He could not say how long it would take for a decision to be reached."

See Stephen Lemons, "Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing," Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015.

Lemons also reported that Judge Snow "seemed annoyed" by Gomez's report and said that he would not be waiting for the government to decide what to do before granting parties permission to examine the 50 hard drives. Both Iafrate (Arpaio counsel) and Wang (Plaintiffs counsel) said they want access to the hard drives and Snow ordered them to consult with the government to establish protocols for doing so. Id.

*Note: Rapheal O. Gomez was listed as an Interested Party in Montgomery's California bankruptcy proceedings. See, e.g., In re: Dennis Montgomery, No. 2:10-bk-18510-BB, ECF 98 (C.D. Cal. Bankr. Mar. 9, 2010) (listing Rapheal O. Gomez and Carlotta P. Wells of the DOJ-Civil Division as interested parties). Rapheal Gomez also represented the DOJ in the Montgomery v. eTreppid litigation, at least as early as mid-2007. See Montgomery et al v eTreppid Technologies et al. No. 3:06-cv-00056, Minutes of June 12, 2007 Proceedings ECF 188 (D. Nev. June 12, 2007) (indicating that Gomez appeared at hearing on behalf of US).

The 1,459 IDs

The 1,459 IDs, which were the subject of the July 24 emergency hearing, were also discussed. See Transcript at 15-28. Plaintiffs requested access to the IDS that were recently turned over to court monitors. According to Joffe-Block,

"[Judge] Snow said according to his recollection of [MCSO] interviews, in some district offices officers put seized IDs in a box known as a “unicorn bin" because it was “make believe” that they would ever be properly filed in property.

See Jude Joffe Block, "Judge: DOJ May Join Racial Profiling Case Against Sheriff Arpaio," KJZZ, Aug. 11, 2015); see also Transcript at pp 24-25.

The AP later reported that Judge Snow questioned whether the MCSO planned to conduct any internal investigations into the origins of the IDs. See Associated Press, "Judge: Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office had bins for officers to dump IDs," ABC15.com, Aug. 11, 2015. According to this article:

"Arpaio attorney John Masterson said there has been no evidence presented to show the IDs were taken illegally. He said inquiries unrelated to the profiling case were sidetracking the agency's efforts to carry out changes ordered by the judge as part of the profiling verdict. * * * Still, it's unclear whether Arpaio's office plans to conduct an investigation into the origins of the IDs. The sheriff's office and its lawyers didn't immediately respond to a clarification request made after the hearing."

See also Andrew Hasbun, "Hearing held in Arpaio racial profiling case," FOX 10 News, Aug. 12, 2015 for a detailed video report; Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015.

Sealed Hearings re: Brian Mackiewicz Criminal Investigation

Wang (Plaintiff Counsel) reiterated Plaintiffs' request for access to the Mackiewicz investivation documents, stating that "Based on what we know already, having observed many of the monitor's interviews, we believe that there's every indicatjon that there ìs very relevant material in these documents ..." See Transcript at 64.

Portions of prior hearings addressing the pending criminal investigations of Brian Mackiewicz* are ordered unsealed. "An MCSO spokesperson confirmed the criminal investigation to the Phoenix New Times in a recent article. Snow said the transcripts for those hearings should now be unsealed." See Jude Joffe Block, "Judge: DOJ May Join Racial Profiling Case Against Sheriff Arpaio," KJZZ, Aug. 11, 2015. See also Megan Cassidy, “Documents: MCSO detective under criminal investigation,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 13, 2015 (reporting that "Recently unsealed documents from a hearing last week confirm that sheriff's officials are looking into Detective Brian Mackiewicz for multiple investigations, both administrative and criminal in nature.")

*Note: According to Stephen Lemons, Mackiewicz has been placed on administrative leave. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015 (“On Tuesday, Allen also confirmed to me that Mackiewicz has been on administrative leave for about a week now.”); see also Megan Cassidy, “Documents: MCSO detective under criminal investigation,” Arizona Republic, Aug. 13, 2015 (reporting that Mackiewicz is on paid administrative leave).

Monitors Attempts to Interview Mackiewicz and Zullo

The Court Monitor also informed the Court that Mackiewicz appeared for his scheduled interview but, per his attorney's advice, refused to answer questions. See Transcript at 50. Zullo also showed up for his monitor interview (scheduled for the morning of August 7), but informed the monitors that he was seeking counsel. Id. at 50-51. See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015.

Additional Discovery

According to Lemons, Judge Snow "suggested the possibility that some of the interviews could be folded into depositions the plaintiffs will be doing, and [Arpaio Counsel] Masterson liked that idea.

"For the plaintiffs, Wang said they may reopen old depositions, and she offered a list of new depositions the ACLU is interested in doing.

These include depositions of former MCSO attorney Tim Casey, Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Tom Liddy, Mackiewicz, Zullo, MCSO's head of internal affairs, Captain Steve Bailey; Sergeant Travis Anglin, and private investigator Don Vogel, who probed [Grissom Matter] statements allegedly made by Snow's wife on behalf of the MCSO."

See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Pal Klayman Shot Down, DOJ Okayed, And More In Latest Sheriff Joe Contempt Hearing,” Phoenix New Times, Aug. 12, 2015; see also Transcript at 48 (Ms. Wang's discussion of potential additional depositions).

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file a "Motion to Dismiss" the May 15, 2015 appeal filed by Maricopa County. See Melendres v. Maricopa County et al, No. 15-15996, Doc. 13 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2015).

Aug. 12, 2015

Montgomery Appeal II. Dennis Montgomery (Larry Klayman) files a Notice of Appeal of Judge Snow's order denying Larry Klayman pro hac vice admission (etc). Melendres ECF 1238.

Aug. 13, 2015

Judge Snow issues order granting the DOJ's Motion to Intervene. [ECF 1239.]

Arpaio Writ Petition. Arpaio and Sheridan file a "Response" to Montgomery's August 10 Motion to Intervene in their mandamus proceeding pending in the Ninth Circuit. See In re Joseph Arpaio and Gerald Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc. 5 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). In their response, they "object to consolidation of their Petition for Writ of Mandamus with Mr.Montgomery’s pending appeal." (Id. at 1.)

Montgomery Appeal I. Montgomery/Klayman file an "Amended" Emergency Motion for Stay on Appeal in the appeal he previously filed on behalf of Dennis Montgomery. See Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. 15-16440, Doc. 6 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015).

Aug. 17, 2015

Sheridan files Motion to be Excused from Status Conferences and Contempt Hearings from October 11 - 23, 2015. [ECF 1247.]

Aug. 18, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order that ”The seal is lifted on those portions of the Court's hearings in this matter on 7/31/2015 and 8/7/2015 that were held under seal. The parties and represented non-parties are authorized to work out the terms of an appropriate protective order to further implement the terms of this Order. See order for additional details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/18/2015.” ECF 1249 Docket Entry.

A MCSO Memo from Joseph Arpaio to Captain Russ Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 3 (Follow-up) dated 8/18/2015 is later admitted into evidence in the 2015 Melendres contempt proceedings as Exhibit 2281. See Arpaio Oct. 2, 2015 testimony at 2419.

This document is MCSO's "response to requests from the monitor, or a request from the monitor, for copies of any memorandum or e-mails in which Sheriff Arpaio was the recipient, sender, or copied, in which Dennis Montgomery is the subject or is mentioned in the communication." Id. Arpaio signed this document. Id. at 2420.

Aug. 19, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Stipulation to Entry of Protective Order. ECF 1250 (PDF).

Aug. 20, 2015

Judge Snow issues order re: monitor bills: ‘The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated August 3, 2015 for services rendered by the Monitor in July 2015. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/20/2015.” [ECF 1253 Docket Entry.]

Arpaio Defense Counsel Michele Iafate files Request to be Excused from August 21, 2015 Status Conference due to Trial. ECF 1254.

Arpaio files (a) Notice re: Documents provided re No. 8 per (1208) Order. ECF 1255 (PDF); and (b) Motion for Extension of Time to Disclose Emails. ECF 1256 (PDF).

Arpaio and Sheridan file a Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings in their pending 9th Circuit mandamus proceedings, . In re: Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc. 8 (Aug. 20, 2015).

Arpaio Writ Petition. Melendres Plaintiffs file an Opposition to “Notice of Filing” (Montgomery/Klayman’s Motion to Intervene). In re: Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc. 9 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015).

Montgomery Appeal I. Melendres Plaintiffs file an Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay. Melendres v. Arpaio and Putative Intervener Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-16440, Doc. 7 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015).

Aug. 20, 2015

Larry Klayman -- Dennis Montgomery's attorney -- files a whistleblower complaint on behalf of, among others, Thomas Drake and J. Kirk Weibe. See Drake et al v. Alexander at al, No. 1:15-cv-01353-RJL (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2015) (Complaint (PDF).)

In the fall of 2014, the MCSO retained Drake and Weibe to evaluate Montgomery's Seattle Operation information. As reflected in their Nov. 13, 2014 letter and Nov. 14, 2014 email, Weibe and Drake determined that "none of the data examined reveals or otherwise supports the assertion that the data contained on the hard drive resulted from the clandestine collection and processing of modern digital network communications and is, instead, evidence of an outright and fraudulent con perpetrated on the Government for person gain and cover." (from Nov. 13 letter) In short: They found that Montgomery -- Klayman's client at the time -- Montgomery "is a complete and total fraud." (from Nov. 14 email)

Aug. 21, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the status conference scheduled today. See Minute Order (ECF 1261), Transcript (ECF 1275). Orders issued verbally today will be memorialized in an Aug. 26, 2015 order.

Judge Snow enters Stipulated Protective Order (per parties' (1250) Stipulation). [ECF 1262.]

Arpaio files Notice re Documents Provided re numbers 4 and 5 re: 1208 Order. [ECF 1258.]

Joseph Sousa files a Motion to Seal Motion and Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. [ECF 1259, 1260.]

Montgomery v. ACLU. ACLU-related entities file a Motion to Dismiss Dennis Montgomery's case pending in Florida. See Montgomery v. American Civil Liberties Union et al, No. 1:15-cv-22452-KMM, ECF 18 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2015); see also ECF 19-25 (declarations filed in support of motion to dismiss).

Aug. 26, 2015

Judge Snow issues an Order Amending Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order. ECF 1270. This order makes change to the permanent injunction in response to the Ninth Circuit's April 15, 2015 decision, which found that one aspect of the injunction was too broad.

Judge Snow also issues an order memorializing the orders he issued verbally during the Aug. 21 status conference. ECF 1271. Per that order:

1. Defendants' Motion (1256) for extension of time to disclose emails is denied. Id. at 1.

2. Sheridan's Motion (1247) to be excused from any proceedings occurring Oct. 11-23 is granted "[u]nder the terms of Chief Deputy Sheridan’s in-court waiver of any objection to the continuation of the contempt hearings in his absence." Id. at 2.

3. Plaintiffs are "granted leave to propound twenty (20) interrogatories and twenty-five (25) requests for admission to Defendants, on a timeline for service and responses that is agreed upon by the parties." Id.

4. Arpaio's request for "the documents identified by the Court in its May 14, 2015 Status Conference as having caused the Court concern" is granted: "The Monitor shall produce copies of those documents, in their original pagination and—without generally waiving any other privileges potentially applicable to the Court or to the Monitor—with the accompanying table of contents and divider sheets prepared by the Monitor. The documents will be provided to all parties and non-parties named in the Order to Show Cause by August 28, 2015." Id.

The Melendres Plaintiffs file Notice of Deposition of Gerald Sheridan (ECF 1269) and Subpoena for Deposition of Timothy Casey (ECF 1268).

Arpaio Writ Petition. Montgomery (Klayman) files a Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene. In re: Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc. 10.

Montgomery Appeal I. Montgomery (Klayman) files a Reply in Support of Motion to Stay. Melendres v. Arpaio/Putative Intervener Dennis Montgomery, No. 15-16440, Doc. 9.

The Melendres Plaintiffs also file a Motion to Supplement the Record in this appeal. Doc. 10.

Aug. 28, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1273); Transcript (ECF 1310). A number of issues are discussed, including but not limited to the following:

The Single Montgomery/Seattle Operation Hard Drive Produced in April: About the single hard drive that was the subject of some discussion on July 31 (i.e., the "original" hard drive from which files were copied onto the hard drive delivered to the monitors in late April 2015):

“IAFRATE: Long story short -- or short story long, whichever -- the monitors, I believe yesterday, or today, agreed that they do not need to look at what we're calling the Knight hard drive. I was looking at that for relevance, not for privilege, Your Honor. . . So I worked it out with the monitors; I’ve not yet worked it out with plaintiffs’ counsel. I thought that I would start with the monitors because they were the ones that were in possession of it.”

Aug. 28 Transcript (Rush version of ECF 1310) at 15. Monitor Girvin confirms that this summary is accurate. Id.

The "Former NSA Employees" Report on the Montgomery/Seattle Operation files. When Judge Snow asks defense counsel whether all Montgomery documents requested have been produced, the following exchange occurs:

“THE COURT: All right. And you’re not aware, at least as you stand here today, that there is any other information that Montgomery provided to the MCSO.

MASTERSON: That is what I don’t know. If there is independent documentation – notes, anything like that – that I don’t know. . . . The best I can tell you is we think everything we have has been disclosed or the Court, through the marshals, has taken possession, except there’s one document which we received this morning. The Court made an inquiry . . . last week of me about whether we retained experts to take a look at the materials. I was not certain about that. I thought that we had two individuals look at it; whether they were retained experts, I did not know.

I’ve gotten a little further information on that. They weren’t retained experts, what they were is former NSA employees, and the hard drives were provided to them, and we received this morning a two-page memo, I’ll say, about those hard drives.

Not being a computer guy, I can’t tell you what exactly it means, but I can tell you what I read it to mean is there’s basically nothing here; that whatever Mr. Montgomery told you was here isn’t really – that’s not what this is. And we will provide that document to the Court and the plaintiffs.

THE COURT: When was that document prepared, do you remember?

MASTERSON: I’m told November 2014.

* * *

THE COURT: . . . Were the NSA guys MCSO employees, or were they outside consultants? Or outside people.

MASTERSON: Outside people.

THE COURT: And were they paid?

MASTERSON: I don’t think so, but, again, I don’t know the answer to that.

THE COURT: All right. It just seems to me that to the extent the MCSO might want to preserve any right to say that there was information in those hard drives, or anything else provided to you by Montgomery, that would have – that you believe would have allowed Mr. Montgomery to legitimately construct the kinds of materials that we’ve seen in the record and that I’ve provided you this week that I saw that Ms. Wang provided in conjunction with the motion to recuse, I guess it’s fair to say identify that stuff, and there may be no issue, and if there’s no issue, there’s no issue. About that, at least.

And so you may be able to make the stipulations that we talked about last week, and maybe then I just wait and see what kind of stipulations, or how – if you can resolve this within the next week. It sounds like at least there’s movement being made.” (Id. at 17-19.)

Potential dismissal of civil contempt charges against Lieutenant Sousa: Judge Snow rather clearly indicates he thinks that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Lieutenant Sousa should be found in contempt.

“THE COURT: . . . I must say, without making this a ruling of any sort, that I did not hear anything that would suggest that Lieutenant Sousa's conduct rose to the level of civil contempt. * * * . . . I would like, with respect to Lieutenant Sousa, at least, since we've heard his testimony, and I think we've heard all the testimony – I don't know what testimony you intend to produce, but heard a lot of testimony about what Lieutenant Sousa’s role was and what he did and didn’t do, I at least would like to entertain the possibility of, if there’s an early disposition for him, taking it or making it.”

Id. at 22, 24. Plaintiffs note that they've yet to receive all the emails from the PST archives and, as such, will defer responding until they receive such documents. Plaintiffs also note that he still may be needed as a witness. Id. at 25.

Still More IDs discovered at MCSO. Masterson also reveals that yet more IDs have been discovered.

“MASTERSON: I've got one more that I hate to bring up but I have to: somewhere between 61 and 65 more IDs showed up.

THE COURT: Okay.

MASTERSON: An IA number's been pulled. The investigation has been started. I believe the monitors have been informed. Copies of the IDs have been made and will be provided to plaintiffs either by the monitors or by counsel. The investigation into it, at this point I know one person has been interviewed as of Wednesday afternoon to see where the investigation was headed from there. I know one other person to be interviewed was out of town, not available till next Monday. So I can't give the court any further information other than that the IDs showed up, we've got them, we've made copies, we've given information to the monitors, and we're going to give that to plaintiffs either through the monitors or directly, and an IS has been commended on the issue.”

THE COURT: Thank you. Were any of them involving members of the plaintiff class?

MASTERSON: I certainly can't tell you whether there are members of the plaintiffs' class. I can tell you that I have been informed -- I have not seen any of them, and I have not even talked to anyone who has seen them, but my information is that there are a number of IDs with Hispanic last names.” Id. at 31-32.

Possible Settlement? Masterson informs the Court that the parties have discussed possible settlement and asks whether a Magistrate could be available if talks advance such that it be helpful to have such involvement. The Court indicates that is possible. Id. at 28. Plaintiffs indicate that they are amendable to discussion but ...

“MR. YOUNG: Yes, Your Honor. On the issue of settlement, Mr. Masterson did accurately recite the course of our discussion. I should note that we are certainly intending to have further discussions on whether we can agree on some remedies, although I would note that we have been receiving and continue to receive, a lot of information that will be highly relevant to the issue of what type of remedy we think ought to be put into place.

The internal investigation process is certainly very important. We've recently been getting a number of IA documents that are highly relevant to the issue of a remedy. I think we’re continuing to get them. we've heard just now that there will be some more coming. We'll want to look at those in order to be able to propose a remedy to try to prevent the kinds of abuses that have occurred.

In addition, we do have the 16,000 documents coming out of the PST archives of the people who are highly relevant. . . .

We did receive several hundred of those last Monday, Monday this week. I understand that we'll be receiving a bunch more today and Monday, but we don't know when we'll get the last of those. And generally speaking, at least in my experience, one is in the best position to figure out what a settlement is when one has the information that is relevant to the case and to the proposed remedy, so we'll do our best.” (Id. at 33-34).

The DOJ's potential expert witness. Killabrew (DOJ counsel) informs the Court that the DOJ is "considering the possibility" of having an expert testify about internal accountability and "what kind of remedies may be appropriate or would prevent future violations." Id. at 36. Defense counsel is not impressed and notes that will require expert reports and additional depositions. Judge Snow seems similarly unimpressed:

“THE COURT: You know, I must say initially my reaction was the monitor's kind of the court-appointed expert on this issue, and that's what the report is related to, anyway. and I assumed that we were all going to go forward with the monitor's report based on our discussion last week.

So that doesn't mean I'm going to tell the Department of Justice no, but my inclination, I share some of the same concerns you have, Mr. Masterson. Why don't I let the parties think about it this week, talk about it, and then we can decide next week how we intend to approach it.” (Id. at 37).

United States’ review of the Montgomery/Seattle Operation 50 Hard Drives. Gomez reports to the Court that the United States wants to take a sampling rather than review all the hard drives:

“MR. GOMEZ: The United States . . . is proposing that a small sample be pulled from the 50 hard drives; that a forensic copy be made by a vendor there, a cleared vendor there in the phoenix area; and that that sample be reviewed by the government with respect to whether there's any classified information, you know, in the 50 hard drives, and hopefully, that could be resolved through a review of the sample.”

Id. at 38. Judge Snow instructs Gomez to provide the parties with the specifics of his proposal and then address it at next week’s status conference. Id. at 38-39.

See also, generally, See Stephen Lemons, “As Arpaio's Trial Approaches, More MCSO Shenanigans Pop Out of the Woodwork,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 2, 2015; Jude Joffe-Block, "Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Lawyers Raise Settlement Possibility In Contempt Case," KJZZ, Aug. 28, 2015, Megan Cassidy, “MCSO contempt case: Arpaio's lawyers talk potential settlement," Arizona Republic, Aug. 28, 2015.

Following the hearing, Judge Snow issues a brief order, correcting a typo in a prior order and ordering the DOJ to file a Complaint in Intervention. ECF 1274.

Maricopa County files a "Motion for Recognition of its Rights as a Party Litigant." ECF 1272.

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Notice of Discovery - i.e., that Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Arpaio Re Contempt were served on defendants on Aug. 27. ECF 1276

Aug. 31, 2015

Melendres. The DOJ files its Intervenor Complaint (ECF 1277) and Notice of Service of Discovery (ECF 1280).

The Melendres Plaintiffs file multiple notices of depositions:

Notice of Deposition of David Tennyson (for Sept. 4).¹ ECF 1279.
Notice of Deposition of Suzanne Kimberly Seagraves-Young (for Sept. 3).² ECF 1278.
Notice of Deposition of Don Vogel (with subpoena for documents) (for Sept. 11).³ ECF 1281.
Notice of Deposition of Steve Bailey (for Sept. 8).⁴ ECF 1283.
Notice of Deposition of Edward Patrick Lopez (for Sept. 9).⁵ ECF 1284.

*Notes-

1. Tennyson was (at least in October 2014) a MCSO Sergeant directly involved in the Armendariz-related investigations - and his investigation was the subject of significant Court Monitor/Judge Snow criticism. See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block, "Judge Slams Arpaio Investigation Mistakes, Comments," KJZZ, Oct. 29, 2004.

2. Seagraves-Young was, at least at one point, an MCSO Lieutenant. She was a key figure in the MCSO sex crime investigation fiasco. See JJ Hensley, "Review: Sheriff Arpaio's Unit was Sloppy in Sex-Crimes Cases," Arizona Republic, Feb. 17, 2013. Her direction connection to this case is currently unclear.

3. Vogel investigated the Grissom Matter (see, e.g., Oct. 28, 2013) and also conducted investigations in the wake of the Nov. 20, 2014 hearing revelations (as referenced at that hearing).

4. Bailey was, at one point, commander of the Special Investigations Division, which was the parent component that oversaw the Human Smuggling Unit (i.e., the unit in which Armendariz served). Shortly after the May 2014 Armendariz investigation began, he was reassigned to the Position of Internal Affairs Commander. See June 9, 2014.

5. Lopez was (at least as of Nov. 2013), Deputy Chief of Special Investigations for MCSO. See, e.g., Phil Benson, "MCSO: Canadian teen makes 9th threat against Sheriff Arpaio," cbs5, Nov. 13, 2013. He was also present at the first mandatory post-significant operation community event. See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block, "First Mandatory Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Community Meeting Held," Fronteras, Nov. 10, 2013.

Sept. 1, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs file multiple notices of depositions:

NOTICE of Deposition of Bill Knight (for Sept. 9). ECF 1287.
NOTICE of Deposition of Travis Anglin (for Sept. 9). ECF 1288.
NOTICE of Deposition of Stephen Fax (for Sept. 10). ECF 1289.
NOTICE of Deposition of John ("Jack") MacIntyre (for Sept. 15). ECF 1290.
NOTICE of Deposition of Jonathan Knapp (for Sept. 15). ECF 1291.
NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph M. Arpaio (for Sept. 17 and 18). ECF 1292.
NOTICE of Deposition of Brett Palmer (for Sept. 17). ECF 1293.
NOTICE of Deposition of Mike Olson (for Sept. 17). ECF 1294.
NOTICE of Deposition of Joseph Sousa (for Sept. 17). ECF 1295.
NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Sands (for Sept. 17). ECF 1296.
NOTICE of Deposition of Brian Mackiewicz (for Oct. 7). ECF 1297.
NOTICE of Deposition of Michael Zullo (for Oct. 7). ECF 1298.

Sept. 3, 2015

The Melendres Plaintiffs file three notices of depositions:

AMENDED Notice of Deposition of David Tennyson (changing date to Sept. 8). ECF 1303.
NOTICE of Deposition of Thomas P. Liddy (for Sept. 21). ECF 1304.
NOTICE of Deposition of Christine Bailey Stutz (for Sept. 18). ECF 1305.

Timothy Casey files a "Notice of Position re: His Deposition," (ECF 1306), in which he requests the Court's attendance at his deposition in order to resolve disputes over attorney-client privilege. ECF 1306.

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Suzanne Kimberly Seagraves-Young per prior notice of deposition. ECF 1278.

Note. A full transcript of this deposition is not yet publicly available. However, according to an excerpt later filed by Plaintiffs (ECF 1319), Seagraves-Young is questioned about the Armendariz-related investigations, and other investigations and PSB matters (based on list of exhibits). She testifies about three sets of IDs being found (including the Knapp IDs - i.e., the "1500 IDs") (Depo at 88-89). She testifies that she was told that Knapp brought in the IDs for destruction. (Depo at 92).

SeagravesSeagraves-Young also testifies about the July 17th meeting in which an instruction apparently was given that MCSO personnel should not disclose the existence of the 1500 IDs to the monitors during the upcoming site visit. Per her testimony, (a) she knows why Bailey answered “no” but can’t say why – on attorney/client privilege grounds; (b) an instruction was given during the July 17 meeting about what to do with the IDS, but she can’t disclose that (on attorney/client privilege grounds); (c) the (or one of the) instruction was that the 1500 IDs not be disclosed; and (c) the instruction was not given by any MCSO employee. Depo at 113-117. And, per Seagraves, when the monitors later asked whether any other IDs had been discovered and the answer to that question (given by Bailey) was “no” (id. at 112).

Arpaio Petition for Writ. Melendres Plaintiffs file Opposition to Arpaio/Sheridan's Motion to Stay. See In re: Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc 11 (9th Cir.).

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Maricopa County files an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss. See Melendres v. Maricopa County et al, No. 15-15996, Doc 16 (9th Cir.).

Sept. 4, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the scheduled status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1309); Transcript (ECF 1353).

Sept. 8, 2015

Judge Snow issues order re: matters discussed at Sept. 4 status conference. ECF 1312. Per that order

MCSO must review the Tim Casey client files and produce documents requested and provided a privilege log for materials not produced.

Parties must comply with "the procedure suggested by Mr. Gomez, counsel for the United States, for the examination of the fifty hard drives. Any material found to be privileged is subject to strict “claw back” principles pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B)."

Deadline for responses to pending interrogatories and requests for admissions is set for Sept. 15.

Melendres Plaintiffs, per prior notices of depositions, depose

Steve Bailey today, beginning at 9:30 am (ECF 1283); and.

David Tennyson today, beginning at 9:30 am (ECF 1303).

Note. Full deposition transcripts are not (yet) publicly available. However, according to excerpts later filed by Plaintiffs (ECF 1319 (Motion to Compel Testimony re: July 14, 2015 meeting; ECF 1365 (Notice of Additional Authorities - re; Jan 2, 2014 meeting), Bailey testifies, among other things, about the discovery of the 1500 IDs (ECF 1319-1). Bailey testifies that when he learned of the IDs, he started an IA investigation but then suspended it per direction from Sheridan. Id. at 8-9. He testifies that during the July 17 "rehearsal meeting," a direction was given to avoid discussion of the IDs - and that instruction did not come from MCSO personnel. Id. at 15-19. Per Bailey, during the subsequent monitor's visit, he was asked if there were any pending cases regarding IDS, and he answered no. Id. at 24-26 (note that this contrasts with Seagraves Sept. 3 testimony that the question was whether any other IDs had been discovered).

Bailey also testifies about a January 2, 2014 meeting with MCSO personnel and attorneys regarding the Seattle Operation. (ECF 1365-2) and that (at a currently unknown point), he told Sheridan that he could no longer in good conscience approve payments to Dennis Montgomery or MCSO travel expenses related to the Seattle Operation (but that payments to Montgomery and travel expense reimbursement continued after he refused to sign off). See Jan. 2, 2014 and Sometime After Jan. 2, 2014 for more details.

Sept. 9, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs issue amended deposition notices for John MacIntyre (ECF 1318) and Don Vogel (ECF 1319.)

Melendres Plaintiffs (per prior notices) depose:

Edward Patrick Lopez, beginning at beginning at 2:00 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1284); .

Bill Knight, beginning at 9:00 a.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1287); and

Travis Anglin, beginning at 9:00 a.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1288).

Note. Full deposition transcripts are not (yet) publicly available. However, according to excerpts later filed by Plaintiffs (ECF 1365-1), Anglin testifies about a January 2, 2014 meeting with MCSO personnel and attorneys regarding the Seattle Operation. (ECF 1365-2) and that Montgomery was "still on the payroll" as of May 2014. week of May 1

(at a currently unknown point), he told Sheridan that he could no longer in good conscience approve payments to Dennis Montgomery or MCSO travel expenses related to the Seattle Operation (but that payments to Montgomery and travel expense reimbursement continued after he refused to sign off). See Jan. 2, 2014 and Week of May 10-14, 2014 for more details.

Sept. 10, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Motion to Compel Testimony regarding the 1,500 IDs. ECF 1319.

Judge Snow presides over scheduled status conference at 10:00 am. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1321 Text Only Entry); Transcript (ECF 1354). During this hearing, he sets an expedited briefing schedule: Response is due by Sept. 17 at 10:00 AM; Reply is due by Sept. 18 at noon. ECF 1321.

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Stephen Fax, beginning at 12:00 noon for a period of up to four hours (per prior notice of deposition). ECF 1289.

Judge Snow issues a minute order setting telephonic hearing for 3:30 PM this afternoon, apparently in response to ACLU counsel's notice that MCSO has failed to turn over documents received from former attorney Tim Casey (whose deposition is scheduled for next Tuesday). ECF 1322. The hearing is held as scheduled. Transcript (ECF 1355). At the hearing,

"Federal Judge Murray Snow was visibly frustrated and sternly told Arpaio’s lawyer, Michele Iafrate, that he was “not very impressed” with her delay in producing the documents that are owed to other parties in the case."

See Jude Joffe-Block, "Judge In Arpaio Contempt Case Calls Emergency Hearing," KJZZ, Sept. 10, 2015.

Following the hearing, Judge Snow issues the following order:

that counsel for Defendants shall produce all materials contained in the client file Timothy Casey provided to counsel, requested in Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Casey, and consistent with the previous orders of this Court. Counsel for Defendants shall also provide a privilege log for any materials not produced. Counsel for Defendants shall produce all materials over the weekend on a rolling basis, delivering materials to Plaintiff’s counsel as soon as materials are ready for production. If Counsel for Defendants fails to produce all of these materials as ordered over the weekend, counsel for Defendants must file an explanation for the failure with the Court on the morning of Monday, September 14.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard Walker shall confer with all parties requesting the designated archived Maricopa County files to ascertain the most appropriate and workable production format that includes all relevant text, meta data, and attachments. Mr. Walker shall then arrange for the shipment of the PSP files in the agreed upon format by Saturday, September 12, 2015 to ensure all interested parties receive the files by Monday morning, September 14, 2015. If Mr. Walker fails to arrange for the shipment of the PSP files by Saturday, September 12 for a Monday morning, September 14 delivery, Mr. Walker shall file an explanation with the Court on Monday morning, September 14.

ECF 1326.

Sept. 11, 2015

MCSO/Arpaio files Notice of Filing of Fifth Quarterly Compliance Report. ECF 1331.

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Opposition to Sands’ Aug. 6 Motion for Summary Judgement. ECF 1332 (Opposition).

Statement of Facts re: Opposition. ECF 1333.

Motion to Seal Exhibits 8-11 re: Statement of Facts (e-mail correspondence and excerpts of internal affairs investigation files) and Exhibits 13-16 (transcripts of Monitor interviews that may reflect Defendants’ confidential information). ECF 1334.

Per the Motion to Seal, “Plaintiffs do not necessarily agree that any of this material actually warrants confidential treatment, but file this motion in an abundance of caution in view of Defendants’ confidentiality designations (which, in Plaintiffs’ view, have been excessive and overbroad).” Id. at 3. See also ECF 1335 (Sealed Lodged Exhibits).

Stephen Lemons' in depth article about the circumstances surrounding Charley Armendariz's death is published. See Stephen Lemons, “MCSO Deputy Promised to "Expose Sheriff's Office" Before Suicide,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 11, 2015. (See May 7, 2014 and thereafter for information on how Armendariz's death resulted in discovery of substantial information relating to MCSO's non-compliance with the court's preliminary and permanent injunctions.)

Sept. 14, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Don Vogel, beginning at 9:00 am (per prior notice of deposition). ECF 1318 (Amended Notice; Original notice for Sept. 11 at ECF 1281).

Melendres Plaintiffs and The United States file Oppositions to Maricopa County’s Aug. 28 Motion for Recognition of its Rights as a Party Litigant. Plaintiffs’ Opposition - ECF 1344; United States Opposition - ECF 1336.

Judge Snow issues a Minute Order setting a Telephonic Status Conference for 1:45 PM today. ECF 1337 (text entry only). The brief (15 minute) hearing is held as scheduled. ECF 1346 (text entry only); Transcript (ECF 1366).

Arpaio files a Notice: “[D]ocuments and privilege log were provided relating to materials contained in the client file Tim Casey provided to counsel, requested in Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Casey” pursuant to the Court’s Sept.10 Order. ECF 1338.

Maricopa County files a Notice: “this morning, September 14, 2015, the following electronically stored information was delivered, via Federal Express courier services, to the offices of counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for former Chief Brian Sands: (1) copies of raw tiff images and text files corresponding to each of the documents (after de-duping) identified as a result of searches conducted on agreed upon specified pst files and using agreed upon search parameters, exclusive of documents and portions of documents withheld at the direction of counsel for Sheriff Arpaio on privilege and/or work product grounds; (2) copies of spreadsheets and audio files in “native” format’; and (3) “load” files that will make it possible for the aforementioned parties to load such tiff images into their own, respective databases and conduct searches on such data. It is the understanding of undersigned counsel that the data provided today includes emails, attachments, and metadata, and that all such data will be readily searchable, once loaded into databases as hereinbefore described.” ECF 1342.

Melendres Plaintiffs file an Amendment to 1268 Notice of Deposition of Timothy J. Casey. ECF 1343.

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file Reply in Support of their Aug. 11 Motion to Dismiss. No. 15-15996, Doc. 17.

Sept. 15, 2015

Arpaio Writ Petition. The Ninth Circuit denies Arpaio's/Sheridan's Aug. 6 Petition for Writ of Mandamus (seeking disqualification of Judge Snow):

"Petitioners have not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted). The district court’s July 10, 2015 order denying petitioners’ motion for recusal is not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. Id. Accordingly, the petition is denied.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DENIED."

In re: Arpaio and Sheridan, No. 15-72440, Doc 14 (emphasis and link to case added).

Montgomery Appeal I. The Ninth Circuit denies Montgomery's Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings. Melendres v. Arpaio, Montgomery Proposed Intervenor, No. 15-16440, Doc. 11.

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues an order regarding four sets of emails over which Arpaio/MCSO has asserted attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product protection. Judge Boyle finds that (a) three sets are privileged/protected, and that the protections have not been waived; (b) with respect to the set of emails relating to compliance with the December 2011 Preliminary Injunction, the privilege/protection has been waived per Judge Snow’s May 14 Order granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery. ECF 1349.

Melendres Plaintiffs file an Amendment to 1291 Notice of Deposition of Jonathan Knapp (moving deposition to Sept. 21). ECF 1350.

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Gerald Sheridan, beginning at 9:00 a.m. "for the remainder of the seven hour period" defined in the Court’s Feb. 12 order (per prior notices of depositions). ECF 1269.

Arpaio files

Notice of Filing Annual Compliance Report (attaching 50-page report). ECF 1351.

Notice: “document Casey Sub000166 was provided on August 15, 2015 pursuant to the Court’s Order dated September 15, 2015.” ECF 1352.

Notice of that he served Plaintiffs with Defendant Arpaio’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Arpaio re Contempt. ECF 1356.

KJZZ reports on the ever-growing group of attorneys involved in the Melendres case, noting that at least 17 law firms, plus the DOJ (two divisions) are now involved in the case. She reports that Maricopa County has contracted "with at least eight private firms to represent county employees and county interests," and that "KJZZ estimates that every time the various players involved come to court, it costs county taxpayers almost $2,000 an hour in legal bills." See Jude Joffe-Block, "As Arpaio’s Contempt Case Becomes More Complex, A Growing Number Of Lawyers Join In," KJZZ, Sept. 15, 2015.

Arpaio sends out an appeal for contributions for his legal fund, promising "I will never give up or surrender." As noted by Lemons, while Maricopa County taxpayers pay all legal fees relating to the civil cases pending, Arpaio must personally pay for his criminal defense counsel, which he retained in December 2014 in light of potential Melendres criminal contempt charges against him. See Stephen Lemons, "Arpaio Wants You to Pay His Criminal Attorney Tab, as He Loses Again in Melendres," Phoenix New Times, Sept. 16, 2015.

Sept. 16, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs depose former MCSO attorney Tim Casey at 1 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (per prior notices of depositions). ECF 1268, as amended by ECF 1350.

Note. Full deposition transcripts are not (yet) publicly available. However, according to excerpts later filed by Plaintiffs (ECF 1365-3), Casey testifies, among other things, about a January 2, 2014 meeting between MCSO personnel and attorneys regarding the Seattle Operation. See Jan. 2, 2014 for more details.

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues an order addressing whether several Bill Montgomery (Maricopa County Attorney) documents may be withheld on attorney-client privilege/work product protection grounds. Judge Boyle finds that:

document MCAO00572 (1 page) is protected and falls outside the subject-matter waiver identified in the Court’s May 14 Order (so need not be produced);

documents MCAO00640, MCAO00650, MCAO00573-76, and MCAO00626-29 would be protected, but they fall within the waiver set forth in the May 14 Order - although Judge Boyle gives defendants until 5 PM Sept 18 to object to disclosure;

the remaining documents at issue "even if covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine,"fall within the waiver set forth in the May 14 Order. Therefore, Defendants must disclose

ECF 1357.

Sept. 17, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs (per prior notices of depositions),

depose Joseph M. Arpaio, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon (ECF 1292);

depose Brett Palmer, beginning at 9:00 a.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1293);

depose Mike Olson, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (ECF 1294);

depose Joseph Sousa, beginning at 1:00 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1295); and

depose Brian Sands, beginning at 1:30 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1296).

MCSO files:

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Sept. 10 Motion to Compel Testimony about the 1,500 IDs. ECF 1358.

Notice of Documents Provided (i.e, Attorney Bill Montgomery docs per Sep. 16 Order). ECF 1361.

Notice of Authorities (per Court's Sept. 16 request) re: attorney-client privilege. ECF 1363 (as corrected)

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Notice of Authorities ("pursuant to the Court’s request of September 16, 2015"). ECF 1360. This document contains references to multiple cases addressing attorney-client privilege and waiver of same.

Notice of Deposition of Rollie Seebert. ECF 1359.

Sept. 18, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Reply in Support of their Sept. 10 Motion to Compel Testimony re: July 17, 2015. ECF 1364 (Reply). ECF 1364-1 (included at link) contains excerpts of depositions of Steve Bailey and Gerald Sheridan.

A "Notice of Authorities," to which are attached excerpts from the depositions of Sergeant Travis Anglin, Captain Steve Bailey, Tim Casey, and Gerald Sheridan. ECF 1365.

Note. These excerpts include deposition testimony regarding a Jan. 2, 2014 meeting regarding the Seattle Operation with MCSO personnel and attorneys, at which the following people may have been present: Travis Anglin, Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, Steve Bailey, "Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy, and Mr. Casey, and Dennis Montgomery was on speakerphone." Id.

Judge Snow presides over the status conference at 9:00 AM. Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1368 (text entry only); Transcript (ECF 1381). At this conference, he orders that the contempt evidentiary hearings will resume Sept. 23. ECF 1368.

Melendres Plaintiffs (per prior notices of depositions),

depose Christine Bailey Stutz, beginning at 9:30 a.m. (ECF 1305); and

continue the deposition of Joseph M. Arpaio, beginning at 1:00 p.m., up to a total of seven hours (ECF 1292); and

depose Rollie Seebert, beginning at 1:00 pm. (ECF 1359).

Judge Snow presides over an in-court hearing addressing various privilege matters and the 1,500 IDS. Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1369); Transcript (ECF 1381).

Following that hearing, Judge Snow issues an order that:

"[P]ursuant to argument, explanation, and ruling from the bench, ... a subject matter waiver exists regarding the approximately 1,459 identification documents (“1500 IDs”) and any communications, from July 17, 2015, until the time that the monitor sent notice of a hearing on this matter, between MCSO employees and counsel regarding whether the 1500 IDs and their disclosure or nondisclosure.

[P]ursuant to the Court’s ruling from the bench, ... a subject matter waiver exists regarding communications between MCSO employees and counsel at the January 2, 2014 [Seattle Operation] meeting."

ECF 1370. Judge Snow also orders (a) the Monitor Team to send a tally of the 1,500 IDS belonging to Plaintiff Class to the parties; (b) that Magistrate Judge Boyle will attend the Sept. 21 deposition of Tom Liddy; and (c) that the deposition of Tim Casey will continue Sept. 22 and Judge Snow will be available by telephone to address disputes. Id.

1,500 ID Subject Matter Waiver. On this issue, Judge Snow stated, during the hearing, as follows:

THE COURT: ... [I]f you're [i.e., defense counsel] going to allow all that discussion of what the direction was, it seems to me like the defendants, not the individual -- not the individuals, but the defendants have waived the privilege.

Why haven't they? Because of the use of it as a sword and shield. I mean, you're clearly trying -- isn't Captain Bailey clearly trying to say why he didn't disclose these identifications? And didn't he clearly say why he didn't disclose these identifications, which was he was instructed not to disclose them?

MR. ACKERMAN: That is correct, but at the same time, it is the attorney-client privilege that protects that.

THE COURT: Is it the attorney-client privilege? Why haven't you completely waived the attorney-client privilege if that advice was -- if you completely disclose what the direction was? And then you say: We don't have to say who told you?

MR. ACKERMAN: It's a point well taken, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I don't think Captain Bailey testified that he -- I think the testimony got as far as: You were asked whether there were additional internal investigations and you answered no. Why did you do that? And then the attorney-client privilege was invoked.

THE COURT: Well, I thought that there was clearly an instruc- -- Bailey testified that he was instructed not to disclose or discuss the identification.

MR. MASTERSON: I don't think the testimony went that far, Judge.

THE COURT: Let's look and find it. Do you have it handy, Ms. Wang?

* * *

THE COURT: According to the citation you've given me in your motion, it is the Bailey deposition at page 199, lines 10 through 16:

And was this direction specific? Did you tell the monitor specifically that a irection was given during the July 17, 2015 meeting not to discuss the Knapp IDs?
Answer: That's -- yes.
And were all of your statements to the monitor accurate?
Answer: Yes.

Sure looks like that's what he said to me, Mr. Masterson.

MR. MASTERSON: You're right, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay. There has been a subject-matter waiver, I'm ruling . . . . and I am ruling that there has been a subject-matter waiver on the topic of the 1500 IDs, whether or not disclosure or non-disclosure was authorized."

Sept. 18 Transcript (ECF 1381) at 12-14.

Jan. 2, 2014 Seattle Operation Meeting Waiver. On this issue, Judge Snow stated, during the hearing, as follows:

After I have read the deposition excerpts, particularly those from Sergeant Anglin and Captain Bailey, it seems to me that there was an unrestricted questioning about this meeting that included not only topics discussions, but statements and questions made by Sheriff Arpaio, and I just can't see how there isn't a subject-matter waiver. So I am going to rule that there is a subject-matter waiver pertaining to that January 2nd, 2014 meeting.

Sept. 18 Transcript (ECF 1381) at 70-71.

See also Stephen Lemons, “Federal Court Depositions Point to Possible Perjury by Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 21, 2015 (reporting on information relating to the Jan. 2, 2014 meeting and deposition testimony re: same); Megan Cassidy, “Focus on Defense Attorney in Joe Arpaio Contempt Case,” Arizona Republic, Sept. 19, 2015 (reporting on information relating to the July 17, 2015 meeting and deposition testimony re: same).

Maricopa County files an Objection to Disclosure re: 1357 Order. ECF 1367.

Sept. 21, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs will (per prior notices of depositions),

depose John ("Jack") MacIntyre, beginning at 9:00 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1317 (amended notice));

depose Thomas P. Liddy, beginning at 1:00 p.m. ECF 1304.

depose Jonathan Knapp, beginning at 1:00 p.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1351, amending ECF 1291).

Magistrate Judge Boyle issues an order sustaining Maricopa County's Sept. 18 Objections as to production of certain Attorney Bill Montgomery documents, and ordering the county to turn over documents to which it did not object. ECF 1372.

Melendres Plaintiffs file several notices of second depositions: Kimberley Seagraves-Young - Sept. 22 at 9 a.m. (ECF 1377); Stephen Fax - Sept. 22 at 11 a.m. (ECF 1378); Gerald Sheridan - Sept. 22 at 11 a.m. (ECF 1375); and Steve Bailey - Sept. 22, at 1 p.m. (ECF 1378).

Sept. 22, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs (per prior notices of depositions):

continue the deposition of Tim Casey at 9:00 a.m. ECF 1371.
take a second deposition of Kimberley Seagraves-Young at 9 a.m.
take a second deposition of Stephen Fax at 11 a.m.
take a second deposition of Gerald Sheridan at 11 a.m.
take a second deposition of Steve Bailey at 1 p.m.

Arpaio files:

Motion in Limine re: Re: Montgomery Investigation. ECF 1385.

Motion in Limine re: Re: Testimony of Don Vogel and IA 542 and 543. ECF 1386 (Motion); ECF 1386-1 (Mike Olson Deposition Excerpts; included in 1386 link).

Tim Casey files Motion for Reconsideration of His September 18, 2015 Oral Motion to Quash Hearing/Trial Subpoena. ECF 1384.

Sept. 23, 2015

Tim Casey files Motion for Reconsideration Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena. ECF 1384.

Arpaio files

Motion in Limine re: Montgomery Investigation, seeking to preclude evidence relating to the Seattle Operation. ECF 1385.

Motion in Limine re: Re: Testimony of Don Vogel and IA 542 and 543, seeking to preclude Dan Vogel from testifying about his investigation into MCSO internal affairs – and his reaction to the MCSO’s overturning of all of his factual findings re: same. ECF 1386.

See also Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Attorneys Try Blocking Damning Evidence from Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 24, 2015; Jamie Ross, “Arpaio Tries to Limit Contempt Testimony,” Courthouse News Service, Sept. 24, 2015.

Maricopa County files a Reply in Support of its Aug. 28 Motion for Recognition of its Rights as a Party Litigant. ECF 1387.

Local media report on tomorrow’s scheduled resumption of contempt proceedings. See, e.g., Jude Joffe-Block, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Contempt Of Court Case Resumes – What You Need To Know,” KJZZ, Sept. 23, 2015; “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces judge after defying court orders,” abc15.com Sept. 23, 2015; see also abc15.com’s Sheriff Arpaio’s Contempt of Court Case Timeline.

Sept. 24, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing resumes - Day 5. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1393) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1389).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1393), at the start of the hearing, Judge Snow:

denies Tim Casey’s Sept. 23 Motion for Reconsideration but grants motion for permission to make objections;

grants denies* Arpaio’s Motion in Limine re: Testimony of Don Vogel; and

denies Arpaio’s Motion in Limine re: Montgomery Investigation/Seattle Operation, reportedly "finding the investigations relevant for remedies and to determine the credibility of witnesses. He agreed to allow defendants' attorneys to make individual objections to testimony related to Montgomery. Ross, infra, note 5.

Note: The Minutes state that "Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 1386) is granted." However, per the Transcript, Judge Snow denied this motion: "Well, I'm going to wait until -- I'm not going to grant your motion in limine. I will rule on individual objections during the testimony of Mr. Vogel, and you can raise those objections at that time." (ECF 1389 at 1089).

Thereafter, Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan takes the stand, and testifies for the remainder of the day.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Sheridan's Sept. 24 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

According to news reports, Sheridan testified as follows:

Compliance with the December 2011 Injunction. Sheridan has testified he did not learn about the December 2011 injunction until 2014. Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. Sheridan testified to this, despite attending at least seven meetings and receiving five emails discussing the injunction:

"ACLU Attorney Cecilia Wang outlined seven meetings in which Sheridan would have been present in 2011 and 2012 -- one of which Sheridan appeared to have organized through his assistant -- that all dealt directly with the court injunction or included the injunction on the agenda.

In addition, Wang displayed in court five emails sent to Sheridan and others discussing the matter. Sheridan repeatedly said he could not recall or only had "vague" recollection of discussing the injunction with anyone.

"My contention is I don't recall any of this," Sheridan said at one point." Dana, infra, note 5.

The Armendariz Spin-Off Investigations. Sheridan reportedly testified that there were no grounds for criminal charges arising from the discovery of hundreds of items of personal IDs and othe rpersonal itemsn found in Armendariz' home after his death:

"Sheridan testified that from among the 40-odd "Armendariz spinoff" cases, six to eight employees received discipline in the form of written reprimands. There were no criminal charges filed.

It was under this line of questioning where Wang struck a nerve. The plaintiffs’ attorney latched onto Sheridan’s comments that suggested he believed the criminal accusations were unfounded, and that the prejudgment absolved the deputies of any guilt.

“We didn’t have probable cause to issue them the Miranda warnings,” Sheridan snapped, raising his voice. “But we did it anyway, because we knew that you would be on our ass if we didn’t.”" Cassidy, infra, note 3.

"[ACLU attorney] Wang was incredulous.

"You did a criminal IA because you knew I would be 'on your ass' [about it]?" she asked.

Sheridan admitted that he had, in case he needed to defend himself on the matter during the course of litigation in Melendres." Lemons, infra, note 1.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Chief Deputy Shredded on the Stand,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 25, 2015.

[2] Jude Joffe-Block & Will Stone, “MCSO Contempt Of Court Hearings Underway In Phoenix,” KJZZ, Sept. 24, 2015.

[3] Megan Cassidy, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio's chief deputy grilled on stand in contempt hearings,” Arizona Republic, Sept. 24, 2015.

[4] Jamie Ross, “Arpaio Aide Bickers With ACLU Attorney,” Courthouse News Service, Sept. 25, 2015.

[5] Joe Dana, “MCSO chief can't recall details of 7 meetings,” NBC12News, Sept. 24, 2015 (includes video).

Sept. 25, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 6. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1400) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1465 (Amended)). Per the Minutes (ECF 1400), Sheridan continues to testify for the entire day today.

According to news reports, Sheridan testified as follows:

The 1500 IDs. Sheridan testified that he “was dumb-founded,” when he learned about the 1,500 IDs. Forghani, infra, note 6. “We didn’t tell them because wanted to find out what he was doing with all these IDs. Why didn’t he turn them in? What happened to the chain of command? I wanted to know how he obtained those IDs,’ said Sheridan.” Id. “’I learned he had pulled them out of the evidence room. They were in the destruction bin. This was happening over a period of years, starting in 2010,’ said Sheridan. ‘In my mind, I wanted to get the story straight before we ring the alarm. My reaction was alarming. And knowing how the monitor would respond to it was a grave concern. I wanted to make sure before we responded to the monitor, that we knew what we were talking about,’ said Sheridan.” Id.

Sheridan asserted that MCSO “planned to disclose the documents as soon as they had a clear picture of where they came from. Cassidy, infra, note 4. “There's no secret what we were doing, we were going to notify the monitor, it was just a matter of when.” Pitts, infra, note 6. Sheridan “said he was initially unsure whether they would qualify for disclosure under the judge’s orders. Sheridan said they had been collected from a destruction bin. They also had been gathered over the course of several years. Sheridan said he thought it would be wise to consult with defense attorney Michele Iafrate on how to proceed.” Cassidy, infra, note 4.

Sheridan said he contacted Iafrate after learning about the IDs to determine whether they were subject to Snow’s order to produce IDs. Per Sheridan, Iafrate replied that she needed to research whether the IDs fell under Snow’s order to produce and, until then, “it would be ‘premature’ to disclose their existence at an upcoming meeting with the monitor.” She “coached MCSO employees on how to answer questions about such IDs with the monitor team.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

“Sheridan said a captain in the department told the team there were not, while another deputy said there were. The captain was apparently concerned about his answer. ‘I told him don't worry about it,’ Sheridan said. ‘As long as you were following Michelle (Iafrate's) guidance, she's still doing the research on it, I don't know if we were ready to disclose the ID's to the monitor team yet or if we even needed to at that point.’” Pitts, infra, note 6.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Sheridan's Sept. 25 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The Seattle Operation Generally. Sheridan asserted that Montgomery first approached the MCSO alleging that the CIA had illegally harvested US citizen private information. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Per Sheridan, “Montgomery had been a contractor with the CIA and NSA and grew concerned about overreach by those agencies concerning bank records. ‘He made a copy every night before he went home of this data so some day he could become a whistleblower,’ Sheridan said.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3. “Montgomery wasn’t able to get recognized as a whistleblower and was ignored when he went to the American Civil Liberties Union for help. ‘The sheriff was the one who had the guts to take some time and spend the money to investigate this issue, Sheridan testified.” Id.

Montgomery showed Sheridan records of 150,000 Maricopa County residents’ bank accounts, “convincing both Arpaio and Sheridan that he possessed a massive cache of data he had copied during his time working for the government. Of the information Montgomery provided, ‘some of it was accurate,’ Sheridan said.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Note: In April, Sheridan testified that Montgomery had information on 50,000 Maricopa County resident bank accounts, not 150,000. See Apr. 24, 2015 Transcript of Proceedings [ECF 1043] at 960.

Sheridan “conceded that he and Arpaio ‘were concerned that [Montgomery] had broken federal law’ by illegally obtaining the information he was giving to them.” Lemons, infra, note 1. According to Sheridan, the MCSO coordinated with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office due to their concerns about the legality of the situation. “In October 2013 they brought Montgomery in for a “free talk” with that office, which allowed Montgomery to share information with immunity from prosecution.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3. “’We were working with the Arizona attorney general and working with their advice - blessing, I guess, if you want to call it that - as a law enforcement agency to figure out what information we had, what crimes we had, what crimes we were eventually going to deal with,’ Sheridan testified.” Ross, infra, note 5.

Note: Per the Arizona AG (as reported by Lemons), the AG met with Montgomery and MCSO in December – not October – of 2013. See Dec. 11, 2013.

The “former NSA employees” analysis of Montgomery’s hard drives. During Plaintiffs’ questioning of Sheridan, they produced a copy of the November 2014 memo/report prepared by two people described by attorney Masterson as former NSA employees, summarizing their analysis of Montgomery’s information. (See Aug. 28, 2015 for additional details.) According to reports, the memo, included the following statements:

“We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD,” one of the experts, Thomas Drake, wrote to an MCSO detective in an email that was presented in court.

“All he has done is provide you with readily available lists of email addresses, names, phone number of both individuals and businesses and a lot of framed up information, data and code. But no proof of whence they came and a whole lot of faked and made up documents and analysis,” Drake wrote.

Joffe-Block, infra, note 3.

Note: It is currently not known who this particular Thomas Drake is but it's worth noting that a former NSA employee named Thomas Drake has obtained some notoriety as indicated here, here, and here.

MCSO Employee Resistance to Seattle Operation. Regarding prior testimony that Arpaio said “get the fucking money” when Bailey expressed his concern about spending all of the MCSO’s RICO funds for “improper,” “Sheridan said he didn't recall Arpaio's saying precisely that, but that Arpaio likely expressed that sentiment,” characterizing Bailey as “whiny” and asserting that he (Sheridan) and Arpaio wanted to continue the Seattle Operation. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Regarding prior testimony that Sheridan removed Anglin from the Seattle Operation after Anglin criticized the investigation and told Arpaio and Sheridan to distance themselves from both, Sheridan testified that he did remove Anglin – because Anglin had attempted to remove Zullo. Lemons, infra, note 1.

The Seattle Operation & the Bogus Alleged DOJ-Snow Conspiracy. Sheridan continued to deny that the MCSO had investigated Judge Snow. See generally, reports listed in notes.

Sheridan asserted that he directly ordered Mackiewicz and Anglin to not investigate Snow. However, he acknowledged that he issues no such order to Zullo. Lemons, infra, note 1. “’I remember telling my detective that we can’t investigate judges. I told the detective if Montgomery provided any information on the judge that we couldn’t use it and to send Montgomery away,’ said Sheridan.” Forghani, infra, note 7.

Sheridan contended that it was only after the MCSO “had doubts about Montgomery’s credibility and threatened to stop working with him,” that Montgomery produced – on his own – information relating to the bogus alleged DOJ-Snow conspiracy. Joffe-Block, infra, note 3. “’He has no source of income, so he is frantic about keeping us on the hook so to speak,’ Sheridan said. ‘… He comes up with this thing about the DOJ phone call to Judge Snow’s chambers, something like that, thinking that we’re in Judge Snow’s court, maybe this would be very sexy for us to know this. Thinking that we’ll bite on it. And we don’t.’” Cassidy, infra, note 4.

Notes: Evidence revealed to date indicates that this is simply not true. (a) Montgomery sent a fax to Arpaio on Nov. 5 2013 – referencing the Melendres Judge; (b) Montgomery produced the timelines and charts in December 2013; and (c) The bogus conspiracy claims were apparently discussed, at least in part, during the January 2014 MCSO/attorney meeting. Additionally, Kimberly Seagraves testified during her deposition that Montgomery’s bogus alleged conspiracy was discussed as early as late September/October 2013. See Transcript of Sept. 3, 2015 Deposition of Kimberly Seagraves [ECF 1358-2] at 8-9 (“This came about shortly after I got onto SID, so it was late September through October, because I remember it being near Halloween… 2013.”)

However, the “NSA employee analysis” concluding that Montgomery’s info was “junk” was not provided until November 2014, many months after Montgomery provided the bogus alleged conspiracy information and – at least per documents revealed to date – MCSO did not threaten to stop working with Montgomery until shortly after receiving that report. See Nov. 7, 2014.

Sheridan acknowledged he knew that Zullo was pressuring Montgomery to provide info up to the eve of the April hearings. Lemons, infra, note 1.

The Cost of the Seattle Operation. Sheridan testified that the MCSO spent “around $250,000” on the Seattle Operation. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Sheridan approved payment of Zullo’s Seattle travel expenses (along with the expenses of MCSO employees Mackiewicz and Anglin). Id.

Sheridan also approved funds to “rent a four-bedroom house in Seattle for "44 nights," where Anglin, Mackiewicz, and Zullo could reside while overseeing the Montgomery investigation.” Id.

The MCSO used RICO funds to pay most of the Seattle Operation costs. The MCSO did use some federal High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area grant funds, but, as stated in an email disclosed in court, the HIDTA funds “’had to be refunded’ because it was ‘not a proper use of the money.’” Id.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Seattle Probe Used Federal Funds, Cost $250K, Says Chief Deputy,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 26, 2015 and [2] “10 Damning Revelations from Arpaio's Contempt Trial, So Far,” Sept. 28, 2015.

[3] Jude Joffe-Block, “Chief Deputy: Sheriff’s Office Paid $250K For Informant’s Secret Investigation,” KJZZ, Sept. 25, 2015.

[4] Megan Cassidy, “Arpaio contempt hearing: Plaintiffs cast MCSO as agency gone rogue on Friday,” Arizona Republic, Sept. 25, 2015.

[5] Jamie Ross, “Arpaio's Dirty Laundry Aired in Civil Contempt Hearing,” Courthouse News Service, Sept. 27, 2015.

[6] William Pitts, “Arpaio contempt hearing continues,” NBC12News, Sept. 25, 2015 (includes video).

[7] Navideh Forghani, “Day two of testimony in Arpaio case, MCSO's top chief grilled,” abc15.com, Sept. 25, 2015 (video only).

The United States files a Notice of Service of Discovery on Arpaio, re: “a request for information and documents related to internal affairs investigations at MCSO for the use of the United States’ expert, should the Court permit expert testimony.” ECF 1388.

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Notice of Service of Subpoena Commanding the Production of Documents on Level 3 Communications. ECF 1395. This subpoena seeks “Documents or business records sufficient to show (1) the identity of any customer or user of the number (425) 502-7617 in November 2013 and (2) the identity or user of any telephone or fax lines at the address: 3812 94TH AVE NE, BELLEVUE, WA 98004-1320 (KING COUNTY) in November 2013.” (Note: This was, apparently, Montgomery's residence during most of the Seattle Operation (until April 2015).)

Notice of re: Service of Subpoena Commanding Deposition Testimony and Production of Documents to Michael Zullo, scheduling the depo for Oct. 7. ECF 1396. The document subpoena seeks:

1. Copies of any communications (emails, text messages, etc.) sent to/from personal email accounts (on any type of device) of MCSO employees, Montgomery, and/or Zullo between December 23 2011 and the present that mention or relate to:

"(a) Montgomery's activities, on behalf of Zullo, Sheriff Arpaio, or MCSO, relating to the timeline and diagram provided in the "Joe Arpaio Brief" (attached as Exhibit A)

(b) the Melendres litigation, the court's orders relating to the litigation, plaintiffs in that litigation and plaintiffs' attorneys in that litigation, and the court-appointed Monitor,

(c) any investigation conducted by Sheriff Arpaio or MCSO or agents of Sheriff Arpaio or MCSO, or on Sheriff Arpaio's or MCSO's behalf, of Judge Snow or of any judge or elected official, and/or their family members and/or their associates."

2. Copies of any work product in Zullo’s possession regarding items (a)-(c) of Request #1, including all revisions and drafts.

See also Stephen Lemons, “Subpoenas Show Arpaio's Woes in Contempt Trial Just Beginning,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 29, 2015.

Sept. 27, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file (Second) Notice of Deposition of David Tennyson, scheduling the depo for Sept. 28 beginning at 1 PM for up to two hours. ECF 1402.

Sept. 28, 2015

Judge Snow issues

an order that he’s determined that charges reflected in the Court Monitor’s Sept. 1, 2015 invoices are reasonable and directing Maricopa County to authorize payment. ECF 1404.

an order “clarifying” that per his Sept. 18 ruling from the bench [ECF 1370], he has granted Plaintiff’s Sept. 10 Motion to Compel Testimony Re: July 17, 2015 Meeting and MCSOs Nondisclosure of the 1500 IDs. ECF 1406 (Text Entry Only).

Sept. 29, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 7. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1414) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1417).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1414), Sheridan resumes the stand, testifying through early afternoon. Thereafter, Tim Casey takes the stand and testifies for the remainder of the day.

While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

SHERIDAN TESTIMONY:

The “Unicorn Bin.” Sheridan conceded that some MCSO officers had been keeping personal IDs as trophies. According to abc15.com, “… when Snow asked Sheridan if it appeared deputies ‘may have taken the identifications as … trophies?’ Sheridan gave a long pause before answering, ‘It appears that way.’ abc15.com, infra, note 8. But see Ross, infra, note 6 (during a “line of questioning into the IDs … Snow … asked Sheridan if it was ‘fair to say there appears to be a habit’ of officers taking identification cards as trophies. ‘It appears that way,’ Sheridan responded.”); and Dana, infra, note 7 (“‘Is it fair to say there was a habit among some officers to take these cards as souvenirs or some kind of trophies?’ Wang asked. ‘It appears that was the case, yes,’ Sheridan said.” (emphasis added).)

Internal Investigations. Sheridan acknowledged that MCSO provided no training for its employees on how to conduct internal investigations properly. “’And isn’t it true you yourself have never been trained in I.A. (Internal Affairs) investigations, have you?’ ACLU attorney Cecilia Wang said during Tuesday morning’s hearing. ‘Nope,’ Sheridan answered, during a long line of questions involving the lack of training within the office.” Dana, infra, note 7. (“Sheridan is responsible for approving the decisions made during internal affairs investigations.” Id.)

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Sheridan's Sept. 29 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

More on the Seattle Operation. Sheridan characterized Montgomery as both a “computer genius” and a “very good con man.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Sheridan testified that MCSO funded the DC trip to meet with Judge Lamberth (attended by Zullo, Mackiewicz, and Montgomery), but couldn’t recall who actually set up the meeting with Lamberth. Lemons, infra, note 1.

“According to Sheridan, [Judge Lamberth] confirmed . . . that numbers connected to an alleged wiretap of Arpaio and his chief aide by the Justice Department were real. Sheridan testified Friday that investigator Dennis Montgomery said the U.S. Department of Justice wiretapped Sheridan's and Arpaio's cellphones.” Ross, infra note 6. “[Judge Lamberth] seemed to think that those were typical numbers associated with a wiretap but the judge was very sketchy on wanting some more information,’ Sheridan told the court. ‘I believe he wanted some more information and he didn't want to commit as to whether or not Montgomery was reliable or unreliable or whatever.’” Id. Per Sheridan, Montgomery also claimed that the DOJ had hacked into MCSO attorney offices’ servers in addition to wiretapping their phones. Id. “The attorneys ‘were jumping up and down about how important attorney-client privilege is,’ Sheridan recalled.” Id.

Sheridan’s April Testimony. Under questioning by Judge Snow, Sheridan revealed that on April 23 (when he was testifying about the Seattle Operation), he reviewed one of the Montgomery documents specifically mentioning Judge Snow during his lunch break. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Apparently, during the April 23 lunch break, MCSO employee Knight, who was gathering up Seattle Operation documents per Judge Snow’s order, showed one of the flowcharts to Sheridan. Id. “Sheridan said when he saw that document he ‘probably said a bad word.’ He testified that he said at the time, ‘I have never seen this document before, this is not good.’ Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. Later, Sheridan “recalled having seen a different version of it previously.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

According to Lemons, Snow reminded Sheridan that, during the April hearings, “‘You said you hadn't seen anything indicating I was involved’ in an anti-Arpaio conspiracy. Softly, his face flushed bright scarlet, Sheridan agreed he had not.” Id. As reported by Joffe-Block, Judge Snow said “’[t]hat afternoon I asked you about Montgomery you didn’t mention seeing this document did you?” ... “You did testify that you hadn’t seen anything that would suggest I was…involved,” Snow said. Sheridan said he did not recall.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2; see also Cassidy, infra, note 5 (“‘That afternoon, when I asked you about the Montgomery investigation, you did not mention that you had seen that document, did you?’ Snow asked. ‘You testified that you had not seen anything that would suggest that I was … involved.’ Sheridan said he couldn’t recall if that was what he testified.”).

CASEY TESTIMONY:

Compliance with the December 2011 Injunction. “Casey’s billing records indicate he discussed the order with sheriff and command staff the day the order came out and followed up on many occasions.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. Casey testified that (a) he spoke to Arpaio Dec. 23, 2011 (date of injunction order), (b) thereafter, he notified Arpaio and other MCSO officials about the injunction in a series of meetings, phone calls, and emails. Lemons, infra, note 1. Per Casey, he “developed a shorthand to explain the injunction to Arpaio: ‘arrest or release,’ meaning the MCSO could either choose to arrest illegal aliens on state charges or release them. The MCSO could not hold these individuals or surrender them to ICE custody.” Id.

In summer 2012, Casey learned, based on testimony given during the Melendes trial, that MCSO had violated the injunction, so he and Liddy “discussed the issue with Sands to make sure ‘it never happened again.’” Lemons, infra, note 1; see also Joffe-Block, infra, note 2 (“Casey said he discussed that immediately with sheriff’s staff.”)

In October 2012,* after receiving a letter from ACLU attorneys regarding a recent Arpaio press release (apparently issues for purely political reasons) indicating that MCSO was still violating the injunction, Casey “had a ‘heated discussion’ about the ‘backup plan’ [referenced in the press release] during a meeting with Arpaio.” Lemons, infra, note 1. Per Casey, both he and Sands threatened to quit if Arpaio rejected Casey’s advice, but, while “Arpaio didn't like Casey's advice, telling Casey that "he was the sheriff, and he made the decisions.” Id. See also Joffe-Block, infra, note 2 (“Casey testified that both he and former Executive Chief Brian Sands threatened to quit unless Arpaio stopped.”). However, “Arpaio eventually conceded that the violation was a ‘mistake’ and wouldn’t happen again.” Cassidy, infra, note 5.

*Note: See Oct. 11, 2012 for info on and links to the ACLU letter and Oct. 18, 2012 for info on and links to Casey’s response – in which Casey flatly denies any impropriety in connection with the information contained in the press release.

In May 2014, Casey realized that “some MCSO brass were unaware of the preliminary injunction.” Lemons, infra, note 1, see also Lemons, infra, note 9 (reporting that while Casey initially said that he was unaware of any post-Oct. 2013 violations, ACLU attorney Wang “reminded him of the videos of MCSO stops revealed by the investigation into the arrest and eventual suicide of former deputy Ramon "Charley" Armendariz in May 2014. She mentioned one videotaped stop by Armendariz that she called "the Korean stop," and Casey conceded that he knew of such violations of the 2011 injunctive order well after his argument with Arpaio.”)

Casey’s November 2014 withdraw as counsel was “‘very indirectly...because of resistance’ from Arpaio. ‘Resistance to what?’ Wang asked Casey. ‘Being told what to do,’ Casey replied.” Cassidy, infra, note 5.

According to Casey, Lt. Brian Sands was very proactive "in attempting to disseminate information about the 2011 injunction. MCSO e-mails and other documents discussed in court backed up Casey's account of Sands' participation." Lemons, infra, note 9.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Casey's Sept. 29 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The Seattle Operation. Casey testified that he attended a meeting at MCSO’s offices “in late 2013/early 2014 with Arpaio, Masterson, Masterson's co-counsel Joe Popolizio, Liddy, and others, where two MCSO employees called in from Seattle, describing the information the MCSO's confidential informant Dennis Montgomery was offering the MCSO.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

“‘One or both of the fellows on the phone were reporting that there was this collusion that had an adverse effect on Arpaio, and it could be proven if MCSO would go forward with this guy’s services.’ Casey testified.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2; see also Lemons, infra, note 1 (reporting that when asked whether the information related to a conspiracy, Casey responded: “That's what was being reported, . . . "[t]hat there was some collusion by the court [with the U.S. Department of Justice] that had some adverse effect on Arpaio.")

Casey recalled seeing documents (timeline and flow chart) setting forth the conspiracy. A flow chart – with Snow’s name on it – was at the meeting. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Per Casey, “Arpaio was ‘enthusiastic’ about the conspiracy talk, and told those present that the conspiracy ‘needed to be looked into,’” and further noted that “former U.S. Senator from Arizona Jon Kyl was currently employed by Covington and Burling, some of whose lawyers are partnered with the ACLU as representing the plaintiffs in Melendres. ‘And Kyl got the judge his job,’ Arpaio said.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Ex-Lawyer Rolls on Sheriff; Chief Deputy Practically Admits Perjury,” Phoenix New Times, Sept. 30, 2015.

[2] Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Questions MCSO Chief Deputy About Informant’s Investigation, Again,” KJZZ, Sept. 29, 2015; [3] “Former Attorney’s Testimony May Be Damaging In Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Contempt Case,” Sept. 29, 2015; and [4] “Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Former Lawyer Expected To Testify This Week,” Sept. 27, 2015.

[5] Megan Cassidy, “Ex-Arpaio lawyer: Sheriff couldn't handle 'being told what to do',” Arizona Republic, Sept. 30, 2015 (includes video).

[6] Jamie Ross, “Ex-Arpaio Attorney Saw No Stop to Racial Profiling,” Courthouse News Service, Sept. 30, 2015.

[7] Joe Dana, “Attorney: Arpaio knew exactly about smuggling unit,” NBC12News, Sept. 29, 2015 (includes video).

[8] “Sheriff Joe Arpaio's co[n]tempt of court hearing: Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan takes the stand,” abc15.com, Sept. 29, 2015 (includes video).

[9] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Testifies In Contempt Trial, Pulls Old Man Shtick,” Phoenix News Times, Oct. 1, 2015.

Arpaio files Motion to Partially Quash Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects Re: Michael Zullo. ECF 1411.

Sands files a Stipulation to Extend the Deadline to Reply in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 1412), which is promptly granted (ECF 1413).

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Response to Arpaio’s Motion to Partially Quash Plaintiffs' Zullo Subpoena. ECF 1415. In their response, Plaintiffs state that

“in light of the Court’s comments regarding the motion on September 29, 2015, Plaintiffs will agree to amend document request #1” – to (a) remove Sands communications (and add Anglin), and (b) limit production period from Sept. 1, 2013 to present (instead of Dec. 23, 2011-present). Additionally, Plaintiffs state that they are willing to reschedule Zullo’s deposition “provided that the hearing schedule can accommodate the need to review any documents after their production and to take Mr. Zullo’s deposition in anticipation of Mr. Zullo’s testimony at the hearing.” Id.

Sept. 30, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 8. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1425) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1422).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1425), former MCSO attorney Tim Casey testifies until early afternoon. Then, Jack MacIntyre takes the stand and testifies, followed by Brian Sands. At around 3:30, Arpaio takes the stand and testifies for the remainder of the day.

While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

CASEY TESTIMONY

Compliance with December 2011 Injunction. During cross-examination, defense counsel “elicited testimony from Casey about how the sheriff’s office cooperated when he disclosed the 2011 order, and quickly began working to develop a training for deputies. . . . Casey gave corrections to a sergeant who was developing the training scenarios, but after their email correspondence, the training never actually occurred.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. See also Ross, infra, note 4 for additional details regarding this testimony.

Additionally, defense counsel “tried to demonstrate that there were some ‘nuances’ to the order, which could have allowed for interpretation by the Sheriff’s Office.” Cassidy, infra, note 3.

Judge Snow’s questions to Casey reportedly focused on information he learned during the 2012 Melendres trial re: MCSO violations of the 2011 injunction. Cassidy, infra, note 3.

MACINTYRE TESTIMONY

Compliance with the December 2011 Injunction. “Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre . . . could not recall whether or not he received a number of emails from Casey about the preliminary injunction order. MacIntyre, did agree with Dan Pochoda, an attorney for plaintiffs with the ACLU of Arizona, that the Sheriff's Office ‘has an interest in using the media to get its version of events out to the media.’” Ross, infra, note 4.

SANDS TESTIMONY

Compliance with the December 2011 Injunction. Sands testified that, he “did not remember much of what Casey had testified to regarding him. Still, he did not dispute that it happened. He did recall Casey's argument with Arpaio. He also said he had been relieved when the 2011 injunction was issued and that he had not agreed with the saturation patrols.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

The Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse Birther Investigation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Sands' Sept. 30 testimony regarding the birther investigation.

As reported in the media ...

Sands testified that Zullo and Mackiewicz reported directly to Arpaio on matters relating to the Cold Case Posse’s birther investigation. Per Sands, “Arpaio made a revelatory comment after the sheriff initiated the birth certificate investigation. ‘Now let them go after me,’ Arpaio told him.” Lemons, infra, note 1. When ACLU attorney asked what that meant, Sands responded his understanding was that Arpaio “‘felt the DOJ would not further any investigation of him because he was investigating the president.’” Id.

ARPAIO TESTIMONY

Compliance with the December 2011 Injunction vs. Arpaio’s 2012 Statements to the Press. During Arpaio’s (brief) testimony, ACLU attorney Stanley Young played some of videos of Arpaio created in 2012 (in which Arpaio, as characterized by Lemons, “made numerous statements to the press about how he was going to do whatever he damn well pleased, despite the ruling and despite the Obama administration's having rescinded a federal 287(g) grant of immigration authority to the MCSO.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

When presented with a 2012 clip from Fox News in which Arpaio said "I'm not going to give it up. I'm going to continue to enforce federal and state laws,” and asked what he “meant by his promise to enforce federal immigration law,” Arpaio responded that “Sometimes I say things I don't mean when [I'm] dealing with the press." Lemons, infra, note 1.

Reaction to Casey’s Testimony. “When Arpaio was asked Wednesday whether he disagreed with anything Casey said on the stand this week, Arpaio couldn’t think of anything his former attorney said that was incorrect.” Cassidy, infra, note 3.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Arpaio's Sept. 30 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Testifies in Contempt Trial, Pulls Old Man Shtick,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 1, 2015.

[2] Jude Joffe-Block, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Testifies In Contempt Hearing,” KJZZ, Sept. 30, 2015

[3] Megan Cassidy, “Ex-Arpaio lawyer returns to witness stand,” Arizona Republic, Sept. 30, 2015 (includes video).

[4] Jamie Ross, “Arpaio Ignored Legal Advice on Illegal Detentions, Attorney Says,” Courthouse News Service, Oct. 1, 2015.

[5] Joe Dana, “Arpaio takes the stand in contempt hearing,” NBC12News, Sept. 30, 2015 (includes video).

[6] “Former members of Arizona sheriff's inner circle testify at contempt-of-court hearing,” abc15.com, Sept. 30, 2015 (includes video).

[7] “Sheriff Joe Arpaio takes the stand in contempt of court hearing,” abc15.com, Sept. 30, 2015 (includes video); “Sheriff starts testimony at his contempt-of-court hearing,” KTAR, Sept. 30, 2015 (virtually same AP article).

Arpaio files a Notice re: Lodging Under Seal Information “regarding updates of the Armendariz related internal investigations. Defendants request that the Clerk seal this information because it contains the names of those under investigation and corresponding case numbers.” ECF 1421 (Notice), ECF 1420 (Information lodged under seal).

Oct. 1, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 9. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1428) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1455 (open portion); ECF 1456 (sealed portion)).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1428), Arpaio testifies for most of the morning. Late morning, Suzanne Kimberly Seagraves takes the stand and testifies for the remainder of the day. At around 3:00 the courtroom is sealed for additional Seagraves’ testimony, presumably relating to the investigations pending against Brian Mackiewicz.

While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

ARPAIO TESTIMONY

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Arpaio's Oct. 1 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The "First" Seattle Operation Meeting. Arpaio testified that the initial Seattle Operation meeting – attended by himself, Mike Zullo, Brian Mackiewicz, and Tim Blixseth – occurred in October 2013 in the Wells Fargo Building (which used to be MCSO executive offices). Lemons, infra, note 1.

Per Arpaio, Blixseth told Arpaio et al that Montgomery had evidence that “the federal government was ‘penetrating the banking system’ and that there were 150,000 victims in Maricopa County alone. Supposedly, Montgomery had created software that could gather large amounts of data, and according to the plaintiffs, Blixseth provided Arpaio with memory sticks filled with information culled by the U.S. government.” Lemons, infra, note 1. “Based on this meeting, Arpaio said he ordered Zullo, Mackiewicz, and, later, Sergeant Travis Anglin to Seattle” to work with Montgomery. Lemons, infra, note 1.

The Seattle Operation – Montgomery’s November 2013 Fax & Arpaio’s Notes re: Same. Arpaio testified that he read (“breezed through”) a November 5, 2013 fax sent from Montgomery to Arpaio – allegedly unsolicited: “Arpaio said referring to the document, ‘I didn’t do this, the informant sent it to me, I had nothing to do with this.’” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. Arpaio testified that “‘ The main thing that came in my head — not saying it was true — it had my telephone number and chief deputy cell phone numbers wiretapped by the DOJ.’” Id.

The Seattle Operation – Generally. Arpaio testified that Zullo and Mackiewicz briefed him on a weekly basis and that he spoke with Zullo on the phone and “met a few times” to discuss both the Seattle Operation and the ongoing birther investigation. “Arpaio said his "main concern" was for the "victims penetrated" (his words) in the alleged hack by the feds.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio also testified that he actually met Montgomery once – at a hotel in Phoenix. Lemons, infra, note 1.

SEAGRAVES TESTIMONY

1500 IDs. Seagraves reportedly testified that, during the “prep” meeting before the court monitor’s visit, MCSO counsel Iafrate told those present that they were to say “‘no’” to the monitor,” if asked whether improperly-handled IDs had been located, while Iafrate researched the issue of whether the 1,500 IDs were within Snow’s order(s) requiring disclosure. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Seagraves' Oct. 1 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

Seattle Operation. During questioning about the Seattle Operation, Seagraves testified that “she felt uncomfortable that she had to sign off on some of the expenses related to Montgomery’s investigation” due to his lack of credibility. Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. When Seagraves first learned of Montgomery, she Googled him and then shared the results with Bailey who, she said, promptly phoned Sheridan to inform him of the results. Lemons, infra, note 1. Both Seagraves and Bailey were concerned about the Seattle Operation “expenditures, because they were being used to investigate a federal judge and because of issues with Montgomery's ‘credibility.’” Id. “‘I thought it was odd. The fact [that Montgomery] had a history of duping the government,’ Seagraves said. ‘I thought it was odd we were paying him large amounts of money as a confidential informant.” Dana, infa, note 5.

According to Seagraves “Arpaio was insistent that Montgomery’s investigation was funded. She testified her supervisor told her that when he tried to tell the sheriff the funding source they were using for Montgomery’s investigation was running low, the sheriff insisted he ‘needed to get the f‑ing money.’” Joffe-Block, infra, note 2. Seagraves testified she had been told that Arpaio personally paid $10,000 for Zullo’s travel expenses. Id., Lemons, infra, note 1. (Arpaio and Attorney Masterson has denied that Arpaio personally paid Zullo. However, it’s unclear whether Arpaio used other “nonpersonal funds” and/or whether he paid someone other than Zullo – or some entity (such as the Cold Case Posse) – the money. )

Testimony Under Seal. Seagraves testified under seal for about an hour. Lemons, infra, note 1. Based on her deposition testimony – and subsequent docket entries – it is reasonable to speculate that the subject matter of this testimony was the pending administrative and criminal investigations of Brian Mackiewicz.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Incriminates Self During Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 2, 2015.

[2] Jude Joffe-Block, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Questioned On Internal Affairs, Confidential Informant,” KJZZ, Oct. 1, 2015

[3] Megan Cassidy, “Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio hammered on internal affairs, informant in contempt hearing,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 1, 2015 (includes video) and [4] “Sheriff Joe Arpaio may have spent $10,000 of own money for informant, aide testifies (includes video).

[5] Joe Dana, “MCSO employee: Arpaio pet project was ‘odd’,” Oct. 1, 2015 (includes video).

[6] “Sheriff Arpaio takes stand for day of testimony in contempt of court hearings,” abc15.com, Oct. 1, 2015 (includes video) and “Underling provides startling testimony in Sheriff Arpaio contempt case,” KTAR, Oct. 1, 2015 (virtually same AP article).

Oct. 2, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 10. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1429) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1457).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1429), Arpaio testifies for the entire day today. The “big news” includes the revelation of notes handwritten/typewritten by Arpaio on the back of a fax he received from Montgomery. See here for the Montgomery Fax and here for Arpaio’s notes (from Stephen Lemons/Phoenix New Times).

While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

ARPAIO TESTIMONY

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Arpaio's Oct. 2 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The Seattle Operation. Arpaio again testified regarding several aspects of the Seattle Operation:

Arpaio testified that Montgomery was “investigating bank fraud and the judge was one of 150,000 alleged victims in Maricopa County. Arpaio said he and his wife also appeared on the list of victims.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3. See also Lemons, infra, note 1 (reporting that Arpaio testified that “there were 150,000 victims of this illegal harvesting in Maricopa County, including himself, his wife Ava, and a smattering of local judges, though the only judge he could recall by name was Snow. “) Arpaio said he was concerned about all the names on the list. But under questioning, Arpaio could not remember a single name on the list other than his own, his wife's and Judge Snow's. Pitts, infra, note 5.

Arpaio testified that (a) he set up a meeting for Montgomery to meet with then Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s office to seek to obtain immunity for Montgomery; (b) he attended the first meeting; and (c) there were a total of three meetings with the AG’s office. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio also testified that he “approved travel by Zullo and Mackiewicz to Washington, DC to meet with a former judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Judge Royce Lamberth, about information received from Montgomery.” According to Arpaio, attorney Larry Klayman assisted in getting the meeting with Judge Lamberth. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio reportedly disputed Casey’s testimony “that several sheriff's employees and lawyers thought the tips were unreliable. ‘I didn't hear that,’ the sheriff said.” AP/abc.15.com, infra, note 6.

Additionally, Arpaio reportedly disputed Seagrave’s testimony that he personally paid $10,000 for Zullo’s travel expenses to Seattle. “‘There is no way I ever paid my personal funds,’ the sheriff said. ‘Never have.’” AP/abc.15.com, infra, note 6.

Arpaio acknowledged that he was still talking to Zullo about Montgomery on a “sporadic basis” up until April 2015. Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio’s Nov. 2013 Notes about Snow. During Arpaio’s testimony, Plaintiffs submitted into evidence a copy of Arpaio’s handwritten and typewritten notes (PDF) made on the back of the Montgomery Nov. 5, 2013 fax (PDF). On that document, Arpaio typed (with typewriter) and made handwritten notes.

Among other matters, Arpaio types [sic]:

“Kyle works for Covington & Burlings, Snows wife works there.
Kyle nominates Snow for Fed Judgeship on Dec. 11, 2007,
Snow confirmed by US Senate (Kyle on Judiciary committee)
On june 26, 2008. Obama takes office on Jan 2009.
Judge born 1959, Boulder City, Nv, BYU 1984, J. Reuben Clark
law ... School. 200202008 Az Ct of appeals.”

See notes (PDF). Arpaio also noted (via hand writing) that “Judge Snow has sister-in-law works for Covington” and “Wilcox husband in `50,000.00” See notes (PDF).

Notes: (1) Kyl did not nominate Judge Snow; President George W. Bush did so. (Federal Judicial Center); (2) Neither Snow’s wife, nor is sister-in-law work for Covington & Burling. Judge Snow’s brother-in-law is a partner in Covington’s DC office, as previously addressed by the court in 2012. (See, e.g., Ray Stern, “Sheriff Arpaio Racial-Profiling Lawsuit Trial Still Set for July 19; Judge Rules He Doesn't Have Conflict,” Phoenix New Times, July 3, 2012.)

When asked about his notes …

Notes re: Senator Kyl-Snow connection: Arpaio testified that he “was only noting the irony of the Kyl connection since Kyl had suggested the sheriff join the federal government's 287(g) program to enforce federal immigration laws, and that was one factor that led the sheriff’s office to being sued in a racial profiling case in Snow’s court.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3.

Notes re: Judge Snow’s wife/sister-in-law-Covington connection: Arpaio “downplayed any connection to the alleged conspiracy involving that law firm. ‘I think it was important to make a note since I believe the judge...was also a victim,’ Arpaio said.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3.

Notes referencing “Wilcox husband” – i.e., former Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox’s husband: Arpaio testified that he was noting that Mr. Wilcox was “among the 150,000 victims of bank fraud.” Joffe-Block, infra, note 3.

When pressed further about his notes, Arpaio reportedly became defensive.

“‘I have a right to make notes,’ groused Arpaio, who insisted he was merely ‘making links.’

‘Links?’ wondered Young.

‘Not really links,’ Arpaio clarified. ‘It was just [that] in my mind the people [were] connected. Not in a bad way, but it was interesting.’

Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio initially claimed that he’d recently added the Kyl information after seeing an article indicating that Kyl had joined Covington & Burling “‘a couple of months ago.’” However, ACLU attorney Young demonstrated that Arpaio testified during his September deposition, “In his September deposition, Arpaio admitted that he had put together all of this info in 2013, under the influence of the fax he'd gotten from Montgomery.”

“‘I was looking at the timeline I got [the day before],’ Arpaio said in the deposition video, which was played for the court.

The ‘links’ were because of ‘the information we got from [Montgomery],’ Arpaio added in the deposition.”

Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio’s April Testimony. Arpaio admitted (obviously) that when Snow questioned him in April about the Seattle Operation, he did not disclose the Montgomery Nov. 5, 2013 fax: “‘I never thought of that timeline when [Snow] asked me the question,’ said Arpaio. ‘In retrospect, maybe I should've brought it up.’” Lemons, infra, note 1. See also AP/abc.15.com, infra, note 6 (“Arpaio said perhaps he should have provided more information about the judge's role in the investigation when Snow questioned him about it during an April hearing. The sheriff said he also feels as though the informant deceived him. ‘I am sure not happy by the whole situation,’ Arpaio said.”).

The JC & Kimberly San Diego Matter. As noted above, during Arpaio’s testimony, Plaintiffs submitted into evidence a copy of Arpaio’s personal notes (PDF) made on the back of the Montgomery Nov. 5, 2013 fax (PDF).

Per those notes

On Nov. 6, 2013 at 2:24 pm, a person Arpaio refers to as “JC,” called Arpaio’s wife on the sheriff’s number at Arpaio’s home, to say that “stating he had to talke [sic] to me, and not use phones.

Arpaio called him back at 4:45 pm in the presence of Sgt. Calderone. JC told him that his phone (and his wife’s) was “being monitored by Feds, that I should change my number.” When Arpaio asked for more information, JC “admitted that Kemerely [sic], who I met several times in SD during my speechs [sic], and who worked for the SD examiner[sic], now working for at TV station had the info. I told JC to have Kimberly [sic] call me. JC told me that kimerely [sic] is never wrong & she would call me.”

On Nov. 12, 2013, Arpaio “called JC …, asked why Kimmerly [sic] has not called[.] He said she is afraid, received info that My [sic] wifew and my cell phone weretapped [sic], He [sic] said her source was from East coast, said she has white hous [sic] credentionals [sic]. Mentioned CIA, she had or was going to pick up sensitive documents, afraid to do so by crossing state lines could be arrested. [sic] Told JC I would have Milk [sic] Zolus [sic] call JC.”

According to one report, “Arpaio said he had [Zullo] check with JC on the allegations. Zullo concluded they were baseless.” Cassidy, infra note 4. Per another report, Arpaio admitted that he had Zullo check out the matter and when asked why he sent Zullo rather than an MCSO detective to San Diego Arpaio responded: “‘I believe at the time we were working on the bank situation,’ said Arpaio. ‘Zullo knew all the threats I was receiving...I don't think he even located the reporter.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.:

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Wounded on the Stand by Smoking Gun,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 3, 2015 and [2] “Glimmers of Real Sheriff Joe Arpaio Penetrate His Public Mask in Court,” Oct. 7, 2015.

[3] Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio Claims Judge Was A Victim In Alleged Bank Fraud Scheme,” KJZZ, Oct. 2, 2015.

[4] Megan Cassidy, Sheriff Joe Arpaio: I thought Judge Snow was a victim,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 5, 2015 (includes video).

[5] William Pitts, “Arpaio continues testimony in court,” NBC12News, Oct. 2, 2015 (includes video).

[6] “Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says judge not target of probe,” abc15.com, Oct. 2, 2015 (includes video) and “Arizona sheriff insists he wasn’t investigating judge,” KTAR, Oct. 2, 2015 (virtually same AP article).

Stephen Lemons reports that Sousa has established a fundraising page, since Arpaio is no longer covering defense costs. See Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio Doesn't Share, Says MCSO Lieutenant Joe Sousa's GoFundMe Account,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 2, 2015.

Oct. 5, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Notice of Service of Subpoena Commanding Deposition and Trial Testimony of Brian Mackiewicz. ECF 1439.

Oct. 6, 2015

Judge Snow presides over a teleconference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1440, text entry only); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1504). Per the Minutes, Judge Snow issues the following order:

“Mr. Zullo has until 10/16/2015 to respond to the subpoena as narrowed by plaintiffs. Defendants will immediately provide to Plaintiffs all documents that are not subject to review for attorney-client or other privilege. They shall, as they conduct privilege review, provide all non-privilege or redacted documents on a rolling basis. Defendant shall complete their privilege review and provide all other parties with all responsive documents and a complete privilege log by 10/20/2015. Mr. Zullo's deposition shall then proceed on 10/23/2015.”

The State of Arizona files:

Notice of Special Appearance for State of Arizona “filed for the purpose of responding to certain inquiries directed to the Office of the Arizona Attorney General regarding the status of a criminal investigation.” ECF 1441.

Motion to Seal Document by Donald E Conrad (ECF 1442) and Sealed Lodged “Proposed Response to Court's Inquiry of AGO” (ECF 1443).

Alexandra Mijares Nash files notice of appearance on behalf of Brian Mackiewicz. ECF 1444.

Oct. 7, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Brian Mackiewicz, beginning at 9:00 a.m. for a period of up to four hours (ECF 1297) (per prior notices of depositions).

Melendres Plaintiffs file a Notice of Service of Amended Subpoena Commanding Deposition Testimony of Michael Zullo for Oct. 23. ECF 1446.

Oct. 8, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 11. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1452) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1458).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1452), Arpaio resumes the stand and continues to testify. After lunch, Sousa takes the stand and testifies for the remainder of the day. While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

ARPAIO TESTIMONY

Both Defense Attorney Masterson and Judge Snow questioned Arpaio today. Matters addressed included….

Compliance with December 2011 Injunction. “Arpaio was questioned more than a dozen times about whether he remembered his attorney's advice on how to obey a federal judge's order to stop enforcing federal immigration law. The sheriff's answers ranged from ‘I don't recall,’ used several times, to ‘I don't understand sometimes what lawyers say and their legal terms.’” Resnik, infra, note 4. See also Ross, infra note 5 more more details on this testimony.

Arpaio also essentially said he wasn’t involved in ensuring compliance: “‘We delegated that to my subordinates, and they were to work with the attorney.” Hasbun, infra, note 7.

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Arpaio's Oct. 8 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The Seattle Operation – Judge Snow. Arpaio testified that, “[a]fter seeing Snow on the chart, … he ordered his subordinates not to look into the judge or investigate him at all.” Ross, infra, note 5.

“‘I said there would be no investigation of you,’ he told the judge, adding that as ‘a federal guy all these years, I was shocked, and didn't give much credibility to the source.’

When pressed, Arpaio could not tell Snow whom he ordered not to investigate the judge.

‘I think I reconfirmed it,’ Arpaio told the half-full courtroom, claiming Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan was the one who gave the order.”

Ross, infra, note 5. See also Lemons infra, note 1 (“Arpaio claimed to have been ‘shocked’ by the flow chart and ‘didn't give much credibility to the source.’”); Cassidy, infra, note 2 (during questioning by his own counsel, Arpaio claimed that he had reiterated to MCSO detectives Sheridan’s direction to not investigate Judge Snow and, when asked directly, “Did you ever investigate Judge Snow?” Arpaio answered “no.”); Joffe-Block, infra, note 3 (“’When you received information from Dennis Montgomery about Judge Snow, what did you do?’ Masterson asked. ‘I recall the chief deputy told the investigators never to investigate the judge, that is my recollection,’ Arpaio said.”); Resnick, infra, note 4 (“Under questioning by Masterson, Arpaio repeatedly denied he had ordered any subordinates to investigate the judge.”)

Seattle Operation – Dennis Montgomery. Arpaio reportedly denied that “information about the investigation came directly to him from Montgomery. He said Det. Brian Mackiewicz and investigator Mike Zullo acted as intermediaries between the two.” Ross, infra, note 5.

Arpaio defended his choice to pay Montgomery as an informant: “‘The best informers are the ones that are involved in the illicit activities. They have the information, they know who the bad guys are; you have to give them some credibility ... [and] sometimes you invest in them, but they don't come through.” Ross, infra, note 5.

The Seattle Operation – Arpaio’s April 2015 Testimony. Judge Snow also queried why Arpaio had denied that anyone was investigating Snow during the April hearing: “‘You were aware that Mr. Montgomery had investigated me, weren’t you?,’ asked the Judge. Judge Snow questioned why Arpaio said “no” when asked “Are you aware that I've ever been investigated by anyone?”

“‘I didn't think we were investigating you,’ the sheriff told Snow. ‘You just came up in a flow chart. I don't call that an investigation.’”

Lemons, infa, note 1. See also, e.g., Joffe-Block, infa, note 3 (“‘I don’t think there was an investigation. He just came up with a flowchart. I don’t call that an investigation.’”); Cassidy, infra, note 2 (“‘I don’t think there was any investigation,’ Arpaio said. ‘He just came up with a flow chart.”); Billeaud, infra, note 6 (“‘I don't think there was any investigation (of the judge),’ Arpaio said. ‘You just showed up on a flow chart.’”)

The Seattle Operation – 50 Hard Drives. Judge Snow asked Arpaio how he dealt with the April 2015 order to turn over all Seattle Operation materials – in light of the fact that 50 hard drives were not turned over until after the July 24 emergency hearing called to address this very matter (and the 1500 IDs).

Asked whether he knew about the hard drives, “‘Probably I did, said Arpaio, softly. ‘I don’t know.” Lemons, infra, note 1.

Arpaio reportedly “said he might have had a conversation with his defense attorneys about it, but he couldn't recall if he directly gave an order to anyone at the office about it. Cassidy, infra, note 2.

“‘Do you recall having any conversation with anyone about responding to the order I gave you?’ Snow asked.

‘The only way I can answer that is I wanted that order to be carried out,’ Arpaio responded. [Arpaio] said that other officials present during the hearing ‘just knew’ he would want the order carried out.

‘I don't want to sound pejorative, but you just assumed that they knew you wanted it carried out?’ Snow asked, testily.

‘I did not write any memos,’ Arpaio said.

Ross, infa, note 5. See also Hasburn, infra, note 7 (“The Sheriff told the judge, ‘I wanted that order to be followed and carried out. I don't recall who I talked to about it.’ Snow replied, ‘What did you do to communicate it to anyone?’ Arpaio said, ‘I just assumed they all knew.’”)

SOUSA TESTIMONY

Compliance with December 2011 Injunction. “Sousa essentially passed the buck up the food chain, pointing at his superiors for failure to abide by Snow's December 2011 preliminary injunction… “ Lemons, infa, note 1.

Sousa testified that he was subject to “an internal investigation into the MCSO's failure to follow Snow's 2011 order. Initially, he faced 40 hours of suspension, which is considered ‘major discipline.’ But Sousa skated after he appealed to the deputy chief overseeing the decision, Mike Olson, pointing out that his MCSO overlords were more responsible than he was for dropping the ball. Olson agreed with Sousa, telling the lieutenant: ‘Your bosses let you down.’” Lemons, infa, note 1.

Sousa also claimed that he never heard Attorney Casey’s “short hand” rule on compliance – i.e., “arrest or release.” Per Sousa, the first time he heard that was when Casey said it in court. Lemons, infa, note 1.

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Nailed by Judge's Questions on Defiance of Court,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 9, 2015.

[2] Megan Cassidy, “Arpaio again denies targeting federal judge in investigation,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 8, 2015 (includes video).

[3] Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Questions Sheriff Joe Arpaio Directly, Again,” KJZZ, Oct. 8, 2015.

[4] Braham Resnik, “Arpaio says he can't recall advice on court order,” NBC12News, Oct. 8, 2015.

[5] Jamie Ross, “Arpaio's Memory Gets Fuzzy Under Questioning at Contempt Hearing,” Courthouse News Service, Oct. 9, 2015.

[6] Jacques Billeaud, “Judge peppers Arpaio with questions about investigation,” AP Big Story, Oct. 8, 2015, and Judge peppers Sheriff Joe Arpaio with questions about investigation,” abc15.com, Oct. 8, 2015 (virtually same story, but with video).

[7] Andrew Hasbun, “Arpaio wraps up testimony in contempt case,” Fox News 10, Oct. 8, 2015.

Arpaio 2013 Appeal - Maricopa County SCOTUS Petition. Maricopa County files Notice of Filing Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court (regarding Ninth Circuit’s ruling that it, not MCSO, is proper party to case). ECF 1449. Maricopa County's Petition has been docketed at SCOTUS as No. 15-376.

Montgomery Appeal II. The Ninth Circuit issues an order noting that Montgomery/Klayman has failed to file the required mediation questionnaire and holding that Montgomery must, within seven days, (a) file the required document, (b) dismiss the appeal voluntarily, (b) show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed per Ninth Cir. R. 42-1. Melendres v. Maricopa County et al, No. 15-16626, Doc. 3 (9th Cir.)

Oct. 9, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 12. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1461) and Transcript of Proceeding (ECF 1466).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1461), Sousa resumes the stand and continues to testify until late morning. Then David Tennyson testifies until the noon break. After lunch, Anglin takes the stand and testifies for awhile, before being excused. Tennyson then resumes the stand and testifies through the end of the day. While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, according to news reports, testimony revealed the following:

SOUSA TESTIMONY

Compliance with December 2011 Injunction. During his time on the stand, Sousa reportedly disputed Casey’s testimony provided last week. According to Sousa, “Sgt. Brett Palmer was to write a number of training scenarios to show deputies what good and bad traffic stops look like. Palmer was to send the scenarios to Sousa, who said he emailed them to Arpaio's former attorney, Tim Casey. ‘He's an attorney who can interpret what we write,’ Sousa said. Despite sending repeated emails to Casey, Sousa said, he never received a response. ‘I’m pretty sure at the time I wanted to talk about it, I wanted to get his opinion after his initial review,’ Sousa said.” Ross, infra, note 4.

However, during cross-examination, ACLU Wang challenged this testimony by referring to his deposition testimony in which he said that he didn’t recall whether Casey had ever responded. Sousa responded that he’d changed his mind: “‘I came to the conclusion that there's no way that conversation ever happened, based on his testimony,’ Sousa said. He added that Casey's explanation that deputies should "arrest or release" undocumented immigrants was so "simple" he would have remembered it.” Ross, infra, note 4.

TENNYSON TESTIMONY

Generally not reported; presumably it related generally to his role as investigator in the Amendariz Spin-off Investigations.

ANGLIN TESTIMONY

Seattle Operation. See here for excerpts of transcript re: Anglin's Oct. 9 testimony regarding the Seattle Operation.

As reported in the media ...

The Seattle Operation – How Anglin became Involved. Anglin testified that he first learned of the Seattle Operation on Dec. 30, 2013 when he was introduced to Zullo by Captain Steve Baily at the MCSO’s special investigations division office. Lemons, infra, note 4. Per Anglin, Zullo gave him “a spiel that the sergeant would hear repeated many times over the next weeks and months, about how Montgomery, an alleged computer whiz and former subcontractor for various government agencies, possessed ‘hard drives stolen by Montgomery from the CIA.’” Id.

“Anglin said he was skeptical about working with Montgomery after reading articles online that alleged Montgomery had previously defrauded the federal government.” Joffe-Block, infa, note 1. However, Zullo was enthusiastic and began sending emails and texts to Anglin (Lemons, infra, note 4) including THIS TEXT apparently sent on Dec. 30 or 21, 2013 (Lemons/Phoenix New Times) – apparently from Dec. 30 or 31, 2013:

On Jan. 1, 2014, Anglin received THIS TEXT from Zullo (Lemons/Phoenix New Times), stating that Arpaio wanted a meeting with staff and some attorneys to discuss "phone information." That meeting took place the next day, Jan. 2, 2014. Anglin reportedly reiterated the information he provided in his deposition (see Jan. 2, 2014 for summer; see ECF 1365-1 for deposition excerpts).

The Seattle Operation – Anglin’s Role. On January 11, 2014, Anglin traveled with Mackiewicz and Zullo to Seattle for the first time to meet with Montgomery. Lemons, infra, note 1. Thereafter, he would travel to Seattle “two or three times a month” to “oversee Montgomery as he reportedly worked to unearth proof of the CIA scandal buried in various hard drives.” Cassidy, infra, note 2. Anglin worked on the matter until May 2014. Lemons, infra, note 4. Anglin testified that, Montgomery would sometimes begin discussing other matters (such as the birther investigation) during these trips, but he and Mackiewicz would just leave the room. (Zullo would stay behind with Montgomery.) Cassidy, infra, note 2.

Anglin would meet with Arpaio “before and after each trip, at times for more than an hour. Cassidy, infra, note 2. See also Lemons, infra, note 4 (reporting that Anglin testified he’d meet with Arpaio “from 30 minutes to an hour.”) After each Seattle trip, Anglin would bring “‘whatever Montgomery produced,’ such as phone logs, spreadsheets, and phone numbers. Or he would give the sheriff ‘Montgomery's excuse’ as to why no info was forthcoming.” Lemons, infra, note 4. If he delayed in reporting in, Arpaio would call him for an update. Lemons, infra, note 4. Additionally, at one point, ”Arpaio spotted Anglin in the office and asked why he was there and not in Seattle. ‘I said I still had a unit to run,’ Anglin said in court Friday. ‘‘He said, ‘This is more important than your unit.’’” Cassidy, infra, note 2.

Per Anglin, Arpaio asked him “about two or three times throughout the investigation whether Snow’s name came up, Anglin said, but Anglin would quickly shoot down this line of inquiry. ‘That’s not the information we’re seeking, subsequently that wasn’t the information we were getting,’ he said.” Cassidy, infra, note 2. See also Joffe-Block, infra, note 1 (Anglin testified that “the sheriff asked him more than once ‘whether any of the information Montgomery produced referenced Judge Snow.’ Anglin said it never did, and he said he explained to the sheriff that was not the purpose of the investigation.”)

The Seattle Operation – Montgomery's Bogus Judge-DOJ Conspiracy Claims. Anglin testified that he confronted Sheridan after the meeting with articles about Montgomery and directly “asked Sheridan if he was being ordered to investigate a federal judge. Anglin said Sheridan told him that, under no circumstances, was he to investigate Snow or President Obama's birth certificate.” Lemons, infra, note 1. Anglin testified that he was not instructed to tell Zullo (or Montgomery) not to investigate the Judge. Id.

Anglin “testified that he was not aware of anything that would suggest there ever was an investigation into collusion between Snow, the DOJ and the plaintiffs' lawyers.” Joffe-Block, infa, note 1. See also Lemons, infra, note 1 (reporting that, when asked by defense counsel what the operation was about, Anglin’s response was: “‘To determine whether or not the CIA had illegally harvested information from the American public, [a]nd if Dennis Montgomery was in possession of that information.’”)

The Seattle Operation – The Special Arpaio-Zullo Relationship. Anglin testified that Arpaio called Zullo almost daily for updates. Cassidy, infra, note 2. Anglin “described the special relationship Zullo and the sheriff had, how Zullo ‘had the sheriff's ear’ and how Arpaio would take Zullo's advice over his, for instance. Zullo and the sheriff spoke ‘every day or nearly every day’ by phone. At one point, Anglin said he was successful in removing Zullo from the Seattle case. He told Zullo he would not be going back to Seattle, then he informed Arpaio and Sheridan about what he'd done.” Lemons, infra, note 4.

During one of the post-trip meetings, also attended by Zullo, Anglin “warned Arpaio that, ‘[Montgomery] wasn’t producing, we were spending a great deal of money, I didn’t think this investigation would pass the headline test and I thought we should cut our losses.’” However, Arpaio ignored him: “According to Anglin, [Arpaio] trusted the advice of volunteer posse member Mike Zullo, who wanted to continue the investigation.” Joffe-Block, infa, note 1. See also Lemons, infra, note 4 (reporting that Zullo attended this meeting).

Anglin testified that, in May 2014, he “advised Arpaio to distance himself from both Zullo and Montgomery.

“‘He asked me who the f--k I thought I was,’ Anglin said.

The sheriff then went on explain that Zullo actually had solved the Obama birth-certificate case, and that Anglin had no right to criticize him.”

Cassidy, infra, note 2. Shortly thereafter, Sheridan informed him that he was no longer assigned to the operation. Id.

The Seattle Operation – Whether Judge Snow a CIA "Victim" as Arpaio claimed. Anglin “testified he never heard Snow’s name mentioned as part of the 150,000 Maricopa County residents whose bank accounts were allegedly hacked by the Central Intelligence Agency.” Cassidy, infa, note 2. See also Joffe-Block, infa, note 1 (“Anglin testified he had no knowledge of the theory that Arpaio testified to, that Snow was an alleged victim of the alleged bank fraud.” )

Notes. For local news reporting on the proceedings, see, e.g.,

[1] Jude Joffe-Block, “Testimony: Arpaio Ignored Advice To Abandon Informant's Investigation,” KJZZ, Oct. 9, 2015.

[2] Megan Cassidy, “Contempt hearing: MCSO sergeant undermines Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s testimony,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 9, 2015.

[3] Jamie Ross, “Arpaio Lieutenant Contradicts Testimony of Sheriff's Ex-Attorney,” Courthouse News Service, Oct. 10, 2015.

[4] Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo Targeted Judge, Sergeant Testifies,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 10, 2015.

Oct. 12, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file Combined Proposed Statement of Issues for Continued Contempt Hearing, attaching as an exhibit, a list of Plaintiffs' proposed exhibits. ECF 1462. The list of proposed exhibits includes a couple dozen documents apparently relating to the Seattle Operation. (This timeline includes references to those documents in chron order/context of the timeline. As information re: the content of the exhibits is revealed, the timeline will be updated accordingly.)

Oct. 13, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 13. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 1463); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1467).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1463), Tennyson resumes the stand and continues to testify until after 3 PM. Then Captain Steve Bailey takes the stand and testifies. While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, news media has reported on the proceedings as follows:

[1] Jamie Ross, "Testimony in Arpaio Contempt Hearing Describes a Loosey-Goosey Sheriff's Office," Courthouse News Service, Oct. 14, 2015.

Oct. 14, 2015

The Melendres Contempt Hearing continues - Day 14.* See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 1470); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1471).

Note. As of today, the Arpaio contempt hearings have lasted twice as long as the original Melendres July 2012 trial.

Per the Minutes (ECF 1470), Bailey resumes the stand and continues to testify until late morning. Then Donald Vogel (private investigator) takes the stand and testifies testifies until late afternoon. Thereafter, Bailey resumes the stand again and testifies for the remainder of the day.

While the transcript of proceedings is not yet available, news media has reported on the proceedings as follows:

[1] Stephen Lemons, "Joe Arpaio 'Failed in His Responsibility' Says PI," Phoenix New Times, Oct. 14, 2015.

[2] Jamie Ross, "Officer Says Sheriff Arpaio Let Things Slide," Courthouse News Service, Oct. 15, 2015.

[3] Jude Joffe-Block "Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Contempt Case Expected To Conclude Next Month." KJZZ, Oct. 16, 2015.

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Motion for Protective Order RE: Documents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (ECF 1468).

Motion to Supplement and Admit Certain Deposition Testimony of Rollie Seebert (ECF 1469; corrected on Oct. 15 (ECF 1473).

Oct. 16, 2015

The Melendres Court Monitor files his FIFTH QUARTERLY REPORT (ECF 1474), along with Plaintiffs' Comments, MCSO Comments, and USDOJ Comments (included at the link).

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit sets oral argument on both the merits appeal and Plaintiff/Appellee's Motion to Dismiss the appeal for Monday, Jan. 11, 2016, granting each side 15 minutes for argument. The court also amends the briefing schedule as follows:

The opening brief and excerpts of record due on October 9, 2015, have not been filed. The time for filing the opening brief is extended to October 30, 2015; the answering brief is due November 30, 2015; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief.

Oct. 20, 2015

Arpaio counsel files a "Notice of Partial Compliance with Subpoena Served on and Lack of Authority to Accomplish Additional Production from Michael Zullo. ECF 1478. Per that notice, Arpaio defense counsel produced 3,649 pages of materials over the weekend. Additionally,

Undersigned defense counsel is in possession of additional material that Mr. Zullo has provided as being responsive to the subpoena. Defense counsel has conducted a review of this additional material, also. However, undersigned defense counsel is being prohibited by Mr. Zullo from producing any additional materials due to the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process protections that Mr. Zullo believes may apply to him and the production of these additional materials. Moreover, undersigned defense counsel is informed that Mr. Zullo is seeking counsel to represent him. Absent further order of the Court after consideration of the concerns/protections raised by Mr. Zullo, undersigned defense counsel is left with no choice but to withhold the production of these additional materials that may be responsive to the Zullo subpoena.

Id. at 2.

Oct. 21, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file Notice of Subpoena to Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. and Joseph J. Popolizio. ECF 1482. The subpoena commands Jones Skelton to produce, by Oct. 22 at 4:00 PM,

Documents received from Michael Zullo and withheld from production in the above-captioned litigation, as described in Exhibit A, Dkt. 1478, Notice of Partial Compliance with Subpoena Served on and Lack of Authority to Accomplish Additional Production From Michael Zullo, page 2 (“Undersigned defense counsel is in possession of additional material that Mr. Zullo has provided as being responsive to the subpoena.”).

Id.

Oct. 23, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs are scheduled to depose Mike Zullo per prior notice of deposition. ECF 1446.

It was initially reported that while Zullo shows up for his deposition but refuses to answer any questions. On Oct. 30, 2015, it is revealed that Zullo was actually sworn in and did answer to a few questions. See Transcript of Zullo Oct. 23, 2015 Deposition, ECF 1507-2, filed in support of Plaintiffs' Oct. 30 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 28 Motion for Extension of Time.

Montgomery Appeal I. Montgomery files his Opening Brief. Case No. 19-16440, Doc. 13. Per Nov. 2 order (Doc 22), responses are due Dec. 23. Per Dec. 3 order consolidating the two Montgomery Appeals, responses are due Jan. 20. Doc 27.

Oct. 26, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order setting a telephonic hearing at 11:00 am this morning. ECF 1487 (paperless entry).

Judge Snow presides over the scheduled hearing, which lasts about 40 minutes. See Minute Order (ECF 1488); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1491).

Per Stephen Lemons' Oct. 27 tweets as he read the hearing transcript at the court's public terminal:

About Zullo's Counsel:

Plaintiffs attorney said Zullo thought Arpaio's attrnys at Jones Skelton would be representing him. Per Stanley Young, Zullo "found out to his surprise two days before deposition that" Maricopa County was not providing him a lawyer.

Snow pressed Arpaio attorney Popolizio on whether he represented Zullo, saying, "you can't be half in or half out." Popolizio said he would have to confer with colleagues to make sure he does not represent Zullo.

Arpaio counsel Mel McDonald said he conferred with Atlanta attorney, who has not been retained by Zullo.

About Zullo's invocation of the 4th/5th:

According to Arpaio counsel McDonald, "the fear of Zullo is potential criminal liability re: his relationship with Montgomery."

McDonald argued in favor for "use immunity" for Zullo.

Judge Snow said that

"there is no assertion 5th amendment applies to document production;"

the 5th "has not yet been invoked" (apparently because it doesn't apply to document production);

He can draw "negative inferences" in civil proceedings if the 5th is invoked; and

He is "unlikely to grant any sort of immunity [to Zullo] for testimony."

Judge Snow issues an order as follows:

Arpaio counsel "shall make a privilege log identifying any documents that should be withheld from Plaintiffs due to privilege, maintain copies of all privileged documents, and provide the log to Plaintiffs by October 28."

If Zullo "wishes to file a motion for a protective order asserting Fourth and/or Fifth Amendment defenses to the production of those documents, he must do so by October 30, 2015. If he fails to file such a motion, the Court will order production of all documents to Plaintiffs."
If Zullo " files a motion for a protective order, Plaintiffs’ response shall be due by November 3, 2015."
Arpaio counsel Mel McDonald "will communicate with the attorney in Atlanta with whom he has corresponded via email to inform him of these deadlines."
Arpaio counsel Joe Popolizio "will communicate with Mr. Zullo to inform him of these deadlines."

"Mr. Popolizio must inform the Court within a day if he intends to take the position that he represents Mr. Zullo."

ECF 1490.

Oct. 27, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing resumes today (Day 15). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1493); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1495).

According to the Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1493) Michael Olson is sworn in and testifies for most of the day (regarding his involvement in internal investigations, including the investigations into violations of the Dec. 2011 injunction).

Around 4:45, Mackiewicz is sworn in and testifies. Per report from eyewitness attending the hearing:

"Counsel for Mackiewicz handed him a piece of paper as he took the stand. Plaintiffs' attorney asked what the paper was. Mackiewicz said that it was legal notes. Plaintiffs' attorney asked for more detail, Mackiewicz said it was wording for 5th Amendment invocation. Mackiewicz counsel sitting about 8 feet away from him.

Mackiewicz testified that Mike Zullo googled the name of Judge Snow. Mackiewicz testified he didn't know who Snow was. This was done November of 2013 on a computer at Dennis Montgomery's office in Seattle. The computer held Montgomery's data base."

With respect to the ongoing Zullo issues, the following info has been reported (eye witness account):

Zullo's Counsel:

Arpaio attorney McDonald contacted Atlanta attorney with Judge Snow's order from yesterday. Atlanta attorney told Zullo he had to get counsel.

Per McDonald, Popolizio would not represent Zullo.

Potential Immunity? (Apparently Not):

Maricopa County attorney Walker said that Arpaio defense attorney Masterson spoke with DOJ lawyers and were told to speak to U.S. Attorney's Office about immunity for Michael Zullo.

Walker said that a "Grant of immunity [for Zullo] is not in the cards."

Judge Snow also reportedly took issue with defense counsel Iafrate for her failure to produce documents that she was ordered to produce back in July - months ago.

For local news reporting on today's hearing, see:

Stephen Lemons, “Arpaio's Fave Deputy Primed To Take Fifth During Contempt Trial,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 28, 2015; see also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Trial Resumes, And More On Sheriff's Confidant, Mike Zullo,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 27, 2015.

Jude Joffe-Block, “Detective Testifying In Arpaio Contempt Case Received Tip On Pleading The Fifth, “KJZZ, Oct. 27, 2015.

Megan Cassidy, “Sheriff Arpaio Contempt Hearings: Testimony Resumes,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 27, 2015.

Oct. 28, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing continues today (Day 16). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1499); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1498).

Per Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1499), Mackiewicz resumes the stand in the morning and testifies for much of the morning. Captain Steve Bailey then returns to the witness stand and testifies for the rest of the morning and through the rest of the day.

For local news reporting on today's hearing, see:

Megan Cassidy, “Detective Backs Sheriff Joe Arpaio In Contempt Hearing,” Arizona Republic, Oct. 28, 2015.

Alexandra Olgin, Jude Joffe-Block, “Arpaio Contempt Case: MCSO Captain Answers Questions About Not Disclosing IDs,” KJZZ, Oct. 28, 2015.

Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Boat Torpedoed in Testimony by MCSO Captain,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 29, 2015.

Arpaio Counsel reportedly provides the privilege log of items for which Zullo has invoked the 5th Amendment required by Judge Snow's Oct. 26 order. See ECF 1507-6, filed in support of Plaintiffs' Oct. 30 Opposition to Zullo's Oct. 28 Motion for Extension of Time.

Mike Zullo files a Motion for Extension of Time to Retain Counsel, essentially arguing that he needs 30 days to negotiate with Maricopa County to get them to pay for his attorney. ECF 1501. (Although docketed on Oct. 29, this was filed Oct. 28.)

Oct. 29, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing continues today (Day 17), although it is a short -- 2.5 hour - session. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1500); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1505).

Per Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 1500), Captain Steve Bailey resumes the stand and testifies for less than two hours.

Per the Minutes, the hearings are "recessed until a date to be determined."

Stephen Lemons reports on Zullo's filing and provides additional information (including a few updates) regarding county funding (or lack thereof) for Zullo's counsel. See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Birther Buddy Slams Sheriff's Lawyers,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 30, 2015.

Oct. 30, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order requiring parties who wish to respond to Zullo’s Oct. 28 Motion for Extension of Time to do so by close of business today. ECF 1502.

Maricopa County files a Response to Zullo’s Motion, stating in relevant part, as follows:

“For the record, the County notes that Mr. Zullo’s motion at several points makes reference to “counsel for the County,” when the context suggests he is, in fact, referring to the counsel for Sheriff Arpaio. To the extent relevant to the Court’s consideration of Mr. Zullo’s motion, undersigned counsel advises the Court that no attorney who has appeared on behalf of the County in this action has ever made any representation to him that was intended to convey, or could have fairly been construed as conveying, a suggestion that counsel for the County were representing him, or could do so in any event.

Further, a major thrust of Mr. Zullo’s motion appears to be to have the Court grant him time “to make arrangements with Maricopa County to pay for [him] to retain counsel in this civil case . . . .” Zullo Motion at 1. Based on information presently available to the County and current County policy, the County does not consider Mr. Zullo to be eligible to have counsel provided for him in this matter at County expense. While the County respects Mr. Zullo’s desire to ensure that his constitutional rights receive adequate protection and does not oppose a brief extension of time to permit him to secure legal counsel if he deems it prudent to do so, any portion of such extension that is premised on the prospect of the County’s agreeing to pay the fees of his counsel appears unwarranted.”

ECF 1503 at 2.

Judge Snow issues an order denying Zullo’s Motion for Extension of Time. ECF 1506:

“This Court … entered an order on October 26 granting Mr. Zullo until today to file a protective order. That provided Mr. Zullo with at least ten days from the date he first desired to seek counsel, to obtain counsel and assert protection from the order if he wished to do so. On October 28, Mr. Zullo filed a motion for extension with this court in which Mr. Zullo seeks a halt of thirty days in these proceedings so that he can attempt to get Maricopa County to pay for him to secure separate counsel. The Court denies the motion. These hearings, as Mr. Zullo is well aware, have been resumed for over a month and a half. Mr. Zullo determined he wished to obtain separate counsel no later than October 20. In light of the ongoing hearing, the Court gave him ten days in which to do so. The Court declines to extend the hearing by thirty additional days so that Mr. Zullo can attempt to negotiate with Maricopa County to pay for a separate attorney.

Nevertheless, in his motion to continue, Mr. Zullo cites to United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), to assert that his Fifth Amendment rights might be infringed by the compelled production of the documents at issue. It seems to the Court that in light of the criminal issues that have been raised, Mr. Zullo may raise a credible case that the production of documents in his possession might implicate his Fifth Amendment protection against being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. The Court has been informed that the United States is disinclined to request the Court to grant use immunity. Therefore, the Court directs the parties to treat Mr. Zullo’s request for an extension, and the legal authorities it contains, as a Motion for a Protective Order. It directs that any Response to the Motion be filed by November 2.”

ECF 1506 at 2-3.

Melendres Plaintiffs file an Opposition to Zullo’s Motion for Extension of time (which is docketed after the Court’s 1506 Order). ECF 1507. In their motion, Plaintiffs set forth multiple grounds for denying Zullo’s motion, including (but not limited to) the following:

Zullo has had “ample time” to find an attorney, because “He has known since at least October 21, 2015 that, if he desired representation for purposes of his testimony as a third party witness, he would need to seek it independently of Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO.” Id. at 3-4.

Zullo cannot properly assert 4th/5th Amendment privileges regarding the remaining Zullo documents at issue because any such materials “Mr. Zullo has relating to the Seattle investigation, including emails and documents provided by the confidential informant Mr. Montgomery, are in his possession only in his capacity as a representative and agent of MCSO.” Id. at 4-5. As such, “Mr. Zullo cannot rely on his personal Fifth Amendment or other privileges to prevent MCSO from producing MCSO’s own documents. Id. at 5, citing Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 88 (1974), Matter of Witness Before Grand Jury, 546 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1976); and Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled Feb. 14, 1978, 603 F.2d 469, 476 (3d Cir. 1979) (same).

Even if Zullo could assert personal 4th/5th Amendment privileges, he has failed to make any showing that such an invocation is properly claimed. Id. at 5, citing Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled Feb. 14, 1978, 603 F.2d at 477. Zullo has already turned over “similar” information to both the Court Monitors and Plaintiffs. Id. at 5-6. And, “production of the documents at issue, consisting of pre-existing, voluntarily created emails and other documents from the Seattle investigation, would not involve testimonial self-incrimination and would therefore not implicate Mr. Zullo’s Fifth Amendment rights. Id. at 6, citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 408-411 (1976); United States v. Osborn, 561 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977).

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is distinguishable and does not govern this case, as the segment quoted by Mr. Zullo at Dkt. 1501, p. 3, makes clear. This case does not involve “incriminating documents that the [party seeking production] is unable to describe with reasonable particularity”, and it does not involve documents produced “pursuant to a grant of immunity” and being used “to prepare criminal charges” against the person producing them. The production of MCSO’s documents by MCSO’s attorneys does not constitute testimonial self-incrimination by Mr. Zullo and implicates no Fifth Amendment concerns.” Id. at 7.

Zullo files a Motion for Protective Order. ECF 1508. See also “Joe Arpaio's Birther Buddy Slams Sheriff's Lawyers,” Phoenix New Times, Oct. 30, 2015. In this Motion, Zullo asserts as follows:

“I , Michael P. Zullo, move this court pro se to prohibit attorney JOSEPH J . POPOLIZIO and attorneys for Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. from releasing any documentation provided by me, released to them, as stated earlier under United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).

Having just been informed the firm and attorneys for Jones, Skelton & Hochuli now take the position of never having and are not representing me , despite their having said so in the past thereby misleading me in this regard, are now in possession of documents erroneously obtained from me and therefore have no legal authority to possess it [sic].

Furthermore, under these circumstances attorney JOSEPH J. POPOLIZIO and attorneys for Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. have no legal authority to release any information obtained by me under such false pretenses.

If they do release my documentation they would again be violating my 4th and 5^th Amendment rights, not to mention the clear ethical violation. This court should not be a party to these violations of my Constitutional rights while I seek counsel.”

ECF 1508.

Nov. 2, 2015

Zullo files a "Motion to Stay Court Orders Requiring Testimony and Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals." See ECF 1510.

Melendres Plaintiffs file an Opposition to Zullo's Motion for Protective Order and response to the Court's Oct. 30 (ECF 1506) order. See ECF 1511.

Judge Snow issues an order setting a telephonic status conference for tomorrow, Nov. 3, at 3:00 PM. See ECF 1512 (paperless order).

Nov. 3, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the previously-scheduled telephonic status conference. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1515) (paperless entry); Transcript (ECF 1522).

Per the Minutes, Judge Snow issues the following orders during this hearing:

Telephonic Conference is set for 11/5/2015 at 10:00 AM regarding disputed redactions to admitted exhibits. Counsel are to advise the Court if no dispute exists and the hearing will be vacated.

Mr. Zullo's reply to Plaintiffs' response to his Motion for Protective Order 1501 and 1508 is due by 12:00 PM on 11/6/2015.

Oral Argument on Mr. Zullo's Motion for Protective Order is set for 11/6/2015 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge G Murray Snow. ...

Per tweets from Stephen Lemons, the following took place during the hearing:

When Judge Snow asked Zullo whether he was representing himself, Zullo replied, "Not that I really want to. I want counsel." Zullo also said to Snow, "I'm out in limbo. I've basically been abandoned" and that it was "unnerving" to be on the teleconference.

Judge Snow said (to Zullo), "I don't see any purpose for extension of time...since [Maricopa County] is not going to provide counsel for you" and "Seems to me pretty clear that if you are going to have a lawyer, you are going to have to pay for it yourself."

In response to Zullo's claims to Judge Snow that Arpaio's lawyers had told him they represented him, Arpaio attorney John Masterson said "we disagree with statements Zullo made."

Hearings are scheduled to reconvene on Nov. 10, with Sheridan and another MCSO employee testifying. (Sheridan out with back problems. Masterson didn't mention him by name, but said "witness is having procedure as we speak.")

See also Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Birther Buddy In Court, While Joe Whines For Cash,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 4, 2015.

Melendres Plaintiffs file Notice re: Service of Second Amended Subpoena Commanding Deposition Testimony to Michael Zullo (now scheduled for Nov. 9). ECF 1517.

Nov. 5, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the scheduled telephonic conference regarding disputed redactions to admitted exhibits (as provided in Nov. 3 minute entry). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1520) (paperless entry); Transcript (ECF 1545).

Thereafter Judge Snow issues an order denying Defendants' request to seal or redact certain exhibits apparently relating to Mackiewicz investigations and requiring Arpaio attorney Popolizio to confirm with that the investigation relating to Exhibit 2799 is ongoing and, if so, confer with Plaintiffs regarding redactions to that document. See ECF 1521.

Note. Exhibit 2799 is described in Plaintiffs' list of potential exhibits (ECF 1462-1) as "Memorandum to S. Bailey from K. Seagraves Re: Action Plan - Reference to allegation of Anabolic Steroids purchase(s) made by Deputies Brian Mackiewicz and James Kempher dated 3/26/2015 (MELC186297-MELC186300).

Former MCSO/Arpaio counsel Tim Casey sends a letter to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, appealing a decision by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to not cover cost of counsel retained in connection with his testimony on the Melendres contempt proceedings. See Nov. 5, 2015 letter from Tim Casey to Steve Chucri (courtesy Phoenix New Times). See also AP, “Former Lawyer for Sheriff Joe Arpaio Asks Maricopa County to Cover Legal Costs,” KTAR, Nov. 5, 2015.

Nov. 6, 2015

Judge Snow presides over the hearing scheduled to address Zullo's motions for protective order. See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1525, paperless entry); Transcript (ECF 1546).

Zullo reportedly read from a prepared statement, available here (courtesy Phoenix New Times).

During the hearing, Maricopa County counsel Richard Walker reportedly informed the Court that "he had recently replied to Zullo, explaining why the county was not going to pay for his attorney. Wallker said it was because there is 'no civil claim asserted against' the posse commander. Also, Jones, Skelton provides representation to employees and agents of the MCSO 'for purposes of institutional interest, but not as individuals.'" See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo Shot Down by Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 6, 2015.

For additional reporting on today's hearing, see:

Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse Investigator Mike Zullo Shot Down by Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 6, 2015.
Megan Cassidy, “Posse Member To Testify In Arpaio Contempt Hearing,” Arizona Republic, Nov. 6 2015.
Jude Joffe-Block, “Questions Over Posse Member’s Documents Latest Twist In Sheriff’s Contempt Hearing,” KJZZ, Nov. 6, 2015.

Shortly thereafter Judge Snow issues an order denying Zullo's motions. See ECF 1527. In short, Judge Snow holds that

Zullo “is not being compelled to produce the documents" -- because subpoena is to Jones Skelton -- and "as such, his Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated.” Id. at 2-4.

Even if Zullo were being personally compelled to produce the documents, the Fifth Amendment does not apply here -- because “an individual cannot rely upon the privilege to avoid producing the records of a collective entity which are in his possession in a representative capacity, even if these records might incriminate him personally.”Id. at 4-6.

Nov. 9, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs depose Mike Zullo today (per the Nov. 3 notice). See Transcript (as docketed at ECF 1532-2).

During his deposition, Zullo invokes the Fifth Amendment more than 300 times. See id. Although Zullo answers almost no questions, a substantial amount of new information is revealed though Plaintiff counsel's quotations from exhibits. (Details on this under construction.)

Zullo Appeal. Zullo reportedly files a "Notice of Appeal" regarding Judge Snow's Oct. 30 and Nov. 3 rulings. See Notice (PDF) courtesy Phoenix New Times. As of COB Friday, this notice had not yet appeared on the docket in the Arizona Federal District Court or the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Snow presides over a hearing regarding "the testimony of Michael Zullo, scheduling and exhibits which the County desires to admit into evidence." See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1531, paperless entry); Transcript (ECF 1547).

The Arizona Attorney General files, under seal, a "response to inquiry." See ECF 1529 (filing); ECF 1528 (order granting AZAG's Oct. 6 motion to file response under seal).

Nov. 10, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing resumes today (Day 18). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1534); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1544).

Per the Minutes (ECF 1534), Captain Russell Skinner testifies (on behalf of defendants) for most of the day. In late afternoon Zullo takes the stand.

For media reports on the proceeding, see:

Jaques Billeaud, “Leader of Arizona sheriff’s posse takes Fifth Amendment,” AP/ABC27.com, Nov. 10, 2015.
Megan Cassidy, “Arpaio's Posseman Pleads The Fifth In Contempt Hearing,” Arizona Republic, Nov. 10, 2015.
Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse Commander Takes the Fifth, Over and Over,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 11, 2015.

Jamie Ross, “Arpaio Investigator Testifies, Begrudgingly, in Contempt Hearing,” Courthouse News Service, Nov. 11, 2015.

Melendres Plaintiffs file Motion to Admit Certain Exhibits Based on Michael Zullo's Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Not to Testify. See ECF 1532.

Melendres Plaintiffs file Notice of Deposition of Cynthia A. Goelz, in her individual and official capacity as Deputy Budget Director with Maricopa County. ECF 1533.

Nov. 11, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs are scheduled to depose Cynthia Goelz today, per their Nov. 10 notice.

MCSO/Arpaio file Motion re Objection to Admission of Exhibits 2947 and 2948 (on grounds that the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and were inadvertently disclosed. ECF 1535.

Melendres Plaintiffs file Response to the MCSO/Arpaio Motion (consenting to rescind admission of such documents but apparently seeking to reserve right to request to sanctions for discovery violations (apparently in connection with the information contained in the documents?). ECF 1536.

Nov. 12, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing resumes today (Day 19). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1542); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1548).

Per the minutes, Sousa takes the stand for a short period in the morning, before Zullo resumes the stand.

Zullo invokes the Fifth Amendment more than 200 times in the morning session. After lunch, he answers some questions posed by Arpaio counsel. Then, under redirect examination, he "explode[s] begins testifying, not taking 5th. Says they were not after judge." (See Lemons tweet.)

Portions of several of Zullo's audio recordings produced in discovery are played during his testimony. At least some of these recordings are later published by the Phoenix New Times. See Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio's Posse Investigator Mike Zullo's Secret Recordings,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 16, 2015.

Nov. 13, 2015

The Melendres contempt hearing continues today (Day 20). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1543); Transcript of Proceedings (ECF 1549).

Per the minutes, Zullo takes the stand then Plaintiffs rest their case. Defense puts on no additional witnesses. Judge Snow schedules closing arguments for Nov. 20, 2015.

Nov. 16, 2015

Maricopa County files a motion for judicial notice of costs incurred by Maricopa County. ECF 1553. In this motion, the County seeks judicial notice of (a) cost of the court-appointed Monitor paid by the County (totaling $4,226,480.99 to date) and (b) the fees and nontaxable costs awarded to Plaintiffs (totaling $4,533,948.40 to date). Id.

Zullo Appeal. The Melendres docket reflects that Zullo's interlocutory appeal has been assigned Ninth Circuit Case Number 15-17269. ECF 1554.

Montgomery v. Risen. Montgomery (via Larry Klayman) files papers in Florida federal court setting forth the same claims of improper CIA hacking that Montgomery made to the MCSO in fall 2013 as part of the Seattle Operation. See Sectec Astronomy - Nov. 16, 2015 for additional details.

Nov. 17, 2015

Maricopa County files a Joint Notice of Stipulated Fact. ECF 1555. This notice reflects the parties' agreement that Maricopa County's failure to provide metadata of the Tim Casey email of December 23, 2011, relating to the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order was "due solely to technical problems encountered in the retrieval attempt, and was not the result of any resistance to, or a lack of cooperation with, the request for such metadata information from Vogel Investigations by such County employees." Id.

City of Phoenix files a Motion to Withdraw as Interested Party. ECF 1559.

Arpaio files a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Admissibility of Dennis Montgomery's Hearsay Statements Under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). ECF 1560. In this motion, Arpaio seeks to exclude from evidence Montgomery emails and audio statements on grounds that they are hearsay.

Plaintiffs file a Response to Maricopa County's Nov. 16 Motion for Judicial Notice. ECF 1561.

Zullo Appeal. Zullo's appeal is docketed in the Ninth Circuit. No. 15-17269, Doc 1. Briefing schedule is set as follows: Opening Brief due Feb. 17, 2016; Answering Briefs due Mar. 18, 2016; Reply due 14 days after service of answering brief(s).

Nov. 18, 2015

Plaintiffs file a Response to Arpaio's Nov. 17 motion for reconsideration regarding Montgomery statements. ECF 1565.

Judge Snow issues an order outlining issues for the parties to address at Friday's hearing. ECF 1566.

Montgomery Appeal II. Montgomery files

Motion to consolidate cases 15-16640 ("Appeal I") and 15-16626 ("Appeal II). See No. 15-16626 Doc. 14.

Motion to extend time to file opening brief. See No. 15-16626 Doc. 15.

Nov. 19, 2015

Judge Snow holds a telephonic status conference. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF 1570 (paperless entry); Transcript (ECF 1575).

John MacIntyre files a Renewed Request for Determination That Criminal Contempt Charges Will Not Be Pursued/Referred Against Him Personally. ECF 1568

Arpaio et al file a Joinder in Brian Sands' Reply in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 1569.

Nov. 20, 2015

Closing arguments in the Melendres contempt evidentiary proceedings occur today (Day 21). See Minutes of Proceeding (ECF 1574); Transcript (ECF 1583).

For news reports on the hearing, see Stephen Lemons' Twitter Feed on Nov. 20 and see also:

Megan Cassidy, "Judge: Sheriff Arpaio Not Forthcoming on Stand in Civil-Contempt Case," Arizona Republic, Nov. 20, 2015.
Jacques Billeaud, “Judge Questions Arpaio's Truthfulness on Witness Stand,” Associated Press/KPHO.com, Nov. 20, 2015.

Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Accused of Deception Under Oath by Federal Judge,” Phoenix New Times, Nov. 21, 2015.

Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Questions Truthfulness of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Testimony,” KJZZ, Nov. 22, 2015.

Jamie Ross, “Judge Doubts Sheriff Arpaio's 'Willingness to Tell the Truth',” Courthouse News Service, Nov. 23, 2015.

Brian Sands files a Memorandum Regarding Order to Show Cause Closing Argument. ECF 1573.

Montgomery Appeal II. Montgomery files

Supplemental Brief Consolidated with No. 15-16440. See No. 15-16626 Doc. 16.

Appellant’s Excerpt of Record, Supplemental to Consolidated Case Appeal. See No. 15-16626 Doc. 17.

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Maricopa County files their Opening Brief (No. 15-15996 Doc 32) and record excerpts (Doc 33).

Nov. 24, 2015

Montgomery Appeal II. Montgomery files motion to consolidate record excerpts in cases 15-16640 ("Appeal I") and 15-16626 ("Appeal II). See No. 15-16626 Doc. 18.

Nov. 25, 2015

Judge Snow issues two orders today:

Order granting Plaintiff's Oct. 14 1468 Motion for Protective Order. ECF 1581.

Order granting the parties' Oct. 14 Stipulated Motion to Admit Certain Deposition Testimony of Rollie Seebert. ECF 1582.

Nov. 24, 2015

Montgomery Appeal II. Melendres Plaintiffs file streamlined request for extension of time to file response. See No. 15-17269, Doc.19.

The Ninth Circuit grants Melendres Plaintiffs' streamlined request for extension of time. See No. 15-17269, Doc. 20.

Montgomery files an opposition to the Plaintiffs' streamlined request for extension of time. See No. 15-17269, Doc. 21.

Dec. 2, 2015

Zullo Appeal. Larry Klayman enters an appearance on behalf of Zullo. See No. 15-17269 Doc. 7. Zullo files Mediation Questionnaire (Doc. 9) and Motion to Expedite Case (Doc. 10).

Dec. 3, 2015

Montgomery Appeal I & II. The Ninth Circuit grants Montgomery's Motion to Consolidate cases No. 15-16440 and 15-16626. See No. 15-6440 Doc. 27; No. 15-17269 Doc. 24. Consolidated answering briefs are due January 20, 2016. Id.

Dec. 4, 2015

Melendres Plaintiffs file:

Statement of Discrepancies in Court's Exhibit List. ECF 1586.

Opposition to Brian Sands' Nov. 20 Memorandum re Order to Show Cause. ECF 1589.

Response to the Court's Nov. 18 Order. ECF 1591.

Arpaio et al file Response to the Court's Nov. 18 Order. ECF 1588.

Maricopa County files:

Supplemental Brief Support of its Nov. 16 Motion for Judicial Notice of Costs Incurred. ECF 1587.

Response to the Court's Nov. 18 Order. ECF 1593.

The United States DOJ files a Notice of Authorities (re: court-ordered consent decrees between the United States and various governmental entities regarding law enforcement agencies). ECF 1590.

Brian Sands files Response to the Court's Nov. 18 Order. ECF 1592.

Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order setting oral argument on "the merits appeal and on Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Maricopa County, Arizona" for Tuesday, January 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in Pasadena, California. No. 15-15996 Doc 37.

Dec. 7, 2015

Judge Snow issues an order: “The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated December 1, 2015 for services rendered by the Monitor in November 2015. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice in full, including any past due balance.” ECF 1594.

Montgomery Appeal I & II. Montgomery files Motion to Expedite Case. No. 15-16440 Doc 29.

Dec. 10, 2015

Brian Sands files a Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Brief or, in the Alternative, to Respond to Plaintiffs' Dec. 4 Response in Opposition to Chief Sands' Nov. 20 Memorandum (doc 1589). ECF 1596.

Plaintiffs file Notice of Plaintiffs' Filing Opposition to Maricopa County's Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. ECF 1598.

Montgomery Appeal I & II. Plaintiffs file Opposition to Montgomery’s Dec. 7 Motion to Expedite Case. No. 15-16440 Doc 31.

Dec. 11, 2015

Montgomery Appeal I & II. The Ninth Circuit denies Montgomery’s Dec. 7 Motion to Expedite Case. No. 15-16440 Doc. 34.

Dec. 14, 2015

Plaintiffs file Response to Sands’ Dec. 10 Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Brief or, in the Alternative, to Respond to Plaintiffs' Dec. 4 Response in Opposition to Chief Sands' Nov. 20 Memorandum. ECF 1598.

Dec. 15, 2015

Zullo Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an order that the case is not selected for inclusion in the Mediation Program. No. 15-17269, Doc. 11.

Dec. 17, 2015

Zullo Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues an Order to Show Cause:

“A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the order challenged in this appeal does not appear to be final or appealable. See In re Nat'l Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certifications Litig., 857 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (an order compelling discovery against a non-party is not appealable until after a final judgment). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing and all pending motions are stayed pending further order of the court.”

No. 15-17269, Doc. 12 (Docket Entry text).

2016 »

Last updated Jan. 7, 2016

Be notified of page updates

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

2015 Key Melendres v. Arpaio Case, Arpaio Cold Case Posse, and Arpaio Seattle Operation Events