Excerpts from MCSO Chief Deputy Sheridan's Sept. 25, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings (Transcript) regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
Direct Examination | Cross-Examination
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 24 and Sept. 29 Testimony.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY CECILLIA WANG
[1289] [WANG]. When we left off yesterday, we were about to split apart an exhibit into two pieces because you had seen one of them. Do you have in front of you now Exhibit 2074A [PDF]?
Note. Ex. 2074A is listed as :DOJ/ARPAIO, 2007-2013 (MELC199549).
Note. For more information including additional testimony re: Exhibit 2074A, see WYE-Nov. 5, 2013.
A. I do.
Q. All right. I believe you testified that you have seen this one-page document before, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And you saw it in connection -- well, you saw it as a representation of information that Dennis Montgomery had provided to the MCSO, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 2074A.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, could I just take a quick look at what the new version looks like?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Pause in proceedings.) [1290]
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I just -- I guess I have a question for counsel. Is this being introduced for the truth of the matter asserted in the document?
MS. WANG: It is not.
MR. MASTERSON: Then my only objection is foundation.
THE COURT: You want to lay a little foundation,
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief Sheridan, you've testified that you were shown this document, Exhibit 2074A, during a meeting concerning the so-called Seattle investigation, correct?
A. Okay. Can we back up one second?
Q. Sure.
A. I have 2074 that has two sheets to it. I assume we're just talking about the top sheet --
Q. Yes, 2074A, which you should -- if you don't have it in front of you, we'll get that to you. It is the first page of Exhibit 2074.
* * * [1291]
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you have it now, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. So the question was: Were you shown this document in the course of a meeting concerning the so-called Seattle investigation?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. When did you see this before?
A. I believe Sheriff Arpaio showed me a copy of this in his office.
Q. Okay. And when was that, do you recall?
A. No.
Q. Was it in connection with the so-called Seattle investigation? Did he mention it was in connection with – let me withdraw that.
Did Sheriff Arpaio inform you that this represented information Dennis Montgomery had given him?
A. This was in reference to information that we, the office, had obtained from Dennis Montgomery.
Q. In connection with the investigation we were discussing yesterday?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And was anyone else present when Sheriff Arpaio showed you this document?
A. I don't believe so. [1292]
Q. What did Sheriff Arpaio tell you about the document when he showed it to you?
A. He just showed it to me and pointed out the two items that I recall, because they were very important to me, and this is why I recall them, was the wiretaps, the DOJ wiretaps on my personal cell phone and his cell phone dated September 28, 2009. That's why I recall seeing this document and being a little bit excited about it, actually.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd again move that Exhibit 2074A be admitted.
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: 2074A is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2074A [PDF] is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: All right. Could I ask that it be published, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, it may be published.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Okay, sir. Let's highlight the bottom third of the page.
Do you see where there are mentions of the Melendres case here?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And the judge referenced in the entries for July 17th – [1293] sorry, July 19th, 2012, and October 2nd, 2013, that would refer to Judge Snow, correct?
Was that your understanding?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
MS. WANG: The question is whether --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. WANG: I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: Well, at least the -- the one dated July 19th, 2012, I would assume that that was Judge Snow. The other October, I -- I don't know.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you know of any other class action lawsuits against Arpaio other than this one? I mean in the October 2013 time range.
A. Well, we were dealing with the Department of Justice, and I don't know if this would have been classified as a class action lawsuit, but when we saw this document, everything on here, this is what led me to start to question Mr. Montgomery, because everything on here's public record. I mean, other than those two wiretap references to the sheriff and my phone, everything could have been found online, in the newspaper, that kind of thing, so...
Q. Well, the wiretap information would not have been a matter of public record, is that correct?
A. Right. I assumed it was made up, to be honest with you. [1294]
Q. Okay. Well, did anyone ever inform you that Dennis Montgomery represented that he was obtaining this information from data he had obtained while a contractor or employee for the CIA?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that from anybody?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you anything about the source, the purported source, of Dennis Montgomery's information?
A. No. I had always assumed, and I think others did, that he just pulled this off the Internet or the news media sources, and he put it together to entice us to pay him some more money.
Q. Well, you had paid him a significant amount of money, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Over a hundred thousand dollars?
A. Yes.
Q. And you continued to pay him after you saw this document, isn't that right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you believed that he was just giving you public-source documents?
A. We did.
Q. Even though you kept paying him?
A. We did, because on occasion he would come up with some real [1295] information.
Q. And did you have an understanding about where he was getting that supposed real information?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that?
A. From the material that he obtained when he was a contractor with the NSA and CIA.
Q. So you did have an understanding that he was purporting to have data from the CIA and the NSA?
A. Yes.
Q. And those are federal agencies, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you have any concerns that that might be an improper or illegal use of that data from the CIA and the NSA?
A. That's -- that's what we were looking into.
Q. How did you look into that?
A. We're a law enforcement agency. That's what we were trying to determine, what information he had. He was very nebulous about what he had, and he wouldn't show us, and we were trying to validate what he was telling us and showing us.
Q. Is it your contention, sir, that you were investigating Dennis Montgomery over the potential illegal use of data from the CIA and the NSA?
A. No. We were investigating Dennis Montgomery to see if he was a credible source with the information for the 150,000 [1296] Maricopa County residents' bank accounts that he gave us, that he sourced us, to see if that was credible; to see if the federal government was guilty of computer tampering for 150,000 Maricopa County residents.
Q. So let me ask you my question again: Did Dennis Montgomery's representation that he was using data he obtained from the CIA and the NSA while a contractor for them, did that representation give rise to a concern on your part that that was an illegal use of federal agency records?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. Foundation, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We didn't know.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Did you have a concern that Dennis Montgomery might be illegally using data he obtained from the CIA and the NSA?
A. We were working with the Arizona Attorney General, and working with their advice -- blessing, I guess, if you call that -- as a law enforcement agency, to figure out what information we had, what crimes we had, and what crimes we were eventually going to deal with. And the sheriff and I had talked many times about if this crosses over into a federal crime -- and I believe I've already told you this -- that we were prepared to turn it over to the FBI.
Q. Okay. I think you're still not answering my question.
My question is: Did you have any reason to be [1297] concerned that Dennis Montgomery had committed a crime in using the CIA data for this purpose?
A. We were concerned that Dennis Montgomery illegally obtained this information.
Q. When you testified here in court on April 24th, 2015, I believe your testimony was that you were investigating whether the federal government had illegally accessed bank records and other information of Maricopa County residents, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So your testimony today is adding some new information, that you were looking into the legality of what Dennis Montgomery was doing?
A. No. Don't -- don't confuse the two issues.
It was our belief that -- and this is the reason why we began doing business with Dennis Montgomery and no other reason -- was he came to us with 150,000 Maricopa County residents' bank information and bank account numbers and dates and account amounts, very specific information on 150 residents that he said he obtained while he was working as a contractor with the NSA and the CIA, and that they were making – they asked him, make him, whatever word you want to use, they contracted with him to do this, and he knew what they were doing was illegal.
And what he did was he made a copy every night before [1298] he went home of this data, so some day he could become a whistle-blower and let the United States, people of the United States know what they were doing. This is the story that he came to us with.
We didn't really care about what Dennis Montgomery, whistle-blower, he said he went to even the ACLU for whistle-blower status, and he tried to get whistle-blower status and nobody would listen to him. But when he came to Sheriff Arpaio with 150,000 Maricopa County residents that their rights had been violated, the sheriff was the one that had finally had the guts to take a chance and take a time -- take the time and spend some money to investigate this issue. That's how Dennis Montgomery started.
And as you know the rest of the story, Dennis Montgomery is a questionable character. All you have to do is google him and see, I think it's the Playboy or Penthouse article, the story, the video. It's very enlightening. We were very well aware of all those things. Informants are oftentimes not the most savory characteristics on the planet. So we knew that. We knew that going into this. But the outcome, if we were able to prove the credibility of Dennis Montgomery, would far outweigh the $250,000 or so money that we were spending on this investigation.
And don't forget the time period, too, that we were looking into this. Edward Snowden, I believe is his name, was 1299] a huge story across the country. I think he fled to Russia and he was making the same type allegations. That's what we were doing with Dennis Montgomery.
Now, Dennis Montgomery then, because we start and began questioning him, starts coming up with this information like Exhibit 2074A, because we start telling him, Hey, you need to come up with something credible here or we're not going to pay you any more. He has no source of income. We're his only source of income. So he is frantic about keeping us on the hook, so to speak.
Note. But see Arpaio Oct. 2 testimony at 2274 (Plaintiffs' counsel states: "I'll tell you it's my understanding from other documents that the first payment that your office gave to Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013." In other words, according to documents produced by MCSO, Montgomery had not yet been paid anything by MCSO at the time he faxed Exhibit 2074A to Arpaio.)
And so he comes up periodically with these things like this exhibit that we have before us. And he has some credible information. As a matter of fact, we sent a team of detectives out to verify some of those bank account records, and we were able to verify that some of that information was accurate; some of it was not.
And then he comes along -- and this is probably the reason why we're talking about it here in Judge Snow's court. He comes up with this thing about the DOJ phone call to Judge Snow's chambers or something like that. And again, thinking that, Oh, you know, we're in Judge Snow's court, maybe this would be very sexy for us to know this, and thinking that we'll bite on it, and we don't.
And you have those documents. You have the e-mails. You have my direct order in writing in those e-mails to my – [1300] members of my staff, and testimony from the sergeant, Anglin, that I gave him a direct order they will not and do not participate in anything concerning this Court.
And so Montgomery, in my opinion, was doing these things to string us along to pay him a little bit longer, because he knew that he didn't have the goods in order to make a case that we needed to make a case, and we would not pay him any longer.
Q. Well, you did continue to pay him after he initially came forward with allegations that Judge -- that involved Judge Snow, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I don't think you ever did answer my original question, which is: Did you have any concern that Dennis Montgomery had committed a crime in copying the data from the CIA and the NSA and giving it to you at the MCSO? Did you have any concern that that constituted a federal crime?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, foundation, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: That's why we sought the counsel from the Arizona Attorney General, because of that very concern.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. So the answer is yes, you did have that concern?
A. Yes, ma'am. [1301]
Q. Now, you mentioned the Arizona Attorney General.
Are you aware that MCSO arranged for Dennis Montgomery to have a so-called free talk with the AG's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dennis Montgomery -- well, let's go through to make sure we know what a free talk is. Is that basically a proffer to a prosecutor in which the person who's coming forward with information seeks and obtains immunity from prosecution for any crimes, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And in fact, in this instance, Dennis Montgomery had asked that MCSO facilitate the arrangement that he would be immunized against prosecution for any crimes that he may have committed in going into that free talk with the AG's office, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So you did have an indication that Dennis Montgomery may have been involved in federal criminal activity in relation to his obtaining and use of that data, correct?
A. It's possible.
Q. I want to go back to the exhibit, 2074A.
Did you understand that Dennis Montgomery had faxed this document to Sheriff Arpaio?
Do you see at the top there's an indication this [1302] document was sent through a fax machine?
A. No.
Q. You don't see that?
A. Well, I see the number on top. I was not aware that it was faxed to the sheriff.
Q. Do you see the handwritten telephone number at the bottom of the page, 602, that number?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that as a fax machine, Sheriff Arpaio's fax machine number?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to have you take a look at a couple documents.
Do you have Exhibit 2880 in front of you?
THE COURT: What was that exhibit number, again?
MS. WANG: 2880.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I do.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. This document is not in evidence. I'm not going to read from it. It's a reverse telephone number lookup printout.
Can you turn to page 2 of the document and look at where it says Dennis Montgomery.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. Look at the -- the telephone number that's listed there, and then compare that to the number at the top of [1303] Exhibit 2074A.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. So does this document, Exhibit 2880, in any way refresh your recollection about where this document, number 2074A, came from?
A. I was never aware of where it came from, so it wouldn't refresh my recollection.
Q. All right. When the sheriff showed you this document, what did you tell you about it?
A. I'm sorry, what was that?
Q. I'm referring back to Exhibit 2074A, the DOJ/Arpaio timeline document. When Sheriff Arpaio showed this to you, what did he tell you about it?
A. Oh, what did he tell me about it? I'm sorry, I missed that part.
Not much. We just really keyed on the wiretap and talked about that the DOJ really wiretap our personal cell phones. And then I looked at it, and I think even at first glance I looked at it and I said, Sheriff, I said, other than those wiretap things, this looks like something that anybody could put together just doing a little Internet research.
Q. Chief, looking at this document, the DOJ/Arpaio timeline, did you have an understanding that Dennis Montgomery was alleging that there was a conspiracy between the Department of [1304] Justice, Judge Snow, and the Covington & Burling law firm?
A. No.
Q. You did not have that understanding?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear anyone mention that Dennis Montgomery was alleging that there was a conspiracy involving Judge Snow, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Covington & Burling law firm?
A. No.
Q. You never heard anything about such a purported conspiracy?
A. What -- what I heard was that Dennis Montgomery came up with a phone record that the DOJ had called the judge's chambers. That was the fact that I had heard.
Q. And what was this -- what were you told about the significance of that fact?
A. DOJ was talking with Judge Snow.
Q. Did Sheriff Arpaio mention that allegation to you?
A. No. It was -- I believe it was Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. Was that during a conversation in which you told Detective Mackiewicz that he should not investigate Judge Snow?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So you did understand that purported fact to be implicating some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the Court?
A. No. I was concerned with the prior activities of the Sheriff's Office concerning members of the court, our [1305] reputation concerning investigations of members of the court in years past.
I was the chief deputy. I did not want to be associated with anything in that way, shape, or form, and that's why I told Detective Mackiewicz, We are not going to entertain any further information from Montgomery, and you're to tell him not to investigate anything about Judge Snow, and if he is -- if he does, we will walk away.
Q. By the way, Chief, Detective Mackiewicz was assigned to the Threats Unit at MCSO, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn't it true that in years past, the MCSO Threats Unit was actually involved in some of those investigations you just mentioned into judges and other public officials?
A. It was many years ago, yes.
Q. Sir, turning again to Exhibit 2074A, you mentioned that there were indications here that your telephone had been tapped by the DOJ, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there -- does your telephone number appear on this document?
A. It does.
Q. And which number is that?
A. It's -- it's on the line dated 9-28-2009. 602-920-4000. I no longer have that number, but that was the number I had at [1306] that time.
Q. And was that a landline at your MCSO office or a cell phone?
A. That was my personal cell phone number. And the number 4001 is the sheriff's number.
Q. All right. Is that a cell phone or a landline?
A. That is a cell phone number.
Q. And what about the numbers appearing in the next – the third number that appears in the next line?
A. 920-4400 was at that time the chief deputy, Dave Hendershott, that was his cell phone number.
Q. All right. When you discussed this timeline document, Exhibit 2074A, with Sheriff Arpaio, did he say that he was not going to pursue any of this information?
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, to this day, the sheriff and I, even though we're curious, would like to know if the DOJ actually did tap our cell phones. We never got an answer. And we believe that if they were credible wiretap numbers, we as American citizens have a right to be notified that they did tap our cell phones. The Department of Justice never did notify us that they tapped our phones. And assuming that the Department of Justice is a stand-up company and we never were notified, we assume that these numbers were bogus also.
Q. Sir, do you see that in the fax stamp up at the top of 2074A that there appears the date November 5th, 2013? [1307]
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you recall whether Sheriff Arpaio showed you this document around that date or shortly thereafter?
A. It was probably shortly thereafter.
Q. And you continued to pay Dennis Montgomery, and you continued his investigation after November of 2013, correct?
A. We did.
Q. You continued it into 2014, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And even into 2015 you were still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. On a very limited basis, yes.
Q. In fact, up through the beginning of this contempt hearing on April 21st you were still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. Posseman Zullo kept in contact with Dennis Montgomery, yes.
Q. So your answer is yes, as of April 21st, 2015, MCSO was still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery, right?
A. I -- I don't think that's quite accurate.
Q. Well, you just testified that Posseman Zullo was still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery as of April 20th of 2015, correct?
A. I didn't use the word "seeking information"; I said he kept in contact with him. [1308]
Q. All right. Sir, do you still have Exhibit 2524 in front of you? That was my declaration in support of the – or opposition to the sheriff's motion to disqualify the Court.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. This is not in evidence, but I'm going to ask you to turn to Exhibit E. The Bates stamp on the page in question is MELC202142.
A. Okay. I'm sorry. I know during my deposition I had a hard time finding this thing, so could you --
Q. Sure. I'll describe it for you. It's an e-mail from Larry Klayman to Michael Zullo with a cc to David Webb and Dennis; subject line, Second Request, date Monday, April 20th, 2015. And it's under a cover page Exhibit.
A. Okay. Here it is.
Q. Okay. Are you there?
A. Yes. Thank you.
Q. Will you read that e-mail and let me know if that refreshes your recollection that Posseman Mike Zullo was seeking the completion of work from Dennis Montgomery as of April 20th, 2015.
A. Okay. I'm sorry. Can you repeat your question?
Q. Sure. The question was: Does this document refresh your recollection that as of April 20th of 2015, MCSO Posseman Mike Zullo was still seeking the completion of work from Dennis Montgomery? [1309]
A. Yes.
Q. And was he still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery on that date?
A. It's obvious from this e-mail he was.
Q. Thank you.
Sir, you mentioned a moment ago that you directed Sergeant Anglin and Detective Mackiewicz not to investigate Judge Snow because you were concerned about getting, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you mentioned a concern that you didn't want to be involved in any investigations like those that had happened in the past of judges and other public officials, is that right?
A. That's correct. When I took over as the chief deputy, the sheriff sat me down and he counseled me on what he expected from me. And that was one of the things that he said: that he allowed the former chief deputy too much leeway in doing things, and that he was not going to do that with me. And he was not going to investigate any corruption charges on public officials or go into any corruption issues with members of the bench, and he made that quite clear to me. And so I was honoring that order from the sheriff from a few years before. And also, it's common sense, from everything I knew about what Dennis Montgomery was giving us was baseless, and really, even if there was some communication between the Department of Justice and the Court, I'm sure the Court does [1310] have communications with the Department of Justice in the normal course of business. I don't know. I don't know how courts work. So I wasn't concerned with it.
But for the sense of propriety, the sense of honoring the sheriff's orders to me, I told them, Do not, do not get involved with Montgomery, and you tell him that we will not entertain this and we'll walk away.
Q. Well, you're aware that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office investigations of Maricopa County judges, members of the Board of Supervisors, and other public figures in the county, had been part of the United States Department of Justice lawsuit against the sheriff, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the sheriff was in office when those investigations occurred, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And fair to say the sheriff had made public statements in connection with those investigations himself, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you're saying that he was trying to put all that on David Hendershott?
A. I didn't say that.
Q. So your understanding was that Sheriff Arpaio took responsibility for having done those investigations of state judges and members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors? [1311]
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, relevance. 403.
THE COURT: You want to lay a little foundation,
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief Deputy, you just testified a moment ago that you had a concern that you did not want the Seattle investigation to proceed against -- along the lines of a conspiracy involving a federal judge, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you said one of the reasons that you had that concern is that MCSO previously had been engaged in investigations of public figures, including judges and government officials, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also testified that Sheriff Arpaio mentioned those previous investigations to you in connection with -- well, when you became chief deputy, is that right?
A. Way before Dennis Montgomery ever appeared, that's correct.
Q. And you mentioned that the sheriff explained that the reason those investigations came about is because he had given Chief Hendershott too much leeway? Was that your testimony?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. So my question is, since you offered up those [1312] statements, whether it was your understanding, based on that conversation, that Sheriff Arpaio was trying to blame Chief Hendershott for the fact that those investigations happened.
A. I've known Sheriff Arpaio for 22 years. He doesn't blame anybody for anything.
Q. So Sheriff Arpaio accepted the responsibility for having conducted those investigations of judges and other government officials?
A. You'll have to ask him that question.
Q. We will.
* * *
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief, did you ever make any public statements about those past investigations of judges and other public officials in Maricopa County?
A. I don't know. I don't recall.
Q. Okay.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd like to play a video clip of a press statement that Chief Deputy Sheridan made in connection with those investigations.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, objection. First off, I haven't seen it; secondly, relevance.
MS. WANG: Well, the witness has opened the door to [1313] discussion about how the Dennis Montgomery investigation fit into or didn't fit into a pattern of conduct, and that pattern of conduct was the subject of other litigation that the chief has been involved in.
The video was provided to the defendants when we provided our exhibits. It's marked Exhibit 2827.
THE COURT: And it is, you allege, a statement made by Chief Deputy Sheridan?
MS. WANG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You can play enough of it to see if he can recognize himself.
MS. WANG: Sure.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I'm still going to object to relevance, because it appears to be about matters in unrelated cases that happened years ago.
THE COURT: Well, I understand that, but I do think that the door has been opened at least a little bit. It does go to credibility.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I should say that Chief Deputy Sheridan appears on it making a statement, but he's at the end of about a four-minute clip.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I want to play a whole four-minute clip. Do you want to ask him about it first?
MS. WANG: Sure.
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me. Counsel, could we have a [1314] date when this supposedly happened, please?
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. WANG: Your Honor, this video clip was actually produced to the plaintiffs by the defendants. It's among a collection of press statements involving the sheriff or other MCSO officials that we requested in a document request. And I believe the date -- the file name for the audio clip, as produced by the defendants to us, indicates that it was on October 11 of 2012.
THE COURT: October 11, 2012, apparently.
All right.
MS. WANG: Let's play Exhibit 2827.
(Video clip played as follows:)
Known as America's toughest sheriff... Known as America's toughest sheriff. Could also be in trouble with the law investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A little bit more for you later on tonight. Go ahead. Keep in mind I said the Arizona sheriff, popular for being tough on crime, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. You all know who he is. Well, he's now under investigation for allegedly abusing his own power. Wait till you hear who he's accused of targeting (indiscernible). Well, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio certainly has a reputation for being tough on crime. We've reported on him a lot over the last few years. He's equally hard on illegal immigrants and DUIs. Beyond throwing the book at them he likes [1315] to send a public message. Arpaio has forced jail inmates in Maricopa County to wear pink underwear, black and pink uniforms while working on chain gangs. Arpaio's "my way or the highway" --
(Video clip paused.)
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I'm going to object to all this extraneous --
THE COURT: Can we move to the part where Sheridan appears?
MS. WANG: I will try, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
(Video clip played as follows:)
ANNOUNCER: .. who tried to answer for a sheriff who was a no-show.
ANNOUNCER: I just don't understand why suddenly, Joe Arpaio has sent out you three people basically just -- I mean, this is nervous, to face this kind of media scrutiny and these kind of questions. I mean, this is the toughest sheriff in America, right?
LISA ALLEN: He is the toughest sheriff and he's a good sheriff, and I know that if he could be here, he would be here. But when you've got legal counsel advising you not to speak because you're a potential witness in a number of these investigations, he's got to default to what his attorneys say.
ANNOUNCER: The problem is none of these people the [1316] sheriff sent to talk to us say they had anything to do with the political investigations the sheriff is accused of conducting. Jerry Sheridan is the interim chief deputy.
INTERVIEWER: Well, Jerry, did he abuse his power? Did he send out underlings to investigate political opponents to destroy their careers?
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: Absolutely not.
INTERVIEWER: You were --
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: Absolutely not.
INTERVIEWER: -- involved in those decisions?
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: No, I was not.
INTERVIEWER: So do you know what kind of --
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: I've been here for 32 years and I know the inner workings of the office. The sheriff was not involved in any of those mischievous things that he's been accused of.
ANNOUNCER: But in the case of County Supervisor Don Stapley the sheriff is not done, even though all 118 counts against Stapley were thrown out.
(Video clipped paused.)
THE COURT: All right. Is there any more with Chief
Deputy Sheridan?
MS. WANG: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WANG: [1317]
Q. So Chief, that was you appearing on the video, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stated -- and that was Lisa Allen from the public information office who appeared alongside you, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In that video clip you stated that the sheriff was not responsible for those investigations of public officials, right?
A. I don't believe I used the word "responsible."
Q. Well, we just heard the audio. Were you denying on --
A. I think the word was "involved."
Q. So as you parsed it out, Sheriff Arpaio -- you stated that Sheriff Arpaio was not involved in those investigations of public officials?
A. I believe that's the word I used in the video.
Q. He was the head of the agency, was he not?
A. He was.
Q. And you said just a moment ago here on the stand that the sheriff does accept responsibility for those investigations of public officials, judges, and other officials?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. That's not even close to what the witness said, Judge.
THE COURT: I'll just rely on the recollection and the transcript.
MS. WANG: All right. I'll move on [1318]
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, I think you testified earlier that MCSO spent more than $250,000 on the Dennis Montgomery investigation, is that right?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. We talked about this before the start of trial.
THE COURT: Yes, and then the witness talked about it, and I'm going to allow the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, approximately $250,000.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. And you personally approved expenses that related to the investigation, correct?
A. I did.
Q. All right. Take a look at Exhibit 2526, please.
Do you see that, sir?
A. I do.
Q. And did you approve a trip to Seattle, Washington in connection with the Seattle investigation taken by Detective Mackiewicz?
A. I assume so. Says I did.
Q. Take a look at Exhibit 2527.
Note. Ex. 2527 is listed as: "Email from Carmen Hernandez to Travis Anglin re Investigative travel dated 2/3/2014 (MELC198515).
Let me go back to the previous one, 2526. That was in October of 2013, is that correct, that you approved that trip by Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, ma'am.
[1319] Q. All right. And then on 2527, it indicates that all the paperwork for another trip -- actually, two more trips: One to Seattle and one to San Diego -- were on your desk. That was an e-mail dated February 3rd, 2014, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that indicates you were the one who were – was responsible for approving those expenses, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Take a look at Exhibit 2528. 2528 is a memorandum from Sergeant Travis Anglin to Lieutenant Kim Seagraves dated February 2nd, 2014, correct?
Note. Ex. 2528 is listed as: “Maricopa County Sheriff's Office memo from 1319 Travis Anglin to Kim Seagraves re Investigative lodging dated 2/2/2014 (MELC187093)”
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And your signature appears at the bottom indicating the request is approved, right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I would then move the admission of Exhibit 2528 into evidence.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
MR. WALKER: I join the objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2528 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: Can we show the -- publish the exhibit,
Your Honor? [1320]
THE COURT: You may.
MS. WANG: Thank you.
Let's highlight the first paragraph under narrative.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. So, Chief, in this memorandum Sergeant Anglin was asking permission to rent a house instead of using a hotel for this trip, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was because they were going to be staying in Seattle for 44 nights, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And if you look at the next paragraph, they were suggesting a four-bedroom house. Do you see that?
A four-bedroom house is now available?
A. Yes.
Q. And he indicates that, in the next paragraph, that they were planning to use the fourth bedroom for storage and use of materials being processed in the investigation.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Are you aware, sir, that at one point in time the MCAO personnel stored hard drives that Dennis Montgomery purportedly obtained from the CIA in that bedroom in the house?
A. No.
Q. You're not aware of that? [1321]
A. No.
Q. Okay. You can take that down.
Take a look at Exhibit 2529. This is an e-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Sarah Bagley dated July 22nd, 2014. And does this e-mail indicate that you gave a verbal approval of a trip by Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz in connection with this investigation?
Note. Ex. 2529 is listed as: E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Sara Bagley re Investigative trips to Seattle dated 7/22/2014 (MELC198277-198279).
A. Correct.
Q. All right. Do you see the sentence that reads: "Since this trip is most likely going to turn up in an audit request we would like to have all approvals in writing"?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor. Counsel's reading from an exhibit not in evidence.
MS. WANG: I beg your pardon.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Have you seen this document before, Chief?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And were you familiar with is contents?
A. Yes.
Q. You were involved in the subject matter of the e-mail and discussions with Detective Mackiewicz, correct?
A. I was.
Q. And with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Budget and Finance Bureau?
A. Yes, ma'am. [1322]
MS. WANG: All right. Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 2529.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, hearsay.
THE COURT: Are you offering it for the truth of the matter asserted?
MS. WANG: No. I'm offering it because I'd like to get the chief's reactions to some of the content.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to conditionally admit it, but I may reject it if I determine that what you're really asking is for the truth of the matter asserted.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
(Exhibit No. 2529 is [conditionally] admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief, do you see the sentence that reads "Since this trip is most likely going to turn up in an audit request we would like to have all approvals in writing"?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, was it your understanding from MCSO's Budget and Finance Bureau that some of the expenses involved in the Seattle investigation were likely to be the subject of an audit?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay. Now we're talking about the truth.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. WANG: [1323]
Q. All right. Setting aside the document, Chief, did you ever learn that -- or did you have the understanding that expenses related to the Seattle investigation were likely to be audited?
A. Oh, yes. We always knew that one day the Seattle investigation would come to light to the public, and that we would be accountable and responsible and have to answer to the expenditures and our actions.
Q. And why is it that this particular investigation, as you understood it, was likely to be audited in the future?
A. Because it was controversial.
Q. And because they were large expenditures as well?
A. They were large expenditures, and it involved allegations against the United States Government.
Q. All right. Why don't you set that aside and turn to Exhibit 2530. 2530 is a memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to Lieutenant Stutsman dated January 21st, 2014. And sir, does your signature and the notation "approved" appear on that document?
Note. Ex. 2530 is listed as: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office memo from Travis Anglin to Brian Stutsman re Investigative purchases dated 1/21/2014 (MELC187111).
A. It does.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 2530 into evidence.
THE COURT: Do you have an objection?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted. [1324]
(Exhibit No. 2530 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: May I publish it, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MS. WANG: Let's highlight -- thank you.
Let's go to the next paragraph as well.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, in this memorandum Sergeant Anglin was requesting the approval of the purchase of several potentially high-value pieces of computer hardware as well as online software, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you go down to the next paragraph, he indicated that this computer equipment could cost more than $50,000.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is a request that you approved, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was it your understanding that this computer hardware was for the purpose of permitting Dennis Montgomery to provide MCSO with large volumes of data he had obtained from the CIA or the NSA?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, during your testimony on April 24th, Ms. Iafrate asked you about the source of funds for payments to the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery. [1325]
Do you recall that?
A. No, sorry.
Q. All right. Well, the transcript indicates that you stated state RICO funds were used to pay Dennis Montgomery. Is that true?
A. Yes.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance; asked and answered in the previous hearing.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. The answer's on the record.
MS. WANG: All right. It was just for background. I apologize, Your Honor.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, isn't it true that in fact, at some point in this Seattle investigation federal HIDTA grant funds were used for the investigation?
A. I was not aware of that until you disclosed that to me in my deposition on the 15th of September.
Q. Okay. And have you since -- well, let me show you a document, Exhibit 2525.
Sir, Exhibit 2525 is an e-mail from Beverly Owens-Prindle dated March 10, 2014, to Travis Anglin and others. And you are one of the people copied on this e-mail, correct?
Note. Ex. 2525 is listed as: E-mail from Beverly Owens-Prindle to Travis Anglin, Joel Floyd, Brian Stutsman re Refund of CI Funds dated 3/10/2014 (MELC198446-198447).
A. Correct. [1326]
Q. All right. And the subject line is "REfund CI funds."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You were a recipient of this e-mail, correct, as indicated on the face of the document?
A. I was.
Q. And do you see the content of the document here? We went over this in your deposition, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Have you since confirmed that this e-mail was, in fact, sent among these MCSO personnel?
A. I have not.
Q. All right. Have you since confirmed that in fact, federal HIDTA grant funds were used to pay the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery?
A. I have not.
Q. All right. Are you aware that federal HIDTA grant funds had to be refunded because that was not a proper use of that money?
A. I'm aware from the e-mail that was the case.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Exhibit 2525 is not an accurate and correct printout of e-mails that were maintained on MCSO's e-mail servers?
A. No.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I would move the admission of [1327] Exhibit 2525.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, my objection is foundation as to the information in the document, as opposed to whether it was kept on a Maricopa County server.
THE COURT: Well, I'll admit the document only for the purpose that it was received by Chief Deputy Sheridan, and not for the truth of any matter contained -- or asserted in the document.
(Exhibit No. 2525 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Now, you discussed, sir, the Seattle investigation at some points with Captain Steve Bailey, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And Captain Bailey expressed serious concerns about the reliability of Dennis Montgomery to you, is that correct?
A. At times.
Q. Did Captain Bailey ever tell you that he could not, in good conscience, sign any more expense approvals for the Seattle investigation?
A. I believe so.
Q. And when he refused to sign any more of the approvals for expenses, did you instruct him to send the approval forms downtown, or to headquarters?
A. I don't recall how I handled that. [1328]
Q. But you do recall that Captain Bailey refused to sign any more expense approvals?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you ever hear Captain Bailey express concern that the payments to Dennis Montgomery were an improper use of MCSO funds?
A. What I recall Captain Bailey discussing was the RICO funds were an appropriate way to pay Mr. Montgomery. However, they were exhausting the RICO funds, and that's why he didn't like the use of the RICO funds to pay Mr. Montgomery, because they could be used for other investigations.
Q. You did not hear Captain Bailey saying that he felt it was an improper use of RICO funds?
A. I don't think I ever heard him say it was improper. I do recall him protesting that it was exhausting the RICO account, and that it could have the potential, if they had another investigation, to slow down an investigation. That was his, as I remember, his major complaint with paying Montgomery.
Q. And he expressed that view to Sheriff Arpaio in your presence?
A. Oh, yes. We -- we talked about that a lot.
Q. And, sir, I'm going to ask everyone in the room to forgive the language, because I'm just going to quote something that was testified to by another witness.
Do you recall Sheriff Arpaio telling Captain Bailey in [1329] response, quote, I don't care. You need to get the fucking money, end quote?
A. I don't recall the sheriff using that language. I've known the sheriff for 22 years. I've heard him say the F word maybe two times. I don't think that was one of the occasions, but I could be wrong.
Q. Did you hear the sheriff express that sentiment, in effect? If you don't recall those exact words, do you recall the sheriff basically telling Captain Bailey: Get the money?
A. Yes. And I had the same sentiment to Captain Bailey. In my opinion, Captain Bailey was whining about the Montgomery investigation, and this was something that the sheriff and I wanted to continue.
Q. Now, Sergeant Travis Anglin also expressed concerns to you and the sheriff about Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. At times.
Q. And -- well, you had added Sergeant Anglin to the investigation in the first place, right? It was your decision to assign him to the investigation, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And did Sergeant Anglin tell you at one point that he felt MCSO should not be paying Dennis Montgomery as a confidential informant?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay.
MS. WANG: It's not offered for the truth. [1330]
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm having a hard time remember -- remembering what Anglin's position was, because it vacillated from time to time. Sometimes he thought that Montgomery was a genius and had all this great information. He wanted the sheriff to go and do an interview with Carl Cameron from Channel 10 in Washington, D.C., about how credible he was. And then he would go back and say, No, he's not credible. We need to get away from him. And then he would flip-flop back when Montgomery gave him something that was credible. So, you know, at times he didn't want us to pay him, at times he did want us to pay him, so I don't know how to answer your question. Well, maybe I did; I don't know.
Q. Okay. Well, did there come a time when Sergeant Anglin got in an argument with Posseman Mike Zullo about whether to pay Dennis Montgomery?
A. Well, I can tell you all three of those individuals, Posseman Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, Sergeant Anglin, I'll include Captain Bailey, all very strong personalities, so is Dennis Montgomery, and at any one time they were fighting with each other.
You could tell. You've seen all the e-mails. One week they hate, you know -- Zullo hates Montgomery. The next week he loves Montgomery. And the next week Mackiewicz hates Montgomery. And the next week Mackiewicz is fighting with [1331] Zullo. That's one of the reasons I sent Sergeant Anglin up there, to -- to help manage this very difficult situation.
Q. Did there come a time when you took Sergeant Anglin off the investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that after he had tried to take Posseman Zullo off the investigation?
A. I saw that it wasn't working and it was a waste of having a sergeant up there, so yes.
Q. Okay. Is your answer yes to my question, that you removed Sergeant Anglin from the investigation after he tried to remove Mike Zullo from the investigation?
A. Well, he didn't have the authority to remove Mike Zullo from the investigation; only I or the sheriff did. I saw that they were not getting along. Mike had been involved in this investigation from the onset. Sergeant Anglin came in late into the investigation. My desired effect of having the sergeant involved in it was not working. That's why I removed him.
Q. All right. And my question is: At one point did Sergeant Anglin try to remove Mike Zullo from the investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that he did not have the authority to do that, correct?
A. Correct. [1332]
Q. And in fact, did the sheriff not intervene and tell Sergeant Anglin, quote, Who the fuck do you think you are, end quote?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. You did not hear that?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. All right. Sir, did you ultimately conclude that there was really nothing -- no evidence put forward to believe that there was a conspiracy involving the Court?
A. We never looked into whether there was a conspiracy with the Court.
Q. Well, Dennis Montgomery provided you information suggesting there was a conspiracy involving the Court, correct?
A. I never saw any information Dennis Montgomery provided about conspiracy to the Court in writing. I heard verbally the time, and that was about the time I told both Detective Mackiewicz and Sergeant Anglin we were not going to get involved in anything involving this Court. I didn't see any written documents of anything until I think it was April 23rd, April 24th, in Chief Knight's office, when we turned over those documents to the Court.
Q. Did you ultimately conclude that Dennis Montgomery had not provided you with any reliable information?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Can you turn to Exhibit 2531.
[1333] Sir, Exhibit 2531 is an e-mail from Brian Mackiewicz dated November 14, 2014, to you, is that correct?
Note. Ex. 2531 is listed as: Forwarded E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Jerry Sheridan of E-mail from Thomas Drake to Brian Mackiewicz re a summary of data and information analysis of information from Dennis [Montgomery] dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198093-198095).
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Okay. And this is an e-mail that he sent, forwarding an e-mail from a Thomas Drake, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's an attached two-page letter signed by J. Kirk Wieby and Thomas Drake.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And the date on the letter is November 13th, 2014, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You're familiar with this document, sir?
A. I am.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 2531 into evidence.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation; hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2531 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2531 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I publish the document?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. All right. Let's start with page 2, the first paragraph.
And this is the two-page letter from Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Drake.
They write: On November -- on the 6th of November 2014 – and [1334] there's an address –
"J. Kirk Wiebe and Thomas A. Drake, both former employees of the National Security Agency, and each having many years of experience in the matter of data analysis for intelligence production purposes, met with Investigator Mike Zullo and detective Brian Mackiewicz of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to examine certain data alleged to reflect partial results of the clandestine collection of a large volume of email and telephone communications."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. Let's skip to the second page, the paragraph that starts with the word "finally." Do you see that Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Drake wrote:
"Finally, Mr. Wiebe and Mr. Drake examined printed materials allegedly written by officials of the U.S. Government, in particular the CIA and other organizations.
Again, there is was no evidence suggestion or revealing that the documents examined came from any sensitive source or were obtained through sensitive access methods involving specific software and relevant metadata that would enable the collection and processing of network-based or stored data."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And did you understand from this document -- well, actually, let's got to the first page of the document, 2531, and highlight the e-mail from Thomas Drake to Brian Mackiewicz. [1335]
Do you see the sentence that reads: "We have found that he is a complete and total FRAUD"?
A. Yes.
Q. And you understood that to refer to Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Brian Mackiewicz forwarded this to you, correct?
A. He did.
Q. And this was in November of 2014, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And as we've already seen, Posseman Mike Zullo continued to seek information from Dennis Montgomery till at least April 20th of 2015, correct?
A. He's -- continues to communicate with him, yes.
Q. Well, I think you testified finally after looking at the document that he was seeking the production of work from Dennis Montgomery on that date, correct?
A. Yes.
* * *
(Recess taken.) [1336]
* * *
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief Sheridan, take a look again at Exhibit 2525, please.
A. Did you say 2525?
Q. 2525.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay? Sir, who is Dr. Beverly Owens-Prindle?
A. She was a forensic accountant assigned to the internal audit function of the Sheriff's Office.
Q. And is Dr. Prindle responsible for keeping records of financial matters, expenses of the MCSO?
A. I don't believe that was her function. Her function was more of an auditor, not a records-keeper.
Q. Did she keep records of expenses that might be audited or that were audited?
A. I'm sure that she kept records of the items that she audited.
Q. And was she responsible for documenting matters that came within her scope of responsibility as an internal auditor for MCSO?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And who is Lee Ann Bohn? [1337]
A. Lee Ann Bohn is -- well, at the time of this e-mail, she was our chief financial officer.
Q. And did she -- was she Dr. Owen's supervisor?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. I'd like to turn now to Exhibit 2526, please.
Do you have it in front of you, sir?
A. I do.
Q. Who's Cindy Allen?
A. Cindy Allen is an administrative assistant.
Q. And with respect to Exhibit 2526, was she documenting travel expenses that Detective Mackiewicz incurred?
A. I don't know why she did this, because she's actually assigned to the Custody Bureau, which is outside of the organization.
Q. Do you know Brian Mackiewicz was writing to her about travel expenses?
A. I don't, unless she was filling in for someone. I don't know why.
Q. All right. Do MCSO personnel who are required to travel for work have to document their travel expenses?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And there are regular records kept of that by MCSO, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Approvals need to be documented for such expenses, correct? [1338]
A. Yes.
Q. Can you turn to Exhibit 2527 now.
All right, sir. Carmen Hernandez, at this time, February 3rd of 2013, was the travel coordinator for MCSO, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it one of her responsibilities to document travel requests made by MCSO personnel?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Now please turn to Exhibit 2529.
Sir, is Sara Bagley a finance business analyst with the MCSO's Budget and Finance Bureau?
A. Yes.
Q. And is one of her responsibilities to document issues relating to expenses incurred by MCSO personnel in the course of their work?
A. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with her job function.
Q. Okay. With respect to Exhibit 2529, are you able to determine whether she was writing, corresponding with Brian Mackiewicz concerning approvals for travel expenses?
A. Please give me a second.
Q. All right.
A. Okay. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Sure. Why don't I just ask you another question because I, frankly, don't remember the other one. [1339]
Was Sara Bagley, in connection with Exhibit 2529, documenting a written approval for travel expenses?
A. Yes.
Q. In connection with Detective Mackiewicz's work for MCSO, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, at this time we would move to admit Exhibits 2525 and 2529 for all purposes. I believe that they're substantive evidence that should come in under both Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) as non-hearsay statements of a party opponent, and under the Rule 803(6) exception, the hearsay rule, as records of a regularly conducted activity. Your Honor had admitted both 2525 and 2529 for limited purposes, and we request that they be admitted without limitation. And let me add, since I believe Mr. Masterson is about to speak, I would also move to admit Exhibits 2526 and 2527 on the same grounds.
MR. MASTERSON: I'm just looking at one right now, Judge, and this is 2529 -- 2529, and I don't see that the party admission applies to this particular document.
THE COURT: Is it prepared -- I'm sorry, I don't have these documents in front of me. Is it prepared by somebody from Maricopa County?
MR. MASTERSON: It is, but -- it's from [1340] Detective Mackiewicz, but Detective Mackiewicz is not a party. I'm not sure he has authority to speak for MCSO on --
THE COURT: Well, 2529, you may be able to establish foundation later on, but if it is written by Mackiewicz, then I'm not going to admit it at this point for lack of foundation.
MS. WANG: All right.
THE COURT: Do you have any other objection?
MR. MASTERSON: Well, I've got to see what the other ones are. Counsel, could you please run those numbers by me again?
MS. WANG: Sure. 2525, 2526, 2527, and 2529.
MR. MASTERSON: And I take it it's the same basis for each one?
MS. WANG: Correct.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
MS. WANG: Yes.
MR. MASTERSON: This particular e-mail is -- 2527 is from Ms. Carmen Hernandez? Hernandez. So I have the same objection with respect to that one.
THE COURT: Well, who is --
MR. MASTERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong heading. This is from Detective Mackiewicz again.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, all these documents were [1341] produced by the defendants, and I believe -- well, I can ask the chief deputy another -- I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think you need -- if you want me to admit them based on the hearsay exception, which is what I assume you're going to now, you're going to have to lay more foundation through the chief.
MS. WANG: Both as non-hearsay under Rule 801, and as an exception to the hearsay rule under 803.
THE COURT: I understand, but --
MS. WANG: Yes. I'll ask a few more questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. WANG: Okay.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I have objected to all these on the basis of relevance and 403 as well.
THE COURT: I understand. And again, I think it's a matter that was opened up by your own client's testimony that makes it relevant, so I'm going to overrule your objection and I don't invite any response.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief, looking at those four exhibits, do you have any reason to believe that they are not e-mails that were kept as part of MCSO's regular e-mail system?
A. No.
Q. And do you see anything in those exhibits -- 2525, 2526, [1342] 2527, or 2529 -- that would indicate that these were not e-mail communications in the regular course of MCSO business documenting travel expenses associated with MCSO business --with MCSO business?
A. No.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I move again for them all to be admitted under the two rules, 801(d)(2), as non-hearsay, and under, alternatively, that the exception to the hearsay rule applies under Rule 803(6).
THE COURT: I don't think you've yet met the requirements of the rule, so I'm going to sustain the objection.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, are you aware that Detective Mackiewicz is currently the subject -- a suspect in a criminal IA investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever told Detective Mackiewicz, in connection with that case, that he need not be concerned about the investigation because it concerns a personal matter?
A. No.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1381] [WANG]. Sir, I just have one more question for you. I'm going to turn back to the issue of the Dennis Montgomery investigation. I just want to make sure I understand your testimony.
Sir, do you have any reason to think that Dennis Montgomery ever gave MCSO reliable information about a purported conspiracy between the Court, the United States Department of Justice, and the law firm of Covington & Burling?
A. No.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE COUNSEL
DEFENSE COUNSEL JOHN MASTERSON
[1460]
[Q.] Let's jump topics. Let's go to the Seattle investigation for just a little bit.
Did you give a direct order to anyone at MCSO where you told them not to investigate Judge Snow?
A. Yes.
Q. To whom did you give that order?
A. Detective Mackiewicz and Sergeant Anglin.
Q. Did you give it to Mr. Zullo?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell someone to tell Mr. Zullo?
A. I told Detective Mackiewicz to make sure that Posseman Zullo understood my direction.
Q. What was the first contact you had with Mr. Montgomery, and [1461] what did he claim to be bringing to you at that time?
A. I've never met Mr. Montgomery.
Q. That was -- I knew that.
When you first heard about Mr. Montgomery, what did you learn he was supposedly bringing to MCSO at that time? A. 150,000 Maricopa County residents' bank account numbers and amounts that he obtained while he was a contractor with the NSA. And I believe there was another 400,000 or so state of Arizona residents that were part of that also, but I really didn't pay attention to that. I was more concerned with the Maricopa County residents.
Q. Did MCSO follow up on any of the information Mr. Montgomery supplied to try to verify some of information in the 151,000 or however many there were?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I'm going to use the word "you" but I don't mean you personally, but what did you do to follow up?
A. Well, we did a few things. Like I said yesterday, or maybe it was this morning, we consulted with the Arizona Attorney General. We formulated a plan to look into the people that we could identify that were still here in Maricopa County. Because his information was old. The latest information he had was from 2010, because that's when he contracted with them. I believe it was from 2008 to 2010, sometime in that period. So he had old information. He had three-, [1462] four-year-old information by the time he gave it to us, so a lot of the information was stale. But some of the information we were able to contact people. We did send detectives out to knock on doors to see if they had that number, that account number and all that, and some of it was verified. In fact, my wife had a business, a private business and an account number, and that name and number was part of this documentation, and that account number was her account number. The dollar amount in the account number was inaccurate but the account number was accurate.
Q. Now, at some point did you come to decide or learn or discover that Mr. Montgomery was maybe not being truthful?
A. Well, we always -- we always knew that Mr. Montgomery was somewhat of a handful as an informant because of his past, which is very public, and we don't need to go over it here, we talked about it yesterday.
Q. Well, how did you know? You say it's public, but how did you know?
A. Somebody said, You need to google that guy. So I googled Dennis Montgomery, and there's a nice video there about him and articles.
Q. Did you read any of the articles?
A. I did.
Q. Any one in particular?
A. Yes. And I don't remember if it was a Playboy or Penthouse [1463] article, and I read it online, and I only read the article.
Q. Oh, so it is all about the articles. I've always wondered that. All right.
A. Yes. And -- and it went into very good detail about he -- how he scammed the President of the United States, the Homeland Security, and he was actually re -- the guy responsible for the -- I think it was the red alert that shut down the airports and things when George Bush was the President. And so he was pretty successful in what he did in scamming the federal government.
Q. Let me ask you this, and maybe it's been a while, but have you worked with confidential informants before?
A. I have not, no.
Q. As a law enforcement officer for 32 years?
A. Thirty-seven.
Q. Thirty-seven. Okay.
Well, let me ask you this question: Are confidential informants typically upstanding citizens who come to a law enforcement agency to do good and save mankind?
MS. WANG: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
THE WITNESS: Well, let me clarify. I've worked with many informants, but none that were officially paid informants.
Okay?
But that's correct: Informants come to us -- and I [1464] think I mentioned this yesterday -- for their very own reasons why they would cooperate with law enforcement. They usually want something from us in return, whether it's money, whether it's to turn in or to reduce their competition drug dealers, whatever, they have -- many of them, most of them have a criminal background past, and some may even still be active criminals that we might not be aware of.
Q. How about do they ever try to reduce or evade criminal charges by becoming an informant?
A. Yes. Work off their charges, those kinds of things, very common.
Q. At some point -- and if you didn't do this -- well, I know you never met him. But were MCSO investigators questioning the information supplied by Mr. Montgomery to Mr. Montgomery?
A. At every step and turn.
Q. What did he start coming up with then?
When you threatened to cut off the money, what did he do?
A. Well, I think the first time we threatened to cut off the money he came up with that -- that timeline that I was shown that showed the two -- the wiretap information on my cell phone and the sheriff's cell phone. I think that was the first thing that he came up with.
THE COURT: Do you remember when the first payment was you made to Mr. Montgomery? [1465]
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: County records will reflect that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm -- I'm sure we have that information.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. Do you recall looking at an exhibit earlier today where there were HIDTA funds that apparently were utilized --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- as payments?
Were all of those funds reimbursed?
A. Yes.
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 24 and Sept. 29 Testimony.
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 6 (pages 1279-1487).
