Excerpts from MCSO Chief Deputy Sheridan's Sept. 29, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings (Transcript) regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
Redirect Examination | Examination by the Court | Re-Cross | Further Redirect
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 24 and Sept. 25 Testimony.
[1519]
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY CECILLIA WANG
Q. Now, during the Seattle investigation, do you agree with me that it was important to make sure that funds used to pay the confidential informant were from proper sources?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, beyond the scope of cross-examination of this witness.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I think it flows from the testimony about other accounting --
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
MS. WANG: -- issues. Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you agree with me on that, sir? [1520]
A. I do.
Q. Now, MCSO in general has -- withdrawn.
MCSO has general funds in its budget, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Those can be used for any purpose, correct?
A. Any lawful purpose, yes.
Q. But you and Sheriff Arpaio chose to use state RICO funds to pay the confidential informant, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, beyond the scope of the examination by me.
THE COURT: Sustained.
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT
[1556] [THE COURT]. I want to be clear; I'm going to change gears now. I want to be clear about the chronology of some of the things I think I heard you testify to.
When is the first time you heard about Dennis Montgomery?
A. Oh, gosh. I would only be guessing, Your Honor.
Q. I appreciate that. Can you give me a rough time frame?
A. Sometime in 2013.
Q. Okay. And what did you hear when you heard about him?
A. That he worked for -- he was a contractor for the CIA, NSA and he had information that 150,000 Maricopa County residents' personal bank accounts had been hacked into by the – either the CIA or the NSA, and that he was looking to give us that information.
Q. Do you remember whether it was early 2013? Late 2013? [1557]
A. I can only -- I can't even speculate. Things are – things are kind of a blur.
Q. When you heard about him, you only heard about these – the NSA or CIA infiltration into Maricopa County residents' personal information.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You heard nothing else.
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you understand that this was information that Mr. Montgomery claims to have gleaned from his employ with the federal government?
A. He was a contractor that worked for a company. His story was that he helped build the hammer, which is the high-powered software program supercomputer that is housed somewhere in Maryland, I believe, that the CIA/NSA uses to get this information on U.S. citizens.
Q. Okay. And I'm just going to try and speed it up, but by doing that, I do not mean to mischaracterize your testimony of yesterday and previously, so if I do, correct me. All right? I thought I understood, and I think it was in response to Ms. Wang, that when you heard this, you were a little bit concerned about the legality of everything.
A. I was concerned about the legality of it; I was concerned about his credibility.
Q. Did you do anything to protect yourself legally? [1558]
A. Well, that's when we contacted the Attorney General's Office.
Note. For additional information on MCSO meetings with the Attorney General (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline here and here.
Q. All right. And you did that right as soon as you heard Mr. Montgomery's story.
A. As soon as we heard Mr. Montgomery's story, he provided some of those documents to us that had spreadsheet with people's names and numbers on it, and the bank account numbers, and that's when we contacted the Arizona Attorney General.
Q. All right. When you say spreadsheet on it, you don't mean the spreadsheet that you've referred to as -- or that's been shown you that's the DOJ/Arpaio timeline; you mean a spreadsheet that relates to information that he claims he had regarding the CIA's infiltration into Maricopa County folks' bank accounts.
A. That's correct. And I just want to make it quite clear that I never saw that spreadsheet document; that was coming from Detective Mackiewicz and Detective Zullo.
Q. When you say "spreadsheet document," again you're talking about a personal records document.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So Mackiewicz -- you never saw the spreadsheet; Mackiewicz described it to you.
A. Correct.
Q. And then you went to the attorney general[.]
Did you go with Mr. Montgomery? [1559]
A. No, sir.
Q. Who went to the attorney general?
A. Sheriff; myself; Detective Mackiewicz; Posseman Zullo. I'm not sure if someone else went with us.
Q. Who did you meet with at the Arizona Attorney General?
A. We met with the Arizona Attorney General himself, the assistant attorney general, I -- sorry, I don't recall his name, and we discussed this case with them.
One of the issues that Mr. Montgomery was hesitant to give us any further information was he was seeking immunity, and that's why he came to a law enforcement agency with this information.
And out of that meeting there was further discussions with the Attorney General's Office -- at the detective level now -- to have a free talk with Mr. Montgomery. And I did not attend that free talk, but Mr. Montgomery came to Arizona for a free talk with the attorney general.
Q. Was that pretty quickly after your initial meeting?
A. I think it was a few months later.
Q. Few months later?
Was it paid for by the MCSO, Montgomery's trip to Arizona?
A. I don't recall exactly, but I -- I believe so.
Q. You said that the attorney general himself was there, Tom Horne. You said there was an assistant attorney general. [1560]
Do you remember who that was?
A. Sorry, I don't remember his name, but if somebody told me it, I'd probably remember.
Q. Okay. You said later there was sort of detective coordination about immunity and other things before Montgomery came down, if I understood the chronology correct, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who were those detectives?
A. Well, it would be Detective Mackiewicz was the case agent, and I don't know who from the -- who he was working with from the Attorney General's Office.
Q. All right. So you hold an initial meeting with the sheriff, with the attorney general, about these bank matters; within a month or two, Montgomery comes down and has his free talk with the attorney general.
Do you know who went to the free talk?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do I have the chronology right so far?
A. I believe so.
Q. You know that Montgomery himself -- and when I say "Montgomery" I mean "Dennis Montgomery" -- went to the free talk.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of anybody else that accompanied him to the [1561] free talk?
A. I don't recall who went to the free talk.
Q. Did somebody --
A. But there were others; I don't remember who.
Q. Did somebody from the MCSO go with him to the free talk?
A. Yes, Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. And you don't know if there may have been others or not.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't know who they met with at the attorney general.
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you first start hearing about the Department of Justice in relation to Dennis Montgomery?
A. I think the first time that I heard about the Department of Justice with Montgomery was on that timeline that Ms. Wang showed me the other day.
Note. For additional information about this (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Nov. 5, 2013.
Q. That was Exhibit 2074A?
A. I'm not which exhibit number it was.
Q. Can you see if you happen to have it there? I think she did discuss it with you the other day.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And again, I think you said it was just you and the sheriff when you discussed the timeline?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how did that strike you, the timeline? [1562]
A. By this time, I had read the -- excuse me -- the online information about Dennis Montgomery constantly questioned his credibility, but yet, if he did have information about the federal government hacking into American citizens', 150,000 of them that lived in Maricopa County's personal information, that was something that was of interest to law enforcement. So there was always that in the back of our mind to maybe continue to do business with him; I don't know what other word to use. But when I saw this document, which a lot of the information looks accurate, but again, like I testified the other day, it's something that it's out there in the public domain, it wouldn't be difficult, except for those two DOJ wiretaps. You know, I tried to think why the Department of Justice would be interested in Jerry Sheridan. Back in 2009 I ran the jail system, and I couldn't think of anything.
Q. And again, I don't mean to mischaracterize your words, you're only dealing with memory, I think you said that kind of shook you up a little bit to see your phone number on it? A. Well, yeah, it did. That's why I am saying, you know, when you see your name at the Department of Justice, the federal government is looking -- maybe listening or has listened to your phone calls. You know, this is my personal cell phone number.
Q. What did the sheriff say to you about this document?
A. He was concerned about the wiretap also, but the other [1563] issue, you know, we were quite concerned at about -- you know, at this time about the Department of Justice lawsuit against us. So I remember him homing in on that line, I think it's the fourth line down. I don't know if that's the sheriff's handwriting there, but it looks like he wrote crim, c-r-i-m, question mark. Criminal, does that mean criminal? I know, I remember he was quite concerned about that.
Q. Do you remember anything else he said?
A. No, sir.
Q. So you decided to continue to do business with Mr. Montgomery. And you were interested in, as well as the banking stuff, now you were interested in whether the Department of Justice might be investigating you?
A. No. No, sir. I was concerned that this was on here, but the sheriff and I didn't give it much credibility.
Q. Neither one of you.
A. No, sir.
Q. And so you did pursue matters with Mr. Montgomery, but you didn't pursue anything, as far as you're concerned, that related to the Department of Justice.
A. That's correct. And my thought was -- to understand what my thought was, you have to -- I have to go back for a second. Dennis Montgomery was very difficult to deal with.
That's why we had to send the detectives up there to deal with him. He is a lot of things, but one of the things that I [1564] understand and I believe, he is -- he is a computer genius. He is probably a very good con man also. I mean, he conned the President of the United States and --
Q. It appears now that he conned you, too.
A. Oh, there's no doubt about it. No doubt about that. But we were in very good company with the federal government and the President of the United States, and, you know, the DOJ and the NSA, and Homeland Security shutting down the airports, and, you know, so we were in very good company. So while I am embarrassed about that, okay, I'll stand next to the President and be embarrassed with him.
Q. All right.
A. So we -- we didn't really follow up on it because he was trying to get us to pay him, because it was a constant thing: Get us information. Oh, I can't do it. My computer's not big enough. It's not fast enough. Those kinds of things. I can't put all this information together. I have way too much. And I'm not a technical person as far as computers are concerned, and so at times Posseman Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, someone would get along with him, one wouldn't, one would threaten not to pay him, one -- you know, and so that's when he came up with this.
Q. Okay.
A. And --
Q. When was the next time that you recall hearing anything [1565] about a Department of Justice investigation that involved Montgomery?
A. I recall being at a meeting with Joe Popolizio, John Masterson, Tom Liddy, Tim Casey, the sheriff, myself, where we talked on the phone with Mike Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz. We were in the old building, the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building, I don't remember when it was, when Dennis Montgomery had given them information that the DOJ had hacked into the Jones, Skelton, Hochuli server and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office server, and that's what that meeting was about.
Note. For additional information about this meeting (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Shortly After Nov. 5, 2013.
Q. Were there any documents distributed during that meeting?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was said at that meeting?
A. Just that. That Montgomery had come up with an e-mail fragment, and we learned a lot about -- and this was from Mackiewicz and Zullo -- about how e-mails were -- were sent. You type an e-mail on your computer. Your computer sends it out in bits and pieces. It could go around the world and come back in seconds, or if you know sometimes by practical nature, sometimes it takes minutes for it to come back; sometimes they get lost for some time. And that's how e-mails get sent out. But the problem that Montgomery has is that he has these e-mails from the DOJ or whoever, the NSA, the CIA, the ones that he collected while he was a contractor, and his – [1566]
Q. Allegedly, at least.
A. Allegedly. And I should say everything. Maybe can we stipulate everything's allegedly?
Q. With Montgomery? Sure.
A. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
And so he had an e-mail fragment that he believed was about Mr. Popolizio's daughter playing a soccer game, but it was just a fragment. And the reason that he couldn't put the whole e-mail together -- and never did put any e-mails together for us -- is because he needed this supercomputer like the hammer that was able to take those fragments from the -- and I'm just going to make this number up, but from the hundred million terabytes of information that he had on his servers that was able to blend those back together. And so, therefore, we never got any other information from him about the e-mails or any of that stuff.
However, the meeting was called because there was concern that there was a lot of attorney-client privilege information on the Jones, Skelton and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and I learned that day how important attorney-client privilege is to lawyers.
Q. So are you saying that Mr. Masterson or Mr. Popolizio called the meeting?
A. No. I --
Q. Who did call the meeting? [1567]
A. It may have been me, because -- and again, Your Honor, I'm trying to put these memories together. I hate to create memories, but it probably was me. Thinking that Mackiewicz, Detective Mackiewicz would have called me, I would have thought, Hmm, this is something I should let my counsel know about and get everybody together.
Q. All right. And was that a January 2nd, 2014 meeting?
A. No, sir. I don't think -- I don't think so, because I've heard testimony about that meeting and I was not at that meeting.
Q. Okay.
A. That was not the meeting I attended.
Q. So somebody -- you've heard from somebody -- and don't discuss things that your attorneys have talked to you over with because you've just talked about how important the attorney-client is.
A. Right.
Q. But you have some notion that there's been testimony about a January 2nd, 2014 meeting, and you don't have any recollection of being there.
A. That's correct. I think people are confusing two different meetings, because I recall --
Q. I appreciate that, but let me just ask you about the meeting you do know about.
A. Um-hum. [1568]
Q. When would that meeting have been?
A. That's what I don't remember.
Q. Well, in relation to the November meeting when you met with Sheriff Arpaio and discussed the DOJ/Arpaio document, which is 2074, how much later would it have been? To your best recollection.
A. I can't even speculate a guess, Your Honor.
Q. A month?
A. You're asking me to guess.
Q. Six months?
A. Within six months.
Q. You think more likely closer to a month or closer to six months?
I used to be a lawyer, too.
A. I know. I've just been through a couple of depositions with Ms. Wang, and she's very good.
Again, I don't want to speculate. I'd say within six months.
Q. All right. When's the next time you remember any communication regarding Montgomery and the Department of Justice?
Before we -- I'm sorry. I am going to ask that question, so keep it in mind. But before we get away from the meeting you remember, who said anything, that you recall?
A. Well, I know all the lawyers did, because that's -- I think [1569] they were jumping up and down about how important the attorney-client privilege was, and I know that --
THE COURT: That being said, Mr. Masterson, I haven't ruled that there's waiver as to this meeting, so I don't know if you want to pose any problem, but I'm going to raise it for your consideration.
BY THE COURT:
Q. So you can go ahead and answer the question. I've alerted Mr. Masterson; he can defend his own interests in this one.
A. I wasn't seeking any legal advice, Your Honor.
Q. All right.
A. And I also remember Mr. Liddy.
Q. So it was your impression that Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Casey, Mr. Liddy, were concerned about the possibility that the Department of Justice was operating hammer on MCSO, Jones, Skelton, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was each one of them concerned about this?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you remember anything that any of them said specifically?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay.
A. I remember that Mr. Liddy said that he grew up near the building that housed the hammer. And we all know who his [1570] famous father is. And his father told him what that building was and what they did there. And that Mr. Liddy at that meeting knew all about the hammer. I'd never heard of it before.
And he gave, in my opinion, he gave Mr. Montgomery a lot of credibility that day for knowing about all these issues. And that's what I remember specifically that Mr. Liddy had said. So in my mind, it gave us some credibility to what Mr. Montgomery had to say.
Q. All right. Do you remember anything else about that meeting?
A. No, sir. It was in the evening. It was late -- later in the day.
Q. Do you remember where it occurred?
A. Yes, sir. It was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building, the sheriff's old headquarters.
Q. All right. When did you move from there, do you recall?
A. We moved there --
Q. From there.
A. Sorry. Thank you. We moved from there January -- excuse me, December of 2014.
Note. Sheridan later corrects on re-cross to say it was December of 2013, not 2014. Id. at 1599.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Next time that you remember any communication involving the DOJ in connection with the Montgomery [1571] investigation.
A. I believe it was the phone call that I got from Detective Mackiewicz advising me that Mr. Montgomery had some information that the DOJ had phone conversations. He had information about phone calls that went into your office.
Note. For additional information about this matter, see WYE Timeline ?Dec.? 2013.
Q. And what did he say about that that you recall?
A. It was a pretty quick conversation, because, you know, I was not excited to hear that. And I don't really recall a lot other than what I just told you and my response, which I've said several times. I can repeat it if you want me to.
Q. Sure.
A. Okay.
Q. Well, let me just make clear: This is on a phone call, and you and Mr. Mackiewicz are the only people on the phone call.
A. Correct.
Q. All right. Go ahead.
A. So I told -- I told Detective Mackiewicz that this Montgomery investigation is not to go anywhere near Judge Snow or the Court. I don't want to hear anything about Montgomery investigating Judge Snow. I am giving you a direct order to contact Montgomery and tell him that we will walk away, we'll stop doing business with him if he even attempts to do this in the future.
Q. All right. Anything else you remember about this conversation at all? [1572]
A. No, sir. It was a pretty short conversation. I was pretty excited about -- and not in a good way -- excited about hearing that information.
Q. And did Mackiewicz call from Seattle?
A. I believe he was.
Q. And it was after the meeting in which Mr. Liddy discussed the hammer.
A. Oh, it was way, way after that, yes, sir.
Q. So when Mr. Liddy discussed the hammer, you indicated that that gave some credibility to what Montgomery was saying.
Did you continue to get reports about the DOJ?
A. It gave me credibility that day that we sat there on the 19th floor, before we really knew who Montgomery was and what he was all about.
Q. And so this conversation about me occurred did you say way after?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall where you were when you had this phone call?
A. I was on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building; I was at work.
Q. Okay. When do you next recall hearing anything about the Department of Justice in connection with the Dennis Montgomery investigation?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Ever did? [1573]
A. I don't recall ever hearing Mackiewicz or Sergeant Anglin or Posseman Zullo talk about the DOJ after that, because I did give Sergeant Anglin a direct order also not to investigate this or not to --
Q. Let's discuss that. When did you have a discussion with Sergeant Anglin?
A. When I assigned Sergeant Mackiewicz -- Sergeant Anglin to -- as this thing, as this investigation seemed to get bigger with the IDs -- excuse me, with the bank account IDs, and there were some issues about Zullo and Mackiewicz and Montgomery getting along and all those issues like I explained earlier, I thought Sergeant Anglin would be a good person to go up there because of his experience as a detective, to go up there and give the sheriff and I, because we didn't have the luxury of talking to these people or going up there and evaluating it ourselves, to go up there and manage this investigation.
Note. For additional information about Anglin's assignment to the matter (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Dec. 30, 2013.
Q. All right. So when you initially assigned Sergeant Anglin to this investigation you discussed something with him.
What was that?
A. I'm not sure if -- I wish I would have wrote this stuff down; I didn't. I'm not sure that I talked with Sergeant Anglin about Mr. Montgomery and you when I sent him up there. I don't think we knew about it at that time. I'm not sure.
Q. Well, when did you discuss -- if you think that that's not right, upon reflection, when did you discuss me with Sergeant [1574] Anglin, if you did at all?
A. I know I had that conversation with him in person, so when he was back from Seattle, I believe when that information came to light, it was shortly after he came back into town and I had that conversation with him in person.
Q. How did that come -- how did that information come to light?
A. Which information, Your Honor?
Q. Well, I assumed, and maybe I'm assuming wrongfully, that when you had the discussion with Sergeant Anglin, you were saying that it was a discussion about me.
A. It was a discussion about Montgomery trying to look into or doing whatever he wanted to or thinking that we were interested in hearing any information about the Court. And I told Anglin, I said, We are not interested in this at all.
Q. And how did you find out -- what triggered that conversation? How did you find out that Montgomery might be doing something with respect to me?
A. It's from the phone call that I had with Brian Mackiewicz.
Q. So you believe that you had the conversation with Sergeant Anglin after the phone conversation with Mackiewicz.
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Note. Per Anglin's testimony, this exchange occurred on Jan. 2, 2014, when Anglin approached Sheridan to share his concerns about Montgomery and about investigating Judge Snow. See WYE Timeline - Jan. 2, 2014 for more information.
Q. When is the next time that you remember having a discussion about the Department of Justice in connection -- or a discussion or communication of any kind, being aware of one – [1575] about the Department of Justice with respect to Dennis Montgomery's investigation?
A. I don't believe after I had those conversations with Mackiewicz, who I also, just so you know, I did leave out the fact that I told him, I told Detective Mackiewicz to ensure that Zullo understood my order, and I never did hear again about the DOJ and this Court.
Q. Let me ask a follow-up question before I move on: Do you remember testifying that when you found yourself the subject of a wiretap investigation, you continued with Mr. Montgomery, continued -- well, I think you said he strung you along – in part because a justice of the FISA Court had been contacted and verified for you that the wiretap number given to you by Mr. Montgomery was a wiretap number that was in use.
Do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What can you tell me about that?
A. One of the things that we continually tried to do was ascertain some type of credibility for Montgomery. And again, our focus was 150,000 bank accounts from Maricopa County residents, to see if the federal government did order him to do that.
Q. Did you discuss those with the FISA Court justice?
Note. For additional information about meetings with the FISA Court judge, see infra at 1585; see also WYE Timeline - Sometime in 2014-likely mid-2014 and October 2014.
A. I don't know, Your Honor. I didn't attend that; I didn't direct that conversation. Detective Mackiewicz and Posseman [1576] Zullo went to Washington and --
Q. When did they go to Washington, do you recall?
A. I don't recall, but it -- it's all a matter of -- we have the records, the travel records and that kind of thing.
Q. Did Dennis Montgomery go with them?
A. I believe he did the second time.
Q. So they went one time and then Montgomery went with them a second time?
A. If I'm recalling things correctly, yes, I believe they did.
Q. How was it that Mr. Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo were able to get an interview with a FISA Court judge?
A. I believe it was through someone that Mr. Zullo knew.
Q. Is that Mr. Klayman?
A. It's possible. I'm not sure exactly who that was.
Q. Let me ask, in your previous testimony you indicated that the FISA Court judge verified that the wiretap numbers used for you and Sheriff Arpaio were typical wiretap exchanges, or something like that.
Do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So what were you told about the conversation?
A. Just that: that those numbers looked like typical numbers associated with a wiretap.
Q. Who did you -- who told you that?
A. That would have been Detective Mackiewicz. [1577]
Q. Would it have -- would Mr. Zullo also have also been involved in that conversation?
A. He could have been; he could have been around.
Q. And do you remember where you were when this conversation occurred?
A. I was at work on the fifth floor of the headquarters building. I don't know if we were in my office or the sheriff's office.
Q. Is this the new building or old building?
A. New building, sir.
Q. And you moved there when?
A. In December of 2014.
Note. Sheridan later corrects on re-cross to say it was December of 2013, not 2014 Id. at 1599.
Q. All right. And so what all -- who all was present?
A. I hope I'm right on the year that we moved there.
Q. Well, let me ask you: Are you right on where the location is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So you remember having this discussion in the new building, not the old building.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was with Mackiewicz and -- well, it was with Mackiewicz. Who else was there?
A. And I -- I believe Zullo was there.
Q. Anybody else there?
A. Possibly the sheriff, I -- possibly the sheriff. [1578]
Q. Possibly the sheriff was there.
And what do you recall?
A. Specifically about that meeting, the judge -- and I'm sorry, I don't recall his name -- seemed to think that those were typical numbers associated with a wiretap. But again, he -- the judge was very sketchy on try -- he wanted some more information, I believe, and he wanted some more information and didn't want to commit to whether or not Montgomery was reliable, unreliable, whatever.
Q. Who told you that?
A. That would be Detective Mackiewicz and/or Zullo during our briefing.
Q. You don't remember who between the two of them?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did you say?
A. I don't remember.
Q. What did the sheriff say?
A. I don't remember, Your Honor.
Q. Do you remember any other awareness on your part of Mr. Montgomery doing an investigation into the DOJ?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Let me ask you: Were you concerned about the wiretap at this time when you had the FISA judge tell you that it was -- it looked like it might be legitimate?
A. No, sir. [1579]
Q. You thought it was garbage, nonetheless?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell Sheriff Arpaio that?
A. Yes, sir. We had many conversations about that wiretap being garbage and those numbers used as a ruse to try and get us to continue to do business with him.
Q. Do you remember your previous testimony when you told me you thought that gave credibility to Mr. Montgomery?
A. No, sir.
Q. You wouldn't dispute that, though, if that was your testimony?
A. No.
Q. There's been some discussion that you're in charge of finance, and there's been some suggestion in your direct that HIDTA funds were initially used to pay Mr. Montgomery.
Do you know whether that's correct or not?
A. Yes, I'm a -- I'm aware that there were some HIDTA funds used.
Q. And were those the initial funds used, and then you found out they were not appropriate and paid them back?
A. That's correct. Chief Freeman, who was our -- who was over finance, noticed that some HIDTA funds were used, and that was immediately corrected by our own volition.
Q. And then you started paying out of, what was it, forfeiture funds? Asset forfeiture funds? [1580]
A. Well, most of the -- the funds, well, they were paid from RICO --
Q. Ah, RICO. I apologize.
A. Our RICO funds.
Q. RICO's different than asset forfeiture?
A. Yes and no; that's where we get the RICO funds.
Q. All right. So if I have the chronology down, the first thing you paid him from was HIDTA funds. You found out that was inappropriate, then you paid RICO funds.
A. No. No, Your Honor. I think there was a small -- and I don't remember exactly; I know the document's here -- but there was a small amount of money, relatively speaking, paid from HIDTA for some reason, and that was quickly caught and rectified.
Q. And do you recall whether those were the first funds paid to Mr. Montgomery?
A. I do not.
Q. But you do recall that HIDTA funds were paid and RICO funds were paid?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any other kinds of funds used?
A. Well, we used general funds to pay for the travel expenses; salary, overtime; some equipment purchases from general funds.
Q. Did the Cold Case Posse use some of its funds?
A. Yes, sir. [1581]
Q. And do you administer Cold Case Posse funds?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know how many -- how much funding came from the Cold Case Posse?
A. I do not.
Q. I do recall in your previous testimony you did discuss a conversation where you were with Mackiewicz, Anglin, and the sheriff, and told them not to investigate me. Is that yet a separate conversation, or do you recall it at all?
A. You know, sir, as time goes on, my memory kind of fades a little bit. I don't recall that.
Q. All right. I think your testimony last time was that you'd have twice-a-week briefings on the Montgomery investigation, and that Mackiewicz was in charge but reported to you and the sheriff. And the sheriff testified that he reported to you, or that Mack -- that you were in charge of the investigation. Were any documents generated in connection with these weekly briefings?
A. No, sir.
Q. No documents at all.
A. No, sir.
Q. So you don't recall any documents that would go through Montgomery's progress on the bank accounts that you thought he was infiltrating? [1582]
A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?
Q. Sure. Montgomery was investigating, as far as you were concerned, the infiltration of private information of Maricopa County residents like bank accounts, correct?
A. Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way. What Montgomery was attempting to do was through his computer -- now, I was told that he had a computer that filled his garage – that through his computer system he was attempting to put back together the information that he had gleaned from when he was a contractor with the NSA. That was, quote-unquote, the investigation.
Q. I see. And no doc -- he didn't generate any documents about his attempts to put back together this information?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. And did he refer to these categories of information that he was trying to put together as "packets"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so in your weekly briefings or biweekly briefings, you didn't get any papers that would discuss these efforts at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Let's then switch to -- I believe you testified yesterday that -- well, before we get there, do you remember when I think -- and I'm sorry, because there's a lot to remember for me, too. There was documents showed you that was authored by Thomas Drake and a Wieby where Maricopa County -- it was an [1583] e-mail from Mackiewicz to you that attached this report from Drake that said that Montgomery was a fraud?
Note. For more information about these documents (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Sometime before Nov. 7, 2014, Nov. 7, 2014, Nov. 13, 2014, and Nov. 14, 2014.
Do you remember that?
A. Oh, yes, sir.
Q. Did you get that e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you read it?
A. I don't recall reading it.
Q. Do you recall reading the report that was attached to it?
A. I do.
Q. And what did it say?
A. I recall reading it; I don't recall right now what it said.
Q. Do you recall when you read it? When you first read it.
A. It would have been right around the time that I got the e-mail, and I also had a conversation with Detective Mackiewicz about his meeting with those two gentlemen.
Q. And what did he say?
A. He said that they confirmed that Montgomery was a fraud, and that the vast majority of the information that he gave us on those 50 hard drives was nothing but junk, and Al Jazeera broadcasts, that kind of thing.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I said, Oh, great. But, you know, by this time, this was towards the very end of us doing -- or using Mr. Montgomery as an informant, and we were just, again, verifying this [1584] information. It was towards the end of our relationship with him.
Q. Did you say anything to the sheriff?
A. Yes. I believe the sheriff was -- was briefed on that and knew about this.
Q. Did you do that?
A. I don't recall if I did.
Q. Do you recall any conversation or communication with the sheriff about that e-mail, other than your general sense that the sheriff was briefed about it?
A. I know we talked about those two former NSA employees and Mr. Montgomery, and their opinion of him.
Q. Whose opinion of him?
A. The former NSA employees.
Q. And what did you say?
A. I don't remember the exact details, Your Honor, but I remember the sheriff agreeing that, you know -- again, the sheriff and I all along had always questioned Mr. Montgomery's reliability. But we continued to do business with him in the event that he did have something credible, because at times he did give us a little information here and there.
Q. Like with the FISA Court judge.
A. Like with the FISA Court judge; like with the -- we did send detectives out with information on the bank accounts to contact people that were still available, because his [1585] information was old. I think the latest information he had was from 2010. And so we sent detectives out to follow up on approximately -- please don't hold me to this number – but approximately 50 or so county residents to check up on their bank accounts: Is this your name? Is this your address? Is this your number? And about half of them came back valid. So he did provide us with some valid information.
Note. For additional information on this matter (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Before/Around July 2014.
Q. Name/address/bank account number?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think your testimony was that he got the amount in the accounts wrong, right?
A. Well, it was difficult on the amounts, because amounts vary, and people don't remember how much they had in their bank account in 2008 and 2009. Some did, some -- but the bank account number and the name, people might remember --
Q. There were a few of them that --
A. -- or have record of that.
Q. -- few of them that were verified.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me ask, you indicated that there were two visits to the FISA Court judge. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the second visit to the FISA Court judge?
A. I'm sorry, I don't recall.
Q. Who told you about the visit to the -- the second visit to [1586] the FISA Court judge?
A. Detective Mackiewicz; he kept me abreast of that.
Q. And what did he say about that visit?
A. I'm sorry, Your Honor, I don't recall.
Q. Let me just ask: Did you ever take notes of things that he told you?
A. No, sir.
Q. In your previous testimony -- I didn't ask you to do this, but you told me that you had the name of the FISA Court judge written on your pad, and if I'd let you, you could go look at
it. Where did you get that name from?
A. Well, Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. Would have told you who the FISA Court judge was?
A. Yes, sir. And if I heard his name I'd be able to tell you what it is. I just don't recall it right at the moment.
Q. What I'm really asking you is: You apparently wrote his name on your pad before your testimony. Where did you get the name from that you wrote on your pad? Did you look at some record, some notes you'd made of your conversations with Detective Mackiewicz?
A. I never took any notes, Your Honor, from Detective Mackiewicz. Probably just from conversation, you know, I might have jotted the judge's name down just --
Q. What pad was it? Did you keep conversations on the same topics on the same pad? [1587]
A. No, sir.
Q. So where would you have gotten that name from, to the best of your recollection?
A. Well, I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but sometimes I can remember things and, you know, a minute later I can't, you know, so with this judge's name -- and it begins with an L -- I can't think of it right now. It might be Judge Lambert. Again, I don't want to -- I don't want to guess.
You know, it's -- sometimes, you know, I'd be talking to Detective Mackiewicz on the phone. If he told me the judge's name, I'd write his name down on a -- on a yellow sticky. I have a bunch of them on my desk right now as we talk. I don't really keep a ledger.
Q. Was there anybody else present at the conversation when you were briefed about this second conference with the judge?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Where did that conversation occur?
A. I'm sure on the fifth floor of the Wells Fargo building.
Q. Was it in person or on the telephone?
A. I believe it was both. I believe he called me from Washington to brief me after the meeting, and then when he came back from Washington he came to see me.
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Judge, just a clarification. The witness just testified the fifth floor of the Wells Fargo building. It's either the wrong building or [1588] the wrong floor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. That would be the fifth floor of our headquarters building.
BY THE COURT:
Q. And I think you testified that he told you that Dennis Montgomery actually attended that meeting.
A. Yes, I believe he did.
Q. And I think you said that MCSO would have paid for that and --
A. We did -- we did not pay for the transportation for his appearance to Washington, D.C. We did -- I believe we did pay for his transportation to meet with the Arizona Attorney General.
Q. Okay. You would have paid for Detective Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo to go to Washington, D.C., presumably.
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. Do you recall now any other communications that you had with anyone regarding Montgomery's investigations with the DOJ, or that might involve the DOJ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You testified that -- I think there was some confusion -- maybe at your deposition and maybe in this court – when Ms. Wang first discussed with you Exhibit 2074A, which is that DOJ/Arpaio timeline. And I think you testified yesterday that [1589] you didn't -- even though you may have said in the deposition you saw some things later on, that you didn't see anything called the, I don't know, Arpaio timeline or something, until April 23rd or 24th in Captain Knight's office, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Tell me about that.
A. This was in response to your order to myself and Ms. Iafrate to produce Montgomery documents.
Q. Yeah. Now, to be clear, I did give that order to the sheriff, right? It came during the sheriff's testimony.
A. Okay. So that would be on the 23rd, and I don't know --
Q. Did the sheriff delegate that job to you?
A. I assume so.
Q. All right.
A. But that was ultimately delegated to Chief Knight by me.
Q. All right. What did you -- you heard me issue the order on the 23rd.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I asked Chief Knight to collect all that information from Detective Mackiewicz concerning the Montgomery investigation, because he had all the records --
Q. All right.
A. -- on that case.
Q. Let me just say: Where did you do that? Where were you [1590] when you did that?
A. I don't recall, Your Honor.
Q. When did you do it?
A. Shortly after you advised us to get it done.
Q. Okay. So that would have been on April 23rd.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened next?
A. Chief Knight contacted Detective Mackiewicz. Detective Mackiewicz turned over what he did to Chief Knight. Chief Knight was putting this information together, and we must have been on a break, because I remember being over there at his office, and because he called me in and he said: You got -- you gotta see this.
And he showed me a phone tree. It's a one-sheet piece of paper. It had "Arpaio briefing" on top. It had Eric Holder's name in an oval. And then it had many, I don't know, probably 20 other ovals in it with people's names in it, and your name happened to be in one of those. And that was the first time I had -- I had ever seen that document.
Q. All right. Let's go back. When did he call you?
Or he didn't call you; you were there, you said.
A. I think I was in my office when he called me and he said: You gotta come over and see this. Or he may have come over and gotten me and -- I don't --
Q. This I think you said was when we were on a break here? [1591]
A. I think I -- I went over to make sure this was being done. I know I was over there.
Q. I do remember that on the 24th, when you were testifying, you went over there at noon because we had some issues about production. Do you remember that?
A. That's probably what I'm remembering.
Q. All right. So you were over there at noon on the 24th.
Is that your best recollection? I don't want to --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. So you're over there at noon on the 24th and Captain Knight calls you in your office.
A. Chief Knight, yes, sir.
Q. I'm sorry. Thank you.
Chief Knight calls you in your office, and you do what?
A. I look at that document, and I probably said a bad word. And I said -- I told Bill, I said: I've never seen this document before. This is not good.
Q. Did he show you any other documents?
A. I don't remember seeing or looking at any other documents other than that one.
Q. And what did Chief Knight say?
A. He agreed with me that it's -- it's not good.
Q. And what did you say? Tell me everything that you said that you can remember. [1592]
A. I didn't stay very long. I don't remember saying anything else to him, and I remember coming back here.
Q. And then you continued your testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he say anything else to you?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Are you positive that he didn't show you any other documents?
A. Am I positive?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recall seeing any other documents.
Q. If I were to show you documents, would you remember whether or not he showed you those documents?
A. It's possible.
Q. Do you have Exhibit 2080 in front of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you pull that out.
Can you take a look at those documents, please.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY THE COURT:
Q. Have you had a chance to look at them?
A. I have.
Q. Do you remember saying that you didn't see anything entitled "Joe Arpaio brief" until the April 23rd or 24th time that you reviewed documents? [1593]
A. That's correct.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you were showed any of these documents?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recognize any documents in that pile that you were shown?
A. Well, I guess the best way to answer that, Your Honor, is the closest thing that I recall seeing that day are the last three pages that say "Arpaio brief." But I recall seeing them in ovals, not a round structure in the middle with squares and lines to that. I remember all of them being ovals.
Q. Did you see several different copies?
A. No, sir. I remember it was so graphic to me that this document had "Arpaio brief" on it, with Eric Holder's name and your name on it, that's what I focused on. And I really don't recall if Chief Knight showed me these other documents, if he even had them up on his computer or a hard copy. I don't even remember -- I think it was a hard copy he showed me.
Q. Okay. Now, there are on these -- several times my name appears on any of the documents.
Did you recall my name appearing several times?
A. No, sir, just on that one -- just on that one oval.
Q. And was the one oval the one that indicates -- falsely, by the way -- that I authorized a wiretap on you?
A. No, I didn't even know that, no. [1594]
Q. All right. Did the document that you looked at say that this page is still under construction?
A. No.
Q. It was a completed version?
A. I don't recall it saying that it was under construction.
Q. All right. It might have been -- it might have said it or it didn't say it?
A. I don't think it did.
Q. Okay. Did Chief Knight provide us with the document he showed you?
A. Oh, I'm sure he did, because that's what he was getting ready to do was get it to counsel.
Q. That afternoon you came back and I asked you about the Montgomery investigation. You didn't mention seeing this document, did you?
I did ask you -- you did testify that you hadn't seen anything in the Montgomery investigation that would suggest that I was involved, didn't you?
A. I don't recall, Your Honor.
Q. Did you ever find out who Thomas Drake was from Mr. Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Mr. Drake?
A. He was a former employee of the NSA, I believe.
Q. And was he familiar with Mr. Montgomery? [1595]
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Was Mr. Montgomery familiar with him?
A. I don't know.
Q. You'll be happy to know, Chief, I'm almost through, and so I'm just going to ask you a few more questions; then we'll break for lunch.
When did you become aware that the 50 hard drives weren't provided in response to my order?
A. I believe when the Monitor Team brought it up.
Q. You knew that I'd asked for them; you knew that I'd ordered their production.
A. I knew that you asked for the -- all the Montgomery documentation.
Q. Did you ever talk to anybody about that?
A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Mackiewicz?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever talk to Chief Knight?
A. I did talk to Chief Knight.
Q. And what did you say to him?
A. "Did you get all the information from Mackiewicz?"
Q. And what did he say?
A. He said "Yes."
Q. Anything else?
A. No, sir [1596]
Q. Did you ask him what he asked Mackiewicz to provide you?
A. I don't think we got into detail.
Q. Did you ever talk to anybody about the documents that Chief Knight showed you?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You have no recollection at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any recollection of anybody showing you any other documents that would involve the DOJ in the – that resulted from the Montgomery investigation?
A. Just in my deposition with --
Q. That was the only other time you've seen such documents?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So the only recollection you have is that Chief Knight showed you one document that looks something like, but you don't think is, the same as the last three pages of Exhibit 2080?
A. That's what I believe, yes, your --
Q. Do you remember in your testimony last April telling me that no PS -- that you weren't aware of any PSB investigations arising from the Seattle operation?
A. That's correct.
Q. Have there been any PSB investigations or any complaints ever made to PSB concerning the Seattle operation?
A. Yes, sir. [1597]
Q. And do they involve Detective Mackiewicz?
A. They do.
Q. And I think that you've indicated that there is a criminal investigation. Is that still ongoing?
A. There's criminal and an administrative investigation pending also.
Q. Is Sergeant Tennyson investigating, or has he been involved in investigating either one of those?
A. Sergeant Tennyson is not now involved in either one of those investigations; I don't know if he was in the beginning.
Q. When was the complaint made, do you know? Originally.
A. A complaint was made approximately a year ago.
Q. Are you overseeing those investigations?
A. I am.
Q. Taking an active role?
A. I don't know what you mean by an active role, Your Honor.
Q. Well, has it ever concerned you or ever -- have you ever considered whether or not you should have assigned this investigation, since Detective Mackiewicz will be a witness in this action that personally concerns you?
A. Well, as of last week I was notified that Detective Mackiewicz made some comments that involved me, and I don't mean that in a bad way, but involved me where I'm going to need to have a notice of investigation served on me and give a statement. So what I have done since that has occurred is [1598] assigned that responsibility that I normally would do over a PSB investigation to Executive Chief Trombi.
Q. Did you generate any paperwork in connection with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have, or any members of your family ever have any business dealings with Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what are those?
A. My wife's a real estate agent and sold him a couple of houses.
Q. And so she got a commission.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You ever have any social interaction with Detective Mackiewicz?
A. I have.
Q. Consider yourself to be a friend?
A. I consider myself to be an acquaintance, yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your answers. I'm through with my questions. I think it's time for lunch break.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
[1599] BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q. I just have one question for you, Chief:
When did you move offices?
A. I was mistaken earlier. It was December of 2013.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WANG:
[1602] Q. Sir, I'm going to turn now to the issue of the Seattle investigation. The Court asked you whether -- about the nature of your relationship to Detective Mackiewicz.
Do you recall that?
A. I do. [1603]
Q. And you testified that you were the one who assigned Detective Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. All right. Did you testify in response to questions from me -- well, I beg your pardon.
Did you and the sheriff jointly decide to assign Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So you had a part in assigning Mackiewicz to this investigation?
A. I did.
Q. And the judge asked you whether you had a personal relationship to Brian Mackiewicz.
Do you recall that?
A. I did.
Q. And the Court asked you whether there was any business relationship between Brian Mackiewicz and you or any member of your family. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified that Brian Mackiewicz and his girlfriend were clients of your wife's real estate business, is that right?
A. No.
Q. You did not testify to that?
A. No. [1604]
Q. Did your wife act as a real estate agent to Brian Mackiewicz?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she act as a real estate agent to Brian Mackiewicz's girlfriend?
A. The judge didn't ask me that question.
Q. Oh, I apologize. I'll ask you now: Is that true?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Sir, is it the case that earlier this year, 2015, your wife still was acting as a real estate agent to Brian Mackiewicz --
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
A. -- and his girlfriend?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. And is it true that your wife stood to make a $100,000 commission on two real estate transactions on behalf of Brian Mackiewicz's girlfriend?
MR. MASTERSON: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. And that was in -- earlier this year, 2015, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am. [1605]
Q. Sir, at the time that you and Sheriff Arpaio assigned Brian Mackiewicz to the Seattle investigation were you aware that he had been the subject over the years of several IA investigations?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. This goes beyond the scope of the Court's inquiry with this witness.
THE COURT: I think that's sustained.
MS. WANG: All right. I'll move on, then.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Now, in response to questions from the Court, sir, you detailed a meeting -- or you testified that you were present at a meeting about the Seattle investigation at which Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Liddy, and Mr. Casey were present, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, do you recall that during your two depositions in September, earlier this month, you testified that you were not present at a meeting with those counsel on January 2nd of 2014?
Do you recall that testimony?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is your testimony now that you were present at a meeting on a different date with those counsel?
A. That's correct.
Q. Concerning the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes, ma'am. [1606]
Q. All right. Was Sheriff Arpaio present at the meeting with counsel that you attended?
A. He was.
Q. He was not?
A. He was.
Q. All right. Sir, you have in front of you Exhibit 2273.
This is not in evidence.
Note. For additional information about this document, see WYE Timeline - Feb. 11, 2015.
First of all, sir, let me ask you: Are you aware that in e-mail correspondence, Dennis Montgomery used the alias or the e-mail address "David Webb"?
A. No.
Q. You're not aware of that?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to the first line of this e-mail on Exhibit 2273.
Do you know what this reference "Judge Snow Info" is to?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Do you see the date on this e-mail, February 11th, 2015?
A. I do.
Q. All right. And you're not familiar with the reference to "Judge Snow Info"?
A. No, ma'am.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, may I have a moment?
THE COURT: You may. [1607]
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, were you speaking with Detective Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. I may have misspoken earlier. Let me just ask you another question. Looking again at Exhibit 2273, did you ever understand that Detective Mackiewicz was using the alias or e-mail address "David Webb" in connection with the Seattle investigation?
A. No, I've never heard of that name before.
Q. Okay. And you don't recall whether you spoke to Brian Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
A. I don't recall anything like that, no.
Q. Do you recall ever speaking to Posseman Zullo about the Seattle investigation in February of 2015?
A. No.
MS. WANG: Nothing further.
See also, Sheridan's Apr. 24, Sept. 24 and Sept. 25 Testimony.
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 7 (pages 1488-1734).
