Excerpts from MCSO Lieutenant Kimberly Seagrave's Oct. 1, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings (Transcript) regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
Direct Examination | Recross-Examination
DIRECT EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY ANDRE SEGURA
[2142] * * *
Q. Okay. Are you aware of an investigation involving a Dennis Montgomery? [2143]
A. Yes.
Q. And who is he?
A. He – how do I know him? I don’t know him, I just – I just know of him.
Q. What do you know of him?
A. Currently or previously? Before --
Q. Previously.
A. Okay. He was someone who has many articles written about him in reference to defrauding the government, someone who has questionable character as far as his credibility.
Q. And what do you know about him now that's different?
A. Nothing.
Q. Okay. And your understanding, he was involved in an investigation helping the MCSO, is that correct?
A. That's what I was told.
Q. Okay. And your understanding is that the purpose of that investigation was to obtain information from Dennis Montgomery regarding Judge Snow?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Do you want to lay some foundation, please.
MR. SEGURA: Sure.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. How did you obtain -- where did you obtain information regarding the investigation involving Dennis Montgomery? [2144]
A. While I was working in special investigations.
Q. And did you obtain that information from discussions with Captain Bailey?
A. Yes
Q. Okay. And through those discussions, did you come to an understanding what the purpose of the investigation was?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And was one of the purposes of that investigation to obtain information regarding Judge Snow?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Generally?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The way you phrased it, it's to single out Judge Snow, and that's not the -- there was more to it than just that.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. Okay. It involved others, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. It involved potential issues with the Sheriff's Office being wiretapped, is that right?
A. What I was told, yes.
Q. Okay. And hacking into legal offices, right?
A. That's what I was told, yes.
Q. And in addition to that, there was also part of the [2145] investigation involving obtaining information regarding Judge Snow?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: In relationship to other officials, yes.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. And what do you mean by "in relationship to other officials"?
A. Specifically, Eric Holder.
Q. Okay. And after -- when Captain Bailey first told you about this investigation involving Dennis Montgomery, you went back to your computer and googled Dennis Montgomery, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you find as a result of your Internet search?
A. Several articles and a Wikipedia page and some other publications in reference to him.
Q. And what was your reaction of -- based on what you found?
A. My reaction? Just that he wasn't credible.
Q. And you obtained this -- you had -- you came to this understanding, based on what you found, just through this Internet search, is that correct?
A. Initially, yes. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that was just based on, would you say, your common sense?
A. Yes. [2146]
Q. Would you say it was pretty easy to figure out that something was up with Mr. Montgomery?
A. Again, not knowing him personally, but googling information on him, his credibility was an issue.
Q. Okay. And after you googled him you told Captain Bailey about what you had found, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And yet you actually printed out some of what you found and you gave it to him, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Captain Bailey look at that information?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he do after he looked at the information?
A. He made a phone call.
Q. He called Chief Deputy Sheridan, is that right?
A. Initially, I didn't know who he called.
Q. And are you now aware that he called Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were present for that call?
A. Part of it, yes.
Q. Okay. Did that call end before you -- did that call -- did you leave the room before that call ended?
A. I don't remember staying during the duration of the call. I just remember being there during a brief portion of the beginning, and then I left, and I don't know why. [2147]
Q. Okay. And Captain Bailey asked Chief Deputy Sheridan if he had googled Mr. Montgomery, correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Being offered for the truth? Sounds like it.
MR. SEGURA: My understanding is that these are statements by employees of the party within their capacity as employees of MCSO.
THE COURT: So you're saying statement of a party opponent?
MR. SEGURA: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT: One moment.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. So he asked Chief Deputy Sheridan if he had googled Mr. Montgomery, is that correct?
A. I don't know if it was googled or if he had seen the information on the Internet; something to that effect.
Q. Okay. He told Chief Deputy Sheridan something to the effect of this could be the golden goose that laid the golden egg, but this guy is so tainted that no jury would believe him, he has no credibility, is that right?
A. That was the gist of what Captain Bailey was saying, yes.
Q. He said even if he were to wrap it all up in a bow it would [2148] be worthless, is that right?
A. I don't remember if I testified in my deposition whether or not he was saying that to Chief Sheridan or if he was saying that directly to me.
Q. Okay. But he told Chief Deputy Sheridan about the -- even if this were the golden goose?
A. That comment as well, I'm not sure if that was what he said to him or if he said that directly to me.
Q. Okay. Can you turn to page 208 of your deposition transcript that we were just looking at previously.
A. Yes.
Q. You see on page 208, starting at line 13:
"And then did he say anything else while he was on the phone, Captain Bailey?"
You said: "Yes." "What else did he say?
"He said, this could be the golden goose that laid the golden egg, but this guy is so tainted that no jury would believe him. He has no credibility.
"Something to the effect of even if he were to wrap it up in a big bow, it still would be worthless information. Something to the -- the present scenario and the golden goose were what he said exactly."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do. [2149]
Q. And was that testimony accurate?
A. Yes. But again, I don't remember as I sit here whether it was directly to me, but I did testify to you, yes.
Q. Okay. And you and Captain Bailey all separately discussed these concerns, is that correct?
A. Are you referring to Captain Bailey and I one on one?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm sure that there have been discussions, yes.
Q. And he -- you had concerns about the money that was spent on this -- that was being spent on this investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And he shared those concerns, based on your discussion with him?
A. He shared those concerns with me that he --
Q. Based on your discussions with Captain Bailey, is it your understanding that he shared those concerns with you?
A. If I understand your question that if Captain Bailey also had concern about the money --
Q. Yes.
A. -- is that your question? Yes, the answer's yes.
Q. You had to approve some of the payments relating to the Montgomery investigation, is that correct?
A. Not relating to the disbursement of the funds, I did not.
Q. And what do you mean by "the disbursement of the funds"?
A. The money he received monthly, I didn't have anything to do [2150] with that.
Q. You had to approve expenses as to travel-related expenses for MCSO employees, is that correct?
A. On occasion, yes.
Q. Okay. And you had concerns with doing that?
A. On occasion, yes.
Q. And what were those concerns?
A. The overall -- the overall concern was that I'd be signing something that I did not know what was actually going on as far as investigation, signing my name on -- on something that I wasn't a part of the investigation or knew about details. That was my concern as a supervisor.
Q. And you didn't want -- you didn't want to sign off on these in -- these expense approvals, correct?
A. Again, for the same reason, you're correct.
Q. Okay. And you actually ensured that these -- the ones that you eventually did sign off on, that those had been pre-approved by someone above you, is that right?
A. That's what I was told, yes.
Q. Okay. Could you turn to Exhibit 2012.
Note. Ex. 2012 is listed as: MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed off by Chief Sheridan dated 1/28/2014 (MELC233669).
2012 is a memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to you in which he was seeking approval for lodging, is that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. SEGURA: Okay. Your Honor, I'd move for the admission of Exhibit 2012. [2151]
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2012 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2012 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. And if you could turn to Exhibit 2013.
Note. Ex. 2013 is listed as: MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed off by Chief Sheridan dated 2/2/2014 (MELC234036)
Is that a similar memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to you requesting approval for lodging?
A. Yes.
MR. SEGURA: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2013.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, relevance, cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2013 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. At the bottom of 2013 do you see some handwriting that seems to say "approved"?
Do you see that?
A. I see two approvals, yes.
Q. On the -- the handwriting on the right. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that Chief Deputy Sheridan's signature?
A. Yes. Appears to be, yes.
THE COURT: What exhibit is that on?
MR. SEGURA: 2013. [2152]
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. And going back to Exhibit 2012, do you see at the bottom handwriting that says "okay"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that also Chief Sheridan's signature?
A. Appears to be, yes.
Q. There were several funding streams used to fund the investigation that Mr. Montgomery was a part of, is that correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Do you want to lay foundation? Because I'm going to sustain that objection.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. You were -- you were involved in approving payments related to the Montgomery investigation, is that correct? The two that we had just seen in Exhibit 2012 and 2013, for example.
A. Yes.
Q. Ok. And as part of y our responsibilities at – I believe you were at the -- you were at the Special Investigation Division at the time, was -- was to know which -- and you -- you are aware of which funding streams were used to in -- to fund this investigation, correct? Or you are aware?
A. At the time I was not aware.
Q. Are you aware now?
A. Some things I am aware. [2153]
Q. Okay. And how did you become aware of which funding streams were used to fund the investigation with Mr. Montgomery?
A. Through documents I received through finance.
Q. Okay. And so there were several different funding streams used to fund this investigation, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. One of them was the RICO fund, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Another was the general fund?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. How about vendor payouts? Was that used to pay this investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that was to fund Mr. Zullo, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What are vendor payouts?
A. Generally speaking?
Q. Yes.
A. It's -- could be a vendor that -- it could be a sole source vendor, or it could be a vendor that we need to purchase an item or product through or service through. And it has to be documented as to why we need that, and forwarded to the chain of command for approval, and eventually to finance for disbursement, either through a purchase order or through a [2154] billing.
Q. Did you have any concerns with Mr. Zullo being paid as a -- as a vendor?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation, relevance.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the relevance objection.
I don't think you've laid foundation sufficient to ask that question with respect to Mr. Zullo.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. You said previously that Mr. Zullo was paid as a vendor using the vendor payout fund, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any concerns with paying -- with having Mr. Zullo compensated as a vendor?
A. I was not aware that he was paid as a vendor until I went to PSB.
Q. Okay. And then at some point did you become concerned with the fact that he was paid as a vendor?
A. I don't really know how to answer that concern. I mean, it just was a discovery that I had.
Q. Was it odd that he was paid as a vendor?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. The sheriff made a personal donation of $10,000 to fund the [2155] Montgomery investigation, is that correct?
A. I only know what I was told.
Q. And what were you told?
A. That that had occurred.
Q. And who were you told that by?
A. Captain Bailey.
Q. And that was money specifically so that – and Captain Bailey told you that that was money specifically so that Mr. Zullo could travel to Seattle, is that correct?
A. That's what I was told.
Q. Okay. Mr. Montgomery was classified as a confidential informant, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that -- that struck you as odd, right?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. When you were at SID, were you aware of how non-employees were paid with respect to their participation in investigations?
A. Non-employees?
Q. Sure. If you are a -- if a non-MCSO employees is working on an investigation, are you aware of how those non-employees are paid?
A. Are you talking like a confidential informant? [2156]
Q. Generally when you were at the Special Investigations Division.
A. I would only know about a confidential informant. I don't know about how a non-employee would be compensated.
Q. Okay. Have you ever been involved in an investigation in which a non-employee was compensated who was not a confidential informant?
A. Other than a vendor that provided a service, that would be my response.
Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other -- Mr. Zullo is a -- is part of the Posse, is that correct?
A. That's what I'm told.
Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other members of the Posse that have been paid as -- as vendors?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Okay. Do you know if travel expenses are ever paid as vendor payouts?
A. I don't know how to answer that. Could you elaborate?
Q. Sure. The vendor payout fund, is that ever used for travel expenses?
A. Well, I don't -- I wouldn't know how that person would use their funding, if that's what you're asking me.
Q. Okay. So you worked with confidential informants in the past, correct?
A. Not me personally, no. [2157]
Q. Okay. And are you aware of how -- of the circumstances under which someone can be classified as a confidential informant in MCSO?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did it -- based on what you understand the reasons why someone would be classified as a confidential informant, did it strike you as odd that Mr. Montgomery was classified as a confidential informant?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don't know how to answer that, because I don't know fully what the -- what the investigation was all about to know that.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. Okay. Could you turn to page 225 of your deposition.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Which one, Counsel?
MR. SEGURA: September 23rd.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Thank you.
MR. SEGURA: The same one.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. You see on line 4 where I ask:
"When did you learn that he was a confidential informant?"
You said: "Very early on in the investigation." I asked: "Did that strike you as odd?"
You said: "Yes." [2158]
I asked: "Why?"
You said: "Well, I thought it was odd for the totality of the whole situation, the fact that he's got a history of duping the government and taking money and being sued, that we would list him as a confidential -- confidential informant, to pay him a large sum of cash to someone who had credibility issues. I thought that was problematic."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified truthfully during your deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of Sheriff Arpaio having given any direction with regard to the funding of the Montgomery investigation?
A. Other than what I told you in my deposition about what was told to me from Steve Bailey.
Q. And what was told to you by Steve Bailey?
A. Steve Bailey told me that there was a concern because the HIDTA funds were running low, and he told me that he was ordered to come up with the $10,000.
Q. Okay. He said that he had conversations with the sheriff in which he expressed his concerns about the funding, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that he had suggested to the sheriff not spending any more money, in that money was running low, is that correct? [2159]
A. Yes.
Q. And did he tell you that the sheriff said that he didn't care, that you just need to get the fucking money?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if -- are you aware of any conversations that Sergeant Anglin has had with the sheriff regarding the Montgomery investigation?
A. Only what he told me.
Q. Okay. And what did he tell you?
A. He told me --
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Being offered for the truth of the matter?
MR. SEGURA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SEGURA: My understanding is it's a statement of a -- party opponent.
THE COURT: Yeah, but you gotta establish that it was under some sort of authorized communication. Have you done that?
MR. SEGURA: I will, Your Honor.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. Was Sergeant Anglin working on the Montgomery investigation?
A. Yes, but I don't know if he was on or off at that time when we had a conversation. [2160]
Q. But he did at some point work on the Montgomery investigation, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at some point he was no longer working on the investigation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware of conversations that he's had with Sheriff Arpaio regarding the investigation, is that right?
A. What he told me, yes.
Q. Okay. And what did he tell you?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: He told me that he, at some point in the investigation, felt that the information coming from Montgomery was just not good, his credibility was bad, and it was a waste of money, and he recommended that the sheriff distance himself from Montgomery and Mike Zullo.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. And what did he tell you the sheriff said in response?
A. He told me that the sheriff said something to the effect of: Who are you to tell me what to do, and -- something of that nature.
Q. Okay. Sergeant Anglin was eventually taken off the case, is that right?
A. Yes. [2161]
Q. Okay. And is it your understanding that he was taken off the case because he told the sheriff that this investigation was a waste of money?
A. That, and another reason.
Q. And what's the other reason?
A. In reference to the conversation I just told you, I think a short time later he was taken off the case.
Q. Okay. Are you aware of hard drives that were collected as a result of -- that were related to this Montgomery investigation?
A. I have no personal knowledge of that other than what I know.
Q. And what do you know?
A. That there were hard drives that were brought back. This information came from Travis Anglin.
Q. Okay. And who -- what were -- these hard drives were brought back from where?
A. Seattle.
Q. And you became aware of these hard drives through Julie Ahlquist, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who is she?
A. She's the commander of records and ID, identification.
Q. And when did you become aware of this through Ms. Ahlquist?
A. I don't remember the exact date. [2162]
Q. Okay. Could you turn to Exhibit 2014, which is not in evidence. Is this an e-mail from Ms. Ahlquist to you on May 5th, 2015?
Note. Ex. 2014 is listed as: E-mail chain re Melendres Court Order dated 5/5/2015 (MELC417670-MELC417672); per testimony, it’s an email chain between Julie Ahlquist and Seagraves; other authors/recipients include Jenise Moreno, Jack MacIntyres.
A. I'm sorry. Could you give me a moment?
Q. Sure.
A. I grabbed the wrong one.
Q. Should be a --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. This is an e-mail from Ms. Ahlquist to you on May 5th, 2015, in which she was forwarding other e-mails, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. SEGURA: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2014.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.
MR.
WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: 2014 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2014 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. And this -- so this e-mail's from May 5th, 2015, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So would that be about the date that you learned of these hard drives? [2163]
A. I'm not sure if I knew that they existed prior to, but in reference to their physical locale, I wasn't sure. I mean, I knew from conversations with Sergeant Anglin that they were bringing back hard drives, so I'm not sure if that was before or after this.
Q. Okay. But you are aware that there were hard drives within -- through this e-mail, Ms. Ahlquist made you aware of -- I believe there were -- that there were a total of 51 hard drives, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And this property report -- there was a property report that she had come across, is that right?
A. A found property report, yes.
Q. Okay. And that was under Brian Mackiewicz's name?
A. Yes.
Q. And on that report were listed the 51 hard drives?
A. Not all 51, but they were broke down, the 25, 26.
Q. Okay. And why was she -- why was she asking you about these -- about these hard drives in May of 2015?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: If she knows.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q. If you know.
A. I do.
Q. And why's that? [2164]
A. She had contacted me in reference to finding out about a FOIA request that had been made for documents relating to the Seattle investigation, and so she was calling to find out if I knew any information about that, because she had no record of a report of an investigation in Seattle, and wanted to know if I could shed some light on that.
Q. Okay. And the e-mail that she sends to you, the one at the -- at the top, is from -- that she forwards to you, is from her to Jenise Moreno. Who is that?
A. She is an employee that works on the fifth floor. I don't know know what her title is.
Q. Okay. Is she --
A. Well, I can see here she's an assistant, I'm sorry, to Chief MacIntyre.
Q. Oh. Thank you.
And Chief MacIntyre's also copied on this e-mail, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About this found property report?
A. Yes.
Q. And you, once you came across this information, you entered it into IAPro, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you enter it into IAPro does a -- do you create an identifying number for that? [2165]
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And do you recall what number you entered in for this -- or what number was produced as a result of you entering in this information in IAPro?
A. I do not.
Q. Did you advise anyone about these -- about the found property report and the hard drives that were listed on these reports?
A. I don't recall if I did or I didn't, but I had an understanding that they knew, other people knew. This was new to me.
Q. Okay. And when you say other people knew, who do you believe that to be?
A. Well, my chain of command, whoever approved the process of getting them down.
Q. Would that have been Captain Bailey in your chain of command?
A. I don't know that for sure. I don't know.
* * *
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOSEPH POPOLIZIO
[2232] * * *
Q. We're going to jump around a little bit. I apologize for that. But I'll try and make it as coherent as possible.
Lieutenant Seagraves, you testified a little bit about the Seattle investigation a little while ago.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever directly involved in the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever work with Mr. Zullo on the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever work with Detective Mackiewicz on the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever work with Detective Anglin on the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Montgomery? [2233]
A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever review any documentation regarding that investigation while that investigation was going on?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever travel to Seattle for this investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever meet with Sheriff Arpaio with regard to the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever meet with the chief deputy with regard to the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Now, you testified that you had some expenditures -- strike that.
You testified that you had to okay some expenses for travel for the Seattle investigation.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sign off on all the travel for that investigation?
A. No.
Q. How many times did you sign off on travel for the Seattle investigation for any of the detectives or Posse people involved? [2234]
A. If you could clarify, are you talking about expenditures such as the memos I signed, or --
Q. Travel.
A. None.
Q. You also testified that someone told you that Sheriff Arpaio had invested $10,000 in the Seattle investigation, is that right? Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know that firsthand knowledge whether Sheriff Arpaio actually did that?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see a -- a check from Sheriff Arpaio to some account where that money went into for this investigation?
A. No.
Q. So you don't have firsthand knowledge at all as to whether Sheriff Arpaio invested anything monetarily in that investigation, do you?
A. I do not.
Q. And although you signed off on some travel for that investigation, you have no knowledge as to what was going on in that investigation, do you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know of any details with regard to what was occurring in that investigation, do you?
A. No. [2235]
Q. Do you have most of your knowledge with regard to that investigation from the media?
A. I'm not sure how to answer that. That's very broad.
Q. Have you read media articles, articles in newspapers about the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read more than one?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read more than five?
A. Yes.
Q. There are a lot of articles on this?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've read a lot of those articles.
A. Yes.
* * *
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 9 - Oct. 1, 2015 (pages 2007-2247).
