Excerpts from MCSO Sergeant Travis Anglin's Oct. 9, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
Direct Examination | Cross-Examination | Examination by The Court
DIRECT EXAMINATION
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY MICHELLE MORIN
[2828] * * *
Q. Sir, you're familiar with the so-called Seattle investigation?
A. I am.
Q. And you first became involved in that investigation in late December 2013, is that right? [2829]
A. It is.
Note. For additional information re: Anglin's assignment to the Seattle Operation (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Dec. 30, 2013.
Q. Who was your supervisor at that time?
A. My supervisor was Lieutenant Brian Stutsman.
Q. And how did you become introduced -- or how were you asked to get involved in the Seattle investigation?
A. I was contacted by Captain Steve Bailey in late December and asked to come into the office for a briefing.
Q. And that briefing took place?
A. Within the Special Investigations Division office.
Q. Who was involved in the briefing?
A. Captain Bailey initially was there and introduced Mike Zullo and I, and Captain Bailey left and the meeting was just Mike Zullo and I.
Q. When did that meeting occur?
A. I believe it was December 30th, ma'am.
Q. And did you understand that the purpose of that meeting was for Mr. Zullo to tell you about the investigation and his work with Dennis Montgomery?
A. It was.
Q. And did Mr. Zullo tell you about the articles in the New York Times and other public sources referring to Mr. Montgomery?
A. He did.
Q. And those articles refer to Mr. Montgomery as a man who had defrauded the government, correct? [2830]
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo explain to you that Montgomery was still someone that he considered a credible individual?
A. That is what I took away from that meeting.
Q. What else did Mr. Zullo explain to you during the December 30th, 2013 meeting?
A. It was basically a history of Mr. Montgomery, and how he came to be in possession of what he claims to be harvested information by the CIA.
Q. And when you say "harvested information," did Mr. Zullo explain that that was allegedly stolen information that Mr. Montgomery had taken from the CIA?
A. Harvested information is information that the CIA allegedly took from U.S. citizens. The proof of that was allegedly drives stolen by Mr. Montgomery.
Q. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last thing that you said, derived --
A. The proof of the harvesting information was allegedly on drives that were stolen by Mr. Montgomery.
Q. And he allegedly stole those drives from the CIA?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that information included information about potential wiretaps, is that right?
A. I don't believe he brought that up at that meeting.
Q. When did you learn about -- or did you learn about [2831] information Mr. Montgomery provided regarding potential wiretaps?
A. I believe that was first discussed by Mr. Montgomery via conference call on January 3rd.
Note. Anglin later (infra at 2840) corrects the date to Jan. 2nd.
Q. Staying with the December 30th, 2013 meeting for a moment, following that meeting with Mr. Zullo, did Mr. Zullo send you information about Mr. Montgomery?
A. He did.
Q. What did he send you?
A. Mr. Zullo sent me several e-mails, none of which I had read at that time frame. They were e-mails from Dennis Montgomery.
Q. Did you eventually read them?
A. Not all of them. Very few of them, as a matter of fact.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo also send you a number of text messages?
A. He did.
Q. And he started sending those to you the day after your December 30th meeting?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. If you could please take a look at Exhibit 2083. Are you there, sir?
Note: Ex. 2083 is listed as: E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin forwarding E-mail from Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a subject line "Latest 1.5a" dated 1/1/2014 (MELC199417). (See also WYE Timeline - Jan. 1, 2014.)
A. I am.
Q. Is this one of the e-mails that you received from Mr. Zullo?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And the e-mail address used by Mr. Zullo is [2832] [email protected], is that right?
A. It is.
Q. And do you see Detective Mackiewicz's e-mail address on this document as well?
A. I do.
Q. And that's [email protected], correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And do you understand that the David Webb e-mail, [email protected], was the e-mail address Mr. Montgomery used?
A. I do.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2083.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2083 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2083 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Sir, if you could look at Exhibit 2097, please.
Note: Ex. 2097 is listed as: Email chain between Mike Zullo and Travis Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21). (See also WYE Timeline Jan. 3?23, 2014 (noting date discrepancy on Transcript Exhibit List.)
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And is this an e-mail you received from Mr. Zullo on January 3rd, 2014?
A. It is.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2097. [2833]
MR. MASTERSON: We can't see it yet, Judge.
MS. MORIN: Oh, I apologize. Could the exhibit be shown to the witness and counsel, please.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Can I see the top of it? Thank you. No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2097 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2097 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. And one more, sir. If you could look at Exhibit 2087.
Note. Ex. 2087 is listed as: E-mail from Mike Zullo to Brian McDaniel copying Travis Anglin, forwarding E-mail from Mike Zullo to Dennis Montgomery with a subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199540-43).
Note. For additional information (including additional testimony/details about this Exhibit), see WYE Timeline - Jan. 8, 2014.
A. I see it.
Q. Is that an e-mail you received from Mr. Zullo on January 8th, 2014?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And it forwards other e-mails in an e-mail chain. Do you see that?
A. I do.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of Exhibit 2087.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: 2087 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2087 is admitted into evidence.) [2834]
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Sir, if you could turn to the third page of the e-mail. Do you see there's an e-mail from Mike Zullo on Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 5:57 p.m.?
A. I do.
Q. And below that there's an e-mail from David Webb, which is Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you see the handwriting on the David Webb e-mail on that page?
A. I do.
Q. Is that your handwriting, sir?
A. I believe it may be.
Q. Thank you.
And among these e-mails that Mr. Zullo forwarded to you, he also forwarded attached documents, is that correct?
A. It is.
Q. If you could look at Exhibit 2072, please. And that one is in evidence, so if that could be published.
Note. Ex. 2072 is: Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) (MELC199917-MELC199935). It was admitted into evidence on Sept. 29. See Sept. 29 Transcript [ECF 1417] at 1724.
Go to the second page. Thank you.
A. Okay.
Q. And if you could take a look through the hard copy, perhaps, of the rest of the document, are the documents in Exhibit 2072 among the documents that Mr. Zullo e-mailed to you [2835] in this January time per- -- time frame?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. If you could turn, sir, to Exhibit 2079, please.
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Judge. With respect to 2072, we asked yesterday about do we know whether that highlighting was done by the monitor or somebody else.
THE COURT: I have no knowledge that it was done by the monitor.
MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
MS. MORIN: And just for the record, I don't think that was 2072. I thought that was 2073. This document --
THE COURT: Well, 2072 is -- 2072 is the e-mail to Mr. Anglin, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: It's the exhibit, I believe, that was just on the screen that has various -- well, I think it's still on the screen.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. I do not know. I haven't contacted the monitor, I don't know that the monitor did anything with that exhibit, but I will find out; I told you I would.
MR. MASTERSON: Okay.
THE COURT: And with your permission, I'll call and see if he's -- if he's the one that highlighted that or not.
MR. MASTERSON: That's great. Thanks, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. [2836]
MS. MORIN: Thank you.
And just to be clear, Your Honor, what I was saying is my recollection is that discussion yesterday about the highlighting was with respect to a different document, not with --
THE COURT: That's also my recollection. That's why I was confused.
MR. POPOLIZIO: But within something that appears to be the monitor's report there are several things that are attachments in there that are highlighted --
THE COURT: You mean the documents that I gave you that the monitor gave to me.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.
THE COURT: Yeah. That's not this exhibit. That was a different exhibit. I think that's 2082, and it wasn't admitted into evidence. I think it's 2082; don't hold me to that.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, that may be one where there are some duplicate exhibit numbers that have been attached at different times --
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MORIN: -- but it is not this document.
THE COURT: So I will try to get to the bottom of it.
I'll let you know.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you. [2837]
MS. MORIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Sir, if we could turn back to Exhibit 2079, which is not in evidence.
If that could be shown to counsel and the witness, please, but not published. Thank you.
Do you recognize this document, sir?
Note. Ex. 2079 is listed as: Screen shots of text messages taken off Travis Anglin's personal phone sent by Mike Zullo (MELC199513-22). (See also WYE Timeline - Dec. 30 - ? 2014.)
A. I do.
Q. And what is it?
A. These are screen shots of text messages I received from Mike Zullo.
Q. And those messages you received starting on about December 30th or 31st of 2013, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You created these screen shots on your personal cell phone?
A. I did.
Q. And then did you maintain those screen shots in your files during the course of your work on this investigation?
A. Yes, ma'am. I printed them out and held them in hard copy.
Q. And on the second page of the exhibit, do you see the [email protected] e-mail address which is one of the text messages?
A. I do.
Q. Is that your text -- or your e-mail address, sir?
A. Yes, it is. [2838]
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2079.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2079 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2079 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. MORIN: And I'd ask that it be published, please.
THE COURT: It may be published.
MS. MORIN: Thank you, sir. Or thank you, Your Honor.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. So if you turn your deposition to the first page, please, Sergeant Anglin. Do you see where the message says:
"Sergeant. Received this from Oz just a little while ago. He's mapping out cell phone calls and then line calls back to 2009 involving Judge Snow. The stuff looks promising."
Do you see that, sir?
A. I do.
Q. And is that a text message that you received from Mr. Zullo?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And "Oz" is a code name for Dennis Montgomery, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And in fact, Mr. Zullo explained that to you on -- in a [2839] later text message, correct?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And "Elmer" is also another code name for Dennis Montgomery?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Now, did you understand that Mr. Montgomery claimed to be mapping out cell phone calls and then line calls back to 2009 involving Judge Snow?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you understand that that's what Mike Zullo was conveying to you in this text message?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Are you asking for the witness's understanding, or are you asking for the sender's understanding?
MS. MORIN: I'm asking for the witness's understanding.
THE COURT: Okay. With that clarification, I will overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: That is, in fact, what I read in the text message.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. He wrote that "The stuff looks promising." Did you have an understanding of what he was talking about?
A. I did not. [2840]
Q. And then if you'd turn to about the middle of the document, page -- with the Bates number 199518, please. Do you see on that page the message begins:
"Hey, Sgt. Sorry to bother you on New Year's Day"?
A. I do.
Q. And it continues:
"I just got off the phone with the sheriff. Unfortunately in this thing he calls me almost every day wanting updates. He wants us to meet him at his office tomorrow at 3 PM to go over this phone information and he's going to have a couple of attorneys there. Are you available?"
Did I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yep.
Q. And you received this text message on New Year's Day, January 1st, 2014, is that correct?
A. It is.
Q. Did the meeting referenced in this text message actually occur?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And is that the -- the meeting that I think you might have said earlier was on January 3rd. Was it actually a meeting on January 2nd or January 3rd?
A. It was 2nd, my apologies.
Note. For additional information on this meeting (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Jan. 2, 2014.
Q. Thank you.
Who attended the January 2nd, 2014 meeting, that you recall? [2841]
A. Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, myself, Captain Bailey, Joe Popolizio, John Masterson, Tom Liddy, and Tim Casey.
Q. Was anyone present by speakerphone?
A. And Dennis Montgomery by speakerphone.
Q. Can you tell us, please, everything you remember that was said at that meeting.
A. The lion's share of my memories from that meeting were Mike Zullo being the conduit between Dennis Montgomery and those in the room, and setting Montgomery up to tell his story, the same story that I had basically received in the briefing from Mike Zullo: that being Dennis Montgomery's background, how he ended up working for the CIA, and how he ended up in possession of these drives with this allegedly harvested information.
Q. Now, at that meeting -- did you bring documents to the meeting with you?
A. I did.
Q. What documents did you bring, sir?
A. I brought some of the attachments that were an e-mail sent to me by Mike Zullo, that being what I've referred to as the matrix in the past, and spreadsheets.
Q. And are those attachments that you refer to among the documents in Exhibit 2072 that you should still have in front of you?
A. Ma'am, there's several versions of these documents, one of which I brought with me. I can't specifically say as to which [2842] of these it was, but the answer to your question is yes.
Q. And when you say "these," are you referring to the matrix in the last three or so pages of Exhibit 2072, or the other part of the document?
A. I'm speaking to the last three pages there, the matrix. I believe it was the -- the most recent revision that Dennis Montgomery had made that I brought with me, and one subsequent spreadsheet.
Q. What do you mean when you say "spreadsheet"?
A. Looks like an Excel spreadsheet, the columns with dates and descriptions and time calls, things of that nature.
Q. Is the spreadsheet in any of the documents that are -- that you see in Exhibit 2072?
A. It is. Again, there's several versions of it here. Specifically which one, I can't speak to at this time.
Q. Is there a page of Exhibit 2072 that looks closest?
A. I would say MELC199917.
MS. MORIN: If that could be published, please. That's Exhibit 2072.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. That's the page, sir?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And did you observe at the meeting whether the sheriff had any documents with him?
A. I provided him this document as well as the matrix. [2843]
Q. Now, looking at the matrix document, if we could turn to the end of 2072, please.
You see Judge Snow's name appears in several places on the matrix?
A. I do.
Q. Did you wonder about the fact that Judge Snow's name is on this document --
A. I did.
Q. -- at the time of that meeting?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you ask any questions about this document at the meeting?
A. I asked Dennis Montgomery how he came to get the information that he used to fill these -- these boxes.
Q. What was his response?
A. He never gave a clear answer, but he said that he collected it as a result of the harvested information that he had from the CIA.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. Dennis Montgomery's very good about speaking around answers, so he said a lot but didn't say much.
Q. Do you recall anyone else asking Mr. Montgomery any questions about the matrix during that meeting?
A. There was conversation with Mr. Montgomery on the phone. I was -- at this point had been briefed on a different focus of [2844] this case, and so that's what I had in mind, so I really don't recall much of this because I was kind of discounting a lot of this information until I had an opportunity to get some clarity from the chief deputy about it.
Q. What do you recall about what was said?
A. The only other conversation I specifically remember anybody having with Dennis Montgomery that day was the sheriff asking Montgomery, I took it as half jokingly, is if he was in possession of this type of material, why he hadn't been assassinated by the CIA already.
Q. And you mentioned a moment ago, I believe you said you were briefed on another aspect of the investigation, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. What are you referring to by "another aspect of the investigation"?
A. The only thing that I was briefed about initially was that Dennis Montgomery was allegedly in possession of hard drives that contained harvested data illegally obtained by the CIA, and that's what I was told initially the case was going to be about.
Q. And that's on December 30th?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. But after or during the meeting with Mr. Montgomery on January 2nd, this additional set of information was added to that initial briefing that you had received, is that right? [2845]
A. This information was provided to me by Mr. Zullo, and I asked Dennis Montgomery questions about it. It didn't make it part of my investigation because it was discussed.
Q. What did you do after this meeting with Mr. Montgomery on the speakerphone?
A. After the meeting, I had already collected open source information about Dennis Montgomery, that being the Playboy article, the New York Times article, and a Wikipedia page on Montgomery, and I provided that to the chief deputy.
Note. For additional information on Bailey's meeting with Sheridan (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Jan 2, 2014.
Q. Can you tell me about how that occurred.
A. Captain Bailey and I met with the chief deputy, and I also -- I don't remember if I showed them the screen shots of the text messages that I had, but I referenced them and the fact that they mentioned Judge Snow, and that the matrix referenced Judge Snow, and so I asked the chief deputy if he was asking me to investigate a federal judge.
Q. What did he respond?
A. I believe the chief deputy's quote was: "On no uncertain terms are you to investigate Judge Snow or the birth certificate."
Q. He didn't tell you to stop Mr. Montgomery from investigating Judge Snow, did he?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Where was the meeting with Chief Deputy Sheridan and Mr. -- or and Captain Bailey? [2846]
A. I believe it was in his office in our headquarters.
Q. Whose office?
A. Chief deputy's office.
Q. Thank you. So do you recall showing or giving Chief Deputy Sheridan the matrix document that's Exhibit -- the page of Exhibit 2072 that's on the screen?
A. I don't recall if I provided that to him or not.
Q. Did you say anything else to Chief Deputy Sheridan at that meeting?
A. I believe in that meeting I articulated my concern about doing business, for lack of better words, with somebody who had credibility issues like Dennis Montgomery, based on what I had read, Wikipedia and the Playboy article.
Q. What was Chief Deputy Sheridan's response to that comment?
A. I believe it was around that time, if not that meeting it was around that time that I was instructed to go to Washington and meet Montgomery, and try to get a better assessment of the whole picture.
Q. When you had this discussion with Chief Deputy Sheridan in his office, Captain Bailey was present, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did Captain Bailey say anything?
A. I know Captain Bailey shared my concerns about Montgomery's credibility, and I know he was vocal about that, but I don't remember if it was specifically in that meeting or not. [2847]
Q. Do you remember about when, if it wasn't at that meeting, Captain Bailey would have been vocal about his concerns, in your recollection?
A. Captain Bailey was vocal about his concerns the entire time I was involved in the case.
Q. And he shared his concerns with Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. To your knowledge, sir, did Dennis Montgomery, or Mr. Zullo, or Detective Mackiewicz, ever investigate whether Judge Snow was a victim of the alleged theft of identity information and bank account information by the DOJ?
A. May I qualify the answer just a little bit?
Q. Sure.
A. Montgomery claims that Judge Snow's name came into play as a result of the harvested information, which one might argue that is a victim if that was in fact done. I don't ever recall hearing Judge Snow -- Judge Snow's name referenced in terms of the bank account or e-mail or phone records that he also claims the CIA harvested.
Q. So did you ever investigate whether Judge Snow was a victim of the alleged harvesting of identity or bank account information?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Do you know of Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz ever investigating whether Judge Snow was a victim of the alleged [2848] theft of the bank account information or identity information?
A. I have no knowledge they did.
Q. Did you ever hear Detective Mackiewicz or Mr. Zullo tell Mr. Montgomery not to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. So after that January 2nd couple of meetings, you went to the Seattle area?
A. I did.
Q. When was that?
A. January 10th.
Q. And was that the first time that you met Mr. Montgomery in person?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Please tell us what you remember about that meeting.
A. It was early on the 11th when we actually made contact with Mr. Montgomery. Contacted him at his house, took him for breakfast, and there he again told me the same story that I heard several times at this point about his background and how he became affiliated with the CIA and how he became in possession of this material.
He explained to me the process in which it was going to take to extrapolate this data from the drives that he had. He explained to me that it could potentially take what he referred to as a supercomputer to decrypt these drives and to decode these drives, and he went on to tell me that [2849] potentially, that computer could cost as much as a hundred thousand dollars.
And we discussed briefly the fact that he had been receiving payments as a confidential informant, and that he would need -- he required to continue to be paid as a confidential informant in order to produce the information that he claimed to have.
Q. Did you share that information with Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. I did.
Q. When was that?
A. I left on the 11th, left Seattle on the 11th, and I called him from the airport and shared the information then.
Q. The airport in Seattle?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you tell Chief Deputy Sheridan that you weren't comfortable going into business with Mr. Montgomery?
A. I told him that I still had concerns about Montgomery's credibility, but in a single day there I wasn't in a position to say whether the information he had was viable or not.
Q. Did you tell him about the estimated $100,000 cost of the computer equipment?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was Chief Deputy Sheridan's response?
A. He said we would have to run it by the sheriff, but be prepared to continue on with the case, 'cause he's probably [2850] going to want to do it.
Q. Because the sheriff would probably want to do it?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you characterize the investigation with Dennis Montgomery as going down the rabbit hole to Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. I probably did. That's a term I use.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, I mean that to be an impartial investigator, I can't spend a morning or an afternoon with somebody and come back and say: This is truthful or this is not. We would have to go down the rabbit hole. We would have to get deeper into the investigation to determine whether this was a viable option or not.
Q. So when you came back from this first trip to Seattle, did you also brief Sheriff Arpaio?
A. I believe I did.
Q. And what did -- what did you tell the sheriff?
A. I had a lot of meetings with the sheriff, but in that time frame I would have told him the same thing that I told the chief deputy, because I didn't have any other information to share at that point.
Q. And what was the sheriff's response?
A. I'm afraid I don't remember his response from that particular meeting. [2851]
Q. Did he take you off -- or did he tell you: "We're not interested. We're not going to investigate this"?
A. No. I was told that the investigation would continue and I would be returning back to Washington.
Q. About how frequently did you end up going back to Washington during the time you were on the investigation?
A. Roughly two or three times a month.
Q. And how long did you remain involved in the investigation?
A. Until mid-May.
Note. For additional information on Anglin's January-May 2014 involvement in the Seattle Operation (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Between January and May 2014.
Q. So two or three times a month, from approximately January 10th, 2014, through mid-May 2014, you went back and forth to the Seattle area?
A. Yes, ma'am. Sometimes I'd go for a week; sometimes I'd go for two days, three days.
Q. And did you brief Sheriff Arpaio on the progress of the investigation?
A. I did.
Q. When did you do that in relation to those trips?
A. Sometimes before I went to Washington, and I believe just about every time that I returned from Washington I would meet with the sheriff.
Q. So every time you returned from Washington, where would you meet with the sheriff?
A. In his office.
Q. About how long would those meetings last? [2852]
A. They would vary, but I would say probably the shortest might have been 30 minutes, and the longest might be an hour or more.
Q. And the times that you briefed Sheriff Arpaio before going to Washington, about how long would those meetings last?
A. I'd be really guessing, but I think those were probably shorter meetings.
Q. And you had those meetings with the sheriff at his request, correct?
A. It was my understanding that in order to be involved in this investigation, that the sheriff would need to be kept in the loop. So I don't know whether the sheriff specifically told me to meet him, but it was just my understanding that was the appropriate thing to do.
Q. Did he tell you he wanted to be aware of what was going on?
A. I can't say, honestly, that the sheriff specifically told me that.
Q. Whether he used those specific words, did he, in substance, tell you, or convey to you, that he wanted to remain aware of what was going on with the Seattle investigation?
A. I can tell you that if I didn't meet with the sheriff in a timely manner, he would call or the chief deputy would call and ask me, update. So it made more sense for me to get out in front of it and just brief the sheriff ahead of time.
Q. And what did you tell Sheriff Arpaio in these meetings when [2853] you gave him -- or when you met with him after your trips to Seattle?
A. Generally, what I would do is I would return with whatever Montgomery had produced during that trip, if he'd actually produced something, and try to explain to the sheriff what it meant, at least according to Montgomery. Or I would share with the sheriff what Montgomery hadn't produced that he said he was going to, and give the sheriff whatever excuse it was that Montgomery gave us during that time period.
Q. Did you ever share with Sheriff Arpaio examples of documents that Montgomery had provided to you?
A. I did.
Q. What types of documents were those?
A. They could be phone logs, again spreadsheets showing a series of calls, phone numbers that originated the calls, phone numbers that received the calls, the length of time, the date and the time that those calls were made.
I also provided documents that Montgomery provided to us, that being lists of names of individuals with their addresses, as well as businesses with their addresses.
Q. And how did the sheriff respond during those meetings?
A. I don't think the sheriff fully understood the computer portion of this. So when we would explain what was taking so long, or what he needed, I don't think the sheriff fully understood all the computer parts of it, and he would often be [2854] impatient and wanting to know why Montgomery hadn't produced more. So that was a regular topic of discussion.
Q. Did the sheriff ever ask you about Judge Snow during any of your briefings with him?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. When was that?
A. It would have been on some of my briefings upon my return from Washington.
Q. And what did he ask you?
A. He would ask if any of the information that Montgomery had produced referenced Judge Snow.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. It never did.
Q. About how many times did he ask you whether the information produced referenced Judge Snow?
A. Probably only two or three times, because I would generally shut those conversations down and explain to him that we weren't looking into Judge Snow, so that's not the information we were seeking; subsequently, that's not the information we were getting.
Q. Was anyone else present at those meetings with Sheriff Arpaio?
A. Sometimes Mike Zullo, sometimes the chief deputy.
Q. No one else?
A. I don't believe so. [2855]
Q. Did anyone ever walk in and interrupt the meetings and join?
A. They did.
Q. Would you continue the meeting with other -- other folks present?
A. We would not.
Q. What about while you were in Seattle, did you ever call up Sheriff Arpaio and give an update on the progress?
A. Generally, when I was in Washington the sheriff would contact Mike Zullo. I may have spoke to him while I was there, I spoke to the sheriff on the phone, but generally it was Mike that spoke to him over the phone.
Q. Do you recall speaking with Sheriff Arpaio on the phone from Seattle?
A. I've had a lot of conversations with him on the phone. It's hard to differentiate which state I was in. I don't remember specifically.
Q. Are you saying it's hard to differentiate whether you spoke to him from Seattle versus from Phoenix?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did Sheriff Arpaio make it clear to you that the Seattle investigation was more important than your other responsibilities at MCSO?
A. He did.
Q. How did he do that? [2856]
A. I came into his office one day and he asked what I was doing there. I explained I was there to brief him, and he said: No, what are you doing in Arizona? I explained to him I still had a unit to run, and he said: This is more important than your unit.
Q. During the time you were on the investigation did you observe Mr. Zullo communicate with Sheriff Arpaio?
A. I did.
Q. And about how frequently did that occur?
A. I can think of two or three specific times where I recall seeing him on there, but Mike Zullo would be on the phone and I didn't necessarily know who he was on the phone with, so it could have been more.
Q. Did you observe that the sheriff called Mike Zullo almost every day for updates on what Mr. Montgomery was doing?
A. I don't think I could say that I observed him calling him every day.
Q. I'm going to play for you a portion of your deposition. Do you recall being deposed in this matter?
A. I do.
Q. In September of this year, I believe.
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. MORIN: If we could play, please -- and you can -- you have a transcript there. You can turn to it if you like. Page 50. Line 19 through 22. [2857]
A. Sorry. You said page 50?
Q. Yes. 50, line 19 through 22. So Mr. Klein, that is clip 18A.
A. I see it.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: How did you learn that the sheriff was calling asking for updates?
"Answer: Well, partially I would see the sheriff calling Zullo every day -- or virtually every day."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Sir, you gave that testimony at your deposition?
A. I did.
Q. Was that accurate at the time you said it?
A. I'll trust that my memory a few months ago or a month ago may have been more accurate than now. I remember seeing phone calls between the sheriff and Mike Zullo.
Q. Thank you.
Do you recall what you heard the sheriff and Mr. Zullo discussing during any those calls?
A. The best that I can recall right now is that -- Mike Zullo explaining to the sheriff what Montgomery was doing at that particular point or not doing at that particular point.
Q. Are you familiar with the free talk, the so-called free talk between Mr. Zullo and the state, or involving Mr. Zullo [2858] and the state attorney general?
A. Mr. Montgomery and the state attorney general?
Q. Sorry, I misspoke. My apologies.
Are you familiar with the free talk involving Mr. Montgomery and the state attorney general?
A. I am aware of it, yes.
Q. And in early 2014, while you were involved in the Seattle investigation, Mr. Montgomery was operating against some deadlines in relation to that interaction with the attorney general, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And these were deadlines for producing results to prove his allegations that the CIA was harvesting data from American citizens, is that right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And the deliverable on the deadlines that Mr. Montgomery was presented with was harvested phone records, bank records, things of that nature?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there meetings that you attended regarding those deadlines?
A. I explained to the sheriff that those deadlines would not be met by Mr. Montgomery. And in an effort to maintain the immunity potentially offered to him from the state Attorney General's Office, we would need an extension from that office. [2859]
Q. And what did the sheriff say in response to that?
A. Well, I requested permission to go to the Attorney General's Office and request that extension, and I was given permission to do so.
Q. And did Mr. Montgomery ever produce results pursuant to those deliverables?
A. He didn't do it in that time frame, and he didn't do it during the time frame that I was involved in the case.
Q. If you could look at Exhibit 2095, please.
Note. Ex. 2095 is listed as: E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery with a subject line "Phone" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199626-28).
And if we could put that on the monitor just for the witness and counsel, please. It is not in evidence.
Is this another e-mail you received from Mr. Zullo on January 8th, 2014?
A. It is.
MS. MORIN: Move for the admission of Exhibit 2095.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2095 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2095 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. If you could turn to the second page of e-mails, sir.
Do you see Mr. Zullo's e-mail to Mr. Montgomery, using the David Webb e-mail address, on January 8th at 2:26 p.m. on that page? [2860]
A. I do.
Q. Were you aware that Mr. Zullo was already facilitating obtaining an extension of Mr. Montgomery's deadline as early as January 2014?
A. I don't know that I knew that.
Q. Do you have an understanding of what the "BC" refers to in the first line of that e-mail?
A. The "BC" is the birth certificate, referring to President Obama's birth certificate.
Q. And was Mr. Montgomery also working on that investigation?
A. With Mike Zullo.
Q. If you could turn to Exhibit 2096, please.
Note. Ex. 2096 is listed as: E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin with the "Rand Paul" subject line (MELC199377-80).
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you see this is an e-mail from Mike Zullo to yourself on January 8th, 2014?
A. You know, I think we have the numbers mixed up with the e-mails that are inside of them. 2096 is a different one. The one you have on the screen is the one I was looking at previously.
Q. I apologize, sir.
Well, maybe we can just look at the one on the screen.
A. Okay.
Q. So are you with me at Exhibit 2096?
A. Yes. The one that's on the screen is what I have as Exhibit 2095. But I'm looking at the one on the screen, if [2861] that's what you're asking.
Q. Okay. So with respect to Exhibit 2096, is that an e-mail that you received from Mr. Zullo on January 8th?
A. Yes.
MS. MORIN: We move for the admission of Exhibit 2096.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2096 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2096 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. And do you see at the top Mike Zullo's e-mail says: "Sgt. I knew it was all BS. He is back in play. Working me for money."
Do you see that, sir?
A. I do see that e-mail, and for the record, it's in my folder that says 2095.
Q. Okay. Apologies.
Do you know what was happening prior to this January 8th, 2014 e-mail between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Zullo with respect to this comment?
A. I believe that's when Mr. Montgomery was explaining that he couldn't pay his Internet bill, and he would need the Internet in order to facilitate the requests by the Sheriff's Office, and so he needed more money in order to pay that bill. [2862]
Q. Sir, you did not want to keep paying Mr. Montgomery in early 2014 after he slipped a series of deadlines, is that correct?
A. It is.
Q. Did you tell that to the sheriff?
A. I did.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo have another opinion?
A. He did.
Q. So tell me what you told the sheriff.
A. There were many meetings during this time frame, but what I explained to the sheriff was that he wasn't producing, we were spending a great deal of money, and I didn't feel that this investigation we were doing would pass the headline test and I thought we should cut our losses and be done with it.
Q. What was Mr. Zullo's opinion?
A. Mr. Zullo vehemently disagreed with me and articulated that.
Q. Articulated that to the sheriff?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. How did the sheriff respond?
A. Well, we continued with the case.
Q. And the Sheriff's Office continued to pay Mr. Montgomery as a confidential informant during the time you were on the case, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am. [2863]
Q. Was there a time in May when you were removed from the case?
A. There was.
Q. I apologize, May 2014.
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. How did that occur?
A. Well, the chief deputy contacted me and told me that the sheriff no longer wanted me to have any -- anything to do with the case.
Q. Prior to that, had you attempted to remove Mr. Zullo from the investigation?
A. I did successfully remove him from the investigation for a short time.
Note. For additional information on this (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - April 2014.
Q. How did that happen?
A. Mr. Zullo had returned to Phoenix. I was in Phoenix, and there were conversations going back and forth between myself, Mike Zullo, Dennis Montgomery, and Brian Mackiewicz. And relationships were being strained and things were very tense, and I thought that Mike Zullo was overstepping his boundaries, and I felt that he was a detractor to the investigation.
So I called Mike and I told him that he wouldn't be returning back to Washington, and that I wasn't going to use him on the case any more. And then I called the sheriff and chief deputy and told them what I had done.
Q. When you called the sheriff, did you tell the sheriff that [2864] he should distance himself from Mike Zullo and Mr. Montgomery?
A. That was a different conversation.
Q. Okay. So when you called the sheriff at that time in -- was it early May 2014? -- what did you say?
A. And it may have been earlier than that; it may have been April when I removed Mr. Zullo from the case. But when I called the sheriff I explained to him that I didn't think it was productive to have him continue to go up there any more, I thought he was problematic. And the sheriff, at least in that conversation, said that he would support me on that, and I had to do what I had to do.
Q. And then what happened?
A. Mike Zullo returned to the case.
Q. Who put Mike Zullo back on the case?
A. Well, the only person that could give him the authority would have been the sheriff.
Q. So after the April 2014 conversation with the sheriff, did you have a subsequent conversation with the sheriff in approximately May 2014?
A. I did.
Q. Tell me about the May 2014 conversation.
Note. For additional information on this conversation and fallout (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - May 2014 and May 2014 (Part II).
A. I told the sheriff that I thought he should distance himself from Mike Zullo and Dennis Montgomery.
Q. And why is that?
A. I felt that both of them had credibility issues, and I felt [2865] that this case was going to turn into something that was going to be problematic for our office.
Q. How did Sheriff Arpaio respond?
A. He asked me who the fuck I thought I was.
Q. Are those his actual words that he used?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Forgive me, Your Honor.
Q. Did he say anything else?
A. He went on to explain to me that Mike Zullo was a good man, and that he had, in fact, solved the birth certificate case.
And I hadn't seen the case; therefore, I had no right to be speaking about somebody like that.
Q. So Mr. Zullo was back on the case as of May 2014?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You've had several occasions to observe the relationship between Mr. Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio, correct?
A. I was in a few meetings with the both of them, yes.
Q. And you've observed Mr. Zullo working on the investigation, on the Seattle investigation for Sheriff Arpaio, correct?
A. I did.
Q. Did you observe that Mr. Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio had a close relationship?
A. I was definitely left with the impression that Mike Zullo had the sheriff's ear.
Q. What gave you that impression? [2866]
A. Well, when a veteran investigator sergeant sits across from the sheriff and gives one opinion about what we should do and a volunteer Posseman sits next to him and gives another opinion, and we go with what the Posseman wanted, I got the impression that he had the sheriff's ear.
Q. What did Chief Deputy Sheridan tell you when you were removed from the case?
A. When I was removed from the case?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. He just simply told me that the sheriff didn't want me to be part of the case any more, and I said, Yes, sir.
Q. If you could turn, please, to Exhibit 2099.
Note. Ex. 2099 is listed as: E-mail from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to Travis Anglin with an E-mail chain attached, subject line "CIA" dated 7/17/2014 (MELC198244-45).
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you see this is an e-mail from Brian Mackiewicz dated July 17th, 2014?
A. I do.
Q. And is this an e-mail and a -- an e-mail chain that you received from Detective Mackiewicz?
A. It is.
Q. And also there's an e-mail that you sent to Detective Mackiewicz, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Carl Cameron is a political correspondent for Fox News, correct?
A. Yes, he is. [2867]
Q. And Carl Cameron is also the sender of one of the e-mails in the -- at the bottom of the e-mail chain.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
MS. MORIN: Move for the admission of Exhibit 2099.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation as to the initial e-mail from Mr. Cameron. And hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not being admitted for the truth, I don't think, so I'm going to overrule that objection and admit the exhibit.
MS. MORIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2099 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2099 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. MORIN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. So in July 2014 you were aware, sir, that Carl Cameron had been speaking with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Only after receiving this e-mail.
Q. You also have spoken -- or had spoken with Mr. Cameron, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And you've shared your assessment of Mr. Montgomery's credibility with Mr. Cameron?
A. I did.
Q. And that assessment changed over time, is that right? [2868]
A. It was solidified over time.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, it means, again, to be an impartial investigator, even if I had credibility concerns with him, I still had to assess as many of the facts that I had available to me. I couldn't just form an opinion and then -- then run with that. I had to work with what I had to see in front of me.
Q. So by the time of your last conversation with Carl Cameron prior to July 17, 2014, you had reached the opinion that you didn't believe Mr. Montgomery was credible, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you wrote, "I hope the sheriff sees this," in the second e-mail on Exhibit 2099.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, at this point Carl Cameron seemed to agree with my assessment about Dennis Montgomery, and shared that with him, and so I was hoping that the sheriff would, in fact, see that somebody else feels the same way about Montgomery as I did.
Q. Sir, if you could turn, please, to Exhibit 2900A.
Note: Ex. 2900A is listed as “(MELC185239-MELC185331).” Per testimony below, it is (part of?) the investigative file relating to Montgomery’s claims of CIA bank record hacking.
MS. MORIN: This is not in evidence. If it could just be shown on the screen for the witness, please, and counsel.
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
BY MS. MORIN: [2869]
Q. You're aware that Detective Mackiewicz at some point obtained a sample of about 40 or 50 names and bank account information from Mr. Montgomery's data, is that right?
Note. For additional information on this matter, see WYE Timeline - Before/Around July 2014.
A. Yes.
Q. And you and Detective Mackiewicz tasked a number of investigators with interviewing those individuals that you could find to try to corroborate Mr. Montgomery's data, is that right?
A. Well, to be clear, Detective Mackiewicz was tasked with getting investigators to do that. I provided the investigators because I wasn't allowed to be part of the case any more.
Q. Understood. Thank you for that clarification.
And did you provide the investigators with specific questions to ask --
A. Detective Mackiewicz did.
Q. And those investigators returned reports of the results of their investigations, correct?
A. They did.
Q. Do you recognize the documents in Exhibit 2900A as some of those reports and some attachments associated with those reports?
A. I do.
Q. And do you see your signature in this document?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. For example, at the bottom of the first page, is that your [2870] signature under -- or next to the words "reviewed by"?
A. It is.
Q. And do you see on the -- about the fourth page of this document, after the first report there's a page that's a spreadsheet?
A. Yes, ma'am.
MS. MORIN: If that could be blown up a little bit.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Do you recognize that spreadsheet page?
A. I do.
Q. What's that?
A. That is a sampling of the type of information Dennis Montgomery would provide us.
MS. MORIN: Would move for the admission of Exhibit 2900A.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Foundation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What do you think is lacking?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Well, he provided investigators. His signature's on there, but Detective Mackiewicz handled this investigation. And actually, there's testimony that he actually provided the questions. I don't believe that detective -- excuse me, Sergeant Anglin has the foundation to -- it's also 94 pages of a report that he didn't prepare.
THE COURT: Do you want to attempt to lay a little foundation, see if you can get it? [2871]
MS. MORIN: Sure, Your Honor.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Sergeant Tennyson [sic], you already testified about your signature on the first page, correct?
A. I did.
Q. And you recognize the spreadsheet that follows that first report as the information -- or the sampling of names?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. If you turn to the next report in this series it's at MELC185246. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Is that your signature on that report as well?
A. It is.
Q. And a few pages in at page MELC185250, do you see that?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Are those the questions that were given to the investigators to ask the individuals?
A. Those are --
MR. POPOLIZIO: Objection, foundation.
BY MS. MORIN:
Q. Do you know whether that's the list of questions that the investigators were given?
A. I believe they are.
Q. And that's the list, right?
A. Yes, ma'am. [2872]
Q. And after the list of questions, there's another report on page 253.
A. I see it.
Q. That report also has your signature at the bottom, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And if you flip through the rest of the document, you see a series of reports. Do you see your signature as the reviewer on the subsequent reports in this document?
A. I do.
Q. Did you review all these reports before you signed them?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And in some cases your -- your name is actually typed into the report as a reviewer, correct?
A. It is.
Q. And are these reports kept in the ordinary course by the Sheriff's Office as part of the investigation?
A. They are.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, we move for the admission of 2900A.
MR. POPOLIZIO: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: 2900A is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2900A is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. MORIN: [2873]
Q. Sir, did the group of investigators, to your knowledge, ever complete their interviews of these potential victims?
A. They did.
Q. When did that happen?
A. According to the date that I see on the supplements here, it was July 1, 2014, for at least one particular report.
Q. Are you aware of the date that all of the interviews were completed?
A. Not off the top of my head, no.
Q. Are you aware of whether the interviews have ever been completed?
A. I believe that of the names that were provided to us, at least most of them were contacted and interviewed. I think there may have been some that couldn't be located.
Q. And to your knowledge, was Judge Snow on the list of individuals that any of these investigators were tasked with calling up?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. Did you ever see any banking information associated with Judge Snow's name among any of the banking information provided to you by Mr. Montgomery?
A. I did not.
MS. MORIN: Your Honor, if I could have a moment.
THE COURT: You may.
(Pause in proceedings.) [2874]
MS. MORIN: Thank you, sir. That's all the questions I have for you.
THE COURT: Mr. Popolizio? Or is it Mr. Masterson? It's you, Mr. Popolizio? Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
DEFENSE COUNSEL JOSEPH POPOLIZIO:
[2874]
Q. Good afternoon, Sergeant Anglin.
A. Sir.
Q. Just a moment ago there were some questions asked about contacting potential victims. You recall that, right?
A. I do.
Q. All right. And the contacting of potential victims that was just discussed, they were potential victims of what?
A. Identity theft.
Q. Identity theft of a particular kind?
A. In this case, banking information.
Q. Okay. And the potential victims of identity theft that we're referring to at this -- at this moment, those names came from whom?
A. Detective Mackiewicz. I'm sorry, the names were provided by Dennis Montgomery. The names of people to be interviewed were provided by Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. Okay. So the list of names in the Exhibit 2900A that we were just looking at, they came from Mr. Montgomery?
A. Yes, sir. [2875]
Q. Were those the list of names in the report that is 2900A, do you know if they were all of the potential victims that Mr. Montgomery -- names of potential victims that Mr. Montgomery provided?
A. Those were not all of the names.
Q. Did you ever look at every name on the entire list of potential victims that Mr. Montgomery provided?
A. No, sir. There were thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of names provided.
Q. Did you specifically look for Judge Snow's name on that list?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you take part in creating this list of names of people to be contacted in this report?
A. No, sir.
Q. But you know that certain people were contacted as a result of names that were provided by Dennis Montgomery?
A. I do.
Q. And who selected those -- those individuals to be contacted as potential victims?
A. Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. And were those potential victims in Maricopa County, Arizona?
A. All but a couple, I believe.
Q. Okay. Where were the others? [2876]
A. Mohave County, I believe.
Q. Okay. But still in the state of Arizona?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you testified that you knew that some individuals were contacted.
A. I do.
Q. Were all of the individuals contacted?
A. Were all of the individuals that Detective Mackiewicz selected contacted?
Q. Yes.
A. Again, my memory leads me to believe that there may have been one or two that couldn't be located, but I believe the majority were contacted.
Q. And you provided the investigators to Detective Mackiewicz to contact these individuals.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many detectives -- excuse me. How many investigators were selected to complete this task?
A. I would really have to look at the supplements to total them up, but I believe there were maybe eight or ten.
Q. And how many names, if you recall, were in the sample to be contacted?
A. Forty or fifty.
Q. Now, as a result of these investigators contacting these individuals, did any of the information that Mr. Montgomery [2877] provided pan out?
A. Some people interviewed reported that the information they were asked about was consistent with their banking habits. For example, how much money they may have had in the bank at a particular time, checks that may have been written at a particular time. So some of the people said that the information that we asked them about was consistent with their banking habits.
Q. Did some of the people recognize that they had accounts in the institutions that were provided by Dennis Montgomery associated with their names?
A. I don't remember that specific of information, what was in those reports.
Q. But to be fair, you didn't interview any of those people.
A. I did not.
Q. So we would have to rely on that report.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would we have to rely on the investigators who conducted the interviews of these potential victims?
A. We would.
Q. Now, you testified that sometimes Mr. Montgomery would provide phone logs and spreadsheets with phone numbers on them and lengths of calls.
Do you remember that?
A. I do. [2878]
Q. When he would provide this information to you as an investigator, did you follow up on any of it?
A. We did.
Q. You did? And what did you do?
A. It was mainly Detective Mackiewicz, but we would call some of the numbers, ask for the person whose name might be listed, and see if that number did in fact belong to them. If it was information about a business, we might look it up in open source formats to determine if that business really existed.
Q. And was that just done in the normal course of your investigative duties?
A. Yes.
MS. COE: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. I mean, I'm sorry, leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll allow that one.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. There's also some testimony, some questioning about a $100,000 computer, or a computer that Mr. Montgomery desired.
Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. Did Mr. Montgomery request a $100,000 to build a computer?
A. Ultimately, no.
Q. Ultimately. Did he initially?
A. He mentioned that it might be necessary in order to facilitate our request. [2879]
Q. Did MCSO ever give Mr. Montgomery $100,000 to build a computer?
MS. MORIN: Objection, foundation.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. If you know.
THE COURT: You want to lay some foundation? If you know, you can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: No, we did not.
THE COURT: Well, I guess --
MR. POPOLIZIO: I could lay it, Your Honor, if you want me to.
THE COURT: Yeah, would you please.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. You were involved in an investigation referred to as the Seattle investigation?
A. I was.
Q. And that involved Mr. Montgomery, a Dennis Montgomery?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also had -- did you have any knowledge with regard to payments made to Mr. Montgomery in this investigation?
A. I did.
Q. Did you sometimes have to deliver money to Mr. Montgomery?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. In any of the times that you delivered any money to Mr. Montgomery, did you provide him with $100,000 to build a [2880] computer?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know of anybody else that was involved in the investigation that did that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
THE COURT: I take it that's during the time that Mr. Anglin was involved.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Absolutely.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. And outside of that time, do you have, to your knowledge, any information that anybody at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office provided $100,000 to Mr. Montgomery to build a computer?
A. I do not.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. POPOLIZIO: Bear with me, Sergeant.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Were there times during your -- the time period that you were involved in the investigation that we're referring to, were there times that Dennis Montgomery attempted to entice MCSO investigators with information unrelated to the focus of this investigation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what would he try to provide you with?
A. Information about the President's birth certificate. [2881]
Q. What would you do with that information?
A. I wouldn't do anything with it. Any time that topic came up, myself and I would order Detective Mackiewicz to leave the room.
Q. Now, you worked with Detective Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo on this investigation?
A. I did.
Q. What was the focus of the Seattle investigation?
A. To determine whether or not the CIA had illegally harvested information from the American public, and whether or not Dennis Montgomery was in possession of that information.
Q. Okay. And explain to me what you mean by illegally harvesting information.
A. Information was collected about phone records, e-mails, and bank account information -- allegedly -- by the CIA, with software designed by Dennis Montgomery. Dennis Montgomery allegedly captured some of that information on hard drives, and subsequently stole those hard drives from the CIA.
Q. Going back to the harvesting of information, as a law enforcement officer, would the harvesting, if you know, of information by the CIA of American citizens be illegal?
A. I believe it is.
Q. As a law enforcement professional, law enforcement officer, is that something of the type that a local law enforcement agency could investigate? [2882]
MS. COE: I'm going to object as lacking in foundation, Your Honor.
MS. MORIN: Join.
THE COURT: You want to lay foundation for that?
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. How long have you been a law enforcement officer?
A. About 18 years.
Q. And all that 18 years you were with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you've participated in some investigations, haven't you?
A. Some, indeed.
Q. Okay. You've actually investigated and you have experience investigating financial crimes, right?
A. I do.
Q. Homicides?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other types of investigations?
A. Violent crimes, property crimes.
Q. In your experience as a professional law -- professional law enforcement officer, if an agency of the federal government is illegally harvesting information of United States citizens, would that be a crime?
MS. COE: Objection, lacking foundation. [2883]
MS. MORIN: Join.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Mr. Montgomery gave you information that he claimed that the CIA was investigating citizens in the United States, is that right?
A. Not necessarily investigating, but taking information from.
Q. Okay. And what type of information were they taking?
A. Phone logs, e-mails, and bank records.
Q. And Mr. Montgomery was working with the CIA, as he stated to you?
A. He said he had worked for the CIA at one point.
Q. Did you ever confirm that?
A. No, sir.
Q. But the focus of the Seattle investigation was about the CIA harvesting financial and personal records of United States citizens, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And specifically were those citizens in the state of Arizona?
A. Some of them were.
Q. Okay. Any in Maricopa County?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many in Maricopa County, if you recall?
A. Tens of thousands, but I don't remember the exact name -- [2884] or the number.
Q. How many in the state of Arizona?
A. I really don't remember.
Q. Was it over a hundred thousand?
A. I believe it could have been.
Q. Was it over 200,000?
A. I'd be really guessing at this point.
Q. Now, did you have any conversations with Sheriff's Office personnel regarding the Seattle investigation?
A. I did.
Q. And those conversations included conversations with the sheriff?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With the chief deputy?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Zullo?
A. Yes.
Q. Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Captain Bailey?
A. Yes.
Q. During any of the conversations that you had with MCSO personnel regarding the Seattle investigation, were you ever ordered to investigate Judge Snow?
A. No. [2885]
Q. Were you ever ordered by anybody at MCSO in any conversation, were you ever ordered to investigate Eric Holder?
A. No.
Q. Department of Justice?
A. No, sir.
Q. Covington & Burling?
A. No.
Q. Do you even know who Covington & Burling is?
A. Well, I do now.
Q. Okay. And they're plaintiffs' law firm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you ever speak with Chief Deputy Sheridan regarding what the scope of the Seattle investigation was?
A. I did.
Q. And this was after this January 2nd meeting?
Okay. When you spoke to Chief Deputy Sheridan about this investigation, did you inquire at that time, after the meeting, what it was that you were to be investigating in Seattle?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And what did he say to you?
A. As I testified to earlier, the first specific question I asked is: Are you asking me to investigate a federal judge?
Q. And what did he say?
A. And I believe his quote was: On no uncertain terms are you [2886] to investigate Judge Snow or the birth certificate.
Q. And you took that as an order from the chief deputy?
A. I did.
Q. And why?
A. He's my chief deputy and it's pretty clear direction.
Q. Did this order include Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it include other investigators on that investigation in Seattle?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you were in Seattle, any time during your participation in this investigation did you witness anyone doing anything that would indicate that an investigation of Judge Snow was occurring?
A. I did not.
Q. How about -- well, any time that you were in Seattle did you witness anybody involved in this investigation doing anything that would indicate an investigation was occurring regarding the Department of Justice?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or Eric Holder.
A. No.
Q. Or Covington & Burling
A. No, sir.
Q. Or anybody that you could think of. [2887]
A. No.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Okay. Thank you, sir.
* * *
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT
Q. You indicated that at points, Mr. Montgomery would try to entice you by holding out a birth certificate investigation possibility?
A. To be clear, Your Honor, he would try to entice Mr. Zullo, 'cause he was the only one interested in that case. He claimed to have software to show that the birth certificate was, in fact, a fraud.
Q. And you indicated, I believe, in testimony, that when that happened, you would direct Detective Mackiewicz to leave the room?
A. And myself. We would both leave.
Q. But Mr. Zullo would remain in the room?
A. He would.
Q. And so you don't know what happened? [2888]
A. I do not.
Q. How often would that happen?
A. I think it happened two or three times.
THE COURT: Thank you.
* * *
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 12 - Oct. 9, 2015 (pages 2712-2962).
