Excerpts from MCSO Sheriff Arpaio's Oct. 1, 2015 Testimony during the Melendres Contempt Evidentiary Hearings (Transcript) regarding Dennis Montgomery and the MCSO's Seattle Operation, with selected notes.*
See also, Arpaio's Apr. 23, Sept. 30, Oct. 2, and Oct. 8 Testimony.
ARPAIO DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY STANLEY YOUNG
[2050] Q. Sheriff, I'm going to show you an exhibit, which is an Arizona Republic article dated June 28, 2012. It has a quotation from you in it, and I'm going to ask you to take a look at it. It should be in a folder on your table or we can put it up on the screen.
Actually, let's put it up on the screen, if Your Honor will permit.
THE COURT: What's the exhibit number?
MR. YOUNG: 2283.
Now, if we can blow that up a little bit on the screen. And feel free to scroll down. Actually, let the sheriff read the whole thing.
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to read the whole thing?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Yes, you can go ahead and read the whole thing if you'd like. I'm going to ask you some questions, and it might be better if you read the whole thing.
A. Yes.
Q. Sheriff, before the trial in this action in 2012 -- and in particular around June 28, 2012, the date of that article -- you knew that Judge Snow's brother-in-law worked at the [2051] Covington & Burling law firm, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: What is the relevance? We've already dealt with this in context -- in the context of the motion to recuse. I've denied that motion.
MR. YOUNG: Understood, Your Honor. This relates to the sheriff's state of mind later on with respect to the Montgomery investigation.
THE COURT: Well, how does it relate to the Montgom- -- oh, the Montgomery investigation?
MR. YOUNG: Correct.
THE COURT: Are you going to be able to tie this up?
MR. YOUNG: I believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to give you a limited leeway, but it's very limited. We're not reopening the motion to recuse that I've already ruled on.
MR. YOUNG: Understood.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Did you know that fact, in June 2012, Sheriff, that Judge Snow's brother-in-law worked at Covington & Burling?
A. It may have -- I didn't pay much attention to it, but let me just say this. My advice of my lawyer that we would not oppose this.
Q. The Arizona Republic story quotes you as saying, quote, I'm confident in this judge and the judicial system, and I'm not [2052] asking for the judge to be removed from this case.
Was that an accurate quotation?
A. On advice of my lawyer, yes.
Q. Now, you testified in the trial that happened in this case following that story. The trial was in July and early August 2012, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There was evidence presented on both sides, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Then the judge made a decision in May 2013 that your office violated the Constitution, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then in October -- specifically October 2, 2013 – Judge Snow issued a supplemental injunction where he decided he was going to require certain changes in your office, and that would include appointment of a monitor to oversee those changes. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that same month you, for the first time, heard about Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. You had a meeting with Timothy Blixseth, Mike Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, where you talked about Mr. Montgomery, who was someone who used to work for a federal intelligence agency, correct? [2053]
A. I'm not sure as to the date, but I believe we did meet.
Note. For additional information about Arpaio's 2013 meeting with Blixseth (including information indicating that this was not Arpaio's first meeting with Blixseth) see WYE Timeline - Oct. 18, 2013.
Q. Okay. Let's take a look at Exhibit 2858.
Note. Ex. 2858 is listed as: Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC1397031-MELC1397042).
THE COURT: Was that 2858?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. And I'll tell you, Sheriff, this is a -- has a cover sheet that indicates it's your office's response to July 22, 2015 monitor document request related to ITR 25.
Do you have Exhibit 2858 in front of you, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And if you look at the third page, MELC662425, do you see a document with your signature on it?
A. Do I have the right -- is it 2858?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. That is your signature on that page?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is this your office's response to the monitor's requests for documents, identifying dates, times, et cetera -- and I'm paraphrasing the first page -- relating to the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'd move for the admission of 2858.
MR. MASTERSON: Well, if he's moving in that one page [2054] that the sheriff signed, I have no objection; if it's the rest of the document, foundation.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, the -- would you like argument on that?
* * *
Your Honor, the sheriff has identified this document, Exhibit 2858, as his office's response to the monitor's request for information relating to dates, times, et cetera, of meetings relating to the Seattle investigation, and I think there's foundation for that in that testimony.
THE COURT: Let me go back and see what his – what your question and his actual testimony was.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I want to point out that you'll note once you get down to I believe page 8 or 9, that we're seeing different signature lines from different people that are not this witness.
MR. YOUNG: That's true, but the sheriff is able to specify that his office responded --
THE COURT: Do you know what, gentlemen? From now on, [2055] I'm going to strictly enforce my rule about one- or two-word objections. If you really feel like you need to expound, then we'll do it at sidebar, which I hate to do. And the congregation over there is as big as the rest of the crowd so we might as well do it in open -- but I'm not going to do it in open court.
So I'm going to look and see what the sheriff's testimony was. Please give me a minute.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2858 is admitted into evidence.)
THE CLERK: That's 2858?
THE COURT: 2858 is admitted.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, if you look at the page with the last three digits on the bottom right, 430 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you'll see something that has a date of October 18, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And actually, up at the top, Amy Lake, does she maintain your calendar in Outlook?
A. Yes.
Q. The note says that you had an interview with Brian Mackiewicz here in your office. Do you see that? [2056]
A. Yes.
Q. Is that when you met with Detective Mackiewicz, Mr. Zullo, and Timothy Blixseth with respect to Dennis Montgomery?
A. It could be.
Q. It could also be a different meeting. Is that what you're saying?
A. No, I only recall one meeting who would -- the parties you are talking about. The party. "Blispit" or whatever his name is.
Q. That meeting was in your office at your headquarters?
A. I believe we met in a conference room --
Q. And --
A. -- probably Wells Fargo.
Q. And Mr. Blixseth told you that he had been in contact with an individual who had been employed by a federal intelligence agency, is that right?
A. I believe that he said that, but he had a lot of information to turn over.
Q. What information did he have to turn over?
A. It had to do with thousands of computer information penetrating the banking system, obtaining ID, money transactions, many other private issues from people in the county, I believe 150,000, and elsewhere in this state.
Q. Was Judge Snow mentioned during that meeting?
A. No. [2057]
Q. Mr. Blixseth during that meeting explained that – to you -- that the former intelligence agency employee had developed different software programs in order to gather large amounts of data surreptitiously for the United States Government, is that right?
A. I'm not sure if he said for who or what, but I was concerned about the number of names or victims that was penetrated. That was my main concern.
Q. And that was a large amount of personal data that you talked about, including banking information, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Blixseth provide you and Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz with some memory sticks that contained information that he said had been collected by the U.S. Government?
A. Yes.
Q. After that meeting, you directed Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to work with Mr. Montgomery, the former intelligence agency employee, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You directed Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to go to Seattle to work with Mr. Montgomery, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew that that person was Dennis Montgomery. Did you know the name at that point? [2058]
A. I'm not sure if they mentioned that at the -- at that meeting, his name. I'm a little confused who connected who but eventually, of course, we knew what his name was.
Q. You actually met Mr. Montgomery yourself at the beginning of the investigation, is that right?
A. I think he came here and we had a short meeting at a hotel; I don't recall where.
Q. Did Judge Snow's name come up in that conversation?
A. No.
Q. Approximately how long after your meeting with Mr. Blixseth where Dennis Montgomery was first mentioned did you actually meet with Mr. Montgomery himself? Was it within a few days? A few weeks?
A. You know, I don't recall the time span when that meeting took place.
Q. But it was way at the beginning of the investigation, is that right?
A. I believe so.
Q. Now, prior to the beginning of this investigation involving Mr. Montgomery, you had worked with both Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz on the birth certificate investigation, correct?
A. I believe mainly Mr. Zullo. I'm not sure what Mackiewicz got involved in it.
Q. Well, as to Mr. Zullo, you had worked with him for several [2059] years on that investigation, is that correct?
A. I believe we started in 2011.
Q. So by October 2013, you had worked with him for a couple of years, maybe, correct?
A. With Zullo?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you had confidence in Detective Mackiewicz due to the work that he had done in helping protect you personally from threats, correct?
A. Yes. I think he probably was very important to me personally, and my wife, because we arrested many people accusing to kill me, and convicted, they were convicted, so I had to respect his tenacity to get these people brought to justice.
Q. Later on, not at the outset, but later on, you and Chief Sheridan also decided to have Sergeant Travis Anglin help and work with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Zullo, and Detective Mackiewicz, is that right?
A. I think the chief deputy knew the background of the sergeant on fraud and that type of investigative technique, so decided to send him up to work with the other two.
Q. When you say "fraud," that was banking fraud, is that correct, that you decided, or maybe Chief Sheridan decided, based on Sergeant Anglin's experience with banking fraud, to [2060] have him help with the investigation, is that right?
A. I'm not sure whether it was just banking, but fraudulent activity he was knowledgeable of.
Q. Are you finished with your answer?
Note. For additional information re: Anglin's assignment to the Seattle Operation (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Dec. 30, 2013.
A. I think I answered your questions.
Q. Could you take a look at Exhibit 2255, Sheriff. 2255. And we can put it on the screen, actually, if that would help.
Note. P. Ex 2255 is listed as "NY Times Article "Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security" by Eric Lichtblau and James [Risen] dated 2/9/2011 (MELC184881-85) (link added).
Exhibit 2255, just for identification, is a New York Times article dated February 18, 2011. You saw that article in the time that you were working or that your people were working with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. I don't recall when I read it. I'm sure it wasn't that date that was on the article. Must have been sometime after.
Q. Was it pretty early on in the time that your people were working with Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall the time span.
Q. The article is about Mr. Montgomery, and says various things about his history with other government agencies.
You recall having that information during the time that the Montgomery investigation was going on?
A. It may have come up. Once again, I don't remember when I read that article.
Q. You did read that article, though.
A. I believe I did. [2061]
MR. YOUNG: Okay. Your Honor, I move --
THE WITNESS: I'm sure if I read that one I know there is another one.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. Your Honor, I move to admit Exhibit 2255 not for the truth of the matters asserted within it, but to show what the sheriff read with respect to Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2255 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you were --
THE COURT: Wait a second. Wait a second.
Now, exhibit admitted.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you were supervising Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz in the investigation going on in Seattle involving Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. I don't know, you keep saying "supervising." I was briefed by them verbally, nothing in writing. And I'm not a computer expert. In fact, I don't have a computer. Never used a computer in my life. So I'm not very knowledgeable about computers or the -- the English around computers.
So they're the ones that were using Montgomery with the computers, and I sort of let them do what they felt was [2062] right, because I didn't understand most of the time what they were talking about when you're dealing with computers.
Q. Did you let them know that you wanted to receive verbal reports from them on what they were doing with respect to Mr. Montgomery?
A. Yeah, they let me know verbally what they were doing, and I believed in their judgment and they did their job.
Q. But you directed them to give you those updates, right?
A. I don't know about directing. They would call me and give me an idea what was going on.
Q. And would you tell them, Thanks very much. Please keep me informed about what you're doing?
A. Well, I don't think I had to tell them. They did tell me on occasions what was going on.
Q. Well, you originally sent them to go work with Mr. Montgomery. Did that initial assignment include giving you updates on what they were doing with Mr. Montgomery?
A. Yes, they were verbally giving me updates.
Q. And you got those status updates periodically from Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about their work with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, you would make appointments to meet with Mr. Zullo at your office at particular times when he was in Phoenix, correct? [2063]
A. I didn't meet with him very often, in my office or anywhere else, but did a few times.
Q. A few times you did make appointments to meet Mr. Zullo about what he was doing with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then other times you talked with him by phone, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That occurred throughout the course of the investigation, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Now, at the same time, you were also in frequent contact with Mr. Zullo about the birth certificate investigation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There would be times when you would talk to Mr. Zullo in the same telephone call or meeting about both what Mr. Montgomery was doing and the birth certificate investigation, correct?
A. You know, I don't recall. I think our phone calls had to do with mainly the birth certificate.
Q. So you had -- you would have phone calls that were specifically devoted to what Montgomery was doing, and then other phone calls relating to the birth certificate?
A. I believe that when we did talk, it had quite a bit to do [2064] with the birth certificate.
Q. Okay. Was there ever --
A. I'm not saying it was not intermingled, I don't recall that, but I know that when we're talking about the birth certificate, it was sort of really separate.
Q. During the course of your discussions with Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz, you became aware of a number of hard drives containing information -- and there may be 50 of them -- that Mr. Montgomery said that he had collected, is that right?
A. I think they discussed that with me.
Q. I'm going to show you now Exhibit 2074A [PDF], which has been previously admitted, so I'll ask the Court's permission to publish it.
Note. For additional information on this exhibit (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Nov. 5, 2013.
THE COURT: You may do so.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. This is information that came to you and originated from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Do you see the fax line up at the top that says November 5, 2013, at 10:22 a.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, going to the bottom of the page, do you see another number there, 602-251-3877?
A. Yes. [2065]
Q. Okay. That's your fax number, isn't it?
A. You may not believe it. I never did check it out even to this day, so if you say it is, it probably is.
Q. Well, let's look at Exhibit 92.
Note. Ex. 92 is listed as: Letter to Charlie Armendariz from Joseph Arpail dated 4/23/2011 (MELC0046666).
And actually, if we can put both exhibits on the --Well, 92 has not been admitted, but let's take a look at 92, Sheriff, and not publish 92 yet.
Sheriff, Exhibit 92 is a letter that you wrote on April 23, 2012, commending Charley Armendariz, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 92.
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: Exhibit 92 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 92 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So now let's put and publish -- with Your Honor's permission -- both Exhibit 2074A and Exhibit 92.
And if we look at the top of Exhibit 92, will you agree with me that that fax number that's listed as being yours is the same as the fax number at the bottom of Exhibit --
A. Yes.
Q. -- 2074A? [2066]
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the fax number at the bottom of Exhibit 2074, that's not your handwriting, is that correct?
A. I don't believe it is.
Q. Now, let's go back up to the top of Exhibit 2074A, and we can put away Exhibit 92.
I'm going to show you -- and I want you to focus on the fax number that's shown here, 425-502-7617, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's look at Exhibit 2880. And again, this has not been admitted and I'm -- therefore, should not be publish.
If we go to page 2 of Exhibit 2880 --
And I'll tell you that this is from a super reverse lookup for telephone numbers.
Actually, before we get to the specific page, does your office use databases to track down information on phone numbers? During your investigations do you ever have occasion to try to find out who owns a particular phone number?
A. I believe our detectives do.
Q. Okay. And so you -- you rely on that kind of information to give your office or to give your deputies data that's relevant to the investigations that they're doing, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So if we look at page 2 of Exhibit 2880, about in [2067] the middle of the page do you see the name Dennis Montgomery associated with the phone number that's on the top of Exhibit --
A. Yes.
Q. -- 2074A? You do see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that remind you that on November 5, 2013, you received from Mr. Montgomery by fax Exhibit 2074A?
A. Can't see the connection there.
Q. Well, you'd agree with me that the phone number listed for Mr. Montgomery and the phone number in the fax line on 2074A are the same, right?
A. Where is the -- the last number you mentioned on this form?
Q. Well, I think we have some arrows pointing to the numbers on the screen in front of you.
Do you see those two numbers?
A. Yes.
Q. And both of them are 425-502-7617. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that remind you that on November 5, 2013, you received this page, 2074A, on November 5, 2013, from Mr. Montgomery by fax?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Montgomery to send you this page?
A. No. [2068]
Q. That is your handwriting on the fourth line down where it seems to say C-R-I-M question mark, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that a reference to? What were you thinking when you wrote that on this page?
A. I think at the time the Department of Justice was investigating me, my office, criminally. And I was just confused and wanted to know in my own mind whether this had anything to do with the criminal investigation. Which, by the way, it didn't go anywhere.
Q. You see the reference in the third line to this lawsuit? Where it says ACLU files Melendres lawsuit against Arpaio?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you also see references to the Department of Justice and to two officials in that department who used to be at Covington & Burling, correct?
A. Yes. I didn't -- I didn't do this. The informer sent this to me. Had nothing to do with this.
Q. You looked at it at the time, correct?
A. I briefed through it, and the main thing that came out in my head -- not saying it was true; in fact, I don't even know if any of this is true -- but it had my telephone number and the chief deputy's cell phone numbers with "Wiretap DOJ."
Q. Which one of those is your phone number?
A. Do I have to give it out to the whole audience? [2069]
Q. Well --
A. It's my cell phone.
Q. -- there's a -- maybe you can just tell me -- there are two lines there that say DOJ Wiretap, correct?
A. It has a wiretap number, whatever that is, and then it has my phone number. And I will say 602-920; maybe I can leave the other four out.
Q. Okay. Well, one of them is yours, and one of them is or was Chief Sheridan's, is that right?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Can you indicate by the wiretap number which one was yours? See the two wiretap entries have different numbers --
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. It's the -- it's
the -- ends with 34, the number.
THE COURT: That's yours?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, there are some other references, the bottom part of that page relating to the Melendres lawsuit and Covington & Burling, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then at the very bottom of the page there's a reference to that October 2, 2013 date that we talked about earlier where [2070] the judge decided to impose some further injunctive remedies, including a monitor, correct?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, I don't know, but it's probably a time to look for a good breaking spot. We're about --
MR. YOUNG: This would be a fine time for a break, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll take the morning break[.] We'll be back in 15 minutes. Thank you very much.
(Recess taken.)
See also, Arpaio's Apr. 23, Sept. 30, Oct. 2, and Oct. 8 Testimony.
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 9 (pages 2007-2247).
