Excerpts from MCSO Sheriff Arpaio's Oct. 2, 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 Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 8 Testimony.
ARPAIO DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY STANLEY YOUNG
[2261] Q. Sheriff, we're going to turn back to the exhibit we were looking at when we ended your testimony yesterday. It's 2074A [PDF].
Note. For additional information on this exhibit (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Nov. 5, 2013.
And I'm going to ask that the top part and the bottom part be [2262] displayed on the screen and published.
You have the full piece of paper there if you want to take a look at it. And the part that we're omitting is the parts with the DOJ wiretap references that are about in the middle of the page.
Do you see that on the screen?
And maybe we'll need to pull the top -- so we can see the top of the top part, Mr. Klein. So we can see the top of the page. We'll start with that.
Now, did you give your fax number to Mr. Montgomery so that he could fax this page to you?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Did you have someone else do that?
A. It probably could have been my secretary.
Q. Who was your secretary at that time?
A. Amy Lake.
Q. Is the fax machine to which this document was faxed located near your office in your -- near your desk?
A. I believe it's in her office.
Q. So was this faxed to your fax number and then Ms. Lake brought it to you?
A. I would imagine she did, yes.
Q. Did you have her go wait at the fax machine, or did you go to the fax machine yourself to wait to get this document?
A. No. [2263]
Q. How many fax machines are associated with that number?
A. I don't know if that's the only one or not.
Q. Now, you'll note at the top of the page that it says page 1 of 2 in the upper-right-hand corner?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall getting two pages from Mr. Montgomery on November 5th, 2013?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what the second page is?
A. No.
Q. After you got the fax, what did you do with it? Aside from writing it -- writing the word "crim question mark" on it.
A. I'm not sure what I did with it. I may have shown it to the chief deputy, because his name was also on it as a wiretap.
Q. You mean his number?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you show it to Chief Deputy Sheridan the same day that you received it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Approximately how long after you received the fax did you show it to Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. I'm sure it was not a long time span.
Q. Did you show it to anyone else?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you make copies of it? [2264]
A. I may have made copies.
Q. What did you do with the copies?
A. It's in my file.
Q. Are you aware, aside from Chief Deputy Sheridan, of anyone else in your office who saw Exhibit 2074A [PDF]?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, the third line of the exhibit mentions this lawsuit.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss this lawsuit with Timothy Blixseth?
A. With who?
Q. Timothy Blixseth, the person that you met in October 2013 when you first heard about Dennis Montgomery.
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Did you ever talk about the Melendres lawsuit with Dennis Montgomery?
A. With him?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recall; I don't believe I did.
Q. Now, you said that you met Mr. Montgomery at some point at the -- way back at the beginning at a hotel in Phoenix, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure it was Phoenix or Scottsdale, but it was some hotel.
Q. Did you meet Mr. Montgomery in person before or after you [2265] received this November 5, 2013 fax from him?
A. You know, I'm not sure if it was before or after. It had to be around that time, I believe.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Montgomery got the information about the Melendres lawsuit that's listed on the time line?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Did Detective Mackiewicz or Mr. Zullo give him that information?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That you know of.
A. I don't know.
Q. The item for March 15, 2009, refers to a Joel Fox search warrant issued at Arizona Attorney General.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Blixseth, Mr. Zullo, or Detective Mackiewicz about that?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why that's on this time line?
A. Well, a lot of things I don't know why it's on the -- the time line. It gives me an impression they have been reading a lot of newspapers or so on.
Q. What was your understanding at the time you received this fax of Mr. Montgomery's purpose in sending it to you? [2266]
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you talk to anyone after receiving it? Aside from Chief Deputy Sheridan.
A. Well, I may have talked to Zullo, and probably Brian Mackiewicz, being concern about the wiretap.
Q. You talked to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about Exhibit 2074A [PDF] at around the time or very shortly after you received it, correct?
A. I may have.
Q. Did you discuss all the items on the time line with Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz after you received the time line?
A. My main concern was the -- the wiretap allegations with the number next to it. That was my concern.
Q. Did you talk to them about any of the other items on the time line?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. How about Chief Sheridan?
A. No, I gave him the copy had to do with the wiretap.
Q. Please tell me everything you can remember about your discussion with Chief Sheridan when you showed him this time line, Exhibit 274A -- 2074A [PDF].
A. The main discussion was his name and phone number and my name and phone number.
Q. You don't remember anything else – [2267]
A. No.
Q. -- about your discussion with him?
I'm going to ask you about the two lines with the wiretap information that have your and Chief Sheridan's phone numbers. It's not on the screen; you can feel free to look at the piece of paper if you would like.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. It is on the screen.
MR. YOUNG: Well, actually, at the moment --
THE COURT: Oh, then phone numbers --
MR. YOUNG: Phone numbers are not on the screen.
And actually, I'll ask that this top part, which does not have the phone numbers, be published, Your Honor, since this --
THE COURT: Well, it has been published. It was just taken off. Are you going to show those phone numbers?
MR. YOUNG: No.
THE COURT: All right.
Then you can return back to the screen, Kathleen.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I had a discussion with Mr. Young this morning, and he does not object, if the Court agrees, that we could redact those numbers from the --
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that makes sense --
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: -- redact those numbers.
I don't think it makes sense to redact -- to redact [2268] the wiretap identification number, but the personal numbers of Chief Sheridan and Chief Arpaio -- or Sheriff Arpaio I think should be redacted. I have no problem with that.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So you recall there are some phone numbers there with DOJ wiretap references on the time line, correct, Sheriff? That's what you were focusing on at the time?
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. Yes. I'm referring to the references to the alleged DOJ wiretap numbers that had your number and Chief Sheridan's number, the ones that you discussed with Chief Sheridan.
Do you have those in mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how Dennis Montgomery got your phone number and Chief Sheridan's phone number?
A. That's a good question. I don't have an answer.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz have your phone number?
A. I believe -- I believe they did, yes.
Q. Did you ever hear from them that they had given your phone number to Mr. Montgomery to see whether he could find a reference to a wiretap on it?
A. No.
Q. In order for someone to search for a wiretap and determine [2269] whether a wiretap had been done on your number, they would need to know your number, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: How they got it, I don't know. But you're right, they would have to know my number.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, at the time that you got Exhibit 2074A [PDF] from --
THE COURT: You know, Sheriff, I'm just going to remind you, when your attorney makes an objection --
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
THE COURT: -- you have a right to have me rule on that objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You waive that right when you answer without letting me rule on the objection.
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. YOUNG: And I apologize to Your Honor.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. When you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery, did you wonder how he knew what your cell phone number was?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask anybody about that?
A. I'm sure that the investigators would be looking into that.
Q. Did you talk to them about how it is that Mr. Montgomery [2270] got your cell phone number?
A. I was concerned.
Q. Had you authorized them to give your cell phone number to Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Same questions for Chief Sheridan's phone number. Do you know how Mr. Montgomery got that?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz have Chief Sheridan's phone number?
A. I don't know.
Q. At the time that you got the fax from Mr. Montgomery, did you believe there was a possibility that the DOJ had wiretapped your number and Chief Sheridan's number?
A. I was concerned, but I also had some suspicion of that information on a personal-type situation, having spent, what, 20 years as a top law enforcement official under the Department of Justice that that would ever occur. I had some concern, but, on the other hand, it was mind-boggling to me.
Q. At the time that you received the fax on November 5, 2013, had you read the New York Times article that we looked at earlier, or any other article describing allegations that Mr. Montgomery had defrauded other government agencies?
A. I don't recall the time frame; if I read the articles on him around that time, I'm not sure. [2271]
Q. Well, the suspicions that you mentioned about the information on the November 5, 2013 fax, did that come just from the face of the fax, or did you have other information about Mr. Montgomery that contributed to that suspicion?
A. No. My suspicion was whether the Department of Justice would do that. That was my suspicion.
Q. Now, let's look at the bottom part of Exhibit 2 -- 2074A [PDF].
There's a line there on July 10, 2010: "Covington takes over Melendres lawsuit against Arpaio."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss Covington with Mr. Blixseth?
A. Not that I recall. I don't think we had any discussions other than the computer -- the bank fraud investigation.
Q. How about with Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Well, let's go down to July 19, 2012. That's a reference to "Melendres case hear by judge."
That's Judge Snow, right?
When you received this fax, you understood that the Melendres case had been heard by Judge Snow, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read the entire time line when you received it?
A. What was that?
Q. When you received the time line from Mr. Montgomery did you [2272] read the whole thing?
A. I briefly went through it, yes.
Q. So you saw the references to the DOJ filing a complaint against you, and also the Melendres case, and also the Covington law firm, and all the other things on this sheet, you saw those, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The last two items refer to the Melendres lawsuit, the Covington law firm, and Judge Snow ruling against you in this lawsuit. Do you see those lines?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you received this fax, did you, in your own mind, connect those events in any way to the DOJ wiretap information?
A. No. My main concern was the wiretap.
Q. You knew that this lawsuit was happening at the time you received the fax, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that Judge Snow had issued a ruling finding that your office had violated the Constitution, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that Judge Snow had issued a supplemental injunction in October 2013 announcing that he would be appointing a monitor over your office --
A. Yes. [2273]
Q. -- correct?
So is it fair to say that on November 5, 2013, you were well aware of the issues relating to this lawsuit and Judge Snow's rulings?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery were you expecting to receive some information on him?
A. No.
Q. Did you talk before you got the fax with either Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz about information that Mr. Montgomery might have relating to this time line?
A. I don't recall whether the wiretap came up before I received the fax.
Q. Well, when you got the fax, did you know why you were receiving it?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask anyone when you got the fax: Hey, I just got this fax. What is it? Why am I getting it?
A. Well, I don't know why he sent it to me but he did, I presume, and he had that information. It was all public knowledge, anyway. But the two wiretaps never appeared anywhere, so that made me somewhat concerned.
Q. When you got the fax on November 5, 2013, you knew it was from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes. [2274]
Q. And since you had had a discussion, at least, and perhaps had met with him prior to your receipt of the fax, it wasn't a complete surprise that you received some information from him, is that right?
A. I'm still trying to recall whether I met with him before.
I may have, and I don't have the dates. But the meeting had to do with the bank investigation.
Q. Well, let me clarify my question.
When you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery, it wasn't as if it was just some random person in the public who sent a piece of paper to your fax number. You knew who the person was and what the general subject matter and reason for your getting the fax was when you received it, correct?
A. I was surprised in receiving a fax on that date. I didn't ask for it, I didn't know about it, but it showed up.
Q. But you were intrigued about it when you got it, correct?
A. I was intrigued about the wiretaps of me and my chief deputy, and that was my major concern.
Q. Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that he thought the reason for Mr. Montgomery sending you this time line was in order to keep the money flowing from your office to Mr. Montgomery.
I'll tell you it's my understanding from other documents that the first payment that your office gave to Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013.
Does that seem right to you? [2275]
A. That may have been about the time that this information came to us about the bank investigation.
Q. Let me just ask you, Sheriff: When you received the fax on November 5, 2013, had your office yet paid anything to Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall. I wasn't involved in the payments.
Q. Well, if the documents that your office has given us show that the first payment was made after this fax, would you dispute that?
A. Would I refute that?
Q. Do you know of any reason to believe that any payments were made to Mr. Montgomery before you received this fax?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you believe when you got this fax, Exhibit 2074A [PDF], that it was related to the banking investigation that you had discussed during October?
A. I don't know what it was related to when you -- you're talking about the wiretap information?
Q. Yes, that or anything else on this time line.
Did you believe that it related to the banking investigation that Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were doing with Mr. Montgomery?
A. The only concern I had about his harvesting into computers regarding the bank -- all the people that were victims, and where my phone number came from, whether it came through [2276] harvesting or whatever.
Q. Did you believe that Mr. Montgomery had obtained the information about the wiretap, potential wiretaps, in the same way that he obtained information about the banking records that you had discussed?
A. I have no idea. As I mentioned before, I'm not a computer expert, and I let that -- the two detectives to work on the computer aspects.
Q. Those two things, though -- the wiretap and the banking investigation -- at least had the commonality in your mind that the information was coming from Mr. Montgomery, is that correct?
A. You're talking about the wiretapping information coming from him?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm rather sure it did come from him.
Q. And the banking information that you had heard about, that information also came from Mr. Montgomery in your understanding, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as I recall, Mr. Montgomery claimed, as you understood it, that he knew that someone had obtained the banking information of about 151,000 people in Maricopa County, is that right?
A. I think it was 150,000. [2277]
Q. What was your understanding at the time you heard about it about what the banking information was; that is, in detail, what kind of information? Was it names? Account numbers? Payments? Deposits? Account balances? What did you understand the banking information to consist of?
A. Well, what I in general terms had a concern was going into people's bank accounts, stealing their identities, their -- amount of money in their account, banking accounts. I could go on and on. That was my concern.
Q. But did you have an understanding at the time that this banking information would allow someone to obtain the bank statements of the people who were potentially involved?
A. In general terms is all aspects of the identity of the victims --
Q. Okay.
A. -- whether it's bank accounts, statements, money, home address, I can go on and on.
Q. And that's what you sent Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to Seattle for, to work with Mr. Montgomery to investigate, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know throughout the time of the Seattle investigation that they were investigating the banking information?
A. Yes. [2278]
Q. Okay. Did that ever stop? That is, did the banking information aspect of the Seattle investigation ever stop?
A. Oh, I think the -- it continued, and the chief deputy assigned several detectives to follow up on it to investigate it.
Q. So as of the time you received the fax in November 2013, you knew that they were working on an investigation of at least the banking information, is that right?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. How about in January 2014? Was it still your understanding at that time that they were working on the investigation relating to the banking information?
A. Yes.
Q. How about in April 2015? Did you know if they were still working on the banking investigation?
A. I don't know, but I would believe that they still were. It wasn't something that you stop working.
Q. Now, Judge Snow's name came up in connection with the banking investigation, correct? I think you've testified to that before.
A. What I was told, yes.
Q. Judge Snow, you believed, was one of the 150,000 Maricopa County residents whose banking information had potentially been penetrated, is that right?
A. Yes. [2279]
Q. How did you find that out?
A. I believe the investigators mentioned that to me.
Q. They mentioned that to you? Who mentioned it to you?
A. I don't know if it was Detective Mackiewicz or Zullo, but they did mention that there was several names Snow in there, and they believe that one of them was the judge.
Q. So it was one of the two of them, right, either Zullo or Mackiewicz?
A. Yeah.
Q. What was said to you at the time you first learned about Judge Snow being on that list of 150,000 names?
A. Well, it was rather a surprise. I believe they mention that there were other judges on that list, which also concerned me. If I recall, they mention even a Supreme Court of the United States judge, so I had a little concern about all the victims, including the judges.
Q. At least when your deposition was taken the only local judge whose name you could remember being on that list was Judge G. Murray Snow, is that right?
A. That name was on a list? Was that the question? Can you repeat that?
Q. Judge Snow's name was the only name of a judge that you could remember being on that list, is that right?
A. No. There were other names that I heard that I'm not absolutely sure who they were. I didn't want to reveal any [2280] names unless I knew for sure, but there was other names that were mentioned on that list when you're talking about federal judges.
Q. Well, isn't it true, Sheriff, that even though you may have heard that there were other judges involved in the banking investigation, that Judge Snow was the only one that you specifically heard about?
A. I heard about others that I'm not a hundred percent accurate that I got the names right. I remember I think Chief Justice Roberts' name came up. So I don't have a list of all the judges.
My concern was any victim, the 150,000, and I believe when you total it up, be almost a half a million citizens in this state regardless of their occupation.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play for you from page 448 of your deposition on September 17. It will be lines 1 through 10. And it's clip 15 for Mr. Klein.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: When is the first time that you and Mr. Zullo discussed anything relating to Judge Snow?
"Answer: I think it was during the banking investigation that his name was in there, along with many other judges. In fact, I think my name was in there, allegedly in there.
"Question: Was Judge Snow the only judge who you [2281] heard about in connection with the banking investigation?
"Answer: It's the only one I heard about, but they the tell me there was others, too."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you recall giving that testimony, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it accurate? Is it accurate?
A. Same thing I said here.
Q. Can you tell me now, Sheriff, the names of any other local judges that you recall hearing about in connection with the banking investigation other than Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Now, you knew that you and your wife were also on that list, allegedly, of the 150,000 people, correct?
A. That's what I was told.
Q. So other than yourself, your wife, and Judge Snow, you can't think of any other person in Maricopa County who you understood to be among the list of 150,000 people in connection with the banking investigation, is that right?
A. I'm going by what I was told by the investigators. And of course, when they mention your wife, it kind of sticks out in my memory and myself. But I'm sure that they would have other names, my investigators, but they never really relayed it to me other than the -- a Supreme Court Justice. [2282]
Q. Well, sticking to Maricopa County residents, along with yourself and your wife, Judge Snow also stuck out for you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you feel when you first heard that Judge Snow's name had come up in the banking investigation?
A. Well, I don't like any -- anybody, no matter who they are, but when you're dealing with the federal judiciary, when you're dealing with my personal family, it does stick out in my mind.
Q. Did you have the same concern for Judge Snow that you had for yourself and your wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Other than Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz -- well, other than those two, did you talk to anyone else about the fact Judge Snow's name came up in the banking investigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you hear about Judge Snow's name coming up at the outset, when you first heard about the 150,000 names?
A. I'm not sure what the time frame was, because I know that our investigators were reviewing all the names, so I don't remember when the judge's name came up or when my name came up.
Q. So did you know that the investigators were going over and searching the list of names?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that under your direction? You told them to search the [2283] list of names?
A. You say my direction. This is something that was being run by our computer expert slash investigators. So I didn't give them orders. They had the information, they would verbally brief me, and I let them run with the investigation.
Q. Well, did you indicate to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz that you would be interested in knowing about who was on that list?
A. I think that I didn't have to ask them; I'm sure that they alerted me to certain people.
Q. Well, do you remember how long after you first heard about the 150,000 names you first heard Judge Snow mentioned in that connection? Was it within a day? A week? A month? Do you have any idea?
A. I still don't remember the time frame.
Q. Was it pretty soon after you heard about the 150,000 names that you heard that Judge Snow's name was on that list?
A. I don't remember the timing as to how long from the date that they started the investigation to who was in the system.
Q. Did you ever see any documents with the names of any of the people who were allegedly on that list?
A. No.
Q. How about any photos or videos relating to the banking investigation? Did you ever see any screen shots, or anything like that? [2284]
A. No.
Q. When you first heard about Judge Snow in connection with the banking investigation, what information did you understand Mr. Montgomery to have had access to? Specifically, if you recall.
A. I'm sure he had access to the information through the computers, received in the information from the, you know, the banking versus the victims.
Q. Would that include bank statements, for example?
A. I don't know what it included. I think I mentioned earlier concern about statements, about money, names, addresses of the victims.
Q. Well, you're aware -- well, do you know, Sheriff Arpaio, that if you have the identifier and a password, that people can get their bank statements online over a computer?
You know that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you knew that at the time that you heard Judge Snow's name mentioned in connection with the banking investigation, is that right?
A. I didn't get into the nuts and bolts of the banking industry, the computer industry; I left that up to my investigators.
Q. Well, one of the reasons you'd be concerned about 150,000 Maricopa County residents having their banking information [2285] penetrated is that someone with that kind of personal information could get things like bank statements using a computer, is that right?
A. Of course. It's part of the identity theft umbrella, too.
Q. After you heard about Judge Snow's name being on the list, did you want Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to continue with the investigation into the banking issue?
A. I don't think it had anything to do with the judge being on a list. It was he was one of the names. They were investigating 150,000 victims. That wasn't going to stop.
Q. And you did not want it to stop, is that right?
A. No, I wanted to get to the bottom of this massive penetration of the people's identification, banking accounts.
To me, that was a big issue.
Q. Okay. And it continued to be a big issue for you after you heard about Judge Snow's name being on that list, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone to stop investigating the banking issue?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you encouraged them to continue with that investigation, is that right?
A. Well, I don't think I had to encourage the investigators; they knew how important this was and they continued it. I [2286] didn't tell them not to or to do it but they continued the investigation.
Q. Did you tell them that it was important to you?
A. Yes, they knew it was important, to me and all the victims.
Q. Now, you mentioned the other day that the updates that you received from Mr. Zullo and Mr. Mackiewicz were only oral, or verbal, and not written, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you have them write anything to you so that you'd have some record of what it was that they were doing?
A. Well, the investigation was in progress. They advised me verbally. They continued it. It was somewhat of a sensitive situation and I was comfortable with that. It was a preliminary investigation.
Q. Well, when your office conducts investigations, aren't there normally written memos or documents so that people can look back and see what has happened and what work has already been done in that investigation?
A. Well, when the chief deputy assigned several detectives to follow up, I'm not sure whether reports were done or not.
Q. Well, before Sergeant Anglin was assigned to the Montgomery Seattle investigation, you did not have Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz do anything in the nature of writing that they gave to you, is that right?
A. They were keeping me advised verbally of that [2287] investigation.
Q. Did you not want them to send you anything in writing on that investigation?
A. I didn't tell them to do it or not to do it. They were continuing giving me updates at times, and their main concern was the computer aspect, going through the computers and trying to find out all the names involved.
Q. Did you ever talk to either of them about not giving you anything in writing on that investigation?
A. No.
Q. You never asked for anything in writing from them, is that right?
A. I think eventually I wanted something done in writing, but I think that was way later on.
Q. Did you ever get anything in writing on the investigation? From them?
A. I'm not sure. There may have been one report that was submitted.
Q. When was that report submitted?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know whether attorneys turned it over to the monitor and to the plaintiffs?
A. I don't know.
Q. Sheriff, I'm now going to ask you to take a look at Exhibit 2074B [PDF]. [2288] And I'll ask Mr. Klein to throw it up on the screen for you, not published yet, but just so you can take a look at it.
Note. For additional information on this exhibit (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Nov. 5, 2013.
You recognize that document, correct, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. There's some handwriting on it that's yours, is that right?
A. Looks like it, yes.
Q. And there's a typewritten portion that is also written by you, typed by you, is that correct?
A. My typing wasn't very good, but it was.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'll ask for the admission of Exhibit 2074B.
I will note that we are using a version that has a phone number that's been redacted in the middle of the page. I don't think it's necessary to this proceeding to have that there.
MR. MASTERSON: I guess my question is I've seen this document, but it -- this isn't the whole document. Is counsel submitting an altered -- I'm not saying it's -- he's doing it unfairly or anything, but I've only seen this document in a different form.
May I talk to Mr. Young, please?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Young and Mr. Masterson.) [2289]
MR. MASTERSON: I'm told that this was -- this language is on another document, and I understand it's a large document.
Could I ask that the Court -- I don't have an objection to this particular exhibit, but could it be a conditional admission if I look at the original document and think we need to have that in with this document for some reason?
THE COURT: I'll certainly take a look at any other documents you want to admit and tell me that it's associated with this and establish a foundation for it.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. So I am admitting this document, and it is again document number --
MR. YOUNG: 2074B.
THE COURT: -- 2074B.
(Exhibit No. 2074B is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, may we publish the document?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, the document has both, as I mentioned before, a typewritten part and a handwritten part, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to ask you first about the typewritten part.
Now, you described in your note here a November 6, [2290] 2013 phone call that you receive from JC, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. JC was a photographer that you had met in some prior context, is that right, in San Diego?
A. Yes.
Q. And he called your wife, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he told your wife that he needed to talk to you and that she shouldn't use phones, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then that same afternoon on November 6 you called him back in the presence of a Sergeant Calderon of your office.
Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you heard from JC that your and your wife's phones were being monitored by the feds, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time you had this discussion with JC, who did you understand the feds to be?
A. I had no idea.
Q. Did you ask JC that question?
A. I don't recall.
Q. So the feds could have been, in your understanding, the FBI? The DOJ? A federal judge? I mean, what was your understanding, if any, about who the feds were? What was [2291] your -- going on in your mind?
A. It could have been the CIA; could have been anybody. I was a little concerned because that message came to me the day after I received that information from whoever on that fax that my telephone number was tapped. And now I get the next day another source that's alerting me to be careful.
Q. In your mind, were those two pieces of information that you received on November 5 and November 6, 2013, related?
A. No idea.
Q. Did you know or do you know now of any relationship between JC and Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. But those two things together combine to create a concern in your mind. Is that what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you have Sergeant Calderon join you on the call?
A. Well, he was in charge of my security. I believe this is a security issue also.
Q. Did you call him from your office, that is, JC? Did you call JC from your office?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Have you had any -- well, let's go through the rest of the note.
You say you -- that JC said you should change your telephone number, is that right? [2292]
A. Yes.
Q. And then you asked for more info. What info did you ask for?
A. Well, I would like to know more information about the allegation. I was somewhat concerned.
Q. Did you receive a response to your request for more information?
A. I believe he received the information from another person.
Q. Who's that other person?
A. I believe she works for the newspapers and a TV station.
Q. You've got a couple of spellings there, but I'm going to try to -- is it Kimberly that you're referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. So JC told you that Kimberly had told him that your phones were being tapped by the feds. Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Kimberly as well before this phone call that you received?
A. I think I met her once in San Diego.
Q. Did you know before this phone call that JC knew Kimberly?
A. I think they knew each other.
Q. So when JC told you that Kimberly had told him that your phones were being tapped, it wasn't a surprise to you that they were talking to each other because you knew that they knew each other, is that right? [2293]
A. Yes.
Q. How is it that you met them? Did you meet them in the same context, or were there different events? How is it that you knew who they were?
A. I was giving a speech a couple times in San Diego, and I think they were there when I was accomplishing my speech. And I believe it was the photographer, and the reporter I believe I met once or twice.
Q. Okay. Did you meet JC and Kimberly together?
A. I'm not sure whether they were together.
Q. Did you have an understanding that they worked together at all?
A. No, I didn't know their relation.
Q. Well, what understanding --
A. I knew they knew each other.
Q. You knew that they knew each other, but other than that, did you have any understanding as to what kind of relationship they had or how they were connected?
A. I don't recall whether he did work for the newspapers or her, I don't recall that.
Q. So JC told you on November 6, 2013, that Kimberly had told him that your phones were being monitored by the feds, and then you told JC to have Kimberly call you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you tell him that? [2294]
A. Because evidently she had the information.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly was never wrong and then she would call you back. Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe JC when he told you that?
A. Whether she was ever wrong, or call me back?
Q. Well, let me ask you -- back up a little bit.
You have this first paragraph where you're reporting on this November 6, 2013 phone call that you got from JC. Did you write this fairly soon after you had that phone call? This first paragraph?
A. You know, I'm not sure whether I did it right away. I know I did it very quickly, according to the errors I made on the typewriter, which I'm pretty good at. So I don't recall when I made this -- the documentation.
Q. It wasn't very long after November 6, 2013, correct?
A. I don't believe it was.
Q. Well, just focusing on that first paragraph that we've just gone over, did you believe JC, did you believe what he told you at the time that you heard that from him and wrote this note?
A. You know, the whole situation is very bizarre, but you can't ignore any information, especially when it pertains to my wife and myself and wiretappings. Federal government is rather bizarre in a way, but you can't ignore it.
Q. Now, there's a line with JC's phone number, which is [2295]redacted. The next paragraph, or the next bit of text, indicates that you called JC on November 12, six days later, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So during those six days from November 6 to November 12 you were waiting for Kimberly to call you about this supposed wiretap, and when you didn't hear from her, you called JC back, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you have called Kimberly back? Did you think about doing that? Well, actually not call her back but call her, contact her? Did you know her well enough to do that?
A. I don't know if I ever had her number. I was going through the photographer.
Q. So you called JC. Did you reach him right when you called him?
A. I'm not sure if he answered the phone, or a voicemail, or -- but I did have communication with him.
Q. On November 12, 2013?
A. Yes.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly was afraid, and received information that your and your wife's cell phones were tapped, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did JC tell you what Kimberly was supposedly [2296] afraid of?
A. She mentioned something allegedly about the CIA, she had information, and the White House credentials, and sensitive documents.
Q. Well, just looking at your note there, you said that JC told you that Kimberly's source was from the East Coast, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any more specific information from JC about who the source was, or where exactly on the East Coast, or anything else?
A. No.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly -- well, you see the reference to White House credentials there?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So as I understand it, JC told you that Kimberly's source, who was a woman, had White House credentials, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that have any significance to you at the time that you heard it?
A. Just somewhat bizarre. But once again, being a federal guy for 30 years, you get somewhat shocked by hearing this. I'm not saying I discarded it, but still, you have to look into this type of situation when it comes to your attention. [2297]
Q. At any of the speeches in San Diego where you met with either JC or Kimberly -- well, JC. Let's stick with JC.
You met JC several times in San Diego when you gave speeches. Is that what you said?
A. Well, I may have said several; could have been two or three times.
Q. Were any of those speeches related to the birth certificate investigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Could they have?
A. Could have.
Q. Did you have a concern that someone in the White House was connected to the tapping of your phones?
A. Once again, I mention it's bizarre, so I really -- I took it serious, but on the other hand, just one of those things that comes up. I didn't send out the Army or anybody to check it out.
Q. In your next sentence you mention the CIA. Tell me everything that JC told you about the CIA.
A. Well, as you can see, they mentioned -- he mentioned the CIA and sensitive documents, credentials. That's what he was telling me that she had. Or knew about.
Q. Well, I see the reference to the documents, but I want to first focus on the CIA. You said that JC mentioned the CIA.
What did he tell you about the CIA? [2298]
A. I don't know. Just what I typed there, picking out documents and so on.
Q. So JC told you that Kimberly was going to pick up secret, or sensitive documents, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you what those sensitive documents were about?
A. No, no.
Q. Did you wonder what they were?
A. Yes, but he never told me.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly -- and I'm just going to read your sentence there because I want to have you explain what you meant -- was, quote, afraid to do so by crossing state lines could be arrested, end quote.
Do you see that language?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it mean by that? What did that represent?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Well, JC told you that Kimberly was afraid. Was her fear that he described to you connected with crossing state lines and possibly being arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your understanding of why that would -- of why that could happen?
A. I don't know.
Q. So you didn't send the Army after this issue, but you did [2299] tell JC that you would have Mike Zullo call him, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you decide to have Mike Zullo -- well, did you ask Mike Zullo to call him?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you have -- why did you ask Mr. Zullo to call JC?
A. Because I believe at the time he -- we were working on a banking situation. Also -- I'm not sure. He was tied up with my threat squad, but he knew all the threats I was receiving and decided to send him to look at it -- which is free, because he wasn't being paid, member of the Posse -- and had him talk to that person.
It wasn't something that I gave much credence to, but he was sent down there to talk to -- I believe it was him. I'm not sure whether another detective went there. And he came back and didn't find much to it.
Q. What exactly did you tell Mr. Zullo when you had him call JC?
A. I told him to see what the information was, whether it was viable, and to talk to the photographer. I don't think he ever located the reporter.
Q. Did you give Mr. Zullo JC's phone number, the same one that you had called?
A. I may have.
Q. You believe that this information that you had gotten on [2300] November 6 and November 12th, 2013, from JC was connected somehow to the banking investigation that Mr. Zullo was doing with Mr. Montgomery?
A. Well, I -- I believe that there was a lot of talk about CIA and other aspects regarding the informer. And I wasn't the expert, again, on what was occurring with the -- Montgomery, with the CIA and all that, so I asked him if he would go down there.
Q. Well, Sheriff, you have a lot of other people who deal with issues relating to wiretaps, right? I mean, you have other people in your office who could have done the looking into of this information, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you pick Mr. Zullo to do this?
A. Because once again, he was dealing with the allegations of -- of, you know, tapping my lines, or he knew -- I believe that Montgomery, as I testified earlier, knew that -- or suggested my lines were being penetrated by the feds or CIA.
And when the CIA came up through -- I believe through Montgomery, whether it was CIA, FBI, that he had some knowledge, so why not send him down when you're talking about the CIA?
Q. And Mr. Zullo agreed to do that, to call JC?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Now, you said that you didn't think that Mr. Zullo ever [2301] reached JC, is that right?
A. No, he -- did he ever reach JC?
Q. Well, in your knowledge, did Mr. Zullo ever actually talk to JC?
A. I believe he did.
Q. Oh. And did you hear back on what the outcome of that conversation was?
A. It was his opinion that there was no really substance that he could come up with.
Q. Please tell me everything that Mr. Zullo told you about that.
A. He didn't tell me much. He said he went down there and that wasn't anything interesting when he talked to JC. Could never reach the reporter, I believe.
Q. Ah, I see. So your understanding is, and what you were told by Mr. Zullo, was that he did talk to JC but never was able to reach Kimberly, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. What did Mr. Zullo say to you that supported or related to his view that there was nothing there in these allegations?
A. Oh, he didn't give me a whole briefing. He just came back and said he couldn't get any more information from JC on his allegations.
Q. Did you ever talk to JC yourself afterward?
A. I don't believe so. [2302]
Q. So he never called you back and you never called him back?
A. I don't recall.
Q. At the time that you asked Mr. Zullo to talk to JC, did you think that JC was trustworthy?
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. When you asked Mr. Zullo to talk to JC, did you think that JC was trustworthy?
A. Have no opinion. As I say, it was rather bizarre what he came up with. So I had no opinion, just wanted to check, get a double-check in person, so I sent someone down there talk to him in person, not on the telephone.
Q. So Mr. Zullo actually met in person with JC? Is that what you understood?
A. I believe he did.
Q. Is it your view that sometimes bizarre allegations can warrant investigation?
A. Yes.
Note. For additional information about the JC/Kimberly matter, see WYE Timeline - Nov. 6, 2013 and Nov. 12, 2013.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, it's just about time for morning break if you find a good stopping spot.
MR. YOUNG: This is fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll return in 15 minutes.
Thank you.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
BY MR. YOUNG: [2303]
Q. Sheriff, looking at the typewritten parts of Exhibit 2074B [PDF], do you have that in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you type all the typewritten parts at the same time, or did you type them at different times?
A. I believe maybe different times.
Q. So you think you may have typed the November 6th note, or the note about the November 6 call, and then came back after you had the November 12 call and typed that at a different time?
A. No, I believe that that was done at one time. I'm not sure if I added to it or if I just summarized that whole situation at one time when I typed it.
Q. Okay. Well, I noticed the left margin sort of creeps toward the right, and I wonder whether you typed the things that are on that piece of paper at different times and maybe put the piece of paper in at different positions on the typewriter when you did that, do you recall?
A. I don't know what my margin was. I'm a pretty good typist, but sometimes when I type quick I don't do it good.
Q. Did you type everything on this page that's typewritten sometime during November 2013?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Does that seem likely?
A. Possible, but not sure. [2304]
Q. So just so I'm clear, you don't know whether you typed it all at the same time or typed it at different times, is that right?
A. I may have made notes different times.
Q. Let's look at the bottom six lines on this page that are typewritten. You mention Kyle works for Covington & Burling.
That's former Senator Jon Kyle, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have some information there about Judge Snow.
You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you mention in connection, I think with Covington & Burling, that Snow's wife works there?
What did you mean by that?
A. Well, I don't know. There's a lot of comments about the judge's families. I don't know where I got that from but someone may have mentioned it, but I don't believe it's true. I haven't checked it out.
Q. What are the comments about the judge's family that you just were referring to?
A. Well, someone probably told me that his wife works there. I don't even know that, who works -- who works there from the judge's family except the brother-in-law.
Q. Do you know who told you or do you remember who told you that Judge Snow's wife worked at Covington & Burling? [2305]
A. No.
Q. You got the information about Senator Kyle's role in Judge Snow's appointment, at least as you understood it, from the newspaper, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, up above, just skipping above to the handwritten part of Exhibit 2074A [PDF], you wrote: "Judge Snow has sister-in-law works for Covington." What caused you to write that?
A. Well, once again, I don't -- this is just what people tell me, but I was concerned because I believed that someone from his family was in that banking, a victim in that banking investigation. I believe that's why I may have written it down, what I heard.
Q. Who told you that Judge Snow's sister-in-law works for Covington?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Other than his brother-in-law, his sister-in-law, and his wife, did you ever think that any other relatives of Judge Snow worked at Covington & Burling?
A. No. I really didn't -- it wasn't a concern.
Q. Did you ever come to understand that in fact Judge Snow's wife did not work at Covington & Burling?
A. I don't know. I never checked it out. I don't know what the results are.
Q. How about his sister-in-law, has anything ever changed in [2306] your view as to her?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure that someone told you those things, or is that something that you just came up with on your own?
A. As far as the -- the remarks or the writing, I think someone mentioned that the judge's sister-in-law, whoever that is, may have been involved, a victim of the $150,000. That's the remark I made.
Q. Are you sure that someone told you that, or do you think that you may have come up with that on your own?
A. I didn't come up with it on my own. I didn't even know who worked for the judge. Or not worked for the judge, but the family. Except the brother-in-law.
Q. Well, did you think it was important to document the source of that information about Judge Snow, that is, that his sister worked at Covington & Burling; that his sister-in-law worked at Covington & Burling?
A. I think it was important to take the -- at least make a note, since I believe the judge's name was also in there as a victim.
Q. Do you remember what time of the day or night it was that you typed "Snow's wife works there"?
A. No.
Q. Do you think you might have been dreaming or hallucinating when you wrote that? [2307]
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, let me ask you the first question: Do you remember what time of day or night it was that you typed the paragraph about Judge Snow and Senator Kyle?
A. No.
Q. How about the handwritten part at the top about Judge Snow's sister-in-law, do you remember what time of the day or night it was when you wrote that?
A. No.
Q. Now, you talk about Senator Kyle having nominated Judge Snow for a federal judgeship on December 11, 2007.
That's the information you got from the newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you say that he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, with Senator Kyle being on the judiciary committee, on June 26, 2008, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You knew that Judge Snow had been appointed actually by President Bush, correct?
A. I believe recommended by senators.
Q. Well, yeah, but you're aware that federal judges are appointed by the president, right? You know that.
A. Yes. [2308]
Q. And you knew that the president who appointed Judge Snow was President George W. Bush, correct?
A. Just before he left, yes.
Q. And then you say "Obama takes office on January 2009."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by that? Why did you write that?
A. Well, the whole reason I wrote -- made these notes was the irony of this whole situation.
Q. What do you mean by "the irony of this whole situation"?
A. Because I recall that Senator Kyle is the one that came to my office -- and by the way, I've always endorsed and campaigned for the senators. We knew each other very well. He came to the office in 2007 and asked that we would get involved in the famous 287(g) program, which we did. And then I recall two years later former Governor Napolitano took that away from us and the senator had a concern.
So we, on his recommendation, got involved in the 287(g). And the irony of all this, nothing wrong with it, but this became a big issue in the present court on the 287(g), and whether race could be used in that type of situation, so I was just making some notes on the irony of this whole illegal immigration 287(g).
Q. So were you thinking, at least in part, about this lawsuit when you wrote the paragraph that you wrote in typewritten form [2309] on the bottom of Exhibit 2074B [PDF]?
A. No, I was just getting a little the ironic part of this whole situation regarding the senator and his interest in our 287(g) that brought us, I believe, one of the big issues that brought us into this court case.
Q. Could you explain further what you mean by the ironic part?
What was ironic about that whole set of facts that you just described?
A. Well, it's where the judge -- not the judge, the senator was very active trying to get us to work on the 287(g) program, which we did, and it was taken away by the Obama Administration through the Homeland Security director.
Q. But Senator Kyle --
A. And now here we --
Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A. And now we are in court, main -- not mainly, but that had a big emphasis, the 287(g) program that's now, you know, being talked about.
Q. Did you think that Senator Kyle had something to do with the Obama Administration's decision to take away your 287(g) authority?
A. No. As I mentioned, he was concerned and somewhat disturbed that the Obama Administration took that away from us.
Q. So what would be the irony in the situation that you just described? There's no -- Senator Kyle didn't contradict [2310] himself, did he?
A. The irony is that he asked us to get into this program, we did get into this program, it's been very controversial, as we know, in recent years, and here we are in court, mainly because of that program.
I was just making notes, you know, connecting the wording. I think I have a right to make some notes, even if it's -- whether it's politics or not. So I was making notes in my own mind as the irony behind this whole situation.
Q. Did you think that there was irony in what you perceived to be the fact that it was Senator Kyle's fault that got you into this lawsuit in the first place?
A. No, I never made that. I said he asked -- the irony is that he asked us to take over that 287(g). We did. And now -- and I'm not blaming anybody; I'm just talking about the irony behind this -- now we're in court that had something to do with the 287(g).
Q. Well, did the irony that you're describing with respect to Senator Kyle somehow relate to the fact that President Obama took office in January 2009?
A. No. I was just giving a little background, how I perceived.
Q. I appreciate that, Sheriff. Well, let me get back to my earlier question. You typed: "Obama takes office on January 2009." What were you thinking when you typed that sentence? [2311]
A. I was just giving a little background in my mind on some of these links and so on. Not that there was anything wrong with it. I'm not accusing anybody: presidents, any senator or anything. I'm just looking at my mind at the ironic part that probably some of that brought us here.
Q. What was the link that you were thinking about that caused you to write about President Obama in this paragraph that was otherwise about Senator Kyle and Judge Snow?
A. It was no -- no really link. It was just in my mind, how the people connected. And I say "connected" not in any bad way, but just when you look at the scenarios, it was interesting.
Q. What was interesting about whatever connection you perceived among President Obama, Judge Snow, and Senator Kyle?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, cumulative; asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. What was interesting in your mind as to any connection among President Obama, Judge Snow, and Senator Kyle?
A. Once again, I was just, in sequence, in my own mind, writing down the connection. Not the -- I don't know if I want to use the word "connection," but the irony of this whole illegal immigration, because I do remember that the Department [2312] of Justice, racial profiling was conducted under the -- President Obama.
Q. Did you think that the racial profiling investigation conducted under President Obama related somehow to Judge Snow or Senator Kyle?
A. No.
Q. Sheriff, what caused you to put together the information about a wiretap on you, Judge Snow, and Senator Kyle was the time line that you had received from Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. The wiretap?
Q. Yes. You were thinking about wiretaps on you, Judge Snow, and Senator Kyle all at the same time. And the reason you were thinking about that was the time line that you had received on November 5, 2013, from Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. You mean on this comment, this note that I made? I don't understand the time line.
Q. Well, the time line is Exhibit 2074A [PDF], the one that was faxed to you by Mr. Montgomery.
A. Yes.
Q. That time line from Mr. Montgomery is what caused you to connect the wiretaps that you were being told about, Judge Snow, and Senator Kyle, is that correct?
A. No. I believe I read something about Kyle working for that law firm. This was not done at the same time. [2313]
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to have played for you a portion of your deposition. It's at page 478, lines 6 through telephone.
MR. MASTERSON: Which deposition? Oh, never mind.
MR. YOUNG: September 17, page 478, line 6 through 12.
And it's clip 23 for Mr. Klein.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Well, you mentioned Judge Snow later on in the typewritten part, and then you also have a handwritten part right above there about Judge Snow. Why did you put all this information together about the wiretap and Judge Snow and Senator Kyle, et cetera?
"Answer: Once again, I was looking at the time line -- or the information from the source, informant."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you testified accurately when you answered that question on September 17, correct?
A. I don't know the whole conversation I had. You picked this one out, so I'm confused what you're talking about, time line.
Q. Well, Judge -- Sheriff, you answered my question as we just saw. Was that an accurate answer that you gave during your deposition?
A. That part it could be, yes.
Q. Well, do you have any reason to think that you testified untruthfully on September 17? [2314]
A. No.
Q. You were actually concerned that Attorney General Holder and Covington & Burling were somehow involved in the wiretap of your wife's phones, is that right?
A. No.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to have you look again at your deposition from September 17 at page 475, lines 13 through 22.
Oh. And for Mr. Klein, it's clip 21.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Well, what caused you to make those notes?
"Answer: Because of this information.
"Question: The information about the wiretap?
"Answer: Yeah, and --
"Question: Well, what was it about the information on the wiretap that caused you to write these notes about Senator Kyle, Covington & Burling and Judge Snow?
"Answer: Well, you look at the information in here, with Holder and, you know, and -- I'm trying to think if --your law firm. So I was more concerned about the wiretap."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, when you referred in your answer to my question to my law firm you were talking about Covington & Burling, correct?
A. Yes. [2315]
Q. Did you testify accurately in response to my questions on September 17 as we just heard?
A. If I recall, yes.
Q. You were interested in the possible connections of Senator Kyle, Judge Snow, and Covington & Burling because of the information that Dennis Montgomery had provided and the connections that he had described, is that right?
A. No, Senator Kyle never entered the picture. Never mentioned. I did make a little note, and I'm not sure there's a time line when I made that note, but I don't think it's connected with the testimony that you say I gave in the deposition.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to ask you to listen to another part of your September 17 deposition at page 476 starting at line 11, going to page 477 at line 1. And I'll represent to you that it's a discussion of Exhibit 2074B [PDF].
Does Mr. Masterson have a problem or Mr. Walker have a problem with my making that section of the deposition?
MR. MASTERSON: From line 10 until where, please?
MR. YOUNG: Actually, it's page 476, line 11, to 477, line 1.
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. YOUNG: For Mr. Klein, this is clip 22.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:) [2316]
"Question: Well, let's go back to the second page, which is page 199550. Did you ever talk to Mr. Zullo about what you typed in the last paragraph there that starts, 'Kyle works for Covington & Burling'?
"Answer: I don't know. I may have. I don't recall.
"Question: What might you have discussed with Mr. Zullo about what's in that last paragraph?
"Answer: It was just interesting who nominated the judge, where he came from.
"Question: Why did you find that interesting?
"Answer: Because of the -- of the information that we got from the informant. He's the one that did all the connections and all that."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, was your testimony that we just heard from September 17 accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. Sheriff, did you ever think about the fact that Covington & Burling is a very large Washington, D.C. law firm, and lots of lawyers in Washington, D.C. happen to work there?
A. I never looked into that law firm. Never heard about it before this.
Q. Besides the time line that we looked at earlier, which is Exhibit 2074A [PDF], at the time that you typed the notes that show [2317] up on Exhibit 2074B [PDF], had you received any other information from Dennis Montgomery, that you can recall?
A. About this?
Q. Yeah, about the time line; about Senator Kyle, Covington & Burling, the Department of Justice; any of those topics.
A. No, never heard the senator name come up. I just happened to -- and I think it was rather recently, if you go by the article about The Republic. And so I just made a note for myself, once again, the irony of this situation.
Q. So that was research that you did yourself about Senator Kyle?
A. I didn't do any research. I remember. I remember him being concerned about the 287(g), and being angry when they took it away.
Q. How about --
A. I didn't know he worked for the law firm until I read about it in the paper, and that was recent.
Q. That's what I meant to refer to when I said "research."
That was something you read about yourself. You didn't have -- no one else came and told you that.
A. No.
Q. That's -- okay.
A. No.
Q. Now, you wrote all of these things about Judge Snow and Senator Kyle and Covington & Burling and President Obama at the [2318] same time that you were thinking about the banking investigation that Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were working on for you with Mr. Montgomery, is that right?
A. No. I think I talked about -- I made that note recently.
Q. Which note?
A. The one you're talking about, the senator. I'd never mentioned the senator.
Q. All right. Let's go back. Let's look at 2074B [PDF] again.
Okay. Can you explain further what you mean when you say you made that note recently? What note are you talking about, and what are you referring to when you say "recently"?
A. Well, when you talk about The Republic article, I think that was rather currently. I never knew that the senator worked for that law firm.
Q. Well, "recently" could include November 2013, correct?
A. Oh, I think she wrote that article really recently.
Q. What do you mean when you say "really recently"?
A. Maybe the last two months.
Q. You think you saw an article in the last two months about Jon Kyle going to work at Covington & Burling?
A. Yes.
Q. If I showed you a newspaper article that said something about it being earlier, would you have reason to doubt the statement that you just made?
A. I don't recall, but I said "currently." It wasn't old. [2319]
Q. Now, I want to actually put a part of 2074A [PDF] and 2074- -- the top part of 2074A and the top part of 2074B [PDF] together.
And actually, Sheriff, if you have the paper versions, this might be easier.
And actually, Mr. Klein, make sure that those phone numbers in the middle of 2074A are not displayed to the gallery.
Mr. Klein?
I've been told that those numbers are redacted. Do you see there are some line -- actually some lines on the sides of the pages of -- or at least one line on the sides of the pages of those two exhibits?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that suggest to you that these two pages were somehow stored together or filed together and then copied in some way?
A. Yes.
Q. Where would these two pages have been filed? Where did you put these after you were done looking at them or writing them?
A. I believe I may have made notes on the back of that page.
Q. On the back of which page?
A. The first page.
Q. What notes do you think you may have put on the back of the first page, which is 2074A?
A. These notes that you're talking about.
Q. Ah. So you think you typed and hand wrote what appears on [2320] 2074B on the back of the time line that is 2074A? Is that what happened?
A. That's what I recall.
Q. Thank you.
Well, let's look at the handwritten part, again, of 2074B. Did you put the handwriting on that page roughly at about the same time that you typed the information?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Okay. Approximately -- well, did you put it on after you typed the information? Or before?
A. I would almost guess -- I'm not sure when I made those notes.
Q. So you don't know whether you made the handwritten notes before or after you typed the text that's there?
A. I believe it may have been after.
Q. Okay. That would seem likely just by the placement of the handwriting, right? You had typed something, and then you wrote something in handwriting in the space that was left open at the top.
Does that seem likely to you?
A. Could have been.
Q. Do you know how long after you typed the typewritten portion you would have written the handwritten portion?
A. I'm not sure which came first; I was just making notes.
Q. What caused you to write those notes? [2321]
A. You mean the -- what part?
Q. Well, the --
A. Top part?
Q. There are two and parts of it, right? Okay, let's stop with --
A. The handwritten part?
Q. Yes, the handwritten part.
A. Oh, I see that the Wilcox name came out. And you notice it was $150,000, so I'm sure I was making notes that here's another victim in the bank fraud investigation. I never would have said 150,000. So that's how I remember why I made that note.
Q. So you refer in that note to "Wilcox husband," is that right?
A. That's the information that came to me.
Q. Okay. "Wilcox" is Mary Rose Wilcox, who was on the Board of Supervisors, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And "Wilcox husband" is Earl Wilcox, her husband, is that right?
A. If that's the same Wilcox. It could have been another Wilcox, but I --
Q. Well, what do you think --
A. -- could be the same.
Q. Okay. You think it's Earl Wilcox who's the Wilcox husband [2322] you're referring to there?
A. It could have been, but that's the name that came to me.
Q. I'm going to read to you from a portion of your deposition, Sheriff, again from September 17. It's at page 480, lines 5 through 22. Actually, let's start at page -- at line 13 of page 480.
"Question: Do you know who Wilcox's husband is?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: Who is that?
"Answer: I can't think of his first name."
And then one of the attorneys in the room said something.
And then you say: "Earl. I've known him for years.
"Question: And who is Earl Wilcox?
"Answer: The husband of Mary Rose Wilcox."
Do you recall giving that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that testimony accurate at the time you gave it?
Now, you wrote about Mary Rose Wilcox's husband right below the place where you wrote something about Judge Snow's sister-in-law working for Covington & Burling.
You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think the two of them were related somehow?
A. No, I thought they were related to being victims, yes. [2323]
Q. Now, Mary Rose Wilcox in the past had criticized your immigration policies, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. While she was a county supervisor?
A. And after.
Q. Your office had investigated Supervisor Wilcox, correct?
A. Yes. My office and the county attorney.
Q. Well, you yourself personally were aware of that investigation while it was going on, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in fact, you issued a statement in December 2009 announcing Supervisor Wilcox's indictment, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: I'll allow limited leeway in light of the exhibit.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you issued a statement in December 2009, along with the county attorney, announcing the indictment of Supervisor Wilcox, is that correct?
A. Yes, that I can recall. I don't know -- you say 2009?
Q. Yes.
A. I didn't see it, but I take your word for it, 2009.
Q. Before the announcement of that indictment, you knew she was going to be indicted, correct?
A. I believe so. [2324]
Q. The case against her was later dismissed.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then she sued as a result of those --
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. He hasn't asked a question yet, so I'm not sure what he's asking.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. You know that Supervisor Wilcox filed a lawsuit as a result of those charges, and the County paid her almost a million dollars in damages as a result?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: He asked him what he knew. I'm going to allow it on relevance.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So you thought about Earl Wilcox being on the list of 150,000 people at the same time that you were thinking of Judge Snow being on the list of 150,000 people, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. We talked about Judge Snow earlier.
How is it that you found out that Supervisor Wilcox was on that list?
A. I don't think the supervisor was on that list.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Her husband. You somehow [2325] found out that Earl Wilcox's name was on that list.
How did you find that out?
A. I believe I was told by the people that were going through that list.
Q. That's Mr. Zullo and/or Mr. -- or Detective Mackiewicz, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So what did Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz tell you when they informed you that Earl Wilcox was on that list?
A. Well, they didn't tell me much of anything. They told me he was on the list, and he was a victim, and that's why I made a little note, $150,000 -- I'm sorry, 150,000 victims in Maricopa County, and he was one of the victims.
Q. Did you have the same concern about Earl Wilcox that you had for Judge Snow?
A. I mentioned several times I had the same answers for everyone that was victimized, and I think I told you earlier I don't care what their occupation is. My concern was 150,000 people that live in Maricopa County were victimized, and I don't care who they are, where they came from.
Q. Well, Sheriff, you're the one who decided specifically to mention Judge Snow and Earl Wilcox on this piece of paper.
A. Yes.
Q. Sheriff, let's look at Exhibit 2072, which has been admitted. And we can flip through it. I don't want -- there's [2326] some information on there that maybe we don't want to focus on, and Mr. Masterson, I think, will deal with that. But you've seen this exhibit before, and feel free to take the paper copy out if you would like.
Note. Ex. 2072 is: Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery 1724 investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) (MELC199917-MELC199935) - admitted into evidence on Sept. 29 (Transcript at 1724).
A. That's okay.
Q. Okay. You've seen Exhibit 2072 before. And I'll note that maybe, Mr. Klein, you can flip through the rest of it so that the sheriff can see it all.
There are some versions of a time line document with telephone calls listed there, and then toward the back there are some big charts with a red dot in the middle with a bunch of lines leading to various people. The big circle has Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer of the Department of Justice, and the other boxes around have Judge Snow, someone noted as being Judge Snow's law clerk, Covington & Burling, Dennis Burke in some versions, et cetera.
You've seen that set of documents before, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had your own copy --
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt, but just -- we went rather fast through there, but I think I noted some phone numbers. Could we again redact the phone numbers, please?
THE COURT: Yeah. Is there any objection to redacting personal phone numbers [2327]
MR. YOUNG: None, Your Honor, and we'll be happy to cooperate with Mr. Masterson in that.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So you had your own copy of these pages at the time that you saw them, is that right?
A. I believe I got a copy, yes.
Q. These pages were provided to you, at least indirectly, from Mr. Montgomery, is that right?
A. I'm not sure indirectly/directly, but this is something that I got. I don't really remember the time line or how I got it, but I did see it.
Q. When you did see it -- when you did see this information, you believed it to have been provided by Mr. Montgomery, is that right?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. I'm going to show you an e-mail. It's Exhibit 2083. It's not been admitted, so it should not go to the gallery. But I'll tell you for identification purposes that my understanding is it's a January 1, 2014 e-mail from Mr. Zullo to Sergeant Anglin.
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). It is later admitted into evidence on Oct. 9 (Transcript at 2832).
Note. For more information about this exhibit, see WYE Timeline - Jan. 1, 2014.
Do you have that e-mail in front of you, Sheriff?
A. No.
MR. YOUNG: Oh. Actually, Your Honor, if we could show it just to counsel and the sheriff without having the gallery see it, since it's not been admitted? [2328]
THE COURT: That will be fine.
MR. KLEIN: Number, again?
MR. YOUNG: 2083.
MR. KLEIN: Thank you.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you have that e-mail in front of you, Sheriff?
A. Pardon?
Q. Sheriff, do you have the e-mail that I just referred to, which is Exhibit 2083, in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. You notice it refers in the attachments of the top e-mail to the documents that we were just looking at, Revisions 1.5A.
You see that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection to foundation, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. He's just asking him if he sees it on the exhibit.
MR. MASTERSON: Well, but he said -- he's testifying as to what the latest 1.5A is.
MR. YOUNG: I'll reword the question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you see the top of that e-mail string, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that Mr. Zullo provided certain versions of Mr. Montgomery's information which is shown in Exhibit 2072, [2329] the time line with the color charts, to Sergeant Anglin of your office?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, you knew that Sergeant Anglin started becoming a --started being a part of the Seattle Montgomery investigation around January 1, 2014, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Zullo about that, that he would be joining?
A. I'm sure the chief deputy and I may have talked to him.
Q. Were you aware of that conversation happening, that Mr. Zullo was being told that Sergeant Anglin would be joining the investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you and Chief Sheridan have Mr. Zullo bring Sergeant Anglin up to speed on what had been happening in that investigation?
A. I'm not sure the mechanics of that. I'm sure Zullo must have told him what was going on.
Q. And that would have been something you would have wanted him to do, is that right?
A. Yes.
Note. For more information about Anglin's assignment to the Seattle Operation (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Dec. 30, 2013.
Q. Now, if you look at the e-mail below, which is also dated January 1, 2014, there's a reference to Covington now being included. Do you see that? [2330]
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you understood at the time you saw Exhibit 2072 that Covington & Burling was somehow involved. In fact, you had known that since the time you got that time line on November 5th, 2013, that Covington was somehow involved in this investigation, correct?
A. I'm not sure whether the involvement was trying to hack their -- excuse me, their information, too, because there was information, if you want to believe these charts and so on, that our office, the county attorney's office, and other government agencies were being penetrated, hacked.
Q. Did you understand that there was a possibility that Covington & Burling's information might also have been hacked?
A. I'm not sure if that came up, but I -- the possibility was there. I don't remember if they were specifically -- the possibility they were hacked. I just vaguely remember something about that.
Q. Well, you remember something about phone calls between Covington & Burling and either the Department of Justice or Judge Snow or his law clerk, right?
A. I remember a chart that came to me.
Q. And it had that information on it, correct?
A. Not that I believed it, but it came to me.
Q. You see a reference in that same e-mail -- and I'll just represent to you, there's no secret in this, that it's an [2331] e-mail, appears to be from Mr. Montgomery to Mr. Zullo -- about people talking to Judge Snow.
You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That was the same information that you were aware of through your looking at Exhibit 2072, correct?
A. Which is that chart?
Q. Right.
A. I don't know. I don't even know what this means about talking, myself and the attorneys. I have no idea what this means.
Q. Now, go back to Exhibit 2072. That has information that purports to be about IP address breaches of your law firm, correct? Internet protocol breaches of your law firm where their e-mails were being hacked, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that information also contained, just like the time line that you received previously back in November, an alleged wiretap of your phone, is that right?
A. Yes. I'm not sure that that was on this chart, the wiretap.
Q. Well, we don't need to look at that now. The document will show what it shows.
Now, sometime prior to your seeing this information that's contained on these charts and time lines, did you also [2332] become aware that Mr. Montgomery had a number of hard drives that contained information that he said he had taken while he was working with the CIA, and that provided the source for the information that he was telling your people about?
A. I believe the investigators mentioned that to me. I didn't go into much detail.
Q. You understood that it was on a large number of hard drives, that information?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that information -- actually, the hard drives, were there about 50 of them?
A. If I recall, that's what I was told.
Q. So did you have Detective Mackiewicz bring those 50 hard drives from the Seattle area to Washington, D.C. at some point, or at least copies of those hard drives?
A. Well, I didn't tell them what to do. I'm going to reiterate that they were running the investigation, I didn't know much about computers, and they would run it by me. I agreed with their assessment, and they continued on.
Q. You knew they were taking those hard drives to Washington, D.C., correct?
A. Yes, but I didn't order them to take it anywhere, as it was their recommenda- -- recommendation, and I knew that they knew what they were doing, so I never objected. But that was their suggestion. [2333]
Q. And you approved of their doing that, is that right?
A. Well, indirectly I approve. I didn't unapprove, so I was relying on their expertise.
Q. And the purpose of taking those hard drives to Washington, D.C. was to have some former National Security Agency employees look at it sometime in the fall of 2013, is that right?
Note. It appears that Young meant to say fall of 2014 - see below where he refers "year earlier into the fall of 2013, that's the first time you heard that those hard drives existed..."
A. I believe so.
Q. You knew that at the time that was happening?
A. I knew that they were going to meet with these people.
Q. Now, and then you knew that they brought those hard drives back from Washington to Phoenix, correct, after that review by the former NSA people?
A. I believe they did.
Q. And you knew that at the time that was happening?
A. I'm not sure what the time was, but I believe they may have brought it back.
Q. Well, you knew that those hard drives were in Phoenix at your offices.
A. I believe so.
Q. Now, going back a year earlier into the fall of 2013, that's the first time you heard that those hard drives existed, is that right?
A. I don't recall the time.
Q. Well, let's take a look at the interrogatory responses that you verified, which I believe may be Exhibit 2830. [2334]
Actually, it's 2730. Could we look at 2730?
Note. Ex. 2730 is: Case CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS - Defendant Arpaio's Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Arpaio RE Contempt dated 9/15/2015. It was admitted into evidence on Oct. 1 (Transcript at 2041).
On page 10 you'll see there's a response to interrogatory number 9. Actually, let's look at page 9 first.
Do you see the question is: Identify all persons who were aware of the existence or had possession of the 50 hard drives relating to Dennis Montgomery and/or the so-called Seattle investigation, and provide the dates on which they became aware of their existence or had possession of such hard drives?
A. Yes.
Q. Then go to the next page. And there is a reference to you and Chief Deputy Sheridan, and it says that you never possessed the hard drives, but you became aware of their existence sometime in fall 2013. You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. That's accurate, Sheriff, correct?
A. If that's what you're showing me, I will believe it is.
Q. Well, go to the back of the document, Sheriff. You'll see that you actually signed a sworn verification of these responses.
Do you recall doing that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So is the information that you first found out and Chief Deputy Sheridan first found out about those hard drives in the fall of 2013, correct? [2335]
A. Yes.
Q. Your understanding was that Mr. Montgomery said he had gotten that information during the course of his employment with a federal intelligence agency, correct?
A. I believe that someone mentioned that to me.
Q. You believe that Mr. Montgomery had had that data from his time as an employee at the CIA, correct?
A. I don't know as a fact.
Q. That's what you understood he was saying.
A. That's what someone told me, yes.
Q. Okay. Someone told you that he was saying that, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. If what you understood he was saying was true, you knew that Mr. Montgomery had stolen that information from the federal government intelligence agency, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection to the question as asked.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, did you believe that Mr. Montgomery was saying that he had taken that information from his former employer?
A. Once again, I am going on what I may have heard from my investigators, so whether he really did or not, I really don't know. [2336]
Q. Well, I'm not asking you about whether --
A. Go check and investigate that.
Q. Yeah. Let me make it clear, I'm not asking about what really happened, because I think we both know that none of this really happened. I'm asking you about what you believed he was saying at the time. Do you understand that?
And you believed what he was saying at the time, as reported to you by your investigators, was that he had taken that information from his former employer in the federal government, correct?
A. That is what I heard. I'm not saying I believe what I heard.
Q. Were you told that he had stolen that information from the government?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, you knew at the time that if he had stolen that information he'd be a criminal, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Asked and answered; foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I didn't -- I don't know whether he would be a criminal or what aspects, who he was working for.
Very complex. But I believe we did take that case to the attorney general.
Note. For more information regarding MCSO's meetings with the Arizona Attorney General re: Montgomery/the Seattle Operation, see WYE Timeline - Sometime between Oct. 18 and Dec. 11, 2013 and Dec. 11, 2013.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, if someone thinks they've committed a crime, they can [2337] go to the attorney general to try to get immunity, right?
A. That would be one aspect, I presume.
Q. Right. The reason you might want or need immunity is that you think you may have some information that could help the government, but you want to make sure the government does not prosecute you as a criminal. Is that the purpose of immunity?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, compound, speculation, foundation.
THE COURT: It is a long question.
Can you break it up a little bit?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you understand that when someone asks someone like the attorney general for immunity, they're offering to help the attorney general in some investigation of some sort, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in exchange for that help, the person who's going to the attorney general wants some promise that that person will not be prosecuted for whatever that person has done that results in that person having that information, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, speculation.
THE COURT: Do you want to ask him if he has an understanding as to that?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Is that your understanding, Sheriff?
A. In normal investigations, I presume that's done quite [2338] often.
Q. You knew that Mr. Montgomery wanted immunity, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm sure when he met with the attorney general, many things were discussed. I'm sure the banking investigation, many other things could have been discussed.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. I realize there may be other things, but the particular thing I'm asking about is his desire for immunity. You knew that Dennis Montgomery wanted immunity from prosecution, is that right?
A. I believe the lawyers representing him probably wanted him to have immunity.
Q. And you were told that fact at the time, is that right?
A. They did mention it to me.
Q. Who were his lawyers, Mr. Montgomery's lawyers?
A. I believe he had a lawyer that -- David Smith -- that unfortunately passed away right after that.
Q. Did you talk to David Smith about immunity for Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo or Mr. Mackiewicz tell you that they had?
A. I'm not sure. [2339]
Q. There were two or three meetings with the Arizona Attorney General's Office during which the issue of immunity for Mr. Montgomery was discussed, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. Sheriff, you yourself may have attended one of those meetings with the Arizona Attorney General at which immunity for Mr. Montgomery was discussed, correct?
A. You know, I'm not sure if it was discussed at that time. I believe I attended the first, but I did not attend any meetings after that.
Q. Who attended the meeting that you were at?
A. If I recall, it could have been Detective Mackiewicz or Zullo, myself, and lawyers for the attorney general, and I believe the attorney general was there also.
Q. That was Attorney General Tom Horne who was in the meeting that you attended?
A. Yes.
Q. Then that meeting that you had with Attorney General Horne and others was about the subject of immunity from Dennis Montgomery, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: If I remember, we ran the banking situation by them, case there was any prosecution. And I'm not sure about the going into details about the informer or the – [2340] Montgomery's role in computers, and CIA, and all that. That may have been mentioned.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, Sheriff, I'm going to ask you to listen to me read a portion of your September 18 deposition starting at page 552, line 15, going to page 553, line 10.
And it starts off as follows.
Mr. Masterson, do you have that?
MR. MASTERSON: Just a minute, please. Where we starting, please?
MR. YOUNG: 553, line 2 to line 10.
Actually, I'm going to start earlier. 552. Page 552, at line 15, and going to page 553, line 10. And I'm going to read it aloud.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. "Question: Did you go to the meeting involving Mr. Montgomery and Attorney General Tom Horne?
"Answer: You know, that's something that I was trying to recall. I may have been there at one meeting. I think they had two or three meetings.
"Question: If Chief Sheridan said that you were there for at least one meeting with Tom Horne, would you disagree with that -- with him?
"Answer: No.
"Question: Do you recall what was discussed during [2341] that meeting that you were there for?
"Answer: It had something to do with immunity for him, so I don't remember all the conversations on that. I'm sure they, they would know. There's a lot of legal information that is sometimes difficult to understand."
Do you recall giving that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. That was accurate when you gave it on September 18?
A. Yes. I think I mentioned even this -- when you just asked me about the -- we talked about the banking, and maybe that did come up with the CIA. I think I just mentioned that.
Q. Well, you understood that the reason that Mr. Montgomery might feel he needed immunity is that he had stolen the information that he was using in the course of your banking investigation, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: He asked for his understanding. I'm overruling the objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if that was the only reason, because I believe there was other issues dealing with intelligence and that type of situation I wasn't really knowledgeable of. So I don't recall if that was the -- if that was mentioned, but I think it was somewhat the role of the -- the source, Montgomery, and computers, and CIA, and federal government. [2342]
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. You understood at least one of the things that Mr. Montgomery was concerned about, and that caused him to want immunity, was what you understood him to be saying that he had taken that information from the federal government that he was using in your banking investigation, is that right?
A. It could have happened, but I don't recall the semantics of it, because I think a lot of things were talked about in that meeting.
Q. Well, it's not so complicated, Sheriff. You understood at the time that if someone's working for a federal government intelligence agency and they take 50 hard drives' worth of information from that agency, they'd be a criminal, right?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, foundation, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It could be illegal. Once again, I don't have all the facts or the circumstances involving this situation. I'm not denying that it could have been illegal if he did do that.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. And you knew at the time that it could be illegal if in fact he had done that, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Yes. [2343]
THE COURT: I'll allow it this last time.
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Did the witness answer?
THE COURT: I didn't hear it.
MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Did you sustain the objection or overrule it?
THE COURT: I said I'd allow the witness to answer.
MR. YOUNG: Okay.
THE COURT: This last time. Apologize.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. At the meeting that you had with Attorney General Tom Horne and others, did you advocate for immunity for Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Did you say anything at that meeting?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. So you went to a meeting with Attorney General Tom Horne and you said nothing?
A. I don't recall the instance you were talking about. It may have come up, but I was more concerned about the banking situation. And once again, I'm not an expert on computers, or hacking, or anything else that may have come up.
Q. Well, I'm actually asking about the meeting as a whole; not just about the potential crime, or immunity, but about [2344] anything.
You went to a meeting about Mr. Montgomery with Attorney General Tom Horne and others. Did you say anything during that meeting?
A. Not much. I let my detectives talk about it. They had the knowledge. Now, as far as the immunity and that, that could have come up in subsequent meetings. This is a preliminary meeting that we had. And then they had meetings after that.
Q. Was it you who asked Attorney General Horne to have that meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you also authorized Mr. Zullo to take Dennis Montgomery to go and meet with a federal judge of the FISA Court in Washington, D.C., correct?
Note. For additional information about the MCSO's trips to visit Judge Lamberth, see WYE Timeline - Sometime in 2014 - likely mid-2014 and October 2014.
A. Well, you say authorize. That was their suggestion; I didn't oppose it.
Q. Well, they had to spend some money to do that, right? Airfare, travel, et cetera?
A. I believe the detectives did, yes.
Q. And that was okay from your standpoint?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew they were doing it when they did it?
A. Knew they were going to Washington.
Q. And you knew they were meeting with Judge Royce Lamberth of the FISA Court, correct? [2345]
A. I knew they were meeting with a federal judge. I didn't even remember his name then, but now I subsequently remember his name, Lamberth.
Q. And Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz told you that Judge Lamberth was interested in what they and Mr. Montgomery had to say during that meeting?
A. I didn't get into all the details as what the judge said to the investigators.
Q. I realize you may not remember all the details, but you do recall that they told you that the judge was interested in the story that they were telling him, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in particular, or at least one of the things they were interested -- they said he was interested in, was the alleged wiretaps on you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who arranged that meeting with Judge Lamberth?
A. I think it was an attorney, Klayman, made that arrangement, if I recall. I think he knew the judge.
Q. Larry Klayman.
A. Yes.
Q. With respect to Exhibit 2072 and that time line and chart information that Mr. Montgomery provided, over time you came to the conclusion that Dennis Montgomery had just made it all up, correct? [2346]
A. Yes.
Q. And in fact, Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz told you that all of the information that Dennis Montgomery had provided was garbage, is that right?
A. Eventually, yes, they did. I didn't -- I was really -- had my eyes open. I didn't -- once again, to me it was bizarre, but eventually, I think there was probably no doubt that the detectives also agreed it -- I don't know about the word "garbage," but it wasn't accurate.
Q. Well, if I tell you that you used the word "garbage" in your deposition, would you stick with that?
A. To me, that's a pretty strong word. So if I said garbage, I probably really believed it was garbage.
Q. Well, just let me read to you from page 456 of your September 17 deposition, lines 11 through 17.
Actually, it's lines 19 through 24 on page 456.
"Question: When did you come to that conclusion, or what -- what was it that led you to that conclusion?"
And I'll tell you it's the conclusion that he made it up.
Your answer was the following:
"Well, the detectives were communicating with him frequently, and I think they came to the conclusion that all this was garbage. These are the detectives that were dealing with this and the source."
Was that testimony accurate when you gave it on [2347] September 17?
A. The detectives said it was garbage or I did?
Q. You said that the detectives told you it was garbage.
A. Yes.
Q. That's accurate, right?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, we're just a little past noon, and if you can just look for a good place to break for the lunch hour, that would be good.
MR. YOUNG: Maybe just one or two questions.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you agree with the conclusion of your detectives that the information provided by Mr. Montgomery was garbage?
A. Yes, I'm relying on their assessment.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, this would be a fine time for a lunch break.
* * *
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
[2348]Q. I want to go back to the information that you received from Dennis Montgomery about a connection or connections among Judge Snow, his law clerk, the Department of Justice, and Covington & Burling.
Do you have all that information in mind? We looked [2349] at it. It's in that Exhibit 2072.
Note. Exhibit 2072 is "Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) (MELC199917-MELC199935)."
A. Yes.
Q. You did not want to ignore that information, correct?
A. Ignore it?
Q. Right.
A. I didn't pay much attention to it, except the wiretap entries.
Q. Well, you also did not want to ignore that information, is that correct?
A. I didn't ignore it. There wasn't much done about it.
Q. Well, in your law enforcement career you have come to the belief that you really can't ignore anything, right, because you never know, it might be true, is that right?
A. Yeah, but you have to have some type of evidence or -- before you look into things. Not what you read in the papers.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play for you from your deposition on September 17, it's page 509 -- actually, it's September 18, I apologize -- page 509, line 19, to page 510, line 4.
And now just as background for that, you had a meeting involving Mr. Casey and your other lawyers about that information provided by Mr. Montgomery, correct?
Note. For more information about the post-Nov. 5 Fax meeting with MCSO counsel (including additional testimony) see WYE Timeline - Shortly After Nov. 5, 2013.
A. You know, I don't recall that meeting. I recall one meeting that we had at the other building where Casey and other lawyers were present.
Q. And did you recall Mr. Casey making some comments about the [2350] information from Dennis Montgomery?
A. I think he may have said something about it.
MR. YOUNG: All right. Now, I'm going to ask Mr. Klein to play those lines, page 50 -- actually, 509/19, to 510, line 4, which is for, Mr. Klein, clip 25.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: So Mr. Casey says that he was leery about the credibility of the source. I think he said that he thought it was hogwash. Do you recall Mr. Casey's reaction during that meeting to the information that's in Exhibit 2072?
"Answer: I don't know the words he used, but I was a little, you know, concerned being in law enforcement, but on the other hand, you can't ignore anything. You never know."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Is that testimony accurate, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were advising you that the information that Mr. Montgomery had provided was worth pursuing, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were relying on them to decide to have them take a further look at that information, correct?
A. What information are we talking about?
Q. The information that we've looked at in Exhibit 2072 about [2351] these alleged connections involving Judge Snow. You rely on --
A. I don't think that was the thrust of what we were looking at. We were looking at the bank fraud investigation.
Q. Well, I'm going to play for you again another portion of your September 18 deposition starting at page 510, line 22, to 511, line 10. And that is clip 26.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Mr. Casey says that at least all of the attorneys in the meeting thought that this information was, and I'm paraphrasing him, unreliable and -- and hogwash, I think is the word he used, and that you were the only one in the meeting who did not share that opinion; is that correct?
"Answer: Well, I had -- I just mentioned a few minutes ago I was concerned, and we also were relying on the detectives involved in this investigation, that I didn't have all the details. And I did say in law enforcement sometimes you can't ignore anything, but I did -- I believe I did say I'm a little surprised at this information."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Was your testimony that we just heard from September 18 correct, Sheriff?
A. Yeah, I am -- I was surprised.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, excuse me. Under Rule 106, could I ask counsel to read page 509, line 6, through – [2352] excuse me, page 509, lines 4 through 10, to put the answer of the sheriff in context, please.
MR. YOUNG: Sure. I'm happy to read those lines.
"Question: Can you give me any more detail that you can recall about what was said on that subject?
"Answer: Well, it did somewhat perk my interest when it mentioned that one of our attorneys was going to a soccer game somewhere, where, with his kid, how would he know that? So that's -- but on the other hand, I was still very leery of this information that was coming out."
THE WITNESS: Did you say I was what?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. The word was "leery."
A. Leery?
Q. Leery, l-e-e-r-y.
A. Yeah, I think it's rather sensitive if someone's going into a law firm looking at their confidential messages, yeah, I -- I did have a concern about that allegation that -- that they knew, whoever went in there to harvest, allegedly, information from my own law firm, and how they would know that one of my lawyers took a kid out for a soccer game? I'm sure the lawyer didn't publicize that.
Q. So you thought that Mr. Montgomery was providing some information that deserved further investigation, correct?
A. No, I was talking -- no, my information, or concern, was [2353] harvesting other government agencies and tapping my telephone calls.
Q. And the banking information, too?
A. And the banking, that's right.
Q. We'd mentioned just a few minutes ago some comments of Mr. Casey. And you did have at least one meeting with your attorneys, and I'm specifically referring to Mr. Casey, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Popolizio, and Mr. Masterson, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that meeting was about what Mr. Montgomery was bringing to you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How many meetings did you have with your attorneys on that issue?
A. What issue?
Q. The issue of the information that Mr. Montgomery, Dennis Montgomery, was presenting to you --
A. I don't believe I had many meetings on that issue with all the attorneys and detectives.
Q. How many meetings do you recall having with your attorneys on that issue?
A. I recall one for sure, the one that we were referring to about the attorneys -- my attorney's office. They had been harvested for information.
Q. Okay. But did you hear Chief Sheridan say that he was at a [2354] meeting with those attorneys and with you?
A. I'm not sure if he was there, but if he said he was, then he was.
Q. Who else was at that meeting?
A. I believe that that's the meeting where the -- Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz was on a telephone call. Telephone -- out-of-state telephone line.
Q. Yes. So they were on a speakerphone in a room where the other people that you mentioned were present physically, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the only meeting you recall having with your four attorneys about the Montgomery information?
A. I think -- I don't recall any others. There may have been talk about another one; I don't recall.
Q. Do you recall when that meeting took place, the one that you do recall?
A. I think that was probably after the fax came in, maybe, after November 5 I believe that we had the meeting because one of the meeting -- one of the concerns was hacking into our law firm and other government agencies, including our office and the County Attorney's Office, I believe.
Q. Well, you got the fax on November 5th, 2013. Do you think the meeting that you recall with your attorneys was sometime during the month of November 2013? [2355]
A. I don't have the date, but I think it was around that time.
Q. Do you recall having another meeting on the same subject with the attorneys on the first day or two of January 2014?
Note. For additional information about the January 2, 2014 meeting (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Jan. 2, 2014.
A. Well, the '14 -- you said 2014?
Q. Correct.
A. I may have, but I don't recall.
Q. All right. Well, let's take a look at an exhibit that's not yet been admitted, but it is 2079. I'll represent to you that this appears to be an e-mail string between Mr. Zullo and Sergeant Anglin.
Note. Exhibit 2079 is: Screen shots of text messages taken off Travis Anglin's personal phone sent by Mike Zullo (MELC199513-22).
Note. For additional information about some of the texts messages contained in this exhibit (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Dec. 30-31, 2013, Jan. 1, 2014.
Do you have that in front of you --
A. Yes.
Q. -- Sheriff?
All right. You see the reference on the first page to "Oz"?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Zullo told you that Dennis Montgomery's code name was Oz, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And actually, is it correct that Dennis Montgomery was assigned that code name because you couldn't keep the first name straight?
A. What was that?
Q. Well, why don't you take a look at the page with the Bates number 516 of this exhibit. [2356]
You see that note in the middle of the page about the code names?
A. You saying I can't keep the -- it's me that can't keep the --
Q. Well, my belief is that this is a text message written by Mr. Zullo, and my question to you --
A. That's his opinion.
Q. Well, is his opinion accurate?
A. It could be. I don't remember everything.
Q. Now, if you go back to the page 513, the first page of the Exhibit 2079, you see a reference there to mapping out cell phone calls? That's at the top?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you see something that talks about line calls back to 2009 involving Judge Snow?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you see something that says, quote, the stuff looks promising, end quote?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were talking to Mr. Zullo about the Montgomery investigation in the early January 2014 time period, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. In fact, if you look at page 518 of this same set of text messages, you'll see Mr. Zullo writing to Sergeant Anglin about apologizing to bother -- for bothering him on New Year's Day. [2357]
Do you see that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Judge. Piecemeal reading of a document not in evidence doesn't make it better.
MR. YOUNG: All right. I'll try to refer --
THE COURT: I'm not sure what the objection is.
MR. MASTERSON: He's reading from a document not in evidence. He's just doing it bit by bit.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow him to review the document with the witness, so I'm going to overrule the objection to the extent that I didn't sense that he was reading it.
But I'm going to ask you not to read from it directly --
MR. YOUNG: Understood, Your Honor.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you see that segment of the text message string, Sheriff?
A. You talking about this comment?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you see the reference to a phone call with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you have a phone call -- well, let me ask you this: Is it possible that you had a phone call with Mr. Zullo about the Montgomery information on New Year's Day, 2014? [2358]
A. I don't know. I don't remember.
Q. Well, if Mr. Zullo said that he did talk with you on that day, would you have any reason to doubt that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't even know what day we're talking about. What day is this? What New Year's are we talking about?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
MR. YOUNG: I think that was the --
THE WITNESS: Okay. I don't remember what New Year's Day you're talking about.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to provide foundation, Mr. Young?
MR. YOUNG: Well, I'll ask him the question.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you recall having a phone call -- well -- look at the document, Sheriff. And I'll tell you that for my question, for purposes of my question the New Year's Day's 2014.
Do you deny having a phone call with Mr. Zullo about the Montgomery information on New Year's Day 2014?
A. First of all, I don't know if I was around, but if Zullo said I made that call -- he called me on New Year's Day, it could be accurate. I don't know. I don't remember.
Q. Now, did you call Mr. Zullo almost every day around that time period about this issue? [2359]
A. I was in contact with him on other issues, mainly too.
Q. Well, is it correct that regardless of the particular issue, in early January 2014 you were calling Mr. Zullo almost every day?
A. I don't think it was every day, but I was in contact with him on other issues.
Q. My question wasn't every day, it was almost every day. Is it accurate --
A. I don't know that I call people almost every day, but I was in contact with him.
Q. If he says that you called him almost every day wanting updates, would you deny that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: Well, if that's his opinion --
MR. MASTERSON: Sheriff --
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. If Mr. Zullo says that you called him almost every day wanting updates in the early part of January 2014, would you deny that?
A. I'm not denying it, but I don't remember it.
Q. Now, if you look at the bottom part of that same text message, it refers to a meeting with you in your office at [2360] 3:00 p.m. regarding the phone information.
You see that sentence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you in fact -- assuming that we're dealing with New Year's Day, January 1, 2014 -- did you in fact have a meeting at your office on which Mr. Zullo was on the phone, involving some attorneys to discuss the Montgomery information?
A. If I recall, that was the meeting that we just discussed recently in the old building where we were concerned about harvesting into our law firm and other government agencies.
Q. Well, the purpose of the meeting on January 2, 2014, with your four attorneys, with Mr. Zullo on the phone, was to discuss the progress of the banking investigation, correct?
Note. For additional information regarding the Jan. 2, 2014 meeting between MCSO and attorneys (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Jan. 2, 2014.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. Counsel's testifying. No foundation.
THE COURT: Well, to the extent that your assertion is that he misstates testimony, I'm taking very good notes of the testimony. I remember what it is. I do allow some leeway on cross-examination --
MR. MASTERSON: It's not really that, Judge. May I address it?
THE COURT: Sure. In one or two words. Unless you want to talk to me at sidebar.
MR. MASTERSON: I do, please.
THE COURT: All right. [2361]
(Bench conference on the record.)
MR. MASTERSON: My objection, Judge, to the line of questioning is the e-mail is between two other people.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. MASTERSON: And the sheriff has already testified more than once he hasn't seen this. And counsel is essentially bit by bit reading pieces, bits and pieces of the e-mail to the sheriff, essentially force feeding him testimony. He's testifying through his questions by reading the e-mail.
THE COURT: Well, I think on cross-examination you're allowed to pose pretty direct questions. I'll try to be sensitive, I don't want him reading the e-mail, but I think he can ask him about its contents. I haven't sensed that he's doing otherwise.
What was the part of the specific objection -- or specific question that you objected to?
MR. MASTERSON: In this particular instance, it's primarily that there's no foundation for this witness to testify as to what is said between the two people in this e-mail.
MR. YOUNG: I'm not asking him about that. I'm asking him whether he had a meeting on January 2 to discuss the banking issue.
THE COURT: He certainly can ask that.
MR. MASTERSON: He can ask that, but I'll object to [2362] asked and answered. The witness has already testified that he believes he had the meeting in the old building prior to this point.
THE COURT: Well, I think with all due respect, Mr. Masterson, I think there's some unclarity from the witness's testimony about whether there was more than one meeting.
MR. MASTERSON: I agree with you on that.
THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to allow the question.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
(Bench conference concluded.)
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I've actually forgotten the last question. Could we have the court reporter read it back?
THE COURT: You may.
(The record was read as follows:)
Question: Well, the purpose of the meeting on January 2, 2014, with your four attorneys, with Mr. Zullo on the phone, was to discuss the progress of the banking investigation, correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, but I will repeat again that we were concerned -- I believe that fax came out November 5 that talked about the -- the wiretaps. And also information -- I'm not sure if it was in that fax, but it was told to me that there was harvesting done into the lawyer's office and our [2363] office and the County Attorney's Office, and I thought it was very important to keep track of that. And we subsequently had a meeting with the attorneys, and Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz was on the telephone.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play for you a portion of your deposition on September 17. Page 444, line 6 through 24. And for Mr. Klein that is clip 14.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Do you recall a meeting with those four attorneys where you were talking to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation?
"Answer: I believe so, yes.
"Question: And that was on January 2, 2014, correct?
"Answer: I don't remember the date, but it would have been right after New Year's.
"Question: So sometime in the first few days of January 14, 2014, you had a meeting involving the people I listed relating to the Seattle investigation, correct?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: What was your purpose in asking Mr. Zullo to come to that meeting?
"Answer: He didn't come -- I don't believe he came to the meeting.
"Question: Well, he was on the phone. I'm sorry. [2364]
"Answer: Well, I think he was the investigator, along with Mackiewicz, to discuss the progress of that banking situation."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Was your testimony on September 17 that we just heard correct, Sheriff?
A. Yes, we did discuss the banking investigation.
Q. At that meeting did you request input from your attorneys about the reliability or credibility of the information that Montgomery had provided?
A. Well, this is somewhat -- as far as, what, two months, assisting our office, so I don't know about the credibility at that time that we had that meeting.
It seemed to be bizarre, but we still looked into the banking, which we seemed -- our people seemed to think was something legitimate because of all the names that he had in the computer. But as far as going into other attorneys' offices and ours, kind of mind-boggling.
Q. Did your attorneys tell you on January 2, 2014, that the information from Montgomery was unreliable, in their view?
A. I didn't hear that, and I believe Jerry Sheridan was there, and he didn't hear that the attorneys said it was unreliable.
How would they know it?
Q. At the meeting that you recall, did anyone raise questions [2365] about the reliability of the Montgomery information?
A. Well, I'm not sure about my former lawyer; he may have made some faces or something. I don't think he believed right there at that time anything was legitimate. I think he may have been surprised also on the information going into lawyers' offices and so on, so I think that was sort of his reaction, and we were all surprised at the information.
Q. What was the reaction of your other lawyers, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Popolizio, and Mr. Masterson?
A. Well, I didn't hear anything that -- they said it was all -- whatever Casey said. Everybody's using these words, garbage or whatever he said. I think they kept an open mind right at that time because once again, my concern was, and I think my attorneys', how did they know that one of the attorney's kids was playing soccer? That wasn't advertised, as I just said. How would you know, unless you went into their -- their e-mails and their confidential information? So that's what perked my interest, and I guess everybody else.
Q. How about any non-lawyers in the room? Did anybody question the credibility of the information that Mr. Montgomery had provided?
A. I don't think it was questioning; I think it was sort of shocking. But once again, you talk about the two wiretaps with a certain number next to it, I'm not an expert on wiretaps, but when you had that number next to it you seem to be -- you know, [2366] there may be something to it.
Q. Well, after that meeting, after that meeting on January 2, the investigation continued, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You continued to talk with Mr. Zullo about that investigation?
A. That one and also the banking, and another one.
Q. And Mr. Zullo continued to give you updates on what was happening with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Well, I'm not saying he told me everything, but he did give me a -- a summarized edition verbally of what was going on.
Q. Let's look at Exhibit 2087. It's a January 8, 2014 e-mail. And if you look on the second page, there's an e-mail that is from Mike [Zullo] to Mr. Montgomery.
Note. Ex. 2087 is: Email from Mike Zullo to Brian McDaniel copying Travis Anglin, forwarding email from Mike Zullo to Dennis Montgomery, with a subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014 (MELC199540-13). It is admitted into evidence on Oct. 9 (Transcript at 2833).
MR. MASTERSON: Excuse me, Your Honor. Object to mischaracterization of the document.
MR. YOUNG: It will be my representation that the name that's there is Mr. Montgomery's. I'll rephrase the question,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So do you see that e-mail?
And maybe we can call it out for the sheriff. It's actually the e-mail below that, Mr. Klein.
You see the line in the middle of that panel that [2367] mentions you?
A. The one about his medical condition?
Q. Right.
A. Yes.
Q. So in January 2014 you heard from Mr. Zullo that Mr. Montgomery had a health problem, correct?
A. I don't know if that was the first time, last time, but yes, he said he was sick.
Q. And you heard that it was aneurysm that was the problem that Mr. Montgomery was having?
A. I'm not sure at that time he had the diagnosis but he wasn't feeling well.
Q. At some point you learned that he did have an aneurysm, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you conveyed through Mr. Zullo your best wishes to Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want you to look at the top of that same page, the second page of Exhibit 2087. And maybe we can have the bottom of the previous page there so the sheriff can see the whole e-mail.
So toward the bottom of that 7:25 p.m. e-mail there is a reference to some cash. Do you see that? It's at the -- maybe Mr. Klein can [2368] highlight that sentence.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, is it your understanding that Mr. Zullo had Mr. Montgomery working on the birth certificate issue in January 2014?
A. I'm not sure of the time span, but on the side he was looking into it.
Q. Well, there's a reference in the e-mail to "BC." Is it your understanding that would be the birth certificate?
A. If what?
Q. You see the reference to "BC" in that sentence?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand that's a reference to the birth certificate, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's a reference to the attorneys' e-mails.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Your understanding is that's a reference to the e-mails that were described in the Exhibit 27 -- 2072 and the daughter's soccer game, and the issues relating to your law firm's e-mail account being hacked, is that right?
A. I believe -- I believe so. [2369]
Q. Was it your understanding that the deal with Mr. Montgomery is that he would work on those matters and then your office would give him cash in hand?
A. I don't know. I don't know about the cash in hand. I do know that in my experience, when you utilize informants that want to get paid, sometimes they may try to say you're coming up with information to get paid. I'm not saying that was his motive. Our motive was to find out who was harvesting our lawyers.
Q. And to do that --
A. Cash on hand, I don't know what that meant.
Q. Well, you knew that your office was paying Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. This was the, I believe, the initial stages. We just met him, I believe, a couple months before.
Q. But by January 2014 was your office paying Mr. Montgomery?
A. I believe they were.
Q. Your office also paid travel expenses for Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to go to Seattle, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And there was payment for the trip to Washington, D.C. to see the judge of the FISA Court, correct? That was also paid by your office?
A. I think we only paid for the investigators, not for Montgomery. [2370]
Q. Who paid for Montgomery to go to Washington, D.C.?
A. I don't know.
Q. How is --
A. I may be wrong, but I know we paid for the two detectives.
Q. How is it that you know that your office paid for the two detectives but not for Mr. Montgomery?
A. I'm not sure who paid his way if we did not.
Q. You know that Mr. Montgomery was being paid, and -- is that correct? I think I may have asked -- you may have answered that already.
You knew he was being paid, right?
A. I don't have the paperwork. I would assume he was being paid.
Q. And if the detectives who were working with him advocated that he be paid, you would have gone along with them on that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever pay any of your personal funds to support the Seattle investigation that Mr. Montgomery was working on?
A. You know, I could make some comments about who I give money to, but there's no way I ever paid. My personal funds? Never happen. Shows you again about misstatements.
Q. Did you ever indicate in any way to anyone else that you were paying personal funds or had paid personal funds to support the Seattle investigation? [2371]
A. No. I think I read that as some news -- whatever you want to call this, some newspaper I may have read, something like that. But the answer is no, I didn't pay $10,000 for that or anything else.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that -- or any reason to know why anyone in your office might say something to the contrary?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: He just asked him if he had any reason to know. So you can answer that yes or no, Sheriff.
THE WITNESS: Do I? I don't know. Maybe he had misplaced information. But the answer is n-o, no. I never paid $10,000 to them or anybody else involved in the investigation.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Did you ever pay any money in any other amount for the Seattle investigation?
A. No.
Q. Let's look now at Exhibit 2256. This is a June 2014 e-mail, and again, I'm -- we're not going to admit it, so we're not publishing it, but it does talk about some things that I want to ask you about.
Note. Ex. 2256 is: Email from David Webb to [email protected] dated 6/29/2014 (MELC202132).
Note. For more information on this email, see WYE Timeline - June 29, 2014.
So as you said earlier, I think, Sheriff, you knew that Sergeant Anglin was working on this investigation for a period of time? [2372]
A. I think maybe four months.
Q. Sometime between January and May 2014, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. During the time that he was working on the investigation you talked with Sergeant Anglin and -- talked with him about the progress of the investigation, correct?
A. I'm not sure if I talked to him mainly. I may have been talking to Brian Mackiewicz and Zullo, who had a history of -- knew about this case. I may have talked to him. However, I think my main discussions were with Mr. Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz since they had a -- sort of a history of this.
Q. Well, you did talk with Sergeant Anglin at least a little bit, right? Maybe not as much as Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz, but you did talk to him some, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you may have told him that instead of being in Phoenix, he should be in Seattle, correct?
A. Be where?
Q. Seattle.
A. Instead of being --
Q. In Phoenix.
A. That he should be in Seattle?
Q. Yes.
A. I think that was his assignment [2373]
Q. So there were times when Sergeant Anglin would be in Phoenix and you would see him and you would tell him, Well, instead of being here in Phoenix, you should be in Seattle, is that correct?
A. I don't remember telling him where he should be.
Q. Well, you may have told him that, right?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Is it possible that you told Sergeant Anglin that the investigation involving Mr. Montgomery was more important than the unit that he was running in Phoenix?
A. Could you repeat that?
Q. Is it possible that you told Sergeant Anglin that the investigation with Dennis Montgomery was more important than the unit that Sergeant Anglin was running in Phoenix?
A. I don't know if I said that. And the chief deputy was really running the nuts and bolts of this investigation with Anglin, but if I had a conversation with him, maybe I would have said it. It was an important investigation.
Q. And you believed it was important, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if Sergeant Anglin had told you there were other things that he could work on, you may well have told him that, well, no, this Seattle investigation is more important and you should work on that instead, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation. [2374]
THE WITNESS: He was sent up there by the chief deputy because of the knowledge he had on fraud. That's what we were investigating, that banking problem.
THE COURT: Sheriff?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I'm going to remind you one more time, that when your attorney makes an objection, you need to let me rule on the objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn't hear it. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You know, if you're having trouble hearing, these are really good.
THE WITNESS: I apologize.
THE COURT: No, no problem. But try those and see if that will help you hear. Does that help you hear better?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I'll ask you, too, anybody who's going to make an objection, make it in the microphone, please.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you knew at some point that Sergeant Anglin and Mr. Zullo were having some personality problems in getting along with each other during this work on the Seattle investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Sergeant Anglin told you that you should separate yourself from Mr. Zullo, Mr. Montgomery, and the Seattle investigation [2375] correct?
A. I may recall that. I think there was much consternation with the three, little personality problems.
Q. After Sergeant Anglin told you that, you thought the best thing to do would be to bring Sergeant Anglin back to Phoenix and take him off the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. I think that's what the decision -- that was a decision by the chief deputy and me.
Q. So look at Exhibit 205 -- no, 2256. And the first paragraph in particular.
Note. Exhibit 2256 is Email from David Webb to [email protected] dated 6/29/2014 (MELC202132)
Do you see that paragraph, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Sergeant Anglin take the view that Mr. Montgomery should not be producing information on Judge Snow?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. If you know.
A. First of all, I didn't even know who Dennis was. I thought it was a reporter. Now I find out -- now I found out that he's the -- actually he's Montgomery.
Q. All right. Well, my question actually is: Do you know whether Sergeant Anglin was taking the view that Mr. Montgomery should not be producing information on Judge Snow?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: He's only asking him if he knows. [2376]
MR. MASTERSON: Just again, Your Honor, I pointed out before, sometimes I'm afraid a witness is going to blurt out an answer rather than just answering yes or no.
THE COURT: All right. That's fine.
Sheriff, I want you to answer that question, but I want you to answer it with a yes or a no.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you know whether Sergeant Anglin took the view, or was saying, that the Montgomery investigation should not be producing information on Judge Snow?
A. That's a tough one to answer --
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that's tough to answer yes or no.
THE COURT: Well, do you know?
THE WITNESS: I don't know about this message, or I don't know what he's talking about.
THE COURT: Okay. You don't need to worry about the e-mail.
THE WITNESS: No, not that I recall.
THE COURT: Just answer Mr. Young's question.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. YOUNG: [2377]
Q. To your knowledge, was anyone attacking Mr. Montgomery because he was not producing information on Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Is your answer that you don't know one way or the other on that issue?
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Do you know one way or the other whether anyone was attacking Mr. Montgomery for not producing information on Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to go back to Exhibit 2858, which was admitted earlier, and have you look at page MELC662428.
Note. Ex. 2858 is: Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042). It was admitted on Oct. 1 (Transcript at 2055).
You remember we looked at one of these Outlook calendar entries earlier, Sheriff, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this particular one shows that you had a -- a meeting, subject Brian's meeting, on July 24, 2014.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is part of your response to the monitor that includes dates, et cetera, relating to the Seattle investigation. Do you have any reason to doubt that you had a meeting with Brian Mackiewicz about the Seattle investigation on July 24, 2014?
A. If he said he had one, I probably would not doubt that. [2378]
Q. Well, this is actually a record kept by your assistant, Amy Lake, in Microsoft Outlook. You don't have any reason to doubt this meeting took place, do you?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: Well, I see it was tentative.
THE COURT: Sheriff, you were going to put in those things so you could hear?
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection.
And now you can answer, Sheriff.
THE WITNESS: I see it said tentative, so I'm not sure whether I really had the meeting or not.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So was there an invitation sent out, at least a tentative meeting with Brian Mackiewicz on July 24, 2014, about the Montgomery investigation?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: You can ask him if he knows.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Yeah. Do you know, Sheriff?
A. No.
Q. Do you know of any reason to doubt that at least a tentative meeting was set up for that purpose on that date?
A. No.
Q. Now, shifting to the September 2014 time frame, at that [2379] point you were still getting verbal reports from Mr. Zullo and/or Detective Mackiewicz about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?
A. I believe so. I believe so.
Q. And in October 2014 you were still getting reports from Mr. Zullo and/or Detective Mackiewicz about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Going back again to Exhibit 2858, this time looking at page MELC6622 -- I'm sorry, 662427, do you see that in that same response to the monitor about meetings relating to Montgomery, you're shown as having a scheduled meeting with Brian at 4:00 p.m. on October 9, 2014?
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that that meeting took place?
A. I don't know, but if he said he was there. Right now I don't know if I was there.
Q. Again, this is a record from your office. Do you have any reason to think that this record is wrong?
A. Well, sometimes you have meetings and things come up, I cancel the meetings, so I'm not sure I was there or not. But if he says I was there, then I was there.
Q. Well, again, I don't want you to misunderstand. This isn't [2380] Detective Mackiewicz speaking; it's really your assistant, Amy Lake, having put a calendar entry in your Outlook calendar.
You don't know one way or the other whether this meeting actually took place. Is that what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's look at Exhibit 2262. Now we're into November 2014, Sheriff. And if you look at a 12-28 e-mail that's on this exhibit, do you see a reference to Mr. Zullo speaking to you at 4:00 p.m.?
Note. Exhibit 2262 is: Email from David Welch to "Mike" re Judge dated 11/5/2014 (MELC199984-85)
A. Is that at the bottom?
Q. Yes, right. It's -- Actually, Mr. Klein, if you can go up a little bit, put in the bottom half of that page.
Okay. You see in the middle it says -- it mentions a 4:00 p.m. discussion? Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to -- well, do you have any reason to doubt that Mr. Zullo at least planned to speak with you at 4:00 p.m. on November 5th, 2014?
A. No.
Q. Now, by this time -- this is actually the first anniversary of your receipt of that fax from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So after a year, you still have Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz working with Mr. Montgomery on that [2381] investigation, is that right?
A. Could you repeat this?
Q. Well, this e-mail -- and I'll represent to you it's between Mr. Zullo and Mr. Montgomery -- is exactly one year after you receive the fax, right?
A. Yes.
Q. On November 5, 2014, or thereabouts, were you still receiving oral reports from Mr. Zullo about the Montgomery investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Look at the top e-mail on that first page of Exhibit 2262.
Do you see Mr. Montgomery's mention to Mr. Zullo of opening a PDF directly?
A. Are you asking if I remember this?
Q. No. I'm just asking you at the moment whether you see the reference to opening a PDF directly.
A. If that's what's there, yes.
Q. Do you know what that's talking about?
A. No.
Q. Sometime in November 2014 you knew that Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were having some concerns about the credibility of Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. They told you that some intelligence officers, or former intelligence officers, had looked at the data in the 50 [2382] hard drives that Mr. Montgomery had provided and found nothing of interest there, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That means that they and -- well, they began to believe that the banking records Mr. Montgomery said he had were not in those hard drives, is that right?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, if Mr. Montgomery actually had those banking records and they were proven to be genuine and harvested by some federal intelligence agency, that would have been something of interest to you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So if there was nothing of interest, if the data that was in those hard drives was fake, that would mean that in fact that banking information really was not there. Do you agree with me on that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, let's look at Exhibit 2531, which is in evidence. The top e-mail -- and it's a little hard to read, but we'll try to focus on it -- is an e-mail that Chief Sheridan testified about that Detective Mackiewicz forwarded to him.
Note. Ex. 2531 is: Forwarded E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Jerry Sheridan of E-mail from Thomas Drake to Brian Mackiewicz re a summary of data and information analysis of information from Dennis [Montgomery] dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198093-198095). It was admitted into evidence on Sept. 25 (Transcript at 1333).
Note. For additional information about the ex-NSA employees' evaluation of the Montgomery materials (including additional testimony), see WYE Timeline - Sometime before Nov. 7, 2013, Nov. 7, 2013, Nov. 13, 2014, and Nov. 14, 2013.
A. I can't read it -- [2383]
Q. Very hard to read, I know; I apologize for that.
A. Okay.
Q. Well, let's look at the e-mail that was forwarded to Chief Sheridan by Detective Mackiewicz. It's the one below; it might be a little easier to read.
Do you see that e-mail dated November 14, 2014, at 6:32 a.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see the middle sentence of that, which is referring to an -- well, the whole e-mail refers to an analysis of the data provided by Mr. Montgomery, and it says, quote -- and this is Mr. Drake and Mr. Wiebe, the former NSA people speaking -- quote, we have found that he, i.e., Mr. Montgomery, is a complete and total fraud, end quote.
Do you see that sentence?
A. Yes.
Q. After he received this e-mail did Chief Sheridan ever come talk to you about this?
A. He may have, but once again, I'm not a computer guy. But I think he was talking about the hard drives as being a fraud. I don't know if he was talking about the informer being a fraud. He may have been talking what was in those hard drives are fraudulent.
Q. Well, let me read --
A. That's just my opinion. [2384]
Q. Let me read the e-mail again. It says, quote, We have found that he is a complete and total fraud, and quote. Do you have some understanding that the "he" is not Mr. Montgomery?
A. No. I said that he may have based his opinion on what was in those hard drives that were fraudulent.
Q. Do you recall anything about any discussion that you had with Chief Sheridan about this finding?
A. We may have discussed it.
Q. What did you and he discuss about this?
A. Well, I think -- first of all, I do remember we had discussions many months before about this Montgomery talking about the judge and all that, and told him to stop it. Number two, I think that was the catalyst that we decided not to pay this guy any more.
Q. So I apologize, Sheriff. What is it that you say was the catalyst for your deciding not to pay him any more?
A. Because I -- we were getting information that this fellow was making things up, probably nothing unusual, to get money.
Q. Well, at least as of November 2014, you knew that Montgomery was a fraud, correct?
A. That's putting it lightly at the time after a year of dealing with him, or my people dealing with him, so we decided to stop paying him at the time.
Q. Would you agree with me that no competent law enforcement [2385] official would want to continue working with and paying someone who is a complete and total fraud?
A. Well, in my almost 55 years dealing in law enforcement and informers, sometimes the worst guys come up with the best information. Sometimes they don't. There's many investigations by the federal government and others that spend a lot of money trying to develop information. Sometimes it doesn't work.
But I think in this situation we were fed up and tired of what we were hearing, and we stopped it. However, we never gave up on that bank investigation.
Q. Well, would you agree with me that any competent law enforcement official, after a year of working with someone, who concludes that that someone is a complete and total fraud, would not continue working with and paying that person?
Do you agree with that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to overrule the foundation objection because I think that Sheriff Arpaio's already indicated he's worked for -- worked in law enforcement for 55 years, so I think he does have foundation to offer an opinion on that topic.
I do, however, think that I heard an answer to his question. I'll allow you to ask it one more time, but I don't [2386] think we need to repeat it after that.
THE WITNESS: Could you ask me the question again?
MR. YOUNG: Well, if the judge has an answer to the question, then I'm going to move to my next question, Sheriff.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Will a law enforcement officer have to be incredibly stupid to continue to work with an informant found to be a complete and total fraud?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, argumentative, foundation, reverse asked and answered.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Let's shift to December 2014, Sheriff. In December of 2014 you talked to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about the idea of doing a final report on Dennis Montgomery's work and then handing it over to a different agency, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. The final report, though, on the Montgomery investigation has not yet been done, is that right?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Okay. That you know of, has a final report been done?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. You expect to get a copy of such a final report if it is done, correct? [2387]
A. Yes.
Q. The last time you spoke to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about preparing a final report was not too long ago, is that right?
A. It's possible.
Q. Do you recall when you last spoke to them about preparing a final report on the Montgomery investigation?
A. No.
Q. If I tell you in your deposition you said it was not too long ago --
A. Well, you said do I know when. If it's not too long ago, I would presume -- I don't know how many months "too long" is, but it wasn't a year or so on.
Q. Now, in January 2015, we're in a new year now, January 2015, your people were still working with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. They may have been.
Q. Well, let's go back to Exhibit 2858 again, which is your calendar, and look at page MELC662426. That's a January 21, 2015 appointment at 10 a.m. that says, quote, hold sheriff meets with Brian and Mike.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. That's in the same collection of calendar entries that talks about -- that responds to the monitor's request for [2388] information about the Montgomery investigation.
Did you meet with Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz on January 21 about the Montgomery investigation?
A. Once again, I may have.
Q. All right. Well, let's look at Exhibit 2269. And that's an e-mail string dated the next day, and I'm going to ask you to look at the bottom of the first page, which is the January 22, 2015, 1:12 p.m. e-mail.
Note. Ex. 2269 is: Email from David Webb [Montgomery] to Mike Re: Lawsuit dated 1/22/2015 (MELC200001-03).
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that e-mail says that Mr. Zullo did meet with you yesterday, that is, January 21.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that that e-mail by Mr. Zullo is accurate; that is, in fact you did meet with him on January 21?
A. You mean about him meeting me?
Q. Yeah. Did you meet with Mr. Zullo on January 21?
A. If he said I was there. I didn't check my schedule, but I have to go along with it.
Q. Now, do you see the rest of that sentence that Mr. Zullo wrote? It refers to a hope that you had. Do you see that?
A. A what?
Q. A hope. In particular -- well, let me just ask you this [2389] question: On January 21, 2015, were you hoping that Mr. Montgomery could get where he needed to go?
A. I think he was talking about the NSA guys that may have wanted to help our detectives on some issue. I think it had to do with intelligence, CIA or whatever.
Q. What were the issues?
A. I don't have all the issues.
Q. Well, is that sentence that Mr. Zullo wrote on January 22 about you inaccurate?
A. I don't know where he said I'm trying to go with this. I vaguely remember it has something to do with intelligence.
Q. Did it have to do with the banking investigation as well?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Well, in January 2015 it's possible that you wanted Mr. Montgomery to speed up his work so that you could find out what the results were, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection to foundation as to possibilities, and relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled on the relevance ground.
Do you want to rephrase the question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, in January 2015 you wanted Mr. Montgomery to speed up his work so that you could find out what the results would be, correct?
A. What the what? To find out what? [2390]
Q. To find out what the results of his work would be. Did you want him to speed up so that you could find out what the results of Mr. Montgomery's work would be?
A. I'm not sure if -- if it was the NSA guys' results or Montgomery.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play for you a portion of your September 18, 2015 deposition at page 596, and I'm going to play from line 11 to line 22. It is clip 50.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: In January 2015 you were still getting reports from Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?
"Answer: I believe so, yes.
"Question: Now, Mr. Zullo says that you were hoping that they could get where they, or maybe Mr. Montgomery, needed to go. Did you express that hope to Mr. Zullo?
"Answer: I don't know, I don't recall. But there's a possibility that I wanted him to speed this up and find out what the results are."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, did you testify accurately as we just heard on September 18?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, one of the things that you wanted Mr. Montgomery to [2391] work on was to produce a recording of your voice having been wiretapped, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You never got such a recording from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. No.
Q. Now, let's move to February 2015, and in particular Exhibit 2269. Actually, we were just on that.
I'm sorry. Let's -- let's talk about February. In that month you knew that Mr. Montgomery was working on the banking investigation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And on the side he was working on the birth certificate issue, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. For both the banking investigation and the birth certificate investigation you put a lot of faith in Mr. Zullo, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You relied on Mr. Zullo very heavily, correct?
A. Especially on the birth certificate. The ironic part that both those issues actually pertain to fraudulent documents just by chance, they're identity theft.
Q. Well, you deserved -- I'm sorry.
You believe Mr. Zullo deserved some pats on the back [2392] for the work that he was doing on both the birth certificate and the banking investigation, correct?
A. Especially the birth certificate.
Q. Okay. I'm going to play Exhibit 2838C. That's a brief segment from your March 1, 2012 press conference where you introduce Mr. Zullo.
Note. Ex. 2838C is: Video Clip 3 Press Conference with Zullo, Cold Case Posse Birthe Certificate dated 3/1/2012.
(Video clip played as follows:)
SHERIFF ARPAIO: How we came to that conclusion will be presented to you by our lead investigator, Mike Zullo.
MR. ZULLO: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Zullo. I am the lead investigator of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.
(Video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That was you on that recording, right, Sheriff?
A. I think I introduced him.
Q. And that was Mr. Zullo whom you introduced?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. Your Honor, I move the admission of 2838C.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled. Exhibit 2838C is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2838C is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, just like the banking investigation that Mr. Zullo was [2393] working on with Mr. Montgomery, you have always believed that the birth certificate investigation that Mr. Zullo was also working on with Mr. Montgomery, at least on the side, is an important investigation, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. You've continued to support Mr. Zullo in pursuing both of those investigations, correct?
A. As I said, the main thrust was the banking. The other issue was on a side issue, but it was not a hundred percent. Had to do with Montgomery. There was other information coming in by the tons that he was also looking at. So it wasn't just Montgomery relating to a birth certificate.
Q. Sheriff, you would continue with an investigation that Mr. Zullo was conducting even if other people told you that they thought that the investigation was baseless and without foundation, correct?
A. I don't know, which case -- which investigation are you talking --
Q. Any investigation involving Mr. Zullo.
A. Once again, I did have some warning signals about the wiretaps. They did meet with a federal judge in Washington, and the only feedback I got that he was a little surprised also [2394] at this wiretap situation.
So to say he's a hundred percent wrong, I still had those signals: What about this? I wanted to clear that up on the wiretaps and the voice that he -- and that was a big issue, for us to get him to come up with a voice, which he said he could do through computers or whatever, to confirm that information he had.
Q. Well, would you pursue that investigation with Mr. Zullo even if everybody else thought that you were nuts?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, 611(a). This is harassment.
THE COURT: You know, I do think we need to avoid the use of the word "nuts." I mean, other judges might let you do it. I think we can try to be as civil as we can in this litigation. And, you know, I'll be able to understand the evidence at the end. I don't need to have words put in.
And I say that to you, Mr. Young, and I'll say it to the other side, too, when it gets to their side, time to ask questions.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I would ask that the sheriff take a look at Exhibit 2837A, which is a video.
Note. Ex 2837A is: Video Clip "The Joe Show" (Joseph Arpaio, Lisa Allen,a dn Chad Williams).
I'll tell you, Sheriff, it's an excerpt from the movie "The Joe Show," which we also looked at an excerpt from at the hearing in April.
(Video clip played - not reported.) [2395]
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance; cumulative.
THE COURT: What is the relevance?
MR. YOUNG: The relevance, Your Honor, goes to Sheriff Arpaio's tendency, with Mr. Zullo, to engage in investigations that others of his advisors and the objective evidence -- well, let me strike the "objective evidence" -- that others of his advisors tell him are baseless and stupid.
THE COURT: All right. I will allow it. I will allow it to be played, and then I'll determine whether or not I'm going to admit it.
MR. YOUNG: Could we start it from the beginning,
Mr. Klein?
(Video clip played - not reported.)
MR. YOUNG: Do you want me to stop it, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, again, 611(a). This is harassment, insulting. It's unprofessional.
THE COURT: 611(a)?
MR. MASTERSON: Yes, sir. And 403.
THE COURT: 6 -- overruled.
You can complete the investiga- -- you can complete the tape.
(Video clip played - not reported by court reporter.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, is that you in that video? [2396]
A. It's a movie. But it is -- I'm one of the actors.
Q. Is that Lisa Allen, your public information officer's head there?
A. Yes.
Q. And Chad Williams, your campaign manager?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move to admit 2837A.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403, 611(a).
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
That's 2837A.
(Exhibit No. 2837A is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, in that video you said "Let them call me a kook."
Did you hear that?
A. In the movie?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Was that your view as to the investigation that Mr. Zullo was conducting with Mr. Montgomery in Seattle?
A. We're talking about the birth certificate in a movie. Many people did not believe in that investigation, except maybe 47, 50 percent of the public does believe in it. So I don't – and I didn't raise any money over the birth certificate. Not once did anybody donate money that said it was because of the birth certificate I know of. [2397] But that was an investigation in 2011 that I started, and I stand by it to this day. Has no connection with any other investigation.
Q. Well, I'm really asking just about the investigation with Mr. Montgomery in Seattle. Can we focus on that, Sheriff? This is the one relating to the banking investigation and the wiretaps and the e-mail hacking.
Do you have that in mind?
A. At that time?
Q. No, right now. That's what I'm asking you about. Do you have that in mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is it your attitude that as to that investigation, it was okay, from your standpoint, to let everyone else call you a kook?
A. There's 350 million people that live in the country. You got two or three in a movie and you're taking -- you're resolving those two or three people calling me a kook, is that -- you keep saying people are calling me a kook.
Q. Well, Sheriff, we saw a few minutes ago in November there was a finding that Mr. Montgomery was a complete and total fraud. That was the e-mail that Detective Mackiewicz sent to Mr. Sheridan, right? You recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And we see actually a couple months later that [2398] you're still getting reports from Mr. Zullo about Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Reports?
Q. Yes.
A. Verbal reports?
Q. Verbal reports, correct.
A. I may have, yes.
Q. My question to you is that with respect to that investigation, is it your view that it's okay for everyone to call you a kook?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403, cumulative.
THE WITNESS: You talking about the bank investigation?
THE COURT: Sheriff. Sheriff.
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You really -- if you can't hear, you do need to put those back in your ears.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. With respect to the Montgomery investigation --
THE COURT: We have a pending objection.
MR. YOUNG: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You know, I don't -- I'm getting the point, so I'm not sure how much we have to keep going with this. I think I understand where you're going, Mr. Young.
BY MR. YOUNG: [2399]
Q. All right. Let's now look at -- we're going to move into -- further into -- well, into February 2015.
Please look at Exhibit 2090.
Note. Ex. 2090 is: Email chain between Dennis Montgomery to Mike Zullo with a subject line "Judge Snow" dated 2/2/2015 (MELC202222-24).
And let's start off sort of at the bottom of the e-mail string. Maybe the first half of the -- the last half of page 223, Mr. Klein. 2090?
MR. KLEIN: It's not admitted.
MR. YOUNG: I realize it's not admitted, so it should not be played on --
THE CLERK: I turned it off.
MR. YOUNG: Oh. Thank you. Let's go to the second page and start with the e-mail dated February 2nd at 5:46 p.m. And then include the next page, which is the end of that e-mail string. Actually, Mr. Klein, I think you've cut off a part of the bottom of the page. Yeah, the bottom of the and page 223 -- there you go. Can you get that all together?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Okay. Do you see that e-mail from Mike to Mr. Montgomery on February 2, 2015, 5:46 p.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. The subject line of the e-mail is "Judge Snow." [2400]
A. What was that question?
Q. I'm just identifying it for you. The subject line of the e-mail is "Judge Snow."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the e-mail at the bottom there, it refers to some contempt charges.
Do you see that? It's in the -- actually, it's the link to the news story there.
Do you see that? The underlined part.
A. You talking about the news, the --
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were you aware that there was any data processing that was going on with Mr. Zullo and Mr. Montgomery that might be contingent on whether the contempt proceeding in this case was going to continue?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Judge. Could I ask that the witness be asked questions without looking at an e-mail in which he was not involved?
THE COURT: I think that's fair.
MR. YOUNG: All right.
THE COURT: So we'll take the e-mail off.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Klein.
BY MR. YOUNG: [2401]
Q. Sheriff, again, my question is: Were you aware in February 2015 that Mr. Zullo and Mr. Montgomery were working on any processing of data that might become unnecessary if this contempt proceeding in this case were not to proceed?
A. No. I think I mentioned previously that the chief deputy and I, months before, gave an order that this should not even be looked at, anything to do with Judge Snow should even be looked at, so I don't know about these e-mails or what's going on.
Q. In early February 2015 you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were not happy with the information that was coming from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes, I was -- no. The answer is I was not happy.
Q. Mr. Montgomery was not providing to Mr. Zullo and you what you wanted, correct?
A. I wanted the information on the wiretaps, the harvesting into other agencies, and also to keep developing the banking situation, and there may have been other issues regarding intelligence that I'm not too familiar with.
Q. So in early February 2015, among other things, you were unhappy because Mr. Montgomery had not yet provided, and Mr. Zullo had not reported to you, any further information on the banking situation, is that right? [2402]
A. And the wiretaps, and infiltration of other agencies, and that I'm not altogether familiar with, they have intelligence ramifications.
Q. Did you have any discussion with anybody in February 2015 about whether Judge Snow would get upset if the work that Mr. Montgomery was doing was ever disclosed?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. In February 2015, or any other time, did you ever discuss with Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz anything that was referred to as a, quote, bullshit contempt charge, end quote?
A. No.
Q. You're sure about that.
A. What was the -- the semantics?
Q. Well, I'm not going to repeat --
A. What is the three words?
Q. I'm not going to repeat it again, I'm going to use an acronym. Did you ever discuss with Mr. -- well, let me actually change the question. Did you ever discuss at any time with Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz the contempt issue that's brought us to this hearing, that relates to this case?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Is it possible that you had such a discussion?
A. I don't -- I don't know about the trial itself, but I'm saying again that the issue of Judge Snow, I didn't want to hear, and the chief deputy did not want to hear way before, [2403] months before.
Q. Well, I understand what you just said about Judge Snow. My question now is about the contempt proceeding in this case.
Did you ever discuss that in any way, every mention it to Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, or anyone else associated with the Montgomery investigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Is it possible that you did?
A. I don't know, I -- whether I had the problem with the hearing. We went through it, and honest, and did the best we could, and that's the system that we live under.
Q. In that early February 2015 time frame, in fact you may have talked to Mr. Zullo about Judge Snow in connection with the banking investigation, because Mr. Zullo was trying to track down information about that matter, is that correct?
A. You talking about the bank investigation?
Q. Correct.
A. Could be.
Q. So in early February 2015 you did know that they were trying to track down the banking information, is that right?
A. I don't know the time element. I do, once again, remember that we sent detectives out to do follow-up. I'm not sure whether that follow-up was continuing.
Q. Do you know what information relating to Judge Snow Mr. Zullo might have been referring to in discussion with [2404] Mr. Montgomery on February 11, 2015?
A. No.
Q. Well, Mr. Zullo did tell you that he was working on getting information about Judge Snow in relation to the banking investigation at that time, correct?
A. What year are we talking about?
Q. 2015, and particularly February 11, 2015.
A. Well, this came up a year before. If I recall, the judge's name, plus many other victims came out.
Q. Well, I recognize that it had been something that you had been talking about a year before, but I'm now asking specifically about February 2015. You did talk to Mr. Zullo about his trying to get information on Judge Snow in relation to the banking investigation, correct?
A. I don't recall.
Q. All right. Well, I'm going to ask you to listen to a segment of your September 18, 2015 deposition, page 608, line 16, through 609, line 2. And I'll represent to you that the preceding question refers to the early February 2015 time period in which you were still talking to Mr. -- in fact, let me just read your testimony starting at line 7 before the clip that we're about to play. 608, line 7:
"Question: If you were -- well, I think you said earlier that in February 2015 that you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about the work that Mr. Montgomery was dueling – [2405] doing. Would you have expected to be told by Mr. Zullo if Mr. Montgomery was working on Judge Snow information?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. Objection, compound and foundation.
THE COURT: Did you preserve the form objection?
MR. MASTERSON: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, so what's -- reread the question, please.
MR. YOUNG: The question is, and I'm quoting from the deposition:
"If you were -- well, I think you said earlier that in February 2015 that you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about the work that Mr. Montgomery was doing. Would you have expected to be told by Mr. Zullo if Mr. Montgomery was working on Judge Snow information?"
THE COURT: The objection was what?
MR. MASTERSON: Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MASTERSON: And compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Your answer to that question, Sheriff, was: "I don't know."
Now I'm going to play the next segment of your testimony, which for Mr. Klein is clip 58.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:) [2406]
"Question: Well, you knew -- he did tell you that he was working on Judge Snow information insofar as he was the --
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: -- the victim --
"Answer: Right.
"Question: -- potentially of that banking; is that right?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: Do you think that's what is being discussed there with respect to the Judge Snow information?
"Answer: I don't know. I presume --"
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation. And I think the Court needs to know we're referring to an exhibit in there that --
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection on the foundation ground.
MR. YOUNG: So just to be clear, Your Honor, is that objection just to the last question?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. So just to be clear, I'm going to reread the two questions for which there was no objection, just so that I make sure I understand what's in the record or not. Starting at line 16 at page 608:
"Question: Well, you knew -- he did tell you that he was working on Judge Snow [2407] information insofar as he was --
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: -- the victim --
"Answer: Right.
"Question: -- potentially of that banking, is that right?
"Answer: Yeah."
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you gave that testimony accurately on September 18?
A. About him working on the bank investigation?
Q. As I just read, yes.
A. I may have, yes.
Q. Well, that's your deposition. That was your sworn --
A. Well --
Q. -- testimony. Is it -- is it accurate?
A. I think I said "to the best of my own knowledge" or "I believe"; I'm not sure the wording I used. But I would imagine that my response was correct. That's the way I took it.
Q. In April 2015 -- we're skipping ahead a couple months now, Sheriff, April 2015 -- you were still talking to Mr. Zullo about what Mr. Montgomery was doing, correct?
A. Sporadic basis, yes.
Q. Did you know that in April 2015 Mr. Zullo was requesting Mr. Montgomery to complete his work? [2408]
A. I don't know if he was trying to get ready to do a final report or not. That could have been it.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo talk to you about having Mr. Montgomery complete his work any time during April 2015?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Is it possible that he did?
A. Could be.
Q. Sheriff, from your standpoint, it was very important for Judge Snow in particular to be part of the banking investigation, correct?
A. You're saying it was important for me?
Q. That's my question.
A. That the judge be part of it?
Q. That's my question.
A. I never even knew the judge was going to be part of it. I said previously this is very important to me, not just because of the judge or judges; I'm talking about 150,000 people in this county that their bank accounts have been infiltrated. Doesn't matter who they are.
So when you say it was important, it did strike a bell with me about federal judges being penetrated, going after their information in banks, yes. It did strike a bell with me since I am a top federal law enforcement official. I've dealt with federal judges and the government for 32 years, so that did strike a little bell, not just because of my name and my [2409] wife's name.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to have played for you a portion of your September 18 deposition. It's page 602, lines 11 through 15. It's clip 55.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: At any time did you ever talk to either Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz about Judge Snow?
"Answer: Yes. I talked to him about him being on the -- to me that was very important for the judge to be on that banking problem."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Is that testimony accurate, Sheriff?
A. I just said that.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, under Rule 106 -- under Rule 106, could we also read lines 16 through 21, same page?
MR. YOUNG: Sure.
Actually, may I read the next page after that? I'll just keep reading. And I'll --
MR. MASTERSON: Let me check and see how far I'll need to go, then, but I don't think I'll have a problem there. MR. YOUNG: Okay. Well, if you see that I'm about to do something that you object -- Your Honor, I'll request that I just read the rest of it, and if Mr. Masterson has a problem I'm sure he'll speak up. [2410]
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So what follows, Sheriff, actually, is the following. Starting at page 602, line 16:
"Question: Why was it important for you -- why was it important to you for Judge Snow to be on that banking problem?
"Answer: Because I think it's very important for any judge to be on there, but there's others, too, including myself, but having federal judges on that list is pretty serious, as far as I'm concerned.
"Question: Do you remember the names of any other judges who are on that list?
"Answer: There's others, but I don't know the names.
"Question: Do you remember the names of any other people, regardless of position, who were on that list?
"Answer: Well, I know I was on and maybe my wife, which connects personally with me.
"Question: Anyone else?
"Answer: No, I -- but I didn't go down the list. They did, so I don't know. They would know who's on the list.
"Question: Well, out of those 151,000 people who were on the subject of that banking investigation, why would the only people whose names you remember be yours, your wife's, and Judge Snow's?
"Answer: I didn't say that it's the only ones. I say to me it was important to have -- to know the local federal [2411] judge, his records are being penetrated."
Was that testimony accurate when you gave it in September, on September 18, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Young, I'm probably looking for an afternoon break here pretty soon.
MR. YOUNG: This would be a good time, Your Honor.
* * * *
(Recess taken.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2419] Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 2281.
Note. Ex. 2281 is: MCSO Memo from Joseph Arpaio to Captain Russ Skinner re: Response to Document Request regarding ITR 3 (Follow-up) dated 8/18/2015.
Exhibit 2281 has a title, or subject, Response to Document Request Regarding ITR 3. And Sheriff, just reading from the face of it, it is your office's response to requests from the monitor, or a request from the monitor, for copies of any memorandum or e-mails in which Sheriff Arpaio was the recipient, sender, or copied, in which Dennis Montgomery is the subject or is mentioned in the communication. [2420]
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see your signature in the upper right-hand corner?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sign this document on August 18, 2015?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'd move to admit this exhibit.
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection.
MR. COMO: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Exhibit 2281 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2281 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, actually, I don't know whether we want to flip through it, Sheriff, or whether you have the paper copy there that's handy. The question I'm going to ask you is whether this exhibit consists of e-mails that you received or sent, through Amy Lake, mentioning Dennis Montgomery?
A. And the question is did I sent this through Amy Lake?
Q. Well, let me back up a little bit.
Who is Amy Lake?
A. Secretary.
Q. Okay. You send and receive e-mails through Amy Lake, correct? [2421]
A. I believe so.
Q. Let's focus on an e-mail that appears on MELC730572.
It's 572, which is a May 6th, 2015 e-mail to you through Ms. Lake.
That's from Mike Zullo, correct, Sheriff?
A. I believe so.
Q. And he forwarded to you a link to a Phoenix New Times blog item about your interaction with Attorney General Tom Horne about Dennis Montgomery.
Do you see that?
A. Do I see the newspaper?
Q. Yes. It's a link to a website of the Phoenix New Times, and you can see from the -- both the subject line and the title of the document that it relates to your -- your interaction, at least, maybe meeting with Tom Horne about Dennis Montgomery.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss that issue with Mr. Zullo sometime in early May 2015?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Were you still getting verbal reports from Mr. Zullo about the status of the Montgomery investigation in May 2015?
A. I don't recall the time.
Q. Well, Sheriff, you've never stopped talking, you've never stopped talking to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about [2422] Mr. Montgomery's work, correct?
A. Some of the work, yes.
Q. Okay. So you're continuing to talk to them now about the work that Mr. Montgomery is doing or was doing, correct?
A. I sure haven't been talking to them recently.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Well, we're in court.
Q. Well, you -- you met with Mr. Zullo, Chief Sheridan – and Chief Sheridan about the Seattle investigation on June 29, correct?
A. Of last year, 2014?
Q. No, this year, June 29, 2015.
A. And can you repeat who we met with?
Q. I'll make it easier. If you go back to Exhibit 2858 [Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC1397042)], which is the collection of your calendar entries maintained by Ms. Lake, and go to page MELC662431.
Actually, I may have gotten the number wrong on that.
Oh, yes. Okay. That's the right page.
So -- actually, this is a note that is from Chief Deputy Sheridan to Captain Skinner. And do you see that there's a response there that says, quote, on June 29, 2015 there's a calendar appointment with the subject "Meeting With the Sheriff and Zullo." There is no other information or indication as to what this meeting entailed.
Do you see that? [2423]
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you meet with Mr. Zullo and Chief Sheridan sometime in late June 2015?
A. I don't know if this was in response to reports from the monitor, or whether this is the date that they were requesting the information, not the date of our meeting. I'm a little confused.
I believe that could have been the date that they wanted the information.
Q. Well, feel free to look at this if it refreshes your memory.
My question is: Did you have a meeting with Mr. Zullo and Chief Sheridan on June 29, 2015?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you have any meeting with Mr. Zullo and Chief Sheridan in June 2015 about the Montgomery investigation?
A. I don't recall to the time frame. It's a possibility.
Q. Well, you may recall that Judge Snow asked you some questions about that investigation at the April hearing.
A. Yes.
Q. At any time since that hearing in April have you spoken to Mr. Zullo about the status of the Montgomery investigation?
A. It's a possibility, yes.
Q. Can you tell me everything you remember discussing with him in that regard? [2424]
A. I'm speaking once again about the banking, the infiltration of our office. Maybe the meeting somewhat with the federal judge on the wiretap, and I guess other matters they were speaking to him about.
Q. What meeting with a federal judge are you referring to?
A. Lamberth in Washington.
Q. Has there been such a meeting recently, since April 2015?
A. I don't recall whether it was a meeting or information they got after the meeting, I don't know.
Q. Well, I asked you some questions earlier about a report.
Are you still expecting a final report relating to the Montgomery work?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know when that report will be done?
A. No.
Q. Who is going to prepare that final report?
A. Well, it will be one of the two investigators that are familiar with that situation.
Q. That's Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they working on that report now?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Chief Sheridan has been involved with you in receiving briefings from Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz on the Seattle investigation for the last year or more, is that [2425] correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, let's go back to the May 6, 2015 e-mail from Mr. Zullo to you. Why would Mr. Zullo be sending you a link to a story about what you were doing with Attorney General Horne in May 2015 relating to Mr. Montgomery?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know. That was --
THE COURT: Sheriff? Sheriff. Sheriff.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I get a lot of feedback on this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, you can try --
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to give you a test. Can you hear that?
THE WITNESS: Very good.
THE COURT: All right. No feedback?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to give it a test, please, Mr. Masterson, make sure the sheriff can hear when you speak in there?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Can you hear that?
THE WITNESS: You made it easier for me.
THE COURT: All right. Now, is there any discomfort [2426] or problem --
THE WITNESS: Next time it's my fault.
THE COURT: All right.
All right. So we have an objection. Let's go back back -- let me go back and review it, please.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. When you received the May 6th, 2015 e-mail from Mr. Zullo with a link to the Phoenix New Times story, did you read it, the story?
A. I'm not sure. Haven't seen it.
Q. Have you received e-mails from Mr. Klayman in his capacity as Mr. Montgomery's lawyer?
A. I believe a couple e-mails.
Q. Let's go to MELC730568.
MR. YOUNG: Actually, Your Honor, may we publish the pages from this exhibit? It's been admitted.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. You see that e-mail, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Freedom Watch is the firm associated with Mr. Klayman, correct? [2427]
A. Yes.
Q. Now, he sent you an e-mail with a press release from his law firm about Mr. Montgomery's motion to intervene and disqualify Judge Snow from the case, correct?
A. Are you referring to this?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. It's on the screen in front of you.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you talked to Mr. Klayman about what's been happening in this case at all?
A. I was advising him that he is not my attorney. I have my attorneys. And I think he finally got the message in sending items like he did here to me.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman have some trouble getting the message that he did not represent you in this case?
A. It took --
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you referred to some issue that Mr. Klayman had in your last answer.
What were you referring to? On the issue of whether he represented you in this case. Could you explain that further? [2428]
A. No. He was commenting on this case and started to comment to me, and I told him he is not my lawyer on that situation. I have my own lawyers, and if there's any problem, talk to my lawyers, not me.
Q. You knew that Mr. Klayman was also rep -- well, was representing Mr. Montgomery when he made those comments to you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What comments did Mr. Klayman make to you?
A. I don't think he made many comments. I told him I didn't want to hear about it, to talk to my lawyers.
Q. Did you speak on the phone or in person with Mr. Klayman about these comments?
A. I believe it was telephone. Telephone.
Q. What did you and Mr. Klayman discuss over the telephone relating to this case?
A. Not much. As I said, I wanted to separate him from talking about this case and deal with my attorneys.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman talk to you all -- at all about Mr. Montgomery?
A. Not much. We had other issues we were talking about.
Q. Well, I understand that Mr. Klayman represents you in other litigation. I don't want you to tell me anything about that.
I am interested, though, in what, if anything, you and Mr. Klayman discussed about Mr. Montgomery. Can you tell me [2429] what you two discussed about Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall what the specifics were, but I do know that he was representing Mr. Montgomery, and that was his client.
And again, I don't want to get involved with his situation with his client when I had my own attorneys, so I tried to get him to stop talking about it, and he did stop talking about it, on that issue.
Q. When did Mr. Klayman talk to you about Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, let me give you some milestones or marking points.
You were asked questions in this court about the Montgomery investigation on April 23.
You received the e-mail that we're looking at now on May 7. In relation to those dates, when did you talk to Mr. Klayman about Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall, but I think he was trying to alert me that he was taking some legal action, and once again, I told him I can't get involved with that.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman tell you that he was going to intervene or try to intervene on behalf of Mr. Montgomery in this case?
A. He may have, but I'm going to say again, I didn't want to deal with the attorney on this issue, had him talk to my lawyers.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman ever talk to you about the issue whether Mr. Montgomery was reliable, or whether the information that he had provided was genuine? [2430]
A. He may have mentioned, I don't recall when, excuse me, that he believed in his reliability, which I disagreed with, and that's about it.
Q. What did Mr. Klayman tell you with respect to Mr. Montgomery's reliability?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: It's not being offered for the truth of the matter. I'm going to overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think he said much, other than he believed in him and his information.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Was that before or after the April hearing in this case?
A. I don't recall.
Q. What did you say back to Mr. Klayman on that issue?
A. I may have mentioned briefly, before I referred him to lawyers, is that I may not agree with his assessment.
Q. What was Mr. Klayman's response to your disagreement?
A. I don't know what his response was, whether he took my -- my comment or did not take it seriously.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman ask you to keep paying Mr. Montgomery?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Klayman about whether he should do anything in this lawsuit?
A. No.
Q. Let's go to page MELC730579 [2431] Actually, if we can -- excuse me, I have a frog in my throat -- see the whole page.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that's a whole e-mail relating to Mr. Montgomery's lawsuit against the ACLU, allegedly for unethical acts.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Klayman wrote that e-mail actually first to one of your attorneys, Mr. McDonald.
Do you see that on July 1st, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it appears that he, Mr. Klayman, forwarded that e-mail to you, care of Amy Lake. Do you see that?
Actually, up where it says July 1, 12:29 p.m.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you know about Mr. Montgomery's lawsuit against the ACLU?
A. Not much. Actually nothing. Actually nothing. I'm not a lawyer, and that was his business, not mine.
Q. You recall receiving this e-mail?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Klayman about Mr. Montgomery's lawsuit against the ACLU?
A. I think he notified me that he was going to do it. Of course, he did. He sent me the article here. [2432]
Q. So did Mr. Klayman tell you prior to the filing of his lawsuit that he would be filing a lawsuit against the ACLU on behalf of Mr. Montgomery?
A. He may have mentioned it, but I had no interest or comment.
Q. Was that in a phone conversation?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Please tell me everything that Mr. Klayman told you about the lawsuit he was going to feel against the ACLU on behalf of Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance. 403.
THE COURT: I will give you limited leeway to pursue this, but not a lot. Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. What did Mr. Klayman tell you about the lawsuit that he was going to file against the ACLU on behalf of Mr. Montgomery?
A. He didn't tell me much. As I say, that was his legal move that he wanted to make, suing the ACLU.
Q. What did you say during that conversation?
A. It didn't bother me. I was a little surprised, but it didn't bother me. That's his decision, not mine.
Q. What do you mean when you say it did not bother you?
A. I had no interest in it. I think Mr. Klayman sues a lot of people.
Q. Did Mr. Klayman tell you what the basis for the lawsuit [2433] would be?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow a few more questions, and then we'll bring it to an end.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall what his reasoning was.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. What's your understanding as to how it came about that Mr. Klayman told you he was going to file a lawsuit on Mr. Montgomery's behalf against the ACLU before he actually did it?
A. I believe he had a conflict or some situation with Montgomery with the ACLU. I don't have all the details.
Q. I'm not asking about the substance of the lawsuit; I'm asking about how it is that you and he were even talking about that subject. What was it that led to that conversation?
A. I believe he knew I had an interest in Montgomery; that was no secret.
Q. Did you have an interest in what Mr. Montgomery might do in terms of suing the ACLU?
A. No.
Q. Approximately -- well, the press release that we see, and the e-mail is dated July 1. How long before then did you talk to Mr. Klayman about the lawsuit Mr. Montgomery was going to file against the ACLU?
A. I would guess it wasn't that far back. I don't recall the [2434] days, but it wasn't months ago.
Q. Did you approve of Mr. Montgomery filing a lawsuit against the ACLU?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don't tell lawyers what to do. That's their business, not mine.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Did Mr. Klayman seek your opinion on the issue?
A. Not that I can recall.
MR. YOUNG: One moment, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, you and Chief Sheridan were the only people who were overseeing the Seattle investigation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, or to your knowledge, Chief Sheridan, see any conflict in investigating a potential crime involving a judge who had just ruled against you in a high profile case?
A. Are you saying the chief had an opinion?
Q. Well, let's start with you. Did you see or perceive that there was any potential conflict of interest in your investigating a potential crime that involved a judge who had just ruled against you in a high profile case?
A. I don't know -- [2435]
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that question?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, maybe I'll break it down. So you're investigating a potential crime that involved Judge Snow, correct?
A. I wouldn't say investigating. We were not investigating. It was just information that came up on a chart. I don't call that an investigation.
Q. Well, would you call Mr. Zullo an investigator?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you call Detective Mackiewicz an investigator?
A. Yes.
Q. Generally, what investigators do is investigate, correct?
A. They investigate when they have some information that's reliable, I would believe.
Q. Well, I'm not going to quibble with you on what to call what they were going to, but the question is they were looking into something that was a potential crime that involved Judge Snow, among other people, correct?
A. I don't know what a potential crime would be, other than possibly the going into people's private e-mails and wiretaps and that type of thing. And the banking; that could be considered a potential crime. [2436]
Q. All right. Well, those are the potential crimes that I'm referring to. Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were working with Mr. Montgomery to look into a potential crime involving Judge Snow, right?
A. I don't know if it was involving Judge Snow. I gave you what we were interested in. We didn't have any formal investigation against the judge. We had some documents that came through eventually to us, and nebulous document that maybe he got from the news media. I don't know where he got it, but it doesn't seem credible.
Q. You did hear about Judge Snow from Mr. Zullo and/or Detective Mackiewicz in relation to their work with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then they continued to do that work after hearing about Judge Snow, and after you heard that they heard about Judge Snow, right?
A. No. I don't know what work you're talking about, other than the judge being a victim. We told the chief deputy, and I made it real clear that we're not going to get involved in anything that has to do with a judge.
Q. Well, the banking investigation involved the judge, right?
A. I'm talking -- okay. That's different. I thought you were talking about criminal activity.
Now, the banking, yes. He was a victim along with [2437] 150,000 others in the county.
Q. So that's the potential crime I'm trying to refer to.
Did your office -- did you, rather, did you see a conflict in your office investigating that potential crime?
A. You're talking about the bank information?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I did not. He was just one of 450,000 people that were possible victims.
Q. Did you ever think about referring that -- I guess you don't want to call it an investigation, but whatever they were doing, to some other law enforcement agency?
A. You're talking about the bank investigation?
Q. Well, yes. I am talking about the bank investigation.
Did you think about referring that to some other law enforcement agency?
A. Well, we did go to the attorney general and briefed him about this investigation.
Q. Did you think about referring it to another law enforcement agency for investigation?
A. We ran it by the attorney general. I presume if he wanted to take jurisdiction he could, but we had the jurisdiction also.
Q. Did you discuss the possibility with the attorney general of their taking over the investigation insofar as it related to or involved talking to Mr. Montgomery? [2438]
A. We were talking to him about the investigation, and I don't believe there was any decision that he said that he wanted to take it over. It was also a state crime, and a crime that I felt dealt with our -- our county.
Q. Do you think there was any problem in the fact that the investigation went on for a year and a half, or maybe even more, given the lack of credibility of the source?
A. Investigations of fraud take years. And when you get a list of names of victims, I think that's pretty good evidence to pursue that investigation. We had evidence of people's names and addresses and bank accounts there. I believe our investigators saw the names. So that's pretty good evidence.
Q. Your agency has used bank records in other investigations, correct?
A. Bank records?
Q. Yeah.
A. Receiving bank records, sure.
Q. And those bank records can tell you, you know, how much money someone has, and what amounts of money they're receiving and paying, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the bank records might be able to tell you where the money came from if someone's receiving money, correct?
A. Possible.
Q. Normally, in a legitimate investigation you could subpoena [2439] such information from a bank, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, banking information could be quite useful if you were investigating someone for, say, the crime of bribery. Do you agree with that?
A. I don't -- I don't know what you're talking about.
Q. Well, I'm just talking about bank records. And your office has done bribery investigations before, correct?
A. I haven't kept track, but I believe they have.
Q. And in your experience of 50 years or whatever it's been, you know that banking records can be informative in a bribery investigation, correct?
A. Probably any investigation.
Q. You knew, Sheriff, that if Mr. Montgomery actually had access to banking records of any person, that those banking records could be relevant to determining whether the owner of the bank accounts involved had committed a crime, including possibly bribery, correct?
A. I don't think -- our thrust was not to go in there to get evidence against the victims, if that's what you're talking about.
Q. Well, I'm not asking about any particular person. I'm just asking as a general matter, would you agree with me that if you had someone's banking records, that might be informative as to whether that person had committed a crime, and the example I'll [2440] give you is bribery.
Do you agree with that?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: I think we're moving along a relevant line, so I'm going to allow a little bit more leeway.
THE WITNESS: I don't understand about the bribery. I think any -- any investigation that you do to obtain records could help developing a case.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, there's another judge, Judge Gary Donahoe, that your office previously investigated and was involved in bringing felony criminal charges against, including for bribery, correct?
A. That was an investigation conducted by the County Attorney's Office from day one, and a couple of our detectives.
Q. Were you aware of that investigation while it was going on?
A. I knew it was going on.
Q. There were charges brought against Judge Donahoe, correct?
A. I believe so.
Q. And before those charges were brought, Judge Donahoe had held Chief Trombi and another one of your officers named Stoddard in contempt, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: What is the relevance?
MR. YOUNG: The relevance, Your Honor, is retaliatory [2441] investigations against judges who rule adversely to the sheriff.
THE COURT: One moment.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you have my question in mind, Sheriff?
A. Could you repeat it?
Q. Before the charges were brought against Judge Donahoe, Judge Donahoe had ruled against your office to the extent of holding Chief Trombi and Officer Stoddard in contempt.
Do you recall that?
A. I don't know about Chief Trombi, but I do recall Stoddard.
Q. Now, do you recall Chief Trombi being held in contempt by Judge Donahoe relating to an issue of whether people in custody were being brought into court on time?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that chief -- that Judge Donahoe held Chief Trombi in contempt over that issue?
A. I don't know if he was held in contempt.
Q. Well, there was a ruling that was adverse to Chief Trombi in that case, correct?
A. Probably.
Q. Now, you participated yourself personally in a meeting as to whether Judge Donahoe should be charged, correct? [2442]
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: I get the point.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, Sheriff, you say that you were concerned about Judge Snow as a victim or potential victim in this crime involving the banking issues that you were having your people investigate.
Is that what your view is?
A. Judge Snow and others.
Q. Normally, when your office is investigating a potential crime, it can be useful to talk to the victims of that potential crime, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Because if there's a victim, the victim can give your office information that might help you find out more about the potential crime.
Do you agree with that?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, if your office is looking into a potential crime, it's pretty common to interview any potential victims that you can identify, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had people within your office contact a large number of other people, aside from Judge Snow, to check to see whether the information that Mr. Montgomery provided was plausible, [2443] correct?
A. I don't remember -- you say other than Judge Snow? I don't -- I don't think we ever contacted the judge.
Q. Well, I'm not talking about Judge Snow at the moment; I'm talking about other people who are on this alleged list that Mr. Montgomery provided of the 150,000 people whose banking information had been taken.
Your office actually contacted other people who were allegedly on that list, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately how many people were contacted by your office who were supposedly on that list?
A. I'm not sure, but I'm sure the chief deputy would know.
Q. Was more than 10, right?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 20?
A. I don't know. It could be 20, 30; I don't have the figure.
Q. The purpose for your office to contact those people was to say: Here's your name and an account, and maybe some other numbers. Does this look familiar to you? Have you suffered any identity theft? That was the general line of inquiry, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you did not contact Judge Snow to ask him those questions, correct? [2444]
A. I don't think so.
Q. Contacting Judge Snow to ask him those same questions that you asked all those other people might have helped you to determine whether in fact there had been a crime committed against Judge Snow, correct?
A. That and 150,000 others.
Q. Now, you don't actually know or remember the names of any of those other people who were contacted by your office to try to figure out whether there actually had been a crime, correct?
A. I don't -- I'm sure it's of record, but I don't have it.
Q. You can't think of any as you sit here today, correct?
A. No.
Q. Well, why didn't you have your people contact Judge Snow to interview him to see whether he had suffered from identity theft?
A. I don't know the answer to that. I believe the judge was in hearings with us. Quite frankly, I wouldn't know how to do it anyway, to approach the judge.
But we were trying to get a pattern of what was occurring, and we did talk to many other victims. We didn't talk to all the victims; that was impossible. But we did talk to certain victims. I don't know who they are, what their occupation was.
Q. You mentioned that you were in hearings with Judge Snow.
Did I hear that right? [2445]
A. I believe the -- the preliminary hearing that was going on was probably at that time. I don't recall. Had to be at that time.
Q. Those hearings with Judge Snow were in this lawsuit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you looked at the fact that you were having hearings with Judge Snow and decided that was a reason not to contact Judge Snow with respect to what you believed to be a potential crime against Judge Snow, correct?
A. I'm saying that may have been a reason. I don't know. I wasn't really running the investigation. But I knew we had so many victims that we could approach to get a pattern of this investigation, so we went to 20, 30 possible victims.
Q. If you had told your people to contact Judge Snow to ask him whether he had suffered from identity theft or whether the information that you were told your people had about him was accurate, you could have done that, right?
A. I didn't think about it, about talking to the judge. It didn't enter my mind -- my mind. They went after and talked to other people.
Q. Why did you not even think about contacting Judge Snow about this possible crime that was being committed against him?
A. Well, I'm going to say again, we had so many other victims. And quite frankly, if we did decide, I wouldn't even know how [2446] to do it. How do you approach a federal judge? I would have to go through attorneys because of the circumstances.
Q. Well, if you thought that Judge Snow was the victim of a crime, why would you have to go through attorneys in order to interview him about that crime?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I don't know about the conflicts, how to do this. It's never, in all my years, has ever come up.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, you were looking at Judge Snow actually as the judge in a case in which you were a party in which he had ruled against you, correct? You knew that at the time.
A. Yes.
Q. Well, does that mean, Sheriff, that if a judge wants your protection against possible criminals, that they should not rule against you in cases in which you're a party?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MASTERSON: Let me put one on the record anyway, so we have something that's being sustained.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. MASTERSON: I don't think "insulting" is in the Federal Rules of Evidence, but it should be. That's harassment, 611(a), it's 403, and it's argumentative.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it on the [2447] argumentative ground, which is the one I anticipated.
And I apologize for ruling before you got to make it on the record. I did see you standing, and I agreed -- I agree that the question is argumentative.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, the first public disclosure of the Montgomery Seattle investigation was that news story that Mr. Lemons of the Phoenix new time -- New Times wrote in June 2014, correct?
A. I don't remember the date.
Q. Well, it's the -- do you remember Judge Snow showing you that story during the hearing here in April when you were on the stand?
A. I vividly remember that, yes.
Q. Prior to the publication of that story, there had been no public disclosure of what Mr. Montgomery was doing with Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz, correct?
A. I don't know.
Q. That information came to Mr. Lemons as the result of a leak that was unauthorized, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, let me ask you about the public release of information about the Montgomery investigation.
Was any public release of information about that [2448] investigation unauthorized?
MR. MASTERSON: Foundation.
THE COURT: Do you want to lay foundation about the nature of the investigation?
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, Sheriff Arpaio, in this investigation that you were overseeing, did you authorize any public disclosure of the fact that that investigation was going on and what was being investigated?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Okay. So if a newspaper reporter or anyone wrote a story about that investigation in June 2014, that would have been -- it would have been the result of an unauthorized disclosure of some sort, i.e., a leak. Would you agree with that?
MR. MASTERSON: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I think when you have sensitive investigations, you don't like to see those investigations in the public domain.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That would be a problem, right? If sensitive information were disclosed to the public without authorization, it could jeopardize investigations that your office was doing.
Do you agree with that?
A. Yes. [2449]
Q. Did you do anything to find out how the information about the Montgomery investigation was released?
A. No.
Q. So you don't know how that information got out to the public, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you think that Judge Snow would be upset if he had found out about the investigation that you were doing involving Mr. Montgomery?
A. Never entered my mind what the judge would feel.
Q. Well, in fact, you had no intention or plan of telling Judge Snow about the investigation, correct?
A. Which -- you're talking about the bank certificates?
Q. Yeah, the bank investigation in which he was a potential victim. You had no intention of ever disclosing that to him, is that right?
A. There may be a time that we would, but once again, I'm trying to confirm the information that we received from Montgomery through his computer system and see if it was reliable, and we started out talking to 20, 30 people.
Q. Sheriff, you gave a speech in Oregon in June of this year, right, June 28?
A. I believe so.
Q. At that speech there were some supporters of yours and also a number of protesters, correct? [2450]
A. About 200 protesters.
Q. Did you, in that speech, mean what you said?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I give a lot of speeches. And I'm sorry, I joke, talk off the cuff. That's the way I operate. So I don't know what words you're talking about I said.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, let me give you some specific examples. Let's play 2839B.
(Video clip played as follows:)
SHERIFF ARPAIO: We checked 5,000 people that were turned over to ICE in the Maricopa County Jails. 36 percent have come back, the same jail. They should have been deported. So that's my interest, where the government evidently are letting these people out in the back door, or, if you think the border's unsecure, one guy came back 25 times. So you trying to tell me that the guy went to Mexico came back 25 times? No, they're letting them out the streets. So I think something has to be done.
(Video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, was that part of your speech given in Oregon at the state capitol on June 28, 2015?
A. Yes. I'm kind of interested that someone recorded me. TV [2451] wasn't there.
Q. It wasn't me, Sheriff. I'll tell you it's on YouTube, and I don't know how it got there.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 2839B.
MR. MASTERSON: Just one minute, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sure.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MR. MASTERSON: Well, I think it's irrelevant, but I think it's also protected political speech, and I kind of like it, so no objection.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. COMO: I'll object on relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You know, I do think, Mr. Young, for what it's worth, that the relevance is very slight here. As it pertains to comments he made in 2015, I do think -- I'm not sure what that goes to.
What does it go to that's an issue in this suit?
MR. YOUNG: Well, in light of Your Honor's concerns,
I'll withdraw my request for its admission.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Now, I'll tell you, Sheriff, in that same speech you said you'd use the Posse to investigate the President. Do you recall saying that? [2452]
MR. MASTERSON: We're talking about the same speech, I think it's still irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, certainly the comment that I ruled on was irrelevant. That's 2839B. I don't know whether the next comment's irrelevant, and I guess I want to hear it before I make that determination, and I'm not sure I did.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, I'm not playing it at the moment; I'm simply asking the sheriff: Do you recall saying that you're using the Posse to investigate the President?
A. That was to see --
MR. MASTERSON: I'll object to that one, Judge, talking about using the Posse to investigate the President in 2015? Real relevant.
THE COURT: I think I'm going to overrule that one.
THE WITNESS: If I made that comment, it was to a question on the birth certificate.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That's the same Posse that Mike Zullo is head of?
A. Yes. We were not investigating the President; we were investigating a fraudulent document.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'm going to ask now that Exhibit 2839D be played.
Note. Ex. 2839D is: Video Clip 4 Sheriff Arpaio's Oregon State Capital Speech, June 28, 2015 dated 6/28/2015.
THE COURT: 2839D?
MR. YOUNG: Yes. [2453]
MR. COMO: Your Honor, I'll object on 403, cumulative. We're spending an awful lot of time on these issues.
THE COURT: Well, I do think it -- it may get to be cumulative, but it's more -- I would be more inclined to sustain a cumulative objection to speeches that go to -- I think I've heard, and I'll tell you this, Mr. Young, I think I've heard plenty of comments, public statements made by the sheriff in 2012 and 2013 about what his policy and his attitude were towards illegal immigration. I don't think I need to hear any more.
But it seems to me this is on a slightly different issue. And I don't think it's cumulative, so I'm going to over --
MR. YOUNG: It's on a credibility issue, actually, Your Honor, and probably impeachment as well, based on the answer that the sheriff just gave.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow it. At least at this point I'm going to allow it.
(Video clip played as follows:)
SHERIFF ARPAIO: So I use the Posse to go after -- investigate the President. And -- once again, I've been around a long time.
They're cheering me on that one.
So they -- I have nothing against the President. I'm just looking at a fraudulent document, that's all. You know, I [2454] don't really care where he came from. I want to know if we have a forged birth certificate; that's all I want to know.
(Video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Is that part of your speech in the Oregon state capitol, or at the Oregon state capitol, Sheriff?
A. Yes, I think I just reconfirmed what I said.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'd move for the admission of Exhibit 2839D.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
MR. COMO: Join.
MR. WALKER: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit's admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2839D is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG: One more clip from that speech, Sheriff. 2839F.
(Video clip played as follows:)
SHERIFF ARPAIO: But I worked hard, and one thing you never do, sometimes when you're involved in change, you make enemies. You make enemies. So what do you do when you have an enemy? Do you surrender? No. So I don't surrender. That's the only thing that keeps me going.
(Video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, was that you at that same speech? [2455]
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move the admission of 2839F.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, 403.
THE COURT: Yeah, I -- I'm going to grant that one on 403.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, do you -- do you believe that you were deceived by Mr. Montgomery?
A. In retrospect, probably, yes.
Q. Do you feel embarrassed about being defrauded as easily as you were defrauded?
A. I'm sure not happy with it, the whole situation.
Q. Are you embarrassed by it?
A. I don't know about embarrassed. You know, in law enforcement sometimes you're successful and sometimes you're not. If you're not, I don't think you should be embarrassed.
Q. Well, your office paid him a lot of money for some unreliable information. Do you plan to do anything to get it back?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
MR. COMO: Join.
MR. WALKER: Join.
THE COURT: Overruled.
No, I'm going to grant that one.
BY MR. YOUNG: [2456]
Q. Now, when Judge Snow asked you in April whether you had investigated him, you didn't tell him about the May 5th, 2013 time line that was faxed to your office, correct?
A. No.
Q. You did tell him or you didn't tell him?
A. I don't believe -- he asked me the questions?
Q. Yes. He asked you a question whether you had investigated him. My question to you is: In answering Judge Snow's questions, you did not mention that November 5, 2013 time line, correct?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You did not tell him about any of the other documents we've seen, your handwritten and typewritten notes about Judge Snow, correct?
A. No. The November 5, I don't recall Judge Snow ever being mentioned. You mentioned November 5, 2013, was it?
Q. You did not tell him, in response to his questions about the time line documents purporting to show phone calls among Judge Snow, his former law clerk, the DOJ, Covington & Burling --
A. No.
Q. -- correct?
A. No.
Q. And when you say "no," you didn't?
A. Yes, I did not. No, I did not. [2457]
Q. Do you regret not telling Judge Snow those things in April when he asked you whether you had investigated him?
A. I'm not sure -- I really didn't connect those telephone numbers and so on with the question that he asked.
Q. My question is: Do you regret not telling him about those things when he asked you in April whether you had investigated him?
A. I'm not sure if it was a good time to do that. I never thought of that time line when he asked me the questions.
Q. I'm asking about how you -- about what your belief is now or what your attitude is now, Sheriff.
Do you regret not telling him those things in April?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: In retrospect, maybe I should have brought it up, but it never came to my mind at that time.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Had you forgotten about all of those things in April 2015, all the work that you knew that Mr. Zullo and Mr. Mackiewicz had been doing with Mr. Montgomery?
A. No, I was concerned -- again, I said it many times – on the wiretap, infiltrating our offices, other attorneys' offices. That was my concern.
Q. Okay. And you hadn't forgotten about any of that when you answered Judge Snow's question about whether you had [2458] investigated him in April, correct?
A. My point was at the time we didn't investigate the judge. I don't think we ever investigated a judge. It was just some information that came to our attention that we feel was false, and we stopped any mention of the judge. The chief deputy and I said we do not talk about the judge.
Q. You said that knowing that you would be then later be able to tell someone, in the event it came out, that you had not investigated Judge Snow, is that right?
A. That I would do what?
Q. When you gave whatever order you say you gave not to investigate Judge Snow, you knew that you'd be able, as a result of saying that, to be able to claim later on that you had not investigated Judge Snow, is that right?
A. No, that's not true. We said to our people, once again, if his name comes up again on these charts or whatever, we're not going to pursue it. Stop it. I don't care what phone numbers or charts, lines and everything else came up. We're not going to give it any credibility. And that was the message, very simple.
Q. Sheriff, you have no regrets about anything that you or your office has done in connection with this lawsuit, correct?
A. No. I think it was a learning experience. In a big organization there's always mistakes made. You just try to correct those mistakes. [2459]
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play to you a portion of your September 18, 2015 deposition, page 640, lines 4 through 23.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: Do you have any regrets with respect to what you've done or what your office has done in connection with this lawsuit?
"Answer: Are you talking about the -- what part of the lawsuit?
"Question: Any part of the lawsuit. Anything relating to this lawsuit. Do you have any regrets about what you and your office have done?
"Answer: As far as the illegal immigration, we were following the laws, state laws, federal laws, working with the federal government. So I don't have any regrets on that part.
"Question: Are you finished with your answer?
"Answer: Yes."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, did you testify accurately on September 18 during your deposition?
A. Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I have no further questions of the sheriff at this time.
* * *
See also, Arpaio's Sept. 30, Oct. 1, and Oct. 8 Testimony.
*Source: Melendres v. Arpaio et al, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.) Transcript of Proceedings - Evidentiary Hearing Day 10 (pages 2248-2470).
