A rather interesting development has taken place in the Melendres, v Arpaio lawsuit. Dennis Montgomery, the man identified by Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan as someone who was just “stringing us along” in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in confidential informant cash, has filed a brief as an “intervenor” through his attorney Larry Klayman to disqualify the judge, G. Murray Snow, who asked about Montgomery’s participation in a hearing last month. Klayman’s brief was published on his “Freedom Watch” web site.
Judge Snow previously issued a ruling rejecting complaints over his questioning of Arpaio and Sheridan.
My view is that this is a delaying tactic by Klayman, who also represents Arpaio in another lawsuit, Arpaio v. Obama. I consider the claim completely without merit for the reason that Dennis Montgomery is not a party to the Melendres lawsuit, nor is he a witness, and nothing in the Klayman brief provides any probative reason that Montgomery has any reasonable fear of harm from Judge Snow. Klayman alleges that:
Judge Snow is determined to investigate and threaten Dennis Montgomery and others have confirmed that Judge Snow’s wife did make the statement at issue.
However, Montgomery had no connection with the statement by the Judge’s wife, and nothing in the allegation provides a basis for the claim that Snow had “threatened” Montgomery. Klayman further raises the issue:
Now, Dennis Montgomery’s own documents, intellectual property, patented technology, copyrighted material, and other information has been seized by order of Judge Snow.
However, in fact Judge Snow only demanded delivery of documents in possession of the Sheriff’s Office, documents paid for by public funds.
Klayman bolsters his case with a statement from Professor Ronald Rotunda on the ethics issues involved. Rotunda apparently voted for Orly Taitz in her 2010 primary race for California Secretary of State.
There has been a flurry of activity on the docket of the Melendres case (which has now reached 1056 entries) including a motion from Arpaio to seal portions of the transcript of the hearing last month. Plaintiffs have filed a motion  for discovery of “Attorney-Client and Work Production Information” and a response in opposition was filed yesterday by Arpaio. So far Klayman’s intervention is not docketed.
The transcripts from the Arpaio contempt hearing will not be available on the court’s electronic system PACER until August 3, but a couple hundred pages of it appeared in a Plaintiff’s motion, and are linked below (nothing about Zullo or Montgomery, sorry to say):