Main Menu

What is Zullo hiding?

Mike Zullo was presented with a subpoena in the Melendres case, and he produced thousands of pages of documents, but he also suggested that some documents might be protected under the 5th Amendment freedom from self incrimination. So what is Zullo hiding?

All of the Zullo documents were given to attorneys for Arpaio, and a list of withheld documents has entered into the court record. So here is the list in Microsoft Excel format (you can view the document without Excel).

I wanted to get this out as quickly as possible, so I haven’t studied it. Readers should note that “David Webb” is a pseudonym for Dennis Montgomery. I believe that “detmack” is Brian Mackiewicz. “1tick” is Mike Zullo and T_anglin is Travis Anglin of the MCSO. Flynn likely refers to Michael J. Flynn, who at one time was Dennis Montgomery’s attorney.

In the mean time, Judge Snow has denied a request for a 30-day delay from Mike Zullo, saying that Zullo has had enough time already to find an attorney. Zullo wanted the County to pay for an attorney for him, but the County’s position is that it will not. Judge Snow has recognized Mike Zullo’s motion as a request for a “protection order.” For additional information on the legal updates, see the article: “Joe Arpaio’s Birther Buddy Slams Sheriff’s Lawyers” by Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times.

The deposition of Mike Zullo, in which he basically refuses to answer questions without an attorney, again raises the issue of criminal charges against Zullo, an issue raised by Zullo himself. Zullo said:

My position is this is an accusation of criminal wrongdoing and a civil process is being used in light of probable cause.

In the dialog that followed where Zullo refused to answer questions, Zullo did say that his concern refers to a brief from one of the Plaintiff’s attorneys from Covington & Burling, marked in the deposition as Exhibit number 2934, and in particular the footnote to that brief.

excerpt

Photo courtesy of the Phoenix New Times.

So Zullo is claiming protection from charges related to the Montgomery Affair insofar as Montgomery was allegedly in possession of stolen government data. Here’s the list in text form from 18 U.S.C.:

  • 793(b)-(f) taking or communication of documents relating to national defense
  • 798 disclosure of classified information
  • 1503 intimidation of federal court and obstruction of justice
  • 1509 obstruction of court orders
  • 1924 unauthorized removal of classified information
  • 2511 interception electronic communications
  • 2701 unlawful access to stored communications

Those charges will be hard to prove, given that all the information alleged in that list, according to Arpaio, is junk.

,

56 Responses to What is Zullo hiding?

  1. avatar
    gorefan October 31, 2015 at 4:32 pm #

    Line 8 – Cantwell 09-06-2013 pdf

    Any guesses as to what that is? Who is Cantwell?

    The three entries with “obama” in the subject line might be interesting.

    Since these are all presumably related to MCSO/CCP business, how can Zullo claim ownership of them? Seems to me, he doesn’t have a right to withhold them even if they are incriminating.

  2. avatar
    Reality Check October 31, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

    Someone at the Fogbow speculated that the AZ-1 and AZ-2 videos might have been prepared for the March press conference that never happened.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 31, 2015 at 5:50 pm #

    This article has been updated.

  4. avatar
    Curious George October 31, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

    Arpaio may have called Montgomery’s work junk, but Zullo continued to utilize Montgomery all the way up to the day before the first day of the continued hearing in April of this year. And in defense of the information obtained, Zullo on Carl Gallups’ Freedom Friday Show told the audience that “junk” has a meaning for law enforcement that means something other than “junk.” Mike is a Montgomery true believer. What a fool!

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 31, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

    – Washington State has a Senator Maria Cantwell.

    Beyond that, there are lots of Cantwells.

    gorefan: Any guesses as to what that is? Who is Cantwell?

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 31, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

    The particular list of potentially criminal charges that Zullo cited in his deposition as a reason for not testifying all deal with things Dennis Montgomery allegedly did with harvested CIA data. I have no problem with Zullo having immunity for those things, particularly because it appears that none of that data was real. Zullo, as a non-employee of the MCSO wouldn’t be guilty of obstruction of a court order.

  7. avatar
    gorefan October 31, 2015 at 6:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    – Washington State has a Senator Maria Cantwell.

    Beyond that, there are lots of Cantwells.

    That might put the Seattle Operation into early September. Zullo in his MCSO memorandum said,

    “Additionally, the subject, persons and related activities involving with the “Seattle Operation” were not known to either myself, the Cold Case Posse or the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office prior to October 2013.”

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 31, 2015 at 7:45 pm #

    One Item, “Fwd: BREAKING NEWS-CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information,” appears to be a story at the Washington Times whose title was later changed. This is the article:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-improperly-hacking-senate-computers-sea/?page=all

  9. avatar
    RanTalbott November 1, 2015 at 1:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have no problem with Zullo having immunity for those things, particularly because it appears that none of that data was real.

    I think it’s too early to tell about that. If the speculation about him running the “get Snow” project for Arpaio turns out to be correct, then he could be guilty of obstruction, even without being an MCSO employee.

    Otoh, as I’ve said before, if he really believed that that was a vast conspiracy, and his intent was to get it exposed and prosecuted, not to blackmail the judge, then he should be regarded as a do-gooder who screwed up.

    Given Arpaio’s history, Zullo shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt on this. The DOJ should try to determine his intent before making a decision about immunity.

    The validity of Monty the Python’s info shouldn’t be a factor, much like the case of a would-be bomber who gets Play-Doh instead of C-4 from his FBI sting contact.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2015 at 7:33 am #

    I still don’t understand how that is obstruction. Here’s the statute:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1503

    Tes wrote at TFB: ” I’ve been looking at that footnote and I just don’t see any realistic risk of prosecution for the crimes listed there.” She has a longer discussion of the reasons for that comment. See http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=5328&hilit=dennis+montgomery&start=5500

    RanTalbott: If the speculation about him running the “get Snow” project for Arpaio turns out to be correct, then he could be guilty of obstruction,

  11. avatar
    RanTalbott November 1, 2015 at 8:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I still don’t understand how that is obstruction.

    Blackmail, or the threat of a bogus prosecution, would be “endeavor[ing] to influence, intimidate, or impede”.

    That’s why I said the intent is crucial: if the plan was to expose the alleged conspiracy, then they’d be innocent suckers. If the plan was to conceal it in exchange for favors, they should be prosecuted even though they didn’t succeed.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2015 at 8:40 am #

    What strikes me about the Zullo privilege log is how short it is. If indeed Zullo feared his involvement with Montgomery’s “stolen data” might incriminate him, then wouldn’t that include pretty much everything to do with the Seattle Operation? Yet there were thousands of pages of unprivileged documents produced.

    The other thing I found odd is that Zullo refused to give a deposition without an attorney to represent him (presumably to keep him from incriminating himself) yet he was willing to make the distinction between incriminating and non-incriminating documents on his own when asking Defense attorneys to withhold them from the Court. Is this a contradiction, or just dumb?

  13. avatar
    HistorianDude November 1, 2015 at 9:10 am #

    Thinking out loud…

    I genuinely believe that Zullo is at zero to no risk of criminal indictment. He is less than a small fish here. He was simply a tool used by Arpaio, credulous and enthusiastic to be sure, but I genuinely do not suspect for a second that he was smart enough or devious enough to actually engage in the criminal activity considered here. He was no less Montgomery’s mark than Arpaio here, and from that perspective is a victim of the con, not a participant or perpetrator of it.

    We among the anti-birthers have been the beneficiaries of a delicious set of revelations as this process continues to unfold. But the BC investigation is not and never has been of particular interest to the plaintiffs in the Melendres case. It is relevant only to the extent that it introduced the players that would ultimately angage in a different activity that IS relevant; the investigation of Judge Snow/DOJ/Covington.

    So too with one of the other two other investigations that appear to have taken place. Whether the investigation of the alleged 150 thousand compromised bank accounts and wiretapping of Maricopa County officials was ever more than a cover story is not clear. But this appears to be the investigation that engaged Anglin and Mackiewicz. It shows no sign of having been any more than an elaborate con in which the MCSO was the mark. And while it demonstrates incompetence on the part of Arpaio and his minions, no crime appears to have been committed by anybody other than Montgomery.

    The third investigation however is the key here, at least relating to the hearings on which we are fortunate to be drafting. The investigation into the bogus “conspiracy” between Snow, the DOJ and Covington to “get” Arpaio . Sure, informed speculation would lead one to believe that Zullo WAS the guy running this for Arpaio. But while this absolutely smacks of obstruction and criminal contempt, little of that actually attaches to Zullo. He was not a party to the Melendres sanctions. He was not an employee of the MCSO. He was (apparently for this activity) not even performing as the commander of the CCP. He was a civilian volunteer activated to handle a “Confidential Informant” for Sheriff Arpaio. A weird arrangement to be sure. But it would be difficult to establish that he was doing anything criminal.

    His real value here to the Plaintiffs (as well as his eventual value to any future criminal prosecution) does not lay in being a defendant, but in being a witness. Keeping him “scared” might serve the purpose of making him more enthusiastic to talk… but I cannot seriously consider the threat to be a real one.

  14. avatar
    HistorianDude November 1, 2015 at 9:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The other thing I found odd is that Zullo refused to give a deposition without an attorney to represent him (presumably to keep him from incriminating himself) yet he was willing to make the distinction between incriminating and non-incriminating documents on his own when asking Defense attorneys to withhold them from the Court. Is this a contradiction, or just dumb?

    It;s not clear to me if Zullo made that distinction or Popolizio did.

  15. avatar
    alg November 1, 2015 at 10:23 am #

    What is Zullo hiding”

    Perhaps the withheld documents include evidence of the diminutive size of his package.

  16. avatar
    gorefan November 1, 2015 at 10:49 am #

    alg:
    What is Zullo hiding”

    Perhaps the withheld documents include evidence of the diminutive size of his package.

    Detective Mackiewicz might be able to clear that up.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaio-stooges-adventures-in-seattle-and-his-interest-in-swollen-genitalia-7328556

  17. avatar
    Pete November 1, 2015 at 11:04 am #

    gorefan: Detective Mackiewicz might be able to clear that up.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaio-stooges-adventures-in-seattle-and-his-interest-in-swollen-genitalia-7328556

    Now that’s what I call professionalism.

  18. avatar
    Jim November 1, 2015 at 11:26 am #

    HistorianDude: It;s not clear to me if Zullo made that distinction or Popolizio did.

    What would be interesting is to find out whether this is the first time that Arpaio’s defense team (and maybe even Arpaio) have ever seen or even knew about some of the stuff in Zullo’s possession.

  19. avatar
    gorefan November 1, 2015 at 12:50 pm #

    I love the way they parse Monty’s work. The “Seattle Operation” is Montgomery working in Seattle with Mackiewicz, Anglin, and Zullo representing the MCSO. But it is not Montgomery working in Seattle with Zullo representing the CCP. It allows Zullo to say that the CCP has no involvement with the “Seattle Operation” while spending $2100 of CCP funds to buy Montgomery a video card

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2015 at 4:55 pm #

    Or it could have been his Atlanta attorney adviser.

    HistorianDude: It’s not clear to me if Zullo made that distinction or Popolizio did.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

    And don’t forget the $10,000 from a non-profit organization Zullo discussed with Montgomery in email.

    Perhaps we should talk about the Arpaio’s “Seattle Operation,” and Zullo’s “Montgomery Operation.”

    gorefan: It allows Zullo to say that the CCP has no involvement with the “Seattle Operation” while spending $2100 of CCP funds to buy Montgomery a video card

  22. avatar
    gorefan November 1, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Or it could have been his Atlanta attorney adviser.

    I thought it was interesting that he was apparently flying to Atlanta the day after his deposition.

    Q. Are you making efforts now to obtain another attorney to represent you?

    A. I’m flying out tomorrow morning to go —- he’s interviewing me, actually, to see if he’s willing to take this thing on.

  23. avatar
    RanTalbott November 1, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

    gorefan: I’m flying out tomorrow morning to go

    Taking short-notice cross-country plane trips for a matter that should be possible to handle by phone kinda undermines his plea of poverty.

    I wonder if it’s being paid for by donations people thought were going to be used to Depose the Usurper™…

  24. avatar
    gorefan November 2, 2015 at 3:01 am #

    RanTalbott:
    I wonder if it’s being paid for by donations people thought were going to be used to Depose the Usurper™…

    When I read his memorandum in Exhibit F, I got the distinct impression he doesn’t want anyone looking to closely at the finances of the CCP.

  25. avatar
    Curious George November 2, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    Doc C. made this excellent observation at Fogbow this morning:

    “Corsi started the ball rolling. Corsi’s invitation to speak at the Surprise Tea Party Patriots meeting (August 17, 2011) was the most obvious, along with his subsequent public meeting with Sheriff Arpaio and delegates from the STPP. Corsi, IMO, planted the birther infection in Maricopa County. Later Corsi wrote about Dennis Montgomery’s business partner Tim Blixseth at WND in June of 2012 in an article titled “Holder Faces Corruption Scandal Too”. That article discusses conspiracies involving Eric Holder to the detriment of Blixseth. One small quote from that article lists names that would become familiar later:

    “I know how Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer operate,” Mike Flynn, legal counsel for Tim Blixseth, the founder of the Yellowstone Club, told WND.

    Tim Blixseth was a business partner with Dennis Montgomery, Blixseth’s attorney Michael Flynn appeared on the list of documents that Zullo claims 5th Amendment protection for, and Lanny Breuer is a partner in Convington and Burlington (a firm that featured prominently in the Montgomery conspiracy flow chart).

    The WND article was published two days before a private June 15, 2012, meeting arranged by Jerome Corsi was held in Phoenix involving Tim Blixseth, Joe Arpaio, Michael Flynn and Mike Zullo. I believe that this is the occasion where the seeds of suspicion against Eric Holder were inflamed, and where the relationships began that would later facilitate the Seattle Operation. Distrust of the DoJ was the common bond between Joe Arpaio and Blixseth.”

    My comment:
    The $64 question is, did Mike Zullo meet Tim Blixseth and Michael Flynn, in June of 2012, in Zullo’s capacity as the “Commander” of the Cold Case Posse or as an individual activated by the sheriff, separate from the Cold Case Posse and it’s records, and its finances?

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2015 at 9:35 am #

    New Stephen Lemons article: 10 BIGGEST REVELATIONS IN THE JOE ARPAIO CONTEMPT TRIAL

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/10-biggest-revelations-in-the-joe-arpaio-contempt-trial-7791695

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2015 at 9:50 am #

    That is a thought-provoking question. In my opinion Zullo attended as Commander of the Cold Case Posse to the extent that any role could be assigned to his appearance. Stephen Lemons described Zullo as Arpaio’s G. Gordon Liddy, a concept that I think is useful for understanding their relationship.

    Curious George: The $64 question is, did Mike Zullo meet Tim Blixseth and Michael Flynn, in June of 2012, in Zullo’s capacity as the “Commander” of the Cold Case Posse or as an individual activated by the sheriff, separate from the Cold Case Posse and it’s records, and its finances?

  28. avatar
    tes November 2, 2015 at 10:01 am #

    I think that WND’s July 16, 2013 article is more significant than the June 2012 articles. 

    Although that article was published well after the June 2012 Zullo/Arpaio meeting with Blixseth, it linked to a May 2013 letter, which in turn referenced a May 4, 2012 letter (barely a month before the meeting) in which Flynn was seeking whistleblower status for an unnamed* person to reveal alleged DOJ wiretapping/hacking, in support of claims of judicial misconduct – and a DOJ-Covington conspiracy.

    *About that whistleblower :  As noted here, while not named in the letter, Flynn/Blixseth’s prior filings make pretty clear (imho) that they are talking about Montgomery (because they specifically identify him, by name, as the person who committed the acts described in the May 29, 2012 letter).

    Also – a small nitpick:  As far as I can tell, Tim Blixseth and Montgomery weren’t really ever business partners.  EDRA partnered with Montgomery shortly before the divorce, and she “got” Montgomery in the divorce.  (But even before the divorce, it was EDRA who was working directly w/ Montgomery; not Blixseth).

    It wasn’t until late 2011 (when it apparently became clear that Edra was not gonna be his benefactor for much longer), that Montgomery turned to Tim Blixseth (and his old nemesis, Flynn)– apparently by alleging all sorts of stuff against Edra – and producing “documents” purporting to be from Edra’s computer to support claims of judicial misconduct …. including those resulting in the Ninth Circuit’s Aug. 5, 2015 order sanctioning Blixseth and Flynn for relying on Montgomery docs “—without even alluding to the fact that in another action, “[Blixseth’s ex-wife] and her counsel filed affidavits and supporting documents that conclusively demonstrate that the ‘evidence’ is forged.”

    IOW, it’s not just that Arpaio/Zullo met with Blixseth about his “DOJ troubles” in June 2012 — but Blixseth’s 2012 “DOJ troubles” apparently included claims of (a) alleged judicial misconduct/collusion with opposing party and (b) an alleged DOJ-Covington conspiracy — and those claims were based in large part on info from none other than Dennis Montgomery.  “Info” eerily similar to that Montgomery later provides to Arpaio/Zullo.

  29. avatar
    J.D. Sue November 2, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

    tes: IOW, it’s not just that Arpaio/Zullo met with Blixseth about his “DOJ troubles” in June 2012 — but Blixseth’s 2012 “DOJ troubles” apparently included claims of (a) alleged judicial misconduct/collusion with opposing party and (b) an alleged DOJ-Covington conspiracy — and those claims were based in large part on info from none other than Dennis Montgomery.  “Info” eerily similar to that Montgomery later provides to Arpaio/Zullo.


    Tes, I’ve been following this legal drama for sometime, and can’t tell you enough how much I like your timeline and commentary and the consideration you show by posting filings for our convenience. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to keep tabs on every thing all the time, so take my speculative sense of things and memory FWIW.

    Anyhow, I wanted to say that I think the Flynn/Blixseth/Montgomery side-drama is key to this Arpaio/Zullo thing, and it’s being used as a smokescreen in the Arpaio case now at bar. Blixseth went from powerful multi-millionaire to a bankrupt felon in the Joint, ruined largely based upon bank records. Montgomery was supposed to be Blixseth’s salvation, because Montgomery’s “whistle-blower information” would supposedly prove that the Judge in Blixseth’s case was on the take and collaborating with the DOJ. IIRC, the appellate court ultimately issued an opinion smacking down Blixseth’s allegations of judicial corruption.

    If Blixseth/Flynn met with Arpaio/Zullo (and eventually Klayman, I’d expect), no doubt they spent some time talking about all the bank records that had convicted poor Blixseth and about Montgomery who could purportedly prove they were abusing bank records of thousands of Americans, and that the judiciary was involved. I figure powerful Arpaio was likewise worried that the judiciary and DOJ would take him down too. I figure that Arpaio needed to come up with some jurisdictional basis for getting involved, and he decided to claim he had jurisdiction for all bank records related to Arizona residents. I figure that Montgomery then generated a report for Arpaio, with whatever Arpaio wanted to see, i.e., “proof” that Judge Snow was corrupt and collaborating with DOJ to bring Arpaio down, just like another judge had purportedly done to Blixseth.

    And, yes, Flynn became Montgomery’s lawyer, and Montgomery lived in property owned by Flynn (which I think Flynn got because of Montgomery’s own bankruptcy), and then the property was foreclosed upon and then Montgomery had to be evicted. (This is the eviction that Montgomery complains to Zullo about).

    As I said, I just jotted this down based on memory of what I’ve read, so I’m sorry I’ve provided no links right now. If you ask, I will look for some.

  30. avatar
    Curious George November 2, 2015 at 3:56 pm #

    From Tes’ link above:
    http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/07/BLIXSETH-YELLOWSTONE-CASE-mike-flynn-letter-to-DOJ.pdf

    “Throughout relevant time periods in this matter, a Whistle Blower on behalf of, and paid by Edra Blixseth hacked into the computers of Mr. Blixseth and his counsel. The hacked information was provided to a laundry list of Mr. Blixseth’s “enemies” in a list created by Edra Blixseth. In June, 2012, the Whistle Blower severed their relationship. The Whistle Blower informed Mr. Blixseth that he and the DOJ had been hacking into Tim’s and Tim’s counsel’s emails; and he and the government were wiretapping their phone calls on behalf of Edra and Burkle. Edra had paid the Whistle Blower over $6.0M to conduct her requested hacking, at the rate of $100,000 per month from April, 2006 through January, 2009 plus millions in bonuses. The Whistle Blower and Mr. Blixseth’s counsel have been attempting to secure immunity for the Whistle Blower for the past year to blow the whistle on this entire matter, but the Holder controlled DOJ has thwarted it at the risk of exposing their own corrupt conduct.

    (See Immunity Proffer andRequest for Investigation of Montana Bankruptcy Court and Credit Suisse by Department of Justice,Public Integrity Section 11documents sent under separate cover.)

    In the event The Public Integrity Section gives immunity to the Whistle Blower will expose the entire YC scheme, the misconduct of Judge Kirscher in connection with very specific electronic evidence, and the criminal conduct of Burkle, Byrne and Schweitzer in their scheme to use the Montana Bankruptcy Court to perpetrate the “brilliant but evil, billion dollar plan.”

    Does any of this sound familiar?

  31. avatar
    Pete November 2, 2015 at 4:03 pm #

    Arpaio, Blixseth, Corsi, Montgomery, Zullo. What a slimy cast of characters.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

    Flynn did become Montgomery’s lawyer, but by February of 2011, Flynn was describing Montgomery as a “con man” (see NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20data.html?_r=0) and said he was a “habitual liar engaged in fraud. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/24/cia_montgomery/) in 2009.

    J.D. Sue: And, yes, Flynn became Montgomery’s lawyer, and Montgomery lived in property owned by Flynn (which I think Flynn got because of Montgomery’s own bankruptcy), and then the property was foreclosed upon and then Montgomery had to be evicted. (This is the eviction that Montgomery complains to Zullo about).

  33. avatar
    RanTalbott November 2, 2015 at 8:13 pm #

    tes: “Info” eerily similar to that Montgomery later provides to Arpaio/Zullo.

    Great catch.

    I’d like to add my voice to the chorus thanking and complimenting you for all the wonderful (and probably often tedious) work you’re doing in bringing the huge amount of info together and organizing it. And for spotting things that weren’t obvious when it was scattered all over the web.

    I hope you’re finding it as satisfying as we’re finding it helpful.

    Thanks.

  34. avatar
    tes November 2, 2015 at 11:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Flynn did become Montgomery’s lawyer, but by February of 2011, Flynn was describing Montgomery as a “con man” (see NY Times article:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20data.html?_r=0) and said he was a “habitual liar engaged in fraud. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/24/cia_montgomery/) in 2009.

    Yes .. just to be clear – Flynn wasn’t Montgomery’s lawyer at ANY point after he withdrew in the eTreppid case in 2007. When Flynn sent the letters seeking whistleblower status (for Montgomery), he was doing so on behalf of his client BLIXSETH, not on behalf of Montgomery.

    (and as an aside, thanx SueDB and Ran for the kind words. It’s rewarding in that deconstruction/reconstruction is just the way I process things best …but it’s especially rewarding if/when others find the results of that process at all helpful..)

  35. avatar
    tes November 2, 2015 at 11:43 pm #

    Re:

    J.D. Sue: —

    And, …Montgomery lived in property owned by Flynn (which I think Flynn got because of Montgomery’s own bankruptcy), and then the property was foreclosed upon and then Montgomery had to be evicted. (This is the eviction that Montgomery complains to Zullo about)….

    Yes. First – note that I have a typo in my posted above.
    June 2012: Edra stops funding Montgomery. (I said 2011 above – should be 2012

    Dec. 2012: Montgomery is evicted from his CA home (per his Jan. 2013 affidavit)

    Dec 13, 2012: Montgomery files affidavit in support of TIM Blix motion against Edra Blix.

    Jan. 7, 2013: Montgomery files supp affidavit in which (among other things), he asserts that his move back into the house owned by Flynn has nothing whatsoever to do with his affidavit.  (Flynn filed one too asserting he had nothing to do with move).  
     

  36. avatar
    RanTalbott November 3, 2015 at 2:05 am #

    Well, here’s something that Zullo might be hiding. A couple of the gerbils linked to a BR youtube video of Gall-oops appearing on the Peter Boyles show on 9/24/12:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCbNVynt0w

    About 22 minutes in, Gallups starts talking about The Second Investigation. Two interesting quotes:

    Once they started vetting it, they discovered there was a lot of credibility to this.

    Some of the information spilled over into possible criminal activity in Maricopa County coming straight from the White House.

    We know from testimony that they found some of the account numbers were correct, but found no evidence that accounts had been hacked. So, where did that “lot of credibility” come from?

    And we also know that alphabet agencies trolling bank records wouldn’t have come “straight from the White House”.

    Since it’s coming from Gallups, the odds of it being garbled/exaggerated are high. But it sure sounds like Team Arpaio was putting a lot of effort into something they swore that Monty the Python was pushing on them but they weren’t following up on.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 3, 2015 at 5:52 am #

    My guess is that comes from the FISA judge saying that the wiretap authorization numbers were of the right form. One would have to check the timing.

    RanTalbott: So, where did that “lot of credibility” come from?

  38. avatar
    Curious George November 3, 2015 at 7:18 am #

    From Tes’ link above:

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/07/BLIXSETH-YELLOWSTONE-CASE-mike-flynn-letter-to-DOJ.pdf

    “Throughout relevant time periods in this matter, a Whistle Blower on behalf of, and paid by Edra Blixseth hacked into the computers of Mr. Blixseth and his counsel. The hacked information was provided to a laundry list of Mr. Blixseth’s “enemies” in a list created by Edra Blixseth. In June, 2012, the Whistle Blower severed their relationship. The Whistle Blower informed Mr. Blixseth that he and the DOJ had been hacking into Tim’s and Tim’s counsel’s emails;”

    If we assume that the Whistle Blower is / was Dennis Montgomery, that would mean that Tim Blixseth was in communication with Dennis Montgomery the same month (June of 2012) Tim Blixseth and his counsel, Michael Flynn met with Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse, as reported by Doc. It would appear that Blixseth, Flynn, and Montgomery were on the same team in June of 2012 with common concerns.

  39. avatar
    tes November 3, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    Curious George:
    From Tes’ link above:

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/07/BLIXSETH-YELLOWSTONE-CASE-mike-flynn-letter-to-DOJ.pdf

    “Throughout relevant time periods in this matter, a Whistle Blower on behalf of, and paid by Edra Blixseth hacked into the computers of Mr. Blixseth and his counsel. The hacked information was provided to a laundry list of Mr. Blixseth’s “enemies” in a list created by Edra Blixseth. In June, 2012, the Whistle Blower severed their relationship. The Whistle Blower informed Mr. Blixseth that he and the DOJ had been hacking into Tim’s and Tim’s counsel’s emails;”

    If we assume that the Whistle Blower is / was Dennis Montgomery, that would mean that Tim Blixseth was in communication with Dennis Montgomery the same month (June of 2012)Tim Blixseth and his counsel, Michael Flynn met with Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse, as reported by Doc.It would appear that Blixseth, Flynn, and Montgomery were on the same team in June of 2012 with common concerns.

    Yes – and there’s info in Edra Blixseth declarations indicating that Montgomery was communicating Tim Blixseth earlier (in the lead up to her cutting off funding….). My THEORY is that, realizing that his “Bank of Edra” was closing down, Montgomery decided to try getting on the “Bank of Tim” by offering Tim info re: Edra….. (in part based on some info from Edra’s declarations)

  40. avatar
    tes November 3, 2015 at 8:33 pm #

    Re: “based in part on some info from Edra’s declaration” – see https://www.scribd.com/doc/273573848/Blix-v-YMC-App-87-12-35986-YCLT-Reply-Re-Osc-w-Exhibits at pp 86-87 of 387)…

  41. avatar
    Curious George November 4, 2015 at 5:10 am #

    gorefan:
    I love the way they parse Monty’s work.The “Seattle Operation” is Montgomery working in Seattle with Mackiewicz, Anglin, and Zullo representing the MCSO. But it is not Montgomery working in Seattle with Zullo representing the CCP.It allows Zullo to say that the CCP has no involvement with the “Seattle Operation” while spending $2100 of CCP funds to buy Montgomery a video card

    Let’s not forget that Monty in a declaration to the court, I think back in April, said that he was working with the Cold Case Posse, not the MCSO.

  42. avatar
    Curious George November 4, 2015 at 6:07 am #

    Larry Klayman believed that his client Mr. Montgomery was working with the Cold Case Posse and the MCSO:

    “During the evidentiary hearing, Sheriff Arpaio testified on the source of funding for the Montgomery investigation, which involved MCSO deputies as well as a member of the Cold Case Posse. Sheriff Arpaio stated that Maricopa County had not paid for the Cold Case Posse member’s trips to the Seattle area. (Tr. 645:15.) During the ensuing lunch break, the Monitor mentioned to the Court that the Cold Case Posse may have separate finances from MCSO. When the proceedings resumed, the Court confirmed as much with Sheriff Arpaio during questioning. (Tr. 657:18–59:1.)”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/287959992/15-16440-13-w-Ex-Montgomery-Opening-Brief-w-Exhibits

  43. avatar
    Curious George November 4, 2015 at 6:29 am #

    Tes,
    Thanks for the H/t on Fogbow.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 4, 2015 at 11:21 am #

    One of the birthers (Guest) at BR posted an audio file of Carl Gallups on the Peter Boyles show 9/19/2014.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFCbNVynt0w#t=1420

    Let me type a bit of it from 21:52

    Gallups: … Here’s the deal. You know. Of course they did two press conferences before and the mainstream media were in the tank completely for Obama back in those days and rather than looking at this monumental evidence they’ve already given that was enough to spark a congressional investigation if they would have done it. But instead of doing that, they questioned Joe Arpaio. Well, well what’s your jurisdiction for that? What jurisdiction do you have? … That wasn’t even an appropriate question.

    Bottom line: since then this investigation has gone deeper–it has gone darker. I will use that word in that stuff they have now uncovered. Mike Zullo calling “Earth shattering”, “universe shattering.” And so what happened, Peter, was that about this time last year [September 2013] Mike Zullo called me and said, “Looks like we’ll be able to make a March conference,” because their information was being wrapped up, vetted, they were ready to come forward, but what happened, and this is why Zullo has not made any more announcements to an exact date, because it kind of bit him a little bit because he and Arpaio were both ready to go March 2014, but they turned the corner to January and monumental information began to come in. Monumental information.And they had to research it. It was information that could not be ignored. It was huge. It was deep and dark. And so once they started vetting it, Peter, they discovered that there was a lot of credibility this and it was, the possibilities were staggering, history making. So they began to delve into this research. Now this information came in as the result of Zullo’s birth certificate investigation, but what happened: some of the information spilled over into possible criminal activity in Maricopa County, coming straight from the White House. Well, Joe Arpaio said wait just a dad gum minute, and he opened up an entirely new investigation. So since the beginning of this year [2014], Peter, we now have two investigations going. One of them is a criminal investigation being conducted basically by Joe Arpaio and whoever he assigns to it regarding criminal activity in Maricopa County that, that seems to go directly to the White House.

    And Joe Arpaio has talked about this a little bit even in the mainstream media when questioned, but the birth certificate investigation, and this is not really a birther case. The case is: is this document a forgery. Who did it? Why was it done? Why did the President feel compelled to present a fake birth certificate to the Country. That’s what this is about. So you’ve got these two investigations going….

  45. avatar
    RanTalbott November 5, 2015 at 7:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mike Zullo called me and said, “Looks like we’ll be able to make a March conference,” because their information was being wrapped up, vetted

    Is it just me, or does this sorta conflict with Zullo’s email to Monty the Python about 18 months after that, which says that Monty had delivered nothing?

    Hmmm, do you suppose that “legal hurdle” might have been that they weren’t allowed to waterboard Monty until he produced results? 😈

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    I don’t think so. My impression is that Zullo thought that he had wrapped up the birth certificate investigation (Fall of 2013) and was planning a March 2014 press conference to present what he had.

    This was about the time that they hooked up with Montgomery and followed him down the deeper, darker rabbit hole.

    Zullo always said that there were two investigations: his birther investigation, and Arpaio’s criminal investigation.

    Based on the timing, I don’t think Montgomery’s influence was present at the time Zullo was talking about the “March reveal.”

    RanTalbott: Is it just me, or does this sorta conflict with Zullo’s email to Monty the Python about 18 months after that, which says that Monty had delivered nothing?

  47. avatar
    Pete November 5, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This was about the time that they hooked up with Montgomery and followed him down the deeper, darker rabbit hole.

    It is now pitch dark. If you proceed you will likely fall into a pit.

  48. avatar
    RanTalbott November 5, 2015 at 7:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: My impression is that Zullo thought that he had wrapped up the birth certificate investigation (Fall of 2013) and was planning a March 2014 press conference to present what he had.

    Mine is based on Sellin saying that Arpaio was about to shut the snipe hunt down when a deus (later, diabolus) ex machina showed up, and Zullups suddenly babbling about an “NSA Document” that trumped the Xerox evidence. And on Carl’s history of premature ejaculations like “BREAKING!! Zullo finds forger!! Works as a clerk in Elvis’ bait shop!!!!”.

    So my inference is that Monty promised he’d dig out the proof that Adobe software was used to make the PDF “real soon now”, and Zullo was planning to use that for the “March reveal”. And Carl, as usual, got several time zones ahead of the actual facts that would later prove him wrong.

    The sequence of events is fuzzy enough at this point that either interpretation could turn out to be right, or both could be wrong. But I think mine better accounts for the tap-dancing about “hurdles” in public, and the “Where’s my evidence?” emails in private.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 5, 2015 at 9:21 pm #

    I agree that the “hurdles” likely refer to Montgomery and I think it likely that one of those hurdles was getting immunity for him.

    I did a little Googling for the “March reveal” phrase. One of the results was from the P&E from February 5, 2014 stating that Zullo would be on the Gallups program the following Friday to present the March reveal schedule.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2014/02/05/mike-zullo-of-the-arpaio-cold-case-posse-will-be-on-freedom-friday-with-carl-gallups-feb-7-to-discuss-march-reveal/

    There was a mention of the “March reveal” on Free Republic January 19, 2015, citing Gallups from January 17. The FR comments suggest that while an upcoming press conference had been anticipated for some time, it was in the Jan-Feb 2014 timeframe when March was specified.

    RanTalbott: The sequence of events is fuzzy enough at this point that either interpretation could turn out to be right, or both could be wrong. But I think mine better accounts for the tap-dancing about “hurdles” in public, and the “Where’s my evidence?” emails in private.

  50. avatar
    tes November 5, 2015 at 9:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think so. My impression is that Zullo thought that he had wrapped up the birth certificate investigation (Fall of 2013) and was planning a March 2014 press conference to present what he had.

    FWIW, I think Gallups had his timing wrong; they didn’t even start talking about a March 2014 press conference until WND (IIRC) mentioned that date in mid-December – just a couple days AFTER Montgomery got his free talk agreement with the AZAG. (I think Zullo was referring to Montgomery info in connection with the planned (?) March press conference.)

    At the same time, I agree that it doesn’t conflict w/ Zullo’s later statements re: getting nothing from Montgomery. In Fall 2013/early 2014, they DID get … allegations and promises of documentation. Around April 2014, they DID get “promised documentation” … it’s just that – as discovered in November 2014, that documentation was “junk.”

  51. avatar
    tes November 5, 2015 at 10:06 pm #

    Also FWIW, both Gallups and Zullo have *repeatedly* asserted that the “criminal investigation” grew out of the birther investigation/was the direct result of the Xerox Explanation.  E.g., just focusing on ZULLO….

    Dec. 13, 2013:  “At that point, when I was receiving it, we compiled it and we brought it to the attention of Sheriff Arpaio. At that time, that was tabled at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and a decision was made by Sheriff Arpaio to move forward and he has allocated resources and detectives now to assist us in a different line of investigation involving this investigation. It all stems from Sheriff Arpaio’s birth certificate investigation…”

    Feb. 7, 2014: “And other information surfaced as a result of this birth certificate investigation, that has now prompted Sheriff Arpaio to open up a second investigation. * **[16:26] “Well, I’ll tell you, the one thing I will commend them [Obots] for. Throwing up the nonsense Xerox machine argument is what got us where we are today. …”

    May 23, 2014: “[~7:37]Well, yeah, and I think when this is over, I plan to send each of those individuals a golden Xerox machine, and they can put it up on their mantle and know it was that reason – and that reason alone – that put us on our path.”

    July 10, 2015:  [33:48] “Well first off, the Xerox machine was the very piece of information that tipped me off that there’s another way to go here.  … <Gallups giggles> … I mean, Carl, if those punker-chimps wanna keep pumping the Xerox machine, have at it, because it’s irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. …”
     

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 5, 2015 at 10:40 pm #

    There is not a lot of time here. Zullo says he’d never heard of Montgomery before October 2013 and a month later he was on Arpaio’s payroll. I’d have to go back and re-read things critically, but my impression was that Arpaio said the Seattle operation started with the hacked bank account allegations.

    tes: Also FWIW, both Gallups and Zullo have *repeatedly* asserted that the “criminal investigation” grew out of the birther investigation/was the direct result of the Xerox Explanation.  E.g., just focusing on ZULLO…

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 5, 2015 at 10:51 pm #

    So I go back to my article, “Which Came First, the Chicken or the Zullo?”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/10/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-zullo/

    The “deeper and darker” language appears from Zullo/Gallups on September 13, 2013.

    But Zullo says he had never heard of Montgomery prior to October, 2013: “Additionally, the subject, persons and related activities involved with the “Seattle Operation” were not known to either myself, the Cold Case Posse or the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office prior to October 2013.”

    Stephen Lemons says that Anglin and Maciewicz were involved in some “odd investigation” in October.

    So is Zullo lying to the Sheriff’s office when he says he didn’t know Montgomery until October, 2013?

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is not a lot of time here.

  54. avatar
    gorefan November 5, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

    That’s why I was wondering why Zullo doesn’t want the September, 2013 PDF for Cantwell released

  55. avatar
    tes November 6, 2015 at 1:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So I go back to my article, “Which Came First, the Chicken or the Zullo?” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/10/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-zullo/ The “deeper and darker” language appears from Zullo/Gallups on September 13, 2013. …

    First the deeper/darker language appeared just a bit earlier than that….
    Aug. 23, 2013: GALLUPS refers to “criminal investigation

    Aug. 29, 2013: GALLUPS, in talking about the Xerox Explanation, says it “does not derail this investigation.  But let me tell you what it does do.  It opens up a whole other branch of the investigation.  That’s for certain…”

    Sept. 6, 2013:  GALLUPS refers to investigation getting “deep” (” This saga is getting really deep and interesting.  … But this is getting good.”)  Note: The Cantwell Doc is also dated Sept. 6.

    Sept. 11, 2013: GALLUPS says “This thing is moving along. It’s getting deeper and deeper and darker and darker. ”

    Of course, it is possible that Zullo was working on a “criminal investigation” with someone else other than Montgomery in the August-September time frame and that he didn’t start working with Montgomery until the Oct. 31 meeting where Blixseth introduced him/Mackiewicz to Montgomery. That really IS a possibility.  (Conceivably, someone named “Cantwell” …)  We just don’t know.

    However, it is worth noting that on May 14, Judge Snow — in discussing dox he’d reviewed to date — said that “first contact was September 2013.”

    And, of course, Zullo’s claim that “Additionally, the subject, persons and related activities involved with the “Seattle Operation” were not known to either myself, the Cold Case Posse or the Maricopa Sheriff’s Office prior to October 2013” is belied by the reported info re: the meeting he, Arpaio, and others had with Blixseth in June 2012.

    ~~~~~~~
    What I understand is … after the dates noted above ….

    Oct. 18, 2013:  Blixseth Meeting w/ Arpaio & Zullo – supposedly about bank information.  Blixseth reportedly gives them a flash drive re: the banking allegations.

    Oct. 31, 2013:  Blixseth introduces Zullo & Mackiewicz to Montgomery.

    Early Nov 2013: Zullo suggests running Snow in database; Montgomery does.

    Nov. 5, 2013:  Montgomery sends the Fax to Arpaio w/ Timeline including DOJ and Snow rulings (but not naming Snow)

    Nov. 6, 2013:  Arpaio takes a bunch of notes on the back of the fax specifically naming Snow

    Shortly after Nov. 6:  Arpaio & Sheridan meet with MCSO counsel & w Zullo on the phone explaining Montgomery claims re: DOJ hack into law firms.

    Dec. 3 & 6? 2013:  Montgomery meets with AZAG.

    Dec. 6, 2013:  First (recorded) cash payment to Montgomery (although Zullo/Mack each gave him $200 for Thanksgiving, this was first MCSO cash payment for which there’s a record/we know of)

    Dec. -?-, 2013: Montgomery creates Arpaio Brief/Timelines re: DOJ/Snow Conspiracy…

    Jan. 2, 2014: Another MCSO-attorney meeting, this time with Anglin and others in attendance…

    ~~~~~~~~~~~
    So, YES, both Arpaio and Sheridan testified that the first info they got related to the banking information. And that MAY be true. However, the DOJ conspiracy allegations came less than a month later (before first CI payment) and — the documents revealed to date show that there was at least some Arpaio/Sheridan (and Zullo) focus on the DOJ conspiracy allegations beginning early November 2013. 

  56. avatar
    gorefan November 6, 2015 at 11:26 am #

    The Cantwell PDF, whatever it is, has to be

    A) something that meets the requirements of the subpoena to produce documents.

    B) something that Zullo believes incriminates him.