Main Menu

Archive | Who’s Who

Information about people and web sites that discuss Barack Obama

Dennis Montgomery near death?

An unattributed article at WorldNetDaily this week cites Larry Klayman as saying that Dennis Montgomery is in poor health, and should be deposed before it is too late. Deposed about what, you ask? About the alleged scam he ran on the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office? No, rather about Montgomery’s purported knowledge of NSA surveillance of the US Supreme Court. Klayman wants the court to question Dennis Montgomery in secret, saying according to WND:

The witness, Dennis Montgomery, can testify “about the unconstitutional and illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency that is highly relevant and of crucial important … as he worked closely with these agencies following the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001,” said Klayman.

Montgomery’s poor health adds to the urgency that his testimony be taken now, Klayman has said

Klayman points to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsberg as surveillance targets that Montgomery could testify to. (Maybe he found this in bar codes in the noise of Al Jazeera TV signals.) Klayman raises the question of whether Roberts is being blackmailed by the Obama Administration.

Klayman sued the president and won a court order that the NSA stop spying on him personally (read more on Klayman v Obama). This motion is part of that that legal proceeding.

13

Arpaio: perjury?

imageStephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times used the “p” word in his article yesterday, “Judge Snow Rips the Lid Off an MCSO Riddled With Corruption, Confirming My Reporting in the Process.”

Lemons reported last June that Arpaio was paying a confidential informant big bucks to investigate an alleged conspiracy involving the Justice Department and federal judge G. Murray Snow. In testimony last week Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan confirmed the payments and the investigation. Sheridan further admitted that they got nothing useful from the informant, Dennis Montgomery, and that Montgomery was just stringing them along.

What Arpaio and Sheridan said in court was that he was investigating an allegation that the CIA had accessed 50,000 individual bank records in Maricopa County and that there was some wrongdoing involving the Justice Department and federal judges, but that Judge Snow’s inclusion in the investigation was incidental. So was the investigation of Snow central or tangential—targeted or coincidental? Lemons wrote:

My information always has been that Arpaio was up to his old tricks, attempting to conflict the judge, find dirt on him, and retaliate for adverse rulings.

A second point of conflict between Arpaio’s testimony and Lemon’s information is about who investigated the Judge’s wife. According to testimony, Arpaio attorney Tim Casey hired the investigator. Casey issued a statement that seems to contradict that. Lemons reported that the County Attorney’s Office was somehow involved.

So far Lemons has proven to be the more reliable source for what’s going on. I hope we’ll know a lot more when court hearings resume next June.

See also:

57

For better or worse: Arpaio’s investigation of the judge

I’m not a lawyer, so this is just my personal opinion.

What Joe Arpaio admitted to in court, that two investigations, one by the Sheriff’s office, and one by a private investigator, looked at Judge Snow and his wife really doesn’t offend my sense of propriety. This is in contrast to editorials in the newspapers.

In the case of the judge’s wife, someone told the Sheriff that Judge Snow’s wife had made a comment that would lead a reasonable person to suspect bias against Arpaio, and this veracity of this report was checked. In the case of the judge himself, Arpaio said the judge was not targeted, but that the investigation was broad and that Judge Snow was only incidentally included in it.

One would be hard-pressed to make a claim of intimidation, when the victim was not made aware of what was supposed to be intimidating them.

While I’m not bothered by what Arpaio admitted, I am suspicious that there may be more to the story than what Arpaio admitted. I certainly hope Joe Arpaio didn’t commit perjury. I say that because I’m not happy when anyone, even someone I dislike, does wrong. I also don’t think Sheriff Arpaio is that stupid.

Nevertheless, certainly more investigation will occur, and we may get some confirmation as to whether Arpaio acted reasonably, or not. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Read more:

39

Universe-shattering investigation revealed in court testimony Friday

It was somewhat of an anticlimax when Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan revealed in federal court Friday details of the “universe shattering” investigation Mike Zullo hinted about a year and a half ago. We already knew much of the story. Let’s view the facts chronologically.

Mike Zullo was the one who exposed the universe-shattering investigation in November, 2013. Carl Gallups tweeted:

Zullo spoke to the Surprise Arizona Tea Party Patriots about that time. Sharon Rondeau interviewed an attendee:

Zullo “said that the investigation that they started ‘turned very dark…’

We can place a proximate time on the start of the investigation from a confidential informant inside the Sheriff’s Office. Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times newspaper wrote (in June 2014) that he had discovered:

My sources — one of whom is a former detective with the MCSO’s Special Investigations Division and is well-acquainted with SID and those in it — say Anglin and Mackiewicz were involved in an odd investigation dating back to October 2013.

Zullo, Anglin and Mackiewicz were the team working on the universe shattering investigation of some really deep, dark stuff. Zullo himself confirmed this the following February, 2014, that two MSCO deputies were involved in the secret investigation with Zullo. Zullo said:

You’re correct, Carl. I don’t know how this is all gonna play out. I know that the criminal investigation that we’re working on now, Sheriff Arpaio has dedicated resources in two full-time Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office detectives. These are seasoned pros that are working this. These are the guys that go hunt down the really bad guys.

Notice that Zullo said “we” on the Carl Gallups radio show, and for that story I refer readers to Mitch Martinson’s February 10, 2014, article at Arizona’s Politics, “BREAKING: MCSO Confirms Sheriff Arpaio Now Has 2 FT Detectives Working On Investigation Related To President Obama Birth Certificate Investigation.” Zullo had made the claim of the two deputies, and Martinson got confirmation from the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, who had referred Martinson to Zullo for more information:

We have two Sheriff’s detectives assigned to look into other issues surrounding the birth certificate, however they are not investigating the birth certificate issue itself.

But then the Sheriffs Office walked back that confirmation, correcting it to say:

MCSO Lt. Brandon Jones states that he “was misinformed” when he had confirmed the information earlier.  He now states that “The detectives are not working on anything regarding the birth certificate. Not even surrounding. Mr. Zullo was incorrect, they are working on other sensitive cases not even related.”

I glean two facts from this series of statements: 1) Two deputies were working on a sensitive investigation with Mike Zullo was involved and 2) it had nothing to do with Obama’s identity documents.

Now, to the investigation.

Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times uncovered much of the story in June of 2014. He disclosed that a notorious scammer, Dennis Montgomery, was the confidential informant driving the investigation. Montgomery bilked the Pentagon out of millions with claims that he had computer software that could determine the geographic coordinates of terrorist attacks using bar codes he claimed to find in noise from Al Jazeera TV broadcasts.

Starting around the time of that disclosure, we heard not a single word more from Zullo about the universe-shattering information and the deep dark investigation. The scam had been exposed.

Now for what was disclosed in court:

Deputy Sheridan, himself a subject of the contempt hearing, confirmed what Sheriff Arpaio said Thursday about the Seattle scammer-sourced investigation, but added (as reported by Lemons at the Phoenix New Times):

The chief deputy initially told the court, under questioning by defendants’ attorney Michelle Iafrate, that Montgomery had info about “computer tampering crimes” and purported to have evidence that the CIA had “hacked into 50,000 bank accounts in Maricopa County, and had the names and dollar amounts.”

and

Montgomery told them he had data left over from his time doing work for the government, which the pseudo-guru promised he could “mine” with “super computers.”

So there you have it (and read the Lemons article for more detail). Scammer Montgomery claimed that he had data that, with the help of super computers,” could dig out secret information tying the CIA, the Justice Department and the federal courts in a grand criminal conspiracy. This was to be the universe-shattering story that Zullo couldn’t keep in his pants.

What happened to the investigation? Sheridan tells us the rest of the story:

But Montgomery ultimately gave them nothing usable.

“We finally realized he was stringing us along,” said Sheridan.

Zullo spent time, along with MCSO deputies in Seattle in a condo they rented for Montgomery. It has been estimated that between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in public funds were wasted for Montgomery, the deputies, Zullo, the condo and computer equipment. It was all a con job, but Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo fell for it.

The great universe-shattering investigation was just a scam.

Further reading:

PS: I had previously thought that Montgomery had offered some birther tidbit to entice Zullo alongside his attempt to find dirt on Eric Holder for Arpaio. There is no justification for this speculation. The investigation as disclosed by Sheridan fits what Zullo said and did. It was just me and the birthers who jumped to the conclusion that Zullo said something that he really didn’t say.

127

Mike Zullo: on the court’s radar

We never expected the Zullo inquisition, but Mike Zullo is now tied up with Joe Arpaio’s contempt proceeding before federal judge G. Murray Snow in Phoenix.

ZulloRadar

Mike Zullo and two Maricopa County deputies traveled to Seattle to meet with a known con man, Dennis Montgomery. Arpaio admitted in court yesterday that Montgomery was to supply information on federal judges, including Judge Snow. Snow examined Arpaio closely yesterday, with a copy of the Stephen Lemons article from June of last year, exposing the trip. Judge Snow ordered that the Sheriff’s Office and the Cold Case Posse not destroy any records relating to communications with Montgomery.

Zullo, happy to give affidavits in out of state cases, blew off subpoenas from Orly Taitz in birther lawsuits. It is an Obot’s web dream to see Zullo testify under oath. Will he say that public funds went to a con man to investigate the judge in Arpaio’s case, or will he say that the money was funding the Cold Case Posse’s “universe shattering” investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate?

127

Arpaio on the hot seat tomorrow

imageUnless an 11th hour agreement is reached, my prediction will be proven wrong, and Joe Arpaio will face a contempt of court hearing in Room 602, Sandra Day O’Connor Courthouse. The hearing is scheduled to last 4 days.

The hearing takes place amid a storm of bad press:

Will Sheriff Joe plead the 5th Amendment?

Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of As the Spit Turns.

I nipped by the Howard Taft Online Law School (actually, I just visited Lawyers.com), to ask the question of whether Sheriff Arpaio can refuse to answer questions under the Constitutional protection of the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination. Normally the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply to civil matters, but in this instance I understand that criminal charges are on the table, albeit unlikely. The second point, is that the 5th Amendment doesn’t allow an accused to refuse to answer selected questions, but rather is an all or nothing affair regarding testimony. Either Arpaio testifies, or he refuses. For a somewhat different view, interpreting the 5th’s protections more broadly, see “You can plead the fifth in the middle of a civil lawsuit.”

209