Main Menu

Archive | Larry Klayman

Melendres status conference today: Judge could rule on Montgomery intervention

Update: Motion to Intervene denied. See notes at end.

According to Obama Conspiracy Theories sources, confirmed by an article at KJZZ, there is a status conference in the Arpaio lawsuit this morning in Phoenix before judge G. Murray Snow at 9:30 AM PDT. (Read that article for the full story, including comments to KJZZ by attorney Larry Klayman.)

The topic of confidential informant Dennis Montgomery has come front and center in the contempt proceedings against Sheriff Arpaio and other top MCSO officials. Montgomery filed an emergency petition with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop Judge Snow’s probe into information provided by Montgomery to the Sheriff’s Office—a petition summarily dismissed on May 12. Pending is a motion for intervention before Judge Snow in Phoenix, demanding the return of materials that the court received from the MCSO originally from Montgomery. Again Montgomery, through his attorney Larry Klayman, is also demanding that parts of the testimony of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan gave at a contempt hearing list April be stricken (as untrue) and that Judge Snow remove himself from the case. A ruling on the motion from Montgomery to intervene may come today.

This writer sees no likelihood that the motion to intervene will be granted or if granted that any of the things requested by Montgomery will be ordered.

Why is this important?

  • The Dennis Montgomery debacle is evidence that Joe Arpaio is gullible, and calls into question his judgment when evaluating evidence and sources, the same judgment skills he applied to Obama birth certificate claims and that ultimately led Arpaio to believe there was probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate was forged.
  • It could lead to more questioning relating to the Cold Case Posse, and possible revelations about money paid to Mike Zullo by the Department
  • Information detailing the Montgomery investigation could come to light that defines what the Cold Case Posse was actually doing, while allowing birthers to assume that they were pursuing Obama.

Kudos to Jude Joffe-Block, reporter with KJZZ, who has written several excellent stories on this latest turn in the Melendres case. Her article digs deeper into a concern that I expressed, that of the legality of Montgomery having and disclosing classified material. This from the article:

“Unless the Sheriff’s Office was engaged in a law enforcement operation for which that information was part or relevant, it is unlawful for a public official to receive or possess classified information,” [William Banks, the director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University] said. “Just as it is unlawful for the so-called consultant, Mr Montgomery, to have in his possession classified information, much less to have taken it himself.”

Status conference notes:

Judge Snow denied Mosley /Klayman / Freedom Watch Application because of conflicts (Klayman and Mosley representing Arpaio in another matter). Montgomery may move for reconsideration through a different attorney.

All Montgomery data dump materials and Seattle materials will continue to be reviewed by Court Monitors. Mosley was invited to participate in Status Conference today telephonically but did not call into the court.

A letter was sent to the CIA by defense counsel Iafrate. She received phone and email communication from the DOJ who said they don’t represent the CIA. Judge Snow said that a review of the documents will continue and the CIA can contact him or the court if they have concerns about the Montgomery alleged CIA information.

Meanwhile, Stephen Lemons tweets:

@RealSheriffJoe believed goofy plot proffered by Seattle CI Dennis Monthomery, spent dough on that instead of complying with court

@RealSheriffJoe hearing, Snow drops bombshell, says Seattle investigation was meant to develop conspiracy theory involving Snow, DOJ, etc

Arpaio’s bad polling, and Montgomery’s emergency

Public Policy Polling has a new poll out that gives us some information about how the people of Arizona feel about the Maricopa County sheriff. Most in Maricopa County (53%) expressed a negative view of Arpaio (the same percentage that disapprove of President Obama’s job performance). The poll showed that Maricopa county is more progressive than Arizona as a whole, and that there is a considerable age gap in the results. The poll was conducted May 1-3.

Update: Klayman petition denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the meantime Larry Klayman filed an emergency petition on behalf of Dennis Montgomery before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the forced recusal of district judge G. Murray Snow, who has been questioning Sheriff’s Office leadership about their involvement with Mr. Montgomery, and who has demanded production of documents related to the investigation in which Montgomery was involved.

Included in that petition are additional excerpts from Arpaio’s contempt of court hearing with testimony from Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan. Here’s a bit:

Judge Snow: How did he [Montgomery] know – how did he arrive at the conclusion that the DOJ had accessed my computer?

Sheridan: Again, we were always skeptical of what he was giving us. However, he was giving us information on occasion that was credible.

We had a seated justice in Washington – I can’t recall his name; I have it written down on my pad, Your Honor – that is a member of the FISA court in Washington, D.C. We had Mr. Mon – because the sheriff and I were concerned about the CIA wiretapping our phones. This justice actually confirmed that these were typical wiretap numbers, and so it did give Mr. Montgomery a little more credibility with us.

And we continued to work with him, we continued to keep him him on our informant payroll, so to speak, as he was producing information. But it became very slow, it became very stale, and we finally realized that he was stringing us along.

What was revealed in the Sheridan testimony, is that Dennis Montgomery claimed to have what appears to be raw TCP/IP packets of information from the Internet, and that he, using the “super computer” in his garage could assemble these packets into the original emails after a lengthy process. (The TCP/IP protocol supports breaking an Internet transmission into smaller “packets” of information, each of which may take a different route to reach its destination.)

The claim by Mr. Montgomery that he has in his possession this volume of raw Internet traffic, inevitably consisting of private Internet communications: emails, financial transactions, passwords, and other personal information, is highly disturbing to this writer. If Mr. Montgomery is telling the truth, then he is probably guilty of a crime, and should be prosecuted.

Read more:

Klayman intervenes in Melendres lawsuit

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 [1045] 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):

Read more:

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.

Arpaio loses immigration lawsuit against Obama

imageIt was pretty clear that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not the chosen representative of the American people, as his lawsuit to overturn the Obama Administration’s immigration policy of deferred deportations met with a prompt dismissal by a federal judge in the District of Columbia for lack of standing.

In a 33-page decision issued yesterday, federal judge and Obama appointee Beryl A. Howell dismissed the lawsuit following a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Howell rejected Arpaio’s plea to take an activist judicial stance, rather citing the doctrine of “the proper—and properly limited—rule of the courts in a democratic society.” Judge Howell was not interesting in making “policy properly left to elected representatives.”

Judge Howell cited heavily from the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States 132 S. Ct. (2012) overturning much of an Arizona immigration law, SB 1070.

I note that Judge Howell had the same problem with Arpaio’s complaint that I did:

At the outset, the plaintiff’s Complaint and motion for preliminary injunction fail to identify whether the plaintiff is bringing suit in his individual capacity or in his official capacity as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County.

During oral arguments, this was clarified—the answer is “both.” Still Arpaio was unable to show a particularized injury in either case sufficient to grant him standing to sue. Arpaio claimed death threats were an injury, threats that occurred before the Administration policies were made.

Read more:

Hearing in Arpaio v. Obama slated for Monday

Update: News reports say that U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell greeted Arpaio’s motion with skepticism today. She stated that deferred deportation policies have been around since the 1970’s and it was unclear how Sheriff Arpaio had standing to bring the suit.

A hearing is scheduled for December 22, in an immigration lawsuit [Justia.com link to 1:2014cv01966] filed by Joe Arpaio and his birther attorney Larry Klayman. I’m waiting for the inevitable dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Yesterday Klayman filed a supplemental declaration by Arpaio, repeating pretty much what they filed before.

I continue to wonder exactly who is filing the lawsuit. It is Joe Arpaio (who is named) or is it the Sheriff of Maricopa County. This latest filing plays with the latter, saying:

The unconstitutional act of the President’s Executive Actions must be enjoined  by a court of law on behalf of not only just myself and my Office which represents the people of Maricopa County, Arizona, but all of the American people.

Klayman had previously requested that Arpaio be allowed to testify live at the hearing and I think I read that this request was denied.

Arpaio seeks a preliminary injunction against Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

List of documents: