I did not see this one coming.
Dennis Montgomery has renewed his motion to intervene in the case of Melendres v. Arpaio and for the pro hac vice admission of his attorney Jonathan Mosley in a plea for reconsideration before judge G. Murray Snow. Nothing interesting there, but an attachment to the motion, and the “new information” Montgomery represents as being vital to the reconsideration, contains a memorandum from Larry Klayman to the ACLU demanding that they withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiffs.
The grounds for this demand is “conflict of interest.” Montgomery says that he consulted with the ACLU in 2013 and 2014 about his “legal circumstances.” The ACLU, of course, is not representing Montgomery now, and it seems hard to understand what the conflict of interest is, except that Montgomery claims to have shared confidential information with the ACLU. But, but, but, Montgomery is not even a party to the lawsuit, although he is trying to become one.
Another part of the demand for withdrawal by the ACLU is the curious claim that the ACLU “repeatedly” threatened prosecution of Montgomery. I am struggling here what possible justification exists for this claim. Nothing in the record suggests that the Montgomery did anything against Melendres or the ACLU. What charges could the possibly assert against Montgomery?
I guess this is just another delaying tactic. Heck, it might even be
In a final stroke of irony, Klayman concludes the letter to the ACLU:
In my entire career as an attorney, as founder of the legal ethics groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, I have never seen a violation of professional ethics and the fiduciary duty between attorney and client of this magnitude and scope.
Says the man who has repeatedly sued Judicial Watch.