Main Menu

Tag Archives | Dennis Montgomery

Mike Zullo: Following the money

The transcript of Day 3 in the Melendres v. Arpaio contempt hearing is now available, courtesy of the Friends of the Fogbow. It contains a somewhat confusing exchange between Judge G. Murray Snow and Sheriff Arpaio relating to the Cold Case Posse’s involvement with confidential informant Dennis Montgomery in Seattle, and in particular with money.

Q. And is zoo — did you say Zulu? Zullo. Is he a posse member?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you pay funds from Maricopa County for Mr. Zullo to
go to the Washington area?
A. Yes.
Q. And then I assume you paid Anglin and Mackiewicz their travel costs?
A. We don’t pay for Zullo, but —
Q. But you paid Mackiewicz and Anglin.
A. Yes.

Q. And so Mr. Montgomery proposed to — who did he propose to at the MCSO that the DOJ was inappropriately — I assume it was of interest to you if they were wiretapping my phone, among others?
A. Yes. And mine, too.
Q. And yours, too. And so were you conducting this investigation?
A. No.
Q. Who was in your department?
A. This is Zullo and I think Mackiewicz.
Q. What rank does Mackiewicz have?
A. He’s a detective.
Q. Who did he report to about this investigation?
A. I think he and Zullo worked together.
Q. And who did they report to?
A. And Jerry Sheridan.
Q. They reported to Deputy Chief Sheridan?
A. At one time, but let me just say that the information we’re — we’ve been getting is the informer’s not very viable.
Q. Well, I understand that, I think the article itself says, that you became aware after a considerable amount of time that the reporter was giving you junk. Is that fair to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Or the informer was giving you junk?
A. Yes
Q. How much money did you spend on the informant?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. How much money did you spend on the investigation?
A. I don’t have the figures.

Q. Did you keep any of the materials that Mr. Montgomery has
provided you?
A. I don’t have them.
Q. Who does?
A. I believe Zullo does.
Q. And is he subject to your control —
A. Yes.
Q. — as a member of your posse?
A. Yes.

THE COURT: I just wanted to reiterate some of the
things I said during my questioning of you to make sure
everybody was clear. I was told over lunch that posse funds
like Mr. Zullo — Mr. Zullo’s the head of one of your posses.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Is it the Cold Case posse?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I was told that you also have various sources of funding within the MCSO, like the Cold Case posse has its own funds. Is that possible?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know what the possible funding sources were for the investigations that were related to the Seattle operation? When I say "operation," I mean the one involving Mr. Montgomery and the investigations with Brian Mackiewicz and Mr. Anglin.
THE WITNESS: I’m not sure if it was our RICO, which is drugs seized — I mean moneys seized from drug peddlers, or our general funds.
THE COURT: Were there other possible funds that might be involved that fund various like, for example, the Cold Case posse?
THE WITNESS: They’re independent 501(c) —
THE COURT: 501(c)(3).
THE WITNESS: — and they raise their own money.
THE COURT: All right. And you don’t have any control over those funds?
THE WITNESS: No.

OK, you got that?

42

Carl Gallups makes clear association between “earth shattering information” and confidential informant Montgomery

imageAn extremely interesting and revealing audio clip from the Freedom Friday with Carl Gallups show today has been posted on YouTube. In the clip, Gallups talks specifically about an ABC 15 news story, titled “Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation was intended to discredit, judge says.”

Gallups says in no uncertain terms that the “earth shattering” information that he and Zullo were talking about is specifically the information provided Arpaio by the confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery, information that Sheriff Arpaio agreed in testimony last month was “junk.”

Here’s the transcript of what Gallups said:

Carl Gallups Freedom Friday May 15, 2015

I’m gonna keep my promise. Listen folks: Write some of this stuff down, listen to this, go back and get the podcast if you can’t write it if you’re driving. I told you I’d give you a quick Sheriff Arpaio/Zullo investigation update, and here’s the deal—here you’re gonna have to listen.

If you’re intelligent, and 99.8% of our folks that listen to this show are very intelligent. The ones that don’t fit that category are usually the Obamabots who are listening to every little word that drops off my mouth so that can twist it, pervert it, and jack it around all over the Internet. They are not so intelligent. … They help to keep me honest as well. But the rest of you are gonna have to kind of listen carefully, kind of read in between the lines [1:00]. But here’s the deal: I haven’t had time to post this yet because all this kind of came to me before we went on the air, but just go to Google and you can put in these words, “sheriff joe arpaio investigation was intended to discredit judge says.” That’s the headline with an article right out ABC 15 Arizona. “Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation was intended to discredit, a judge says.” Continue Reading →

112

Arpaio contempt case: evidence turning bad for him

imageThe exposure of the Cold Case Posse’s so-called deep, dark turn, provides some sense of Sheriff Joe’s misdeeds coming around to bite him. For me, the Dennis Montgomery sideshow was nothing more than one con man conning another; however, media reports coming out of Thursday’s status conference in Melendres v. Arpaio put it in a more troubling light for Sheriff Joe.

The Houston Chronicle has one of those reports, titled “Judge: Sheriff’s investigation was intended to discredit him.” This report is based on comments from Judge G. Murray Snow in court last Thursday, and those comments came after reading seized MSCO documents passed on to him by the court-appointed monitor who is pouring over the material. Judge Snow called the investigations focus, that he was in collusion with the Department of Justice against Arpaio, a “bogus conspiracy theory.”

In testimony last April, Arpaio put a very different spin on things, saying that the Montgomery investigation was triggered by reports of the CIA hacking bank accounts and tapping phones; any involvement the investigation had with Judge G. Murray Snow was incidental—just part of emails involving several judges. The Chronicle writes:

The judge said the documents show that Dennis Montgomery, a computer consultant who has done work for the U.S. military and worked as a confidential informant in Arpaio’s secret investigation, told the sheriff’s office he could help them figure out what Snow and the Justice Department had been talking about.

Public radio station KJZZ said:

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow said documents he reviewed suggest the sheriff’s office hired a paid confidential informant to expose an alleged conspiracy between the judge and the U.S. Department of Justice to collude against Arpaio.

This is more in the steady drip of articles that spell bad news for the embattled Arizona Sheriff and indicates a very negative turn for Sheriff Joe.

Read more:

27

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: