Main Menu

Tag Archives | G. Murray Snow

Is Arpaio done for?

imageJoe Arpaio is scheduled to be deposed under oath Wednesday in the Melendres v. Arpaio case where Judge G. Murray Snow is contemplating a contempt of court finding against Arpaio for willfully ignoring court orders to remedy racial profiling in his department. Arpaio has already admitted contempt in a previous brief, perhaps in hopes avoiding a future hearing.

I’m hearing quite a bit of back channel conversations that conclude that Arpaio is done for, and will likely resign. Certainly if I were a Maricopa County, Arizona, resident, I would be vocally expressing my displeasure with the leadership at the Sheriff’s Office and demanding a resignation. The County has already had $6.8 million in legal fees in just this one lawsuit. However, as I see it, Arpaio is their problem (the Court and the County), and they are the ones to deal with it. They know their interests better and the Court has the means to get at the truth.

A resignation by Arpaio makes a huge dent in birtherism, as it delegitimizes the Cold Case Posse and takes away whatever dim chance the birthers had the Arpaio was going to do something for them. I try, however, to avoid wishful thinking and favorable predictions unless they are sure things (like the Supreme Court not hearing a birther lawsuit). I don’t think this is a sure thing.

We probably won’t will hear much, if anything, from the deposition until the actual hearing in late April.

54

Arpaio seeks to avoid federal contempt hearing

Admits wrongdoing

FLASH UDATE: APRIL HEARING IS STILL ON!

According the Arizona Republic web site, Judge Snow says the April contempt hearing is still on. A settlement is possible if plaintiffs agree to terms, but the judge wants Arpaio to admit in open court his wrongdoing, and to pay money out of his own pocket.

H/t to the Stephen Lemons and the Phoenix New Times Blog for this story that interested readers will want to get from that source.

In a few words: Arpaio was scheduled to face a 4-day civil contempt hearing in April in the Melendres v. Arpaio case. The court ordered remedies after finding that Arpaio and his department were engaging in racial profiling. Arpaio has not obeyed the Court’s orders. Seeking to avoid a hearing (what Lemons calls a “de facto trial”), Arpaio has filed papers with the court “consent[ing] to a finding of civil contempt.”

Also get the story from KPHO in Phoenix.

50

Sheriff Joe: On the defensive?

For those following the continuing saga of Joe Arpaio v. federal judge G. Murray Snow, a remarkable twist in the case was reported by the Phoenix New Times. Arpaio requested the court to appoint a defense lawyer for him! But then a spokesperson said that wasn’t what happened. Does he indeed need a criminal defense lawyer?

You be the judge (no pun intended):

The hearing is tomorrow, December 4.

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Things are sort of quiet on the birther front and I’m waiting for something interesting to happen. There are a couple of dropping shoes that I’m waiting for.

First is some development in the Arpaio/Montgomery story. We learned that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been spending 6 figures on information from a notorious scammer about federal judge G. Murray Snow and US Attorney General Eric Holder. This is apparently some offshoot of the Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s birth certificate. I and commenters here have posted their speculations. What I’m waiting for is a public response from the Sheriff’s Office or from another media article confirming or expanding the story.

The second shoe belongs to Reed Hayes. It’s no accident that my article about Google queries featured the keyword reedwrite.com–it came from my Google alerts. There was a strong indication a while back that Hayes was going to post something on his web site related to his examination for Mike Zullo of a second or third-generation copy1 of the Obama birth certificate. What I once, but no longer strongly suspect is that poster Joe Mannix at Birther Report is Mike Zullo and that what he said about the Reed Hayes report is authoritative:

Of course. Reed is a master at detecting forgeries, especially when people try to mimic other peoples signatures on such things such as checks or birth certificates as in this case. He detects anomalies in forged signatures the average person can’t recognize. He immediately knew something was wrong after looking at the document hence why he called Mike back within 20 minutes.

That’s about all we know, and “know” is even too strong a word. It would be great for the other shoe to drop and we learn from Hayes himself what he thinks about how his work has been characterized. We remember that Ivan Zatkovich eventually spoke out against how his work had been buried and mischaracterized by WorldNetDaily.


1I consider the White House PDF to be a digitally compressed second-generation copy. The birth certificate itself is a photocopy of the original onto security paper. Scanning to PDF and display on a computer monitor, or printer gives the second generation.  (Considerable confusion has arisen from the complex digital compression involved in the creation of the PDF). The AP press scan is from photocopy (or perhaps a photocopy of a photocopy) of the certified copy, then imaged and displayed making it the third (or fourth) generation.

The frenzy of discovery

It’s always helpful in the frenzy of discovery when nearing a solution to a complicated puzzle, to take a step back for a reality check. Case in point is the identification of what Sheriff Joe and his Posse have been incessantly promising Universe-shattering results about. Recent revelations in the Phoenix New Times that Arpaio has paid big bucks to a notorious scam artist for information about US Federal District Judge G. Murray Snow and US Attorney General Eric holder provide an emotionally satisfying answer: Arpaio and his Posse are credulous fools. In this moment of excitement where all of the pieces seem to line up it’s worth considering whether we are fooling ourselves and to ask a few questions:

  • Does any part of the story require unusual complexity or implausibility?
  • Has confirmation bias caused contrary evidence to be pushed aside?
  • Are the sources credible?
  • Is there a plausible alternative narrative?

I can’t answer these questions for you, as they involve trust and value judgments, but I will attempt to answer them for myself.

I think the story is plausible because the actors in the alleged narrative do things that they have done in the past. Sheriff Joe has gone after political enemies with bogus investigations, and he has bought into conspiracy theories. Dennis Montgomery has scammed people and used their technological ignorance to his advantage. He has fabricated evidence before in the form of altered emails, according to expert court testimony. There are plausible mechanisms for the two to connect up because Sheriff Joe’s Obama investigation is widely reported in the national press. Also another Cold Case Posse source, Doug Vogt, lives close to Montgomery. The nearest thing to implausibility in the story is the amount of money, $200,000, allegedly spent by the Sheriff’s Office on Montgomery’s information. That’s a lot of money and it allegedly come from a secret fund—one should always be wary of secret boxes where the best evidence is. Still, given the power of Arpaio, I can sort of buy the $200,000. Montgomery got $20 million from the US government for fake information.

One contrary item is that Cold Case Posse insider Brian Reilly had never heard of Dennis Montgomery. However, the Universe-shattering investigation allegedly involving Montgomery didn’t start until after Reilly had left the Posse. Nothing else comes to mind.

I tend to trust the Phoenix New Times. What is my source? Most of what I know about the New Times comes from the New Times. That’s problematic. The bulk of their information comes from an anonymous source.  They portray themselves as journalists with integrity battling the evil empire of Joe Arpaio. In their favor, they won a $3.5 million settlement against the Sheriff’s Office. Indeed the County has lost $55 million in payouts for false arrest and prosecution charges against the Sheriff’s Office and the Prosecutor. The story’s author, Stephen Lemons has won a string of journalism awards. I do not have wide experience with stories in the New Times and whether they are always reliable. There is one thing strongly in favor of the credibility of the story which is the account of both Arpaio and Montgomery refusing to deny their relationship, which it would have been trivially easy to do so. I would say that if the story is baseless, the New Times runs the risk of getting sued (or arrested?).

There are any number of alternate scenarios:

  1. The New Times made it all up out of spite.
  2. The New Times’ informant made it all up out of spite.
  3. Montgomery really has used his technical skills to uncover damning evidence against Eric Holder and Judge Snow, and is providing it to Arpaio. Indictments to follow.

None of those seems likely, with #2 the only one remotely plausible.

I invite readers to suggest things I overlooked, or to weigh in with their own evaluations, and other questions that need to be asked.