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 they 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.
Now Larry Klayman and his client Dennis Montgomery want the ACLU attorneys thrown off the Melendres case.
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Melendres-Third-Supplement-to-Motion-for-Reconsideration.pdf
I don’t think it is a delaying tactic. I think Montgomery is teeing up to sue the ACLU; he’ll be represented in that suit by Klayman, natch.
As Montgomery is not a party to this suit, his request for the ACLU to be bumped from it is, ummm, a bit far fetched. (Or, to be even more polite, premature or unripe.)
Montgomery may have a not-frivolous argument that the ACLU committed professional malpractice. (Klayman is hinting the ACLU is using information learned from Montgomery against Arpaio.) But that has nothing to do with Arpaio’s woes.
And none of this helps explain why Klayman and Mosley’s conflicting interest in representing both Montgomery and Arpaio can be excused.
Wouldn’t be funny if the conversation that Montgomery had with the ACLU was about using NSA data to find people discriminating? Does attorney/client privilege apply to trying to scam your attorney? 😀
Only Mosely is mentioned in the motion for reconsideration.
The new information is is based on Montgomery speaking to the ACLU in 2013 and 2014. Even Orly’s standard of “new to me” would not work since I pretty sure Mongomery did not just learn that he previously met with the ACLU.
There is also an interesting issue of timing. Montgomery met with the ACLU while they were already involved in the case against Arpaio and while he was helping Arpaio in regards to the judge in the case. Why do I suspect he did not mention that?
If he read what he wrote, I think he would find an even greater violation of professional ethics.
—-
If I recall correctly, the judge mentioned the conflict was with [Freedom] Watch (I can’t remember where this came up in the record) so that would knock out both of them. Does anyone remember for sure whether Judicial Watch represented Arpaio?
In any event, Klayman certainly has clear conflicts. Not only is he Arpaio’s attorney, and Montgomery’s and Arpaio’s interests are clearly adverse. But now it seems that he will be a witness since Klayman’s name is on at least one of those email exchanges in evidence.
Freedom Watch (not Judicial Watch), but yes. Klayman’s and Moseley’s representations of Montgomery and Arpaio are co-extensive.
“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.”
Doc, don’t struggle too hard because it is nonsense. But, what I think Klayman is trying to invoke is an ethical principle that pretty much says a civil attorney can’t try to extort a win in civil court by threatening the other side with a criminal action if they don’t do what that lawyer wants. (note to Orly: no more threats of criminal prosecution) I don’t see how that applies here.
The plaintiffs already won. This phase is about civil and possible criminal contempt. The claim is nonsense.
Isn’t it convenient for Arpaio and Montgomery that AZ and FL each have lots of sand they can pound?
—
Yes, it is nonsense, from every angle.
Does the way this motion is formatted, with the allegations of fact in a memo, with the brief just saying “this says it all,” relieve Klayman of his obligation to tell the truth? That is, does the brief as written not actually represent to the court that the ACLU threatened to bring charges against Montgomery?
I’m thinking a strongly worded response might be warranted from the ACLU. (Note: I just re-upped my membership.)
—-
The formatting of his motion does nothing to relieve him of his obligations.
Your question is interesting. Klayman does seem to be playing a game here. He seems to want the judge to take his letter as if it is evidence of something (e.g., evidence that the ACLU threatened to bring criminal charges against Montgomery). But, actually, his letter is evidence of nothing–except perhaps the fact that he wrote/sent it. He is fooling no one except his fans in the peanut gallery. And reading the letter, one is still left wondering–what possible threats could he be talking about (or not talking about)? If there were any actual threats, why didn’t he or Montgomery swear out an affidavit/declaration with specific factual allegations?
Klayman’s motion makes me laugh when he says (referring to the letter), “This document was not previously available…” Well, yeah, because he hadn’t written it yet. That hardly makes it newly discovered evidence.
Let’s see what happens next. My guess is that the Judge will deny his motion before the ACLU has a chance to respond. This is, after all, a motion to reconsider the court’s decision to deny the motion to intervene–which the appellate court already affirmed.
Procedurally, Montgomery asked the court to consider the existence of Klayman’s letter to the ACLU.
And I’m sure the court will give Klayman’s letter all the consideration it is due, i.e., none.
Since I don’t keep up with legal news, I have to ask: in what jurisdiction have the ACLU been granted prosecutorial powers?
y’know, my irony meter is redlining badly at the moment.
the birfoons have constantly winged on about how all their lost cases were dismissed on `a technicality’, and yet here is kkklayman and arpaio’s bunch trying their best to find the minimum of reason to get snow or the lawyers removed from the case.
now on BR they’re complaining that snow has `admitted to having familiarity with the monitors’
well no surprise there sherlock, they were appointed by the court!
Roadburner, you must have the new advanced and buffered irony meter not generally available. I had to take all mine off line to keep them from exploding.
I am still trying to figure out how Montgomery can claim any interest in this. He is not involved in the original suit in any way shape or form, and neither is Leisure Suit Larry. Now both of them may have cause for concern with regard to the contempt hearings and the almost inevitable criminal proceedings against Arpaio, but the ACLU won’t be a party to that at all. I think it is about time that Larry started collecting sanctions and vexlit status. Even for Larry, this is a bit of a stretch.
Careful Doc, Klayman might just file a motion to have you removed from the case as well, since your membership is an obvious conflict. 🙂
They’re also huge on “where there’s smoke, there’s fire!” when it comes to Mr. Obama, even though the “smoke” consists of thoroughly disproven false allegations.
Arpaio pays out tens of millions of dollars in settled lawsuits, admits to contempt of court, his Posse is proven to have lied about there “evidence…” well, NOTHING TO SEE HERE!
Montgomery claims he owns the (bunk) data, and that some of the MCSO documents in the monitor’s possession are governed by attorney-client privilege, nondisclosure agreements, etc., for his benefit.
Even assuming any of that is accurate, there are methods Montgomery could use to protect his interests that wouldn’t require him to intervene.
—-
The ethical rule isn’t about prosecutorial powers. It’s more like (to keep it simple): “If you don’t agree to settle the case on my terms, I will send evidence to the IRS that you have been under-reporting your income.” That’s an ethical no-no.
We haven’t had a good beat-down Friday in a while, about time for Judge Snow to clean up this mess and get back to the contempt hearing!
Which is why I believe (apart from still considering KKKlayman an incompetent idiot) that he wrote this for pure propaganda purposes. When Arpaio is convicted, he will try to run for re-election (or a final donation scam) on the “ebil ACLU played dirty tricks to take me out” train.
I think it is generally safe to assume that anything Leisure Suit Larry writes is largely for propaganda purposes, since he seems to actually practice, or know, very little law. His track record to date would certainly seem to bear that out.