Main Menu

Archive | July, 2015

Layers close to home

I’m trying to keep up on local affairs, and today I was reading the minutes of my local town council meeting. It’s a PDF file on the town web site. Two things annoy me about my town’s minutes: 1) They aren’t posted timely, and 2) they don’t have OCR data. As part of my looking into that 2nd issue, I opened the minutes in Adobe Acrobat and viewed properties:

image

The document was scanned by a Xerox WorkCentre 5955, and it created the PDF. As we know, some Xerox machines do amazing things, like breaking down documents into separate objects in ways that almost mimic what a human might do. This is a screen clip from the last page of the PDF file:

image

And here is the object that the Xerox created:

Minutes 9 February 2015_Page_7_Image_0003

I guess the birthers would say this must indicate a computer-generated forgery. They would be wrong.

Arpaio: still investigating the birth certificate, well, sort of, maybe

photo of Aaron KleinSheriff Joe Arpaio recorded an interview with Aaron Klein (pictured right), author, radio host and writer for WorldNetDaily, to be broadcast this Sunday night. An anonymously bylined article at WND talks about the interview, and picks out the Sheriff’s support for Donald Trump in its headline: “Sheriff Joe’s Got Trump’s Back.” Sheriff Joe criticizes the backlash to Trump’s remarks about Mexican immigrant rapists by saying:

I thought we have freedom of speech in this country

Well we do have free speech, free speech for Trump and free speech for his critics.

For our purposes, the part of the interview that is notable is a somewhat vague section of the article:

Arpaio added that Trump “did talk about the birth certificate in the past.”

“You know I’ve been working on that. So I don’t know. I guess you got to be politically correct when you run for office,” he said.

I’ll not try to guess exactly what “I’ve been working” means.

References:

  • Link to AM 970 Aaron Klein show and podcasts

Montgomery sues ACLU

Commenter bob nailed this prediction. Dennis Montgomery is suing the ACLU, according to a press release  from Montgomery’s attorney Larry Klayman. The case is filed in Miami federal court (Case No. 15-cv-22452). In the PR piece Klayman describes Dennis Montgomery as an “NSA whistleblower.” I’d be interested in knowing exactly what whistle he blew and when.

This case is fallout from the Melendres v. Arpaio contempt proceedings, where the ACLU is defending Plaintiffs. Dennis Montgomery became tangentially associated with the case when it was learned in testimony before Judge G. Murray Snow that Sheriff Arpaio had employed Montgomery in some scheme to investigate alleged CIA snooping into Maricopa County residents’ bank accounts, alleged emails between judges (including Snow) and the justice department, and alleged government wiretapping of the Sheriff’s Office. Montgomery claimed to have telecommunications data he collected on behalf of the CIA. Arpaio himself said that what Montgomery provided was “junk.”

If what Montgomery says about taking CIA data is true, then there are several crimes he could be charged with. Montgomery makes himself out to be a whistleblower in the mode of Edward Snowden. Others label him a fraud.

My inexpert analysis of the 55-page complaint boils it down to two actionable allegations:

  1. The ACLU used information provided to them by Dennis Montgomery under an attorney-client relationship in a way adverse to Montgomery. This point remains “speculative” in the complaint, with no specific information being cited. The attorneys that Montgomery consulted with are not the attorneys on the Melendres case in Arizona; it’s not even the same ACLU chapter, Montgomery is suing them anyway.
  2. Defamation. ACLU counsel Dan Pochoda said to a reporter, “This guy [Sheriff Arpaio’’] hired a person [Dennis Montgomery] previously found to be a con man.” (The bracketed material was added by Klayman.) The New York Times article does name Montgomery before including the Pochoda quote. Times reporter Fernanda Santos said, based on her own research:

    “Mr. Montgomery[‘s] reputation, easily uncovered with a cursory search, includes ample allegations of deception. Federal officials came to believe that he had sold antiterrorism technology that proved to be a hoax.”

    In order to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” It seems to me that the “factual matter” is pretty thin in this instance. No cited evidence whatever indicates that there was any communication of privileged information between the ACLU in Washington or New York and the ACLU of Arizona. As for being a con man, many sources had published that determination previously.

Some have speculated on this blog that the suit is nothing more than a delaying tactic, an attempt to stay proceedings in the Melendres case while this latest nuisance is dealt with, particularly since Klayman represents Arpaio in another matter.

More: