Zullo freaks out
Carl Gallups said something on his Freedom Friday show last week that made me do a double take. Gallups was reading [14:08] from the motion filed by Zullo’s attorney Larry Klayman before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
The Appellate Mike Zullo is not a party to this case, but was never the less threatened by the appellees and by the presiding judge, the Honorable G. Murray Snow, with criminal prosecution while being called as a deposition witness and a trial witness…. [whispering] It’s about the birth certificate folks … After the plaintiff’s, appellees, and Judge Snow’s repeated suggestions and not-very-subtle requests that criminal prosecution should be initiated to include criminal prosecution of Zullo, mentioning him explicitly by name….
Paraphrasing, Gallups then said:
Zullo freaked out and said, “look, you’re calling me as a witness to something that I don’t really even have a part in, and then you’re telling me,‘now get up on the stand and testify and soon as you open your mouth and we hear something we don’t like, we’re gonna put you under arrest!’” You can’t do that in America, folks!
No, you can’t to that in America, Carl. So when does Klayman think this happened? He doesn’t say. His brief is devoid of quotations, dates and times—no specifics of any kind on this point. I’ve read the available court transcripts and excerpts, and Judge G. Murray Snow seemed to be extremely protective of Zullo’s rights. There weren’t any threats. There were no remarks about anybody arresting anyone. Zullo was required to answer just one single question in days of being on the stand, which was a follow-up to something he had previously said. Other than the follow-up, Zullo was allowed to pick and choose what he responded to.
I reached out to some other folks. One person who has access to the complete set of transcripts said that there is no basis in the transcripts for any claim of threats of arrest to Zullo. I asked someone who attended the hearing where Zullo testified, and he confirmed that he had no recollection of any such threat, but rather had the overall impression that the judge “bent over backwards” to respect Zullo’s rights.
So where does this come from? Did Klayman just flat out lie to the Circuit Court of Appeals? Has Klayman seen the transcripts? Is he relying on Zullo’s word? Would Klayman risk sanctions from the Court? Is Klayman telling a whopper the size of Texas? We have the answer to one of those questions: Klayman has not seen the transcripts because it says in his court filing that he was ordering the transcripts at the same time he made the filing.
Before Mike Zullo testified, he cited a plaintiffs footnote from an October 23 filing that talks about criminal prosecution of certain MCSO staff for possibly violating federal law in accepting classified documents from Montgomery. There is no mention of Zullo, but it is the item that Zullo seized upon early on as a basis for pleading the 5th amendment. The footnote says, in part,
Even more troubling, as the Court noted in a post-hearing status conference, the evidence indicates that Dennis Montgomery informed MCSO personnel—with Chief Deputy Sheridan’s knowledge—that he was using a database of information “harvested by the CIA and confiscated by him” in his investigation, and also purported to be tracking telephone calls between the Court, the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General, and the U. S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. Tr. of May 14 2015…. This implicates possible violations of federal criminal laws by MCSO personnel in the course of the MCSO-Montgomery investigation. [list of statutes follows]
It seems to me that that footnote is moot, since subsequent testimony made it abundantly clear that Montgomery never shared any confidential CIA data with MCSO (what he turned over was junk and a total fraud, the experts say), and this fact was known by Zullo before he testified. Not only was Zullo not “MCSO personnel” but that particular threat against them evaporated a month before in light of the evidence.
In any case, that footnote didn’t come from Judge Snow, and it does not mention Zullo “explicitly by name.” Indeed, it was raised only as a “possibility.” So where is the criminal threat against Zullo by Judge Snow coming from?
Here I can only speculate on convoluted birther reasoning. One possibility is the boiler plate form upon which the subpoena to Mike Zullo was written. The Subpoena states: “The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached, … Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.” [Emphasis added.] The consequences from Rule 45(g) listed on the subpoena are:
(g) Contempt. The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.
Ultimately the authority for the subpoena comes from Judge Snow, and Zullo could have been held in criminal contempt if he had failed to show up, and Zullo could have been subject to criminal prosecution if he lied on the stand.
Judge Snow also said that it is possible that non-parties might be referred for criminal prosecution, presumably MCSO staff who participated in obstructing the judge’s order; however, Zullo was never mentioned in this context, and as I pointed out before, the area of Zullo’s involvement with Montgomery’s alleged CIA data turned out to be false.
Ultimately my investigation shows that the entire criminal threat explicitly by name to Mike Zullo and from Judge G. Murray Snow is total bull.