Just when you thought it was safe to breathe the air of rationality, here comes Dennis Montgomery by way of his attorney Larry Klayman to intervene in the Arpaio affair – again.
The Post & Email reports that Klayman filed on behalf of Montgomery, who is not a party to the Arpaio lawsuit, a May 18 emergency motion to expedite his appeal with the 9th Circuit to intervene in the Melendres v. Arpaio case and to have Judge Snow removed. One may wonder just how Montgomery’s ox is gored by Judge Snow’s finding of facts in the Arpaio lawsuit, and Klayman explains:
Judge Snow cannot get from here to there without destroying Dennis Montgomery along the way.
Klayman goes on to expand on that theme:
The Appellant Dennis Montgomery is being falsely portrayed as proof of the mindset of Sheriff Arpaio and others without explanation that his work was unrelated to anything in this case.
So the chart that Montgomery prepared with boxes and arrows connecting Judge Snow with the Department of Justice and others is not related to the case and Sheriff Arpaio’s type-written notes on the back of it are not evidence of his state of mind? You could have fooled me.
Klayman attempts to claim that there is no connection between Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office expenditures on Montgomery and its ability to implement the Court’s order in the Melendres case. However true that may be, the irony is off the charts when we remember that Montgomery himself wrote in an email:
For the amount of money MCSO has spent on the judges court order in the Melendres case, maybe they should have spent some to expose the DOJ and their involvement in Covington.
Klayman goes on to misrepresent the facts when he says:
The refusal to recognize that not everything Dennis Montgomery was working on was about Judge Snow has now led – as Appellant warned – to evermore serious and increasingly unhinged accusations. Although some people inside MCSO didn’t feel the results (on which projects?) met their needs, Judge Snow has leaped to the idea that Dennis Montgomery committed fraud against MCSO. Yet neither Judge Snow nor any of the parties’ counsel ever pinned down which of many different projects Montgomery worked on vague expressions of dissatisfaction were referring to, what the dissatisfaction was, and whether (as is obvious from the documents) there were merely differences of opinion within a large bureaucracy. Judge Snow transformed routine debate typical of any bureaucracy about whether (essentially) a vendor’s output was what they were looking for or not into outrageously false and unsubstantiated charges of fraud.
In fact it was the Sheriff Arpaio’s expert consultants, former NSA employees Drake and Wiebe, who concluded that Dennis Montgomery’s work product was a “total fraud.” Arpaio called it “junk.” I am not aware of any testimony from any MCSO employee who asserted any value to the Montgomery material.
Update:
The docket for the case (case number 15-16626) at the 9th Circuit erroneously stated on May 23 that the emergency motion to expedite had been denied. That order has since been vacated. The Court reports that the motion to expedite has been fully briefed and that a separate opinion will follow.
Update:
The Court suggests that it is considering hearing the expedited appeal in September, 2016.
See also:
- Conflict! Arpaio vs Klayman
- Birds of a feather: Arpaio, Klayman
- Klayman out, DOJ in, Mackiewicz in deep, and more hard drives?
- Melendres case reignites: Will Zullo join Arpaio on the hot seat?
- Arpaio’s bad polling, and Montgomery’s emergency
- Klayman intervenes in Melendres lawsuit
- Other articles about Larry Klayman
Montgomery’s motion to expedite was already denied by the 9th Circuit.
And the district court denied Arpaio’s motion to delay to the May 31 hearing.
The order denying the motion to expedite was vacated yesterday.
“The Seattle Scammer” would make a great name for a sex act.
Indeed it has.
Montgomery may regret getting what he asked for, i.e., a prompt — but adverse — ruling on his appeal.
“..as Appellant warned – to evermore serious and increasingly unhinged accusations.”
The only one who reportedly became “unhinged” in the Arpaio contempt of court hearings was non-other than Korporal Mike Zoo-Low of the Cold Cut Posse.
The parties have filed their briefs in Melendres. The plaintiffs aren’t kidding around:
And:
Klayman’s motion to expedite at the 9th Circuit has been granted and will be placed on the “next available calendar.”
“All other requests for relief contained in appellant’s renewed requests to expedite consideration of these consolidated appeals (Docket Entry Nos. 43, 44, 47) are denied. Briefing is complete. ”
This is code for: “Be careful for what you wish.”
Update:
The Court suggests that it is considering hearing the expedited appeal in September, 2016.
WND is on the story and of course gets it wrong.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/9th-circuit-a-wild-card-in-arpaio-case/
That article could be a case study on spin.
In this one case I think his supporters are right – if he sets up a crowdfunding site, he will easily rake in that much money, and possibly more.
And one of its referenced articles should be forwarded to Judge Snow (and whatever bar association is responsible for KKKlayman’s license):
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/il-duce-judge-out-to-destroy-sheriff-joe/
I don’t think a lawyer is supposed to publicly compare a judge to a fascist dictator.
Bad idea, yes. But ethically permissible (and protected by the First Amendment).
In Germany, repeated offenses like that would get you disbarred. We take the “officer of the court” doctrine slightly more seriously, I suppose. 🙂
Libel? I understand lawyers are granted some sort of immunity, but I’d have expected it has its limits (of course you can’t indict a lawyer who called the other party a “bad parent” or a “fraud”, but attacking the judge is something else).
Lawyers do not have any special immunity. However, generally speaking, anything in a filed court document is privileged, and lawyers file most court documents.
Comparing a judge to a fascist dictator is hyperbolic opinion that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. If such a comparison was made in the judge’s court, however, the speaker could be cited for contempt.