Melendres v. Arpaio #1575 Nov 19 2015 Transcript - Status Conference
Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
Transcript of Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
1/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1279
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)))))))))))
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, ArizonaSeptember 25, 20159:03 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 6, Pages 1279-1487)
AMENDED TRANSCRIPT
Court Reporter: Gary Moll401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
2/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1280
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union FoundationImmigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union FoundationImmigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Andre Segura, Esq.125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004
American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148Phoenix, Arizona 85011
Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Lauren E. Pedley, Esq.1 Front Street, 35th FloorSan Francisco, California 94111
Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700Redwood Shores, California 94065
For the Defendant Maricopa County:Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PCBy: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.P.O. Box 20527Phoenix, Arizona 85036
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
3/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1281
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:
Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLCBy: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.By: John T. Masterson, Esq.By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For the Intervenor United States of America:U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th FloorWashington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights DivisionBy: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011Washington, D.C. 20004
For Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre:Dickinson Wright, PLLCBy: David J. Ouimette, Esq.1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400Phoenix, Arizona 85004
For Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan:Mitchell Stein Carey, PCBy: Lee D. Stein, Esq.1 Renaissance Square2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900Phoenix, Arizona 85004
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLPBy: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
4/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1282
A P P E A R A N C E S
Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian SandsChief Deputy Gerard SheridanDeputy Chief Jack MacIntyreLieutenant Joseph Sousa
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
5/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1283
I N D E X
Witness: Page
GERARD SHERIDAN
Direct Examination Continued by Ms. Wang 1289Cross-Examination by Mr. Masterson 1382Cross-Examination by Mr. Walker 1477
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
2003 Dkt No. 881, Order re discovery dated 2/12/2015 1362
2065 The Briefing Board, Number 15-04 dated 14664/17/2015 (MELC225056-MELC225058)
2067 Dkt No. 795, Court Order dated 11/20/2014 1378
2074A DOJ/ARPAIO, 2007-2013 (MELC199549) 1292
2525 E-mail from Beverly Owens-Prindle to Travis 1327Anglin, Joel Floyd, Brian Stutsman re Refund
of CI Funds dated 3/10/2014 (MELC198446-198447)
2528 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office memo from 1319Travis Anglin to Kim Seagraves re Investigativelodging dated 2/2/2014 (MELC187093)
2529 E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Sara Bagley re 1322Investigative trips to Seattle dated 7/22/2014(MELC198277-198279)
2530 Maricopa County Sheriff's Office memo from 1323Travis Anglin to Brian Stutsman reInvestigative purchases dated 1/21/2014(MELC187111)
2531 Forwarded E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Jerry 1333Sheridan of E-mail from Thomas Drake to BrianMackiewicz re a summary of data and informationanalysis of information from Dennis Montgomerydated 11/14/2014 (MELC198093-198095)
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
6/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:03:
09:04:
09:04:
09:04:
09:04:
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1284
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE CLERK: This is CV 07-2513, Melendres, et al.,
v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued evidentiary hearing.
Counsel, please announce your appearance.
MS. WANG: Good morning Your Honor. Cecillia Wang of
the ACLU for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Stanley Young,
Covington & Burling. With me are my colleagues, Michelle Morin
and Lauren Pedley.
MR. SEGURA: Andre Segura for the plaintiff.
MR. POCHODA: Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for
plaintiffs.
MR. KILLEBREW: Paul Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the
United States, plaintiff intervenors.
MR. MASTERSON: Good Morning, Judge Snow. John
Masterson and Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio, and with us is
Holly McGee.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
on behalf of Maricopa County. Mr. Jirauch will be joining us
also momentarily.
MR. WOODS: Terry Woods for nonparties Stutz and
Liddy.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
7/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:04:
09:04:
09:05:
09:05:
09:05:
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1285
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Lee Stein
specially appearing for Chief Deputy Sheridan.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como on
behalf of Chief Sands.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the unnamed contemnors.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. OUIMETTE: Good morning, Your Honor. David
Ouimette, specially appearing for Deputy Chief MacIntyre, who
is here.
THE COURT: Good morning.
Mr. Walker, yesterday you said that I hadn't yet
authorized payment of July invoices for the monitor. I have
done that. It's document 1253.
MR. WALKER: Oh, sorry we overlooked that, Your Honor.
We'll get it taken care of right away.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. I am still
reviewing August invoices; I'll probably file that order
shortly as well.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
8/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:06:
09:06:
09:06:
09:06:
09:07:
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1286
THE COURT: I'm informed the parties wanted a sidebar.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. Plaintiffs request a
sidebar before we resume the testimony of Chief Sheridan.
(Bench conference on the record.)
THE COURT: All right. It is, although humorous,
Mr. Stein makes a good point, because this microphone isn't
super good, and so if you're going to speak, I need to have you
come up and talk into this microphone.
MS. WANG: Sure.
THE COURT: And if you want to gather in so you can
hear and whoever's speaking doesn't have to shout, thus
defeating the purpose, it would be a good idea.
MS. WANG: So Your Honor, we're requesting the sidebar
because this morning with Chief Sheridan I plan to mention the
fact that there is an open Internal Affairs investigation
against Brian Mackiewicz. I do not plan to specify what the
subject matter of that investigation is. I have maybe two
questions about it. I don't intend to refer to any documents
relating to the investigation.
My understanding from the Court's statements on August
11th during a status conference is that the fact that there is
that open criminal IA investigation is not under seal. So just
in an abundance of caution I wanted to raise it before I
proceed with those questions.
THE COURT: All right. Any objections?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
9/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:07:
09:07:
09:07:
09:07:
09:08:
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1287
MR. MASTERSON: No objection, Judge. And I think we
went over this before, that some of that information's out in
the public, and it doesn't seem like she's going to go further.
May I go talk to the witness briefly so he doesn't say
something?
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. MASTERSON: I don't want him to blurt out --
MS. WANG: That's fine.
MR. MASTERSON: -- any information.
MS. WANG: Sure. That's fine.
THE COURT: All right. Let me just state on the
record I think that the fact that there is an investigation is
on the record, and the fact that it is a criminal investigation
is also on the record.
MR. MASTERSON: Right.
THE COURT: And if you're not going to go any further
than that, I think that's all on the record.
MS. WANG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Before we begin, resume the examination,
did we make any progress in terms of the statements that I've
been talking to you about in terms of admissible exhibits, in
terms of witnesses, and descriptions of testimony by all
parties?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
10/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:09:
09:09:
09:09:
09:09:
Melendres v. Arpaio, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1288
MS. WANG: No, Your Honor, unfortunately not. We
understood that the defendants were still looking at our
exhibits and might give us more stipulations on admissibility,
but we have not yet heard back.
MR. MASTERSON: Maybe we were talking past each other
a little bit. We did send a list of our at least proposed
witnesses to this point to plaintiffs' counsel this morning.
With respect to exhibits, my understanding was that
sometime before the end of the day we were going to get a list
of exhibits that plaintiffs were going to utilize with each
witness, and then over the weekend, hopefully, we can get
through exhibits for upcoming witnesses and stipulate a lot of
those into evidence. But so far we don't have a narrowed-down
list. We still got the thousand exhibits.
THE COURT: All right. As long as we know we're still
working on it.
MR. MASTERSON: Thanks.
THE COURT: I apologize. I do take notes by typing,
and I understand that when I use this mobile mike you all get
to hear my typing, and occasionally my breathing. I apologize
for that. If it becomes too distracting to anybody, just let
me know.
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG: Thank you, Your Honor.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
11/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:10:
09:10:
09:10:
09:11:0
09:11:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1289
GERARD SHERIDAN,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously sworn, was
examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MS. WANG:
Q. So Chief Sheridan, good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. When we left off yesterday, we were about to split apart an
exhibit into two pieces because you had seen one of them.
Do you have in front of you now Exhibit 2074A?
A. I do.
Q. All right. I believe you testified that you have seen this
one-page document before, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And you saw it in connection -- well, you saw
it as a representation of information that Dennis Montgomery
had provided to the MCSO, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 2074A.
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, could I just take a quick look
at what the new version looks like?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Pause in proceedings.)
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
12/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:11:
09:11:4
09:12:
09:12:
09:12:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1290
MR. MASTERSON: Judge, I just -- I guess I have a
question for counsel. Is this being introduced for the truth
of the matter asserted in the document?
MS. WANG: It is not.
MR. MASTERSON: Then my only objection is foundation.
THE COURT: You want to lay a little foundation,
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief Sheridan, you've testified that you were shown this
document, Exhibit 2074A, during a meeting concerning the
so-called Seattle investigation, correct?
A. Okay. Can we back up one second?
Q. Sure.
A. I have 2074 that has two sheets to it. I assume we're just
talking about the top sheet --
Q. Yes, 2074A, which you should -- if you don't have it in
front of you, we'll get that to you. It is the first page of
Exhibit 2074.
A. I do not have 2074A.
Q. I apologize.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE CLERK: I have it.
MS. WANG: Okay.
THE CLERK: (Handing).
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
13/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:12:
09:13:
09:13:
09:13:
09:14:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1291
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you have it now, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. So the question was: Were you shown this
document in the course of a meeting concerning the so-called
Seattle investigation?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. When did you see this before?
A. I believe Sheriff Arpaio showed me a copy of this in his
office.
Q. Okay. And when was that, do you recall?
A. No.
Q. Was it in connection with the so-called Seattle
investigation? Did he mention it was in connection with -- let
me withdraw that.
Did Sheriff Arpaio inform you that this represented
information Dennis Montgomery had given him?
A. This was in reference to information that we, the office,
had obtained from Dennis Montgomery.
Q. In connection with the investigation we were discussing
yesterday?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And was anyone else present when Sheriff Arpaio
showed you this document?
A. I don't believe so.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
14/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:14:
09:14:
09:15:
09:15:
09:15:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1292
Q. What did Sheriff Arpaio tell you about the document when he
showed it to you?
A. He just showed it to me and pointed out the two items that
I recall, because they were very important to me, and this is
why I recall them, was the wiretaps, the DOJ wiretaps on my
personal cell phone and his cell phone dated September 28,
2009. That's why I recall seeing this document and being a
little bit excited about it, actually.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd again move that
Exhibit 2074A be admitted.
MR. MASTERSON: No objection.
MR. WALKER: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: 2074A is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2074A is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: All right. Could I ask that it be
published, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, it may be published.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Okay, sir. Let's highlight the bottom third of the page.
Do you see where there are mentions of the Melendres
case here?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And the judge referenced in the entries for July 17th --
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
15/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:16:
09:16:
09:16:
09:17:
09:17:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1293
sorry, July 19th, 2012, and October 2nd, 2013, that would refer
to Judge Snow, correct?
Was that your understanding?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
MS. WANG: The question is whether --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. WANG: I'm sorry.
THE WITNESS: Well, at least the -- the one dated July
19th, 2012, I would assume that that was Judge Snow. The other
October, I -- I don't know.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Do you know of any other class action lawsuits against
Arpaio other than this one? I mean in the October 2013 time
range.
A. Well, we were dealing with the Department of Justice, and I
don't know if this would have been classified as a class action
lawsuit, but when we saw this document, everything on here,
this is what led me to start to question Mr. Montgomery,
because everything on here's public record. I mean, other than
those two wiretap references to the sheriff and my phone,
everything could have been found online, in the newspaper, that
kind of thing, so...
Q. Well, the wiretap information would not have been a matter
of public record, is that correct?
A. Right. I assumed it was made up, to be honest with you.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
16/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:17:
09:18:
09:18:
09:18:
09:18:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1294
Q. Okay. Well, did anyone ever inform you that Dennis
Montgomery represented that he was obtaining this information
from data he had obtained while a contractor or employee for
the CIA?
A. No.
Q. You never heard that from anybody?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you anything about the source, the
purported source, of Dennis Montgomery's information?
A. No. I had always assumed, and I think others did, that he
just pulled this off the Internet or the news media sources,
and he put it together to entice us to pay him some more money.
Q. Well, you had paid him a significant amount of money,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Over a hundred thousand dollars?
A. Yes.
Q. And you continued to pay him after you saw this document,
isn't that right?
A. Correct.
Q. But you believed that he was just giving you public-source
documents?
A. We did.
Q. Even though you kept paying him?
A. We did, because on occasion he would come up with some real
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
17/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:19:
09:19:
09:19:
09:20:
09:20:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1295
information.
Q. And did you have an understanding about where he was
getting that supposed real information?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that?
A. From the material that he obtained when he was a contractor
with the NSA and CIA.
Q. So you did have an understanding that he was purporting to
have data from the CIA and the NSA?
A. Yes.
Q. And those are federal agencies, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you have any concerns that that might be an improper or
illegal use of that data from the CIA and the NSA?
A. That's -- that's what we were looking into.
Q. How did you look into that?
A. We're a law enforcement agency. That's what we were trying
to determine, what information he had. He was very nebulous
about what he had, and he wouldn't show us, and we were trying
to validate what he was telling us and showing us.
Q. Is it your contention, sir, that you were investigating
Dennis Montgomery over the potential illegal use of data from
the CIA and the NSA?
A. No. We were investigating Dennis Montgomery to see if he
was a credible source with the information for the 150,000
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
18/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:20:
09:21:
09:21:
09:22:
09:22:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1296
Maricopa County residents' bank accounts that he gave us, that
he sourced us, to see if that was credible; to see if the
federal government was guilty of computer tampering for 150,000
Maricopa County residents.
Q. So let me ask you my question again: Did Dennis
Montgomery's representation that he was using data he obtained
from the CIA and the NSA while a contractor for them, did that
representation give rise to a concern on your part that that
was an illegal use of federal agency records?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. Foundation, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: We didn't know.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Did you have a concern that Dennis Montgomery might be
illegally using data he obtained from the CIA and the NSA?
A. We were working with the Arizona Attorney General, and
working with their advice -- blessing, I guess, if you call
that -- as a law enforcement agency, to figure out what
information we had, what crimes we had, and what crimes we were
eventually going to deal with. And the sheriff and I had
talked many times about if this crosses over into a federal
crime -- and I believe I've already told you this -- that we
were prepared to turn it over to the FBI.
Q. Okay. I think you're still not answering my question.
My question is: Did you have any reason to be
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
19/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:22:
09:23:
09:23:
09:23:
09:24:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1297
concerned that Dennis Montgomery had committed a crime in using
the CIA data for this purpose?
A. We were concerned that Dennis Montgomery illegally obtained
this information.
Q. When you testified here in court on April 24th, 2015, I
believe your testimony was that you were investigating whether
the federal government had illegally accessed bank records and
other information of Maricopa County residents, is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So your testimony today is adding some new information,
that you were looking into the legality of what Dennis
Montgomery was doing?
A. No. Don't -- don't confuse the two issues.
It was our belief that -- and this is the reason why
we began doing business with Dennis Montgomery and no other
reason -- was he came to us with 150,000 Maricopa County
residents' bank information and bank account numbers and dates
and account amounts, very specific information on 150 residents
that he said he obtained while he was working as a contractor
with the NSA and the CIA, and that they were making -- they
asked him, make him, whatever word you want to use, they
contracted with him to do this, and he knew what they were
doing was illegal.
And what he did was he made a copy every night before
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
20/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:24:
09:25:
09:25:
09:25:
09:26:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1298
he went home of this data, so some day he could become a
whistle-blower and let the United States, people of the United
States know what they were doing. This is the story that he
came to us with.
We didn't really care about what Dennis Montgomery,
whistle-blower, he said he went to even the ACLU for
whistle-blower status, and he tried to get whistle-blower
status and nobody would listen to him. But when he came to
Sheriff Arpaio with 150,000 Maricopa County residents that
their rights had been violated, the sheriff was the one that
had finally had the guts to take a chance and take a time --
take the time and spend some money to investigate this issue.
That's how Dennis Montgomery started.
And as you know the rest of the story, Dennis
Montgomery is a questionable character. All you have to do is
google him and see, I think it's the Playboy or Penthouse
article, the story, the video. It's very enlightening. We
were very well aware of all those things. Informants are
oftentimes not the most savory characteristics on the planet.
So we knew that. We knew that going into this. But the
outcome, if we were able to prove the credibility of Dennis
Montgomery, would far outweigh the $250,000 or so money that we
were spending on this investigation.
And don't forget the time period, too, that we were
looking into this. Edward Snowden, I believe is his name, was
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
21/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:26:
09:27:
09:27:
09:28:
09:28:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1299
a huge story across the country. I think he fled to Russia and
he was making the same type allegations. That's what we were
doing with Dennis Montgomery.
Now, Dennis Montgomery then, because we start and
began questioning him, starts coming up with this information
like Exhibit 2074A, because we start telling him, Hey, you need
to come up with something credible here or we're not going to
pay you any more. He has no source of income. We're his only
source of income. So he is frantic about keeping us on the
hook, so to speak.
And so he comes up periodically with these things like
this exhibit that we have before us. And he has some credible
information. As a matter of fact, we sent a team of detectives
out to verify some of those bank account records, and we were
able to verify that some of that information was accurate; some
of it was not.
And then he comes along -- and this is probably the
reason why we're talking about it here in Judge Snow's court.
He comes up with this thing about the DOJ phone call to
Judge Snow's chambers or something like that. And again,
thinking that, Oh, you know, we're in Judge Snow's court, maybe
this would be very sexy for us to know this, and thinking that
we'll bite on it, and we don't.
And you have those documents. You have the e-mails.
You have my direct order in writing in those e-mails to my --
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
22/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:29:
09:29:
09:29:
09:30:
09:30:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1300
members of my staff, and testimony from the sergeant, Anglin,
that I gave him a direct order they will not and do not
participate in anything concerning this Court.
And so Montgomery, in my opinion, was doing these
things to string us along to pay him a little bit longer,
because he knew that he didn't have the goods in order to make
a case that we needed to make a case, and we would not pay him
any longer.
Q. Well, you did continue to pay him after he initially came
forward with allegations that Judge -- that involved
Judge Snow, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I don't think you ever did answer my original question,
which is: Did you have any concern that Dennis Montgomery had
committed a crime in copying the data from the CIA and the NSA
and giving it to you at the MCSO? Did you have any concern
that that constituted a federal crime?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, foundation,
asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: That's why we sought the counsel from
the Arizona Attorney General, because of that very concern.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. So the answer is yes, you did have that concern?
A. Yes, ma'am.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
23/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:30:
09:30:
09:31:
09:31:
09:31:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1301
Q. Now, you mentioned the Arizona Attorney General.
Are you aware that MCSO arranged for Dennis Montgomery
to have a so-called free talk with the AG's office?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dennis Montgomery -- well, let's go through to make
sure we know what a free talk is.
Is that basically a proffer to a prosecutor in which
the person who's coming forward with information seeks and
obtains immunity from prosecution for any crimes, is that
right?
A. Correct.
Q. And in fact, in this instance, Dennis Montgomery had asked
that MCSO facilitate the arrangement that he would be immunized
against prosecution for any crimes that he may have committed
in going into that free talk with the AG's office, is that
right?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So you did have an indication that Dennis Montgomery may
have been involved in federal criminal activity in relation to
his obtaining and use of that data, correct?
A. It's possible.
Q. I want to go back to the exhibit, 2074A.
Did you understand that Dennis Montgomery had faxed
this document to Sheriff Arpaio?
Do you see at the top there's an indication this
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
24/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:31:
09:32:
09:32:
09:32:
09:32:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1302
document was sent through a fax machine?
A. No.
Q. You don't see that?
A. Well, I see the number on top. I was not aware that it was
faxed to the sheriff.
Q. Do you see the handwritten telephone number at the bottom
of the page, 602, that number?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recognize that as a fax machine, Sheriff Arpaio's
fax machine number?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to have you take a look at a couple documents.
Do you have Exhibit 2880 in front of you?
THE COURT: What was that exhibit number, again?
MS. WANG: 2880.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I do.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. This document is not in evidence. I'm not going to read
from it. It's a reverse telephone number lookup printout.
Can you turn to page 2 of the document and look at
where it says Dennis Montgomery.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. Look at the -- the telephone number that's listed
there, and then compare that to the number at the top of
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
25/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:33:
09:33:
09:34:
09:34:
09:35:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1303
Exhibit 2074A.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. So does this document, Exhibit 2880, in any way
refresh your recollection about where this document,
number 2074A, came from?
A. I was never aware of where it came from, so it wouldn't
refresh my recollection.
Q. All right. When the sheriff showed you this document, what
did you tell you about it?
A. I'm sorry, what was that?
Q. I'm referring back to Exhibit 2074A, the DOJ/Arpaio
timeline document. When Sheriff Arpaio showed this to you,
what did he tell you about it?
A. Oh, what did he tell me about it? I'm sorry, I missed that
part.
Not much. We just really keyed on the wiretap and
talked about that the DOJ really wiretap our personal
cell phones. And then I looked at it, and I think even at
first glance I looked at it and I said, Sheriff, I said, other
than those wiretap things, this looks like something that
anybody could put together just doing a little Internet
research.
Q. Chief, looking at this document, the DOJ/Arpaio timeline,
did you have an understanding that Dennis Montgomery was
alleging that there was a conspiracy between the Department of
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
26/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:35:
09:35:
09:35:
09:36:
09:36:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1304
Justice, Judge Snow, and the Covington & Burling law firm?
A. No.
Q. You did not have that understanding?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear anyone mention that Dennis Montgomery was
alleging that there was a conspiracy involving Judge Snow,
the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Covington & Burling law
firm?
A. No.
Q. You never heard anything about such a purported conspiracy?
A. What -- what I heard was that Dennis Montgomery came up
with a phone record that the DOJ had called the judge's
chambers. That was the fact that I had heard.
Q. And what was this -- what were you told about the
significance of that fact?
A. DOJ was talking with Judge Snow.
Q. Did Sheriff Arpaio mention that allegation to you?
A. No. It was -- I believe it was Detective Mackiewicz.
Q. Was that during a conversation in which you told
Detective Mackiewicz that he should not investigate Judge Snow?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. So you did understand that purported fact to be implicating
some kind of wrongdoing on the part of the Court?
A. No. I was concerned with the prior activities of the
Sheriff's Office concerning members of the court, our
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
27/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:37:
09:37:
09:38:
09:38:
09:38:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1305
reputation concerning investigations of members of the court in
years past.
I was the chief deputy. I did not want to be
associated with anything in that way, shape, or form, and
that's why I told Detective Mackiewicz, We are not going to
entertain any further information from Montgomery, and you're
to tell him not to investigate anything about Judge Snow, and
if he is -- if he does, we will walk away.
Q. By the way, Chief, Detective Mackiewicz was assigned to the
Threats Unit at MCSO, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn't it true that in years past, the MCSO Threats Unit
was actually involved in some of those investigations you just
mentioned into judges and other public officials?
A. It was many years ago, yes.
Q. Sir, turning again to Exhibit 2074A, you mentioned that
there were indications here that your telephone had been tapped
by the DOJ, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there -- does your telephone number appear on this
document?
A. It does.
Q. And which number is that?
A. It's -- it's on the line dated 9-28-2009. 602-920-4000. I
no longer have that number, but that was the number I had at
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
28/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:39:
09:39:
09:39:
09:40:
09:40:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1306
that time.
Q. And was that a landline at your MCSO office or a
cell phone?
A. That was my personal cell phone number. And the
number 4001 is the sheriff's number.
Q. All right. Is that a cell phone or a landline?
A. That is a cell phone number.
Q. And what about the numbers appearing in the next -- the
third number that appears in the next line?
A. 920-4400 was at that time the chief deputy, Dave
Hendershott, that was his cell phone number.
Q. All right. When you discussed this timeline document,
Exhibit 2074A, with Sheriff Arpaio, did he say that he was not
going to pursue any of this information?
A. Yes. As a matter of fact, to this day, the sheriff and I,
even though we're curious, would like to know if the DOJ
actually did tap our cell phones. We never got an answer. And
we believe that if they were credible wiretap numbers, we as
American citizens have a right to be notified that they did tap
our cell phones. The Department of Justice never did notify us
that they tapped our phones. And assuming that the Department
of Justice is a stand-up company and we never were notified, we
assume that these numbers were bogus also.
Q. Sir, do you see that in the fax stamp up at the top of
2074A that there appears the date November 5th, 2013?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
29/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:41:
09:41:
09:41:
09:41:
09:42:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1307
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you recall whether Sheriff Arpaio showed you
this document around that date or shortly thereafter?
A. It was probably shortly thereafter.
Q. And you continued to pay Dennis Montgomery, and you
continued his investigation after November of 2013, correct?
A. We did.
Q. You continued it into 2014, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And even into 2015 you were still seeking information from
Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. On a very limited basis, yes.
Q. In fact, up through the beginning of this contempt hearing
on April 21st you were still seeking information from Dennis
Montgomery, correct?
A. Posseman Zullo kept in contact with Dennis Montgomery, yes.
Q. So your answer is yes, as of April 21st, 2015, MCSO was
still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery, right?
A. I -- I don't think that's quite accurate.
Q. Well, you just testified that Posseman Zullo was still
seeking information from Dennis Montgomery as of April 20th of
2015, correct?
A. I didn't use the word "seeking information"; I said he kept
in contact with him.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
30/209
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
31/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:45:
09:46:
09:46:
09:47:
09:47:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1309
A. Yes.
Q. And was he still seeking information from Dennis Montgomery
on that date?
A. It's obvious from this e-mail he was.
Q. Thank you.
Sir, you mentioned a moment ago that you directed
Sergeant Anglin and Detective Mackiewicz not to investigate
Judge Snow because you were concerned about getting, I don't
want to put words in your mouth, but I think you mentioned a
concern that you didn't want to be involved in any
investigations like those that had happened in the past of
judges and other public officials, is that right?
A. That's correct. When I took over as the chief deputy, the
sheriff sat me down and he counseled me on what he expected
from me. And that was one of the things that he said: that he
allowed the former chief deputy too much leeway in doing
things, and that he was not going to do that with me. And he
was not going to investigate any corruption charges on public
officials or go into any corruption issues with members of the
bench, and he made that quite clear to me. And so I was
honoring that order from the sheriff from a few years before.
And also, it's common sense, from everything I knew
about what Dennis Montgomery was giving us was baseless, and
really, even if there was some communication between the
Department of Justice and the Court, I'm sure the Court does
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
32/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:48:
09:48:
09:49:
09:49:
09:49:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1310
have communications with the Department of Justice in the
normal course of business. I don't know. I don't know how
courts work. So I wasn't concerned with it.
But for the sense of propriety, the sense of honoring
the sheriff's orders to me, I told them, Do not, do not get
involved with Montgomery, and you tell him that we will not
entertain this and we'll walk away.
Q. Well, you're aware that the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office investigations of Maricopa County judges, members of the
Board of Supervisors, and other public figures in the county,
had been part of the United States Department of Justice
lawsuit against the sheriff, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the sheriff was in office when those investigations
occurred, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And fair to say the sheriff had made public statements in
connection with those investigations himself, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you're saying that he was trying to put all that on
David Hendershott?
A. I didn't say that.
Q. So your understanding was that Sheriff Arpaio took
responsibility for having done those investigations of state
judges and members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
33/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:49:
09:50:
09:50:
09:50:
09:51:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1311
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation, relevance.
403.
THE COURT: You want to lay a little foundation,
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG: Sure.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief Deputy, you just testified a moment ago that you had
a concern that you did not want the Seattle investigation to
proceed against -- along the lines of a conspiracy involving a
federal judge, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you said one of the reasons that you had that concern
is that MCSO previously had been engaged in investigations of
public figures, including judges and government officials,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you also testified that Sheriff Arpaio mentioned those
previous investigations to you in connection with -- well, when
you became chief deputy, is that right?
A. Way before Dennis Montgomery ever appeared, that's correct.
Q. And you mentioned that the sheriff explained that the
reason those investigations came about is because he had given
Chief Hendershott too much leeway? Was that your testimony?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. So my question is, since you offered up those
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
34/209
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
35/209
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
36/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:54:
09:54:
09:55:
09:55:
09:56:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1314
date when this supposedly happened, please?
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. WANG: Your Honor, this video clip was actually
produced to the plaintiffs by the defendants. It's among a
collection of press statements involving the sheriff or other
MCSO officials that we requested in a document request. And I
believe the date -- the file name for the audio clip, as
produced by the defendants to us, indicates that it was on
October 11 of 2012.
THE COURT: October 11, 2012, apparently.
All right.
MS. WANG: Let's play Exhibit 2827.
(Video clip played as follows:)
Known as America's toughest sheriff... Known as
America's toughest sheriff. Could also be in trouble with the
law investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A little bit more for
you later on tonight. Go ahead. Keep in mind I said the
Arizona sheriff, popular for being tough on crime, Sheriff Joe
Arpaio. You all know who he is. Well, he's now under
investigation for allegedly abusing his own power. Wait till
you hear who he's accused of targeting (indiscernible).
Well, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio certainly has a
reputation for being tough on crime. We've reported on him a
lot over the last few years. He's equally hard on illegal
immigrants and DUIs. Beyond throwing the book at them he likes
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
37/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:56:
09:56:
09:57:
09:57:
09:57:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1315
to send a public message. Arpaio has forced jail inmates in
Maricopa County to wear pink underwear, black and pink uniforms
while working on chain gangs. Arpaio's "my way or the
highway" --
(Video clip paused.)
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I'm going to object to all
this extraneous --
THE COURT: Can we move to the part where Sheridan
appears?
MS. WANG: I will try, Your Honor.
(Pause in proceedings.)
(Video clip played as follows:)
ANNOUNCER: .. who tried to answer for a sheriff who
was a no-show.
ANNOUNCER: I just don't understand why suddenly, Joe
Arpaio has sent out you three people basically just -- I mean,
this is nervous, to face this kind of media scrutiny and these
kind of questions. I mean, this is the toughest sheriff in
America, right?
LISA ALLEN: He is the toughest sheriff and he's a
good sheriff, and I know that if he could be here, he would be
here. But when you've got legal counsel advising you not to
speak because you're a potential witness in a number of these
investigations, he's got to default to what his attorneys say.
ANNOUNCER: The problem is none of these people the
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
38/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:57:
09:57:
09:58:
09:58:
09:58:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1316
sheriff sent to talk to us say they had anything to do with the
political investigations the sheriff is accused of conducting.
Jerry Sheridan is the interim chief deputy.
INTERVIEWER: Well, Jerry, did he abuse his power?
Did he send out underlings to investigate political opponents
to destroy their careers?
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: Absolutely not.
INTERVIEWER: You were --
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: Absolutely not.
INTERVIEWER: -- involved in those decisions?
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: No, I was not.
INTERVIEWER: So do you know what kind of --
CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: I've been here for 32 years
and I know the inner workings of the office. The sheriff was
not involved in any of those mischievous things that he's been
accused of.
ANNOUNCER: But in the case of County Supervisor Don
Stapley the sheriff is not done, even though all 118 counts
against Stapley were thrown out.
(Video clipped paused.)
THE COURT: All right. Is there any more with Chief
Deputy Sheridan?
MS. WANG: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MS. WANG:
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
39/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:58:
09:58:
09:59:
09:59:
09:59:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1317
Q. So Chief, that was you appearing on the video, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you stated -- and that was Lisa Allen from the public
information office who appeared alongside you, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In that video clip you stated that the sheriff was not
responsible for those investigations of public officials,
right?
A. I don't believe I used the word "responsible."
Q. Well, we just heard the audio. Were you denying on --
A. I think the word was "involved."
Q. So as you parsed it out, Sheriff Arpaio -- you stated that
Sheriff Arpaio was not involved in those investigations of
public officials?
A. I believe that's the word I used in the video.
Q. He was the head of the agency, was he not?
A. He was.
Q. And you said just a moment ago here on the stand that the
sheriff does accept responsibility for those investigations of
public officials, judges, and other officials?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection. That's not even close to
what the witness said, Judge.
THE COURT: I'll just rely on the recollection and the
transcript.
MS. WANG: All right. I'll move on.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
40/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:59:
10:00:
10:00:
10:00:
10:01:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1318
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, I think you testified earlier that MCSO spent more
than $250,000 on the Dennis Montgomery investigation, is that
right?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. We
talked about this before the start of trial.
THE COURT: Yes, and then the witness talked about it,
and I'm going to allow the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, approximately $250,000.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. And you personally approved expenses that related to the
investigation, correct?
A. I did.
Q. All right. Take a look at Exhibit 2526, please.
Do you see that, sir?
A. I do.
Q. And did you approve a trip to Seattle, Washington in
connection with the Seattle investigation taken by
Detective Mackiewicz?
A. I assume so. Says I did.
Q. Take a look at Exhibit 2527.
Let me go back to the previous one, 2526. That was in
October of 2013, is that correct, that you approved that trip
by Detective Mackiewicz?
A. Yes, ma'am.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
41/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:01:
10:02:
10:02:
10:02:
10:02:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1319
Q. All right. And then on 2527, it indicates that all the
paperwork for another trip -- actually, two more trips: One to
Seattle and one to San Diego -- were on your desk. That was an
e-mail dated February 3rd, 2014, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And that indicates you were the one who were -- was
responsible for approving those expenses, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Take a look at Exhibit 2528. 2528 is a memorandum from
Sergeant Travis Anglin to Lieutenant Kim Seagraves dated
February 2nd, 2014, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And your signature appears at the bottom indicating the
request is approved, right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I would then move the admission
of Exhibit 2528 into evidence.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance.
MR. WALKER: I join the objection, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: No objection.
THE COURT: The exhibit is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2528 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: Can we show the -- publish the exhibit,
Your Honor?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
42/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:02:
10:03:
10:03:
10:03:
10:03:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1320
THE COURT: You may.
MS. WANG: Thank you.
Let's highlight the first paragraph under narrative.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. So, Chief, in this memorandum Sergeant Anglin was asking
permission to rent a house instead of using a hotel for this
trip, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was because they were going to be staying in
Seattle for 44 nights, is that correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And if you look at the next paragraph, they were suggesting
a four-bedroom house. Do you see that?
A four-bedroom house is now available?
A. Yes.
Q. And he indicates that, in the next paragraph, that they
were planning to use the fourth bedroom for storage and use of
materials being processed in the investigation.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Are you aware, sir, that at one point in time the MCAO
personnel stored hard drives that Dennis Montgomery purportedly
obtained from the CIA in that bedroom in the house?
A. No.
Q. You're not aware of that?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
43/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:04:
10:04:
10:04:
10:04:
10:05:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1321
A. No.
Q. Okay. You can take that down.
Take a look at Exhibit 2529. This is an e-mail from
Brian Mackiewicz to Sarah Bagley dated July 22nd, 2014. And
does this e-mail indicate that you gave a verbal approval of a
trip by Michael Zullo and Brian Mackiewicz in connection with
this investigation?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. Do you see the sentence that reads: "Since
this trip is most likely going to turn up in an audit request
we would like to have all approvals in writing"?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, Your Honor. Counsel's
reading from an exhibit not in evidence.
MS. WANG: I beg your pardon.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Have you seen this document before, Chief?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. All right. And were you familiar with is contents?
A. Yes.
Q. You were involved in the subject matter of the e-mail and
discussions with Detective Mackiewicz, correct?
A. I was.
Q. And with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Budget and
Finance Bureau?
A. Yes, ma'am.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
44/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:05:
10:05:
10:05:
10:06:
10:06:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1322
MS. WANG: All right. Your Honor, I'd move the
admission of Exhibit 2529.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, hearsay.
THE COURT: Are you offering it for the truth of the
matter asserted?
MS. WANG: No. I'm offering it because I'd like to
get the chief's reactions to some of the content.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to conditionally admit it,
but I may reject it if I determine that what you're really
asking is for the truth of the matter asserted.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
(Exhibit No. 2529 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Chief, do you see the sentence that reads "Since this trip
is most likely going to turn up in an audit request we would
like to have all approvals in writing"?
A. Yes.
Q. Sir, was it your understanding from MCSO's Budget and
Finance Bureau that some of the expenses involved in the
Seattle investigation were likely to be the subject of an
audit?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay. Now we're talking
about the truth.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. WANG:
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
45/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:06:
10:07:
10:07:
10:07:
10:08:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1323
Q. All right. Setting aside the document, Chief, did you ever
learn that -- or did you have the understanding that expenses
related to the Seattle investigation were likely to be audited?
A. Oh, yes. We always knew that one day the Seattle
investigation would come to light to the public, and that we
would be accountable and responsible and have to answer to the
expenditures and our actions.
Q. And why is it that this particular investigation, as you
understood it, was likely to be audited in the future?
A. Because it was controversial.
Q. And because they were large expenditures as well?
A. They were large expenditures, and it involved allegations
against the United States Government.
Q. All right. Why don't you set that aside and turn to
Exhibit 2530.
2530 is a memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to
Lieutenant Stutsman dated January 21st, 2014. And sir, does
your signature and the notation "approved" appear on that
document?
A. It does.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of
Exhibit 2530 into evidence.
THE COURT: Do you have an objection?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. The exhibit is admitted.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
46/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:08:
10:08:
10:08:
10:09:
10:09:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1324
(Exhibit No. 2530 is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG: May I publish it, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MS. WANG: Let's highlight -- thank you.
Let's go to the next paragraph as well.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, in this memorandum Sergeant Anglin was requesting the
approval of the purchase of several potentially high-value
pieces of computer hardware as well as online software, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you go down to the next paragraph, he indicated that
this computer equipment could cost more than $50,000.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is a request that you approved, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was it your understanding that this computer hardware was
for the purpose of permitting Dennis Montgomery to provide MCSO
with large volumes of data he had obtained from the CIA or the
NSA?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, during your testimony on April 24th, Ms. Iafrate asked
you about the source of funds for payments to the confidential
informant, Dennis Montgomery.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
47/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:09:
10:09:
10:10:
10:10:
10:11:0
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1325
Do you recall that?
A. No, sorry.
Q. All right. Well, the transcript indicates that you stated
state RICO funds were used to pay Dennis Montgomery.
Is that true?
A. Yes.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, relevance; asked and
answered in the previous hearing.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. The answer's
on the record.
MS. WANG: All right. It was just for background. I
apologize, Your Honor.
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Sir, isn't it true that in fact, at some point in this
Seattle investigation federal HIDTA grant funds were used for
the investigation?
A. I was not aware of that until you disclosed that to me in
my deposition on the 15th of September.
Q. Okay. And have you since -- well, let me show you a
document, Exhibit 2525.
Sir, Exhibit 2525 is an e-mail from Beverly
Owens-Prindle dated March 10, 2014, to Travis Anglin and
others. And you are one of the people copied on this e-mail,
correct?
A. Correct.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
48/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:11:2
10:11:2
10:11:
10:12:
10:12:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1326
Q. All right. And the subject line is "REfund CI funds."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You were a recipient of this e-mail, correct, as
indicated on the face of the document?
A. I was.
Q. And do you see the content of the document here? We went
over this in your deposition, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Have you since confirmed that this e-mail was,
in fact, sent among these MCSO personnel?
A. I have not.
Q. All right. Have you since confirmed that in fact, federal
HIDTA grant funds were used to pay the confidential informant,
Dennis Montgomery?
A. I have not.
Q. All right. Are you aware that federal HIDTA grant funds
had to be refunded because that was not a proper use of that
money?
A. I'm aware from the e-mail that was the case.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that Exhibit 2525 is not
an accurate and correct printout of e-mails that were
maintained on MCSO's e-mail servers?
A. No.
MS. WANG: Your Honor, I would move the admission of
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
49/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:12:
10:13:
10:13:
10:13:
10:14:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1327
Exhibit 2525.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, my objection is foundation
as to the information in the document, as opposed to whether it
was kept on a Maricopa County server.
THE COURT: Well, I'll admit the document only for the
purpose that it was received by Chief Deputy Sheridan, and not
for the truth of any matter contained -- or asserted in the
document.
(Exhibit No. 2525 is admitted into evidence.)
BY MS. WANG:
Q. Now, you discussed, sir, the Seattle investigation at some
points with Captain Steve Bailey, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And Captain Bailey expressed serious concerns
about the reliability of Dennis Montgomery to you, is that
correct?
A. At times.
Q. Did Captain Bailey ever tell you that he could not, in good
conscience, sign any more expense approvals for the Seattle
investigation?
A. I believe so.
Q. And when he refused to sign any more of the approvals for
expenses, did you instruct him to send the approval forms
downtown, or to headquarters?
A. I don't recall how I handled that.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
50/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:14:
10:14:
10:15:
10:15:
10:15:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1328
Q. But you do recall that Captain Bailey refused to sign any
more expense approvals?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you ever hear Captain Bailey express concern that the
payments to Dennis Montgomery were an improper use of MCSO
funds?
A. What I recall Captain Bailey discussing was the RICO funds
were an appropriate way to pay Mr. Montgomery. However, they
were exhausting the RICO funds, and that's why he didn't like
the use of the RICO funds to pay Mr. Montgomery, because they
could be used for other investigations.
Q. You did not hear Captain Bailey saying that he felt it was
an improper use of RICO funds?
A. I don't think I ever heard him say it was improper. I do
recall him protesting that it was exhausting the RICO account,
and that it could have the potential, if they had another
investigation, to slow down an investigation. That was his, as
I remember, his major complaint with paying Montgomery.
Q. And he expressed that view to Sheriff Arpaio in your
presence?
A. Oh, yes. We -- we talked about that a lot.
Q. And, sir, I'm going to ask everyone in the room to forgive
the language, because I'm just going to quote something that
was testified to by another witness.
Do you recall Sheriff Arpaio telling Captain Bailey in
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
51/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:16:
10:16:
10:17:
10:17:
10:17:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1329
response, quote, I don't care. You need to get the fucking
money, end quote?
A. I don't recall the sheriff using that language. I've known
the sheriff for 22 years. I've heard him say the F word maybe
two times. I don't think that was one of the occasions, but I
could be wrong.
Q. Did you hear the sheriff express that sentiment, in effect?
If you don't recall those exact words, do you recall the
sheriff basically telling Captain Bailey: Get the money?
A. Yes. And I had the same sentiment to Captain Bailey. In
my opinion, Captain Bailey was whining about the Montgomery
investigation, and this was something that the sheriff and I
wanted to continue.
Q. Now, Sergeant Travis Anglin also expressed concerns to you
and the sheriff about Dennis Montgomery, correct?
A. At times.
Q. And -- well, you had added Sergeant Anglin to the
investigation in the first place, right? It was your decision
to assign him to the investigation, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. And did Sergeant Anglin tell you at one point
that he felt MCSO should not be paying Dennis Montgomery as a
confidential informant?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, hearsay.
MS. WANG: It's not offered for the truth.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
52/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:18:
10:18:
10:19:
10:19:
10:19:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1330
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I'm having a hard time remember --
remembering what Anglin's position was, because it vacillated
from time to time. Sometimes he thought that Montgomery was a
genius and had all this great information. He wanted the
sheriff to go and do an interview with Carl Cameron from
Channel 10 in Washington, D.C., about how credible he was. And
then he would go back and say, No, he's not credible. We need
to get away from him. And then he would flip-flop back when
Montgomery gave him something that was credible.
So, you know, at times he didn't want us to pay him,
at times he did want us to pay him, so I don't know how to
answer your question. Well, maybe I did; I don't know.
Q. Okay. Well, did there come a time when Sergeant Anglin got
in an argument with Posseman Mike Zullo about whether to pay
Dennis Montgomery?
A. Well, I can tell you all three of those individuals,
Posseman Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz, Sergeant Anglin, I'll
include Captain Bailey, all very strong personalities, so is
Dennis Montgomery, and at any one time they were fighting with
each other.
You could tell. You've seen all the e-mails. One
week they hate, you know -- Zullo hates Montgomery. The next
week he loves Montgomery. And the next week Mackiewicz hates
Montgomery. And the next week Mackiewicz is fighting with
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
53/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:20:
10:20:
10:20:
10:21:
10:21:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1331
Zullo. That's one of the reasons I sent Sergeant Anglin up
there, to -- to help manage this very difficult situation.
Q. Did there come a time when you took Sergeant Anglin off the
investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that after he had tried to take Posseman Zullo off the
investigation?
A. I saw that it wasn't working and it was a waste of having a
sergeant up there, so yes.
Q. Okay. Is your answer yes to my question, that you removed
Sergeant Anglin from the investigation after he tried to remove
Mike Zullo from the investigation?
A. Well, he didn't have the authority to remove Mike Zullo
from the investigation; only I or the sheriff did. I saw that
they were not getting along. Mike had been involved in this
investigation from the onset. Sergeant Anglin came in late
into the investigation. My desired effect of having the
sergeant involved in it was not working. That's why I removed
him.
Q. All right. And my question is: At one point did Sergeant
Anglin try to remove Mike Zullo from the investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that he did not have the authority to do that,
correct?
A. Correct.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)
54/209F R I E N D
O F T H E
F O G B O
W . C
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:21:
10:21:
10:22:
10:22:
10:23:
Sheridan - Direct, 9/25/15 Evidentiary Hearing 1332
Q. And in fact, did the sheriff not intervene and tell
Sergeant Anglin, quote, Who the fuck do you think you are, end
quote?
A. I have no knowledge of that.
Q. You did not hear that?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. All right. Sir, did you ultimately conclude that there was
really nothing -- no evidence put forward to believe that there
was a conspiracy involving the Court?
A. We never looked into whether there was a conspiracy with
the Court.
Q. Well, Dennis Montgomery provided you information suggesting
there was a conspiracy involving the Court, correct?
A. I never saw any information Dennis Montgomery provided
about conspiracy to the Court in writing. I heard