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


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


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



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


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



Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian SandsChief Deputy Gerard SheridanDeputy Chief Jack MacIntyreLieutenant Joseph Sousa


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


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)


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:


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.


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:


MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald

making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


MR. STEIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Lee Stein

specially appearing for Chief Deputy Sheridan.


MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como on

behalf of Chief Sands.


MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the unnamed contemnors.


MR. OUIMETTE: Good morning, Your Honor. David

Ouimette, specially appearing for Deputy Chief MacIntyre, who

is here.


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.


8/209F 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:


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?


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:


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?


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:


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.


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.)


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:


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.


THE CLERK: I have it.

MS. WANG: Okay.

THE CLERK: (Handing).


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:


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.


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:


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 --


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:


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.


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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 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


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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 --


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:


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 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.


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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


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:


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?


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:


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.


30/209


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:


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


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:


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?


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:


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


34/209


35/209


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:


date when this supposedly happened, please?


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


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:


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.


(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


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:


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:


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:


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.


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:


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.


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:


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?


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:


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?


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:


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.


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:


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.


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:


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:


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.


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:



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.


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


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.


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:


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


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:


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.


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.


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:


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


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:


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.


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:



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


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:


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.


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:


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

Documents

Melendres v. Arpaio #1465 Sept 25 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 6 Evidentiary Hearing (Amended)