by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 27, 2015) — A set of documents containing explosive allegations against attorneys of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other defendants is now posted at the federal court online repository,

The lawsuit, filed in December 2007 against Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and several of his deputies, alleged racial profiling during traffic stops and searches for illegal aliens within the county.

Arpaio has styled himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff” and has sought to enforce federal immigration law by arresting illegals and turning them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.  As a result of the lawsuit, Snow told Arpaio that “being present illegally in the country is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code.”

Consisting of a letter dated June 22, 2015 and a Third Supplement to Motion filed on behalf of Dennis Montgomery, the submission was stamped “Filed” by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona with a date of June 24, 2015 without the initials of the clerk.

However, in an article published on Thursday, June 25, The Post & Email reported that the documents did not appear at as of 11:00 a.m. EDT that day.  A notation with the posting states that the documents were entered into the system on June 25 but does not specify the time.

Authored by Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch founder Atty. Larry Klayman, who represents Montgomery, the documents allege that for ACLU attorneys who encouraged U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow to collect data which Montgomery had provided to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) during an investigation defamed Montgomery and failed to disclose the organization’s previous professional relationship with him.

Klayman stated in his letter to ACLU President Susan Herman and three other ACLU attorneys that Montgomery had approached the ACLU with the same information he presented to the MCSO more recently as a confidential informant.  He seeks the withdrawal of the ACLU from Melendres and for restitution for defamation to be made to Montgomery.

As of Saturday, the mainstream media which normally has been covering Arpaio’s civil contempt trial appears to be silent on the new development.

During testimony on April 23 trial for civil contempt, Snow pointedly questioned Arpaio about Montgomery’s work, referring to an article in The Phoenix New Times (PNT) published June 4, 2014 alleging that a “Seattle scammer,” referring to Montgomery, was being paid large sums of money, presumably from the county treasury, in an attempt to substantiate a “bogus conspiracy theory” among Snow, the U.S. Department of Justice, and perhaps other government agencies.

Snow was the judge reportedly assigned by “random draw” to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Arpaio which was settled out of court.  The following year, the DOJ dropped an abuse of power probe into Arpaio but filed another lawsuit alleging civil rights violations against Hispanics, including those held in his jails for which U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver has scheduled a trial to begin on August 10.

In testimony on April 24, MCSO Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan testified that although Montgomery’s credibility was at times in question, computer codes Montgomery provided to the MCSO aligned with those known to a federal judge with oversight of the FISA Court, which decides whether or not to grant permission for warrantless searches to be conducted by the FBI or other law enforcement.

PNT reported in May that taxpayers have paid $44.5 million as a result of the Melendres case.  In March, Arpaio admitted to falling short in carrying out Snow’s orders, offering to pay $100,000 in restitution out of his personal funds to the plaintiffs. Snow rejected Arpaio’s offer, instead choosing to proceed with the civil contempt trial.  PNT has described Arpaio as “a grotesque symptom of Maricopa County’s disease of anti-Mexican bigotry.”

Neither The Phoenix New Times nor Snow has revealed to Maricopa County taxpayers the amounts of the invoices received from the monitor Snow appointed at the recommendation of the plaintiffs’ ACLU attorneys.  The monitor, Warshaw & Associates, led by Robert Warshaw, entered into an agreement with the county early last year after Snow ordered corrections to the alleged constitutional violations.  During a dispute between the county and Warshaw over invoicing in May 2014, Snow stated that he has confidence in Warshaw’s work, that the two stay in constant communication, and that the items Warshaw includes in his invoices are “presumably” justified.

Snow recently undertook the responsibility of reviewing the invoices without the contractually-agreed joint oversight of Deputy County Manager Sandi Wilson and her attorney, Katherine E. Baker. Last month, Snow ordered Wilson to approve an invoice which Baker said contained “huge sums” which are as yet undisclosed to the public.

Previous to Klayman’s June 24 allegations filed with the court, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Montgomery’s behalf to have Snow removed from the case for conflict of interest given Snow’s line of questioning about the Montgomery investigation.  Snow also demanded that all of the documentation Montgomery had provided to the MCSO resulting from his probe be turned over to Warshaw and him, despite the Ninth Circuit’s having determined that the monitor’s role was to be “limited.”

At the time, Klayman also cited the fact that comments reportedly made by Snow’s wife indicating her husband’s “hate” for Arpaio and desire to see him out of office also became a topic of Snow’s during the proceedings.  Neither Snow nor his wife has come forward to deny that Snow made the comments, that his wife did not repeat them, or that she was otherwise misquoted by the citizen who reported it.  Nevertheless, Snow has not recused himself from the case

A Phoenix New Times (PNT) article describes Klayman as a “birther lawyer,” referring to the millions of Americans who have questioned whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to serve as president and commander-in-chief.  Klayman had asked the Department of Homeland Security to check Obama’s citizenship credentials and to have Obama deported if it is discovered that he is an illegal alien.

Doubts about Obama’s eligibility arose in 2008 when many Americans realized that very little documentation about the first-term junior U.S. Senator from Illinois had been made available by his campaign. On June 12, 2008 a Certification of Live Birth appeared at an Obama-friendly website, The Daily KOS, of unknown origin and bearing a blacked-out certificate number.

The image was quickly declared a forgery by scanning and graphics experts. Nearly three years later, at the insistence of Donald Trump, the White House released what it said was a scan of a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health.  However, it, too, was quickly denounced as a poor forgery.

In September 2011, Arpaio designated his Cold Case Posse to investigate the long-form image to verify its authenticity at the request of approximately 250 of his constituents. Two press conferences held the following year declared that the image could not have originated with a real, paper document and labeled both the birth certificate image and Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form “computer-generated forgeries.”

The mainstream media and some in the alternative media have labeled anyone questioning Obama’s background a “birther” in the pejorative.   PNT has called Arpaio’s investigation “ridiculous.”

In an article published on Friday evening at WND, Klayman references a source as having reported that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts was “at the top of the list” of targets of the National Security Agency (NSA) under the Obama regime.  In June 2013, Edward Snowden revealed from a hotel room in Hong Kong that the NSA was collecting virtually all communications among Americans without a warrant under the premise of protecting the country’s national interests. Snowden then sought and received asylum in Russia, once the mother country of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The Phoenix New Times has called Montgomery “Arpaio’s Snowden.”

Represented by Klayman, Montgomery is suing New York Times columnist and author James Risen and his publisher for defamation resulting from Risen’s referencing him in several chapters of his latest book as disreputable.  “Plaintiff Montgomery sues for harm to his financial interests as an individual in the intellectual property of computer software, computer software techniques and encoding and decryption technologies which he developed and which have been harmed by Defendants’ defamation and other tortious conduct, as well as other harm and thus damages to be uncovered during discovery,” Klayman wrote in the February filing.

Arpaio’s investigation of Obama’s birth certificate and other credentials was mentioned in a lawsuit filed on Monday against the MCSO claiming that Arpaio targeted the son of a sitting U..S. Senator, defamed him, and conducted surveillance on his father’s house.

Klayman’s most recent Melendres filing reads as follows: