SEEKS ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM COUNTY, RECENT TRANSCRIPTS; CLAIMS THREATS FROM PLAINTIFFS, THEIR COUNSEL
by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 29, 2015) — In the case of Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al on Wednesday, Maricopa County Cold Case Posse lead investigator Michael Zullo filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Retain Counsel.
Melendres began in late 2007 and is presided over by U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, who was reportedly appointed by random draw in 2009. The lawsuit named Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, a number of his staff, and Maricopa County as defendants, accusing them of having profiled Latino persons within the county during traffic stops. In late 2013, Snow ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Arpaio to cease immigration patrols and sweeps which allegedly led to the profiling and reforms in order to bring Arpaio’s office into compliance in honoring the constitutional rights of all residents.
In March of this year, Arpaio admitted to having allowed the immigration sweeps to continue despite Snow’s order. Hearings in Melendres therefore resumed in April as Snow sought to decide whether or not Arpaio should be held in civil contempt. Many in the media suggested that criminal charges against Arpaio could also be filed, the possibility of which Zullo mentioned in his filing on Wednesday.
Last month, Zullo was subpoenaed to provide testimony relating to his interaction with a confidential informant, Dennis Montgomery, hired by Arpaio’s office in late 2013 to produce documentation he claimed existed showing that a government entity or entities had breached the accounts of approximately 150,000 Maricopa County residents; the email accounts of a number of federal judges, including Snow; and wiretapped the phones of Arpaio and his chief deputy, Gerard Sheridan, among others.
During the April contempt hearings, Snow quoted from a June 2014 Phoenix New Times article which claimed that Montgomery was conducting an investigation of the U.S. Department of Justice and Snow. Arpaio and Sheridan both testified that Snow was not under investigation.
On September 29, Arpaio’s attorneys filed a “Motion to Partially Quash Plaintiffs’ Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information or Objects Re: Mike Zullo” which stated that some, but not all, of the documentation had been provided to the court.
Zullo has already turned over thousands of emails associated with Montgomery’s “Seattle investigation,” which spanned approximately 18 months.
According to the subpoenas, Zullo was to begin providing depositions on October 7, but Snow granted him an extension to October 23. On October 20, counsel for Arpaio informed the court that Zullo “prohibited” them from turning over all of the information in his possession relating to Montgomery’s work by invoking his “Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and due process protections.” Relative to that filing, Zullo told The Post & Email that his statements to Arpaio’s attorneys were “strictly due process” and not to be misconstrued as a “smoking gun.”
On Monday, Zullo was given until Friday to retain counsel and advise the court of same.
In his motion filed on Wednesday, Zullo asked for a 30-day extension to allow the sheriff’s office to provide funds for him to retain representation. In the five-page document, Zullo indicated that attorneys representing Arpaio, who he said had previously given the impression that they also represented his interests, had “instead intended to protect themselves and avoid the wrath of this Court.”
“…the lawyers for the County in my opinion not only have violated rules of ethics and my constitutional rights, but have failed to take actions that were necessary to protect my interests. Plain and simple, these lawyers have violated my constitutional rights,” Zullo wrote. “They have no authority to take any action on my behalf.”
Zullo has served as Cold Case Posse lead investigator in a criminal investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form for more than four years. On March 1, 2012, Zullo and Arpaio gave a joint press conference to make the announcement that they determined that probable cause exists that both “documents” are “computer-generated forgeries.”
While the mainstream media has widely reported on the racial profiling case, it has reported on the forgeries minimally, and only on the internet.
Montgomery has been called a “scammer” and a “con man” by various publications but in August received immunity from the FBI relative to his provision of certain materials which may be classified. Montgomery’s attorney, Larry Klayman, indicated that Montgomery possesses information similar to that which was revealed in June 2013 by Edward Snowden about government surveillance.
In testimony on Wednesday, according to the AP, a detective with first-hand knowledge of Montgomery’s Seattle investigation stated that “investigators weren’t focusing on the judge.”
In his filing, Zullo quoted from United States v. Hubbell, which concerned the Whitewater Development Company in 2000 and whose opinion reads, in part:
(a) The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The word “witness” limits the relevant category of compelled incriminating communications to those that are “testimonial.” In addition, a person such as respondent may be required to produce specific documents containing incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not “compelled” within the meaning of the privilege. See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391. However, the act of producing subpoenaed documents may have a compelled testimonial aspect. That act, as well as a custodian’s compelled testimony about whether he has produced everything demanded, may certainly communicate information about the documents’ existence, custody, and authenticity. It is also well settled that compelled testimony communicating information that may lead to incriminating evidence is privileged even if the information itself is not inculpatory. Pp. 6—10.
Referring to this week’s hearings, Zullo wrote that “These counsel for the County had no authority to make any representations which relate to me…,” concluding his Motion with:
