Public Policy Polling has a new poll out that gives us some information about how the people of Arizona feel about the Maricopa County sheriff. Most in Maricopa County (53%) expressed a negative view of Arpaio (the same percentage that disapprove of President Obama’s job performance). The poll showed that Maricopa county is more progressive than Arizona as a whole, and that there is a considerable age gap in the results. The poll was conducted May 1-3.
Update: Klayman petition denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the meantime Larry Klayman filed an emergency petition on behalf of Dennis Montgomery before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the forced recusal of district judge G. Murray Snow, who has been questioning Sheriff’s Office leadership about their involvement with Mr. Montgomery, and who has demanded production of documents related to the investigation in which Montgomery was involved.
Included in that petition are additional excerpts from Arpaio’s contempt of court hearing with testimony from Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan. Here’s a bit:
Judge Snow: How did he [Montgomery] know – how did he arrive at the conclusion that the DOJ had accessed my computer?
Sheridan: Again, we were always skeptical of what he was giving us. However, he was giving us information on occasion that was credible.
We had a seated justice in Washington – I can’t recall his name; I have it written down on my pad, Your Honor – that is a member of the FISA court in Washington, D.C. We had Mr. Mon – because the sheriff and I were concerned about the CIA wiretapping our phones. This justice actually confirmed that these were typical wiretap numbers, and so it did give Mr. Montgomery a little more credibility with us.
And we continued to work with him, we continued to keep him him on our informant payroll, so to speak, as he was producing information. But it became very slow, it became very stale, and we finally realized that he was stringing us along.
What was revealed in the Sheridan testimony, is that Dennis Montgomery claimed to have what appears to be raw TCP/IP packets of information from the Internet, and that he, using the “super computer” in his garage could assemble these packets into the original emails after a lengthy process. (The TCP/IP protocol supports breaking an Internet transmission into smaller “packets” of information, each of which may take a different route to reach its destination.)
The claim by Mr. Montgomery that he has in his possession this volume of raw Internet traffic, inevitably consisting of private Internet communications: emails, financial transactions, passwords, and other personal information, is highly disturbing to this writer. If Mr. Montgomery is telling the truth, then he is probably guilty of a crime, and should be prosecuted.
Read more:
- Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security – NY Times (2011)
Have I missed something? I thought Montgomery asked to intervene (is that the term?) in the case. Has Judge Snow granted that request? The petition to the 9th Circuit makes it seem like he’s already participating.
No, to my knowledge Judge Snow has not ruled on Montgomery’s petition to intervene and recuse. In the emergency petition Klayman claims they need Snow removed because is going to do bad things to Montgomery at a weekly status hearing that had already been scheduled on the 14th. This petition is complete nonsense. Klayman is relying on hearsay that Judge Snow is biased against Arpaio to support a claim that he is also biased against Montgomery.
According to the poll I read, the same numbers as in early 2012. Didn’t stop him from being elected a second time so I guess he will have no problems being elected a third time. 😉
What else to expect from KKKlayman?
I wouldn’t call it hearsay. Rather he is rehashing the nonsensical argument that a sheriff can disqualify any judge by conducting a direct or indirect investigation of him or a family member.
Sounds like the crank plaintiff material I sometimes get to read – like plaintiffs claiming that their second motion for recusal due to bias should be granted because their first one was denied for being baseless and now the judge is “biased” for having been baselessly attacked.
As with all these loons, I’m not sure if Klansman actually believes his motion has any merit or if it’s just boilerplate stuff to appease his client (and reap some minor propaganda value for the “true believers”).
What are the boys afraid that will be revealed in those documents?
It seems to be PR to me.
At the time of Arpaio’s testimony at the contempt hearing, Judge Snow made it clear to Arpaio and to counsel that he wanted counsel’s participation, and that he wanted to insure that Arpaio’s rights were upheld. Counsel made no objection, and Arpaio stated that he didn’t think Judge Snow was biased.
Afterwards Arpaio’s lawyers said the questioning was unfair, and Arpaio supporters are whining about what happened. That way Arpaio gets to make a public show of being mistreated, when in fact neither he, nor his counsel raised any objection in court.
In the same vein, Klayman (who represents Arpaio in another matter) can attack the Judge and demand his recusal, again making Arpaio seem the victim, while Arpaio can keep at arms length from the attack.
I liked the discussion between Judge Snow and Chief Deputy Sheridan as to why Montgomery was labeled a confidential informant rather than just a computer consultant.
Well he is biased against lawbreakers who continually break the law.
I think the argument is that any party (and not just a sheriff) to a lawsuit can get a judge thrown off the case by making a public investigation of the judge and his family, and alleging bias.
Birther Report and Gerbil Report both have articles:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05/report-emergency-petition-filed-with.html
http://www.gerbilreport.com/2015/05/did-joe-arpaio-buy-stolen-cia-secrets.html
“Dennis Montgomery claimed to have what appears to be raw TCP/IP packets of information from the Internet”
When I think about Sheriff Arpaio’s falling for Montgomery’s computer claims it reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sXm0y9RcQE
i was surprised to see this comment at BR this morning:
“Lawerence Sellin had what I think is the best explanation. A/Z were too close to the investigation to be objective. They convinced themselves that the the info Montgomery was feeding them was significant and shattering. Once they started to doubt Montgomery’s credibility and stepped back and looked at what they had they realized it wasn’t all that shattering. That’s when they decided to postpone the March release, probably forever.”
something about a broken clock…….
it also appears that Zullo and the deputy which worked closely with Montgomery were accessories to his crimes.
thanks to a link from a comment at BR i came across a thread i started in nov 2013 with this interesting comment from mark gillar:
“When crimes were committed against the MCSO in an attempt to thwart the Obama document fraud investigation, it opened the door for department resources to be used.”
http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1998917-sheriff-joe-arpaio-back-birther-business.html#post32365571
The previous comment by Gillar is hilarious too.
Make that two deputies, Brian Mackiewicz and Travis Anglin.
wrecking ball
“When crimes were committed against the MCSO in an attempt to thwart the Obama document fraud investigation, it opened the door for department resources to be used.”
Moving to the present, it may turn out that Gillar missed it by a few words. Did he really mean to say…?
“If crimes were committed against the federal government in an attempt to promote the Obama document fraud investigation, it would open the door for federal resources to be used.”
An interesting possibility.
He said almost the exact same thing on Mike Volin’s show in early December, 2013 and shortly after that visit he created the two videos:
December 8, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyHJ5HJsKmk
December 26, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhrNwYt9oU0
“If you work at for the SSS, HDOH, HAG, USPI, SSA, Certain Academic Institutions, A Certain Hospital or A Certain Literary Agency, you might want to pay attention to this video. Failing to report crimes against the USA is a crime. Ask yourself, “why should I give up my freedom for him?”” TeaPartyPowerHour YouTube video description.
Obviously Mark was right about all of it.
Even someone with a modicum of computer literacy can install wireshark on their computer and test the validity of this claim. This claim is like saying you can have full knowledge of the contents of all the world’s oceans by analyzing a raindrop.
That is likely what Montgomery gave them while telling them it was exactly what A/Z were looking for but also letting them know that the stuff he gave them couldn’t be used in court or admitted too.
That way Montgomery could string A/Z along and keep himself from being prosecuted since all he actually had was gobbledygook. He knew he was also free from civil charges since A/Z couldn’t admit their part. That is the scam he worked on the Bush Administration.
The 9th denied Montgomery’s petition.
bob
May 12, 2015
“The 9th denied Montgomery’s petition.”
And there is no joy in Birtherville,
The Mighty Klayman has struck out.
Boo, hoo, sniff, sniff.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/265123853#fullscreen
Now watch the real fireworks begin!
As someone who lives directly in the middle of a gay enclave in Phoenix, this warms my heart tremendously.
Yeehaw! 🙂
Now that we’re in the 21st Century, and lawyers can do electronic filings, the courts should be able to send electronic responses. They say “A picture is worth a thousand words”…
I ain’t a legal scholar, what’s the long and short of it? Or was Klayman being told “No! Now piss off!” the long and short of it?
Got it in one.
As soon as I saw that it had been denied, I thought that we’d see an opening statement that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and then an explanation of why this was not extraordinary. I was half right. The explanation was simply that it wasn’t, period.
What great economy of judicial resources!
Ninth. 😉
That’s the 9th Circuit’s standard denial language; same as Vogt’s denial.
Since the 9th Circuit includes Silicon Valley, they could’ve gone really economical by compressing the whole “You haven’t made your case. Your motion is denied. No more filings will be accepted.” into a concise, 10-character “LOL! FOAD.”.
Indeed “No further filings will be entertained in this closed case” is a clear indication the court knows KKKlayman is an orlyist taitzer and would file a “motion for reconsideration” and/or a “motion for rehearing en banc” if they didn’t tell him to pound sand.
But I wouldn’t put it past him to file a “motion to reopen case” nonetheless.
He could file a motion to have the petition heard en banc (by the entire court), but that would be a long shot (where is the Voyager spacecraft these days?).
WND’s Bob Unruh writes in his article today about the 9th Court decision to deny Klarmans request. See if you can catch the spin:
“But the case was returned to Judge G. Murray Snow’s court, where he is facing accusations that his wife blurted out in his own courtroom his intention to bring down Arpaio.”
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/05/strong-push-to-yank-judge-from-sheriff-joe-case/#eS55Hlokj39kcIVD.99
From the WND/Unruh article:
“After petitioner moved to intervene as a matter of right and to disqualify Judge Snow, he issued orders about documents pertaining to ‘workplace operations’ responsive memoranda, motions to compel, materials and transcripts, motions under seal, objections, supplements, Notice of Completions, independent accountants, monitors, and other requirements from parties…”
“Independent accountants” could be very interesting.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/05/strong-push-to-yank-judge-from-sheriff-joe-case/#1abUZftecxKqGEGX.99
That’s what happens in a game of telephone, or in RWNJ reporting. The next step will be to remove Snow’s wife from the equation and claim Snow himself told Arpaio in court he’d do anything to “destroy” him. Soon on your favourite RW echo chamber!
I think it’s time for an admission from *FALCONSTEIN* that his support for the sham investigation by Arpaio & Co. was misplaced. That he was taken in by and he believed the marketing propaganda of Joe Arpaio. It would be fair to say that many at BR look up to *FALCONSTEIN* for leadership and direction. I think it’s time to admit to your faithful followers that you’ve all been taken for a ride. Take a position of leadership and do the right thing for your loyal fans.
Check out this article about Montgomery in the NY Times from 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20data.html?_r=0