New Melendres transcripts released

Posted on January 7, 2016 by Dr. Conspiracy

A number of new transcripts in the Melendres v. Arpaio lawsuit are now available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records web site. A complete list of the new material is posted at What’s Your Evidence with links to annotated excerpts at WYE and links to the full transcripts in the Jack Ryan collection at Scribd. This includes testimony up through October 8 (and later excerpts). Testifiers include Arpaio, Anglin Sheridan, Sands, Casey and Seagraves.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Joe Arpaio and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to New Melendres transcripts released

  1. Curious George says:
    January 8, 2016 at 9:11 am  (Quote)

    “Well it’s obvious that people on the Obot “payroll” would get these transcripts first. This is just more confirmation that Obots have an inside track on the Melendres v. Arpaio case.” This is what I expect the clueless birthers will be promoting at BR today.

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 8, 2016 at 1:06 pm  (Quote)

    Anyone willing to pay for them could have gotten them earlier.

    Curious George: Well it’s obvious that people on the Obot “payroll” would get these transcripts first.

  3. Nancy R Owens says:
    January 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm  (Quote)

    Why? There does not appear to be a lot there to justify payment. Am I missing something?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Anyone willing to pay for them could have gotten them earlier.

  4. Rickey says:
    January 8, 2016 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    In the related case of Montgomery v. Risen, Montgomery is now claiming that he isn’t sure if he turned his software over to the FBI.

    Klayman also is now arguing that he doesn’t have to prove that Risen’s article was false, only that it was reckless. Klayman is getting desperate and seems to be conceding that he can’t prove that Montgomery’s software works – if indeed there was any software in the first place.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/294770126/Montgomery-v-Risen-217-ORDER-Post-Sanctions-Hearing-Administrative-Order

  5. J.D. Sue says:
    January 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Klayman also is now arguing that he doesn’t have to prove that Risen’s article was false, only that it was reckless.

    —-
    Amazing! That’s beyond desperation. First year law students everywhere must be shaking their heads.

    I like the footnote in the order: “If Plaintiff’s counsel concludes that there is no legal authority supporting his view that a defamation plaintiff need not establish falsity if he can establish recklessness or malice by the defendant, then he shall file a succinct notice advising the Court that his position is not supportable.”

  6. RanTalbott says:
    January 8, 2016 at 5:37 pm  (Quote)

    I liked the part where the judge said

    The list of authorities must show only the case citations that represent this proposition and (at most) a one‐sentence summary of the holding.

    Obviously the words of someone who’s read a few of Klayman’s previous filings 😈

  7. RanTalbott says:
    January 8, 2016 at 5:40 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Klayman also is now arguing that he doesn’t have to prove that Risen’s article was false, only that it was reckless.

    Imagine the amount of fun that could be had if Klayman’s own work were held to that standard…

  8. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 8, 2016 at 10:27 pm  (Quote)

    I guess Klayman got fooled by Montgomery, just like Arpaio and many others.

    Rickey: Klayman is getting desperate and seems to be conceding that he can’t prove that Montgomery’s software works – if indeed there was any software in the first place.

  9. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 9, 2016 at 4:16 am  (Quote)

    I think it is more likely that KKKlayman has run out of plausible lies and is now doing his famous tap dancing act. I think he knew Montgomery was a fraud from the start, after all like calls to like, he just thought he could bully his way through the suits, but unfortunately ran in to real lawyers who actually know how to practice law and do these kind of nutjob nuisance suits all the time, and win. I think at this point he is grasping at straws while he tries to rearrange the deck chairs. Who knows, this may be the nuisance suit that finally bites him in the butt???? As he so richly deserves. The fact that he hasn’t done the honest and honorable thing, which an honest, honorable, and ethical attorney would do, of asking the court for a dismissal tells me he is still trying for the long con. And it is a long standign fact that he is neither honest, honorable, or in the least ethical, he isn’t called GIL for nothing.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I guess Klayman got fooled by Montgomery, just like Arpaio and many others.

  10. Lupin says:
    January 9, 2016 at 6:18 am  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent: I think he knew Montgomery was a fraud from the start,

    The old saying “it takes one to know one” comes to mind.

    Klayman has always been a fraud and a huckster making a living from conning the gullible right-wingers into entrusting him with spurious lawsuits.

  11. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 9, 2016 at 7:48 am  (Quote)

    I am still of the opinion that he and/or Montgomery thought they could bully the publisher in to settling with them rather than going to court, since they could claim national security or whatever and not have to actually produce anything, and the publisher not only called their bluff but upped the ante and demanded they show their cards, which of course they never had. I really am hoping that this one blows up full in his face.

  12. Curious George says:
    January 9, 2016 at 10:50 am  (Quote)

    The good thing is the attorneys representing Risen know full well the history of GIL and they are very much in tune with what is happening in Melendres. (Not speculation.) It seems to me that GIL is the one who is reckless, and driving down the road with no brakes.

    Wasn’t it FOX’s Carl Cameron who said in an email that Montgomery never made good on what he said he would? Looks like Montgomery is not delivering for GIL as well. It was only a matter of time.

  13. Curious George says:
    January 9, 2016 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:

    ” I really am hoping that this one blows up full in his face.”

    It’s headed toward another epic birther fail.

  14. CRJ says:
    January 9, 2016 at 2:08 pm  (Quote)

    Of course Larry Klayman has lost many, but he’s won to :

    In the Clinton-era fundraising scandal known as Chinagate, Judicial Watch was awarded nearly a million dollars in attorney fees against the U.S. Department of Commerce.

    It’s interesting to me to see in some Comments here the disagreement and disgust of Klayman being aloud a lower standard of proof ie.

    @Rickey [Klayman also is now arguing that he doesn’t have to prove that Risen’s article was false, only that it was reckless.]

    Understanding that the Reporter said he was writing [this] unless Montgomery revealed what may be deemed classified .. Hummm

    Let’s adapt the screen play here with different characters ., let me think. 💡

    Reporter tells Obama he’s writing that he was born in Kenya, unless he clears him walking in to the Hawaii vault and releasing what they find there to the Reporter.

    The reckless idea 💡 now sounds good enough to censor the Reporter now for you guys doesn’t it?

    Yeah..?

    Montgomery a CIA Contractor w classified info
    Obama His identity Records as classified info

    Publisher
    Reporter

    Stipulation for a leveraged release of classified info

    Release or I Publish
    Release or I Print

    Montegomery has received immunity from Govrmnt Security Agencies.. This collaborates w Classified the info is little to do with it.

    Clinton’s emails Classified, the content not the point

  15. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    January 9, 2016 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Reporter tells Obama he’s writing that he was born in Kenya, unless he clears him walking in to the Hawaii vault and releasing what they find there to the Reporter.

    The reckless idea now sounds good enough to censor the Reporter now for you guys doesn’t it?

    Obama’s (correct) response to that blackmail attempt is to laugh and walk away. As demonstrated numerous times.

  16. Curious George says:
    January 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:

    “Of course Larry Klayman has lost many, but he’s won to :”

    Did you mean “too” as in also or “two” as in the number?

    The Risen case is going down in flames, Judy. The Plaintiffs will not be successful in their effort. It’s a certainty that it will be another epic failure.

  17. CRJ says:
    January 9, 2016 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    Suppose it revolves around the definitions of [reckless]

    “Now with dozens of additional emails found to be classified, we know Hillary Clinton exposed classified material in more than 1,300 messages, including information that was classified at the time it was sent as well at some of the highest levels,” Republican Natonal Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “Hillary Clinton’s pursuit of secrecy at the expense of national security was undeniably [reckless] and shows she cannot be trusted in the White House.”

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article53685825.html#storylink=cpy

    W. Kevin Vicklund [Obama’s (correct) response to that blackmail attempt is to laugh and walk away. As demonstrated numerous times.]

    Agreed.. And clearly I think an attempted [blackmail] or even maybe [Extortion] is a better word for it as it’s been recognised as classified by the FBI. Civil case though, maybe different criteria.. Not sure about that.

    Thanks for the spell check @Curious George “too” dog-gone spell checker changes stuff after you got save.

    See.. It did it again! Lol [ hit save]

  18. Arthur B. says:
    January 9, 2016 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Suppose it revolves around the definitions of [reckless]

    No, Cody. This particular issue revolves around the relationship between recklessness and defamation. Klayman is claiming that a reckless statement can be defamatory even if it is true.

    Pay attention and try to understand what’s going on.

  19. CRJ says:
    January 9, 2016 at 4:58 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur B. [Pay attention and try to understand what’s going on.]

    Thanks, that’s what I got you for . ✔

  20. J.D. Sue says:
    January 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: It’s interesting to me to see in some Comments here the disagreement and disgust of Klayman being aloud a lower standard of proof

    —
    Klayman is not seeking a “lower standard of proof.”

    Instead, Klayman has espoused the view that a defamation plaintiff may either prove falsity or recklessness; that recklessness can substitute for falsity.

    Klayman knows he is dead wrong on this, and everyone else knows it too.

  21. J.D. Sue says:
    January 9, 2016 at 6:13 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Suppose it revolves around the definitions of [reckless]

    —-
    No. It revolves around the definition of defamation, which always requires falsity.

  22. Rickey says:
    January 9, 2016 at 7:19 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    Suppose it revolves around the definitions of [reckless]

    Wrong. It revolves around the definition of “defamation.”

    DEFAMATION: The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements.

    In order to be defamatory, at minimum a statement has to be false.

  23. Curious George says:
    January 9, 2016 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: Wrong. It revolves around the definition of “defamation.”

    DEFAMATION: The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements.

    In order to be defamatory, a statement has to be false.

    Well, that pretty well sinks Klayman’s boat. That is unless he thinks the legal definition of “defamation” itself is “reckless” and he decides to go after the publishers of legal definitions.

    Klayman may wish to consider this from the Black’s Law Dictionary: “Reckless disregard so as to show actual malice in publication may be shown to exist where there exists sufficient evidence to permit conclusion that defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication or where there are obvious reasons to doubt veracity of informant or accuracy of his reports.”

    Good luck with that. I would speculate there are serious doubts about the veracity and accuracy coming from the Plaintiff’s side.

  24. Arthur B. says:
    January 9, 2016 at 7:58 pm  (Quote)

    Curious George: “Reckless disregard so as to show actual malice in publication…”

    None of that is relevant if the statement is true.

    “Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Remember that defamation is a false statement of fact. So, if the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.”

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html

  25. Curious George says:
    January 9, 2016 at 8:49 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur B.: None of that is relevant if the statement is true.

    “Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Remember that defamation is a false statement of fact. So, if the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.”

    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html

    Agreed, “…defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication…”

    Truth is the operative word.

  26. John Reilly says:
    January 9, 2016 at 9:06 pm  (Quote)

    IANAL but wasn’t this resolved when the British tried to prosecute John Peter Zenger?

  27. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 9, 2016 at 9:07 pm  (Quote)

    It would seem that Klayman’s loss on the merits is the inevitable conclusion.

    My question is whether the Defense can recover any of the costs of defending this spurious case. I seem to recall that there is no applicable anti-SLAPP statute in Florida. Is there any other principle in equity to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

  28. J.D. Sue says:
    January 9, 2016 at 11:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: It would seem that Klayman’s loss on the merits is the inevitable conclusion.

    My question is whether the Defense can recover any of the costs of defending this spurious case. I seem to recall that there is no applicable anti-SLAPP statute in Florida. Is there any other principle in equity to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

    —-

    In addition to sanctions that could be imposed by statute or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the inherent power to impose sanctions for bad faith conduct. Sanctions may include the assessment of defendant’s attorney fees and costs.

    See Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/32/case.html

  29. Rickey says:
    January 10, 2016 at 1:56 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It would seem that Klayman’s loss on the merits is the inevitable conclusion.

    It’s clear that Klayman, with Montgomery’s help, has painted himself into a corner.

    As I understand it, Montgomery is claiming that Risen defamed him when he wrote that the software which Montgomery provided to the government doesn’t do what Montgomery promised it does. Since Montgomery is the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on him to prove that Risen’s piece was false. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that the software does work.

    As another poster suggested, Klayman may have figured that the defendants would settle rather than pay the expense of a protracted lawsuit. But the defense attorneys have been unrelenting in demanding that Montgomery turn over his software for examination by the defense’s experts.

    So Klayman decided to stall by turning over Montgomery’s hard drives to the FBI. But that dodge didn’t work, in part because the FBI refused to even look at the hard drives unless Montgomery gave them folder names and file names so they could search for the software.

    Since Montgomery can’t or won’t produce his software, he can’t prove that it works. So now Klayman is trying to delay again, first by claiming that Montgomery now isn’t sure if his software is on the hard drives he gave to the FBI, second by denying that Montgomery said that he turned over the software to the FBI, and third by claiming that he doesn’t have to prove that Risen’s article was false in order to show that it was defamatory.

    Klayman may have been hoodwinked into believing Montgomery. But it’s pretty clear that Klayman never examined Montgomery’s hard drives and he never hired an expert to evaluate them, so in effect he has made his own bed.

  30. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 10, 2016 at 5:32 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: It’s clear that Klayman, with Montgomery’s help, has painted himself into a corner.

    Rickey, I agree with you whole heartedly on this point, under other circumstances and parties I would most likely be inclined to believe that the client maybe mislead the attorney as to the facts and to what he had. Although let it be said that the attorney had a duty and obligation to be sure of his facts and standing before undertaking this. Howsumever, since those conditions don’t obtain. We are talking about KKKlayman, simply GIL as he is known to a great many people, and I am therefore disinclined to even entertain the least shadow of a doubt. GIL is known, nay one could even say (in)famous for making his cases up out of whole cloth and then attempting to support them with tortured readings of law, always assuming he ever gets that far. I think he usually just goes for trying to wear them out by being perpetually late with all his filings and always asking for postponements and getting them to surrender that way out of shear exhaustion. I am betting that he thought he could get away without having to actually produce anything and when the defendants demanded the drives it knocked him and his con artist buddy back on their collective heels and a great deal of shucking and jiving ensued, all to the eventual end that they did have to come up with something, which I’m betting was the moral equivalent if not the exact same collection of cut up newspaper that they suckered old Joe with, and the CIA analysts called “junk”, and now his turkeys, I say that because they are ever so much messier than just chickens when they roost, are coming home to roost and he is running out of excuses. He/they can’t produce since they had nothing to produce in the first place, there never was any data or any real software for that matter, and Emperor Larry is bare assed buck naked and bare assed lying at this point.

    The biggest hairiest ginoromousest most puissant elephant in the room is that you can’t defame someone by telling the truth about them, that and trying to hide behind national security won’t protect, particularly not when no one from the gov’t seems to be the NOT IN THE LEAST concerned about them or anything they could possibly have, probably because they know he’s got nada.

  31. Curious George says:
    January 10, 2016 at 6:48 am  (Quote)

    Is it any wonder why he tried so desperately to intervene in Melendres v. Arpaio? In my opinion, it had everything to do with damage control attempting to prevent all the horrendous information that has come out about his client. From all accounts, It appears that Mr. Risen is in a very strong position. I certainly would not want to be in Mikey’s spot sitting with the representation he has right about now. A/Z day is coming, but not in the way that any of the birthers expect.

  32. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 10, 2016 at 8:28 am  (Quote)

    Curious George, I do agree with what you are saying here, I think GIL knew exactly what kind of tissue of lies he was trying to peddle in Risen, and wanted desperately to curtail as much information from getting out as possible. I don’t know, and we’ll probably never really know, just how much of the pack of lies Montgomery was peddling was just that, but I have to suspect that he did in fact know, at least in a general way. Montgomery was and is a proven liar and fraud, with court cases to go with it, and I don’t think there is any way GIL could not have known all that, I do suspect he avoided asking his client any questions that could prove he actually know though, he’s such an ethical honorable attorney after all.

    I think Risen was always in a VERY strong position in that he was telling the truth, and he has a publisher with deep pockets, a really good legal team, and a reputation for not caving. Something GIL should have looked at before and known he started all this. Although his giant sized ego may have gotten in the way and he thought he’d be able to bully his way through. Who knows??

  33. Curious George says:
    January 10, 2016 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Notorial Dessent:

    “I do agree with what you are saying here,”

    It’s too bad that what we see apparently can’t be seen by the birthers who give great adoration to GIL. I just reviewed Klayman’s appeal regarding his defamation lawsuit against the publisher of the Phoenix New Times. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. It looks like Klayman’s defamation suit has been destroyed by the defense with the truth. It looks like Mr. Klayman’s house of cards is faltering.

  34. Notorial Dissent says:
    January 10, 2016 at 10:37 am  (Quote)

    Birfers seem, at least in my limited experience, to only see flash over substance, which is why GIL, the Klown Kar Kommandant , and the Shurf are so very attractive to them, because they never ever look below the surface as long as whoever it is is showing them what they dearly want to see.

  35. Curious George says:
    January 14, 2016 at 11:54 am  (Quote)

    Plaintiff’s response to Zullo’s appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Melendres v. Arpaio)

    First it was the Plaintiff’s footnote about Zullo’s possible criminal violations that caused Zullo to claim the 5th hundreds of times in his deposition and during court testimony and now we read these words found in the Plaintiff’s recent filing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals… “…a future criminal proceeding,…”

    (The Plaintiff’s attorneys sure know how to push Corporal Zullo’s buttons.)

    “Should Zullo wish to take up the issue of any alleged violation of his rights by the
    Jones Skelton firm, or in relation to a future criminal proceeding, those matters
    should be addressed separately, and have nothing to do with the case below.”

    Zullo Appeal #16 | P Response re Jurisdictional Order.pdf
    https://www.scribd.com/book/295390858

  36. Curious George says:
    January 16, 2016 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    The latest from Reverend Carl Gallups and GIL regarding Arpaio, Zullo, Melendres, and Judge Snow.

    http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2016/01/universe-shattering-larry-klayman-on.html?m=1

  37. Curious George says:
    January 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm  (Quote)

    Curious George:
    The latest from Reverend Carl Gallups and GILregarding Arpaio, Zullo, Melendres, and Judge Snow.

    http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2016/01/universe-shattering-larry-klayman-on.html?m=1

    A couple of things from the Gallups’ show. Gallups confirms for those interested that “We [Klayman and Gallups] text everyday.” That may become an important admission.

    Although Klayman wants to be “circumspect,” he articulates that he doesn’t “want to make matters worse for Mike [Zullo]. From that statement we can assume that for things to get worse for Mikey, they already must be bad.

    At 17:40, Klayman refers to the NSA when he states that “They have been getting into everybody’s underwear including mine.” A very strange remark in my book.

  38. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    January 16, 2016 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    This likely refers to the NSA’s harvesting metadata from electronic communications, something over which Klayman sued the government, and even got a temporary restraining order preventing them from harvesting HIS metadata.

    Curious George: At 17:40, Klayman refers to the NSA when he states that “They have been getting into everybody’s underwear including mine.” A very strange remark in my book.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.