Melendres v. Arpaio #1417 Sept 29 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 7 Evidentiary Hearing
Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
Transcript of Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
1/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2248
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, ArizonaOctober 2, 20159:09 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 10, Pages 2248-2470)
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
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
2/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
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, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2249
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: Tammy Albarran, 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
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
3/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
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, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2250
A P P E A R A N C E S
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 Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLPBy: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For Brian Mackiewicz:Sitton NashBy: Alexandra Mijares Nash, Esq.301 W. Warner Road, Suite 133Tempe, Arizona 85284
Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. ArpaioExecutive Chief Brian SandsChief Deputy Gerard SheridanLieutenant Joseph Sousa
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
4/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
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, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2251
I N D E X
Witness: Page
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young 2258
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
79 MCSO Shift Summary [Redacted] Incident: 2261Forgery/ID theft Search Warrant - DR 12-130994dated 9/20/2012 (US_0663020-US_0063021;US_0663023-US_0663024
80 MCSO Supplemental Report (United Construction 2261Group) DR 2012-130847 dated 9/27/2012
81 MCSO Shift Summary (United Construction Group) 2261DR 12-130847 dated 9/27/2012
83 Incident Report, IR 12-182625 dated 10/8/2012 2261
86 MCSO Shift Summary (Sportex Apparel) 261DR 12-222316 dated 2/8/2013(US_0663126-US_0663128)
89 MCSO Criminal Employment Squat Stat Breakdown, 2261DOJ Ex. 332 (MCS00960477 - MCS00960479)
2074B DOJ/Arpaio 2007-2013, chronology and 2289handwritten notes (MELC199550)
2281 MCSO Memo from Joseph Arpaio to Captain Russ 2420Skinner re: Response to Document Requestregarding ITR 3 (Follow-up) dated 8/18/2015(MELC730566-88)
2837A Video Clip "The Joe Show" 2396(Joseph Arpaio, Lisa Allen, and Chad Williams)
2838C Video Clip 3 Press Conference with Zullo, Cold 2392Posse Birth Certificate dated 3/1/2012
2839D Video Clip 4 Sheriff Arpaio's Oregon State 2459Capitol Speech, June 28, 2015 dated 6/28/2015
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
5/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2252
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. YOUNG: Good, morning, Your Honor. Stanley
Young, Tammy Albarran, and Michelle Morin, Covington & Burling,
for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. YOUNG: Good morning, Your Honor. Cecillia Wang
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
MR. POCHODA: Good morning. Dan Pochoda from the ACLU
of Arizona for plaintiffs.
MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning. Paul Killebrew and
Cynthia Coe for the United States.
THE COURT: Please be seated. I'm sorry.
THE CLERK: Counsel, if I could just call the case
before you --
MR. YOUNG: Oh. Apologies.
THE CLERK: -- announce your appearances.
This is Civil Case No. 07-2513 Melendres, et al.,
v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued evidentiary hearing.
Thank you.
MR. YOUNG: Should we appear again, Your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
THE COURT: Good morning to everyone.
MR. MASTERSON: Are we to meet?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
6/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2253
THE COURT: Good morning to everybody who's already
appeared here.
MR. MASTERSON: Good morning, Judge Snow. John
Masterson, Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio, and with us is
Holly McGee.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
and Charles Jirauch on behalf of Maricopa County.
MS. MIJARES-NASH: Good morning, Your Honor. Special
Appearance, Alexandra Mijares-Nash for Detective Brian
Mackiewicz.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como
representing Chief Brian Sands.
MR. WOODS: Terry Woods, Your Honor, representing
Stutz and Liddy, non-parties.
MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed
contemnors.
THE COURT: Is that everyone?
I am informed that you wanted to have a sidebar,
Ms. Iafrate, to handle some matters we discussed last evening?
MS. IAFRATE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I will have everybody at
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
7/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2254
sidebar who was present at the closed part of the hearing. If
you weren't present at the closed part of the hearing, I'll ask
that you move away from the sidebar conversation, but for the
moment the sidebar conversation will be under seal.
(Bench conference on the record.)
(Page 2254, line 6, through page 2257, line 18, sealed
by order of the Court.)
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
8/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2257
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Sheriff, good morning.
SHERIFF ARPAIO: Good morning.
THE COURT: Of course, even though we're a new day
you're still under oath.
Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
9/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2258
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Good morning, Sheriff.
A. Good morning.
Q. I'm going to show you some exhibits, and hopefully we can
do this efficiently. And I don't know whether they're on the
top of your pile, but we're going to be looking at exhibits
between the ranges of 79 and 89. And let's just take them in
numerical order and I'll ask Mr. Klein to put them on the
screen for you.
Exhibit 79 is a shift summary from your Human
Smuggling Division, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Going now to Exhibit 80, Exhibit 80 is a supplemental
report relating to an identity theft/forgery operation at
United Construction, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 81 is a shift summary, again relating to United
Construction Group, this time dated September 27, 2012,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 83 has a cover sheet dated October 8, 2012, but
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
10/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2259
then is -- after that you can see it's an incident report where
the reporting deputy is R. Armendariz, dated, as to the
incident, on October 8, 2012, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 86 is another Human Smuggling Division shift
summary dated February 8, 2013, relating to Sportex Apparel,
correct?
A. Relating to who?
Q. Sportex Apparel; that's the location.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'll note that a lot of names and identifiers are
redacted from both Exhibit 86 and Exhibit 79. That's the way
they were provided in the Department of Justice case.
And finally, Sheriff, take a look at Exhibit 89. 89
is a criminal employment squad statistical breakdown as of July
22, 2013, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And prepared by your Human Smuggling Division?
A. I believe so.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I move for the admission of
Exhibits 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, and 89.
MR. MASTERSON: Objection on foundation as to the
information contained in each of the exhibits, and relevance as
to those exhibits unrelated to the plaintiffs' class.
THE COURT: Foundation as to the what?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
11/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2260
MR. MASTERSON: Well, I think we can all agree that
they're Maricopa County Sheriff's Office records, but I haven't
heard any testimony that the sheriff has any personal knowledge
as to any of the information contained in each of those
records.
THE COURT: Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: Well, under Rule 803(6), I believe the
sheriff --
THE COURT: Well, we're not -- the objection wasn't
hearsay; the objection was foundation.
MR. YOUNG: I think the sheriff has established
prior -- in his prior testimony that he has knowledge about
these operations and about what his people do. I can ask a few
more questions if Your Honor would prefer, but I think the
foundation already exists.
THE COURT: Well, I think the foundation has been laid
to admit the exhibits under -- because they're not -- you know,
they fall under a hearsay exception, so I'm going to admit the
exhibits as being Maricopa County documents.
It does seem to me that based on their description and
identification by the sheriff, they are relevant, so I'm going
to overrule it. And we've already dealt with the criminal
employment squad objection and I'm going to overrule that as
well, so --
MR. MASTERSON: I still have a continuing objection to
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
12/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2261
that, though, correct, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes, you do.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: So I'm going to admit Exhibits 79, 80, 81,
83, 86, and 89.
(Exhibits Nos. 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, and 89 are admitted
in evidence.)
MR. WALKER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I object to the
Court's characterization of these documents as Maricopa County
documents.
THE COURT: What are they, then?
MR. WALKER: They're, as far as I can tell, documents
of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
THE COURT: All right. And again, with all due
respect, you are here because that is how the Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office has to be sued. And that is the legal ruling
that has been made in this case, and so I note your objection
and I overrule it.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, we're going to turn back to the exhibit we were
looking at when we ended your testimony yesterday. It's 2074A.
And I'm going to ask that the top part and the bottom part be
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
13/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2262
displayed on the screen and published.
You have the full piece of paper there if you want to
take a look at it. And the part that we're omitting is the
parts with the DOJ wiretap references that are about in the
middle of the page.
Do you see that on the screen?
And maybe we'll need to pull the top -- so we can see
the top of the top part, Mr. Klein. So we can see the top of
the page. We'll start with that.
Now, did you give your fax number to Mr. Montgomery so
that he could fax this page to you?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Did you have someone else do that?
A. It probably could have been my secretary.
Q. Who was your secretary at that time?
A. Amy Lake.
Q. Is the fax machine to which this document was faxed located
near your office in your -- near your desk?
A. I believe it's in her office.
Q. So was this faxed to your fax number and then Ms. Lake
brought it to you?
A. I would imagine she did, yes.
Q. Did you have her go wait at the fax machine, or did you go
to the fax machine yourself to wait to get this document?
A. No.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
14/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2263
Q. How many fax machines are associated with that number?
A. I don't know if that's the only one or not.
Q. Now, you'll note at the top of the page that it says page 1
of 2 in the upper-right-hand corner?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall getting two pages from Mr. Montgomery on
November 5th, 2013?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what the second page is?
A. No.
Q. After you got the fax, what did you do with it? Aside from
writing it -- writing the word "crim question mark" on it.
A. I'm not sure what I did with it. I may have shown it to
the chief deputy, because his name was also on it as a wiretap.
Q. You mean his number?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you show it to Chief Deputy Sheridan the same day that
you received it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Approximately how long after you received the fax did you
show it to Chief Deputy Sheridan?
A. I'm sure it was not a long time span.
Q. Did you show it to anyone else?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you make copies of it?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
15/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2264
A. I may have made copies.
Q. What did you do with the copies?
A. It's in my file.
Q. Are you aware, aside from Chief Deputy Sheridan, of anyone
else in your office who saw Exhibit 2074A?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, the third line of the exhibit mentions this lawsuit.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss this lawsuit with Timothy Blixseth?
A. With who?
Q. Timothy Blixseth, the person that you met in October 2013
when you first heard about Dennis Montgomery.
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Did you ever talk about the Melendres lawsuit with Dennis
Montgomery?
A. With him?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recall; I don't believe I did.
Q. Now, you said that you met Mr. Montgomery at some point at
the -- way back at the beginning at a hotel in Phoenix, is that
correct?
A. I'm not sure it was Phoenix or Scottsdale, but it was some
hotel.
Q. Did you meet Mr. Montgomery in person before or after you
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
16/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2265
received this November 5, 2013 fax from him?
A. You know, I'm not sure if it was before or after. It had
to be around that time, I believe.
Q. Do you know how Mr. Montgomery got the information about
the Melendres lawsuit that's listed on the time line?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Did Detective Mackiewicz or Mr. Zullo give him that
information?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. That you know of.
A. I don't know.
Q. The item for March 15, 2009, refers to a Joel Fox search
warrant issued at Arizona Attorney General.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Montgomery,
Mr. Blixseth, Mr. Zullo, or Detective Mackiewicz about that?
A. No.
Q. Do you know why that's on this time line?
A. Well, a lot of things I don't know why it's on the -- the
time line. It gives me an impression they have been reading a
lot of newspapers or so on.
Q. What was your understanding at the time you received this
fax of Mr. Montgomery's purpose in sending it to you?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
17/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2266
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you talk to anyone after receiving it? Aside from
Chief Deputy Sheridan.
A. Well, I may have talked to Zullo, and probably Brian
Mackiewicz, being concern about the wiretap.
Q. You talked to Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about
Exhibit 2074A at around the time or very shortly after you
received it, correct?
A. I may have.
Q. Did you discuss all the items on the time line with
Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz after you received the time
line?
A. My main concern was the -- the wiretap allegations with the
number next to it. That was my concern.
Q. Did you talk to them about any of the other items on the
time line?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. How about Chief Sheridan?
A. No, I gave him the copy had to do with the wiretap.
Q. Please tell me everything you can remember about your
discussion with Chief Sheridan when you showed him this time
line, Exhibit 274A -- 2074A.
A. The main discussion was his name and phone number and my
name and phone number.
Q. You don't remember anything else --
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
18/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2267
A. No.
Q. -- about your discussion with him?
I'm going to ask you about the two lines with the
wiretap information that have your and Chief Sheridan's phone
numbers. It's not on the screen; you can feel free to look at
the piece of paper if you would like.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. It is on the screen.
MR. YOUNG: Well, actually, at the moment --
THE COURT: Oh, then phone numbers --
MR. YOUNG: Phone numbers are not on the screen.
And actually, I'll ask that this top part, which does
not have the phone numbers, be published, Your Honor,
since this --
THE COURT: Well, it has been published. It was just
taken off. Are you going to show those phone numbers?
MR. YOUNG: No.
THE COURT: All right.
Then you can return back to the screen, Kathleen.
MR. MASTERSON: Your Honor, I had a discussion with
Mr. Young this morning, and he does not object, if the Court
agrees, that we could redact those numbers from the --
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that makes sense --
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: -- redact those numbers.
I don't think it makes sense to redact -- to redact
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
19/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2268
the wiretap identification number, but the personal numbers of
Chief Sheridan and Chief Arpaio -- or Sheriff Arpaio I think
should be redacted. I have no problem with that.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. So you recall there are some phone numbers there with DOJ
wiretap references on the time line, correct, Sheriff? That's
what you were focusing on at the time?
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. Yes. I'm referring to the references to the alleged DOJ
wiretap numbers that had your number and Chief Sheridan's
number, the ones that you discussed with Chief Sheridan.
Do you have those in mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how Dennis Montgomery got your phone number and
Chief Sheridan's phone number?
A. That's a good question. I don't have an answer.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz have your phone
number?
A. I believe -- I believe they did, yes.
Q. Did you ever hear from them that they had given your phone
number to Mr. Montgomery to see whether he could find a
reference to a wiretap on it?
A. No.
Q. In order for someone to search for a wiretap and determine
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
20/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2269
whether a wiretap had been done on your number, they would need
to know your number, correct?
MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.
THE WITNESS: How they got it, I don't know. But
you're right, they would have to know my number.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Well, at the time that you got Exhibit 2074A from --
THE COURT: You know, Sheriff, I'm just going to
remind you, when your attorney makes an objection --
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
THE COURT: -- you have a right to have me rule on
that objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You waive that right when you answer
without letting me rule on the objection.
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. YOUNG: And I apologize to Your Honor.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. When you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery, did you
wonder how he knew what your cell phone number was?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask anybody about that?
A. I'm sure that the investigators would be looking into that.
Q. Did you talk to them about how it is that Mr. Montgomery
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
21/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2270
got your cell phone number?
A. I was concerned.
Q. Had you authorized them to give your cell phone number to
Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Same questions for Chief Sheridan's phone number.
Do you know how Mr. Montgomery got that?
A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz have Chief
Sheridan's phone number?
A. I don't know.
Q. At the time that you got the fax from Mr. Montgomery, did
you believe there was a possibility that the DOJ had wiretapped
your number and Chief Sheridan's number?
A. I was concerned, but I also had some suspicion of that
information on a personal-type situation, having spent, what,
20 years as a top law enforcement official under the Department
of Justice that that would ever occur. I had some concern,
but, on the other hand, it was mind-boggling to me.
Q. At the time that you received the fax on November 5, 2013,
had you read the New York Times article that we looked at
earlier, or any other article describing allegations that
Mr. Montgomery had defrauded other government agencies?
A. I don't recall the time frame; if I read the articles on
him around that time, I'm not sure.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
22/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2271
Q. Well, the suspicions that you mentioned about the
information on the November 5, 2013 fax, did that come just
from the face of the fax, or did you have other information
about Mr. Montgomery that contributed to that suspicion?
A. No. My suspicion was whether the Department of Justice
would do that. That was my suspicion.
Q. Now, let's look at the bottom part of Exhibit 2 -- 2074A.
There's a line there on July 10, 2010: "Covington
takes over Melendres lawsuit against Arpaio."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever discuss Covington with Mr. Blixseth?
A. Not that I recall. I don't think we had any discussions
other than the computer -- the bank fraud investigation.
Q. How about with Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. Well, let's go down to July 19, 2012. That's a reference
to "Melendres case hear by judge."
That's Judge Snow, right?
When you received this fax, you understood that the
Melendres case had been heard by Judge Snow, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read the entire time line when you received it?
A. What was that?
Q. When you received the time line from Mr. Montgomery did you
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
23/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2272
read the whole thing?
A. I briefly went through it, yes.
Q. So you saw the references to the DOJ filing a complaint
against you, and also the Melendres case, and also the
Covington law firm, and all the other things on this sheet, you
saw those, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The last two items refer to the Melendres lawsuit, the
Covington law firm, and Judge Snow ruling against you in this
lawsuit. Do you see those lines?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you received this fax, did you, in your
own mind, connect those events in any way to the DOJ wiretap
information?
A. No. My main concern was the wiretap.
Q. You knew that this lawsuit was happening at the time you
received the fax, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that Judge Snow had issued a ruling finding
that your office had violated the Constitution, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew that Judge Snow had issued a supplemental
injunction in October 2013 announcing that he would be
appointing a monitor over your office --
A. Yes.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
24/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2273
Q. -- correct?
So is it fair to say that on November 5, 2013, you
were well aware of the issues relating to this lawsuit and
Judge Snow's rulings?
A. Yes.
Q. Before you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery were you
expecting to receive some information on him?
A. No.
Q. Did you talk before you got the fax with either Mr. Zullo
or Detective Mackiewicz about information that Mr. Montgomery
might have relating to this time line?
A. I don't recall whether the wiretap came up before I
received the fax.
Q. Well, when you got the fax, did you know why you were
receiving it?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask anyone when you got the fax: Hey, I just got
this fax. What is it? Why am I getting it?
A. Well, I don't know why he sent it to me but he did, I
presume, and he had that information. It was all public
knowledge, anyway. But the two wiretaps never appeared
anywhere, so that made me somewhat concerned.
Q. When you got the fax on November 5, 2013, you knew it was
from Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A. Yes.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
25/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2274
Q. And since you had had a discussion, at least, and perhaps
had met with him prior to your receipt of the fax, it wasn't a
complete surprise that you received some information from him,
is that right?
A. I'm still trying to recall whether I met with him before.
I may have, and I don't have the dates. But the meeting had to
do with the bank investigation.
Q. Well, let me clarify my question.
When you received the fax from Mr. Montgomery, it
wasn't as if it was just some random person in the public who
sent a piece of paper to your fax number. You knew who the
person was and what the general subject matter and reason for
your getting the fax was when you received it, correct?
A. I was surprised in receiving a fax on that date. I didn't
ask for it, I didn't know about it, but it showed up.
Q. But you were intrigued about it when you got it, correct?
A. I was intrigued about the wiretaps of me and my chief
deputy, and that was my major concern.
Q. Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that he thought the reason
for Mr. Montgomery sending you this time line was in order to
keep the money flowing from your office to Mr. Montgomery.
I'll tell you it's my understanding from other
documents that the first payment that your office gave to
Mr. Montgomery was around Thanksgiving 2013.
Does that seem right to you?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
26/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2275
A. That may have been about the time that this information
came to us about the bank investigation.
Q. Let me just ask you, Sheriff: When you received the fax on
November 5, 2013, had your office yet paid anything to
Mr. Montgomery?
A. I don't recall. I wasn't involved in the payments.
Q. Well, if the documents that your office has given us show
that the first payment was made after this fax, would you
dispute that?
A. Would I refute that?
Q. Do you know of any reason to believe that any payments were
made to Mr. Montgomery before you received this fax?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you believe when you got this fax, Exhibit 2074A, that
it was related to the banking investigation that you had
discussed during October?
A. I don't know what it was related to when you -- you're
talking about the wiretap information?
Q. Yes, that or anything else on this time line.
Did you believe that it related to the banking
investigation that Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz were
doing with Mr. Montgomery?
A. The only concern I had about his harvesting into computers
regarding the bank -- all the people that were victims, and
where my phone number came from, whether it came through
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
27/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2276
harvesting or whatever.
Q. Did you believe that Mr. Montgomery had obtained the
information about the wiretap, potential wiretaps, in the same
way that he obtained information about the banking records that
you had discussed?
A. I have no idea. As I mentioned before, I'm not a computer
expert, and I let that -- the two detectives to work on the
computer aspects.
Q. Those two things, though -- the wiretap and the banking
investigation -- at least had the commonality in your mind that
the information was coming from Mr. Montgomery, is that
correct?
A. You're talking about the wiretapping information coming
from him?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm rather sure it did come from him.
Q. And the banking information that you had heard about, that
information also came from Mr. Montgomery in your
understanding, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, as I recall, Mr. Montgomery claimed, as you understood
it, that he knew that someone had obtained the banking
information of about 151,000 people in Maricopa County, is that
right?
A. I think it was 150,000.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
28/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2277
Q. What was your understanding at the time you heard about it
about what the banking information was; that is, in detail,
what kind of information? Was it names? Account numbers?
Payments? Deposits? Account balances? What did you
understand the banking information to consist of?
A. Well, what I in general terms had a concern was going into
people's bank accounts, stealing their identities, their --
amount of money in their account, banking accounts. I could go
on and on. That was my concern.
Q. But did you have an understanding at the time that this
banking information would allow someone to obtain the bank
statements of the people who were potentially involved?
A. In general terms is all aspects of the identity of the
victims --
Q. Okay.
A. -- whether it's bank accounts, statements, money, home
address, I can go on and on.
Q. And that's what you sent Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz
to Seattle for, to work with Mr. Montgomery to investigate, is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know throughout the time of the Seattle
investigation that they were investigating the banking
information?
A. Yes.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
29/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2278
Q. Okay. Did that ever stop? That is, did the banking
information aspect of the Seattle investigation ever stop?
A. Oh, I think the -- it continued, and the chief deputy
assigned several detectives to follow up on it to investigate
it.
Q. So as of the time you received the fax in November 2013,
you knew that they were working on an investigation of at least
the banking information, is that right?
A. I believe so.
Q. Okay. How about in January 2014? Was it still your
understanding at that time that they were working on the
investigation relating to the banking information?
A. Yes.
Q. How about in April 2015? Did you know if they were still
working on the banking investigation?
A. I don't know, but I would believe that they still were. It
wasn't something that you stop working.
Q. Now, Judge Snow's name came up in connection with the
banking investigation, correct? I think you've testified to
that before.
A. What I was told, yes.
Q. Judge Snow, you believed, was one of the 150,000 Maricopa
County residents whose banking information had potentially been
penetrated, is that right?
A. Yes.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
30/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2279
Q. How did you find that out?
A. I believe the investigators mentioned that to me.
Q. They mentioned that to you? Who mentioned it to you?
A. I don't know if it was Detective Mackiewicz or Zullo, but
they did mention that there was several names Snow in there,
and they believe that one of them was the judge.
Q. So it was one of the two of them, right, either Zullo or
Mackiewicz?
A. Yeah.
Q. What was said to you at the time you first learned about
Judge Snow being on that list of 150,000 names?
A. Well, it was rather a surprise. I believe they mention
that there were other judges on that list, which also concerned
me. If I recall, they mention even a Supreme Court of the
United States judge, so I had a little concern about all the
victims, including the judges.
Q. At least when your deposition was taken the only local
judge whose name you could remember being on that list was
Judge G. Murray Snow, is that right?
A. That name was on a list? Was that the question? Can you
repeat that?
Q. Judge Snow's name was the only name of a judge that you
could remember being on that list, is that right?
A. No. There were other names that I heard that I'm not
absolutely sure who they were. I didn't want to reveal any
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
31/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2280
names unless I knew for sure, but there was other names that
were mentioned on that list when you're talking about federal
judges.
Q. Well, isn't it true, Sheriff, that even though you may have
heard that there were other judges involved in the banking
investigation, that Judge Snow was the only one that you
specifically heard about?
A. I heard about others that I'm not a hundred percent
accurate that I got the names right. I remember I think Chief
Justice Roberts' name came up. So I don't have a list of all
the judges.
My concern was any victim, the 150,000, and I believe
when you total it up, be almost a half a million citizens in
this state regardless of their occupation.
Q. Sheriff, I'm going to play for you from page 448 of your
deposition on September 17. It will be lines 1 through 10.
And it's clip 15 for Mr. Klein.
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
"Question: When is the first time that you and
Mr. Zullo discussed anything relating to Judge Snow?
"Answer: I think it was during the banking
investigation that his name was in there, along with many other
judges. In fact, I think my name was in there, allegedly in
there.
"Question: Was Judge Snow the only judge who you
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
32/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2281
heard about in connection with the banking investigation?
"Answer: It's the only one I heard about, but they
the tell me there was others, too."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Do you recall giving that testimony, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it accurate? Is it accurate?
A. Same thing I said here.
Q. Can you tell me now, Sheriff, the names of any other local
judges that you recall hearing about in connection with the
banking investigation other than Judge Snow?
A. No.
Q. Now, you knew that you and your wife were also on that
list, allegedly, of the 150,000 people, correct?
A. That's what I was told.
Q. So other than yourself, your wife, and Judge Snow, you
can't think of any other person in Maricopa County who you
understood to be among the list of 150,000 people in connection
with the banking investigation, is that right?
A. I'm going by what I was told by the investigators. And of
course, when they mention your wife, it kind of sticks out in
my memory and myself. But I'm sure that they would have other
names, my investigators, but they never really relayed it to me
other than the -- a Supreme Court Justice.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
33/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2282
Q. Well, sticking to Maricopa County residents, along with
yourself and your wife, Judge Snow also stuck out for you, is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you feel when you first heard that Judge Snow's
name had come up in the banking investigation?
A. Well, I don't like any -- anybody, no matter who they are,
but when you're dealing with the federal judiciary, when you're
dealing with my personal family, it does stick out in my mind.
Q. Did you have the same concern for Judge Snow that you had
for yourself and your wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Other than Mr. Zullo, Detective Mackiewicz -- well, other
than those two, did you talk to anyone else about the fact
Judge Snow's name came up in the banking investigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you hear about Judge Snow's name coming up at the
outset, when you first heard about the 150,000 names?
A. I'm not sure what the time frame was, because I know that
our investigators were reviewing all the names, so I don't
remember when the judge's name came up or when my name came up.
Q. So did you know that the investigators were going over and
searching the list of names?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that under your direction? You told them to search the
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
34/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2283
list of names?
A. You say my direction. This is something that was being run
by our computer expert slash investigators. So I didn't give
them orders. They had the information, they would verbally
brief me, and I let them run with the investigation.
Q. Well, did you indicate to Mr. Zullo and
Detective Mackiewicz that you would be interested in knowing
about who was on that list?
A. I think that I didn't have to ask them; I'm sure that they
alerted me to certain people.
Q. Well, do you remember how long after you first heard about
the 150,000 names you first heard Judge Snow mentioned in that
connection? Was it within a day? A week? A month? Do you
have any idea?
A. I still don't remember the time frame.
Q. Was it pretty soon after you heard about the 150,000 names
that you heard that Judge Snow's name was on that list?
A. I don't remember the timing as to how long from the date
that they started the investigation to who was in the system.
Q. Did you ever see any documents with the names of any of the
people who were allegedly on that list?
A. No.
Q. How about any photos or videos relating to the banking
investigation? Did you ever see any screen shots, or anything
like that?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
35/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2284
A. No.
Q. When you first heard about Judge Snow in connection with
the banking investigation, what information did you understand
Mr. Montgomery to have had access to? Specifically, if you
recall.
A. I'm sure he had access to the information through the
computers, received in the information from the, you know, the
banking versus the victims.
Q. Would that include bank statements, for example?
A. I don't know what it included. I think I mentioned earlier
concern about statements, about money, names, addresses of the
victims.
Q. Well, you're aware -- well, do you know, Sheriff Arpaio,
that if you have the identifier and a password, that people can
get their bank statements online over a computer?
You know that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you knew that at the time that you heard Judge
Snow's name mentioned in connection with the banking
investigation, is that right?
A. I didn't get into the nuts and bolts of the banking
industry, the computer industry; I left that up to my
investigators.
Q. Well, one of the reasons you'd be concerned about 150,000
Maricopa County residents having their banking information
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
36/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2285
penetrated is that someone with that kind of personal
information could get things like bank statements using a
computer, is that right?
A. Of course. It's part of the identity theft umbrella, too.
Q. After you heard about Judge Snow's name being on the list,
did you want Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to continue
with the investigation into the banking issue?
A. I don't think it had anything to do with the judge being on
a list. It was he was one of the names. They were
investigating 150,000 victims. That wasn't going to stop.
Q. And you did not want it to stop, is that right?
A. No, I wanted to get to the bottom of this massive
penetration of the people's identification, banking accounts.
To me, that was a big issue.
Q. Okay. And it continued to be a big issue for you after you
heard about Judge Snow's name being on that list, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone to stop investigating the banking
issue?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you encouraged them to continue with that
investigation, is that right?
A. Well, I don't think I had to encourage the investigators;
they knew how important this was and they continued it. I
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
37/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2286
didn't tell them not to or to do it but they continued the
investigation.
Q. Did you tell them that it was important to you?
A. Yes, they knew it was important, to me and all the victims.
Q. Now, you mentioned the other day that the updates that you
received from Mr. Zullo and Mr. Mackiewicz were only oral, or
verbal, and not written, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you have them write anything to you so that
you'd have some record of what it was that they were doing?
A. Well, the investigation was in progress. They advised me
verbally. They continued it. It was somewhat of a sensitive
situation and I was comfortable with that. It was a
preliminary investigation.
Q. Well, when your office conducts investigations, aren't
there normally written memos or documents so that people can
look back and see what has happened and what work has already
been done in that investigation?
A. Well, when the chief deputy assigned several detectives to
follow up, I'm not sure whether reports were done or not.
Q. Well, before Sergeant Anglin was assigned to the Montgomery
Seattle investigation, you did not have Mr. Zullo and
Detective Mackiewicz do anything in the nature of writing that
they gave to you, is that right?
A. They were keeping me advised verbally of that
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
38/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2287
investigation.
Q. Did you not want them to send you anything in writing on
that investigation?
A. I didn't tell them to do it or not to do it. They were
continuing giving me updates at times, and their main concern
was the computer aspect, going through the computers and trying
to find out all the names involved.
Q. Did you ever talk to either of them about not giving you
anything in writing on that investigation?
A. No.
Q. You never asked for anything in writing from them, is that
right?
A. I think eventually I wanted something done in writing, but
I think that was way later on.
Q. Did you ever get anything in writing on the investigation?
From them?
A. I'm not sure. There may have been one report that was
submitted.
Q. When was that report submitted?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Do you know whether attorneys turned it over to the monitor
and to the plaintiffs?
A. I don't know.
Q. Sheriff, I'm now going to ask you to take a look at
Exhibit 2074B.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
39/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2288
And I'll ask Mr. Klein to throw it up on the screen
for you, not published yet, but just so you can take a look at
it.
You recognize that document, correct, Sheriff?
A. Yes.
Q. There's some handwriting on it that's yours, is that right?
A. Looks like it, yes.
Q. And there's a typewritten portion that is also written by
you, typed by you, is that correct?
A. My typing wasn't very good, but it was.
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, I'll ask for the admission of
Exhibit 2074B.
I will note that we are using a version that has a
phone number that's been redacted in the middle of the page. I
don't think it's necessary to this proceeding to have that
there.
MR. MASTERSON: I guess my question is I've seen this
document, but it -- this isn't the whole document. Is counsel
submitting an altered -- I'm not saying it's -- he's doing it
unfairly or anything, but I've only seen this document in a
different form.
May I talk to Mr. Young, please?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Off-the-record discussion between Mr. Young and
Mr. Masterson. )
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
40/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2289
MR. MASTERSON: I'm told that this was -- this
language is on another document, and I understand it's a large
document.
Could I ask that the Court -- I don't have an
objection to this particular exhibit, but could it be a
conditional admission if I look at the original document and
think we need to have that in with this document for some
reason?
THE COURT: I'll certainly take a look at any other
documents you want to admit and tell me that it's associated
with this and establish a foundation for it.
MR. MASTERSON: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. So I am admitting this
document, and it is again document number --
MR. YOUNG: 2074B.
THE COURT: -- 2074B.
(Exhibit No. 2074B is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG: Your Honor, may we publish the document?
THE COURT: You may.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q. Sheriff, the document has both, as I mentioned before, a
typewritten part and a handwritten part, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm going to ask you first about the typewritten part.
Now, you described in your note here a November 6,
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
41/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2290
2013 phone call that you receive from JC, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. JC was a photographer that you had met in some prior
context, is that right, in San Diego?
A. Yes.
Q. And he called your wife, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he told your wife that he needed to talk to you and
that she shouldn't use phones, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then that same afternoon on November 6 you called him
back in the presence of a Sergeant Calderon of your office.
Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you heard from JC that your and your wife's phones
were being monitored by the feds, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time you had this discussion with JC, who did you
understand the feds to be?
A. I had no idea.
Q. Did you ask JC that question?
A. I don't recall.
Q. So the feds could have been, in your understanding, the
FBI? The DOJ? A federal judge? I mean, what was your
understanding, if any, about who the feds were? What was
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
42/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2291
your -- going on in your mind?
A. It could have been the CIA; could have been anybody. I was
a little concerned because that message came to me the day
after I received that information from whoever on that fax that
my telephone number was tapped. And now I get the next day
another source that's alerting me to be careful.
Q. In your mind, were those two pieces of information that you
received on November 5 and November 6, 2013, related?
A. No idea.
Q. Did you know or do you know now of any relationship between
JC and Mr. Montgomery?
A. No.
Q. But those two things together combine to create a concern
in your mind. Is that what you're saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you have Sergeant Calderon join you on the call?
A. Well, he was in charge of my security. I believe this is a
security issue also.
Q. Did you call him from your office, that is, JC? Did you
call JC from your office?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Have you had any -- well, let's go through the rest of the
note.
You say you -- that JC said you should change your
telephone number, is that right?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
43/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2292
A. Yes.
Q. And then you asked for more info. What info did you ask
for?
A. Well, I would like to know more information about the
allegation. I was somewhat concerned.
Q. Did you receive a response to your request for more
information?
A. I believe he received the information from another person.
Q. Who's that other person?
A. I believe she works for the newspapers and a TV station.
Q. You've got a couple of spellings there, but I'm going to
try to -- is it Kimberly that you're referring to?
A. Yes.
Q. So JC told you that Kimberly had told him that your phones
were being tapped by the feds. Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Kimberly as well before this phone call that
you received?
A. I think I met her once in San Diego.
Q. Did you know before this phone call that JC knew Kimberly?
A. I think they knew each other.
Q. So when JC told you that Kimberly had told him that your
phones were being tapped, it wasn't a surprise to you that they
were talking to each other because you knew that they knew each
other, is that right?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
44/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2293
A. Yes.
Q. How is it that you met them? Did you meet them in the same
context, or were there different events? How is it that you
knew who they were?
A. I was giving a speech a couple times in San Diego, and I
think they were there when I was accomplishing my speech. And
I believe it was the photographer, and the reporter I believe I
met once or twice.
Q. Okay. Did you meet JC and Kimberly together?
A. I'm not sure whether they were together.
Q. Did you have an understanding that they worked together at
all?
A. No, I didn't know their relation.
Q. Well, what understanding --
A. I knew they knew each other.
Q. You knew that they knew each other, but other than that,
did you have any understanding as to what kind of relationship
they had or how they were connected?
A. I don't recall whether he did work for the newspapers or
her, I don't recall that.
Q. So JC told you on November 6, 2013, that Kimberly had told
him that your phones were being monitored by the feds, and then
you told JC to have Kimberly call you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you tell him that?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
45/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2294
A. Because evidently she had the information.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly was never wrong and then
she would call you back. Is that what happened?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe JC when he told you that?
A. Whether she was ever wrong, or call me back?
Q. Well, let me ask you -- back up a little bit.
You have this first paragraph where you're reporting
on this November 6, 2013 phone call that you got from JC. Did
you write this fairly soon after you had that phone call? This
first paragraph?
A. You know, I'm not sure whether I did it right away. I know
I did it very quickly, according to the errors I made on the
typewriter, which I'm pretty good at. So I don't recall when I
made this -- the documentation.
Q. It wasn't very long after November 6, 2013, correct?
A. I don't believe it was.
Q. Well, just focusing on that first paragraph that we've just
gone over, did you believe JC, did you believe what he told you
at the time that you heard that from him and wrote this note?
A. You know, the whole situation is very bizarre, but you
can't ignore any information, especially when it pertains to my
wife and myself and wiretappings. Federal government is rather
bizarre in a way, but you can't ignore it.
Q. Now, there's a line with JC's phone number, which is
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
46/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:2
10:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2295
redacted. The next paragraph, or the next bit of text,
indicates that you called JC on November 12, six days later,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. So during those six days from November 6 to November 12 you
were waiting for Kimberly to call you about this supposed
wiretap, and when you didn't hear from her, you called JC back,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you have called Kimberly back? Did you think about
doing that? Well, actually not call her back but call her,
contact her? Did you know her well enough to do that?
A. I don't know if I ever had her number. I was going through
the photographer.
Q. So you called JC. Did you reach him right when you called
him?
A. I'm not sure if he answered the phone, or a voicemail,
or -- but I did have communication with him.
Q. On November 12, 2013?
A. Yes.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly was afraid, and received
information that your and your wife's cell phones were tapped,
is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did JC tell you what Kimberly was supposedly
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
47/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2296
afraid of?
A. She mentioned something allegedly about the CIA, she had
information, and the White House credentials, and sensitive
documents.
Q. Well, just looking at your note there, you said that JC
told you that Kimberly's source was from the East Coast, is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any more specific information from JC about
who the source was, or where exactly on the East Coast, or
anything else?
A. No.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly -- well, you see the
reference to White House credentials there?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So as I understand it, JC told you that Kimberly's
source, who was a woman, had White House credentials, is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that have any significance to you at the time that you
heard it?
A. Just somewhat bizarre. But once again, being a federal guy
for 30 years, you get somewhat shocked by hearing this. I'm
not saying I discarded it, but still, you have to look into
this type of situation when it comes to your attention.
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
48/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2297
Q. At any of the speeches in San Diego where you met with
either JC or Kimberly -- well, JC. Let's stick with JC.
You met JC several times in San Diego when you gave
speeches. Is that what you said?
A. Well, I may have said several; could have been two or three
times.
Q. Were any of those speeches related to the birth certificate
investigation?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Could they have?
A. Could have.
Q. Did you have a concern that someone in the White House was
connected to the tapping of your phones?
A. Once again, I mention it's bizarre, so I really -- I took
it serious, but on the other hand, just one of those things
that comes up. I didn't send out the Army or anybody to check
it out.
Q. In your next sentence you mention the CIA. Tell me
everything that JC told you about the CIA.
A. Well, as you can see, they mentioned -- he mentioned the
CIA and sensitive documents, credentials. That's what he was
telling me that she had. Or knew about.
Q. Well, I see the reference to the documents, but I want to
first focus on the CIA. You said that JC mentioned the CIA.
What did he tell you about the CIA?
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
49/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2298
A. I don't know. Just what I typed there, picking out
documents and so on.
Q. So JC told you that Kimberly was going to pick up secret,
or sensitive documents, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you what those sensitive documents were about?
A. No, no.
Q. Did you wonder what they were?
A. Yes, but he never told me.
Q. And then JC told you that Kimberly -- and I'm just going to
read your sentence there because I want to have you explain
what you meant -- was, quote, afraid to do so by crossing state
lines could be arrested, end quote.
Do you see that language?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it mean by that? What did that represent?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Well, JC told you that Kimberly was afraid. Was her fear
that he described to you connected with crossing state lines
and possibly being arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was your understanding of why that would -- of why
that could happen?
A. I don't know.
Q. So you didn't send the Army after this issue, but you did
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
50/221
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
10:2
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/2/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2299
tell JC that you would have Mike Zullo call him, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you decide to have Mike Zullo -- well, did you ask
Mike Zullo to call him?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you have -- why did you ask Mr. Zullo to call JC?
A. Because I believe at the time he -- we were working on a
banking situation. Also -- I'm not sure. He was tied up with
my threat squad, but he knew all the threats I was receiving
and decided to send him to look at it -- which is free, because
he wasn't being paid, member of the Posse -- and had him talk
to that person.
It wasn't something that I gave much credence to, but
he was sent down there to talk to -- I believe it was him. I'm
not sure whether another detective went there. And he came
back and didn't find much to it.
Q. What exactly did you tell Mr. Zullo when you had him call
JC?
A. I told him to see what the information was, whether it was
viable, and to talk to the photographer. I don't think he ever
located the reporter.
Q. Did you give Mr. Zullo JC's phone number, the same one that
you had called?
A. I may have.
Q. You believe that this information that you had gotten on
-
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1457 Oct 2 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 10 Evidentiary Hearing
51/221
F R I E N �