Strong push to yank judge from Sheriff Joe case

Sheriff Joe Arpaio

A federal judge is being asked to remove himself from a racial-profiling case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio because of "unethical misconduct and a conflict of interest" after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday refused to take the extraordinary step of intervening and ordering his removal.

The appellate judges had been asked by a whistleblower who was drawn into the case to step in and remove the "runaway jurist."

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.

The filing with the federal appeals court cited the refusal of the judge to remove himself from the case, which alleges the Arizona sheriff's office racially profiles Latinos.

TRENDING: Sen. Susan Collins: I asked chief justice to reprimand Nadler

WND reported the whistleblower, Dennis Montgomery, is a potential witness in the case against the National Security Agency's spy-on-Americans programs.

Montgomery's attorney, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, previously had asked a federal judge in Washington to interview Montgomery in secret "about the unconstitutional and illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency that is highly relevant and of crucial important … as he worked closely with these agencies following the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001."

The new development took place as part of hearings to determine whether Arpaio and his top aides should be held in contempt of court for violating a judge's order to stop conducting immigration patrols. Arpaio said his lawyer, Tim Casey, had hired someone to investigate Snow's wife after she apparently told witnesses her husband didn't want to see the sheriff re-elected.

Now the complaint about Snow is being handed back to the judge himself.

The emergency petition filed with the 9th Circuit asked that Snow be disqualified "for alleged egregious and continuing ethical violations and extra-judicial bias and prejudice in the ongoing contempt proceedings."

According to a statement released with the motion, "Judge Snow has unethically turned the case into a personal vindictive 'witch-hunt' to allegedly cover up his wife's statements quoting the judge as intending to harm Sheriff Joe Arpaio's chances for reelection in 2016 as sheriff of Maricopa County through the contempt proceedings which Judge Snow has been holding."

In support is a sworn declaration of "renowned ethics professor and expert Ronald Rotunda."

That statement explains that Montgomery was caught in the "crossfire" in the case.

As a result, Montgomery's due process, attorney/client privileges, work product and intellectual property rights have been violated, the briefing explains.

Said Klayman: "Judge Snow's actions are outrageous. Never before have I seen such a blatant, unethical attempt by a federal judge to pursue his own interests. ... The longer it takes to remove this 'runaway jurist,' the longer Mr. Montgomery will be subject to harm at the hands of an out of control federal judge."

Instead of stepping aside, the briefing explains, as rules and conduct codes would require, he continued issuing orders, including one setting a hearing for May 14.

"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 that Judge Snow should not have been authorized to order as here he has a clear conflict of interest."

What really goes on with the federal government? Read Andrew Napolitano's warning that "It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong."

The spark that started the dispute came when "Judge Snow's wife announced to the Grissom family, as acquaintances, in a Someburros restaurant In Arizona that … Judge Snow … was determined to conduct the litigation … in such a way as to ensure that Sheriff Joe Arpaio would not be re-elected as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 2016."

The briefing continues, "Several witnesses confirmed this conversation."

As part of the judge's handling of the case, he, "by order, not requested in discovery by any party – seized all documents relating to Dennis Montgomery, trampling upon Montgomery's proprietary interests, attorney work productive privilege, and even more sensitive information."

The whistleblower seeks to compel the judge to excuse himself from the case or be disqualified.

It explains Montgomery provided his work and intellectual property to the sheriff's office under contract that preserved his ownership of proprietary information, trade secrets, data and work.

His work with the sheriff's office "had nothing to do with Judge Snow's attempts to cover up Judge Snow's wife's public statements."

But since the judge's family "is now involved, his objectivity is compromised."

The Dennis Montgomery in this case is the same man who was alleged in a book by New York Times reporter James Risen, "Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War," to be a fraud and who has sued Risen for defamation over the charge.

Court filings explain Montgomery worked with top-level government agencies and individuals, knows a great deal about the spying programs and even has tried to blow the whistle, prompting federal bureaucrats and agencies to try to discredit him.

The case by Montgomery against Risen alleges that someone at the highest level leaked information to Risen about what Montgomery did while working with the CIA and NSA, providing ammunition for the attacks.

Klayman's original filing asking for the judge to be removed explains at length:

As explained by Professor [Ronald] Rotunda, Judge Snow now has – by his own admission – an incurable personal interest in the case, at least in this new phase of this case as it has metastasized into something entirely new. At this stage, Judge Snow is the sole decision-maker in the case. By his own official inquiry, statements, and questions in open court, on the transcript, Judge Snow admits that the investigation now concerns – as least as the judge believes – the judge's wife. As proclaimed by Judge Snow himself, Judge Snow is now unethically investigating issues about his own family.

This began when reports were published that Judge Snow's wife stated to several witnesses at a restaurant that her husband, Judge Snow, wanted to do everything possible in his conduct of this case to make sure Arpaio is not re-elected as sheriff in the upcoming elections. Apparently neither Judge Snow nor his wife have denied nor sought to explain his wife's public statement as far as intervenor or counsel are able to determine. Instead, Judge Snow is determined to investigate and threaten Dennis Montgomery and others have confirmed that Judge Snow's wife did make the statement at issue.

An attached declaration from Rotunda, the Doy & Dee Henley chair and distinguished professor of Jjurisprudence at Chapman University School of Law, said, "It appears that the judge is getting most of his 'information' from articles of the Phoenix New Times."

He explained that according to the transcript, Snow was "cross-examining the witness" and was asking "various leading questions."

"The judge apparently engaged in his own investigation of facts outside the courtroom he thought relevant that were not in evidence. … The judge said, 'I was told [during the luncheon break] that you also have various sources of funding within the MSCO,' and Sheriff Arpaio responded that the judge's information was false. The judge did not say who told him this false information, nor does he say if he questioned others as well."

The analysis notes that the judge even interrupted a witness, "preventing him from finishing his sentence."

And then he became even "more argumentative," the analysis states.

"I am told that Judge Snow is now ordering that documents showing communications with or referring to Larry Klayman, the lawyer for Mr. Montgomery, be turned over to him, including documents covered at least by the Attorney Work Product Privilege."

He said the pertinent facts were that Klayman and Montgomery "are not parties to this case" and no subpoenas have been issued.

He concluded: "We know that several people report that the judge's wife said that her husband, Judge Snow, 'Judge Snow wanted to do everything to make sure [that Sheriff Arpaio is] not reelected.' It should be quite obvious that whatever the duties of a federal judge are, that job description does not include conducting a judicial proceeding in a way to ensure that Sheriff Arpaio is not elected and to pursue an investigation that is even broader than that for what appears to be personal reasons."