Tweet
Report: Attorney Larry Klayman Files Motion On Behalf Of Sheriff Arpaio's Lead Obama Investigator
Birther Report
12/8/2015
Excerpt:
Report: Attorney Larry Klayman Files Motion On Behalf Of Sheriff Arpaio's Lead Obama Investigator Mike Zullo
Excerpt via Mike Zullo's motion to expedite appeal filed by Attorney Larry Klayman in the Melendrez case:
RELATED:
- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/12/...l-prosecution/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:.
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/12...n-files_8.html
Birther Report
12/8/2015
Excerpt:
Report: Attorney Larry Klayman Files Motion On Behalf Of Sheriff Arpaio's Lead Obama Investigator Mike Zullo
Excerpt via Mike Zullo's motion to expedite appeal filed by Attorney Larry Klayman in the Melendrez case:
The Movant-Apellant Michael Zullo is not a party to the case, but was nevertheless threatened by the Plaintiffs-Appellees and by the presiding judge, the Honorable G. Murray Snow, with criminal prosecution while being called as a deposition witness and trial witness in the case below, and while his documents, records, and information were seized by subpoena. After the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ and Judge Snow’s repeated suggestions and not-so-subtle requests that criminal prosecution should be initiated to include criminal prosecution of Zullo, mentioning him explicitly by name, Zullo desired legal advice, counsel, and representation for his participation in the case.
The Plaintiffs-Appellees and Judge Snow gratuitously, in advance of any testimony, set forth in detail their arguments for criminal prosecution of Zullo and others. The Defendants made a proffer in January 2015 to accept a finding of civil contempt and dispense with the hearings, but Judge Snow insisted upon spending nearly all of 2015 on hearings that could have been avoided by merely accepting the Defendants’ proffer of accepting a finding of civil contempt.
As a result, by the time Zullo faced giving testimony he had every reason to expect a need for the protection of legal counsel and a need to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. A reasonably-prudent person would conclude that Judge Snow’s primary goal in ignoring the proffer of civil contempt might probably be to lay the groundwork for a criminal referral of criminal contempt. Explicit statements by Judge Snow and the Plaintiffs-Appellees telegraphed this goal. Early in 2015, Judge Snow invited the US Attorney in Arizona to send a federal prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s office to monitor the hearings and proceedings for the purpose of exploring criminal prosecution of Sheriff Arpaio and others, later explicitly named to include Zullo.
Yet Zullo was led to believe that he was represented by attorneys for Maricopa County, Arizona, and/or the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”). Discovery that the County’s legal team was not representing Zullo emerged largely because of Zullo’s deposition being scheduled very late in the proceedings, only the week before his scheduled testimony in the contempt of court evidentiary hearings. As the date approached for his deposition, the absence of any activity as legal preparation for his deposition by the County’s legal team revealed that there was confusion about their role in relation to Zullo.
[...]
Despite providing notice in advance that he was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the Movant-Appellant Michael Zullo was forced to testify in violation of his rights, even after he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights literally hundreds of times. In disregard of Zullo’s clear desire to have legal counsel and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, Judge Snow compelled the Movant-Appellant to remain on the stand, without legal representation to object to questioning or navigate the process, for nearly a day and a half while being bombarded with accusatory, harassing and inflammatory questions. In withstanding such a barrage of questioning for more than a day, any witness in Zullo’s position would need the advice of counsel, to know how to continue to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, how to communicate his election and choices to the District Court and Plaintiffs Appellees’ counsel, and to know what he can and cannot do in asserting his rights.
[...] Full motion here.
- http://www.carlgallups.com/zullomotion12-2-15.pdfThe Plaintiffs-Appellees and Judge Snow gratuitously, in advance of any testimony, set forth in detail their arguments for criminal prosecution of Zullo and others. The Defendants made a proffer in January 2015 to accept a finding of civil contempt and dispense with the hearings, but Judge Snow insisted upon spending nearly all of 2015 on hearings that could have been avoided by merely accepting the Defendants’ proffer of accepting a finding of civil contempt.
As a result, by the time Zullo faced giving testimony he had every reason to expect a need for the protection of legal counsel and a need to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination. A reasonably-prudent person would conclude that Judge Snow’s primary goal in ignoring the proffer of civil contempt might probably be to lay the groundwork for a criminal referral of criminal contempt. Explicit statements by Judge Snow and the Plaintiffs-Appellees telegraphed this goal. Early in 2015, Judge Snow invited the US Attorney in Arizona to send a federal prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s office to monitor the hearings and proceedings for the purpose of exploring criminal prosecution of Sheriff Arpaio and others, later explicitly named to include Zullo.
Yet Zullo was led to believe that he was represented by attorneys for Maricopa County, Arizona, and/or the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”). Discovery that the County’s legal team was not representing Zullo emerged largely because of Zullo’s deposition being scheduled very late in the proceedings, only the week before his scheduled testimony in the contempt of court evidentiary hearings. As the date approached for his deposition, the absence of any activity as legal preparation for his deposition by the County’s legal team revealed that there was confusion about their role in relation to Zullo.
[...]
Despite providing notice in advance that he was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, the Movant-Appellant Michael Zullo was forced to testify in violation of his rights, even after he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights literally hundreds of times. In disregard of Zullo’s clear desire to have legal counsel and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, Judge Snow compelled the Movant-Appellant to remain on the stand, without legal representation to object to questioning or navigate the process, for nearly a day and a half while being bombarded with accusatory, harassing and inflammatory questions. In withstanding such a barrage of questioning for more than a day, any witness in Zullo’s position would need the advice of counsel, to know how to continue to assert his Fifth Amendment rights, how to communicate his election and choices to the District Court and Plaintiffs Appellees’ counsel, and to know what he can and cannot do in asserting his rights.
[...] Full motion here.
RELATED:
- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/12/...l-prosecution/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:.
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/12...n-files_8.html