Mike Zullo Fires Back At Judge Snow And Team Obama
Here's Mike Zullo's just filed notice and request which seeks to stay requested testimony and documents unrelated to the civil contempt proceedings for Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Zullo unloads on all sides;
Zullo fears that the court' s orders not only show an implicit bias against Zullo, given his association with Defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio in particular, who the court, as reported in the media, revealed by his wife to destroy, and still an outstanding issue which he himself has yet to confirm or even deny, nor has this court pursued with the same zeal as the inquire into the "Seattle Operation", yet these orders violate Zullo's 5th, 4th and 6th amendment rights.
The court has not even allowed me sufficient time to get legal counsel and the means to pay for it, after I was recently informed by legal counsel provided by Maricopa County (who have caused significant liability along with the County to me), that they do not represent me and have never represented me, despite false statements previously that they did to fraudulently induce me to turn over documents.
Further, the previous statements concerning Zullo' s representation were not only made placing Zullo under the belief he was of counsel, the same representations had been made to the Court on the record, giving the Court giving the same erroneous impression.
Additionally, the very same belief was imparted to Det. Brian Mackiewicz, Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. All of which communicated the same understanding.
In fact, Det. Brian Mackiewicz, Chief Deputy Gerald Sheridan and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio And Sgt. Travis Anglin all had legal representation during this civil process, provided by Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., paid for by the County and yet Zullo in the eleventh hour is mysteriously denied.
Furthermore, during Zullo's deposition Attorney Stan Young of Covington and Burling stated on the record that the same representations were made to him.
"Q. I'll tell you that there was a status conference on October 6 where Joe Popolizio told the Court and the rest of us that he was representing you, at least in some capacity".
In addition, a statement was provided by Attorney John Masterson Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. to the Phoenix New Times confirming the same.
One would think that the court, in the interests of justice and simple fairness, would be concerned that these lawyers have acted unethically and illegally, but this does not appear to be the case.
While the ACLU has demonstrated sheer contempt for Sheriff Arpaio and anyone like me who is associated with him, the ACLU has also demonstrated it believes in constitutional rights for only those it agrees with in terms of its own agenda.
In an act of blatant hypocrisy , the ACLU of Utah celebrated the Sixth Amendment Center's recent report which stated that "in Utah 's misdemeanor courts, defendants are often actually denied counsel when they are entitled to it, and in Utah 's felony courts, systemic deficiencies often lead to constructive denial of counsel."
Yet, the ACLU as evidenced in its recent filing, now chooses to constructively deny Zullo the same right to counsel it just a week ago openly embraced for others.
In complete disregard for individual protections, attorneys from the ACLU and Covington & Burling filed a motion opposing Zullo's request for the extension to seek counsel to protect those same rights, unconditionally stating "Mr. Zullo actually has no constitutional right to counsel at all in this civil case."
Apparently taking the position that the protections afforded by the Bill Of Rights under the United States Constitution are exercisable only in accordance within the ACLU' s subjective agenda. In outright irony, the ACLU states on its website that it seeks to "defend liberty, equality & justice". Just not here.
It should be noted that the ACLU has been a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency' s (NSA) harvesting of Americans' phone records. This one of the very topics being investigated by the Maricopa County Sheriff Office, during the "Seattle Operation" this exact type of information was received. Now the ACLU takes the opposite position and demonizes the Sheriff and threatens him and his agents with criminal violations for investigation of the same.
In yet another example of Constitutional disregard, attorney Raffaele Gomez representing the DOJ civil division in this matter, is in fact the very same AUSA providing oversight during the FBI raid on Denise Montgomery 's home in early 2006. It was later determined the FBI violated Montgomery's constitutional rights by giving the court inaccurate information to obtain a warrant to search his house in March 2006.
U.S. District Judge Philip Pro's order affirmed U.S. Magistrate Valerie Cooke's November ruling that Reno FBI special agent Michael West violated Montgomery's constitutional rights by giving the court inaccurate information to obtain a warrant to search his house in March 2006
"After examination of his affidavit, his testimony concerning his investigation and the protocols the Department of Justice has implemented for these crimes, this court can only conclude that SA West acted with callous disregard of Montgomery's fundamental Fourth Amendment rights,"
Mr. Gomes in in fact very familiar with MR. Montgomery and the sensitive nature of the situation surrounding him.
It is also of note that other partners of Covington and Burling are the former attorney general of the Obama Justice Department, and Lanny Breuer, who was head of the Obama Justice Department 's criminal section. All of whom were referenced in information provided to MCSO, by Mr. Montgomery during the "Seattle Investigation".
All now are employed by Covington and Burling.
I therefore wish to put the court on notice that I will appeal its orders and ask that the court, as a minimum, stay implementation of any orders requiring my testimony and the production of more documents which I provided under false pretenses to the lawyers of the county, Joe Pappalizio, John Masterson and Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. until I can take an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of these illegal rulings.
To do otherwise would itself be unethical and would further the agendas of the ACLU and Covington and Burling and their clients, who also are committed to destroying Arpaio and persons like me and who have threatened us with criminal prosecution.
I have consulted with a prominent attorney and need time to retain him if amendable to him, as previously requested. 30 days was a reasonable time given that I need to address issues with County dealing with my representation in the same way as it has for others in this case including retired Chief Brian Sands who retains independent counsel paid for by the County and to mitigate its liability and the damage it and its lawyers have caused to me.
In the meantime, I should not be ordered to turn over documents and testify, and in any event not until I can appeal and get a decision for the appeals court.
Dated this 2 day of November, 2015
Michael P Zullo Pro Se
- pdf -
Some say Sheriff Arpaio said all the Dennis Montgomery data is junk. That isn't factually correct.
Sheriff Arpaio said during testimony some of it was not junk.
MCSO Detective Brian Mackiewicz also says some of the material is legitimate.
- The Post & Email -