Montgomery, who has been campaigning for Horne’s opponent in the Republican Primary; Mark Brnovich, is allegedly using his office to weaken Horne’s chance of re-election.
According to documents filed with the court, Montgomery began an investigation under the auspices of a claim by political operative and former AG office employee; Sarah Beattie. Beattie is represented by attorney; Thomas Ryan, who is a Democrat Party operative.
Brnovich himself has supported Democrat Party candidates in the past including Pete Rios.
Montgomery claims that any conflicts that surely stem from his political opposition to Horne would be eliminated by having Montgomery’s employees conduct the witch hunt type investigation, which according to the pleadings, include threats by investigators who are “contacting some witnesses in this case, relaying that if they do not talk with him they will be summoned before a Grand Jury.
“There is no question that the MCAO is again conducting a criminal investigation into unsubstantiated charges levied at Horne by a political adversary, and “screening” Montgomery out of the process is impossible and unethical. In the coordination case, Stribling, with no apparent motivation except political motivation, secretly followed and surveilled defense attorneys for Horne and Kathleen Winn,” according to the pleading.
In light of Montgomery’s reputation as an unbending manager, it is unlikely any staff member would conclude an investigation contrary to the outcome Montgomery clearly desires. Horne notes in the request that if in fact an investigation is warranted, it “can be conducted by another appropriate agency, but not by Defendant, because of these conflicts of interest.”
Horne’s attorneys are bold in their assertions against Montgomery:
● Plaintiff is running for re-election as Arizona Attorney General. Montgomery has been an active supporter of his opponent, Brnovich, and a political enemy of Horne. This makes it unethical, illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of civil rights laws, for Montgomery or his office to engage in an investigation of Horne or any others that may be targets of this investigation. The facts in support of this are, in part, the following:
● When Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery charged Plaintiffs with coordinating with an independent campaign; he held a hyper dramatic press conference and told the world that Horne had deliberately violated Arizona campaign finance law (which would eventually prove to be untrue).
● An administrative law judge ruled that Montgomery lacked jurisdiction. Montgomery ignored this ruling and attempted to proceed anyway. The case had to go to a superior court judge to tell Montgomery that had to stop because he had no jurisdiction.
● The case went to trial on the merits with another county attorney, and the neutral administrative law judge ruled in favor of Horne and Winn on each and every allegation. The charge Montgomery had trumpeted to the world in his press conference was false.
● The Capital Times Yellow Sheet reported that Horne’s primary opponent was recruited to run against Horne at a lunch attended by Montgomery, Daniel Sidon (Montgomery’s taxpayer-paid deputy), Steve Twist and John Kyl. Montgomery campaigned hard for the opponent, and against Horne. He made two videos for the opponent. http://bit.ly/1s7mK0B. He spoke against Horne at numerous meetings, including the Maricopa County Executive Committee. He introduced the opponent in a number of instances where the opponent gave speeches. He engaged in an adolescent twitter dialogue with Horne’s PIO, which is set forth on exhibit 1.
● Montgomery then used a government paid press conference, on government property, to attack Horne and call on Horne, his political adversary, to resign. (Republic June 9.)
● Based on the legal authority set forth in the Application for Order to Show Cause and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, the screening of Montgomery is an inadequate remedy. His subordinates know what he wants. They rely upon Montgomery for their livelihood. If there is a charge made before the primary election, regardless of whether the evidence for it is credible or not, this can help elect Montgomery’s protégé, Brnovich, and help defeat Montgomery’s political adversary, Horne. Whether or not the charge was valid enough to proceed forward would be irrelevant, as Montgomery would have achieved what is clearly his political goal: to elect Brnovich and defeat Horne.
● In addition, information has come to Plaintiffs that defendant has assigned to this case people who were in charge of the coordination accusation, who would have been embarrassed by the finding of the neutral judge that those charges were false, and who could be out for revenge in this investigation. This includes Vicki Kratovil, the lawyer who had been in charge of the coordination investigation, who recently wrote to those conducting an internal investigation, and therefore is involved in the current investigation, and Mark Stribling, the sole MCAO investigator who had participated in the coordination investigation, and who is reported to have been contacting some witnesses in this case. He is believed to be the person who has gone repeatedly to the door of a witness, even though she declined to answer her door, which could be a form of attempted intimidation.