Last Updated: Oct. 27, 2015
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
| « 1980s |
2000 »
|
1990
Per Montgomery, he continues to work for 3Net Systems in 1990. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 127 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
1991
Per Montgomery, he continues to work for 3Net Systems in 1991. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 127 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Feb. 13, 1991
Tech Data Corporation v. Barrett Labs. A lawsuit is filed against Montgomery's former company, Barrett Labs. See Tech Data Corporation v. Barrett Laboratories, Inc., Case No. CV518792 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Feb. 13, 1991). Details regarding this case have not yet been located.
Mar. 6, 1991
Manak, et al v. Berger & Montague, P.C. Montgomery is a named plaintiff in a breach of contract case filed against a law firm. See William T. Manak, et al v. Berger & Montague, P.C., No. CV519200 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed Mar. 6, 1991). Details regarding this case have not yet been located.
1992
Per Montgomery, continues to work for 3Net Systems until sometime this year or 1993. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 127 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
June 26, 1992
Litigation. Barrett Laboratories, Inc. is a party in Case No. T01893 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed June 26, 1992). Other parties/persons associated with case include J.H. Brower, County of Sacramento, Chun M. Dodge, Edwin S. Sarsfield, John J. Wilson. Details regarding this case have not yet been located.
Aug. 4, 1992
3Net Systems files a Form S-18 registration for its initial public offering, "statement ("Form S-18") for its initial public offering, which was declared effective on August 10, 1992. 3Net raises $5 million with this offering. See In the Matter of 3Net Systems, Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-9117 (Sept. 30, 1996) at 2. The SEC will later (1996) find* that:
"[3Net System's] Form S-18 registration statement was materially false and misleading, making false statements about FAILSAFE and omitting material facts about FAILSAFE necessary to make other disclosures about the software not misleading, and reporting materially inflated revenue for 3Net's fiscal year ended June 30, 1991, the nine months ended March 31, 1992, and its fourth quarter of fiscal 1992.-[2]- 3Net's fiscal 1992 Form 10-KSB, filed with the Commission on November 23, 1992, also reported materially inflated fiscal 1991 and 1992 FAILSAFE revenue."
Id. Per the finding, the materially false and misleading statements were that:
- "3Net's revenue had shown steady annual growth and that it expected its 'revenues to continue to grow . . . due to expansion of its product line--particularly sales of . . . FAILSAFE;'"
- "FAILSAFE had five applications 'that can operate independently or as part of an integrated system;' and"
- "one customer's FAILSAFE system was fully operational and that six customers had purchased and were currently installing FAILSAFE."
Id. at 3. These statements were false and misleading because:
- 3Net failed to disclose that it "had experienced significant problems developing FAILSAFE and had not successfully implemented FAILSAFE for any customers:"
- "3Net's statement . . . that one customer's FAILSAFE system was fully operational was false. By August 10, 1992, 3Net had not implemented a FAILSAFE system for that customer."
- "3Net's statement, in its Form S-18, that six customers had purchased and were currently installing FAILSAFE was misleading, [because] 3Net had repeatedly failed to implement FAILSAFE for two of the customers, and the four remaining customers were waiting for FAILSAFE to operate live elsewhere before allowing 3Net to implement FAILSAFE at their sites" and also because 3Net failed to "disclose that a lawsuit filed against 3Net by one of its customers related to 3Net's failure to implement FAILSAFE."
Id. With respect to the "materially inflated revenue," the SEC found (among other things) that:
- 3Net officers misrepresented to 3Net's auditors that one FAILSAFE implementation was nearly complete in April 1992 and was 60.64% complete by the end of fiscal 1991, and that another FAlLSAFE implementation was 57.5% complete by the end of fiscal 1991. Id. at 4.
- “3Net . . . reported $674,840 of fiscal 1991 hardware revenue for the three FAILSAFE contracts and, recognized software revenue of $368,302 for two of the FAILSAFE contracts. As of August 1992 . . . 3Net had not completed any of the FAILSAFE contracts, and 3Net had not determined the FAILSAFE costs to complete.” Id. at 5.
- “Further, the three FAILSAFE contracts allowed the customers to return the hardware if 3Net did not provide software that conformed to contract specifications. As of the end of fiscal 1992, 3Net had not provided the required conforming software to any of the three FAILSAFE customers and these three customers, therefore, had the right to return the hardware. Id. at 5-6. “In fact, one customer in December 1991 and another customer in late August 1992 demanded full refunds for both hardware and software when 3Net failed to deliver adequately performing software.” Id. footnote 5 at pp. 6-7.
The SEC further found that 3Net Systems "3Net acted with scienter" because (among other reasons), "3Net, through its officers, knew that it had not implemented FAILSAFE for any customers and knew of the problems in developing and implementing FAILSAFE." Id. at 9.
*Note: These SEC findings were "made pursuant to Respondent 3Net's Offer of Settlement." Id. at 1, n. 1.
Aug. 25, 1992
The Swedish Medical Center sues 3Net Systems, Inc. in Colorado Federal District Court. See Swedish Medical Ctr. v. 3Net Systems, Inc., No. 1:92-cv-01690-JRC-BDP (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 1992).
This case will be settled as of April 12, 1993 per ECF 28 (order noting that "the court ha[s] reached a settlement as to all issues in this case.")
1993
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, between 1993 and 1998 he worked as self-employed as a consultant. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). He was doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” Id. The motion picture work did not involve anomaly detection but did involve pattern recognition. Id. at 129-30.
Sept. 17, 1993
Page v. 3Net Systems/Montgomery. A former employee sues 3Net Systems and Dennis Montgomery, alleging that Montgomery sexually harassed her and then retaliated against her for complaining about it. William Manak is also named as a defendant. Page v. 3Net Systems, Inc., et al, No. CV536169 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sacramento, filed Sept. 17, 1993). (While the docket for this case is not available online, see Page v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 31 Cal.App.4th 1206, No. C018589 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. Jan. 26, 1995), pet. for rev. denied (Cal. Mar. 30, 1995) for a summary of the complaint's allegations. According to 3Net's later filings with the SEC, Page seeks $2 million in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive damages.
In June 1994, the trial court will grant Montgomery's demurrer (i.e., motion to dismiss) without leave to amend and Page will appeal this decision.
In May 1995, the company and, apparently, Montgomery will reach a settlement agreement with Page.
1994
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, during 1995, he is self-employed as a consultant, doing doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery's February 7, 2006 testimony, in 1994, he did some consulting work for Kaiser. He was “building some instrumentation control unit,” and in that context did further work on anomaly detection. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “mostly between 1994 and 1998,” he developed an ‘Object Detection System’ (‘ODS’) . . . derived from [his] copyrights involving anomaly detection and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas other than medicine. …. These programs constitute the basis of [his] work on certain special military contracts.” Per Montgomery, [t]here are thousands of software developers who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ‘ODS’ comparable to mine; and I am unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(a).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1994 and 1998, he developed data streaming compression for movies. 2(e) Per Montgomery, these programs were not included on CD 1; although Montgomery offered them to Trepp for $5 million, Trepp declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
April 1994
Per later SEC filings, 3Net Systems enters into an agreement with Montgomery (described as a "former consultant, officer and director), "in connection with disputes concerning outstanding compensation, expense reimbursement, equity entitlement issues and ownership of the Company's proprietary software." See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources June 1996 "10KSB" filed with SEC; see also here, referencing "Settlement Agreement, dated April 6, 1994, between the Registrant and William T. Manak and Dennis L. Montgomery (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 28 to Form 8-K filed on April 6, 1994)."
June 21, 1994
Page v. 3Net Systems/Montgomery. A former 3Net Systems employee who sued the company and Dennis Montgomery individually files a petition for writ of mandamus in the California Appellate Court after the trial court grants Montgomery's demurrer (i.e., dismissing complaint as to him) without granting the employee leave to amend. See Page v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. C018589 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist.).
November 1994
Montgomery asserts that 3Net Systems has "breached certain of its obligations under the settlement agreement. In February 1995, the Company believes it cured any alleged default under the settlement agreement by fulfilling certain nonmaterial obligations to [Montgomery and another former officer]. See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources June 1996 "10KSB" filed with SEC.
1995
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, during 1995, he is self-employed as a consultant, doing doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “mostly between 1994 and 1998,” he developed an ‘Object Detection System’ (‘ODS’) . . . derived from [his] copyrights involving anomaly detection and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas other than medicine. …. These programs constitute the basis of [his] work on certain special military contracts.” Per Montgomery, [t]here are thousands of software developers who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ‘ODS’ comparable to mine; and I am unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(a).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1994 and 1998, he developed data streaming compression for movies. 2(e) Per Montgomery, these programs were not included on CD 1; although Montgomery offered them to Trepp for $5 million, Trepp declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
Jan. 26, 1995
Page v. 3Net Systems/Montgomery. The California Court of Appeals issues a writ of mandate in the sexual harassment case brought against Montgomery and his former employer, 3Net Systems. See Page v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 31 Cal.App.4th 1206, 31 Cal.App.4th 1206, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 529 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. 1995), pet. for rev. denied (Cal. Mar. 30, 1995).
In so holding the Court finds that Montgomery, as Page's supervisor, can be held individually liable for damages for sexual harassment and retaliation under applicable California law (FEHA). Id. The Court orders the lower court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer to the first cause of action of plaintiff's second amended complaint [i.e., dismissing Montgomery as a defendant] and to enter an order overruling the demurrer. Petitioner is to recover costs." Id.
Important note: The court did not hold that Montgomery was actually liable for sexual harassment and/or retaliation. Rather, the Court merely held that the plaintiff could bring a complaint against him and if she were able to sustain her burden of proof, he could be held liable for damages. However, as noted below (May 1995), the case was settled -- via cash payment to plaintiff -- shortly after this opinion was issued.
Mar. 30, 1995
Page v. 3Net Systems/Montgomery. The California Supreme Court denies the petition for review and petition for continued stay filed in the Page v. 3Net Systems case in which Montgomery is a defendant. See Page v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. S045292 (Cal. Mar. 30, 1995). (See Sept. 27, 1993 and Jan. 26, 1995 for more details on case).
May 27, 1995
Page v. 3Net Systems/Montgomery. According to later SEC filings, 3Net Systems reaches a settlement agreement with Page, "under which the Company caused its insurer to deliver a cash payment to the former employee. The Company issued 250,000 shares of unregistered common stock to the former employee subsequent to the settlement being approved by the Superior Court in July 1995." See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources June 1996 "10KSB" filed with SEC.
Apparently the settlement requires payment to settle claims against Montgomery, as - according to the SEC filing referenced above - it appears that on June 19, 1995, 3Net receives a demand from a former employee (presumably Montgomery as he was the named party found to be potentially liable by the appellate court), "seeking reimbursement of fees and settlement costs incurred by the individual and his insurer." Id. (emphasis added). Per the filing, "on August 18, 1995, the Company formally rejected that demand. The Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations." Id.
June 12, 1995
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. Montgomery files suit against 3Net Systems in California state court. See Montgomery v. 3Net Systems, et al, No. 95AS03191 (Cal. Super. Ct, Sacramento, filed June 12, 1995. While court records are not available online, 3Net's later SEC filings shed some light on this matter. Per these SEC filings,
"On June 12, 1995, [Montgomery files] lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against the Company, its then-current directors, James Cameron, Jr., the Former Consultant's stockbroker and brokerage firm and one of the Company's large customers. The lawsuit set forth twenty causes of action based on a variety of legal theories and sought in excess of $15.0 million in damages, plus punitive damages."
See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources 1996 10KSB filed with SEC.
By 1997, the matter is resolved - in 3Net's favor. See 1997 SEC Filing ("The Company is not currently a party to any pending legal proceedings. A previously reported action between the Company and a former consultant was resolved during fiscal 1997 in favor of the Company. In addition, during fiscal 1997, legal expenses and costs of $201,550 accrued in prior periods by the Company related to this litigation were reimbursed by insurers of Mr. Cameron and the Company.")
Aug. 21, 1995
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. "On August 21, 1995, the Superior Court granted petitions to compel arbitration filed by the 3Net defendants and Mr. Cameron which petitions were based on the arbitration provision of the April 1994 settlement agreement. The Court also granted a similar motion filed by the Former Consultant's stockbroker and brokerage firm. The litigation of the case in Superior Court was stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration of all claims set forth in the action." See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources 1996 10KSB filed with SEC.
1996
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, during 1995, he is self-employed as a consultant, doing doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “mostly between 1994 and 1998,” he developed an ‘Object Detection System’ (‘ODS’) . . . derived from [his] copyrights involving anomaly detection and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas other than medicine. …. These programs constitute the basis of [his] work on certain special military contracts.” Per Montgomery, [t]here are thousands of software developers who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ‘ODS’ comparable to mine; and I am unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(a).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1994 and 1998, he developed data streaming compression for movies. 2(e) Per Montgomery, these programs were not included on CD 1; although Montgomery offered them to Trepp for $5 million, Trepp declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 20, 2006 Declaration, between 1996 and 1998, he developed data compression software, which he would later convey to eTreppid on "CD No. 1" then "adapt for use in casino surveillance between 1998 and 1992 per eTreppid's business plan. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(d)
February 1996
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. The arbitration panel hearing Montgomery's claims against 3Net issues its order "dismissing with prejudice all of the claims made against the 3Net defendants and Mr. Cameron and award[ing] 3Net recovery of a portion of its fees and costs." See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources 1996 10KSB filed with SEC; see also 3Net Systems Press Release (Mar. 11, 1996).
July 26, 1996
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. The California Superior Court confirms the arbitration panel's February 2006 order dismissing Montgomery's claims and awarding fees and costs to 3Net.
Sept. 10, 1996
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. Montgomery notifies 3Net that he has "filed a Notice of Appeal with the 3rd District Appellate Court. The Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations." See 3Net Systems/Alternative Technology Resources 1996 "10KSB" filed with SEC.
Sept. 30, 1996
SEC v. 3Net Systems. The SEC issues its order imposing a Cease and Desist order on 3Net ystems, finding that 3Net's August 1992 IPO re: FAILSAFE was false and materially misleading in multiple respects. See In the Matter of 3Net Systems, Inc., SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-9117 (Sept. 30, 1996).
In another decision filed the same day, the SEC issues a similar Cease and Desist Order against Lawrence Gress. Gress was 3Net's "consultant responsible for raising capital from April 1991 through December 1991, and was 3Net's Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), and Secretary from January 1992 until April 1993" even though "Gress has no accounting training and is not a certified public accountant." The SEC found Gress was personally responsible for the false and misleading filing, and specifically for lying to the auditors regarding the status of FAILSAFE's development and implementation with customers. See In the Matter of Lawrence M. Gress, SEC Admin. Proceeding, No. 3-9116 (Sept. 30, 1996).
*Note. Both SEC orders and findings contained therein were made pursuant to the respondents' offer of settlement (as reflected in footnote 1 of each order).
Nov. 18, 1996
Montgomery v. Flaherty et al. Montgomery sues the Law Offices of Michael Flaherty for malpractice in California state court. See Dennis Montgomery v. Law Offices of Michael Flaherty, et al, No. 96AS06371, (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento, filed Nov. 18, 1996).
Other defendants in the case include Flaherty; Michael Kvarme; George L. O’Connell; Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer*; and Flaherty & Serlin. Counsel on the case: Edward T. Clifford (defense); Robert S. McClay (defense); Jason L. Sommer (defense); Pamela J. Stevens (plaintiff); Nikolai Tehin (plaintiff); James W. Rushford (attorney for lien claimant).
Details regarding this case have not yet been located.
*Note: Defendant Downey Brand Seymour & Rohwer (Judy H. Hersher) was Montgomery’s counsel on the appeal of Penne v. 3Net Systems.
1997
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, between 1993 and 1998 he worked as self-employed as a consultant. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). He was doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” Id. The motion picture work did not involve anomaly detection but did involve pattern recognition. Id. at 129-30.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “mostly between 1994 and 1998,” he developed an ‘Object Detection System’ (‘ODS’) . . . derived from [his] copyrights involving anomaly detection and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas other than medicine. …. These programs constitute the basis of [his] work on certain special military contracts.” Per Montgomery, [t]here are thousands of software developers who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ‘ODS’ comparable to mine; and I am unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(a).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1994 and 1998, he developed data streaming compression for movies. 2(e) Per Montgomery, these programs were not included on CD 1; although Montgomery offered them to Trepp for $5 million, Trepp declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
According to Warren Trepp, he is introduced to Dennis Montgomery by Eldorado Casino Host Steven Sands in 1997. Trepp learns that Montgomery wants to start a new business involving the development of pattern recognition and compression of software. See, e.g., Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 3.
Montgomery v. 3Net Systems. By 1997, the case Montgomery filed against 3Net is finally resolved - in 3Net's favor. See 1997 SEC Filing ("The Company is not currently a party to any pending legal proceedings. A previously reported action between the Company and a former consultant was resolved during fiscal 1997 in favor of the Company. In addition, during fiscal 1997, legal expenses and costs of $201,550 accrued in prior periods by the Company related to this litigation were reimbursed by insurers of Mr. Cameron and the Company.")
Feb. 6, 1997
SEC v. 3Net Systems. The SEC issues a Cease and Desist Order against William Manak (Montgomery's business partner since the Computermate days). See In the Matter of William T. Manak, SEC Admin. Proceeding No. 3-9240 (Feb. 6, 1997).*
According to this order, "Manak was 3Net's president, chief executive officer, and a director from August 1989 through August 1993, and owned 47.8% of 3Net's common stock before, and 23.9% of its common stock after, 3Net's initial public offering. Manak managed 3Net's business, maintained customer relationships, and oversaw software development and implementation." Id. at § 3(B).
Among other findings, the SEC stated:
In fact, Manak knew from meetings with customers during the fall of 1991 and the spring of 1992, from letters he received in October and December 1991 from one of 3Net's major customers, and from letters he received in May and August 1992 from another of 3Net's major customers, that 3Net had been unable to implement FAILSAFE for its customers. ... Manak also knew, from correspondence from October 1991 through December 1991 with one of 3Net's major customers, that the customer had filed a lawsuit against 3Net for 3Net's failure to implement FAILSAFE for that customer. ...
Manak further knew that the "FAILSAFE system" that the Form S-18 stated was fully operational for one customer was not really a FAILSAFE system. Manak knew that 3Net implemented free of charge for one customer a previously existing application written in an entirely different programming language than FAILSAFE, that had not been rewritten as a FAILSAFE application. In addition, Manak knew, but failed to disclose in the Form S-18, that 3Net's six paying FAILSAFE customers had ordered FAILSAFE applications that 3Net was still trying to develop. Accordingly, Manak knew that 3Net's statement in the Form S-18 that one customer's FAILSAFE system was fully operational was false, and that the statement omitted material related disclosures."
Id. at § 3(C)(1). Additionally,
"Manak knew that 3Net had not implemented FAILSAFE for any of its customers, yet Manak misrepresented to 3Net's auditors that one FAILSAFE implementation was nearly complete in April 1992."
Id. at § 3(C)(2)(a). Further
"As of August 1992, Manak knew that 3Net had not completed any of the FAILSAFE contracts, and that 3Net had not determined the costs to complete the FAILSAFE software and the related customer contracts. Further, Manak knew that 3Net was unable to reliably estimate progress toward completion for FAILSAFE. Manak also knew that 3Net was unable to estimate reliably completion dates for one of the major FAILSAFE customers because of problems in understanding that customer's requirements, complications with the operating system used for FAILSAFE and other operating software, and changes in features that the customer requested."
Id. The SEC further found:
"Manak's omissions and misrepresentations were material. A reasonable investor would consider it important to know the true status of FAILSAFE and related customer contracts, and that a customer had filed a lawsuit against 3Net for failing to implement FAILSAFE, because the investor then would have known that the new software 3Net was relying on for continued growth of its revenue had been plagued with problems and had not been successfully implemented for any customers. . . . "
Id. at § 3(D)(1).
*Note. This SEC order and findings contained therein was made pursuant to Manaks' offer of settlement.
1998
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, between 1993 and 1998 he worked as self-employed as a consultant. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 129 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). He was doing both medical work and “started doing work in Los Angeles in motion pictures.” Id. The motion picture work did not involve anomaly detection but did involve pattern recognition. Id. at 129-30.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “mostly between 1994 and 1998,” he developed an ‘Object Detection System’ (‘ODS’) . . . derived from [his] copyrights involving anomaly detection and pattern recognition, but having far more universal application and adaptability to many areas other than medicine. …. These programs constitute the basis of [his] work on certain special military contracts.” Per Montgomery, [t]here are thousands of software developers who have worked for decades attempting to develop an ‘ODS’ comparable to mine; and I am unaware of anyone who has successfully created such software.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(a).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1994 and 1998, he developed data streaming compression for movies. 2(e) Per Montgomery, these programs were not included on CD 1; although Montgomery offered them to Trepp for $5 million, Trepp declined. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e).
Per Montgomery, he met Trepp at the Eldorado in 1998. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 130 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). (Though he may have met him before in 1996 or 1997, the time he remembers was the 1998 time at the Eldorado. Id.) They were introduced by Steve Sands. They talked about his work in video and data compression. Id. at 130-31.
September 1998
Per Montgomery, by September 1998, he had “spent, you know, the last 10 or 15 years working in medicine, so I had a lot of experience in building medical-type devices and medical programming through a lot of variety of areas, both in the clinical laboratory and the medical records and X-ray. And 3Net was building a large-scale clinical information system to do that.” Additionally, “obviously, I had a lot of experience in pattern and anomaly recognition because it was used in those technologies. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 133-24 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Sept. 28, 1998
The Intrepid Operating Agreement and Contribution Agreement between Montgomery and Warren Trepp becomes effective. See eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-11 at 6-38 (Operating Agreement); Id. at at 39-59 (Contribution Agreement).
Between 1998 and Dec. 31, 2001
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1998 and Dec. 31, 2001, while an independent contractor with eTreppid, he developed "data compression and pattern recognition programs . . . consisting of a part of eTreppid's work relating to casino surveillance - some involving patents assigned by me derived from "CD No. 1"; and other programs not derived from CD No. 1 licensed to eTreppid pursuant to promises made to me by Warren Trepp. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(d).
Between September 1998 and January 2006
Per Montgomery's later Qui Tam complaint, between September 28, 1998 and January 18, 2006, he was an independent contractor for eTreppid. Qui Tam Litigation, Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 6.
However, per Montgomery's testimony under oath in the eTreppid State Proceedings, he became an eTreppid employee in January 2003 (and) January 2004. See, e.g., eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 189-91 (Montgomery testifies on the stand that he became an eTreppid employee in January 2003); eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 26-2 at ¶ 12 (declaration in which Montgomery asserts that he became an eTreppid employee in January 2004);
Per Montgomery's later Qui Tam complaint, between September 28, 1998 and January 18, 2006, the “source codes” he used on certain military contracts were never on the eTreppid premises. Qui Tam Litigation, Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 6.
However, per Montgomery's testimony under oath in the eTreppid State Proceedings, the source code/software he used for military applications was on eTreppid's premises, and at least some remained there even after he left. See, e.g., eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 194-95 (Montgomery testimony: "Q. The source codes with regard to anomaly detection software, where are they? A. In the [eTreppid] building.”); eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 26-2 at ¶¶ 17-18 (Montgomery declaration asserting that "the the programs were stored in part on eTreppid hard drives. . . ").
1999
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, between 1998 and Dec. 31, 2001, while an independent contractor with eTreppid, he developed "data compression and pattern recognition programs . . . consisting of a part of eTreppid's work relating to casino surveillance - some involving patents assigned by me derived from "CD No. 1"; and other programs not derived from CD No. 1 licensed to eTreppid pursuant to promises made to me by Warren Trepp. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(d).
Per Warren Trepp's later statement to Air Force investigators, Montgomery will $132,000 from eTreppid in 1999. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14; see also eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 144-45 (Montgomery testimony in Feb. 6, 2006 hearing).
Trepp will also assert that between January 1999 and December 2005, “Trepp loaned [Montgomery] a total of $1,379,759 to assist him with his financial burden. With the accrued and unpaid interest of $125,211 the total owed … was $1.5 million.” Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14; see also eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-14 at 43-47 (December 2005 Promissory Note stating same. Note that Montgomery denies signing this document. See ECF 644-21 at 62.)
Jan. 1, 1999
Montgomery and Trepp et al adopt an "Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of Intrepid Technologies, LLC, effective as of Jan. 1, 1999. See eTreppid State Proceedings, ECF 644-11 at 60-96 - ECF 644-12 1-73.
| « 1980s |
2000 »
|
Comments