Last Updated: Sept. 19, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2002 |
2004 »
|
2003
According to Trepp’s later statement to Air Force investigators, Montgomery earns $300,000 from eTreppid in 2003. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, in 2003 Montgomery again offered Trepp his data streaming compression software for $5 million and Trepp again declined. In 2003, they had "several conversations about a sale for $10 million and/or promises by Trepp of licensing the software as described in my answers to interrogatories attached to my [Nov. 6, 2006] opposition to the Government's and Trepp's motions for protective orders." Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 2(e); see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015).
January 2003
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006, he becomes an eTreppid employee January 2003. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 164 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). See also eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 26-2 at ¶ 12 (declaration in which Montgomery asserts that he became an eTreppid employee in January 2004)
Note however, that Montgomery later asserts (including under oath), that he remained an independent contractor throughout his tenure at eTreppid. See, e.g., Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 9 (declaration in which Montgomery asserts "I was an independent contractor throughout my time at eTreppid, notwithstanding Trepp's attempt to change my status for tax reasons in January 2003."); Qui Tam Litigation, Complaint, ECF 2 (PDF), at ¶ 6 (Complaint in which Montgomery asserts that he was always an independent contractor and never an eTreppid employee).
February 2003
Per Montgomery, he has a discussion with Trepp regarding the ownership of the anomaly detection source code – i.e., he wanted to know how he’d be compensated. Trepp allegedly responded that he’d work it out. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 170-71 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, he places intrusion devices on his source code in February 2003. As he describes it, the software is “designed to get a response over some period of time, and if the response hasn't been given to it or the responses are incorrect, it will purge itself.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 180-82 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Note, however, that Montgomery asserts that he does this in response to the unidentified government agency’s concern for security of the software. (Worth noting that he testifies that they didn’t raise this issue until early 2004. See id. at 178.
Moreover, in his October 30, 2006 Declaration (under penalty of perjury), Montgomery asserts that "around Christmas, 2003, I placed "intrusion devices into my software to protect them from both the Government and Trepp." See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 at ¶ 21(c).
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
[Pointer, Predator. USAF] . . . Between November, 2002 and January-February, 2003, Trepp explicitly requested me to use my "ODS," . . . to prove to the Air Force that I could detect and track objects inside streaming video. . . . The tests were 90% successful. I adapted my “ODS” system to use compressed streaming video on an unmanned aerial vehicle 'Pointer" to the ground and then to a central location while detecting and tracking objects on the ground. The validation tests were conducted in February, 2003 at Eglin Air Force Base. The dates. results, and testing procedures, together with all of the related documentation and involvement of Government officials all prove my exclusive ownership and possession of the technology. . . . If this case is to proceed, I will provide the specific names of all individuals involved in this project, generally named "USAF UAV Battlelab, Contracts: F08651-03-P- 0182 and 0129. These contracts extended from March 26, 2003 until September 30, 2005 when my conflict with Trepp erupted.
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 19; see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015).
March – April 2003
Per Montgomery, in March - April 2003:
As a result of the tests conducted in December 2002, eTreppid is awarded a government contract in March-April 2003 – with an “agency within the government different than the Air Force.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 165 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Montgomery (personally) signed a contract with that agency – an oath of secrecy. He is not given a copy of that document. Id. at 166-67.
“There were multiple facets to the project. The video and the face recognition was eTreppid's, and the anomaly and pattern detection was [Montgomery's].” The project will be completed to the satisfaction of the government. Id. at 168.
The source codes that he uses -- in terms of governmental classification – are referred to as “the anomaly detection or pattern recognition source codes,” and were considered SAP (Special Access Programs) classified. Id.
eTreppid is earning approximately $350,000/month for this project and the project continues until about September or October of 2004. Id. at 170.
March 2003 - September 2005
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, after his "ODS" passed Air Force tests in February 2003, eTreppid obtained a project, "generally named "USAF UAV Battlelab, Contracts: F08651-03-P- 0182 and 0129. These contracts extended from March 26, 2003 until September 30, 2005." Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 19; see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015).
April
May
June
July – August 2003
Montgomery puts his anomaly detection software on computers at eTreppd in July or August of 2003. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-22 at 8 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
August
September 2003
Per Montgomery, one of Trepp’s consultants arranges for a meeting with U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons and that meeting occurs on Sept. 21, 2003 at the home of a mutual friend. Montgomery alleges that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain Gibbons’ help with getting U.S. Government defense contracts. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 44.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, he has his first discussions with the government in September 2003 regarding the anomaly detection aspect of the software that he/eTreppid was developing per the March-April 2003contract with the unidentified government agency. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 168-69.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"Tracking al Qaeda. USSOCOM and <<>> - September, 2003. By June - September, 2003, my “ODS” had attracted the Interest of <<>> USSOCOM in connection with using Predator to detect and track specific al Qaeda operatives "in the field", including al Zarquawi, and specific objects related to him such as cars and vans, with "live" video feeds encoded and scanning for objects and people in “real time." My object tracking was placed on a specific number of "DV laptops" used by SOCOM and <<>> in the field. I interacted on a regular basis with these operatives in connection with the use and application of my technology. Special servers were installed in the "POC" Predator Operation Command at Nellis Air Force Base and at Fort Bragg to "look for", detect and track specific objects, which were, in fact, positively identified. I worked with many people in "special groups" in <<>> at Nellis, at Fort Bragg, at Eglin etc in connection with my object tracking system. . . . The contracts, USZA2a.;03-P-3294 and H92222-04-0006/D0-0001 to 0004 extended from September, 19, 2003 until September 30, 2005 . . . ."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 20; see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015).
Oct. 28, 2003
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"<<----------------------------------------------------------->> - October 28, 2003. In September, 2003, <<----------------------------------------------------------->> to me and asked if I could <<----------------------------------------------------------->> with my technology. I said I would try. In October 2003, I detected <<------------------------------------->> and on or about October 28, 2003, I broke the encryption. Soon after I broke the encryption, <<--------------------------------------------------------->> as described below."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 21 (as redacted). See also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (an unredacted apparently draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015).
Fall 2003 through January 10, 2006
Per Montgomery, only he can “use the source codes for his ODS” and he has “protected the secrecy of the source codes as the sole and exclusive owner, including the use of intrusion devices that would cause the software to self-destruct if anyone other than [himself] attempted to access it.” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 55. Per Montgomery, Trepp, Gibbons, Air Force Officials and others know this. Id.
Note: However, per Montgomery in the eTreppid v. Montgomery litigation, eTreppid sublicenses his source code to "various entities, including the United States government and collecting licensing fees for the sublicenses." eTreppid v. Montgomery, ECF 26-2 ¶ 12. In contrast to his assertion noted above that he protected the secrecy of the source codes, he also asserts in the eTreppid v. Montgomery litigation that the programs were "stored in part on eTreppid hard drives. . . " Id. ¶¶ 17-18. He also asserts that eTreppid continued to sublicense the software after he left the company. Id. ¶ 14.
Per Montgomery, during this same period, U.S. Congressman Gibbons assisted Trepp/eTreppid in obtaining multiple government contracts. Id.¶ 56.
Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp- Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Nov. 8, 2003
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"<<------------------------------>> - November 8, 2003. On October 28, 2003, the same day I broke the encryption, I gave this “output” to <<------>>. That “output consisted of <<------------------------------------------------------------------>> with the associated date of November 8, 2003. On that date, hours before a suicide attack, the US State Department, using my data, issued an urgent warning about an Imminent attack. A suicide bomber driving a truck detonated a bomb outside the Complex killing and wounding over one hundred people. I was later told that "we” had either failed to follow through quickly enough or that the Saudi's had failed to act. But I have always questioned why the State Department made an urgent public warning just hours before the attack when <<------>> knew at least 10 days before the attack?"
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 21(a); see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015 referencing Montgomery's alleged work decoding secret messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts).
November 2003 to October 2004
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"Miscellaneous Targets and Dates - November 2003 to October, 2004. Within days of the <<------------------------------------------------>> came to me and asked me to start processing all of the data that they had. <<------>> gave me a list of it's operatives who I dealt with and could call any time day or night. There are 18 names on the list with their home, office cell and pager phone numbers. . . . Over the next several months, I undertook the arduous and time consuming task of extracting data from <<------------------------------------------------------------>>. I decoded <<--------------------------------------------->> But <<------>> mostly concentrated on <<------>> . I was told by several <<------>> that the “output” I gave them prevented several terrorist attacks in the US. I have a list of the <<------------------------------------------------------------------>>. I also specifically gave <<------------------------------------------------>> in those locations. I gave <<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> I know what documents and electronic media exist in order to prove that my technology decoded the targets well in advance of the bombings. I do not know why the attacks were not prevented. The pressure on me to 'process" was extreme. I was openly watched day and night by <<------>> for over a year."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 21(b) ; see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015, referencing Montgomery's alleged work in decoding secret messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts).
Dec. 25, 2003
"Aviation officials from Paris to Los Angeles scrambled Wednesday to impose tougher security measures and forced thousands of passengers to change their Christmas Eve plans to gird for the possibility that terrorists could once again seek to attack the United States by hijacking an airplane." see Eric Lichtblau and Craig Smith, “Fearing Attacks, Officials Tighten Airport Security,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 2003.
''The volume of intelligence we're picking up remains high,'' an official at the Department of Homeland Security said. ''We have some specific and credible threat information about Al Qaeda's continued desire to use aircraft as a weapon, particularly those planes originating outside the United States.''
A Pentagon official said Wednesday that the Bush administration was particularly concerned about international flights originating in France and Mexico."
Id. It is later reported that this incident resulted from information provided by Montgomery to government intelligence officials. See, e.g., Aram Roston, "The Man Who Conned the Pentagon," Playboy, Jan/Feb 2010 (Lexis-Nexis version of this article as filed in Montgomery v. Risen, ECF 52-3. See also Rachel Maddow Show, "Be a Fraud, Be Very A Fraud," MSNBC, Dec. 21, 2006 (includes Roston interview)..
| « 2002 |
2004 »
|
Comments