Last Updated: Oct. 14, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2003 |
2005 »
|
2004
According to Trepp’s later statement to Air Force investigators, Montgomery earned $300,000 from eTreppid in 2004. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14.
Per Montgomery, sometime during 2004, Trepp tells him that he (Trepp) asked the Government for a billion dollar bond in connection with the work they were doing, and that he planned to sell it to the Government for $500 million. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 176 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Jan. 4, 2004
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
The World Trade Center <<------------------------->> - January 4, 2004. In December 2003, <<---------------------------->> without disclosing any details <<------>>. I did so and decoded a specific target coordinate in New York. I later learned that <<------------------->> consisted of 2001 and the location I decoded was the World Trade Center in New York. Immediately upon decoding the tape, <<-------------->> told me to destroy all of the work that I had done and to never discuss it with anyone, particularly Warren Trepp. <<------>> told me that <<------>> was concerned that if any leak occurred, I would be subpoened by the 9/11 Commission. He warned me never to trust Trepp, never to give him or his employees access to any of my technology or the “output”, nd to protect my technology from him at all costs. After I <<------------------------------------>> told me that the technology was so vital to national security that I could never copyright or patent it, and that <<------>> was considering "just taking it." At that time, around Christmas, 2003, I placed "intrusion devices· Into my software programs to protect them from both the Government and Trepp. Around the same time, the FBI brought in "blade servers" to accelerate the "processing” time. But the FBI got into a conflict with the <<------>> over "control" of the entire operation and <<------>> forced the FBI to leave the building. I did inform Trepp of the "just taking ir conversation with <<------>>. As a result, <<--------------------------------------------------->> flew to Reno and signed the letter dated January 4. 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. At that time, <<------>> said <<------>> would purchase the technology. Trepp then gave him the price of Five Hundred Million Dollars. <<-------->> said to keep "processing” and that he would initiate a purchase plan."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 21(c); see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015, referencing Montgomery's purported ability to decode encrypted patterns contained in Al Jazeera broadcasts).
Early 2004
Per Montgomery,
“[B]eginning in early 2004, field operatives of [redacted], who [know] that only Montgomery had exclusively developed, owned, and possessed the software, warned Montgomery to be extremely cautious of any Government officials with close ties to Trepp, including General Bath and James Gibbons.” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 42. See also eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 178 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony) (testifying that during this period, representatives from the unidentified government agency began suggesting “what they wanted to do to protect the system”).
Also during this period, “because of Special Agent Haraldsen’s then-developing relationship with Montgomery … the same [redacted] personnel warn[] Montgomery to be particularly careful of Haraldsen. On the other hand, Haraldsen repeatedly warn[s] Montgomery not to trust [redact], that they might attempt to just seize his technology, (as had previously been suggested resulting in a written agreement not to do so).” Id.
February 2004
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"<<-------------------------------------------------->>. In February, 2004, working with rotating <<--------------------->>, I started taking data directly from <<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>> I had discussions with <<--------------------->>including Peter Wiedemann and others, including Paul Haraldsen (who I believed at that time was some sort of liason between-and <<----------->> and NSA) about <<----------------------------------------------------------->> and I explained in detail what I believed was the technique used, and a specific technique that would make the encoding even harder to break. Shortly after one of these discussions, <<---------------------------------------------------->> which I again broke. These changes were explicitly discussed with Wiedemann, <<-------->>, and Paul Haraldsen. On June 28, 2004, <<------------------------------------------------------------>> matching the exact technique that was discussed four months earlier. I discussed these matters in detail with Haraldsen."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 21(d); see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015, referencing Montgomery's purported ability to decode encrypted patterns contained in Al Jazeera broadcasts).
March
April 2004
Per Montgomery, “[i]n April of 2004, Trepp and eTreppid paid for a lavish cruise for Gibbon's wife.” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 47.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp- Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
May
June 2004 - December 2004
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"Between June 2004 and December, 2004, Paul Haraldsen emerged as my primary contact. Haraldsen repeatedly informed me that it was very difficult to know "who to trust, that he worked directly for the “highest level" of our Government, that he worked with General Bath, and to trust him alone. He told me that there was a conflict "on the inside" and that the Air Force would be taking over the project at the end of 2004. After June, 2004, Haraldsen told me that I should give him all of my "output", which I did on a weekly basis."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 22.
Summer 2004
Per Montgomery, [i]n the summer of 2004, Haraldsen informed Montgomery that (i) there was a “conflict” inside the Government and that the Air Force would be “taking over” the critical contracts from [redacted] at the end of 2004; (ii) Montgomery would be delivering his “output” to Haraldsen; (iii) Montgomery was to confide in Haraldsen alone; and (iv) not to trust anyone but him. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 13.
Per Montgomery,
Trepp acknowledges Montgomery’s ownership of the anomaly detection source code in the “middle of 2004.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 171-75 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
During this time period, eTreppid is receiving about $200,000 in income from the unidentified agency project. Id. 175.
July 16, 2004
Santistevan v. Montgomery. A complaint and motion for TRO (for protection against domestic violence, per docket) is filed - and granted - against Montgomery in Nevada state court. See Gianna G. Santistevan v. Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No. FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist., filed Jul. 16, 2004).
Aug. 27, 2004
Santistevan v. Montgomery. The TRO (for protection against domestic violence, per docket) entered against Montgomery on July 16 is affirmed today. See Gianna G. Santistevan v. Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No. FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist.) (Aug. 27, 2004 "order confirming temporary order for protection against domestic violence, order to compensate applicant; order granting request for private hearing and denying request to seal file").
September 2004
Per Montgomery's Feb. 7, 2006 testimony, eTreppid's contract with the unidentified government agency is coming to a close, but the agency wants to extend it. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 176-77 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). However, Trepp doesn't want to extend it without getting more money. Still, Montgomery and team continue processing information until after Thanksgiving of 2004. Id. at 177.
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, in September 2004, “Trepp instructed me to stop processing “output” . . . saying to stop temporarily until he made a deal with the Government to sell a portion of the technology for Five Hundred Million dollars, which I refused. …” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 8.
Oct. 25, 2004
Santistevan v. Montgomery. The July 16 order entered in the TRO (for protection against domestic violence) matter filed against Montgomery is vacated today. See Gianna G. Santistevan v. Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No. FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist.) (Oct. 25, 2004 order vacating order to compensate applicant).
After Thanksgiving 2004
Per Montgomery, the work for the unidentified agency draws to a close after Thanksgiving. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 177 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). However, Trepp doesn't want to extend it without getting more money. Negotiations continue for additional work, but it is his understanding that the unidentified government agency want the Air Force to “get involved” (i.e., manage the contracts?) thereafter. Id. at 183.
December 2004
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"On December 14, 2004, I provided "output" to Haraldsen and Paul Allen from USSOCOM with target coordinates and the date of December 24th, 2004 - Christmas Eve - for a specific location In the middle of one of our mllitary bases in Mosul, Iraq. I then picked up repeated patterns for that location, so on December 20, 2004, I called my contact directly in Iraq and warned him of an impending attack at that location. I repeatedly stressed to Haraldsen that I thought an attack was imminent. On December 24, 2004, a suicide bomber detonated a device on the base killing over 20 people. Around that time, Haraldsen told me that all future funding would come from the Air Force and that a "buy out” would be coordinated by him and other Air Force officials, including General Bath. At one time, he mentioned that One Hundred Million Dollars had already been approved and that he and Bath "were working with Trepp". Later, in mid 2005, I informed him that I did not trust Trepp, that the technology was mine, that the Government needed to deal with me, not Trepp, and that I wanted to participate in any discussions. Haraldsen said he would take it up with the right people inside the Air Force."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 22.
Late 2004 - Early 2005
Per Montgomery, his relationship with Trepp was becoming strained over the issue of how he (Montgomery) was going to get paid for his work that was leading to the big government contracts. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 183-84 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
| « 2003 |
2005 »
|
Comments