Last Updated: Oct. 14, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2004 |
2006 »
|
2005
According to Trepp’s later statement to Air Force investigators, Montgomery earned $300,000 from eTreppid in 2005. Search Case, ECF 70-7 at 14.
January 2005
Per Montgomery, “beginning in January, 2005, only [Air Force Special Agent] Haraldsen remained the liaison between Montgomery and the Government. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 42.
February
Early 2005
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"Independent Corroboration -------------------------->> In early 2005, the Air Force contracted with an independent consulting contractor who verified that there was, in fact, <<------------------------[*]---------------------------->>but that the consultant was unable to decode the encryptions. Some months later, Haraldsen Informed me that the "buy out” would go forward and that I would participate."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 23; see also Montgomery v. Risen ECF 63-1 (unredacted draft version of declaration publicly docketed by Montgomery on June 1, 2015, referencing alleged validation that there were embedded patterns inside the Al Jazeera signals).
In a later declaration (also redacted), Montgomery similarly states that the Air Force conducted six months of testing of his “forecasting” technology in early 2005, then approved his technology. Per Montgomery,
“the independent Air Force tests validated the <---------------------------[*]-----------------------------> but that they were <--------------------[*]----------------------> as Mr. Montgomery has done[.]”
See Search Case ECF 115 ¶11 (describing Exhibit 2 as “submitted to [Senate Intelligence Committee] based upon my knowledge of specific events and interactions with <-----> and other officials”); Exhibit 2 at 23 (asserting Air Force tested, then approved his technology in “early 2005” after six months of testing).
Mar. 3, 2005
Per Montgomery, on Mar. 3, 2005, U.S. Congressman Gibbons “succeeded in getting [the U.S.] to enter into contract number LLH-846-03 called the “Eaglevision project,” for $1,170,543.17 for eTreppid.” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 48.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Mar. 22, 2005
Per Montgomery, Trepp’s wife sent an email to Trepp on the morning of March 22, saying “I know you are busy. Please don’t forget to bring the money you promised Jim [Gibbons].” “Later that same morning, in response to his wife's e-mail, Trepp said: "Don't you ever send this kind of message to me! Erase this message from your computer now!"” Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶¶49-50.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008. Additionally, a forensic expert essentially proved that the email exchange above was fabricated. See June 22, 2007.
Mar. 24 – Apr. 2, 2005
Per Montgomery, Trepp/eTreppid paid for a private jet flight and lavish cruise costing more than $60,000 for U.S. Congressman Gibbons and his family, which Gibbons failed to disclose these gifts or make reimbursements until the Wall Street Journal reported on the matter on Nov. 1, 2006. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 51.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
April 2005
Per Montgomery, in April 2005, Trepp “paid large sums of unreported secret slush fund money” to Gibbons, “including, but not limited to approximately $100,000 in casino chips in April 2005 and $15,000 in cash. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 53.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
May
June
mid-2005
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration,
"Detecting and Tracking Submarines. In mid 2005, I was approached by Michael Carter from the Naval Research Center. He provide me several high altitude satellite photographs of the ocean and asked if I could detect any “anomalies” with my "ODS". The area covered approximately 100 square miles of ocean. I detected two objects in the photographs and reported them to Carter and to Paul Salvatori who reported them to other Navy officials. Carter and Salvatori told me that this was the first time software technology had detected a "submarine under water". They then told me that the Navy would set up a series of tests and that the most difficult test would be in September, 2005. Between September and October, 2005, I used my technology to perform the tests. I was told that the tests were “remarkably accurate” and that the Navy intended to purchase the technology as soon as possible. In October, 2005, Paul Haraldsen informed me that he was negotiating with Trepp and understood that Trepp and I were in some type of conflict. He assured me that my Interests would be protected and acknowledged that the technology was mine. Haraldsen said One Hundred Million Dollars had already been approved for the technology. In September through December, 2005, Trepp began to pressure me for the source codes for my “ODS”, which, of course, I had always protected from everyone. When I refused to give Trepp the codes, he began to threaten me with using his "political influence" with Gibbons to "bury me"; and to use his “connections" to the Bonnano family. . ."
Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 25.
July
Aug. 30, 2005
Per Montgomery, Trepp directly contributed almost $100,000 in campaign contributions to Gibbons through nine different companies that he owned and controlled. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶52.
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
September 2005
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “[i]n September, 2005, Trepp told me that the Government had appropriated One Hundred Million Dollars for the "decoding technology", but he was demanding Five Hundred Million Dollars. Trepp instructed me to stop processing "output.” . . . I told him it was a “hold-up.” I refused on both National Security grounds and over Trepp's failure to pay me licensing fees and to resolve our conflict over the split of the proceeds derived from any sale. Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 8.
Sept. 20, 2005
Santistevan v. Montgomery. The TRO (for protection against domestic violence) entered against Montgomery on July 16, 2004 is dissolved today. See Gianna G. Santistevan v. Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No. FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist.) (Sept. 20, 2005 order dissolving TRO).
September - October 2005
Per Montgomery's Oct. 30, 2006 Declaration, “[i]n September-October, 2005, Trepp said that ‘our deal’ would have to wait because he had other obligations and began to threaten me as our conflict intensified. This ultimately resulted in my departure from eTreppid in January, 2006.” Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 228 ¶ 8.
October
November 2005
Per Montgomery, Trepp gives Gibbons $100,000 in November 2005, while Gibbons is running for governor. Qui Tam Litigation, ECF 2 (PDF) ¶ 53; see also John R. Wilke, “Congressman's Favors for Friend Include Help in Secret Budget: With Rep. Gibbons's Backing, An Ex-Trader for Milken Wins Millions in Contracts,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1, 2006 (Wayback Link).
*Note: The United States investigated Montgomery’s claims re: Trepp-Gibbons dealings and found no wrongdoing. See Nov. 2, 2008.
Per Montgomery, he has a conversation with Trepp about how much had been paid by the government in connection with the various top secret projects they’d worked on over the past two years, and Trepp responds around 10 to 12 million (although Montgomery believes it is really about 18 million). eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 184-85 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Nov. 8, 2005
Santistevan v. Montgomery. The court who oversaw the TRO (for protection against domestic violence) matter filed against Montgomery denies the motion to seal the file. See Gianna G. Santistevan v. Dennis L. Montgomery, Case No. FV04-02745 (Nev. 2nd Dist.) (Nov. 8 2005 order denying motion).
December 2005
Per Montgomery, he asks to see the company’s bank statements in early December 2005 but Trepp refuses. Montgomery tells Trepp that he “need[s] a couple hundred grand,” and, in response, Trepp gives him “either 125 or 150 thousand.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 185 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Per eTreppid,
“As of December, 2005, the most current version of the eTreppid Source Code [is] stored in the SRCSERVER. Backup copies of the eTreppid Source Code [are] stored in multiple other locations, including a backup server referred to as ISASERVER as well as two (2) different backup workstations.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 25.
“For overall building security of eTreppid, only a few employees have access to the building, and turning on and off of the alarm is electronically monitored. Further, video cameras monitor the activities, including the access doors to the building and the server room, and the video files from these cameras is stored on computers that record this footage. On or soon after January 10, 2006, Mr. Venables [will discover] that the footage recorded from these cameras ha[s] been deleted from the computers.” Id. ¶¶ 26-27
“Historically, programmers developing eTreppid Source Code store pieces of the eTreppid Source Code they are working on at their personal workstations. eTreppid maintained a network of computers that also allowed these programmer to access a version of the eTreppid Source Code that was maintained on a shared directory. Id. ¶¶ 29-30.
Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.
Early December 2005
Per Montgomery, he asks to see the company’s bank statements in early December 2005 but Trepp refuses. Montgomery tells Trepp that he “need[s] a couple hundred grand,” and, in response, Trepp gives him “either 125 or 150 thousand.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 185 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony).
Dec. 19-20, 2005
Per eTreppid, “[a]round December 19 or 20, 2005, Montgomery [begins] deleting certain eTreppid Source Code files that were located on the hard drive for certain workstation that had not been recently used. Montgomery [tells] Mr. Bal, an eTreppid employee, that he was deleting the files on his workstation for security reasons, and that there remained copies of these files on the SRCSERVER that I would still be able to access. Also, at that time, there still remain[s] on the hard drive of Mr. Bal's workstation other eTreppid Source Code files that he had been using more recently in the performance of his duties at eTreppid." eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 31.
Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.
Dec. 21, 2005
Per eTreppid, eTreppid employee Mr. Venables has a phone conversation with Montgomery, where Montgomery suggests that Mr. Venables doesn't need to come to the office. Mr. Venables went to the office anyway, and at that time Mr. Venables notices that one of the workstations that was used to store a backup copy of the eTreppid Source is missing. Mr. Venables asks Montgomery about this, and Montgomery responds that he has taken it home. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 35.
Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.
Dec. 22, 2005 – Jan. 3, 2006
Per eTreppid, Venables was on vacation during this period. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 36.
Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.
Dec. 25, 2005 – Jan. 1, 2006
Per eTreppid, “between Christmas and New Year's Day, Montgomery provide[s] [eTreppid employee] Mr. Kalluri with specific files of the eTreppid Source Code upon demand. To provide the requested files, Montgomery copie[s] the files to a shared drive that Mr. Kalluri could access. After Mr. Kalluri accesse[s] the file and copied it to his workstation, the copy in the shared drive was deleted. When he complete[s] his work on the files, Mr. Kalluri copie[s] them back into the shared drive and inform[s] Montgomery - who would then be responsible for copying that file to the eTreppid Source Server.” eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-2 at 129-43, ¶ 37.
Montgomery denies eTreppid’s claims. See, e.g., Montgomery Answer, eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-5 at 42-55.
Dec. 29. 2005
Per an “Agreement and Modification of Promissory Note and Security Agreement (Modification No. 2)” dated today, since January 14, 1999, Montgomery has borrowed an aggregate total of $1,379,795.01 from Friendly Capital. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-14 at 43-47. Montgomery will later deny that he signed this document.
Per Montgomery, Trepp brings him two documents in “late December” and asked Montgomery to sign them. One is the Agreement and Modification of Promissory Note” referenced above. eTreppid State Proceedings ECF 644-21 at 185-86 (Feb. 7 2006 testimony). He refuses to sign it, however and the signature shown on the document is not his. Id. at 186.
| « 2004 |
2006 »
|
Comments