Last Updated: Sept. 22, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2009 |
2011 »
|
? 2010
Montgomery will later claim that “[t]he U.S. Government then seized documents from [Montgomery] attorneys in 2010 without a court order allowing them to do so. The DOJ conducted this raid and seizure under special orders from the CIA.” See Klayman v. Obama, ECF 129.
However, the United States will deny this claim:
"Regarding the Government’s 2010 collection of records from Mr. Montgomery’s attorneys, Plaintiffs incorrectly claim that “[t]he U.S. Government . . . seized documents from his attorneys in 2010 without a court order.” Id. at 6. In fact, Department of Justice attorneys collected the documents in question pursuant to stipulated orders—agreed to by Mr. Montgomery’s own attorneys—to ensure compliance with a protective order that had been entered in Mr. Montgomery’s litigation with eTreppid to prevent disclosures of information over which the Government had asserted the state secrets privilege. See Stipulated Order Regarding Enforcement of United States Protective order, Montgomery v. eTreppid Tech., Inc., 3:06-cv-00056 (D. Nev. Dec. 10, 2009), ECF No. 1136 (Exh. 7, hereto) at 1, 5–6; see supra n.1 (discussing eTreppid’s work pursuant to a contract with the Air Force).
See Klayman v. Obama, ECF 132 (PDF) at 6.
Jan. 8, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Liner Grode/Garofalo file motion to withdraw as attorney, citing the conflict created by Montgomery’s asserted $10 million malpractice claim against them in his bankruptcy schedule. ECF 1141 (Motion); ECF 1142 (Garofalo Declaration).
Jan. 10, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files Notice re: Status Report re Montgomery Bankruptcy. ECF 1143.
Jan. 15, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke issues an order granting Liner Grode’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. She also orders that Dennis and Brenda Montgomery may appear in pro se, but the Montgomery Family Trust must file a substitution of counsel by Feb. 19. ECF 1144.
Jan. 20, 2010
Montgomery v. IRS. The U.S. Tax Court issues an order in Montgomery's pending matter:
"This case is calendared for trial at the Session of the Court commencing in Los Angeles, California, on April 19, 2010.
On January 19, 2010, the Court received a Notice of Proceeding in Bankruptcy from respondent informing the Court that petitioners have filed a petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, under 11 U.S.C. chapter 7, on April 14, 2009. Attached to respondent's Notice was a copy of petitioners' Notice of Bankruptcy Case Filing.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that this case is stricken for trial from the Session of the Court scheduled to commence on April 19, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. It is further
ORDERED that pursuant to 11 U .S .C . section 362(a) (8), all proceedings herein are automatically stayed. It is further
ORDERED that although all proceedings are stayed, the parties shall on or before July 20, 2010 , file with the Court a report as to the then present status of the related bankruptcy proceeding."
Montgomery v. IRS, Jan. 20, 2010 Order.
Jan. 27, 2010
PCI. Pacific Coast Innovations LLC ("PCI") is formed in California. See California SOS Business Entity Search (Entity No. 201002810243). Montgomery's son-in-law, Istvan Burgyan, is listed as the registered agent. According to an affidavit later filed by Edra Blixseth (who provided funding for Montgomery and PCI), as Montgomery was in bankruptcy, he formed PCI "to own and market the technology with other partners who paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars and promised to pay over a million dollars for development of a specific device." See Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC, et al., No. 12-35986 Doc 87-4 at 18 (9th Cir.).
Feb. 10, 2010
PCI. Pacific Coast Innovations signs a "Joint Venture and Exclusive Licensing Agreement" with Cardiac Network, under which PCI grants Cardiac Network "an exclusive, perpetual and worldwide right to license its proprietary intellectual technology, which will significantly enhance and improve the functionality and features of a new line of cardiac monitors. See Owens et al v. Stifel Nicholaus & Co., et al, No. 7:12-cv-00144, ECF 93-22 at 233 (date), 231 (quoted excerpt) (M.D. Ga. filed Feb. 14, 2014).
Mar. 1, 2010
Montgomery Bankruptcy. James Rund, the Trustee in Montgomery’s bankruptcy proceedings files a “Motion to Abandon Estate's Interest in Certain Pending Litigation.” See In re Dennis Lee Montgomery, ECF 91. This motion addresses the False Claims Act complaint that Montgomery filed against Warren Trepp and others in December 2006. See id at 6, attaching a copy of the Complaint filed in USA ex rel. Dennis Montgomery v. Warren Trepp, et al, ("Montgomery FCA Case"). As grounds for his motion the Trustee asserts, among other things, that
“[t]he Trustee's potential special counsel analyzed the merits of the False Claims Complaint. The Trustee is informed, believes and therefore alleges that proving up the merits of the False Claims Complaint and damages would be problematic at best” [and that] “the legal fees incurred litigating the False Claims Complaint would likely exceed the potential recovery.”
Id. at 2. The Bankruptcy Court will later grant this motion. See In re Dennis Lee Montgomery, Mar. 24, 2010 Order, ECF 104.
Mar. 3, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order denying Klar’s Aug. 17, 2009 Objections to Magistrate Judge Cooke’s Aug. 7, 2009 order (setting briefing schedule on her Motion for Evidentiary Ruling) and denying Klar’s Nov. 13, 2009 objection to Magistrate Judge Cooke’s Nov. 4, 2009 order (denying her Motion for Evidentiary Ruling). ECF 1147.
Mar. 5, 2010
Qui Tam Litigation. Judge Pro schedules a status conference for March 16, 2012. ECF 26.
Mar. 16, 2010
Qui Tam Litigation. Judge Pro presides over the scheduled status conference. During the conference, the parties agree to have the case dismissed without prejudice. ECF 27.
Judgment is entered in the case “in favor of the Defendants. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.” ECF 28
Apr. 5, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro upholds the March 2009 order granting sanctions against Montgomery for committing perjury via his September 2007 declaration about Michael Flynn, overruling Montgomery's objections:
"These findings are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge presided over the evidentiary hearing and thus had an opportunity to observe Montgomery’s demeanor while testifying. She thus uniquely was situated to evaluate Montgomery’s credibility. Moreover, the adverse credibility finding has ample support in the record.
ECF 1150, at 26. After a discussion of the evidence presented, the Court holds:
"The course of the proceedings, Montgomery’s February 2007 Declaration, and his testimony at the evidentiary hearing support the Magistrate Judge’s adverse credibility finding against Montgomery regarding his professed lack of knowledge as to the meaning of “admitted” or “licensed.” Montgomery is not an unsophisticated individual, and even if he had no understanding regarding what these terms meant prior to this litigation, the evidence shows he knew what it meant by the time he filed the February 2007 Declaration in support of his opposition to the Government’s motion to disqualify. The Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Montgomery therefore perjured himself in the September 2007 Declaration when he averred that Flynn led him to believe throughout the course of representation that Flynn was a California attorney, that at no time did Flynn ever inform Montgomery that Flynn was licensed to practice only in Massachusetts, and that Montgomery learned of Flynn’s status only this after he retained new counsel is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Perjury is sufficient grounds for a bad faith finding to support a sanction under the Court’s inherent power. Whitney Bros. Co. v. Sprafkin, 60 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 1995)."
Id. at 28. See also Judgment, ECF 1171 (July 8, 2010) (“JUDGMENT in favor of Michael J. Flynn against Dennis Montgomery as follows: 1. $204,411.00 in an award of Sanctions; 2. Costs against Dennis Mortgomery in favor of Michael J. Flynn to be established by the Bill of Costs that Michael J. Lynn may submit pursuant to FRCP 54 and LR 54-1.”).
Judge Pro sustains the objections of Liner Grode, Teri Pham, and Deborah Klar, “without prejudice to any further proceedings consistent with this Order with respect to Flynn's motion for sanctions.” ECF 1150.
Apr. 9, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files:
- Motion to Conform Order of Magistrate Judge to Order of District Judge. ECF 1151.
- Motion for Sanctions (against Klar, Pham, and Liner Grode) in light of the Court’s Apr. 5 ruling sustaining objections to the Mar. 31, 2009 Sanctions Order. ECF 1152
Apr. 22, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. James Rund (Bankruptcy Trustee) files a Stipulation to Amend (eTreppid) Protective Order Entered Sept. 11, 2007 (ECF 1153) and Stipulation to Amend Protective Order Entered Mar. 20, 2009 (ECF 1154).
Apr. 23, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Teri Pham files Notice of Appeal of Judge Pro’s Apr. 5 ruling sustaining objections to the Mar. 31, 2009 Sanctions Order. ECF 1155.
Apr. 26, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Liner Grode files Opposition to Flynn’s Apr. 9 Motion for Sanctions. ECF 1157.
Klar files Notice of Appeal of Judge Pro’s Apr. 5 ruling sustaining objections to the Mar. 31, 2009 Sanctions Order. ECF 1158.
Apr. 28, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Magistrate Judge Cooke enters Order on James Rund's April 22 Stipulations. ECF 1164 (Order amending Sept. 11, 2007 Protective Order); ECF 1165 (Order amending Mar. 20, 2009 Protective Order).
May 6, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files Reply in Support of his Apr. 9 Motion to Conform the Mar. 31 2009 Sanctions Order to Judge Pro’s Apr. 5 Order.
May 7, 2010
Search Case. Judge Pro issues minute order regarding documents in court’s custody and ordering parties to claim exhibits within 30 days. ECF 139
May 13, 2010
Desert Palace Litigation. A Second Joint Status Report is filed in the Desert Palace adversary proceedings pending in Montgomery's bankruptcy. Per that report:
The documents, material, and information which Defendant would have otherwise tendered to Plaintiff (in response to Plaintiff's discovery requests) are now in the possession of, and being reviewed by, the United States Department of Justice and others. Defendant will respond to Plaintiff's discovery upon said documents and information being released to Defendant. Therefore, Defendant requires additional time to respond to Plaintiff's discovery. Plaintiff has no objection to granting Defendant whatever additional time he requires to tender documents and responses.
See Desert Palace v. Montgomery, ECF 12.
June 2, 2010
Search Case. Exhibits in the Search Case are released to the United States, per receipt filed on docket. ECF 140.
July 3, 2010
Montgomery v. IRS. The U.S. Tax Court issues an order in Montgomery's pending matter:
"Upon due consideration of respondent's status report, filed July 21, 2010, in the above-captioned case, and the recitals therein concerning the present status of the related bankruptcy proceeding, it is ORDERED that the parties shall, on or before January 24, 2011, file with the Court further written reports concerning the then-present status of the related bankruptcy matter."
Montgomery v. IRS, July 3, 2010 Order.
July 7, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Flynn files Motion for Judgment/Request for Clerk's Entry of Judgment against Dennis Montgomery. ECF 1170.
July 8, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. JUDGMENT is entered against Montgomery and in favor of Michael J. Flynn:
- $204,411.00 in an award of Sanctions
- Costs against Dennis Mortgomery in favor of Michael J. Flynn to be established by Bill of Costs to be submitted by Flynn
- Post-Judgment interest shall accrue at the rate of.32 percent from date of entry of the Judgment.
ECF 1171.
July 23, 2010
Montgomery Bankruptcy. James Rund (Bankruptcy Trustee) files a “Motion for 2004 Examination of Istvan Burgyan and for Production of Documents Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9016.” See In re Dennis Montgomery, ECF 139.
According to the Trustee, document production from and examination of Montgomery’s son-in-law is necessary to investigate the dissipation of $550,007 in funds within 150 days before Montgomery’s bankruptcy petition as well as the source of $455,000 that Montgomery alleges he borrowed from his son-in-law shortly after the bankruptcy petition was filed. Id. at 3-4.
The Bankruptcy Court will later grant this motion. See In re Dennis Montgomery, Aug. 2, 2010 Order, ECF 141. According to the Trustee's later-filed report, Burgyan will assert the Fifth Amendment during his 2004 examination. See In re Dennis Montgomery, ECF 247 at 42-43.
Aug. 17, 2010
Desert Palace Litigation. A Third Joint Status Report is filed in the Desert Palace adversary proceedings pending in Montgomery's bankruptcy. Per that report:
Update for August 31, 2010 Status Conference: Defendant remains unable to respond to Plaintiff's discovery [for same reasons set forth in May 13, 2010 Status Report - i.e., documents at issue are "in the possession of, and being reviewed by, the United States Department of Justice and others"], however may be able to respond prior to the Discovery Cut-Off Date, to wit November 3, 2010. ...
See Desert Palace v. Montgomery, ECF 18.
Sept. 29, 2010
Montgomery Bankruptcy. James Rund (Bankruptcy Trustee) files a “Motion to Abandon Estate's Interest in Certain Potential Causes of Action Against the Liner Firm and Various Individuals.” See In re Dennis Montgomery, ECF 156. The Trustee set forth multiple arguments in support of his motion, including the following:
In order to prove damages in [the] asserted malpractice cause of action [asserted against the Liner Firm], the Debtors must also be able to prove that they would have prevailed in the underlying litigation if they had not entered into the Settlement Agreement. This would likely be impossible in this case. Mr. Montgomery was held in contempt for failing to turnover the technology and the Court was ready to issue terminating sanctions.
Id. at 12. Additionally, the Trustee argued as follows:
DENNIS MONTGOMERY LACKS CREDIBILITY AND HE WOULD BE A PRIMARY WITNESS IF THE POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION WERE TRIED AND POST-3 PETITION RULINGS HAVE DIMINISHED THE VALUE OF THE POTENTIAL 4 CAUSES OF ACTION.
* * *
43. In order to prove any of the three Potential Causes of Action, the testimony of Mr. Montgomery is critical. However, the Trustee is hesitant to pursue litigation which depends upon the veracity of Mr. Montgomery. In addition to the Sanctions Order in which Mr. Montgomery was found to have testified falsely under oath which was recently affirmed by the Nevada District Court, the Trustee has reviewed other material in which Mr. Montgomery's veracity has been questioned. Specifically, an article published in Playboy magazine, attached as Exhibit "4", and a video of a MSNBC report, which addressed the same matters as the Playboy article. Furthermore, Mr. Montgomery is currently being tried in a felony matter in Nevada. Finally, Mr. Montgomery invoked the 5th Amendment in response to some questions at the 341(a) hearing in this bankruptcy case. Further, the testimony of Dennis Montgomery at his 341(a) examinations is more than suspect and is not credible. The Trustee is of the opinion that the credibility of Mr. Montgomery is zero.
Id. at 14. The Bankruptcy Court will later grant this motion. See In re Dennis Montgomery, Nov. 11, 2010 Order, ECF 159.
Oct. 28, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order requiring the United States to
“conduct a review of the documents (referenced herein re D.Mont. case no. 09-60452-7) provided to this Court by the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana, to determine whether any material within the documents is subject to the # 253 Protective Order. The United States shall conduct this review within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order. The United States shall contact this Court to make arrangements to conduct the review.”
ECF 1172.
Nov. 10, 2010
Criminal Case. A Nevada Grand Jury indicts Montgomery on six felony counts relating to allegations that he passed bad checks on Sept. 27, 2008. See Nevada v. Montgomery, Nov. 10, 2010 Minutes of Proceedings in Grand Jury Indictment (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark Cty.) ("Nevada v. Montgomery"). Minutes of Proceedings indicate that Montgomery had posted $110,000 bail in Justice Court. Id. Montgomery will plead not guilty on Dec. 15, 2010.
Nov. 17, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. Judge Pro issues an order requiring the United States to
“conduct a further review of the materials for purposes of making any necessary redactions to comply with the Protective Order 253 previously entered and thereafter shall return the redacted documents to the Court for retention.”
ECF 1175.
Nov. 18, 2010
Flynn Bankruptcy Litigation. Montgomery is deposed in his bankruptcy proceedings. See Nov. 18, 2010 Deposition of Dennis Lee Montgomery Transcript, Nov. 18, 2010, In re Dennis Lee Montgomery et al, as filed in In re: Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, ECF 2115-5.
Montgomery invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination approximately 200 times during this deposition, including when asked about whether his alleged terrorist-fighting software was a fraud and whether he was involved in creating allegedly fabricated federal Target letters. See, for example ...
The Source Code/Software
Q. Mr. Montgomery, have you ever created any source code that was used to stop terrorist attacks?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment
Id. at 61.
Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Montgomery, that this, quote, unquote, "decoding software" that you reference on line 22 is just a complete fraud?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 81.
Q. Isn't it true that this software was never legitimate?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. Isn't it true it's just a complete fraud on the United States Government, Mr. Montgomery?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. How many terrorist attacks have you helped thwart?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. How many American lives do you believe you've saved through your software?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. How many times have you contacted the government to alert them to some form of terrorist attack?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 193-94.
The Allegedly Fabricated Blixseth Target Letters
Q. Mr. Montgomery, did you prepare this target letter that we're looking at [i.e., a "purported letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division dated November 8, 2007, to Timothy Blixseth]?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. Did you ever give a copy of this target letter to Edra Blixseth, Mr. Montgomery?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. Can you explain your involvement, Mr. Montgomery, with this target letter?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment
Id. at 114-116.
Q. Mr. Montgomery, do you recognize this document [i.e., 'purported letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division dated December 12, 2007, addressed to Mr. Timothy Blixseth, and signed -- purportedly signed by a Mr. Ronald Sharpe"]?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
* * *
Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Montgomery, you provided a copy of this document to Edra Blixseth?[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Montgomery, that you prepared this letter?
[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
* * *
Q. Mr. Montgomery, isn't it true that you forged the signature of Ronald Sharpe?[Montgomery]. I'm going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 117-118.
Desert Palace Litigation. A Fourth Joint Status Report is filed in the Desert Palace adversary proceedings pending in Montgomery's bankruptcy. Per that report:
Update for November 30, 2010 Status Conference: Defendant continues to be unable to respond to Plaintiffs discovery for the reasons stated above [in May 13, 2010 Status Report - i.e., documents at issue are "in the possession of, and being reviewed by, the United States Department of Justice and others"]. ...
See Desert Palace v. Montgomery, ECF 19.
Dec. 15, 2010
Criminal Case. Montgomery is arraigned on six felony counts per the Nov. 10, 201o Grand Jury Indictment. He pleads not guilty. See State of Nevada vs Dennis Montgomery, No. C-10-268764-1, Dec. 1, and Dec. 15, 2010 Minutes of Proceedings (Nev. Super. Ct. Clark Cty.) During the arraignment, Montgomery's then-counsel "further noted Deft. was making payments on restitution for bad checks." Id.
Dec. 17, 2010
Montgomery v. eTreppid. The United States files a Notice pursuant to Judge Pro’s Oct. 28 order. ECF 1179.
| « 2009 |
2011 »
|
Comments