Last Updated: Sept. 22, 2015
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
| « 2011 |
2013 »
|
Jan. 31, 2012
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 January 25, 2012, and the recitals therein concerning the present status of the related bankruptcy proceeding, it is ORDERED that, on or before July 31, 2012, the parties shall file with the Court further written reports concerning the then-present status of the bankruptcy proceeding."
Montgomery v. IRS, Jan. 31, 2012 Order.
February
March
Early-mid 2012
According to court documents later filed by Michael Sandoval, CEO of Atigeo:
"In early to mid-2012, Dennis Montgomery contacted Atigeo's CEO, Michael Sandoval, in Bellevue, Washington. . . . Mr. Montgomery stated that he wanted to reconnect with Mr. Sandoval and, eventually, requested that Mr. Sandoval invest in certain of Mr. Montgomery's new business ventures, including one called Lumivision. Istvan Burgyan . . . also called Mr. Sandoval to follow-up on Mr. Montgomery's investment solicitations and to encourage Mr. Sandoval to invest in the new venture. Mr. Burgyan stated that he was developing some of the applications for one of the new ventures, which he described as a company that would develop computer applications, including a computer graphics imagery program for changing images on gift bags.
After back and forth communications with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Sandoval indicated that he was not interested in making an investment in Mr. Montgomery's new company. In response, Mr. Montgomery stated "If you're not with me, you're against me" and that Mr. Sandoval did not want to end up like others who had not cooperated with Mr. Montgomery and had "learned the hard way." [Websites allegedly created by Montgomery] followed, containing false, disparaging information. . . . Mr. Montgomery has admitted that he has known, since at least 2012, of the company known as Atigeo LLC. Mr. Montgomery has also admitted that he knew that Atigeo had been using the trademark "ATIGEO" and the domain name atigeo.com since before, and at the time, he created the websites accused in this action.
See Atigeo v. Offshore Ltd, ECF 81-7 at 2-3. Atigeo and Sandoval will sue Montgomery and others on Jul. 15, 2013 based on the alleged incidents described above. Montgomery will deny these claims (see, e.g., ECF 45 (Answer), but will take down the websites after the suit is filed (see June 26, 2014).
April
May 4, 2012
Mike Flynn, Tim Blixeth's counsel sends a Letter and Memorandum to the DOJ, accusing the DOJ of corruption/various misdeeds and requesting immunity for an apparently unnamed whistleblower, in exchange for testimony and/or evidence of misconduct and/or illegal conduct by, among others, the DOJ's Eric Holder and Montana Federal Bankruptcy Judge Kirscher. See Flynn et al May 29, 2013 Letter to DOJ, which repeatedly references and characterizes the May 4, 2012 letter.
Note: Although Flynn does not name the whistleblower in this letter, in a 2010 affidavit, Flynn accused Montgomery of, among other things, (a) hacking into the computers of Tim Blixseth and his attorney (Flynn) (¶ 13, pp. 10, 14); (b) fabrication of bribery emails (¶ 13, p. 12); and (c) fabrication of fake Grand Jury Target Letters (¶ 12, p. 10). See In re: Yellowstone Mountain Club, ECF 2109-1 (Affidavit Of Michael J. Flynn dated January 2010, filed Jan. 13, 2011).
June 2012
Pacific Coast Innovations, Inc. ("PCI") – reportedly formed by Montgomery to own and market his technologies with other partners – fails and Edra Blixseth stopped funding the PCI, according to a declaration later filed by Edra Blixseth. See Blixseth v. YMC Appeal, Doc 87-4 at 18 (Declaration of Edra Blixseth dated Dec. 26, 2012), at ¶ 6,
In June 2012, WND's Joseph Farah and Jerome Corsi publish several articles accusing the DOJ of corruption and various misdeeds, apparently based on charges made by Mike Flynn (Montgomery's former attorney) and Tim Blixseth (Flynn's current client). See "The Corsi/WND/Arpaio/Zullo/Montgomery connection," Obama Conspiracy Theories, June 11, 2014 for a summary of and links to these WND articles.
June 15, 2012
On June 15, 2012, " the same month that the WND articles were published, Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo, and Tim Blixseth met at the Sheriff’s offices on the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo building in Phoenix." See "The Corsi/WND/Arpaio/Zullo/Montgomery connection," Obama Conspiracy Theories, June 11, 2014. WND's Corsi apparently arranged this meeting.
July 17, 2012
Montgomery v. eTreppid | eTreppid v. Montgomery. Judge Pro issues Judgment with respect to the Flynn-Liner Grode matter:
“JUDGMENT - In accordance with the 1187 Order Approving Settlement and Remanding for Termination of Sanctions Proceedings issued on July 16, 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, any Sanctions proceedings in this action against Deborah Klar, Teri Pham, and the law firm Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP are hereby terminated.”
See Montgomery v. eTreppid ECF 1186; See also ECF 1187 (Ninth Circuit Order Approving Settlement and Remanding for Termination of Sanctions Proceedings); eTreppid v. Montgomery ECF 99 (Judgment entered in companion case).
Aug. 8, 2012
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 30, 2012, and the recitals therein concerning the present status of the related bankruptcy proceeding, it is ORDERED that, on or before February 8, 2013, the parties shall file with the Court further written reports concerning the then-present status of the bankruptcy proceeding.
Montgomery v. IRS, Aug. 8, 2012 Order.
September
Oct. 1, 2012
Defense News publishes an article reporting that, according to multiple sources, John Brennan (President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser) was the person responsible for providing information from Montgomery to the Bush White House, “even as intelligence officials back at the [CIA] were convinced the information was a fraud.” See Aram Rosten, “Obama’s Counterterror Czar Gave Bogus Intel to Bush White House,” Defense News, Oct. 1, 2012.
According to Rosten, “Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s National Security Council, conceded that Brennan had passed on the information, since he was the head of the TTIC, but Vietor said Brennan was not central to the incident. …Vietor said Brennan didn’t believe the information himself but had simply passed on information that the CIA had developed. ‘It is absolutely wrong to say Mr. Brennan believed in the veracity of the information,’ he said.” Id.
November
Dec. 6, 2012
Montgomery Bankruptcy. James Rand (Bankruptcy Trustee) files a “Motion for Order … Approving Sale Agreement with Michael Flynn Regarding the Sale and Purchase of the Estate's Interest in Certain Property…” See In re Dennis Montgomery, ECF 203. As summarized on the first page of the motion:
The Trustee has received and accepted an offer from Michael Flynn ("Proposed Buyer") for the purchase of certain assets of the estate not previously claimed exempt, purchased by the Debtors, or previously abandoned by the Trustee for the amount of $20,000 subject to overbid. By this Motion, the Trustee is requesting approval of his proposed Sale Agreement, approval of overbid procedures and a waiver of the 14 day stay imposed by FRBP 6004(h). The specific assets subject to the Sale Agreement are discussed below. The Trustee's Motion should be approved. Fair market value is being realized for the assets subject to the Sale Agreement and the approval of the Motion will benefit the bankruptcy estate.
Id. at 1. The proposed sale includes, among other things,
- [A] large number of documents” currently being held at a storage unit in California, “ including but not limited to, documents delivered from the Liner Firm obtained in their representation of the Debtor and from discovery documents received by the Liner Firm in connection with litigation in which they represented the Debtor; and documents relating to litigation in Nevada, [which were subject to the August 29, 2007 Protective Order]” (id. at 7); and
- The Patents [copyrights, and other Intellectual property] as provided on Debtors' Schedule B valued at $10,000,000” (id. at 9).
With respect to the patents valued at $10,000,000 on Montgomery’s Bankruptcy schedule, the Trustee asserted as follows:
The Debtors' scheduled interest in patents has no value. The Debtor's alleged patents and technology were part of an investigation of the Debtor by the U.S. Government for, among other things, fraud. Considering the allegations of fraud against the Debtor involving the Debtor's alleged technology, the estate's interest in the patents have no value. Moreover, the alleged patents are subject to a judgment lien in favor of eTreppid Technologies in the approximate amount of $26 million.”
Id. at 9. The Bankruptcy Court will later grant this motion. See Jan. 9, 2013 Order, ECF 216.
Dec. 13, 2012
Montgomery submits a declaration under oath in a California state court action, attaching three documents he alleges were contained in Edra Blixseth’s computers and hard drives (which he asserts he obtained with her permission). See Blixseth v YMC Appeal, Doc 52-2 at pp.24-31 (Dennis L. Montgomery dated Dec. 13, 2012).
Note: On Aug. 5, 2015, the Ninth Circuit will sanction attorney Michael Flynn for submitting these documents in Blixseth v. YMC appeal
“Flynn’s conduct has been unprofessional throughout the proceedings. He proffered two emails allegedly obtained from Blixseth’s ex-wife’s account—unsurprisingly, documents outside the record—without even alluding to the fact that in another action, “[Blixseth’s ex-wife] and her counsel filed affidavits and supporting documents that conclusively demonstrate that the ‘evidence’ is forged.” This omission is an unreasonable and irresponsible breach of Flynn’s “duty of good faith and candor in dealing with the judiciary.” United States v. Associated Convalescent Enters., Inc., 766 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1985). Such a breach supports sanctions under section 1927. See id. at 1346–47.”
See Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, No. 12-35986, --- F.3d. ---, Doc. 106, at 5-6 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2015).
| « 2011 |
2013 »
|
Comments