Thank you, Peter, for your response. If you read through my work, you will see I have always referenced eyewitness testimony, court transcripts and other documentation in my reporting. I work for no one, accept very little advertising, and “clicks” are not even a thought. You are welcome to look into my “motives” to any degree you wish.
I am aware of your prosecution and exoneration several years ago and, in fact, “government corruption” is the theme and focus of my newspaper.
I appreciate your response about the “Operation Checkmate” website. May I quote you on that in my article?
Given the tone of your email, am I to interpret it as a threat? Were you threatened by my making contact to ask if you were aware of certain information in regard to Dennis Montgomery? If so, why? A journalist’s responsibility is to find the truth, which involves making inquiries in the course of research which should threaten no one. The constant attempts to ridicule, silence, intimidate or in any other way dampen curiosity and inquiry on any issue will, in fact, kill this Republic.
My purpose in contacting you was to point out inconsistencies in Montgomery’s claims over a number of years as well as to ask if you have seen actual proof that Montgomery built “The Hammer,” among other things.
There is no doubt the federal government has conducted illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant, and my quest is not to target Montgomery or anyone personally, but rather, to bring clarity to a story and history that is frankly as opaque as mud.
If you have been able to verify the data Montgomery claims to have collected from the 2020 election, how did that occur given that Montgomery insists the data — and/or the technology allegedly behind it — falls under the Protective Order and State Secrets Privilege from his 2006 lawsuit? Absent of a high-level security clearance, how would anyone legally verify its existence or authenticity? How would the same technology Montgomery claims to have created almost two decades ago still be in use today or even operationally effective?
I was a bit surprised by your broadcast yesterday in which my email to you was discussed as part of an “operation” before I was allowed time to respond to your email or for you to read and evaluate any of my published material. I am requesting, after you read some of my meticulously-researched work, that you retract that characterization.
Questions:
1. If my summation of Cameron’s interactions with Montgomery is inaccurate, why did Cameron in 2014 send Montgomery the following email, which was later submitted to a federal judge under subpoena and testified to during a federal trial? . . . .
2. Moreover, Mike Zullo, of whom you are aware because you mentioned him yesterday, met with Cameron along with an MCSO detective on two occasions to discuss why he did not run the Montgomery story. Is there a reason you have not reached out to Mr. Zullo for a firsthand account?
3. Do you have different information from Cameron?
4. If the Protective Order prevents Montgomery from releasing the evidence he claims to have, why was it not stated as the reason the PCAPS were not produced at Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium over a year ago? How does Lindell have the proper security clearances to view or possess them if they are truly protected? Why has the narrative changed?
5. How are the many discrepancies to be reconciled against a very long sordid legal history filled with courtroom documentation of inconsistencies and adverse opinions?
https://tesibria.typepad.com/sectecastronomy/1980s.html
6. Given this background and Montgomery’s history of failing to produce the evidence he claims to have, is it logical for observers to simply believe him now?
For your convenience, I have included additional background:
· Several years ago, William Binney (although not a signatory to the 2014 Arpaio report) and J. Kirk Wiebe appeared to have changed their minds about their original assessment of Montgomery’s information on Dave Janda’s “Operation Freedom,” at which time I reported it as I followed the story. However, I think you will find that as of 2019, Binney has a different view of the entire Montgomery situation.
Janda declined to host Zullo on his program[.]
· In November 2020, Wiebe informed me he had not himself seen any of Montgomery’s alleged evidence having to do with the 2020 election and that Montgomery was awaiting “government authorization” to release the evidence he had.
· In 2009, Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (now retired) referred Montgomery to the DOJ on an allegation of perjury which was never prosecuted.
Cooke was the same judge who found, approximately three years earlier, that Montgomery’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the FBI’s search of his home and storage units . . .
· In the 2015 Risen case, Judge Rudolph Contreras, as well as an appellate court, ruled against Montgomery after he did not produce the software he claimed to have which was at the heart of his defamation claim . . . .
· At about the same time he was speaking with Cameron, Montgomery claimed to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) to have evidence of government surveillance and data-collection of county residents, after which Arpaio hired him to produce it. In his book, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio: An American Legend,” Arpaio admitted he found Montgomery had “some” information he deemed “useful,” which I reported . . . .
Zullo, too, has said the same . . . .
· In regard to Montgomery’s claims to have constructed The Hammer, in 2013 he told MCSO investigators, including Zullo, that the computer was “already purchased” when he arrived at Ft. Washington, MD as a subcontractor and that he had nothing to do with it. This is a vast departure from what he is maintaining today . . . .
Wiebe said he stood by his original assessment of Montgomery’s MCSO data . . . .
In the past, Wiebe claimed he never spoke with Montgomery prior to 2019, but the facts state otherwise, as this writer has seen emails exchanged between Zullo and Wiebe acknowledging it.
· Montgomery states in his “Declaration” filed with the Lindell Motion to Intervene that the MCSO contacted him first, which is inaccurate; Montgomery sent a surrogate, Tim Blixseth, to make contact. The ensuing investigation did not encompass anything regarding voting or elections in Arizona as reflected in court transcripts and public reporting (interview recordings in second link) . . . .
· In 2016, the federal judge presiding over Arpaio’s trial, Judge G. Murray Snow, deemed Montgomery to have committed “fraud” against the MCSO after five witnesses testified. The judge, it should be noted, was not friendly to the MCSO.
* * *
· In your broadcast yesterday, you stated that Wiebe and Binney claim Zullo did not provide a complete picture of Montgomery’s background, including that he worked in a Special Access Program (SAP) and that programs on which he worked at for eTreppid were shielded from disclosure by Negroponte’s State Secrets Privilege and Protective Order. However, in the presence of a sworn deputy, Zullo contends he did fully inform them of that aspect of Montgomery’s work on two occasions . . . .
· Montgomery has made numerous claims about individuals who were cleared following investigations, including Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons . . . .
· In full disclosure, this writer was a target of a complaint from Montgomery filed with a Washington State agency which was quickly proved false . . . .
A false complaint against Zullo [also was made].
* * *
My entire compendium on Dennis Montgomery, “The Hammer,” and related matters consisting of over 300 articles [is on the P&E].
Please feel free to review my work and repost or quote from any of my articles. I stand behind all my research and am open to your comments and questions. On the outside chance that Montgomery, over a year after the Cyber Symposium, produces the PCAPS from the 2020 election, the burning question is the chain of custody. I am looking forward to reporting on that.